GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
The European Parliamentary Labour Party believes that, as MEP's, we have a duty to protect EU taxpayers' money. We believe that the piecemeal approach to tackling fraud within the EU has been insufficient, and, whilst agreeing with the establishment of Eurojust, OLAF, strengthening the Court of Auditors and fraud-proofing legislation, we do not believe that these measures will tackle the problem of prosecution of EU fraud. The role of the European Public Prosecutor should be restricted strictly to that of protecting EU finances. We do not believe in the establishment of a European judicial area. The role of the European Public Prosecutor should be to coordinate the prosecution, but the prosecution itself should be passed on to the Member States, who should have an obligation to prosecute. Despite reservations on certain details contained in the Green Paper, we believe that it is important to allow for the possibility of establishing the European Public Prosecutor before enlargement takes place, and the added complications of prosecuting fraud in ten extra countries. If we are serious about protecting the financial interests of the EU, we must accept that the current system is not working, and until we have an alternative on the table we must go along with this report.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I can only welcome the Commission’s initiative on the freedom of circulation of third-country nationals within the Schengen area, since this is something that I, myself, specifically wanted when we discussed the two previous reports. In fact, the instrument proposed certainly meets the requirements for a more global and integrated approach, which is what we had asked for. Congratulations, then, to the Commission for its initiative. Let me now turn to Mrs Kessler’s report, and say that, overall, my group supports its direction and its amendments. Like Mrs Kessler, we also believe that the regulation is, as it stands, a more adequate legal instrument than the directive. We agree with the clarifications that she has made regarding the definition of the length of time that the travel authorisation is valid. There is, however, one point in Mrs Kessler’s report which surprised me, speaking from a personal point of view, namely, the virtually unrelenting effort she has made to combat the Commission’s proposal, under which the holders of a long-stay visa who do not yet possess a permanent residence permit can only move around freely if they have submitted an official application for a residence permit in the Member State that issued their visa. In her report, Mrs Kessler writes – and I quote – ‘There are no obvious grounds – what a lovely way of putting it, Mrs Kessler! – why the rules on the point at which the period of freedom to travel begins for these particular third-country nationals should be any different from those concerning the other third-country nationals covered by the same legislation.’ You have written ‘there are no grounds for this’ in your report! Well, in fact, Mrs Kessler, there are grounds for this. What the Commission is proposing in this case is exactly what the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs voted for unanimously and what this entire House approved when it voted in favour of my report on the French initiative. The truth, Mrs Kessler, is that we are in line with the Council’s position that Parliament rejected whilst approving the report that I have just mentioned. There are therefore grounds for this, Mrs Kessler, both institutions share the same view, how on earth can you not recognise that?

Political group: PPE-DE
I thank you, Commissioner, for your response. But her response does not answer my questions. I asked her whether, if it appears that a large number of Member States do not or cannot yet meet the objective of the directive on account of large discrepancies in nitrate sources, both animal and artificial, should a different approach then not be opted for? I have not received a reply to this question. Neither have I received a response to my question regarding infringement proceedings. If it appears that out of the fifteen Member States, there are at least nine in respect of which infringement proceedings have been initiated and if the Commissioner presses for the implementation of the directive, what do we do then? Do we then enforce the legal instrument, is this what you want? Or would you withdraw this? Or would you just continue pressing for it? I would greatly appreciate it if I could have a clear answer to all these questions, as they have been submitted in writing, in addition to these supplements.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to enlarge on my speech of 13 November 2001 by discussing the following areas. I would like, first, to thank the rapporteur and the Group's shadow rapporteur for the excellent work they have done. I believe that both the Commission proposal and Parliament's report make a further contribution to a stronger financial internal market, to facilitation of cross-border activity and to greater harmonisation in this area, which is dependent on public trust and of importance to transparency. A number of amendments have already been discussed. For my part, I would like to deal with Amendment No 6, which concerns itself with greater transparency, because we want to see to it that the register, in addition to the proposed methods, shall indicate the country or countries in which the intermediary conducts business under the rules on establishment or on the freedom to provide services. On the other hand, we want to ensure that there are greater possibilities for monitoring, by using Amendment No 10 to allow consumer associations to register complaints. Then Amendment No 12 has to do with sorting out the frequently-discussed question of whether information should be supplied without being requested, by stipulating that information on the customer's rights must be supplied, whilst detailed information may be requested. I would like to say that Amendment No 2 should not be misunderstood. It is not opposed to harmonisation. Many countries, though, have stricter rules of various kinds, so that, for example, credit institutions are already subject to many requirements contained in this directive. Amendment No 2 is therefore intended to take account of these different rules, which already impose higher standards, by making different approaches to it possible, without, though, undermining the directive's basic tendency.

Political group: PPE-DE
There are currently no provisions defining a standard way of repatriating the mortal remains of people who have died in one Member State to another. Given the lack of any such provision, the cross-border transport of mortal remains is governed by two international legal instruments: the Berlin Agreement of 1937 and the Strasbourg Agreement of 1973, concluded under the auspices of the Council of Europe, to which only some Member States have acceded and which, in the rapporteur’s opinion, are largely obsolete. The rapporteur is of the view that, on the basis of these agreements, in the event that a citizen of one Member State dies in another Member State, the formalities are more complex, the time that elapses before burial or cremation is longer and the costs are higher than if the death occurred in the country of origin of the deceased person. For this reason and given that there are large immigrant communities in some Member States with origins in another Member State such as Portugal, for example, we should enhance the value of measures that could meet the specific needs of these communities, especially as regards the set of problems addressed in the report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, we cannot and must not accept the fact that we hear ever more frequently of accidents causing major damage on our roads, but also on our railways and waterways, not solely but at least partly because those involved do not take the transport of dangerous goods seriously enough or because – as a result of ignorance or a lack of training on the part of the drivers or others responsible for the various vehicles – a minor accident has all too often become a major disaster. As an Austrian, I still have a vivid memory, as, I believe, we all do, of the catastrophe which cost so many human lives last year in the Tauern Tunnel, where subsequent work to rebuild the parts of the tunnel which had been destroyed in this fire continued for many months at huge expense. The renovation project, which lasted for months, cut off this important route between the north and south of Europe. The traffic which had to be diverted because of this stretched the patience of many thousands of people in the EU to the limit. In fact, all hell broke loose in some municipalities in my province. Prevention has to be our answer to disasters of this kind and this draft directive is an important step towards well-trained safety advisers being available, so that the right action is taken in good time. All the same, we must not content ourselves with enacting European law to ensure greater safety. We also need to follow this up and make sure that our rules are transposed by the Member States in good time and – even more importantly – we need to ensure that they are also applied afterwards. Please let this not be yet another sector where we subsequently have to lament the lack of enforcement. I should like to address one final point. We must not content ourselves with sealing another hole in the safety net and shutting our eyes to the fact that, where transport safety in Europe is concerned, there is still much more to be done. In this context, I should like to make a request and ask the Commissioner responsible, who is with us here today, to table an appropriate text as soon as possible with a view to continuing to make it safer for traffic to transit tunnels in the future, so that we in Europe do not have to experience any more such disasters on this scale.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Valenciano report is about the situation of women from minority groups in the European Union, with special attention being paid to disabled women, female migrants and Roma women. This is also a live issue in my own country, the Netherlands, where, at present, there is an important ongoing discussion about the integration of migrants. Some manage to integrate surprisingly quickly, while others, particularly women, often find it difficult, although they are a crucial factor in the integration. I am pleased that the topic is on our agenda, especially since today is International Women's Day. Our group shares the rapporteur’s concerns. The problems are substantial, and more should be done to promote integration and participation in social and political life. There is simply more to be done. The report goes about this in the right way, certainly as regards the deprivation caused by discrimination, the discriminating effect of measures in the areas of education and training, employment, participation in social life and protection against violence and sexual abuse. Our group also agrees that the command of the language is extremely important, and it would be good if something were to be done about this in the country of origin. In our view, however, the report goes too far in some respects. Particularly in paragraph 16, where it considers that everyone who holds a residence permit should have the same rights as the indigenous people in every respect, so politically, administratively, judicially, economically and socially. That is taking matters too far in our view, although we are in favour of drafting a few minimal rights so as to fight the various forms of discrimination and promote social integration, for that is what matters. Incidentally, I have to say that the often endless list of problems in so many areas and in so many amendments diminishes the power of the message and, in fact, suggests that this list is limitative. In reality, new problems arise all the time. Paragraph 16 is crucial to our group. If it remains in place, our group will be unable to vote for the report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I am speaking this evening on behalf of my colleague Lord Inglewood who has been shadowing this for the British Conservative Group and who has unfortunately been delayed due to the inadequacies of plane transport from here to Brussels. He asked me particularly to make that point to you. I broadly welcome this as a pragmatic proposal. I do not want to reflect on what might have been. I want to address a few remarks to the Commissioner about the implementation of this proposal because it is a welcome advance that we will actually get something into the market place – and that is how we should regard it, – because companies will have the option of whether to adopt this form of company statute or not. It is entirely pragmatic and practical that we will initially have a proposal that will be subject to governments among the 15 Member States. I want to say to the Commissioner that considerable attention has to be given to ensuring that the rules for this new company statute are consistently implemented across the Member States. Currently, we have inconsistent application of company law within the existing Member States' statutes on things like publication of information, timely publication of accounts, proper completion of accounts – all those sorts of issues are currently implemented differently. This new statute has to be implemented consistently and we have to make sure that courts in Member States who will be responsible for this have the training and ability to do so. I also join in what colleagues have been saying about issues to do with taxation and company law. Mr Mayer, in an excellent report, wisely says at the conclusion that he advocates launching the European statute on a maiden voyage. Well, it will show where repairs are needed – that is certainly true. But we must not overload this with other expectations about aligning company law, particularly tax harmonisation. I join with colleagues who have said how dangerous this is as a concept. We must not overload this statute with things that it was not designed to carry, otherwise it will sink very quickly indeed.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, if we start from the principle ‘better a deal that is flawed than no deal at all’, then it is true that Arusha constitutes a step forward in the Burundi peace process. All credit for this has to go to Mandela, who shuttled between the different parties for months in order to get them not only on speaking terms but also around the negotiating table. But the accord is not perfect. Indeed, there is still no cease-fire and the fights around the capital of Bujumbura simply continue. The two main Hutu rebel movements in the army, which are responsible for the best part of the violence, were not involved in the negotiations. As such, the next phase in Nairobi, the meeting between the armed troops on 20 September, is probably more crucial than Arusha. It is regrettable that the accord does not look beyond the regional context. The neighbouring countries Congo and Tanzania, from where the armed groups operate, must also be reminded of their responsibilities. Indeed, the question arises as to whether Mandela has not analysed the Burundi conflict too much from his own South African context. It is correct that some Tutsi parties have used the risk of annihilation of the minority as an excuse to maintain their supremacy. But this does not take away the fact that this risk in Burundi is real. This is why we need to demand sufficient safety guarantees to protect the minority and make sure that in the event of any elections, there is no incitement of ethnic hatred. Finally, Mr President, I do believe that Europe should resume the provision of semi-structural aid, especially in the areas of education and health care. Otherwise, there is a risk that we will be held partly responsible for the death of thousands of innocent citizens; a thought to which I, as a Christian-Democrat, cannot reconcile myself.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, the first military mission of the European Union coincides with an historic moment and, I regret to say, possible further destabilisation in the Balkans, which shows just how fragile the fabric is. The Serbian leaders have recently been surrounding themselves with high-level security, in the knowledge that the greatest danger is just when steps towards normalisation start speeding up. Sadly, it has not worked. The murder of Zoran Djindjic has, amongst other things, implications for the tabling of certain amendments to the resolution we are about to put to the vote. I think the two-month period requested for the European Community for initial monitoring of the results of the mission is too short. In another context, this morning, when speaking about the European Union action, Commissioner Patten said that military and political intergovernmentalism is ineffectual, and he added more or less that it produces incoherent initiatives. That is clearly the case and we should take it into account. Now, however, we have gone into Macedonia and, for better or for worse, we must clarify certain points and discuss them in this House. We have learnt something during the last hour and perhaps we shall learn something later on that we do not yet know. I should like to know, for instance, how the command structures work, from the base up to Brussels, the relations between departments in NATO and in the European Union, how costs are shared and, naturally, to what extent collaboration with the Macedonian Government and army has been thought out and put into practice. Military expenditure is the responsibility of the national parliaments, but the European Union should manage the financial operations on joint bases and Parliament should then perform its monitoring role.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this time I did not consult my daughter but I did ask a pensioner who, as usual, came to see me off at the airport when I left for Strasbourg what he thought of the report on fuel taxation. He replied: ‘Mr Fatuzzo, fuel tax should be as low as possible so that aeroplane tickets cost as little as possible. We pensioners often travel and, to tell the truth, train and car journeys are tiring: for us, aeroplanes are a dream come true. You must therefore vote for this measure which further reduces taxation on aircraft, for this will bring the price of aeroplane tickets down and we will be able to travel much more frequently by plane. And while you are there, ask for a reduction in the price of aeroplane tickets for the elderly pensioners who travel.’

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I agree with what my colleague has just said in thanking the workers and in expressing her appreciation for what has been done since July to improve the situation, and for the on-going building work aimed at further improvements. I would, however, like to mention something I have come across and which I feel should be resolved. It does not concern the Members of Parliament, but rather our co-workers. In the Tower building, in room 382 on the fourth floor to be exact, I saw an enormous photocopier which one person operates. Well, in this room there are no windows and no air inlets, and we do not know if the extremely noisy machine emits substances which could endanger the operator’s health. Now, since this Parliament is involved in establishing important directives on health and safety at work, I would find it extremely contradictory if this situation were to continue, even though only one person is affected. In fact, I saw the sign on the door and originally, the room was probably meant for a different purpose. So maybe we are talking about a temporary solution. I honestly hope it is temporary because otherwise it really would seem contradictory to allow such a situation to continue.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs De Palacio, first of all, may I offer my hearty congratulations to my fellow Member, Mrs Rothe, for the work she has done on this very difficult issue. Admittedly, the negotiations with the Council and Commission were painstaking, but an outcome was reached. We were able to come to compromise agreements which will allow improvements to be made to the Council and Commission proposals. I would also reiterate that the aim of the draft directive is to create a framework to enable a considerable improvement in electricity production from renewable energy sources. This directive provides a response to several major concerns such as sustainable development, environmental protection and respect for the Kyoto commitments, but also with regard to diversifying our supply sources, reducing the European Union’s reliance on energy and, lastly, the creation of new jobs. Having said this, I would like to go back to two difficult points, which were raised at the beginning of our discussions: - on the one hand, the issue of non compulsory national targets. The issue is whether the national targets should be compulsory. We must remain realistic. Setting indicative targets has never provided much motivation for Member States. The discussions have not enabled us to reach an agreement, however. Fortunately, several proposals plan to make them compulsory in the long term. - on the other hand, the issue of whether or not to include waste incineration in the definition of renewable energy. The Council insisted on including it but this step did not receive unanimous support. As I personally see it, this seems to run counter to the Union’s efforts in the field of waste prevention and recycling. It is to be feared that this use of waste would essentially justify their production, which does not seem to be a good solution. To sum up, I would also say that we must support the provisions laying down facilities governing grid access. In conclusion, Mr President, as a militant and strong supporter of renewable energy sources, I welcome the progress made, but I hope I have pinpointed the difficulties which still need to be overcome in a world where the market and the search for short-term reductions in costs and prices take precedence.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to draw the House's attention to a very strange and preposterous statement made last week by the Rector of the University of Istanbul. Apparently – though I saw him saying these things on television – he said that Turkey has no reason to make any concessions to the EU over Cyprus and that it is easy for Turkey to resolve this matter by sacrificing 135 000 – he has even counted the number – of its soldiers in order to occupy both Cyprus and Greece. He made these preposterous statements to the great applause of his audience, which again, as it so happened, I observed on television. I am not saying that this incriminates the Turkish Government or that it incriminates the majority of Turkish public opinion, but if there is a section of public opinion which expresses itself in this way in Turkey, then we have to be more cautious in accepting Turkey and indeed cooperate with progressive forces in the country in order to bring about a real change of mind, without which there can be no real fusion between Turkey and the European Union.

Political group: PSE