GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I wish to congratulate Mr Sousa Pinto on the quality and the boldness of his report. I agree with his criticism of the Danish proposal’s lack of ambition and scant substance. No progress has been made on the mutual recognition of judgments and we are still a long way off from implementing the principle of the mutual recognition of sentencing. The proposal that has been made only proposes the establishment of a system of exchanging information between Member States on disqualifications imposed in the courts, but does not provide for any type of mutual recognition of sentencing for the purposes of its implementation, which means that an individual who is sentenced to disqualification or to the loss of rights in one Member State can still exercise these rights freely in another State of the Union. We must fulfil the desire expressed in Tampere and Laeken to make the principle of the mutual recognition of judgments in criminal matters effective. The issue of the recognition of judgments in criminal matters is highly sensitive, and raises delicate issues. There are differences in the various Member States and we must avoid the possibility of ‘havens for criminals’, and prevent freedom of movement from benefiting those acting outside the law. We must provide a clear response to the citizens’ demands for the EU effectively to confront the problem of the increasing threats crime poses for their freedom and rights by means of a solid and common policy for preventing and combating crime. Rejecting the Danish proposal would therefore send an important political signal to the Council and to the Member States: the European Parliament wants consistent and coherent progress under the third pillar and does not want unambitious initiatives that appear to focus all their energy on winning media approval.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Belgian Presidency is an important link in the preparation for enlargement because, during this Presidency, the first steps will be taken towards the next IGC. That will be the conference that represents the last chance before enlargement to modify the European institutions and decision making process. Despite this, the wider context is difficult. The Germany-France axis will be partly blocked by elections next year in both countries. Public alarm in the face of enlargement is real. When it comes to Europe, the courage of the present Member States is not very great, and time is short. Against this background, Belgium must succeed in having a declaration approved at Laeken which must, at any rate, contain an improvement in the decision-making process and must increase democratic legitimacy. I am consciously not talking here about much larger projects that are being launched and that are aimed at bringing about a real revolution in all the institutions. I have my doubts about the political feasibility of these. As far as the improvement of the decision-making process is concerned, two things are essential. Firstly, the unanimity rule must be abolished, except for matters related to the institutions themselves and to the transfer of powers. With twenty-seven or thirty Member States, you cannot continue to work with the unanimity rule. In conjunction with this change, the co-decision procedure with Parliament must be expanded. The one must be linked to the other. Secondly, there is an absolute need to make Europe less complex. The Treaty of Nice is scarcely comprehensible, let alone explainable. A host of decisions, directives, regulations, orders, guidelines and recommendations cannot be understood without a dictionary or accompanying notes, and even then they pose problems. The decisions from Gothenburg are still puzzling even after three readings and four translations. This is true not only for ordinary people but also for extraordinary ones. European seems to be becoming a twelfth language, with terms that, if they are not incomprehensible, have at least taken on a life of their own. You must also already have been ‘benchmarked’, ‘mainstreamed’, etc. The language of Europe has not become the language of Europeans. On the contrary. In order to channel the involvement of the population productively, I believe that the Belgian Presidency should make a real project out of such involvement. You should include this project among your priorities. Euronews is financed by Europe. If we want to know something about Europe, we follow CNN, not Euronews. And you can say the same about many things that Europe does to inform the population. Make it a project, Prime Minister! Add this to your priorities and try to agree a relevant course of action with the countries of Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
I voted for the report which approves the entry of the Slovak Republic into the European Union too, and I hope that the next European Parliament, elected in 2004, will include at least one representative of the Pensioners’ Party of the Slovak Republic, so that there will be more of us to protect the interests of the elderly throughout Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as we are political anoraks in the Committee on Budgetary Control and there are a lot more people listening to us tonight, I will try and explain to them what is going on because budgetary control and discharge are really not terms that normal people understand. One of the primary tasks of the European Parliament is to assess the way the Commission is functioning. We are here to make sure that the Commission carries out its work properly. Therefore when people say that the Commission is unelected, we can tell them that we keep the Commission under control and hold them to account. One of our formal responsibilities is to grant discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget. We have to be able to account to the people who elect us and explain to them how their money is spent. The Committee on Budgetary Control is the principal committee responsible for leading this task on behalf of the European Parliament: we scrutinise budget lines, follow up potential scandals, we see how the money is being misspent and we try and find out why processes are so complex and cumbersome. It was the discharge procedure that ultimately led to the forced resignation of the Commission back in 1999. That is what started the whole process. However, there is a danger – we must not be naive about what is going on – that the whole process could be hijacked for more sinister and for more political motives. It has become almost established practice within the Committee on Budgetary Control to postpone the discharge and to ask for more information. That means that there are now three options. In the past there were two options: we could give or refuse discharge. Now, as Mr Bourlanges has explained, we can give, refuse or postpone discharge. It is much easier if we have only two options and that is what is being put to us today. The Commissioner has a point when she says that the Commission could probably comply more quickly. I do not see this October part-session as the date by which we have to have the answer. That is the latest point at which Parliament gives its decision. We do not have to stick to October, but we have to do it by October. That is a slightly different interpretation. It is clear that we all want to complete it before the summer. It is also right that the Commission should have this additional breathing space, because if Members refuse discharge and want to criticise the Commission, then it needs time to try to put things right. The new process will also ensure that the process does not go on and on. That is what has happened in the past. It is what happened in the 1996 discharge – it just carried on. We are giving you an end date, we are telling Parliament that by this time it has to decide one way or the other. That is why this system is much better. The situation is clearer and the process will not be hijacked for political aims.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the agree with these three reports in principle. One may well ask why this should be, given that these directives basically deal with the privatisation of the telecommunications market. The public-sector undertakings have already been partly or completely privatised throughout the EU. So the point is not if they should be privatised, it is merely how. The European have a clear attitude towards liberalisation. We believe that the state has not always acted in the citizens' best interests, but we fear that privatisation will dismantle public services and we intend to fight a digital divide in society. A great deal has been said about technological neutrality. Technological neutrality may well exist at a purely legislative level. But at a social level, technology is never neutral. We want developments for the people, which are good for the people, which benefit everyone and hurt few, which is why we are in favour of maximum controls on monopolies in the telecommunications sector. Maybe this cannot prevent our still having three telecommunications giants in the whole of the EU in ten years' time. But it can prevent it if the national regulatory authorities are strengthened and the Commission also takes on an arbitration function, because then – and only then – is monopoly control even thinkable. We are also in favour of new companies' being able to offer services which compete with former public undertakings on fair terms. This at least will give more people a chance of being able to afford Internet access even though – let me stress once again – we believe in neither the hand of fate nor market logic. So where does this take us? The aim is to regulate a sector of the economy which should bring people greater independence and more self-determination. We want to help ensure that everyone who wants access to these technologies can take advantage of this opportunity. And we want people to be able to use digital communications to communicate and organise themselves, in brief to develop this, throughout the world. And that means fair access. Not just in private households, but also in public places, in libraries, schools and all public places. This communication must be free. It must be available to everyone indiscriminately and, if at all possible, it must be available to everyone on the same terms, which is why we say no to the numerous attempts to restrict, censor or criminalise the Internet. Even if this is not specified in the directives before us, censorship and the supervisory authorities' quest for more and more control over people appears increasingly to be the essence of any attempt to shape the digital sector, which is why it must be said here that we are in favour of open access for everyone. We want open digital communications. We do not want more supervision, we want no supervision. That is the only reason we went along with the arrangements for privatisation, given that we do not in fact want privatisation.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I ask if Amendment No 3 has been checked for admissibility, as it is wholly discriminatory on grounds of religion.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I shall, like most of my fellow Members, praise the efficient work of the rapporteur, Mr Ingo Schmitt, who has worked in a constructive manner with the Council and the Commission. As a result, we have a balanced compromise text and one which gives us every opportunity to avoid conciliation. I would like to stress the quality of the amendments tabled by the rapporteur and the need to make up for lost time. We have already waited too long. In the area of transport, as in many other areas as well, it is our duty to ensure that a similar, high level of security is provided in the Member States. It is also high time that the aeronautics industry benefited from a single certification for placing its products onto the market. I hope that the European Aviation Safety Agency will be able to start work in the very near future and it must be able to provide a single certification for the Airbus A 380. This will represent the completion of many years of work by engineers, staff and employees and it is evidence of what Europeans can do, what they can achieve when they work together. It is a powerful symbol. The first test flight of the A 380 is planned for 2004, the first commercial flight for 2006 – just around the corner, in other words. In order to fulfil its tasks, the European Aviation Safety Agency must be independent and rely on skills and qualifications that can be found in the Member States. As we know, the European Agency must not be used to coordinate the work of the existing national agencies. We must firstly strive to be efficient, and, in this respect, it is easy to understand that for certification work, the European Agency must work in conjunction with the major European design and manufacturing companies. I think that the regional agencies would be a good way to enable this to happen. Ladies and gentlemen, Europe must offer practical advantages to its citizens. To do this, we must provide the same level of security, for a single sky, and a single certification in a single market. The text before us today is an important step in this direction. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, at this stage of the debate we have said practically everything in favour and against the Commission’s proposal, which, as Mr Jové said – and I entirely agree with what he said – is being made by trial and error, with no technical or scientific rigour, and without taking account of the fact that, according to the legislation in force in the European Union, we must promote the free movement of goods, persons and capital between all the Members States of the European Union, including the outlying and accession countries, which from 1 May will be full Members. This is not a proposal for the welfare of animals – the welfare of which I support entirely. How can we try to justify this being applied to animals for slaughter and not to all other animals? Transport and welfare affects all animals, not just those intended for slaughter, or is this perhaps a commercial measure, a commercial restriction? What do we want? For the peripheral countries to be left out of the market? What is the technical and scientific basis for laying down this differentiation in European legislation? Why are we justifying four hours, eight hours, nine hours? Why increase spaces? In order to increase costs? Whom does this benefit? The animals are seriously harmed, because of the risk of the friction, rubbing, injuries and fights which may arise. What is the justification? This is demonstrated by scientific and technical studies carried out at European level by the association of transporters. Nor do I want to go into loading and unloading operations, temperature, etc. This is not justified either, which is what the report attempts to do in technical terms. We call for support for the amendments we have presented so that specific treatment is given to peripheral areas – Sweden, Finland, Portugal, Italy, Spain, etc. – so that we are not left out of the market. With proposals of four hours, in my region I cannot even get from one part to another, let alone participate in other international markets, which is my right.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is with particular interest that I rise to speak in this debate today. Great Britain, as a whole, receives some £10 billion in support from the Structural Funds programme. Indeed parts of my own constituency, the West Midlands, have been awarded £550 million under the Objective II strand. In addition to the Structural Funds programme the European Union, by having this programme, is indeed providing an opportunity – an opportunity for regions to develop and for communities to strengthen; an opportunity for businesses to prosper and for people's lives to be improved. The Structural Funds programme provides, in many cases, the single most important and positive opportunity for our own worst-hit and most deprived areas to get up off their knees and back on their feet. This is a laudable objective and something that every Member of this Parliament would, I hope, support. But Structural Funds also provide an opportunity for national governments. If unregulated and unmonitored, they are an opportunity for national governments to ease their cash burden and to iron out their accounting difficulties – or indeed more cynically, one could say, to siphon away a war chest or pay for vote-winning tax reductions. Granting of Structural Funds is often trumpeted by governments as a sign of its success, whereas in truth it is merely a recognition of difficult problems that a region faces. The aim of the Structural Funds programme is not to help governments win elections, but to help the lives of Europe's citizens. It is a great shame, therefore, that just by having this debate today, we are signalling our awareness that money from the Structural Funds programme is not allocated in many Member States as it should be. We are accepting the fact, for example, that matching funding is often not provided by national governments and that, by clever accounting, figures are all too often shrouded and fudged. So what can we do? What can be done to ensure that our aims and objectives are met? To begin with, additionality must mean exactly that – additional funds being spent where they are most needed and on the most important projects. We must work harder to ensure that the true figures for spending are rigorously checked and that spending is identified more clearly. Only recently the Commission published a devastating critique of the UK Government's handling of the Structural Funds, due in large part to the inequality of public sector matching funding. This is clearly not acceptable. In one area alone – Liverpool and Merseyside – the lack of support by the UK Treasury is putting at risk the creation of 10 000 jobs, and up to 5 000 existing ones will be lost, according to a report by the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce. The end result of all this is that private-sector partners will have little confidence in projects, often resulting in the failure of worthwhile schemes. To conclude, as I have said previously in this House in previous debates on the subject, we must endeavour to ensure that these funds are seen not as a hand-out but as a hand-up.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as previous speakers have said, precisely what to do to give regional and local authorities a higher profile and standing is proving to be controversial under the Convention. Many of us would want the Union to enjoy more direct interaction with regional and local authorities, because they are frequently more sensible intermediaries between the citizen and the Union than the more remote and centralised national governments. We appreciate that such a direct relationship postulates the federal nature of the integration process in a fairly dramatic form. It is appropriate that the treaty provisions on subsidiarity should be reformulated to reflect this. Liberals believe decentralisation is essential if the Union is to manage its common policies more effectively. More of a relationship with provincial politics will improve the quality of our supranational democracy. This report provides many of the answers, but the issue of the approach to the Court of Justice is still controversial. The wishes to improve access across the board for the citizen, to improve citizens' approach to their constitutional court. This implies clear lines of approach for all democratic representative bodies, especially regional authorities with parliamentary powers of law-making independent of their Member States.

Political group: ELDR
The Commission’s proposal aims to implement natural gas supply measures, in the wake of recent crises or impending crises, particularly as a result of the United States’ attacks on countries like Iraq. There are so many relevant issues here that it is impossible to deal with all of them in this speech. The Commission even attempts to appropriate the right to intervene in the workings of Member States, an ambition quashed by Parliament, thus ensuring that the Member States retain their prerogatives in this area and in relation to their international obligations. As researchers suggest, the substance of these documents is not explicit but implied, the point being that world oil production has more or less peaked, or even passed its peak, and that although natural gas production may indeed continue to rise, it will peak in about 25 years at best. Both face inevitable decline. In view of these facts, the establishment of a European Observation System for supply of hydrocarbons, charged with solving this key problem, could make a contribution, in particular, to our knowledge of the state of world stocks and to essential research into other energy sources, such as renewable ones.

Political group: GUE-NGL
During the debate yesterday evening, I welcomed the work of Mr Evans, but I was immediately bound to express my deep disagreement with the rather too liberal, not to say ultraliberal, tenor of his report. Not only did Mr Evans deny the fact that state aid was cut in the period 1994-1998, even though the Commission itself acknowledged this reduction, but, even more seriously, he continually and obsessively dwelt on the exceptional nature of state aid, even though the Treaty envisages the granting of such aid in order to achieve the objectives established in the Treaties, such as the environment and social cohesion, and even though the Commission itself acknowledges that certain policies cannot be supported by market forces alone. Hence my recommendation last night not to endorse the report as it stands. Whilst I could agree with the requests for increased transparency regarding state aid, and for the European Parliament to be informed about the follow-up to aid approved by the Commission, I called for state aid to be maintained in order to develop social cohesion, research and innovation or environmental protection, to offset gaps in the market, to promote European competitiveness in relation to other countries and to confront the fraudulent machinations of competitor countries, such as Korea in the field of shipbuilding. I added that the supervision of state aid should be carried out within the strict framework of the Treaties’ provisions and not according to the prevailing liberal ideology. I believe that, somewhere between the ‘all-powerful state’, which nobody wants anymore, and the ‘non-existent state’, which is simply the modern form of the survival of the fittest, this thing that many would call the ‘European social model’ requires us to look for the balance between what can be regulated by the market and what state authorities should regulate! That is why I put forward and voted for the Socialist Group’s amendments. As the right forced them to fight, I did not vote for the report.

Political group: PSE