GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would like to thank Mrs Paulsen for all the work she has done to come to this complex compromise. Whilst welcoming the animal welfare aspect of this proposal, I agree with Mrs Klaß that maybe we are rushing a little and we need time to look at every aspect of this rather complex deal. I am also worried that once again we may be coming up against the law of unintended consequences. You may recall that when the original slaughterhouse regulations came forward, the UK Government got hold of them and goldplated them. This resulted in very high costs for some small slaughterhouses which, faced with those costs, closed. That then resulted in animals having to travel very large distances to slaughterhouses. As regards charges, in the case of this particular proposal, whilst it is true that different charges being levied in different countries is a distortion of the free market, common charges would not reflect the differences in cost of inspections in, for example, Lithuania as opposed to Germany. We now seem to have a balance where the cost will reflect the actual cost of those inspections, but it is possible that there will be loopholes, particularly in the way that some countries define 'small operators'. Yes, I support exemptions for small operators, but I can see how some countries that want to subsidise production in certain remote areas would use that definition. Secondly, on the issue of 'naming and shaming', nobody could be against freedom of information – we are all in favour of transparency and openness – and not to be in favour of it would be to support secrecy. We need to be careful, for example, to look at the situation in the UK, where if you are prosecuted you appear in the paper, but if minor infringements are discovered, such as a cracked tile in a slaughterhouse or a piece of mouse dirt in a restaurant, this does not appear on the front page of the local newspaper. In conclusion, whilst I appreciate the good intentions, we need to look at this more carefully to make sure that we do not once again come up against the law of unintended consequences.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, when a speech is made before a parliament, silence might be too much to expect; I think we can allow a gentle hum of voices. Ladies and gentlemen, the report and proposal for a decision that I am presenting and briefly explaining on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs concerns the implementation of the interinstitutional agreement on the methods used to investigate fraud. We are tabling this report at the specific request of the President of the European Parliament, taking fully into account the opinion of the Committee on Budgetary Control. I would like to remind you of the facts that are, actually, very simple. On 6 May 1999, the European Parliament approved this interinstitutional agreement with its own vote in plenary session. On 25 May 1999, the agreement was signed by the President of the European Parliament – Mr Gil-Robles, the President of the Council and the President of the Commission. The Council and the Commission adopted, on 25 May and 2 June respectively, the necessary decisions under their competence concerning the implementation of the agreement within those institutions. We are somewhat late in implementing this agreement, which can, of course, be explained by the hiatus caused by the elections and the start of the new Parliament’s work. We must proceed, however, without further delay in order to avoid any ambiguity regarding our desire to cooperate fully in the more correct and rigorous way fraud will be investigated. In fact it means inserting, in accordance with Rule 186(C) of the Rules of Procedure, a very short new rule – 9(C) – which will allow an annex containing the text of the interinstitutional agreement to be included, in which the necessary technical alterations with regard to our institution’s competences have been introduced. To avoid any ambiguity regarding the respective functions and competences of an institution such as the European Parliament and a unit such as OLAF, I would like to stress, Madam President, that both Recital 5 and Article 1(2) state unequivocally that the provisions on privileges and immunity of the Treaties in general, and of the Protocol in particular, will take precedence and will be fully complied with. I would like to add that because concern had been expressed about Article 2 in particular, during the debate of 14 October in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, all of us in the committee agreed on an amendment which now appears as the last paragraph of Article 2 and says: ‘This article applies without prejudice to confidentiality requirements laid down in law or in the European Parliament’s Rule of Procedure.” I therefore believe, ladies and gentlemen, that this text can be adopted without any reservations, especially because the Committee on Constitutional Affairs has unanimously adopted this report and proposal for a decision.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I have to say, the liberal group did wrestle with this topic to some degree, and has problems with the Commission proposal. The question is, how motherly should the European Union be in the quest to protect itself from its subjects? Indeed, we can see major differences compared to the control of tobacco. Tobacco is always harmful, whereas alcohol is not, most of the time. The addictive aspects are completely different. Tobacco is immediately addictive, alcohol is not. Also, the seriousness of the tobacco issue is of a completely different order from that of alcohol. Alcohol does create problems, and sometimes they can be harrowing. Just think of the road victims caused by alcohol abuse, which Mrs Malliori mentioned a moment ago, or the role of alcohol in domestic violence. However, the issues are first and foremost of a criminal nature and, as such, they belong with the national, not the European, legislator. This is also preferable for reasons of content. The cultural differences in this area are enormous, and a legislator who is closer to the citizen can therefore act more effectively, and, in the final analysis, effectiveness is what it is all about. In addition, in the proposals, the differences between justified alcohol consumption and alcohol abuse have been watered down, if you will excuse the pun. In that respect, we believe that the present proposals are to some extent missing the mark. We also vehemently object to the patronising overtones of many of the amendments, in particular. We identified much more with the rapporteur’s original report, on which we should like to congratulate her. To the Member States, I would like to say the following: be as strict as you like in terms of controlling alcohol abuse, and especially alcohol abuse among young people, but do not hide behind the European Union and behind what you are about to arrange amongst yourselves behind closed doors in the Health Council. We do recognise the fact that the issue of alcohol has a European, cross-border dimension, although it is not evident from these proposals. These predominantly focus on the ingredients of alcohol products. We believe that European legislation in the field of labelling should at least be considered or examined. This could then include the possibility of using warning labels, as is done in the United States, for example, at least as long as it can be proven that these warning labels serve a purpose. It could also incorporate the issue of advertising. Secondly, the proposals deal with taxes, excise, tariffs and such like. The differences in this field within the Union are enormous. We wonder about the internal market implications this has, as well as the health implications. That is why my group has tabled an amendment on both scores.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Mrs de Palacio, it is gratifying that the Commission is addressing Europe’s transport problems seriously. Reducing deaths on the road by 50% is in particular an aim that deserves all our support. There is no good reason why anyone at all should die on the roads. Congestion in Central Europe is also a big problem, while in the peripheral regions the worry is safeguarding links with the European markets. As well as the many good proposals, the White Paper unfortunately contains seriously mistaken evaluations. The Commission wants to break the link between economic growth and transport growth. That will not be possible, although we can certainly bring economic growth to a halt. By easing transport problems we can, without anxiety, allow traffic to increase. New vehicles will produce up to 90% fewer emissions than those manufactured before 1970. This is not realised if you only take a blinkered view of the matter. By abolishing all car registration taxes in Europe and lowering car tax for clean cars we will be able to improve the state of the environment radically. Another odd proposal is that of freezing the share of the market enjoyed by the different transport modes at 1998 levels. This is something we might expect from the old Soviet Union’s Politburo, but it weakens the Commission’s authority very much indeed. It would be nonsensical to set out to forcibly steer the market share balance in the direction of targets that have been decided in an ivory tower. We should instead create an equitable situation for competition for all modes of transport. Let the market itself then decide the natural balance for transport modes. The third error relates to the harmonisation of labour and social legislation. Only when it is a question of transport safety is the harmonisation of maximum transportation times appropriate, and then it will be on the condition that the costs and benefits have been closely looked at. If we make these three mistakes we will be further than ever away from a dynamic Europe. The disintegration of the Soviet Union was the result of its own impossible situation, but our splendid European project deserves better. Our rigid economy is in need of care, and our self-inflicted sickness is actually not just an imaginary one. Unfortunately, the Commissioner’s medicine seems as if, dare I say so, it had been bought in a bazaar. Would it not be about time we stopped talking about the European model and sought recipes for success among those who are getting along best?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur warmly on the excellent way in which he has handled this piece of work. It was adopted unanimously in committee and, thanks to his adept handling of the matter, it seems set to be finalised through an informal conciliation under the Spanish presidency. That, as he has said, depends upon a clear commitment from the Commission that a declaration will be included in that informal conciliation to cover the situation of economically dependent or subordinate workers – not a very elegant description, but we all know which workers are meant. We all know the problem: full-time permanent workers, the core staff in many enterprises around the European Union, are becoming less and less numerous, with concentric circles of less formal employment relationships surrounding that core. The current directive will extend insolvency protection to part-time and fixed-term contract workers, but what about temporary agency workers? What about self-employed workers who are in a position similar to employees but who do not have an employment contract? What about workers working zero-hour contracts which are becoming more popular in certain parts of the European Union? This is all part of a broad approach which, for us, is about balancing flexibility for work places, enterprises, and a degree of security for the workers working within and moving between those enterprises. We, in the Group, firmly believe that only in that way will all working people embrace the process of change. Otherwise a barrier will be put in the way of that process of change. The recent agreement on a directive on working time for long-distance drivers, which will include self-employed workers, shows us a possible way forward. The Commission, as the rapporteur has said, must commit itself to completing the study it has under way, a joint hearing with Parliament and then legislative or other action to follow that hearing. For us as well this is about an overall proactive and socially responsible approach to the management of industrial change. We in the Group have called since the beginning of this mandate for a modernisation of the law governing transfers and insolvency and, indeed, consultation in the form of the European Works Council Directive. We hope that the remaining elements of those changes will be introduced as soon as possible by the Commission. I had a recent example in my own constituency where a company called Viasystems registered offshore before declaring insolvency, thereby avoiding the application of certain aspects of insolvency law. The subsequent Phoenix company which arose from the wreckage through a management buy-out shed over 500 jobs. Those people were made redundant, some of them with more than 30 years' pension and other entitlements which they lost completely. Clearly we still have a lot of work to do. This is a step in the right direction.

Political group: PSE
Once again, Mr President, Commissioner, tragic events have forced our attention on Turkey, following yet another earthquake recently. I think we owe it to our neighbour to provide every type of assistance, financial, humanitarian and, I would add Commissioner, long-term assistance. Our resolution says exactly what we are calling for and there is no need for me to comment on it. What I would like to say is that, if you take a long-term view of the problem, because earthquakes are endemic in this area, you will soon see that we do not have a practical policy for earthquakes, a damage-limitation policy, a policy on repairs, assistance, anti-earthquake measures to protect us, the European Union and all its neighbouring countries, including of course Turkey. However, we do have the means and the centres and the researchers and I wonder, Commissioner, if we are using them properly. This is not the first time we have discussed this question and I should like to take advantage of this unfortunate incident to raise it once again.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I am sorry to draw your attention back to more prosaic matters, but politics can also be affected by matters of organisation. I would point out that, for the first time, the September Parliamentary part-session is going to coincide with the Council of Europe meeting and, as a result, many of the Members have already been refused hotel accommodation. I would ask you, Mr President, to discuss the organisation of this part-session with your colleagues or else many Members will not be able to stay long enough in Strasbourg to follow the work and attend the sittings.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, if we want the people of Europe to feel an attachment to the European Union, then the EU must show solidarity with its people when they are struck by misfortune, as in the south of France. In the night of 12 to 13 November, this region experienced rain and floods which have caused deaths and devastated the daily life, economy and agriculture of the region. As soon as these events occurred, I wanted this House to show its solidarity with the victims by tabling a motion for a resolution on urgent subjects on 15 November. As the Rules of Procedure unnecessarily delayed this, I have joined my motion to those tabled in this sitting on the same subject by other groups. I hope that this motion gains a firm following. I ask the Commission to examine the measures which could assist the people of Tarn, Aude, Pyrénées-Orientales and Hérault. In particular, the EU aid allocation zoning should take account of this situation. In the future I will, of course, vote for motions for resolutions on urgent subjects tabled by my fellow Members when similar events occur. Obviously, I hope that these are few and far between but, in each case, it seems essential that we, as the elected representatives of the people of Europe, should show our solidarity and our humanity.

Political group: PPE-DE
Parliament has just voted for a resolution on the Nice Summit in which: 1 – It does not deal clearly or in depth with any of the issues in which there were major divergences among the Member States in the work leading up to the IGC, leaving all the main Amsterdam left-overs without any prospects even now. Thus Parliament waives its right to influence, shuts its mouth and remains silent for the sake of party, State and government loyalties, forgetting its obligations to the people. 2 – Despite everything, it ensures an advantage – not as tiny as it might seem – for the less populous States, which can always take advantage of Parliament’s silence at the choices of those States that seek to strengthen their institutional power in all the Community bodies. From this standpoint, the large States are blocked by the rest and cannot drag Parliament into supporting their views, using it against us in the future architecture of the institutions. 3 – It demonstrates that the united efforts of the small countries’ delegations have succeeded in drawing a political trump card from the others in next week’s debates in Nice. Although we have not won, we have achieved a result in this resolution, which does not leave us defeated on the battlefield. Sometimes silence is a victory... 4 – This explains why, as silence is not innocent, it can justify a vote in favour.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, when I am in Turkey, I am always told that the European Parliament is Turkey's enemy. Here today, we have made it clear that this accusation is untrue. The objective debate about Turkey, the speeches, the regulation, or at least the Commission's proposed regulation, and the rapporteur's report have in fact shown that the European Parliament is very keen to help Turkey and make it clear that there is absolutely no desire for hostility; instead, together with the people of Turkey, we want to welcome Turkey as a democratic country in the European Union one day, and are developing sensible proposals to this end. And here today, our colleagues from the Turkish Parliament are listening to us and following the debate. I would like to tell them something: we have no great interest in constantly talking about what is wrong in Turkey, but let me explain why we express criticism when they exercise their mandate in Turkey. We are politicians, and we rightly ask about the politicians. I have here a quote from a Turkish newspaper, not a Kurdish organisation's newspaper, and with your permission, I would like to read you an excerpt. It says, 'Serdar Tanis, Chairman of HAP in Silopi, and Ebubekir Deniz, HADEP secretary, have disappeared. On 25 January, they were summoned by the gendarmerie to the gendarmerie station in Silopi and have not been seen since.' I think this is our problem. If this type of thing occurs again and again in Turkey and nothing is done about it, people will have to accept that our criticism is justified. Then they will have to admit that we are right to adopt a highly critical approach to the Turkish issue. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the oral amendment consists of a social measure. In paragraph 14, letter s, where it refers to attention to the care needs of those in rural communities, I would add ‘‘and mountain communities’’. This is also in honour of the International Year of Mountains and the many mountains we have in Europe. (The President established that there were no objections to the oral amendment) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Joint motion for a resolution(1) on Afghanistan, one year after the Bonn Agreement (Parliament adopted the joint resolution) ***

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the three times that Mr Posselt stood up I did not respond, but on the fourth occasion I should very much like to do so, because we all know that this is not really a question of how long the debates here last. Mr Posselt is concerned about whether Strasbourg will remain the meeting place of the European Parliament. In the first place it seems important to me that the democratically taken decisions of this assembly are respected. It also seems important to me that those who find it so terribly important that we continue to meet in Strasbourg actually turn up. As you know, most of the French and German Members are the greatest advocates of this assembly in Strasbourg, but they are not present at the moment. This is in contrast to those who would like to meet in Brussels.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Supplementary and Amending Budget makes pitiful reading. It literally means that EUR 700 million in EU funds is to go up in smoke, as this is the amount to be spent on beef that is at risk and that will have to be destroyed. The worst thing about all this is, however, that the BSE crisis is seriously threatening the equilibrium of the EU budget. Some of the expenditure in this supplementary budget is being financed on the rather optimistic supposition that considerable savings are to be had from the euro-dollar exchange rate. This is probably mostly wishful thinking. But the most serious aspect of the issue is that the margin for the Financial Perspective is in danger of being used up entirely. After the proposal has gone through, the margin will only be EUR 506 million, or just over 1% of the total amount in that category. Nevertheless, we may assume with a degree of certainty that the demand for beef exported outside the EU will rocket. Consumption has dropped in many of the large countries, which is reflected in increased stocks. As, at least for a few years, we can expect consumption to fall permanently, we should aim to release these stocks for export. Within the framework of the current Financial Perspective, there is no longer any scope for doing this. As a result, there is fear that other agricultural expenditure will be cut. That might well mean a cut in income for individual farmers, in other words, individual farmers will have to pay for the crisis. We have to remember that the BSE crisis was not caused by farmers. They used the legally approved feed in good faith, although it turned out to be toxic. For that reason, we all have to share the responsibility and not put the burden of that responsibility on one part of the population. I am in favour of dividing the costs in half.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, according to the Russian Constitution, the journalist Grigory Pasko would have rendered himself liable to punishment if he had withheld information on environmental issues or environmental disasters which might have endangered human life. That is what is stated in Articles 41 and 42, brilliant as they are, of the Russian Constitution. That, however, is something he did not do. On the contrary, he has continuously reported on the way in which the Russian Pacific fleet dumps nuclear waste and redundant weapons in the Pacific and so gives rise to an environmental disaster in the making. For having done so, he has been found guilty of high treason by a Russian military court and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. Everything took place behind closed doors, and seventy journalists were expelled from the courtroom. Last month, his sentence was confirmed by the Military Collegium of the Russian Supreme Court in Moscow. It is deeply tragic for Grigory Pasko, and it is deeply tragic in terms of the situation in Russia where democracy and human rights are concerned. It shows that, in Russia, these are very hard times when it comes to freedom of expression and the principles upon which our European Union is based. This Parliament must clearly express our repudiation of laws and sentences which restrict the freedom of the press, and we must, here in Parliament, call upon the Council to give expression to our serious concern in the forthcoming meetings between the EU and Russia. The EU supports Russia economically and, in that connection, the Commission must be very careful that the projects we support comply with our demands for press freedom and the independence of the media and the courts.

Political group: ELDR