GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, international estimates indicate that traffickers in human beings transport up to 700 000 people every year, mainly women and children. Every year, 120 000 women and children are lured into the European Union from the countries of Central and Eastern Europe alone. These figures do not take account of either illegal immigration or the smuggling of human beings. This highlights the urgent need for coordinated measures against this form of organised crime. The proposal for a directive, which provides for short-term residence permits to be issued to victims who cooperate with the competent authorities, is an important step. Up to now, there have not been any pan-European arrangements for dealing with the victims of action to facilitate illegal immigration or trafficking in human beings. However, we need common European standards if we are to combat this form of crime. The short-term residence permits proposed here will not undermine the current practice of deporting illegal immigrants. Instead, the authorities will be put in a position to obtain information and incriminating evidence from victims who cooperate, with a view to apprehending traffickers and smugglers of human beings and commencing criminal proceedings against them. Immediate deportation of victims may improve the statistics, but it does not bring us any closer at all to achieving our objective of effectively combating organised crime, whereas short-term residence permits for victims who cooperate make it possible to identify structures, break up criminal rings and bring criminals to justice. That must be our goal. At this point I would once again like to thank Mrs Sörensen very sincerely for all the commitment she has put into this report. I would also like to thank the Commission and the other groups for their helpful cooperation, which I believe has led to a good end result in this report. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is of course only right that the European Council should condemn Israel’s unlawful execution of the Hamas leader, Sheik Yassin. Why, as General Morillon said, are there, however, only words and pious wishes? Why not back our words with action? The EU has, of course, practical and unique opportunities to punish Israel through the Association Agreement. As early as May 2002, we considered, here in the European Parliament, that it was the last straw when it came to Israeli human rights violations, and we demanded then that the Association Agreement be suspended. Why does the Council not listen to Parliament? Moreover, the European Commission has expressed itself along the same lines as Parliament. At the most recent meeting of the Association Council, the Commission produced a long list of Israel’s infringements of human rights and of UN decisions. At that time, the Commission warned that the EU would subsequently have to review its position if there were no improvement. Moreover, we are concerned here with trade policy pure and simple. In a memo aimed at all importers of Israeli goods to the EU, the Commission has observed that Israel is being fraudulent in identifying the origin of its goods, so that goods from illegal Jewish settlements on occupied Palestinian land are being sent to the EU with ‘Israel’ stated on the certificate of origin. Fraud of this kind, involving the rules of the trade agreement, is on its own enough to justify suspending the Association Agreement. Why all these words? Why no action? What is more, we know that Israel has nuclear weapons and, according to the experts, probably still more weapons of mass destruction. Clearly, Israel is allowed to have them but, when others acquire them too, they are bombed back into the Stone Age. Why is action not taken against Israel? How are we to have a peaceful world order, based upon law and justice, if tough punishment is meted out to certain lawbreakers – especially if they are Arab Muslims – while another lawbreaker, Israel, appears to be able to do whatever it likes, and all that occurs is that we repeat the same debate year after year after year without anything happening? The least that can be asked is that we repeal and suspend the Association Agreement, just as the European Parliament has requested.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, with regard to this amendment, there is a linguistic problem. The French version contains the word “délit”, whereas this is written as “crime” in the English version. As you know, Madam President, this does not have the same meaning in French. The amendment seeks to correct this. I am not the one who tabled the amendment, but it does seem to me that this is the point of it. I wanted to point this out. - Relating to Amendment No 5

Political group: PSE
Mr President, after September 11, a broad international coalition was formed to combat terrorism. This battle is still taking place here in Europe. Al Qaida sleeper networks still remain in 52 countries. After 30 January this year, President Bush’s speech on the state of the Union disconcerted many Europeans. The countries described as ‘the axis of evil’ no longer had anything to do with international terrorism. Fortunately, at the time, Commissioner Patten spoke out, clearly distancing himself from the unilateral, over-simplistic American policy. The US is now trying to impose a concept of pre-emptive war against Iraq which falls outside the scope of international law. In today’s speech by the American Government, it was no longer possible to dissociate concerns about oil from legitimate concern over weapons of mass destruction, equally legitimate concerns over human rights and Saddam Hussein himself as a person, whom Mr Bush professes to hate. We should not adopt this mixed bag as our own approach, since the various factors need to be addressed separately. Europe has always backed the United Nations Security Council. For the past few months, however, we have witnessed a veritable bid, instigated by the United States, to take control of international law – a policy of double standards. In some cases violations of human rights and United Nations Security Council resolutions are flouted and go unpunished, while in others they are not. We are also witnessing major internal division within the European Union and preparation for a war that would constitute a real confrontation between civilisations and would undoubtedly strengthen the terrorism we are trying to fight. In this strong-arm contest, this race against time, it is the credibility of the UN and Europe that is at stake. One thing is certain, if there is military intervention in Iraq, the Iraqi people, who have already suffered so much, will defend themselves to the last and we will not enter Baghdad as liberators.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would just like to tell Mr Blokland that it is not those who are absent who are in the right, but those who are present, and those who are not here should be ashamed of themselves. I take the view that we should be proud of doing our duty. We must, though, also be quite clear in our own minds that it is important to reintroduce Friday so that Thursday is made a correspondingly more attractive proposition. (Applause) *** Explanations of vote - Adam Report (A5-0340/2001)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we in the Committee on Foreign Affairs – in agreement, I believe, with the supporting committees, namely the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Industry – wish to recommend rejection. We did not receive early notification. We have only had the texts since Friday. We are being asked to approve this aid for the first time, and it is not entirely clear which other parts of the budget some of this money is supposed to come from. For that reason, the matter requires due political consideration. At the same time, however, may I say that we shall make every effort to ensure that a decision can be taken at the plenary part-session in July, and we shall make the necessary preparations to that end. Accordingly, we recommend the rejection of this request. (Parliament rejected the request for urgent procedure)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Fisheries Committee report was rather brief, in any case. The problems that arose in spending were not of too much concern to the Fisheries Committee; other areas were of greater concern. The Court of Auditors produced a constructive and reasonable report, but when we had the discussion in committee and teased out the problems and heard the explanations we were a bit more satisfied that the problems that arose were not foreseeable and were correctable. I remember that there was a very large number of projects involved. The amount of money is not insignificant – EUR 600 million – but, nevertheless, there were around 600 projects involved which spread the money quite thin and made it quite difficult for the limited staff and resources that the Commission had at the time to monitor carefully exactly what was going on. Like so many other sections of the budget, something like 80% of the entire spending involved public bodies of one sort or another within the Member States. This money was not just being thrown out to industry, although some of it was. A lot of this spending was supervised by Member States. We welcome the fact that there is a change in the policy under the new programme, moving from giving the money into the care of the policy-making Directorate-General to giving it to people who are engaged in research. We can expect a more constructive approach to research when it is done by people interested in research rather than by people who administer the policies, as in the case of agriculture. Generally speaking, we thank the rapporteur for drawing attention to the problems involved and look forward to the re-organised programme being more effective and more satisfactory.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I should like to add my congratulations and conclude with a warning. I congratulate Mrs Roth-Behrendt, who has achieved so much over this long process. Perhaps if she had known at the outset the scale of the obstructions and difficulties, she would not have achieved so much. It helps sometimes to be a little ignorant of the difficulties. This proposal puts animal welfare above human vanity, but never above human health. It sets time limits, graduated in accordance with the difficulties involved, and it sets new standards of reference which should and will be respected. I also want to thank the Commission for carrying out its intermediary role, mindful of law and precedent, but also of the strong views of this Parliament which have been echoed here under three different Commissions, for more than ten years. To come to this final conclusion is an enormous satisfaction for all of us. My colleagues on the Conciliation Committee expressed the long frustrations of this process in that last marathon session. It was literally at the eleventh hour that we achieved the result that all desired. A new model strip cartoon has just been distributed to Members showing how exciting the work of the European Parliament is, with glamorous young male and female characters. If there is another edition of this series, it should deal with the long night with Mrs Roth-Behrendt at the end of these proceedings. I also want to thank the Danish presidency. One often sees a presidency looking at a problem firmly in the eye, and then running away. The Danes knew that they could get a deal and they got it – through great skill in my opinion. This was a deal – I want to say this before going on to a word of warning – that meets Parliament's principal concerns. It sticks. It is a signal for action, and not an argument for delay. The animal welfare organisations which campaigned tirelessly for this outcome should not complain about the compromise that we achieved. The spotlight is now on compliance, with a provision to find alternative tests, especially in the most difficult areas of toxicity. None of us should make any apologies for how we came to be in this place today. I am personally proud of the fact that the rapporteur got us through this procedure and it enhances the reputation of Parliament, not merely for its procedures but also for their effectiveness.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I have little to add to Mr Lehne’s words because I agree with everything he said. As Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, I want to support Mr Barón Crespo because, quite frankly, Mr Rothley’s astute handling of the matter has made it possible to bring to a conclusion an initiative which we had been working on for some time and which has now been satisfactorily completed. We have endorsed a Statute, and a Statute means not just money – remuneration – but it also means something more fundamental for a Parliament and for its Members, in terms, as Mr Haarder said, of constitutional and paraconstitutional issues. In establishing the rights and responsibilities of Members, we have highlighted the issue of Parliament’s autonomy, which, although not absolute because the European process is slightly different, is similar to that of most national parliaments. In establishing the Statute, the members are reinforcing that autonomy. We feel, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, that there is an inseverable link between our rights and our responsibilities, between the nature of our work and, of course, the nature of our remuneration too. Mr Haarder has shown that he is on our side. I have taken note, President-in-Office, that the Council has declared its intention to take what Parliament decides into consideration, over and above questions of majority or unanimity. In doing so, it will be giving due consideration to an issue which has been highlighted for the first time by the Committee on Legal Affairs and which will lead to Parliament having a much higher profile, much more autonomy and a much fuller role. We tabled the question, which was endorsed by the President-in-Office, in order to give you an even greater chance of finding a solution. I believe that, in adopting this text, Parliament will be increasing this possibility even more.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, the special session of the United Nations General Assembly, which will be held at the beginning of June under the banner ‘Women 2000: Gender equality, development and peace for the 21st Century’, will be of enormous importance to the situation of women. The monitoring of the application of the Beijing Action Platform reveals that the greatest concerns, in relation to the proposed objectives, are still education and training, power and decision making, health, poverty and violence. The social changes of recent years have affected women in a special way. The increase in the elderly population has had a great effect on the lives of women who, in general, when they are no longer looking after their children, have to look after their parents. Despite considerable progress in terms of the situation of women, there are still considerable differences, especially discrimination at work and different wages for the same job. The majority and, in many cases, all of the responsibility for domestic tasks falls to women. The situation of women with family responsibilities, combined with the difficulties in the labour market, have led to a term which is explicit as well as unfair: the feminisation of poverty. We still require initiatives which help to give women access to the labour market and allow them full professional development, to which end we will need to facilitate women’s ‘other’ work through nurseries and financial aid. Men will have to take more family responsibilities and adapt to a society which is constantly changing and which has modified their traditional roles. The information society requires increasing numbers of people with technological training, which women must get involved in, since this is an area for which they are particularly well-equipped. If the number of women involved in decision making were to increase, it would become easier to resolve the problems facing them. A lot of progress has been made, but there are still political and economic areas in which women are under-represented. Amongst the problems which women are unfortunately facing at the moment, we must mention the violence directed at them: domestic violence, armed conflict and trafficking in women, which has been increasing in recent years. This is a form of violence against their person, their fundamental rights and their dignity. The Treaty of Amsterdam provides for the integration of the objectives of equality into Community policies and, especially in Article 141, positive actions in the field of employment. Employment is usually also a solution to other problems of marginalisation, economic dependence, lack of personal freedom, etc. The fifth Community Action Plan will have to deal with the problems still existing through a budgetary provision which will allow programmes to be implemented in the most urgent areas. The cooperation of the media is essential to achieving these objectives.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Madam Vice-President, let me remind you that the proposal prepared by you – following careful preparation by your officials – initially caused some confusion. The port authorities and shipping companies shot your proposal down in flames. In my view, we must also be grateful to the rapporteur, Mr Stockmann and the entire Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism. Mr Grosch also worked very hard in the discussions with the industry, and as a result, we have largely assuaged the sector’s concerns. I think they were simply misunderstandings. I am very pleased that, especially with the amendments proposed by the rapporteur – which we on the Committee on Transport jointly support – we can establish and ensure here today that we are not proposing a European type of standardised container – I prefer not to use the term ‘supercontainers’ – which could obstruct our global transportation business. In the export and import industries, we are reliant on the effective, efficient and swift transportation of these loading units on ships without adaptation of currently existing cell guides etc. In my view, as stipulated in our amendments in committee, we must leave the task of working out the detail to the standardisation committees. As a lawyer, I would be reluctant to embark on the task of developing the fine detail in my role as a Member of this House. It is, however, my belief that the principles we have set out in the proposed amendments will ensure that the new European loading unit does not conflict with existing international norms. This new loading unit is important, for it enables us to align the industry’s interests in greater stowability of palettes with the interest of the shipping companies and port authorities not to have to change all the loading gear and the entire structure of the container ships. In this respect, I think we can be quite happy with what we have achieved. I hope that the industry will adopt what we are hoping for, namely more widespread use of intermodal units. We are reliant on the industry here. We simply make proposals and will have to wait and see whether the new standardised container is accepted by the industry. The industry’s task is to protect its own interests. Finally, I would like to point out that this proposal contains not only a definition of this new loading unit, but also a requirement for more stringent controls and inspections of all loading units, regardless of type. If loading units are not properly maintained and repaired, they can pose a danger in goods transportation, in port during trans-shipment etc. We must ensure that serious accidents do not occur, especially in ports and on ships. In this respect, the Commission is right to propose more frequent and thorough inspections of all loading units.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to thank my colleague Mrs Fortou for the work she has carried out, work that was carried out with great endurance and great determination, precisely because the fight against counterfeiting and piracy must be one of the European Union’s priorities. In fact, creativity, which is one of the main factors of competitiveness in our economic system, is being prevented by counterfeiters because they are affecting the industrial and intellectual property rights. These rights ensure that creativity is adequately rewarded. Often, counterfeiting and piracy also end up affecting consumers, who are forced to purchase goods of a quality inferior to the original. The damage that they cause not only affects the individual holder of the right but the whole of society. The directive on the application of industrial and intellectual property rights is therefore an important instrument in combating the phenomenon and must be quickly adopted before the accession of the new countries, where counterfeiting and piracy are particularly widespread. The text negotiated with the Council, which Parliament should widely agree to, is a balanced compromise that should enable the directive to be adopted in just one reading. The current European and national legal framework on industrial and intellectual property is being respected. The conditions to effectively protect it and to more actively combat illegal trade are being created. The compromise rightly provides for the most important provisions of the directive to apply only to commercial practices. We cannot, indeed, plan to punish those who download music from the Internet just for personal use. A request for information from the alleged counterfeiter by the person declaring that a product is counterfeit must be justified and proportionate and should only be made by order of the judicial authorities. Furthermore, the directive does not influence the rules on confidential information and the treatment of personal data or the right not to testify against oneself. It specifies the administrative and civil sanctions that, directly affecting any illegal economic activity, have direct consequences on prohibiting counterfeiting. These sanctions should indeed be dissuasive but should also be gradual and proportionate to the crime committed.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, this is a compromise amendment which was negotiated among groups and then, of course, examined by the various groups last night. Our Group supports this compromise amendment with, however, the exception of one word: 'plus' – 'plus proportionnelle'. Presumably the English version is 'more proportional'. We cannot accept that word. However, under the Rules, it is not possible to ask for a split vote on a compromise amendment. I note that if Amendments Nos 100 and 101 were both to be adopted, it would come to exactly the same text as this compromise amendment, except for the problematic word 'more'. As I know that colleagues in other groups had exactly the same problem with this word, I would suggest to friends and colleagues that it might be appropriate not to accept the compromise amendment but to vote instead in favour of both Amendments Nos 100 and 101, which are compatible, and that would achieve precisely the result desired by many people.

Political group: PSE