GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, it is true that thousands of women and children are battered every year. All of us in France have been shocked by the Trintignant affair this summer, but similar incidents happen on a daily basis. Again in France, a recent news item told how a father stabbed his two children to death. The children were two and three years of age. This story sends a cold shiver down the spine. It highlights the importance of the DAPHNE II Programme. I would like to point out in this regard, Mr President, that it is a matter of regret that the Conference of Presidents decided to programme debates on disability and violence against children at such a late hour. These are issues of great importance and deserve the full attention of all Members of the house. No one would dispute the importance of DAPHNE II. The programme is today widely recognised as an important instrument in combating violence. It also serves as a model of good practice at a European level. Nevertheless, it seems it was conceived initially to bring European added value by complementing measures implemented at a national level. The DAPHNE I Programme will conclude at the end of this year. It has emerged, however, that it was only possible to select 13% of the projects eligible under DAPHNE I. This was because of the increasing number of proposed projects to combat violence. Accordingly, Commissioner, in future I believe we need to target the categories of people who may be concerned more effectively. Greater openness and flexibility may be called for at times. Clearly, all types of violence merit being included within the scope of this text, especially when those most vulnerable are affected. Today, we are talking about children. Tomorrow, it could be old or disabled people. The amendments tabled draw our attention to the importance of prevention and of raising public awareness. They also suggest a need to collate precise statistics in order to assess the extent of the violence. I do not wish to reiterate what my fellow Members have said about the need for appropriate financial arrangements. I also support Amendment No 39, tabled by Mrs Lulling. It highlights the need to provide a support service to help the NGOs in the new Member States to develop their own projects, given that they have not previously benefited from this community funding.

Political group: PPE-DE
I should like to begin by thanking the Council for its answer. I asked this question quite a long time ago, in fact before the Tampere Summit. I think that the questions concerning drugs were dealt with at the Tampere Summit in a useful, more integrated way and with a view to developing a future strategy, especially in regard to combating the drugs trade and adjacent areas such as money laundering. I am satisfied with the answer and can only hope that the process we have now set in motion through the Tampere Summit will continue and result in concrete measures so that we might together be able to tackle criminal behaviour of this kind and the major problem constituted by the drugs trade.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the truly frustrating thing about the fiasco we saw at the IGC in Brussels was that, Poland aside, a solid agreement was closer to being reached than is frequently appreciated. Clever brokerage will still be able to achieve a respectable deal upon the outcome of the work of Mr Giscard d'Estaing and the Convention. The fact that the IGC has failed makes the process and the outcome of the Convention more attractive. The Irish presidency should certainly press forward quickly to seek to complete the IGC. For them to be able to succeed they will need assistance and there is nobody more capable of proffering advice than the Convention itself, which should be recalled in January to consider the full package of presidency proposals that was published on 9 December. Prime Minister Berlusconi says that much has been agreed, but precisely what was agreed? That the financial system of the Union should deprive Parliament of the last word on the budget? Was it agreed in the area of the third pillar that the emergency brake clause would suppress qualified majority voting and codecision? Was qualified majority voting agreed for foreign and security policy, as the presidency proposed? In the 'passerelle' clause, will the blocking of a single parliament be able to paralyse it? Parliament has a need and a right to know the answers to these precise questions.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, freedom of religion is an important indicator that human rights are being enforced: a sort of human rights litmus test. If a country’s human rights situation is poor, it is likely to be seen first among religious groups. It is among these that we can test to see whether human rights concerning freedom of speech, freedom of association and assembly, and the freedom to practise a religion are in place or not. The situation in Vietnam demands the attention of the international community. The EU has to send a clear message that discrimination against, for example, the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, Protestant congregations and dissident groups must cease. These members of communities practising a peaceful religion have suffered deprivation of freedom and house arrest. Furthermore, the original mountain-dwelling minority Christian community has been continually harassed, arrested and imprisoned by the Vietnamese Government. A precondition of economic cooperation between the EU and the communist republic of Vietnam has been a respect for fundamental rights and the principles of democracy. In violating these principles Vietnam is violating and harming itself, and the EU must now clearly indicate that. It is regrettable that criticism of the Vietnamese communist party is automatically viewed there as a threat to the state itself. The practice of fundamental rights such as expressing one’s opinion can even be loosely interpreted as espionage on the basis of specific law on national security. From the point of view of human rights it is also worrying that those accused are considered guilty before commencement of trial, and that trials almost without exception are declared secret. A state ruled by law needs clear and precise laws that guarantee equality and legal certainty for all. In no case can a state ruled by law be built with laws that permit racial, religious or political discrimination.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, I do not understand what all the fuss is about. We have been arguing about Turkey since yesterday. Whilst I have a very high regard for Mrs Sommer, it is she in particular who makes it impossible for me to understand at all why, when we are talking about enlargement, we are suddenly arguing about a question of principle, namely whether Turkey belongs in the European Union or not. We will very soon have an opportunity to deal with this question objectively when we talk about the Oostlander report. It is now a member of your group who is the rapporteur; he is a well-known politician and at any rate not a supporter of Turkey. His report will give us an opportunity to dispute or discuss this subject objectively. When I read Mr Ferber’s motion, Amendment No 7, I increasingly suspect that it is not really about Turkey and the European Union at all. It appears to be about Germany, about German domestic politics. It appears to be about the fact that there will shortly be two important regional elections in Germany, in Hesse and in Lower Saxony. We supposedly have to argue about Turkey in the European Parliament now, but that is the real reason why we are taking the opportunity to do so. That is the main problem. I will be perfectly honest with you. At the moment I have more problems with Turkey than Mrs Sommer does, because I do not think much of Islamists, and I believe they are Islamists, even if nowadays they call themselves something else. I am very curious to know how they intend bringing about everything they have promised. I have tremendous problems with the latest development in particular. All the same, I do not see why we are now misusing this debate for something else. By suddenly producing such artificial debates, we are not actually being honest with the people of the European Union either. If you want, let us do that when we are discussing the Oostlander report, and then people will see that we are capable of discussing openly and honestly. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Thank you for taking on the seventh question. It has been a tough session. In the debate this morning you answered many of the questions in your excellent reply. I should just like ask for your personal view on one issue. The Greek Presidency has been particularly good, in my view, in taking on positive issues in migration such as family unity and now integration. On the issue of the integration of migrants, which you mentioned in your reply, is it your view that this is an issue primarily for Member States, or do you see a valuable coordination role? We sometimes forget that there are many within our European societies who want to see better integration methods employed as well as coordination. Is it your personal view that this is a matter for coordination, or is it primarily for Member States?

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I should like to request that the “no smoking” areas are respected, which was not the case at the last Strasbourg session. As an asthmatic, I had two asthma attacks in this building during the last session. I do not wish to repeat that performance. I am sure there are other people in this building who also have asthma and other lung problems, so I request that all “no smoking” areas are respected. (Loud applause)

Political group: ELDR
I have a question, Mr President. When did the ‘honourable’ Member receive this compromise amendment?

Political group: Verts-ALE
The Group has voted for the Ferri report because we want to see a more effective and coordinated fight against organised crime in the EU through developing EU capabilities complementary to national criminal justice systems. But we opposed paragraph 5 calling for a (European) “Public Prosecutor’s office with jurisdiction over the Member States’ territory as a whole”, implying that the European-level prosecutor would substitute for national prosecuting authorities. We support an EPP working in parallel with national authorities, but not replacing them. We accepted paragraph 11 (b) as meaning an alignment of national definitions of serious offences so that criminals cannot escape justice by exploiting loopholes, but we are clear this does not mean the harmonisation of all national justice systems. We accepted paragraph 8 since we support a sensible rationalisation of working languages for essential cross-border cooperation between professionals such as judges and prosecutors on matters like extradition warrants. Although we supported paragraph 9, we feel the proposal for sanctions showed up weaknesses at the heart of the purely intergovernmental procedures currently in force. There are no means to enforce respect for agreed judicial assistance measures, as there would be if the area fell within Community competence.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I am speaking on account of the Vice-President of the Commission, Mrs de Palacio, and the head of the Italian Government, Mr Berlusconi. I am speaking on account of Mrs de Palacio because, having been elected by Italian pensioners in 1999 to represent them within this Parliament, I have not, I am sorry to say, heard anything to confirm the policy for old people and pensioners that has to date been very poorly implemented by the European Commission. I am speaking on account of the President of the Italian Government Mr Berlusconi because, even though he knows the secret of the elixir of long life and eternal youth, he has not yet imparted this and so we will continue to grow old in Europe. This concerns me greatly because many more pensioners need to hear confirmation that the European Commission, like the European Parliament, is on their side when it comes to combating the rapaciousness of the ministers responsible for the budget in the Member States.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I cannot remain silent for Mr Barón Crespo has, of course, made the most of the opportunity to transform what might actually be well-founded comments into a crusade, which has been on the march ever since the Italian people, of their own free will, elected a new government. Mr Barón Crespo just will not accept this, and the sooner he does the better. I want all the Members who are protesting to understand this too: democracy is this, ladies and gentlemen; every people chooses its government freely and willingly. More specifically, I would stress the absolute falsehood of what Mr Barón Crespo has said. The government and the Italian people are more committed to combating terrorism than anyone. The government and the Italian people have paid the price of terrorist attacks in recent years and have always been in the front line. It is silly to confuse the issue. There is no point in trying to put everything under one roof. We are discussing the possibility of extending the European arrest warrant and it is on this, the extension of the warrant to other offences not initially covered, that we are attempting – and we are confident that agreement will be reached – to find a way of accommodating the different legal traditions and the different legislative frameworks of each country, so that we can be sure that the decisions we take to address the current critical situation of terrorism will also provide us with a properly harmonised Community legislative framework. This, then is the issue, this and no other. Anyone who wants to exploit the tragic events of 11 September to continue with this mad campaign against a legitimately elected government will certainly not find support. I will end by suggesting that Mr Barón Crespo reserve his enthusiasm for more justified causes, and that he stop trying to mislead us by confusing the issues on the table. (Applause from the right)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, with tomorrow’s vote, Parliament will take an initial step towards defining a legislative framework intended to win back consumer confidence in the quality of foodstuffs on the market in the European Union. This goal can only be achieved through a wider strategy such as that outlined in the White Paper on food safety, and we too must make every effort to speed up its practical implementation. This directive will ensure not only that the meat on our tables can be traced back to its origins but also that the consumer is provided with clear, essential information. The mandatory labelling to be affixed to packaging will provide consumers with the all the information they need in order to be able to make an informed decision about what to buy: therefore, a limited amount of clear, effective information needs to be included if we are to help consumers and not make their life more complicated. For this reason and because of the considerable opposition which appears to have arisen to the listing of categories, I have decided to support the amendments put forward by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. In the context of this debate, I feel that I must stress once again the extremely sensitive nature of this proposal, and call upon all the Community institutions to act responsibly in order to make it operative as soon as possible and avoid legal gaps. Parliament has done its part and will continue to do so. Let the Commission and the Council do theirs! Mr Whitehead has already pointed them in the right direction.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the proposal for a European Parliament and Council decision which we are debating must be understood within the broader framework of the Directive on water, since its immediate objective is to limit and reduce the pollution of the European aquatic ecosystem, by classifying 32 substances on the list of priority substances, of which only 11 are included in the legal category of hazardous priority substances. In my opinion, the list of hazardous priority substances appearing in the annex of the Commission’s proposal should not be altered, and it is necessary to keep it as the Commission drew it up. In order to achieve a consensus with regard to classification, cooperation between the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council is, of course, essential. In my opinion, only on the basis of the work carried out by the Commission in this field will we be able to create a system of classification which applies clear and comprehensible criteria for the identification of substances. We are all agreed on the desire to eradicate water pollution as soon as possible and to this end we must implement a double strategy: in the international field, the ratification of international commitments, especially the OSPAR and COMMPS conventions, although we do not consider it appropriate to expressly mention these agreements in the text of the proposal; at the level of the Member States, to guarantee that the Commission be provided with the necessary means for it to have exact knowledge of the situation of our water masses, so that it can monitor, in a detailed and constant way, the comparable situation between Member States in terms of the development of the quality of our waters. Furthermore, it is important to encourage the future Member States of the Union to combat pollution by taking on board the European objectives, especially those countries which share river basins with the European Union. Finally, I would like to highlight the exceptional circumstances of certain substances, such as Cadmium and Mercury, whose complete eradication is not possible at the moment, as indicated in Amendment No 2 of the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we must welcome the Commission’s decision to address the problem of undeclared work and I too should like to congratulate the rapporteur on managing to clarify certain aspects of such a complex issue. It is precisely because this is such a crucial issue that I should like to make two comments. It is true that this is not just some sub-issue; it is a central issue which impacts on the efficiency of individual policies in the taxation, insurance and employment sectors. With the rapid spread of undeclared work in industrialised countries, this phenomenon has ceased to be a typical feature of third world countries, for which the International Labour Organisation several decades ago coined the term “informal sector”, which is not the same as “black” or illicit work. That is a mistake which I would ask the Commission to take into account. What we are witnessing, in fact, is the emergence of two productive systems and two social models. One in which producers operate by analysing the responsibilities and costs imposed by the system and another in which they operate to the detriment of the former and society as a whole. What we must understand is that the future success of European initiatives in the employment, insurance and tax sectors depends on the way in which this issue is resolved; in other words, this issue is of equal importance to employers, workers and the rest of society. Secondly, I think that the general reference to undeclared work or to certain general categories is the weak link in the approach to the problem: we all know that undeclared work cannot be dealt with as a single phenomenon and needs a policy which is differentiated by sector and sub-sector, depending on the people supplying it and the nature of the individual problem. The various categories of people which supply it, such as immigrants, minorities, children, women, moonlighters etc. cannot all be dealt with in the same way. There is a thriving undeclared sector and there are instances which only partially constitute undeclared work. Then there is the matter of bogus self-employment and certain new forms of employment. All these problems require innovative solutions; bans are not enough.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, while welcoming Commissioner Kinnock to the House I respectfully request a full explanation for Commissioner Prodi's absence from the House this morning.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we would like to highlight just a few points. Firstly, on behalf of our group, I would like to say that we support the proposal which Mr Caveri has already put forward to the Commission and which he is laying before plenary, which picks up what Parliament had already specified at first reading. There are just a few points to highlight: the first reminds us of the thorny question, the contradiction that we are considering today. This is a derogation scheme – and is therefore exceptional and temporary – which we are being asked to extend for the second time. This second extension demonstrates the flexibility and willingness, the good political sense of Parliament, of the entire Parliament. As for my second point, Mr President, I would like to stress that there have been attempts in this debate to establish, often surreptitiously, a false distinction between those who defend nature and those who pollute. This is a false distinction. There is a large majority which is mindful of the interests and needs of each Member State, but it is a large majority which acknowledges the need to gradually dismantle, over the coming years, this derogation scheme, the ecopoints system, and try to meet this objective by encouraging the use of increasingly less polluting vehicles, but which also knows that we cannot expect all European hauliers to radically modify their motor vehicles in a few months. Another important point is that we considered it necessary to prevent a further derogation for particularly tolerant treatment being offered to certain countries – Greece and Portugal – in this case on the proposal of the Council. I will not add anything else, Mr President, apart from the fact that this lengthy debate, these lengthy discussions, where we have often been forced to repeat and go back over concepts, reasoning and even inflexible positions which were always the same, has been an important test, more for each of us than for Parliament: a difficult test because it involved – something which is not uncommon but, in this case, may have been more marked – casting off our civil clothing, that of the citizen of one Member State, which is a uniform but which, in Parliament, is often constricting, in order to put on the highly dignified and decorous attire of a Member of the European Parliament who must act, respond and intervene on behalf of the whole Parliament. In this regard, the Caveri report is a perfect response to this request for dignity which Parliament made of its rapporteur, in that it is a report that serves, first and foremost, the interests of Europeans.

Political group: PSE