GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I will certainly not have anything to say about legionella at this point. I would like to address a question to you, one that, although it has no connection with the Guinness Book of Records, does indeed have to do with what may be the world's longest waiver of immunity proceedings. What is the position in the proceedings to waive the immunity of Marcello Dell'Utri MEP? Last Thursday, the Spanish Supreme Court threw out an application by counsel for Mr Berlusconi and Mr Dell'Utri for proceedings to be stayed and it authorised the Spanish judiciary to continue to proceed against the two persons named, one of them Mr Dell'Utri, who remains a Member of this House. Now, this attempt to waive immunity is not about bumps sustained in traffic or penalties for unauthorised parking, but serious offences such as fraud, tax evasion to the tune of millions, suspected membership of a Mafia organisation, and so on. This action for the waiver of immunity has been gathering dust in the Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizens' Rights for over a year and a half. The Spanish judicial authorities have now sorted out the issues of interest to the Spanish, and so there are no longer any reasons to leave this case in the hands of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizens' Rights. The following are my requests of you: Firstly, if you have more up-to-date news of the state of play, please present it to us. Secondly, if you do not have new information on how things stand, I would ask you to communicate with the chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizens' Rights in order to get this matter into plenary as quickly as possible. We in the Socialist Group want this for two reasons: firstly, because of the circumstances involving Mr Dell'Utri, but also because it is not acceptable that cases of such wide scope which have extended over such a long period should not be brought into plenary. It is not only an impediment to us as Members of this House, but also prevents the Members concerned from making statements to justify themselves here in plenary and in the relevant committee. We therefore ask you to speed matters up now, so that Parliament should not be subject to unjustified suspicions. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would firstly like to congratulate the rapporteur on his good report. I am not going to highlight the parts of the report on which we agree, but I would like to point out a couple of issues which worry me and also worry certain other Members. Firstly, I must say that I come from a group of islands in the Mediterranean – as the rapporteur well knows – and we have the impression that the large ports are being promoted, mainly the northern ports as opposed to the southern ports. The small ports, and mainly the ports in the outlying regions and the islands, are rather being left out of this promotion of marine transport. What I would like to see in this case is recognition for example, that it would be beneficial to apply to the ports the division which is carried out in the case of airports of different categories so that we can concentrate, not on the categories of ports, but on the specific projects. That is to say, the project that is being presented, its objectives and all the actions implemented within that project. I believe that would be the right approach. In our case, in the Balearic Islands – I come from Palma de Mallorca – the port of Palma would be included in the proposals in Mr Piecyk’s report, but other ports in the same islands would be left out and this would lend support to air transport. Air transport would become the best way to transport goods and passengers to certain islands and outlying regions. We are currently trying to promote marine transport as an alternative to air transport, and this is therefore an issue to be considered. Having made these points, which are differences of opinion rather than disagreements, it only remains for me to express our support for this report and to congratulate the rapporteur.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I would firstly like to highlight the excellent work carried out by Mrs Berger and the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market generally, which has incorporated innovative ideas into this directive, which I hope will be approved by the Commission and the Council. Nevertheless, I have tabled an amendment. Mrs Berger, in your Amendment No 2 to Recital 6, you mention legal security. The first point on which we disagree is the duration of three months for the residency permit, since all that does is create legal insecurity. You rightly raise the concern, also expressed by Mr Wieland, at the possibility of workers disappearing into thin air when their work permits expire, but I think that we would be making this even more likely by bringing in a three month permit. If the validity of the service provision card expires on a certain date, it must end on that date. Legal security requires this. On the other hand, with regard to point d of Amendment No 10, which refers to the first directive, you suggest that, for reasons of public security or public order regulations, a Member State may reject the validity of the card. There are already some ex ante controls laid down in article 4 of the directive. It makes no sense for any worker within the Schengen area, since he or she will already have undergone a screening process in order to enter the first Member State, and the second Member State would be justified in rejecting ex ante the entry of that worker into its territory. It therefore makes no sense to maintain that legal insecurity. In the case of a non-Schengen state, in the last paragraph of Amendment No 22, that possibility is contemplated, and is perfectly expressed, and I believe this provides greater legal security. The discretional power of the State, which you propose in point e of your Amendment No 10, seems to me to be inconsistent with the rest of your excellent report. I would therefore ask Members to examine my amendment carefully, and I hope that tomorrow we will achieve a result.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on a point of order, you may be aware that Parliament's entire e-mail system has practically crashed. This is a direct result of the unforgivable spamming of our system by a certain Dr Rath of Germany, who appears to have considerable interests in the matter of vitamin therapy on which we are voting this morning. Several times in this House I have protested about this totally unacceptable invasion of our system, which has no place here and is causing serious problems for Members. I would like to reassure Members that we are doing our very best to take action in this regard. I would also repeat that all Members are entitled to request a filter for their system if they are being annoyed by these e-mails, which will then be removed. However, the ubiquitous Dr Rath – wherever he is, and I suspect he is in this House – has carefully changed the message regularly as it comes through, making it very difficult for our services to block these e-mails. We would have blocked them if we could have done so. However, each individual Member can request a filter on his or her machine to prevent these completely counter-productive e-mails from coming in. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Thank you, Mr President, more than half of the countries in the world have abolished capital punishment either in law or in practice, and this number of countries is on the increase. Moreover, these are mainly former countries of the Soviet Union and surrounding areas. In Europe too, important steps are being taken towards the abolition of capital punishment, even in times of war. This has been rubberstamped by more than 36 European countries. In Asia too, there is a trend in this direction, on the part of both governments and human rights organisations. Despite this, and despite the positive steps being taken in the Japanese parliament, the situation in Japan is still very distressing. The number of executions that take place every year is fewer than in many other countries. Between 1993 and 2000, 39 prisoners were executed. The attendant system, however, is very different from what one would expect from a civilised and leading industrial nation. The executions take place by hanging. It takes 15 to 20 minutes before the condemned person finally dies. There have also been cases where the lawyers were not even able to collect the bodies in due course, but only the cremated remains of the prisoners. I welcome with open arms the announcement of the Taiwanese Ministry of Justice that capital punishment will be abolished in Taiwan in 2004. Executions were still taking place in Taiwan until 1998. This has now stopped, and in January of this year, the Mandatory Death Penalty Act of 1944 was repealed. In South Korea too, we see very hopeful movements in the direction of abolishing capital punishment. This too is to be welcomed.

Political group: ELDR
Commissioner, thank you for your very detailed answer, particularly with regard to Afghan women. You know that the President of the European Parliament, and some other MEPs too, received a delegation from Afghanistan. We very much want to support them and be by their side. Despite your detailed answer, I do have to ask you for further information. In France, Médecins du Monde has been rallying its efforts over the last few days to alert people about the famine and drought in Afghanistan. Yesterday, they came here to Parliament once again. As we know, drought is a terrible thing and this drought appears to be the worst in 30 years. We also know that there is no water irrigation system to combat it. Nothing has been done for 20 years – there are no dams, for example. The situation is terrible and it would now appear that the harvests are down by 65%, a quarter of the population is directly affected by drought and hunger and one million people are heading for the borders. Apparently, life in the camps is increasingly dangerous and, according to Médecins du Monde, food distribution in Afghanistan is extremely erratic. Given this situation, I need to be able to respond, Commissioner, as, in the dossier being circulated by its members, Médecins du Monde has condemned the fact that the European Union’s contribution has fallen from 50 million in 1991 to 36 million in 2000. We are, therefore, moving towards a decrease in aid and assistance to Afghanistan. I would like you to give me an answer on this issue and also to tell me whether – given this situation, the politics, the drought and all the problems that you have mentioned – it would not be more crucial to increase our food aid and to put in place a genuine comprehensive policy on humanitarian aid. Even if this exists – you did mention this – should it not be better coordinated?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we are dealing with a long history and a relatively complex directive. Fortunately, the Council’s common position is very useful and provides a sound basis for our further debate. In fact, a number of people, including a large number of ministers, are of the opinion that we should not have anything other than the common position. I am not certain whether they truly believe this or whether they think that they will then be able to put the whole thing behind them. In any event, that is the state of play. Although the stance adopted by our group has been expressed very eloquently by Mr Winfried Menrad, he very much takes the common position into account, as well as the amendments adopted at first reading, a number of which – I have to say – we were unable to support. We voted against a number of amendments, but as they are not included in the present package, that is not such a big issue. There is now a sound compromise proposal before us by Parliament, also accommodating the Council. We make no bones about the fact that our group is struggling with a number of amendments. There are also a number of amendments which some delegations in our group find it difficult to come to terms with. But on the whole, I believe we can congratulate the rapporteur warmly on her work. I also believe that if we have voted on this matter by lunchtime today, we will have made a significant contribution to informing and consulting employees in Europe. We must not forget that an incredible number of problems have arisen. Over the years, we have discussed many resolutions dealing with the lack of consultation. If this is now rectified properly, we will have made huge progress, in my opinion.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Democratic Republic of Congo is neither democratic nor a republic. It is a country with fertile land, vast mineral wealth, populated by people who are poor, sick and starving. These people have been plundered by cruel and corrupt dictators who continue to enrich themselves. Soldiers from neighbouring countries such as Rwanda and Congo continue to loot, rape and kill civilians at random. Villages and towns are destroyed. Over 2 million people have been killed and 1 million people live in fear in refugee camps. The UN passed resolution 1376 on 7 November 2001. It advocates disarmament and demobilisation, repatriation, resettlement and reintegration of armed groups. These measures are essential. How are they going to be implemented? Who will lead this action? The EU, the USA or the UN? Or will this be yet another UN resolution for filing in some dusty cabinet. Last month I attended in Ghana a conference of African politicians. A veteran politician from DRC was there. He had had great difficulty in leaving the DRC, and this is what he asked me: how can African countries like the DRC be free from governments run by crooked dictators? I could not answer. He asked a second question. Do we need to breed terrorists who will attack Europe and the USA to precipitate effective action like in Afghanistan? I could not answer that either. Let us make sure that we take action before poor people become so desperate.

Political group: PPE-DE
The Linkohr report denounces the fact that research spending is too low in Europe. We are obviously in favour of increasing research funding, but the reasoning in this report becomes unacceptable when it comes to what this increase should be directed towards. It never mentions the contribution that research can make to improving living and working conditions or protecting the environment. The only reason put forward for funding research is Europe’s competitiveness and stature. The method proposed to achieve this is research carried out on a competitive basis, which bows more to the commercial interests of private companies. The report notes that not all research activities have the expected positive impact on European economies; it therefore recommends that a European system be put in place to define criteria for effectiveness and success and to evaluate research on the basis of these criteria. In fact it is precisely the community of researchers and scientists in France and other European countries that is protesting against the drastic cuts in public funding and against the obligation to direct research towards those areas that will more quickly turn in a profit. As we join with them defending the freedom of research on behalf of the general interest, I voted against this report and the dangerous premise underlying it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I am grateful to you for giving me the floor. I want to bring to your attention and that of Parliament the tragic and terrible rail crash that took place yesterday just outside Paddington Station in London, in which two trains collided. At the moment the death toll is at 26 but is expected to rise – maybe even to double that – and there are many people seriously injured. I therefore request, President, that you write a letter on behalf of the European Parliament to the British Prime Minister expressing our shock and horror at the magnitude of this terrible disaster, asking him to and pass on our deepest sympathy to the relatives of those people who have died, and also to the relatives of those who remain seriously injured in the hope that they make a full recovery. I would be grateful, in light of this terrible rail disaster, if you would do that.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, let us exercise honesty rather than hypocrisy. The European Union, the United States and the United Nations have all displayed considerable concern about the developments in Sierra Leone. We are not prepared to make any sacrifices. The United States is paralysed by the Somalia syndrome. The Union hides behind Washington’s back. We Europeans even leave the initiative to the Americans who send Jesse Jackson and let him loose in Freetown like a bull in a china shop. The United Nations’ intervention has once again turned into a fiasco. Only thanks to the United Kingdom were we able to stop the rebels in their tracks and arrest their leader, Sankoh. This offers opportunities for a peace deal which far outstrips the laughable one which has been shot to tatters. More than anything, we now need a watertight diamond boycott. To complain about cruel massacres and mutilations becomes very hypocritical if we ourselves allow the diamond industry to earn a fortune on the back of blood-stained diamonds. I would call for at least exercising more honesty when we discuss Africa.

Political group: ELDR