GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, given that, despite worldwide protests, including protests from the European Parliament in December, a Tibetan was executed by order of a Chinese court four days ago and the same fate awaits a highly respected lama, I ask the House to agree to a motion going further than proposal No 8 from the and Non-attached Members. I propose adding the following to item 16: ‘condemns in the strongest terms the execution of the Tibetan Lobsang Dhondup on 26 January for alleged political crimes and calls for the immediate setting aside of the death sentence on the Buddhist lama Tenzin Delek’. (Applause) (The President established that there were no objections to the oral amendments)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of our group, I wish to thank Mr Casaca for this report and also make it abundantly clear that we support him, even on those points where the Commission thinks it can make distinctions between control measures and anti-fraud measures. According to your institution's information, losses of EUR 430 million were sustained in this area last year, which means that it is not we who suffered, but those sitting up there – the taxpayers of this European Union of ours. When we talk about how we should reform agricultural policy in Europe, as the Commission recently proposed, in order thereby to bring agricultural policy closer to the public, and in this case, closer to the taxpayers – something to which Mrs Schierhuber, a farmer herself, referred, and on which point I wish to give her my support – we have to distance ourselves from such quibbles about what is control, and what is directed against fraud. It is therefore my view that the Commission would have been well-advised to follow our thinking, which is that of the rapporteur and of the Committee on Budgetary Control, and, in the final analysis, give these measures the legal basis of the protection of the Community's financial interests. We have already given some thought to how we could put a stop to export refunds, especially in the area of live cattle exports. The images we see of Mediterranean harbours, which our young people get to see, are far from being an advertisement for this agricultural policy and far from being an advertisement for the European Union. That is something we have to do away with, and there have been amendments on the subject tabled by this House in this Budget. Let me say loud and clear that, in the preliminary draft budget, the Commission has given us no support. The amendments will be back, and we can then expect more cooperation in the future, for, in this Parliament, which makes it its business to monitor the budget, we are well aware that this system of export refunds cannot be made immune to fraud. On the contrary, such a thing is impossible. The system of agricultural export refunds as currently practised is an invitation to fraud. That is a challenge, and I see the debate on the choice between Article 37 or Article 280 from the Treaties as purely academic. Ladies and gentlemen of the Commission, we, who talk more to the people who live alongside us, eat and drink with us and pay us taxes, cannot afford that for the future. Here the wholehearted support for our rapporteur and for his report.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I take the floor for just one minute to thank the Commissioner, Mr Barnier, not just for the comments that he addressed to me, which moved me deeply, but also for the cooperation that he has been able to establish with the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and with Parliament as a whole over these years. Thanks to him, the dialogue, the cooperation, the shared commitment and the alliance – as has sometimes been said – between the Commission and Parliament in the field of institutional affairs, have not remained pure rhetoric but have become a working reality. We are sure that our friend the minister Michel Barnier will be able to worthily occupy the position that Robert Schuman once held, of interpreting the Europeanist traditions of France, that great founding Member of the European Community. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this is not a question of nationality. I would also say the same thing if we were in Brussels. The main cause of health problems and mortality in all the Member States of the Union, in all developed countries, is iatrogenic contamination, in other words, contamination from being in hospital or from taking drugs. This is one of the perverse effects of an over-developed society, whereby medicine that we take to make us better sometimes makes us ill. We are all familiar with this subject. We are not going to mention every illness we have ever suffered in another country. I am not going to say that, having spent four days in Berlin, I fell ill, which proves that you can contract some nosocomial illness there and that you must never go to Berlin again. So, in very simple terms, I shall ask this question. You mentioned visitors, but the visitors have been informed. If, like you, visitors come here, it is because they have chosen to come. When you say, Mrs Wallis, that we have a duty to be here – I would say that we have a duty to stay. What sort of image would we give of the European Parliament if we were so afraid that we sought to impose zero risk and create panic! It would be dreadful and would do no credit to us at all.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should first of all like to pursue in greater depth the news to which Mrs Boogerd-Quaak has already referred. It is about the airline company Jet Blue that recently had the dubious honour of being the first American airline company to be able to provide data about its airline passengers to the Pentagon. The latter had requested this information so as to be able to make a risk assessment of passengers based on the CAPS II programme. When this piece of information was leaked, a huge outpouring of indignation in the United States ensued. Apologies were made and the data tap was turned off immediately. Especially serious was the fact that passengers had not been previously informed of the violation of their privacy, but the wrath of public opinion was also directed at the very fact of registration on a massive scale. As already stated, the influential UCLA, the American Civil Liberties Association, qualified this as ‘a highly un-American system’ and condemned the fact that, in this way, every passenger is turned into a suspect. I am giving this account of American indignation to press home to the Commissioner that he should not be fixated on striking a compromise between us and Minister Rich and company in the current negotiations with the United States, because the playing field is much wider and it is up to us to make it wider still. Apparently, the American public does not deem the actions and measures viable, and we must therefore also raise our objections. Commissioner, I should like to ask you to try out an alternative route using an alternative strategy. You have easy access to the Anglo-Saxon press, and I therefore count on your written powers of persuasion, via American public opinion, to put the administration effectively under pressure. Consider it to be a kind of hearts and minds campaign. What are our specific problems? It would be useful to clarify this, because I think that we will find a ready audience in this respect, also among the public in the USA. Mr President, the second point that I should like to bring to your attention is the proposals that are circulating to develop a passport with advanced electronic chips in which biometric data, including somebody’s past travelling history, can be stored. If this travelling history is stored on this chip and somebody travels to America, then Bush will still have unfettered access to the information which is the subject of our bickering. My question to the Commission is therefore: how can we ensure that we are not fighting a rearguard action today? How much progress has been made with the discussion about these passports, and are you considering how this might affect the privacy of our citizens? This is, after all, how we can avoid being faced again with faits accomplis in a year’s time and being indignant on a massive scale.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank you specifically for mentioning the fact that you are also working on nuclear safety in the Ukraine. I would be interested to know whether it is actually intended to use the standards of the International Atomic Energy Agency as a basis for guaranteeing safety there.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, some of the developing countries are experiencing an unprecedented health crisis, and it is in the interests of the entire world to take the steps that are needed to alleviate this crisis, and, above all, to fight it. Although the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is aware of its limited contribution to the solution of this problem, it does stress that its contribution is essential. On behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, I should like to raise three points. First of all, the industrial dimension. Too many diseases are still being neglected, with no research being done into them, because no industry can see that there is anything in it for them. Not only does European industry stand disgraced by this, but it has also missed an opportunity. The European pharmaceutical industry is too lacking in innovation, and focusing on neglected diseases could provide it with a new impetus. The EU must now show political leadership in order to persuade industry to invest in diseases that have so far not been profitable. A directive or framework for neglected diseases is much needed, and we should not shrink back from unorthodox measures, subsidies, protocol assistance, tariff exemption and even the transfer of patent rights. The EU must create a framework on the basis of which it can start the dialogue and negotiations with the pharmaceutical industry about investments in research into such diseases as malaria, TB, African sleeping sickness, among others. A second point is research. The EU must now attend to its research programmes itself. The platform for clinical trials was a step in the right direction, but what is being done in practice? The EU should draft a research agenda and identify all the gaps. Subsequently, research institutes and companies should be invited to put their names down. Incidentally, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy appreciates all Commissioner Busquin's efforts on this score. Thirdly, there is the issue of trade. In this respect, the decision of 30 August 2003 on the eve of the Conference in Cancún is obviously of major importance. Our committee would like to see this decision actually implemented in legislation in the pharmaceutical field. We call for the prompt implementation of this legislation. Doha should not remain an empty promise.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on this question, which goes beyond Italy, is a highly interesting and most important debate. When we refer in recital C of the resolution to the three judgments, which state that the rights of the persons affected under the freedom of movement of labour in the Union and their rights not to be exposed to discrimination on the basis of their nationality were violated by Italy's omissions and when the ombudsman and numerous speakers here confirm this, then the argument of one of the previous speakers, namely that the violation can be justified on the grounds of subsidiarity does not stand up. When the European Court of Justice finds that European law has been violated, this cannot be countered by invoking the principle of subsidiarity. The second point is that this is, without doubt, a political debate because it is about the violation of the law. The legal status of the Treaties cannot be played off against politics; on the contrary, it is our duty, should this happen, to hold a political debate in the House on the violation of the law. I think that the saying “If you don't take yourself seriously, no-one else will” is most apt here. When there are three judgments in a case by the European Court of Justice and the country in question still fails to change its conduct, then we must intervene; we must make it public. We discussed the Charter of Fundamental Rights here in the House a few days ago. Surely compliance with current law is the very first fundamental right which can be demanded of us? Surely promoting the community based on law is the basis for the European community of values? You cannot play one off against the other. Obviously education still comes under subsidiarity but, within the framework of the Treaties, the freedom of movement of workers and the ban on discrimination apply to everyone, although we – and I in particular, coming as I do from a highly federalist state – support the principle of subsidiarity as a principle of order in our dealings with the European Union and do what we can so that powers are divided as quickly as possible between the levels in Europe in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Italy's conduct in this matter runs counter to the objectives of the Community and runs counter to our desire to increase the mobility and flexibility of workers. The diversity of cultures, which we see as a fundamental element of Europe, finds expression first and foremost in the diversity of languages. Anyone who stands up for the diversity of cultures must do what they can so that we can maintain the diversity of languages and learn them everywhere. We support the internal economic market. I say that also as a member of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport: the internal economic market needs the internal educational market. There are still many fetters and many obstacles to this internal market, as today's debate has shown, and not just in this case. We should do everything to remove these fetters as quickly as possible.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the harmonisation of Member States’ criminal law on combating environmental crime forms a very serious part of the policy to create an area of freedom, security and justice and an essential supplement to any effective environmental policy. I would therefore like to congratulate both the Danish Government on the initiative it has undertaken and the honourable members, Mr Di Lello Finuoli and Mrs Schörling, who have used their texts to broaden and specify the scope of the initiative. Despite the Danish initiative being a positive step in the right direction, it does in fact have its weak points in comparison, for example, with the 1998 Council of Europe Convention. This is because it focuses solely on criminal law and disregards questions of prevention, health, protection of cultural heritage and so forth. However, despite its weak points and contradictions, the initiative is a positive one because it promotes the creation of a legislative framework which will allow for more coordinated joint action through a stronger Europol, mainly in tackling cross-border environmental crime. It lays down minimum sanctions, particularly for cases in which the environment is sacrificed at the altar of profit. I fully endorse this approach because, as we all know, the punishments laid down for environmental crime are grossly out of proportion with the effect which these crimes have on society as a whole. However, we feel that the Danish initiative has not properly examined the Member States’ legislation and will probably be difficult to implement because of the major discrepancies between them. But I do agree with the reference to the liability of legal persons given that, by definition and by nature, the majority of environmental crimes are committed by corporations and industries. I also feel that the reference to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe is essential as I think that every proposal ought to take account of the prospect of enlargement. Furthermore, I must stress the need for educating and training the personnel who will be responsible for investigating and prosecuting environmental crimes, the need to highlight preventative measures and the need for all the Member States to ratify the 1998 Convention of the Council of Europe. To date, not one Member State has ratified it. I should also like to stress that the Member States will have to pledge to work together on this extremely important issue.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the current year is the first in which OLAF is fully operational. It needs to be pointed out here that this is a decisive step in protecting the financial interests of the Union, the impetus for which came from this House and, in particular, from the Committee on Budgetary Control and from the present rapporteur, our colleague, Herbert Bösch. With an increase in staff, with a new structure and independence, all the conditions are now in place for OLAF to concentrate on fighting fraud in an area where the objective and verifiable figures point to a more serious situation. Fraud and other irregularities in the traditional own resources reported by Member States reached a total of EUR 538 million in 1998, an amount unparalleled in any other area of Community expenditure, either in absolute or relative terms. Special report No 9 of the Court of Auditors on the protection of the European Union’s financial interests in the area of VAT on intra-Community trade points to an even more serious situation. According to the Court of Auditors, the gap between actual receipts and their theoretical amount is EUR 70 thousand million. Unlike the main areas of expenditure, which the Commission monitors and on which it imposes a system of sanctions, there is nothing comparable in these two vital areas of the Community’s own resources. The Commission, specifically in its recent reports on administrative cooperation and on procedures for collection and taxation, describes a situation which is characterised by the maintenance of a system for VAT collection, which was only intended to be used on a temporary basis but is being used permanently. This system is also characterised by the increasing complexity of the system and by the widespread shortage of human resources and monitoring materials compared to the volume of transactions. Despite the fact that there is widespread agreement on the need to overcome the problems of fighting fraud which result from restrictions imposed by national legislation, or to the lack of a legal basis in Community legislation, the Commission’s proposals have not, until today, met with any response and the anti-fraud sub-committee in the area of indirect taxation has found it impossible, in the words of the Commission “to achieve meaningful progress and cannot take the necessary decisions to improve the fight against fraud”. What is more serious than this is the fact that the Commission’s reports on VAT collection have been scandalously disregarded by the other institutions and have not been followed up to any degree by the Member States. Compliance with Article 280 of the Treaty, specifically where it requires the effective and equivalent protection of the Community’s financial interests will be dead letter unless we overcome the situation of there being a loophole in the law in the area of traditional own resources and VAT. The protection of the Community’s financial interests, and particularly those of the taxpayers, who comply, cannot continue to be disregarded when it comes to indirect taxation.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, our thoughts are with our fellow citizens who simply wanted to discover another culture and who are now being held hostage by the armed group, Abu Sayyaf. It is not clear whether this is a case of organised crime or political demands but the island of Jolo is now at the centre of the hostilities with this awful hostage taking. In these islands, which are characterised by tropical luxuriance and unspeakable poverty, the machine gunning of villages, kidnappings, ransom demands and torture are common currency. This hostage taking and the many violations of human rights show how these armed opposition movements have sunk into criminal excess. Although we cannot tolerate these constant violations of human rights, we also deplore the failure of the peace talks with the Philippine Government. We also know that the violence has its roots in poverty. This is why we strongly support the appeal made by the Archbishop of Manila to President Estrada that socio-economic reforms should be implemented. Without the political will to end the situation, the violence can only continue. Equatorial Guinea

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the Commission’s proposal for a financial framework for the period 2007-2013 is right in its priorities, and I wish to thank President Romano Prodi for that. The EU is lagging behind all our main competitors in the areas of economic growth and competitiveness, and that is why financial investment in the prerequisites for growth is the right and necessary area of focus. Research, the encouragement of innovation and the adoption of high technology are promoters of growth. So is a high-level infrastructure. Investment in transport and energy networks will immediately create new jobs and strengthen business conditions even in remote regions and those where development has fallen behind. The EU, including its most peripheral areas, must be taken account of in this work. Similarly, investment in the young is crucial. Programmes of education and training must be extended and diversified for youth to be able to acclimatise more readily to an international working environment. Another problem and priority is Structural and Cohesion policy. The new Member States need support for reconstruction and for strengthening their economic environment. This cannot be allowed to happen, however, at the expense of the economically frailer regions of the old Member States. That is why the provision of funds has to be increased on an equivalent scale. If the development promised under the financial framework is to succeed, the administration has to be thoroughly modernised. The reform of the Commission carried out this term is only a basis for reforms. Power and responsibility have to be devolved both within the bureaucratic machinery and from the Commission to the Member States.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I will be brief. Since 1996, this Parliament has been arguing for the use of the administrative documentation resulting from the EAGGF-Guarantee payments for statistical purposes. The Community policy which absorbs the most funds generates an enormous amount of information, which we do not currently take advantage of. That information could provide a much more up-to-date result, and a much more up-to-date and reliable picture of Community agriculture, than many much more expensive and less reliable investigations. Today we are dealing with the mid-term review of Agenda 2000, and it would be desirable to confront it with more and better statistical information. The reason why the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has withdrawn its amendments is that, during the debate, the Commission published a report on the creation of a database on payments made by the EAGGF-Guarantee, in other words, on the distribution of agricultural aid. The Agriculture Committee believes that that report satisfied our demands since the Commission had committed itself to transparency towards Parliament and the whole of society. The second point of the conclusions of that report lays down that the said database will begin to operate after 1 January 2003, although this will not prevent the presentation of indicative figures before that date. While repeating to the Commission that we need that information for the purposes of the mid-term reform of Agenda 2000, I would like the Commission to answer a simple question: on what date will the database in question begin to operate, and when will the indicative figures be presented? The sooner this is, the better will be the work of our committee and the work on the review of Agenda 2000.

Political group: GUE-NGL