GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I should like to ask the House for support for your and this House's intervention in the case of the sentence of death by stoning imposed in various cases by a court in northern Nigeria. This is both for so-called criminal offences and apparently, in the case of Amina Lawal, for the offence of bearing a child. I am sure we are all agreed that whatever the case and merits of the case it is a dreadful death in any circumstances, but particularly in the case of a mother whose only crime is to bear a child. I feel very strongly on this issue and would ask you – and I am sure you have done this already as I have written to you about previous cases – to intervene with all your best efforts in this particular case.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would just like to set the record straight for the benefit of the Commissioner. I would not presume to speak on behalf of the whole of Parliament, and certainly not in advance of a vote on the matter. I merely want to clarify that I spoke here on behalf of the second largest group, and expressed a real concern of ours, and if you heard Mr Caudron speak, then you would be aware that this is not something I alone am concerned about, because it is also something that bothers another MEP. And so I only spoke on behalf of my Group, and not for Parliament as a whole.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this morning, I think that we indeed witnessed an historic moment, as all my fellow Members have said, when we welcomed our counterparts from the candidate States. I should like to raise a minor point, namely that of the interpreting. Instead of 11 official languages, we now have 20. This is a considerable step forward. We must congratulate the interpreting services, which have provided interpretation despite the testing technical conditions. As a native Catalan, it is my hope that, in the future, my language, which is spoken by 10 million European citizens, may also be recognised in this Chamber. I wanted to make this comment whilst we are examining the Brok report. With regard to the aforementioned report, one of the Copenhagen criteria stipulates that the Member States must respect minorities and national minorities in particular, and highlights some of the progress which has been made by the candidate states. This must be welcomed. The report neglects to tackle some of the difficult points, however. For example, I know that in some of the candidate States, administrative cuts have been implemented in such a way as to dilute the national minorities, whereas in other candidate countries, conditions are being imposed with regard to the formation of political parties in such a way that minorities cannot form one. And, lastly, there is the problem of the Beneš decrees which unjustly exploited these minorities in 1945, a crying injustice, which is still an issue today and which must one day be rectified. It is true, Mr President, it is true that, before we start giving lectures, we should take a look at ourselves. When I say ‘we’, I mean the Member States. For example, could a State which today refuses to ratify the European Charter of Linguistic Rights join Europe? This is a question that we could ask, like many others, and that is why I believe that we must assess the Copenhagen criteria with a degree of indulgence and throw the doors of our Europe wide open.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, much has been said already, and I can keep my speech relatively brief. What is this about? Firstly, Parliament accepts that Austria is entitled to have a derogation extended. I consider this a quite extraordinary course of action, one which has not enjoyed my support for a long time, and one that, tomorrow, we will adopt by a large majority. That is something of which we must not lose sight. I warn, though, that we must not now start attaching a very high value to one section of the human race and a lower one to others. I have the honour of representing an electoral district right on the border with Austria, that lovely country, and I would like, here and now, to make it very clear that I cannot accept that people in the Tyrol are worth more than the people on the estate near Lindau's customs house, who, every day, by night and day, have to endure traffic making a detour on the short route from Bavaria to Switzerland. This has nothing to do with crossing the Alps or with ecology; it is because they would be liable to ecopoints if they went via the autobahn. That is not acceptable; you simply must see that. Having traffic doing such things as taking detours or going elsewhere altogether is just not on. Only 11% of HGV traffic in Austria is liable to ecopoints. It is not on when, in the Tyrol, representatives of citizens' initiatives tell me that they have no problem with this if the HGVs have Austrian number plates, but that they do have difficulties if the vehicles are registered elsewhere. That is no longer acceptable, and I want to make that clear here and now. (Interruption) These are not tall stories. I have had such conversations. After all, I live there and have contacts there. I cannot accept that a certain segment of Europe's population is being treated as being worth more. You can see from the figures that what matters to the Austrians is that their own haulage firms should be put in a stronger position, and that is precisely what they have used the ecopoints regulation to achieve. It cannot, though, be one of Europe's tasks to step in for the benefit of one region's economic interests.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I hope there will be a great football match on 17 June between England and Germany. Most people are looking forward to a good match and hope that it will be safe. But, unfortunately, that is not the view of everybody. The German police anti-hooligan task force has said that it is pretty confident there will be hooligans there. I cannot say anything about German hooligans but I can talk about English football hooligans – I cannot say ‘fans’ and even the word ‘hooligan’ is not strong enough for them. There is a group of people who very definitely are planning to be there. If you doubt me, just look at the press photographs of the problems that occurred in Copenhagen last night. As well as the problems my colleague referred to that could occur inside the stadium at Charleroi, there is a serious problem that may occur in the streets around that stadium. The head of the Belgian Police Federation has said that he is concerned. We are saying now to the Belgian authorities and the European football authorities that they should choose the option of a safer ground that is available elsewhere in Belgium, and the stadium in Brussels has been cited.

Political group: PPE-DE
This Daphne programme is one which we, all of us, wished for, we, the Members of the European Parliament, but also all the organisations, both non-governmental and other types of organisations, and associations working in the delicate area of violence against children, young people and women. The Council has curtailed the duration of the programme – 4 years instead of the 5 originally envisaged, but the budgetary allocation remains the same. The rapporteur did an excellent job of negotiating with the Council, with the outcome that our three key amendments were accepted both by the Commission and by the Council. These amendments primarily concern the necessary reference to the concept of the physical and emotional integrity of the individual and thus to the concept of dignity, such that inflicting physical, sexual or psychological violence is tantamount to depriving that person of their human rights. Secondly, the definition of “public health”, as defined by the WHO, i.e. not only the absence of disease or infirmity, but a state of physical, mental and social well being is taken up in the report. Thirdly, the encouragement to be given to organisations and associations in general working in this sector is stressed. Fourthly, last but not least, reference is made to public and media information and awareness on these painful social matters. There are, then, great expectations, and it is imperative for our House to vote on this matter and, according to the rules of codecision, we must mobilise the 314 votes necessary for the Daphne programme to be adopted. This is why I can do no more than urge you to vote in favour of this report, unanimously, to avoid further procedural delays (conciliation), and to enable it to come into force in January 2000.

Political group: PSE
Thank you, Mr President. President-in-Office of the Council, the Commission’s draft mid-term review of agricultural policy is a sound basis for embarking upon the discussions of a future reform of the EU’s agricultural policy. The decision on long-term funding, taken at the Brussels Summit, creates the background for enlargement. That is good and is something on which the Presidency should be commended. Any reform should be centred on farmers and consumers. It should be dynamic, and it should be a continuation of the liberalisation begun at the Berlin Summit in 1999. It should cover adjustments in response to the market economy and to world market prices and also, therefore, a curtailment of, and change to, the familiar policy of subsidy. The period up until 2006 should therefore be used for preparing a reform of the EU’s agricultural policy that makes European farmers competitive in the future world market.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, unlike many other MEPs, I am not in the habit of routinely thanking the rapporteur. I only do so when there is a reason. Today, we do have reason for thanking Diana Wallis for displaying what has most emphatically been the patience of a saint and the stamina of an athlete in drawing up this report. I want to emphasise that the majority of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party supports her and the amendments she has tabled on the Group’s behalf. I also want to point out that the debate has been frustrating to some degree. If the same energy had been put into developing confidence-building systems instead of into lobbying which has not always been very professional, I believe that a lot would already have happened to create the confidence and confidence-building systems which are required if consumers are to have the courage to begin trading. One great merit of this piece of work is the importance which the rapporteur and Parliament attach to consumer-friendly dispute-resolution mechanisms and the pressure they have brought to bear in order to obtain these. This is important, and I do not believe that the same weight would have been given to this issue if this work had not been done. As has been repeated a great many times, the biggest dispute, as we all know, has been about which court is to have competence in matters relating to electronic commerce. This is an issue which will set a precedent, and that is why we have seen such vigorous lobbying. It is a question with which we shall be confronted many times in connection, for example, with tax issues and cyber crime. We must resolve the issue of which is to be the competent court. I believe that there is a lot to indicate that, in the future, we must have clearer rules specifically in connection with places of domicile. We cannot proceed as often on the basis of where events have taken place. This also emerged yesterday from our seminar on cyber crime. What is to be taken as the domicile address? That is why it is important that we should establish today that it is the consumer’s domicile address which matters in the end. Finally, I should like to ask those who are going to support the majority of the committee in the vote how they can look consumers in their own countries in the eye when the latter become aware that the view of the majority of the committee will, in practice, lead to their being denied access to their own courts. I should like finally to strike a biblical note. I once met an old man who said, ‘I am in no doubt at all that, when I speak to my God, I can speak in my own language. I also hope, however, that the same will apply in the courts I may be called before’.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I would thank the President of the Commission for a welcome, long-term proposal in a political landscape which is all too often very short-sighted. I must nonetheless regret the fact that the proposal comes only a few weeks before the Gothenburg Summit, which is why a real dialogue with all the parties possessing an interest in this issue is now impossible. My first question is about the way in which Mr Prodi plans to ensure that, following the Gothenburg Summit, the process is followed up and continued in such a way that it is the subject of the broadest possible dialogue with different stakeholders. Mr Prodi very valuably indicated to the world around that this must be seen in a global context. My second question is therefore about how this affects the strategy in the short term. The EU’s activities in a long list of areas – trade policy, fisheries policy, energy policy etc – naturally have consequences for the situations in other countries. The fact is that it is not appropriate to put one’s own house in order and then take care of the rest. Instead, an integrated approach is required. What is that process to look like?

Political group: PPE-DE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. – Mr President, the Committee on Industry decided to go ahead and draw up a report on the discharge for 1997 although we were not specifically asked to do so. We went ahead because we felt we should start this Parliament in the way in which we mean to go on, that is, by making sure that we take good care of taxpayers' money in Europe. During the course of our work on this report it became clear that there are persistent problems in the spending areas under the control of our budget. They were not unique to 1997 and two strands seem to run through them. The first is a tendency for the Commission to embark on very ambitious programmes, particularly in third countries, without sufficient assessment of the practicalities of implementation and proper resourcing. The second involves serious managerial shortcomings in the Commission, in particular in relation to coordination across departments and management of external contracts. I know that all the Institutions bear some responsibility for the increasing workload of the Commission and for some of the lack of resources. That cannot excuse everything that we came across. Citizens of Europe expect the European institutions to be properly managed and they are right to do so. That is why I want to echo the comments from my colleague about the importance of the reform process which has been promised to the people of Europe by Mr Prodi and Mr Kinnock. From what I have seen of the reform process, it looks good. I saw some of Mr Kinnock's papers today, I heard some of what he had to say. I have every confidence that if we and the politicians of Europe support him we will see the kind of reform we need. But we need that reform process. Many of the general points raised in our committee's report have been covered in Mrs van der Laan's report. It is an excellent report and we should all congratulate her on it. It seems to hit on all the right points without just being like some of the old reports, a series of details. It groups them together and that is very important. There are two issues I would like to draw your attention to. One is nuclear safety in Eastern Europe. We have to get this right. The Committee of Independent Experts said the Commission was not managing this properly. We have to remedy that. The second point is about scrutiny mechanisms. We need from the Commission material we can use to help us scrutinise spending. We need proper information, given in a proper way and we all have to take this whole process a lot more seriously than in the past. It has been seen as a bureaucratic process to be done as quickly as possible in as little time as possible. I hope colleagues in this House will support the grounds for discharge for 1997 and, at the same time, that the Commission will push ahead with the reform process which is long overdue. Only in this way can we create a new culture in the Commission and at the same time get public confidence restored.

Political group: PSE
Modernising the Brussels Convention is legally in order. However, we believe that, in the future too, it should have the legal status of an intergovernmental tool. Where consumer rights are concerned, we believe that consumers should be entitled to bring claims in their place of domicile in the event of disputes relating to electronic commerce.

Political group: GUE-NGL
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. – Mr President, I welcome the Commission’s strategy on cybercrime. This is, as Mrs Cederschiöld said, a very controversial and difficult area which raises issues of how to regulate the Internet and yet not stifle its development; and also significant issues regarding crime surveillance and privacy, data protection and retention, yet we need to be aware the cybercriminals do not respect our personal integrity. We now have a growing phenomenon of so-called data streaming – hacking into computer systems and stealing credit card details in bulk. The total cost loss to the UK last year was GBP300 million, an increase of 55% on 1999. We need more secure systems if we are to boost consumer confidence in using the Internet. Commissioner, in your strategy I want you to prioritise tackling the very disturbing growth in child pornography on the Internet. We need to clamp down on sexual exploitation of children. Again, there has been a very massive growth in cross-border child pornography. In the UK, members of the so-called “Wonderland Club”, an Internet paedophilia ring, were arrested and found to have sites in 12 different European countries. In my own region, the Greater Manchester Obscene Publications Unit has had success in cracking down on paedophilia with new Internet tracing software. That is why, with the backing of many of the children’s organisations across the European Union, we are calling for a number of actions. We want you to look at the possibility of involving credit card companies and Internet service providers in supporting the blacklisting of sites trading in illegal pornographic content. We want to see the expansion of 24-hour hotlines and electronic watchtowers. We want to see the creation of a European rating system for child-friendly Internet providers and the display of child safety messages. We want child pornography on news groups blocked. We want closer involvement by Europol in prosecuting cyber paedophiles and better cooperation between European law enforcement agencies. The European Union must act to ensure that there are no safe havens in Europe for cyber paedophiles. Our message, therefore, is that we are stepping up our action and closing down these sites. We want you, Commissioner, to take action in this area.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, my honourable friend mentioned that 400 000 people in the European Union suffer from multiple sclerosis. Most of them are women, in a ratio of 2 to 3. With current scientific resources, diagnosis is made at an early stage and, with suitable treatment, the advance of the disease can be controlled or slowed down and the quality of life of sufferers improved substantially. We know on the basis of the Union Treaty, that the Community applies policies and actions with the aim of safeguarding a high level of health protection. However, in order for this sort of thing to be feasible, one of the preconditions is equal access for citizens to health services and equal provision of all efficient means. Hence, the argument that dealing with the consequences of this particular disease comes under the jurisdiction of the Member States does not stand up and should not exist. What is needed, as quickly as possible, is a new epidemiological study, at European level and in collaboration with the WHO, so that the extent of the problem can be seen from the data collected and the need for intensive research and international cooperation can be highlighted. The report by the Committee on Petitions is revelatory and enlightening and, of course, it is clear that I totally agree with the proposal to establish a code of best practices, because this will result in our defining uniform methods of treatment and rehabilitation activities. Similarly, I absolutely agree with the view that the health authorities in the Member States must promote self-help programmes among patients with multiple sclerosis which, together with the application of special working conditions, will constitute two important factors in maintaining good mental health which, as we know, is significantly impaired by the very nature of the illness. Finally, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur and Mrs Louise McVayn, who has demonstrated to us that one person who fights can obtain results for many people.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, regarding Tuesday’s agenda, I wanted to make a request, both on behalf of a large number of Members present in the House and on behalf of Aquitaine, Brittany and the Spanish coastal regions, concerning the attitude of IOPCF and the frankly laughable compensation which it has proposed to award us following the Prestige disaster. Would it be possible to ask the Commission to state its opinion and position on the matter in the context of the debate on the Manders report, which is to take place on Tuesday at 10 a.m?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I really must confess, before asking my question, that the figures I gave for Denmark’s catches in comparison with those of Spain and France were wrong: I did not mean to say Spain and France together, but six times more than Spain and six times more than France. Denmark has, according to what is known as the principle of relative stability, 44% of the fishing rights in Community waters, whereas the sum of France and Spain’s fishing rights add up to only 13%. I find the figures supplied by Commissioner Franz Fischler extremely confusing and I hope that the working group studying the impact on resources for human consumption finishes its work before the reform of the common fisheries policy is implemented. In any event, my question is the following: some countries in the European Union are clearly given preferential treatment at the moment when it comes to catches and I ask you whether any reform of the CFP is possible without implementing the principle of relative stability, which is so anti-European? What political reasons exist for maintaining it, as stated in the Green Paper and as stated now in the reform of the common fisheries policy?

Political group: Verts-ALE