GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioners, although we say that we live in an information society, information in itself is a problem for us, one to which the Commission’s communication strategy is now seeking solutions. It had better do so too, because the Union is aiming to become the world’s leading knowledge-based society within seven years. I do not believe it will. Why not? Because the Member States are not implementing the jointly agreed decisions under the Lisbon strategy. So the Commission is worried about the indifference of our citizens to the Union and information about it, as fewer than half of them go out and vote. Has not the same thing happened, however, with regard to the Member States themselves, which are so indifferent that they are not implementing the Lisbon process? Moreover, the information-based economy is an issue connected with that very thing, information. We have to remember that information is only raw material, knowledge is its product, and civilisation is its end result. Our objectives are good ones, but the media and the people are not very interested in them. We might say that brains that have been softened over the years by soap operas and television action series are our opponent in this. Could you not imagine making an action film about the European Union? That way we would get the audience we will not reach otherwise. Euronews is a good objective. Other important matters include ties with everyday life, and, of course, the visitors service. The Secretary-General, for example, cancelled the Finnish language post and now there is no visitors’ service in Finnish.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, as Chairman of the committee responsible, may I say, and my remarks are addressed mainly to the Council, that Parliament kept to its side of the bargain with the French Presidency and adopted the three reports on safety at sea by a large majority today. I should just like to clarify that, from this point forward, it is up to the Council to move ahead as quickly as possible. There appears to be agreement as far as my report is concerned, which is a good start. As far as the other two reports are concerned, i.e. the report on ship inspection organisations and the report on port controls, there are conflicting views, with Parliament taking a stricter line on most issues. We shall wait for the common position of the Council of Transport Ministers in December, assuming that a common position is issued in December, and we promise that, as soon as we receive it, it will be our number one priority – our first job will be to wrap up the common position and the other two reports as quickly as possible, hopefully by the spring.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Legal Affairs Committee identified a few key points concerning the precautionary principle, reflecting concerns which are also expressed in Mrs Patrie's excellent report. It was not our sole intention to deliver a purely legal evaluation. On the contrary, our opinion has an undoubtedly political character too. I emphasise this because the application of the precautionary principle demands more than perfectly crafted legislation. It is a matter of ensuring that the high level of protection which the Treaties promise the people of the European Union is actually guaranteed. This can only be achieved if we are really serious about the need for preventive action. Damage limitation and compensation must not be our aim; our paramount goal must be to prevent damage to people's health and property. We can achieve it by rigorously applying the precautionary principle, as my honourable colleague has explained. We as legislators should never lose sight of this, and we should encourage the Commission to apply the principle from the outset when drafting legislative proposals. Mrs Patrie's report pledges us to do precisely that. In connection with BSE, a great deal of past and future heartache would have been spared if we had armed ourselves with adequate legislation in good time and if we had verified compliance with such legislation, which, as we know, is a matter for the Member States. When we banned American hormone-treated meat to protect the health of our consumers, our right to take preventive action was challenged. It was even decried as protectionism! In another context too, the sceptics never tire of invoking the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination. On closer inspection, it emerges that these scruples are not motivated so much by concern for the rule of law as by concern for money and profits. I personally have no fear of excessive statutory protection. Nor should the people of Europe have any reason to be afraid. On the contrary, when they look at European legislation, they should be able to rest assured that all the Members of their Parliament attach greater importance to public health than to the quest for profits. For this reason, I recommend that we follow the line that the rapporteur has mapped out for us.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to ask you to add my name to the attendance register. Not only did I vote, I even took the floor during that session; yet I am not included on the list. I hope that this can be rectified.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this is a rather peculiar cooperation procedure between Parliament and the Commission, at an initial phase of the Commission’s work. The communication presented to us by the Commission referred to a limited aspect of the harmonisation of private law, specifically contract law, and the report presented by Mr Lehne deals which a much wider scope, because it refers to the harmonisation of private law in general. We, in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, considered that contract law was probably too narrow a scope and that it would not be sufficient to produce harmonisation of private law in general, which is necessary, as Mr Lehne pointed out, above all within the framework of the introduction of the euro and of the generalisation of European contracts. The Commission’s communication is very broad, given the aspects it deals with and the questions it poses. We, in Parliament, clearly cannot work intensely and on time, as we would have liked, but we can make some observations. I will focus on one: the possibility that, in relation to harmonisation, more reference should be made to the regulation and less to the directive. Because we are seeing that every time a Community directive is adopted, it gives rise to fifteen different national legislations, which leads us to think that we are possibly not achieving the objective of harmonisation, but quite the opposite, because the Community directive paradoxically leads to discrepancies in the development of each national legislation. I know that this is a difficult issue, because there is still legislative zeal of a national nature, but it is one of the possibilities for development by means of Community legislation, instead of merely indirect harmonisation via a directive. I must stop here through lack of time, but not without congratulating the Commission on its initiative and the rapporteur on his report.

Political group: PSE
I voted in favour of the agreement between Switzerland and the European Union on taxation of savings income, but I would like to make it clear that I am doing so subject to Parliament being consulted, before this agreement is implemented, about those agreements negotiated with the other third countries: the United States, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco and San Marino. At the same time, I would stress that its application also depends on the adoption and implementation by the dependent or associated territories of the Member States of measures that conform with those contained in the directive of 3 June 2003. Switzerland, like some Member States that opted within the framework of the directive for a withholding tax at source, still sets great store by banking secrecy, the aim of which is to guarantee that the private sphere is respected and that depositors have greater trust in their banks. Some people constantly claim that abolishing banking secrecy is necessary to combat tax fraud and harmful tax competition. Alongside banking secrecy, Switzerland, like my country, Luxembourg, has laid down very strict clauses on money laundering and financing of criminal activities. In accordance with Article 10 of this agreement, Switzerland, and every Member State of the European Union, exchanges information on behaviour constituting tax fraud according to the legislation of the Member State concerned. (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to counsel, if I may, Mr Solana and my very good friend Commissioner Patten to exercise caution in relation to the Middle East at this present time. I say that, not because I am scarcely an enthusiast for a European foreign policy, but because I believe that at this present time in Israel we are in a very difficult situation. We have an election and I must remind the House that the State of Israel is the only democracy that exists in the region and that is something that is worth noting. We have an election for a prime minister which will be crucial in relation to the future of the peace process so we must take care not to be seen as interventionist or interfering. I remind the House, because I gather there is much fear that Mr Sharon may be elected prime minister, that the peace process in the Middle East, from the Israeli point of view, has always advanced under the Israeli right and it was Menachem Begin who started the rapprochement with Egypt. I ask the House and I ask the Commission and the Council to proceed with caution. I ask the European Union to do what it does best. It has an influence over the Palestinians and it should exercise that influence. It should be asking Chairman Arafat, for example, why the Palestinians permit in their textbooks the sort of anti-semitism which I hoped we had long put to one side in this world. We should be asking Chairman Arafat to ensure that the aid that goes to the Palestinians goes to those who really need it. So, in small measures and not in large – because the United States must take the lead in these matters – the European Union can play a role, but it should not exaggerate its importance. The role is with the parties themselves, assisted by the great republic across the Atlantic.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, there is a world of difference between the words ‘must’ and ‘may’. The Directive that is now in front of us following conciliation states that ports may introduce a system of authorisations, and then, in particular, for ports doing loading and unloading work themselves. The Jarzembowski report, which we adopted earlier at second reading, still states that ports must introduce a system of authorisations. A significant part of the compromise text differs from the text adopted at second reading. The difference between ‘may’ and ‘must’ has significant implications for ports and dockers in Europe. A non-compulsory authorisation system promotes unfair competition, which can harm quality of employment in the ports that do have a good authorisation system. Surely that was not the intention of this liberalisation. Second-class ports would remain, and the unfair competition resulting from this could harm quality of employment in the well-organised ports. One point has always taken priority in my party, the Dutch Labour Party, and that is our minimum. The scenario of ports doing loading and unloading themselves must be well regulated by means of a good authorisation system that applies across the board. This was conceded in the conciliation procedure. There is now to be no compulsory authorisation system for self-handling. In short, genuine harmonisation on a key issue such as ports doing their own loading and unloading is out of the question, as a result of which there can be different regimes in different ports. It has thus become a bad example of liberalisation. It is remarkable, however, that the EU is able to lay down detailed rules for all and sundry in many situations, but has proved unable to do so in this case, where job quality is concerned. We have to explain that once again to those people whose interests are at issue here. It will surprise no one, therefore, having heard my speech, that my group has no choice but to vote against this directive.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I have been informed that Mr Gawronski spoke a few minutes ago in condemnation of the fact that a press conference was organised – I organised it myself – on freedom of information, in which a book was discussed which Mr Gawronski describes as libellous. This book does nothing more than draw attention to all the documents underlying, amongst other things, a request for waiver of the parliamentary immunity of Mr Dell'Utri and Mr Berlusconi, a request which lies before Parliament. This is not a libellous book at all; it is a book which brings to the attention of the European Union documents which are of interest also and precisely for Parliament, for us to consider when we debate – I do not know when – the request for waiver of the parliamentary immunity of our fellow Members, Mr Dell'Utri and Mr Berlusconi, who should, at last, be brought to justice for these matters.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am concerned about the attitude which is in danger of developing in the EU where free trade is concerned. Attacks against the World Trade Organisation are significant, and the trade disputes we are experiencing and being drawn into are alarming. To be one-sidedly passionate about one’s own region’s traditions and characteristic ways of doing things by imposing restrictions in the context of trade policy is to risk removing the basis for trade and development and for the dissemination of knowledge, culture and prosperity. In the longer term, it can also lead to suspicion, stagnation and conflicts. When it comes to the Schwaiger report, which our excellent rapporteur has worked very thoroughly on, many Members of the European Parliament have devoted energy to tackling all the problems and disturbing elements which free trade is alleged to give rise to. I would therefore emphasise the contributions of free trade to reducing poverty and encouraging growth and the processes of democratisation. The power for development entailed in free trade and competition is something we cannot turn our backs on in the era of globalisation. The overriding task of the EU’s representatives in Seattle must therefore be that of continuing with the liberalisation of world trade. The new industries have relied upon the sets of regulations offered by the World Trade Organisation. In this way, they have been able to create prosperity in a very much better way than they would have done by means of endless subsidies from the rich man’s table. Protectionist measures would now prevent imports from these developing countries and limit the latter’s opportunities to contribute to the international division of labour. A policy of protecting markets therefore leads to a deterioration in working conditions in the poorer countries and runs counter to the kind of development we want to promote, that is to say improved living conditions achieved through growth and free trade.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I also support the rapporteurs and all who have worked hard for this compromise proposal. There is always a danger that a trialogue before second reading will turn into a kind of Bermuda triangle of lost hopes and failed expectations. That has not happened in this case, and we can all accept the achievements that we have. Everyone has sacrificed something to find a balance. I accept that the failure to accommodate the Doha amendments, the further recognition of homeopathic medicines and the limited extension of data exclusivity for switch products will leave some here with heavy hearts. It is when I turn to the third report on veterinary medicinal products – which the Commissioner dealt with briefly – that I confess to some further anxiety. Again, I support the compromise amendments: they enhance the EMEA, they recognise some limits to the status of prescription-only medicines, which we all support and welcome, and they allow options in relation to the centralised procedure. Nevertheless, they could go further in acknowledging the position of some Member States, including my own, where routine medicines are used by qualified persons, but not veterinarians. Amendment No 27 would have allowed an explicit derogation to allow this to continue, alongside prescription-only medicines. The Commission indicated before second reading that Amendment No 27 was acceptable in principle - it was not to the Council. Nevertheless, I hope to hear from the Commissioner, when he winds up this debate, that there will be a subtle and consensual solution to this dilemma that will be in the spirit of compromise and of the Christmas season as well.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, to start with, I would like to thank Mrs Langenhagen who, with this report, has once again produced a good and thorough piece of work. The Greenland Agreement is important for the Union, especially because it gives the Community the opportunity to enter into other very important fisheries agreements, for example with Norway and Iceland. There are four countries that benefit from the Greenland Agreement, but there are even more Member States that benefit from the agreements with Norway and Iceland. In short, the third country agreements that the Union has with countries in the north, west and south bring many advantages. With reference to respect for the principle of relative stability, we are therefore opposed to Mrs Figueiredo’s Amendment No 9. In this area, I would also support the ideas discussed by Mrs Langenhagen during her submission. I am pleased that the fishing possibilities, to which access is being purchased, are more realistic than in the previous agreement. I share Mrs Langenhagen’s desire to apply the principle of ‘money for fish’, i.e. separation of the financial consideration for the fishing possibilities, on the one hand, and the resources for development needs, on the other. I would like to call upon the Commission to seek a solution model which Greenland’s local Government can accept and which distinguishes between the value of fishing rights and more development-oriented financing, which is actually taken into account in the budget items, as is reflected in their headings. On behalf of the , I have put forward an amendment to the effect that those fishermen who benefit from the agreement must also be involved in financing the agreement. This is a proposal that we always make because we feel that the users must contribute to the financing to a greater extent. We believe that this principle should apply to all the EU’s fisheries agreements.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, for a Christian, requesting a moratorium on capital punishment and its abolition is not just a duty or a proper act, but an ethical choice made out of respect for people who have done wrong and who can and must redeem themselves. We are opposed to deaths caused by man’s interference, such as abortion and euthanasia. A guilty verdict is irrelevant to this request. We would ask for this moratorium even if the person were a confessed criminal and there is all the more reason for us to do it when there may be reasonable doubt about their guilt. If, on the basis of formal documents on civil rights, we ask for humane conditions in prisons, there is all the more reason for us to oppose the death penalty and we cannot therefore understand how countries that are recognised as civilised can still have cruel and uncivilised regulations. Finally, I would like to stress that, taking the modern view of studying the consequences of criminal judgements, the punishment should fulfil a rehabilitative function, enabling the citizen who has done wrong to take up his place in civil society again. Knowing these values, we are firmly reasserting our request for a moratorium on capital punishment for the two condemned citizens in Virginia and the Yemen.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, once again Angola warrants the attention of the European Parliament. Today, it is for happier reasons than those behind our last discussion of Angola in this House. The entire international community, and especially the European Union, must make it clear that we expect all parties to do everything they can to ensure that this peace process is definitive and irreversible. The Angolan government has done well to cease all military offensives and Unita’s political leaders and military command have acted properly. All concerned have demonstrated the ability to enter into dialogue, which is to be emphasised and applauded. It is crucial now to lay the foundations for a shared democratic life. Military units must be disbanded and the State administration must be extended to cover the whole country. Unita must be integrated into democratic life. Conditions must be established for the democratic rule of law to take root, respecting the rights of the opposition, press freedom, increasing the transparency of public authorities, fighting against corruption and influence peddling, combating poverty and social exclusion and promoting the country’s development in an environment of peace. Those who were previously dedicated to war must be reintegrated into normal civilian life and all those who were forced to flee their native areas by the violence of the civil war must be returned to their homes. As soon as the necessary conditions are in place, elections must be scheduled. I also wish to call on all parties to commit themselves to ensuring that the situation of the Portuguese children who disappeared months ago is quickly cleared up. The key word, therefore, is to stimulate: to stimulate the good faith of all parties and to trust in the ability and the determination of the Angolan people. So that, even thousands of kilometres away, they hear our voice in Luanda! The very best of luck, Angola!

Political group: PPE-DE