GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, in Britain a man suffocated to death his 40-year-old brother who had Huntington's Disease. He pleaded guilty to culpable homicide and the judge set him free. In a residential institution in Belgium, disabled people have been abused by carers and health workers, physically beaten and their money taken and used by staff. In a residential home in the Netherlands, five elderly people with dementia were hit, spat at, kicked and called names by three nurses. In Spain, a 44-year-old disabled woman was confined by her parents to a cellar six feet deep from the age of four. Social workers knew about this for 25 years. In Bulgaria, children in a home for intellectually disabled people were tethered to their beds in winter and left to freeze at night when the heating was turned off to save money. Fifteen children - a quarter of the residents - died. A man from Venice in Italy with mental health problems was habitually locked in his home when his mother went out, leaving him alone. When fire broke out he found the front door locked and died of suffocation from smoke inhalation. In Germany a 55-year-old man with learning difficulties and impaired sight was attacked on his way to work by two skinheads and beaten and trampled to death. The youths told the police that 'he was unworthy of life'. As Mr Gahler has just stated, the members of the Group in this Parliament voted against Mrs De Keyser's admirable report in committee and some threatened to oppose it in plenary, because they say that these examples of abuse against disabled people do not constitute a breach of human rights. Shame on them!

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I would add my voice to those praising Mrs Roth-Behrendt. I think you are an excellent and outstanding example, not only of an accomplished parliamentarian but also of what we are so much in need of, namely energetic women in politics. Thank you for your work, your efforts and the character you show. You are needed. It only remains to observe that a compromise is a compromise. I can fully understand the animal protection organisations’ concern about the fact that it will take such a long time for the ban to be introduced and about the fact that so very many thousands of animals will be destroyed for the sake of our vanity. In spite of that, I am pleased that we nonetheless arrived at some sort of milestone, or something to grasp and hold on to. I am also very pleased that consumer protection has been taken seriously, that we are to obtain indications of contents and that there are to be bans on certain substances that are clearly unsuitable, above all perhaps when they form part of preparations we use on children and young people who are more vulnerable than ourselves. On the subject of animal protection, I should like to look ahead and broaden the debate a little. We keep seeing these appalling films of animal transportation and slaughter, revealing how we in Europe treat our animals. Imagine if Parliament had influence and the right of codecision on issues relating to agricultural policy. Imagine the situation, given the attitude and views on animal protection of an incredibly large majority in Parliament. Just think how much progress we might have made, even though we know that the democratic form of decision-making is compromise – a democratic compromise whose only promise to us is that we shall never get exactly what we want.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the case we are now considering deserves to feature in a guide to what not to do in politics in terms of managing public affairs. First of all, the delay in implementing these measures – measures for eradicating BSE – is deplorable. These measures are always adopted reluctantly, in the wake of panic in society and this prolongs the public’s exposure to risk. It is now more than four years since this Parliament drafted recommendations that would have enabled us to prevent this disease. Secondly, the lack of resources with which to implement the measures that have been proposed and to manage the crisis itself is also deplorable. These shortcomings betray a degree of blindness and, at times, genuine breaches in European construction. Although differences exist between Member States, it is surprising that, over time, the logistical resources for analysing and eliminating meat meal or risk-containing material have not been found. The financial shortcomings, on the other hand, are clear, both at Community and national level. Both the Community Treaties and national constitutions impose the obligation of protecting citizens’ health. It is therefore absurd to try to fund this crisis by taxing meat consumption or through the income of cattle farmers, which is causing small farms to go under. At times we appear to be our own prisoners. Within the World Trade Organisation, we have accepted limits on our production by ceding a part of our vegetable protein market to the United States. So what are we going to do now? Are we going to replace animal meal with genetically modified soya, imported from the United States? Agenda 2000 laid down a reduction in aid to livestock farmers. We were aware of the consequences of this. How did we think that we would survive in the face of increasing costs and a drastic reduction in prices? On the other hand, however, Agenda 2000 does not implement measures for the development of large-scale livestock breeding either. Finally, the almost religious respect for the Financial Perspective laid down in Berlin will prevent us from being able to cope with exceptional situations. Ladies and gentlemen, let us be realistic: this crisis requires a change in the European Union’s position towards the WTO, a review of the Berlin Financial Perspective and a review of the common agricultural policy to correct its imbalances and its general orientation.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, this is the final directive package in the field of telecommunications. Fortunately we did not wait for this draft to stagger in as otherwise the other directives would also have been late too. It has not been long since we realised that a crime is a crime also on the Internet and the fact that you can conceal your identity cannot release anyone from responsibility even electronically. You cannot even send e-mail if the recipient does not want it. Unlike paper-based advertising, this is often at the expense of the recipient. Therefore I am in favour of the compromise with the Council which supports the opt-in view. Direct marketing is possible over the Internet if the consumer has given permission for it in advance. I also support several other compromises. The result is not perfect by any means, but it is an indication of how far we have come. 'Internet insecurity', actual anarchy, is a major threat to the entire e-Europe project, the information-based economy and the advancement of democracy. This, ladies and gentlemen, is about the fact that business on the Internet must be safe and that health information must be able to be stored on it reliably. Security has become a major issue on the Internet, and therefore, as presented in the e-Europe 2005 programme, we need a network security unit which monitors security but also respects civil rights on the net. This is our major common need and our aim.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, firstly I would like to thank the budget rapporteurs, Mrs Haug and Mr Ferber, for their excellent work. The same goes for Mr Wynn, the Chairman of the Committee on Budgets, for the splendidly accomplished conciliatory work he has done and for his constructive leadership of the committee. Next year’s budget will be very much based on strict budgetary discipline. Although agricultural expenditure, which accounts for almost half the entire budget, will increase by more than 5%, when the Letter of Amendment has been taken into account, the overall increase in the budget is just 3.5%. This means that great restraint has been shown in the use of funds in the other categories. This makes just 1.056% of GNP, which must be considered very low as the ceiling for the financial perspective is 1.11%. This means a saving of more than EUR 2 billion. This, however, conceals a danger. The budget will be seeing a structural distortion, as money spent on payment commitments comes to over EUR 3.6 billion more than that for appropriations for payments. This means that there will be an increase in arrears. For that reason, Parliament’s concern that the problem of arrears will have to be dealt with is a justified one, and that is why there has been a very real need for a joint declaration by Parliament and the Council. Furthermore, the fact that the Council and Parliament reached agreement regarding the EU’s budget for next year is to be greeted with satisfaction. It shows that both budgetary authorities are taking responsibility for the administration of the EU in an appropriate manner. However, it is unfortunate that Parliament once again had to fight with regard to funds for the West Balkans. Regarding other matters, I would say that for my group it is a positive move that a 450 million euro multiannual programme was agreed for the employment initiative; and, moreover, that it was agreed that funds remaining unspent from Community initiatives – totalling EUR 1 600 million– would be budgeted in the years to come. We failed to fill a considerable number of parliamentary posts throughout this year. This shows that in future there must be better use of personnel resources. With these observations, my group is prepared to adopt the draft budget.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I would firstly like to welcome Mrs Lindh. We work very well with the Secretary of State, Mr Danielsson, and it is therefore a pleasure to have you here today. Mrs Lindh, I believe that I do not need to speak at length, since the President of our Group, Mr Poettering, has made a clear, apposite and brilliant speech in which he has spoken loud and clear. Therefore, allow me simply to point out certain issues on what we expect from the Swedish Presidency and from this European Council in Gothenburg. You have said that we have to organise the debate. Of course we do. I agree with the words of the Socialist spokesman: the 7th was a good start, but we have to do more. Therefore, what we want is for you to structure the debate, to make proposals to structure the debate. How must this be done? This Parliament has certain ideas and we are very happy to give them to you. However, as a starter, I will say that it has to take place on a national level, in democracy that is close to the people, and on a European level. This debate is very important and cannot be closed. It cannot be simply delivered on a plate, ready-made. This debate must have conclusions, which will make up the second phase. This debate would be frustrating for the participants if it did not include room for drawing up and proposing ideas. That is what we call the convention method. The convention which drew up the Charter of Fundamental Rights was a success, because it brought together national and European legitimacy and it included transparency, publicity and participation by the people. Furthermore, all of this led to a document which you yourselves, at the European Council in Biarritz, recognised as being positive. Therefore, things may be amended, others may be joined together, but it provides us with a model which may be of use. I think that it will be very useful to work together on this model. Finally, with regard to the timetable, it seems to me that if we do all of this, the IGC 2004 will have to be very brief, since the work will already be largely completed. I believe it is also very important that this model allows for the participation of the candidate countries. Europe is not only being built by those of us already in the Union, but also by those who are waiting to join it. Madam President-in-Office, I believe that you are going to take away a very favourable impression of this debate today, since all the participating spokespeople from the extraordinarily varied Groups have said more or less the same thing. The parliamentary groups are whistling the same tune. I believe that if we work with you and, of course, with the Commission – and I would like to thank Commissioner Barnier for his marvellous speech – from this one common tune, together we will be able to compose a fine European symphony.

Political group: PPE-DE
I abstained from the vote on the resolution on protecting the Communities’ financial interests and the fight against fraud. I did not wish to vote against the resolution since I fully share the rapporteur’s objectives of intensifying the combating of fraud against the financial interests of the Community. I did not vote, however, because of the establishment of a new control body. The Community is not going to achieve the desired goal by creating a tangled multiplicity of such bodies. (The sitting was suspended at 12.50 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.) IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTAVice-President

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, as the last Justice and Home Affairs Council demonstrated, the system for taking unanimous decisions on matters of justice and home affairs has come to the end of its cycle. If the Berlusconi Government manages, even for a short time, to block the decision on the European arrest warrant, can you imagine what will happen when the Union of the 15 becomes a Union of 30 if we continue to insist on an intergovernmental rather than a Community method for taking decisions? A propos, my congratulations to the Belgian Presidency on the battle which it won in Rome yesterday. The Council is clearly unwilling to make any fundamental reforms on the basis the commitments made in Tampere, despite the assiduous efforts of Commissioner Vitorino and the political will demonstrated by the European Parliament. The only sector in which the Council has evinced any particular interest or enthusiasm is in the fight against terrorism, under pressure from and at the suggestion of the United States which, I am afraid, is trying to export and impose its system of justice on Europe, a system which clashes with European customs and values. How can we extradite European citizens to the USA when the United States cannot guarantee that it will not impose the death penalty? I am afraid, Commissioner, that the alliance with the USA is becoming more and more dangerous for the European Union. The fact that strict rules are being promoted within an already strict framework is understandably causing concern among citizens, who fear that the fundamental liberties and human rights which they have fought long and sacrificed much for will be restricted. The end clearly does not justify the means. For the rest, half way through the five-year period set by the Amsterdam summit for creating a European area of freedom, security and justice, we are seriously behind schedule, for example in formulating a common immigration and asylum policy. Finally, I wonder, what has happened to European sensitivity and our humanitarian values, when we are incapable of resolving the drama of refugees and immigrants despite witnessing daily tragedies such as the recent suffocation of eight immigrants in southern Ireland?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, if I am not mistaken all of those who have drafted motions or spoken in this debate so far are from the Romance part of Europe. This shows the particular solidarity that they feel, but I actually also want to make it clear that this problem of Venezuela concerns all Europeans to at least some degree. Venezuela is a country that plays a significant role, and not only in economic terms thanks to its raw materials, oil and many other natural resources. It is a country that has made a very considerable contribution to the political stability of the Andean region over a very long period of time. That is why I welcome the efforts that Europe is making to help this country to recover its internal stability by intervening here. I should particularly like to thank Mr Salafranca and others for being so ready to take on this task time and time again, and I believe that there are two points in this motion that are very significant. Firstly, emphasis is placed on the role of the Friends of Venezuela, this group of countries that is making a particular effort to offer mediation here. Two countries in the European Union, namely Spain and Portugal, belong to this group and have a special responsibility here, which they are responding to magnificently. I should like to thank them for this and say that the European Union hopes that Spain and Portugal really can play a pivotal and positive role here, and I am convinced that they will do so. Secondly, the motion stresses how important it is for the European Parliament itself to have a presence on the spot. I should like to underline this request and say that the European Parliament certainly does not want to interfere in politics the world over, but it does wish to offer good mediation services wherever a reasonably well-functioning democracy is in danger because it is under threat from populism on the one hand and fear and uncertainty on the other. The various different political forces need to be brought together around one table, because only by strengthening the rule of law, only by strengthening the institutions, but also only by strengthening pluralism in this troubled country will we once again be able to avoid a serious crisis there, and the lasting damage that this would do to that country and the region as a whole. As I said, I would therefore appeal for the European Parliament's offer to act as a mediator to be accepted. I do not mean that we want to go around telling other nations what to do. We do not have the right to do that, but we do have the duty to make our good offices available and to act as mediators. IN THE CHAIR: MR DIMITRAKOPOULOSVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, despite the lack of money in the public kitty, scarcely anyone can really object to improving safety standards on Europe’s roads in view of the yearly accident statistics, which show over 40 000 dead, and 1.6 million injured, some of them seriously. In Thuringia, the German province from which I come, the longest motorway tunnel in Germany was opened a few weeks ago. Even though it is also – as predicted beforehand, the safest – many drivers still find using it highly stressful. When the Commission launched its draft directive on the improvement of safety in tunnels, I was, on the one hand, glad that it is fundamentally in accordance with the third action programme to improve road safety, which we had welcomed, but I was also concerned and disturbed by the prospect of an enormous increase in bureaucracy and of the high costs resulting from it, which, it appeared, would devolve upon the Member States. After all, tunnel routes were not and are not among the most dangerous or accident-prone stretches of road in our Community. Today, my fears have been allayed, as the rapporteur – to whom let me now express my particular gratitude and appreciation – has managed after all to tighten up the draft directive, to further develop and restructure it, to make it less bureaucratic and its technical provisions more flexible. In this process, vitally significant safety aspects have not been disregarded; on the contrary, it has been possible to extend them, for example, by taking into account the safety needs of people with disabilities, which makes sense and is – and, I think, in view of this being the European Year of People with Disabilities – positively necessary. It remains to me to urge that this be speedily transposed into national law and to express the hope that it will have a tangible and positive effect on our road users, both in psychological and in real terms. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Up to now, the motor vehicle sector has had a set of vertical agreements between manufacturers, distributors and repairers, and has been granted a block exemption to avoid the application of the principles of Article 81 of the Treaty, which relates to competition policy. This exemption regulation is now shortly due to expire and preparations are being made for liberalisation, with a transitional period of just one year. Up to now manufacturers have had a large measure of control over their market by means of exclusive agreements with distributors, exclusive distribution of original spare parts and repair guarantees. With the opening of the sector to competition it will be possible, for example, for supermarkets to sell cars, for distributors to sell various makes and for there to be an obligation to provide technical information to other spare part manufacturers and repair workshops so that they can manufacture parts and carry out repairs under competitive conditions. It is also intended to liberalise the European sales market, despite issues surrounding car sales tax, so that restrictions and national agreements covering a region will cease to have any impact. Accordingly, consumers will stand to benefit from lower prices, as will some distributors and resellers, but smaller distributors without exclusive arrangements may not have the same bargaining power and there will be a trend towards a greater concentration in the number of distributors. It has been calculated that 20% of distributors may disappear with associated job losses. That is why we are not supporting this report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I simply wish to ask you to inform the House that the rapporteur is against this amendment. (Parliament adopted the resolution) * * * Report (A5-0236/2001) by Mr Camisón Asensio, on behalf of the Committee on Petitions, on the deliberations of the Committee on Petitions during the parliamentary year 2000-2001 [2001/2010(INI)] Rule 175 of the Rules of Procedure (Parliament adopted the resolution) * * *

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to thank my colleagues in both the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and in the Council and the Commission for their fantastically creative and constructive cooperation. It will mean quite large changes in Europe, and it will mean a lot for public health. There is, nonetheless, a small detail in all this that is incredibly important, namely the fight against resistance to antibiotics. I wish therefore to ask Commissioner Byrne to give us oral confirmation that the Commission takes this seriously and will table new proposals.

Political group: ELDR