GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would firstly like to welcome the information from the President-in-Office of the Council on the progress made in relation to measures for combating terrorism and the arrest warrant. Mr President, justice is a key word on the European and international stages following 11 September. The creation of a European area of justice is the best contribution the Union could offer at this time. We are not talking about a European criminal code; that is not what we want. Neither are we talking about establishing emergency laws. We are talking about something more fundamental: mutual trust between Member States and between their legitimate judicial systems. Mr Cappato, I sincerely believe that the proposals which the Commissioner, Mr Vitorino, produced calmly and at the request of this House, and which are of the high quality we normally expect from the Commissioner, deserve our support and must be approved by the Justice and Home Affairs Council. In no way will they violate the freedom and rights of the citizens. On the contrary, they protect them, making justice more efficient and putting judicial cooperation in the hands of judges, and not of governments, within the European Union. I am grateful for the information on the elimination of double incrimination, because – as the Chairman of my group, Mr Barón, said – this House feels that the effort we make to keep up with circumstances is not always reflected in the Council. We would also be grateful for more precise information on the debates in the Justice and Home Affairs Council and for broader involvement by Parliament. In this respect, given the speeding up of certain procedures, I wonder, Mr President, if this is not the moment to move cooperation in the criminal field to the first pillar. I am slightly more sceptical about what has been said about progress on immigration and asylum in the Union. I believe that not even the greatest will in the world would allow a positive assessment of this issue at Laeken. There is just one proposal approved by the Council which may be of use today. Why do we not implement the measures laid down in that one measure adopted in the Directive on the temporary protection of displaced persons? It seems to me that the situation of the borders of Afghanistan and support for the refugees and the neighbouring countries, issues which the European Union has to deal with, provide us with a perfect opportunity to test this directive, to test the solidarity between the Member States in the European Refugee Fund and to implement what is laid down in it.

Political group: PSE
It is clear from the debates once again that there is still considerable disagreement in the Union about the length of the transitional period, the level of the quotas and the system for granting licences. The vote on the Dary report has demonstrated once again that the European Parliament does not respect the internationally agreed trading rules. It is unacceptable that in the Dary report again a transitional period of ten years is proposed, without putting a definitive ruling first. Taking account of the internationally agreed trading rules within the WTO, the GATT Agreement and the internal market strategy of the European Union, we should be arguing in favour of introducing a tariff only system as quickly as possible. We could possibly agree provisionally on a tariff quota ruling that is WTO compliant, but on condition that a date is specified on which the tariff only system will be introduced. Belgium has always argued in favour of the immediate adaptation of the banana regime to comply with the WTO, but with a concession to the ACP countries. Preference should indeed be given to a tariff only system because this option respects the trading flows best and is most clearly WTO compliant.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, on 14 November in this very Chamber I tabled a report – which Parliament approved – on behalf of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs on a French initiative with a view to adopting a Convention on improving mutual assistance in criminal matters. Today the Council is consulting us once again, this time on a new text of a draft protocol. Following the Extraordinary European Council meeting of 21 September, which was devoted to the fight against terrorism, we are called on to make a decision on this as a matter of urgency. Obviously I understand that current circumstances are impelling the European Union to strengthen cooperation as quickly as possible in the fight against terrorism. Nevertheless, I should like to make a number of comments. I will start by expressing my regret that the Council did not accept the amendment which we proposed and which sought to extend the non-invocability of professional secrecy to commercial activities and the financial advice activities of lawyers and other members of regulated legal professions. I do actually still believe that this provision is essential to the effectiveness of judicial cooperation to combat money laundering. I also regret the fact that the Council did not reach an agreement on dual criminal liability. Having said this, I see that the text of the protocol contains much more precise provisions on monitoring banking transactions. I also note with interest that in the future it will be Eurojust which will play a major role in ensuring that the mutual assistance system works smoothly. Having made these comments, I can of course go along with the Commission and accept that the European Parliament should, in this exceptional case – without a report and in accordance with the urgent procedure – today approve the text which is before it. (Parliament agreed to urgent procedure) The item will be added to Thursday’s voting time.(2)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Söderman, Commissioner Liikanen and the rapporteurs of the two major reports tabled on behalf of the Committee on Petitions. I would like, in particular, to thank the European Ombudsman, together with whom we have witnessed within the Committee on Petitions a fruitful experimental encounter between different legal traditions, with progress made towards the achievement of major goals in terms of the development of procedures to implement the right of petition and make it a reality, with reflection on the Interinstitutional Agreement and, most importantly, as far as the Ombudsman is concerned, with the development of the network, with the realisation on the part of the regions of Europe of the essential nature of the relationship with the citizens which is established through the regional ombudsmen. I feel that this work must continue because the right of petition is related to the citizens’ awareness of their European citizenship. The more the citizens become aware – and they are becoming aware – of their European citizenship, the more they enter into dialogue with the European institutions. While many Members have focused on the way that petitions can contribute to the supervision of the European institutions, I would like to emphasise precisely the relationship of trust created between the citizens and the European institutions through the right of petition, and, therefore, the recognition of these European institutions, whose competence is wider than that of district, provincial, regional or State bodies. We, the Committee on Petitions, are continuing this process to make the right of petition efficient and effective, and we associate the initiative with the Perry-Kessler report, which for us was fundamental and in which we established points which we are gradually endeavouring to implement. . We are currently attempting to create a relationship between the Parliamentary committees, for they have to be aware of what the citizens are saying in their petitions so as to be able to decide whether to fill a legislative gap or whether to amend or reinterpret a directive. That is why we requested and received own-initiative reports, precisely in order to illustrate the citizens’ problems. Lastly, I would point out that the Convention on the Future of Europe is in progress, working towards drawing up a constitutional treaty. In view of that, this is an important opportunity, particularly to ensure that greater importance is attached to the views of the European citizens.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, even though, in my opinion, considerable elements are missing from this resolution, it is largely balanced, and so I voted in favour of it. First of all, I believe that no solution to the Kosovo problem can be found without first making clear decisions as to the future of Kosovo. If we do not define the status that we want to give it, then the standards cannot be achieved. To this end, I believe that the route taken to date is wrong. Secondly, I think that the United Nations Transitional Administration has discredited itself so much that it should be replaced there by a European civilian administration, which could be better controlled and which would – if it avoids the mistakes that UNMIK (United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo ) made – enjoy more respect. The third and final point that I wanted to raise is that it is being said that Kosovo-Albanian leaders were insufficiently unequivocal in condemning the riots, but they did do so, and emphatically. President Rugova declared a day of national mourning for both nationalities, whilst the Serbian Prime Minister marched at the head of a demonstration in Belgrade where there were calls to ‘kill the Albanians!’

Political group: PPE-DE
I belong to the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport which, once again, has not been asked to speak on an issue which not only involves legal questions, but should also be subject to consensus in other respects. The complexity which exists in Europe in relation to the recognition of qualifications gives rise to documents such as this, which, despite the efforts of Parliament and the Commission itself, is a real ‘collage’. This document is a ‘collage’ in the sense that, although it tries to remedy situations which are unjust, those people with most power, such as the doctors’ ‘lobby’, which has been very active, have managed to resolve their situation. Many other people, however, have travelled, have acquired academic qualifications, have trained professionally and have still not had their qualifications recognised and therefore have no rights. I believe, and in this respect I am sorry to disagree with Mr Wieland, despite the fact that he has done such good work, that this is a very simple problem when looked at from the point of view of Roman law and its notion of the right of individuals. All individuals have the right for their studies to be recognised. These days we are always talking about mobility. We give grants so that people may have mobility, but then we do not recognise what has been studied with those grants. We talk of the Europe of research and a Europe of knowledge and then we do not recognise, out of pure fear or pure vested interests, anything that people do outside of their own countries. Therefore, I wish now to ask that we question this directive, so that the recognition of the medical qualifications may be extended to many other qualifications, because it seems to me to be truly unjust that this is not the case, and that a country is unable to pass on what it knows to another country. The result is that a lot of knowledge is confined to certain areas, in certain universities and in certain companies. If recognition were to be extended, Europe could enjoy the full right to the transfer of knowledge and that would be a real innovation. Therefore, as representative of the Culture Committee in this case, I ask that this recognition be extended and that the road be opened to greater recognition of equivalence.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I hope that you will not be any more strict with me than with other Members. Nevertheless, I shall try to keep within my allotted speaking time. What are the main concerns highlighted by this report? I think that Mrs Ferreira, who has done some very serious work on this subject, has stated them quite correctly. I should therefore like to give you my opinion on what seem to me to be the main points, starting with the addition to the list of sweeteners of a new sweetener called sucralose, and I should like to draw your attention to the fact that sucralose is no ordinary substance. It is an organochlorine substance obtained by the conversion of sugar with the addition of three atoms of chlorine. I would point out to you that organochlorines are substances which generally give rise to problems regarding the environment and even health. I am astonished, therefore, at a proposal which seems to treat as something quite commonplace the inclusion of this new sweetener in the list of approved sweeteners. In addition to that remark, I would also point out that the ADI, or acceptable daily intake, which is being proposed for this sweetener, is three times higher than the one proposed by the US Food and Drug Administration. Consequently it seems to me that there are enough unknown factors regarding this new sweetener to justify our not agreeing to allow it to be added to the list of approved substances. My second point refers to aspartame. Despite the considerations put forward by Mr Bowis, I share the rapporteur’s view that Amendment No 4 is entirely justified. A re-evaluation of aspartame does not seem to be in the least embarrassing. It would not call into question the honesty of what was done previously. It would simply show that knowledge can develop and that that development sometimes leads us to question the authorisations that were given previously. Personally, therefore, I believe that this proposal is correct. My third point concerns cyclamates. On this subject, the European Commission is proposing to amend the maximum level for use in water-based drinks. It would be reduced from 400 mg/l to 350 mg/l. mg/l. Mrs Ferreira’s proposal is more ambitious, and I believe that she is right. However, it seems to me that, given the role played by cyclamates, and given that they are prohibited, or at least not approved, in the United States, we should ask ourselves about the possible risks posed by these sweeteners. I would draw Members’ attention to the fact that sweeteners, and therefore cyclamates, are often present in drinks or other products widely consumed by young children, so that the acceptable daily intake for this type of sweetener is easily exceeded. Consequently it seems to me desirable that we should be even more ambitious and I hope that we shall support Mrs Schörling’s amendment, which proposes that the maximum level should be fixed at 100 mg/l. I believe that this is a realistic proposal.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, it seems that the Commission is happy to ignore the requests of the Council and this Parliament – the former clearly expressed at the Council of Ministers of October 1997 – and delay the work on the guidelines for the negotiation of the fisheries agreements. The protocol with Guinea-Conakry is a good example. We expected the payment quota for shipowners to be increased, but it is intolerable that, in the Council working groups, the Commission is prepared to describe that increase as light, given that it means an ever-greater sacrifice for the fleet and that – I repeat – in the agreements with the northern countries, shipowners do not pay a penny. Furthermore, the Commission has been prepared to ignore the principle of relative stability by casually removing from the Community fleet fishing rights that have been acquired in accordance with that principle. The principle of relative stability is either sacred or it is not, and it cannot be untouchable in Community waters when the complete opposite is the case in the fisheries agreements with the southern countries. The Commission says that it has taken away Spain’s allowances for fishing cephalopods because it did not fully utilise them during the last protocol, and it grants them to countries which had never fished there. That is all very well. I have always argued for the total exploitation of the fishing rights granted, but in all waters, not just in relation to the agreements with the southern countries. In the agreements with the northern countries they are completely under-exploited and there is no way that the fleets with the greatest interest in fishing there can do so. Why do these differences exist? Could you please explain this once and for all. Furthermore, what makes the Commission think that, because it did not utilise the fishing allowances during the previous protocol, it will not do so during this one, given that its cephalopod-fishing fleet which was fishing in Morocco has been out of action for nine months and there is no solution in sight? Mr President, all of this illustrates the mental and physical chaos of our Community fishing authorities, and it will only be resolved when the guidelines which I referred to earlier are established in a clear and agreed way.

Political group: PPE-DE
I think that today we can welcome the vision of those who established the EBRD, Jacques Attali (even though subsequently his management was called into question) and François Mitterrand. We can also welcome the political agreement of the French and German governments, which was crucial to completing the project. Now we have a great regional development bank and today we congratulate Mr Lemierre and the Bank’s staff. I am entirely in agreement with my colleague and friend Mr Markov, and will just raise some questions for the future. First of all, should the original political objective not be renewed? For the CIS countries, this objective is still to promote transition to a market economy. However, in the case of the countries involved in enlargement, the transition is well underway and in some cases completed, and for them the objective is now catching up, development and cohesion, so that they can be fully integrated. Secondly, the Bank does not operate as an ordinary commercial bank. It gives priority to SMEs, helps local banks, takes on responsibilities in terms of nuclear safety, takes risks, in short, it serves the public interest. Should these specific qualities not be consolidated at a time when the Union is working on a funding system focused on the internal market? Are there not risks of contradiction there? It is true that the Bank has a triple A rating, but that is linked to budgetary support, which we must guarantee. Are there not also problems in terms of achieving a balance between profit-making and loss-making projects? Finally, how can we consolidate the way that it complements public aid and the EIB? Thirdly, does the EBRD not have a particular role to play in order to promote social responsibility among companies and market operators? Its principle of additional funding is very good and provides it with a lever with which to encourage public/private partnerships. Fourthly, the EBRD can make a genuine contribution to establishing good governance of the public institutions of the countries concerned, in particular by seeking to involve civil society and the needs of the populations. Could it not begin to evaluate that experience by country and group of countries and put its ideas for the future to us?

Political group: GUE-NGL
President Prodi, allow me to express my apprehension and alarm at the line taken in the Work Programme for 2000, a year which you described as a decisive year, and not only because of the lack of genuinely innovative proposals contained therein. No, what gives real cause for concern is the semi-ideological approach of this Work Programme, its self-subordinating, unquestioning adoption of the American model, that introverted, robotic model of development which disturbs the sleep even of insiders such as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan pan. This programme is devoid of any autonomous vision of the Europe of today and tomorrow, making no contrast between the two, and it is impervious, if not blind, to elements which are reawakening the conscience of many of your European colleagues: seminal events such as those in Seattle, which you are appear to be determined to see repeated at all costs, or the repeated arrogant vetoes imposed by Executive Board on the candidates for the Managing Directorship of the International Monetary Fund, which have collapsed only in the past few hours under European pressure for the appointment of Mr Horst Köhler. Faced with the American steamroller, you commit yourself to doing your utmost to subdue and eliminate transatlantic disputes, in the name of a hypothetical partnership between the global superpower and a Europe afflicted with lack of vision, purposefully induced by incessant lobbying from quarters such as the RT. I do not have time to dwell on the other elusive, moderate – too moderate – features of your programme: the environment, health, justice, transport, security, the reckless enlargement of the Union which provoked criticism from your predecessor, Jacques Delors, the development of the on-line economy, which is one of the many universal remedies for unemployment, and the protection of citizen consumers rather than consumer citizens. President Prodi, a friendly word of advice. We live in ‘the best of all possible worlds’: threatening clouds of stars and stripes are filling the skies of Europe. In the words of Charles de Gaulle to General Leclerc, when he had just liberated this beautiful city of Strasbourg: Mr Prodi, préparez votre défense, c'est la défense de l'Europe.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, on behalf of the Group of the , I should like to echo your words of sympathy with, and admiration for, but especially of sympathy with, the relatives of Martin Carpena. Any assault within Europe involving innocent people is an assault on Europe itself, on its democratic values, on the belief that via democratic means, the necessary changes can yet be made in a peaceful and tolerant manner, thus enabling people to live happier lives in a structured society. I therefore hope that all countries will join forces even more emphatically than in the past in order to find these paths of peace and dialogue and that nobody will try to seek political gain from such attacks. Mrs Carpena, relatives, friends and people from Malaga, as well as people from so many other places where the death toll has risen to more than a thousand, we feel for you and we should more than anything like to see an end to these acts of terrorism This is why we are opposed to polarisation. We invite all those who seek peaceful change to gather around the negotiating table. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would say only this to the lady from the of this House: the European Union is completely neutral as regards privatisation, but what is a matter of historical record is that employees' rights were never more trampled on than in the states in which everything was nationalised. That is the lesson of the 20th Century! (Applause from the right)

Political group: PPE-DE