GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I should like to congratulate Mrs Angelilli on the proposals in her report on developing control mechanisms to protect children from watching violent and other broadcasts which are unsuitable for their age. I agree with them completely; however, I should like to point out that this is a minor issue at a time when there is a major issue at stake. What I mean is that these proposals are contained in a non-binding Commission communication, while the binding 'Television without frontiers'; directive (97/36/ΕC) to which they refer is being infringed time and again by almost every Member State. Under these circumstances, it is essential that all the Member States comply with Community legislation as quickly as possible. Furthermore, I have ascertained from a personal investigation in the relevant Commission services that eight Member States (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Portugal, Sweden, Spain and the UK) are applying Community legislation, while the rest (France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and Luxembourg) are infringing it one way or another. I also agree with my fellow Member that these measures should not be confined solely to television and should also apply to the Internet, which no longer has any reason to “envy” television, now that its multiple applications include film projections. If all these proposals are to be translated from theory into practice, we need to create filtering and classification mechanisms which allow parents to select the programmes which are suitable for their children. Encouraging industry to move in this direction through international collaboration and increasing parents’, teachers’ and children’s awareness will act as a catalyst. - Report Dybkjær (A5-0198/2000)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, pensioners and elderly people fought in the last war and their wives and daughters suffered the consequences of this. They therefore remember well how horrible it is to be at war, and that is why they have had enough of soldiers and weapons. However, they also know how important and necessary it is to have defence weapons and they hope – and are expressing this desire to Parliament through myself – that the European Union will have a defence army, a defence air force and a defence navy which are well-organised, well-equipped and capable of making people realise, not just in Europe but in places where there is conflict and war too, how important it is that there should be a European Union in the world with military equipment that gives it a genuine defence capacity.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I have three points. Firstly, this paper is slightly more modest than its title suggests. When you first titillated us with the prospect of presenting this White Paper over a year ago, we were all very excited at the idea of having some great constitutional blueprint. In fact, you have very wisely produced a paper on good administration rather than a blueprint on governance or constitutional government as a whole, and that pragmatic and focused approach has much to commend it. Secondly, I very much welcome your announcement today that you wish to establish an interinstitutional working party. I have always felt it was a mistake to try to treat governance as if it were a piece of legislation which was first presented by the Commission and then batted between the institutions. This is not normal legislation, but an intensely political debate that requires an intensely political and cooperative approach between the institutions. My final point is one that you touch upon quite politely in the White Paper. I will be less polite: we can do as much as we like at European level – in Strasbourg and Brussels – to improve administration and governance and make our decisions more comprehensible, legitimate and understandable. However, as long as national political institutions and national political cultures remain frozen in the 19th-century mould and pretend that either the EU does not exist or is some far-off spaceship, we will never make great advances in this honourable enterprise of improving governance. Governance can only be built brick by brick from the bottom, from the ground floor, from our nations and regions. That is where we should all start.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would first like to answer Mr de Roo, because it is the second time (the first time was in writing and the second was orally) that I have heard him make inaccurate statements about the position taken by the Spanish Members – without exception – and the Spanish Government regarding the framework directive. Mr de Roo, about two months ago you said that the Spanish Government and the Spanish Members voted against the framework directive. Either you were not at that vote or you did not realise that, without exception, we voted in favour of the framework directive. I think that this is a framework directive that – and I agree with what has been said here by several speakers – is going to promote a new culture in terms of water in European countries, based on criteria of efficiency and quality of water resources. No one can deny this, much less so the Partido Popular or the Spanish Government. It seems to me, Mr de Roo, that your Group is particularly interested in the Spanish water plan. You could have put the question more directly from the start. First of all, I would like to know if you have read it. Do you have precise knowledge of the Spanish water plan or are you echoing other people’s positions and a political opportunism that could of course be risky? Secondly, I think that Mrs Sornosa should tell me where she has seen me saying that I said that the Spanish water plan might contradict the framework directive. The water plan is currently an open draft, in the process of consultation with all the parties concerned, although none of them has wanted to make use of this facility. It is therefore difficult for it to violate any directive, and therefore, any information either for or against this – such as some that has appeared in the press – is absolutely unwarranted. This is what I interpreted from the Commission’s position and what I have maintained throughout. I never said anything else, Mrs Sornosa. There has also been talk in this debate about the matter of alternative plans and desalination plants. Unfortunately, I cannot answer all of that in detail due to lack of time.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Madam Vice-President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, let me begin by thanking the four rapporteurs. The three reports from the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism were adopted either unanimously or by an overwhelming majority in committee. In other words, we discussed the issues objectively and arrived at a common position. For that reason, it is important that we stand by that position. Mr President-in-Office of the Council, it was very honourable of you to ask at the last minute to have the votes on two of the directives postponed so that we can still reach an agreement. But I put it to you that this is a somewhat ambivalent move. First of all, we in Parliament were criticised for having caused a delay. The President of Parliament specially brought the debate and vote forward from the scheduled date in December to today's sitting. We have had no written statement from the Council which would have enabled us even to discuss a compromise. I believe your intentions are honourable, but we can only discuss negotiating outcomes that have been examined by the Council. To that extent, it is impossible to change anything, because we discussed this material meticulously in our committees, and it would be impossible to hammer out a compromise wording on the various issues that are particularly awkward, to have these compromises printed in eleven languages and to discuss them with our colleagues in time for next Tuesday. I can therefore only ask you to accept the directive and the regulation in the form in which Parliament adopts them at noon today. That would take us as close as possible to our common goal of increasing maritime safety without delay. The choice is yours. On those points where you feel unable to accept our proposals, produce a common position in December. Do not delay it in the Council. We are prepared to negotiate on proposed compromises for the second reading from January onwards, so that the second reading will be completed early next year, just like that. I should like to reiterate that the urgent action upon which you are now insisting is not necessary. For example, in the case of port state control, we certainly want tighter rules, unlike the Council. But even if we did not complete the process in December, we should certainly have taken a huge step forward, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, if you managed to persuade the other States and your own administration to fulfil their obligations in matters of port state control under the old directive. So if you want to do something to improve safety at sea, recruit new inspectors, carry out stringent checks under the existing law, and we shall have achieved a resounding success. With regard to the liability of classification societies, which is a highly complex subject, we shall have to discuss this calmly and carefully. We have discussed the material thoroughly in committee, we have adopted our opinions by a large majority or unanimously, and Parliament should do likewise at noon today. If you achieve the same level of agreement in December, we shall be through to the next stage.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first of all I wish to thank Mrs de Palacio for her efforts to promote air safety. I agree with what she has said. I also wish to express my sympathy for the families of the victims of the air accident at el-Sheikh in Egypt before concentrating on the sensitive aspects of the discussions with the United States on air safety. The Commission deserves all credit for its fight to defend privacy in the negotiations with the United States concerning the air passenger lists. Some of us in the delegation for relations with the United States were there in the US and discussed these issues. We know, in particular, how incredibly difficult it is to get the United States to achieve an, in our view, fair and considered balance between combating terrorism and defending human rights. The outcome of the negotiations is, in some respects, successful and, in others, unsatisfactory. The United States has, however, made major concessions. The fact that it is possible to store information for three and a half years is positive from an American perspective. From a European perspective, it is, however, barely acceptable. In this case, it is, however, also a question of creating efficient contacts between the EU and the United States so that business, trade and aviation can thrive and develop. In the light of this, it is very important to find a solution that does not put a complete stop to these contacts at the very moment when the economy is in the process of improving. I wish, however, to warn against contagion. Three and a half years must not constitute a model for the EU when we proceed with our own legislation on data protection and combating crime. In Europe, we have stronger protection for human rights than the United States does, especially when it comes to protecting privacy. That protection is something of which we should be proud. When we in the EU develop our own measures to combat terrorism – in many cases similar to, but not identical with, those adopted by the United States – we must defend our protection of privacy. Cooperation and coordination with the United States on these issues is certainly necessary, but we cannot abandon our own principles concerning human rights. Who wishes to see European aviation include armed marshals and requirements to have finger prints taken? The agreement must fall if the United States does not comply with the protection of human rights. We cannot afford, in either financial or human terms, to make room for woolly interpretations by one side or the other. In this area, the Commission must, on every point, be given clear assurances on interpretation and compliance. A broader international agreement on air safety may be a step on this road too.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to say – in relation to your intention to deal with the agenda in a moment – that it really does seem inadequate to dedicate only one of the items on the agenda for the debate on topical and urgent subjects to the situation in Madagascar. What is happening in Madagascar is something much more serious which warrants much more than fleeting attention. As you are aware, Mr President, President Ratsiraka’s position was confirmed following the political elections, but all attempts to reestablish democratic relations with his opponent, Marc Ravalomanana, are being thwarted. What is more, civil strife has led in recent days to the ports and transport coming to a total standstill and food supplies being completely cut off. Many children and elderly people are already dying of starvation. I know that the resolution we are to debate on Thursday afternoon – that will inevitably be an intimate conversation between a few friends, as is always the case – will focus mainly on politics and the economy. Mr President, this is a question of respect for human rights. The alarm has been raised by a community of sisters – Italian and French nuns – who have been the object of a disturbing increase in unwanted government attention, not least, in recent days. In other words, there is a danger that a climate of oppression and suppression of human rights will develop: this is a question of more than just economic issues. I would therefore urge you to give this issue a more appropriate slot on the agenda.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I am not going to emphasise the importance of the networks and of the Info-Points, on which I think that we all – both the Commission and Parliament – agree. For my part, I am going to consider a more financial aspect, that is, the Financial Regulation – the new Financial Regulation. I believe that we all agree on that issue too. We worked together, Parliament approved it and it has been accepted. All that remains is to implement it. We also all agree that the procedures under this Financial Regulation must be adhered to, including the procedures that allow for genuine transparency in the implementation of the budget. Moreover, if we have understood correctly, the Commission has been given every ad hoc resource required for this implementation. I believe, Mr Kinnock, that this is a key element not only in this case, but also for the future. For the implementation of the budget, however, it is also essential for the sums to arrive on time. We talk in the industry of ‘just on time’, and that is where the problem lies. We are now in a situation where the Commission did not think far enough ahead and where, rather than coming to see us to explain that perhaps there was a problem or further difficulties, it waited until we were alerted by the public and by the networks, and are now extremely worried. Not only was the Commission slow in warning us, Mr Kinnock; more important, several things have been covered up. For example, when we are told that ‘several structures have agreed not to receive any money’, I disagree! Several structures have agreed to be provided with material resources, but have never said that they did not need any money. I find this approach somewhat disagreeable in view of the need for us to be as sincere as possible in our joint work. Today, we must find a solution for 2004 and I believe that we will find it on Monday. In any event, I hope that we will, so that it can continue through to 2005. However, what we need now is for the Commission to assure us that it is going to be able to implement the solution that I am sure we are going to find, without fail and in good time to enable the Info-Points to continue operating. This is vital, as we have said, for Europe cannot withstand any further democratic breakdown. Europe can continue to work at an administrative level, but without the citizens it will not do so for long, and the Info-Points are one of the key intermediaries in ensuring that we finally have a Europe of Citizens.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, misery and death in Ethiopia were on our screens four years ago. The cameramen left but misery and death did not leave Ethiopia. Starvation and death continue today. The population of Ethiopia pray for rain. Sadly they see only a rain of bullets. People crave water, food and medicine. Sadly all they see is their land and their homes blown to pieces by the tanks and planes our governments supply to the Ethiopian and Eritrean politicians. These politicians are hungry for power: politicians who argue over territorial boundaries whilst their people die. These politicians fly their national flags on their parliaments and presidential palaces, but sadly the only flag their people see is the flag of death. Famine, disease and death remain the hallmarks of these countries. Hunger for power must not be allowed to override the hunger for life. Mr Patten has listed a number of measures the EU has taken to help. Such help has been received with gratitude, but let us put it into perspective. Sixteen million people are starving today; 15 000 tonnes have been delivered. I accept the difficulties of the logistics but that means less than a kilo per person. No time limit is given, in other words it is a kilo that has to last forever. These measures are palliative. They only relieve the symptoms; they do not cure the disease. The EU must take the lead in curing this serious problem and the only way to do it is firstly to stop arms reaching all the warring parties and make sure we use our influence with those who supply them; and secondly teach these people how to grow food and harvest, store, package and process it so that they can be independent and self-reliant, not beggars for life.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I welcome the Galeote report. It is quite appropriate that we should be reforming the Commission's foreign delegations and examining how they can perform in a much more efficient way, hopefully in the context of a much more coherent common foreign and security policy. In that context I would like to make some very brief points. Firstly, with regard to my own experience with the Commission's delegation offices when I was in Sri Lanka, it was excellent to have it as a backup. It was very helpful to us in discharging our work and coordinating the various EU ambassadors in that area. In some other experiences I have had with the Commission's external offices I sometimes felt that they can get too close to the local political administration and are somewhat reluctant to take a strong stance on policy and political issues. It must be made absolutely clear that any of our delegation offices are there not simply to have a cosy relationship with the local administration but to represent EU policy in the wider sense. My third point, and I am sure it has already been made by my colleague, Georg Jarzembowski, is whether the Commission would respond positively to our repeated request for the establishment of a delegation office in Taiwan. We have pussyfooted on that issue for far too long. We should have the courage of our convictions and I hope that the Commissioner would respond positively to the proposal that there should be an office in Taiwan sooner rather than later.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the scourge of drugs and the action taken to combat it know no geographical, social or national boundaries. Consequently, any attempt to study this phenomenon must not be contained within the geographical borders of the Member States or even the candidate countries, but must be based on information from as many countries as possible, if it is to help prevent and combat the problem more efficiently. We need to study in depth why and how more and more young people are turning to escapism and drugs at ever younger ages. Collating, substantiating and evaluating information from a number of countries will only help us carry out an integrated study and find basic answers if we collate and exchange data from as wide an area as possible on a comparable basis. For example, in Greece, most of the information obtained so far has been from treatment centres, leaving sources of information from other agencies which might contribute towards a more integrated evaluation of the dimensions of the problem unexplored. The treatment centres house young people who are able to access them because they are helped either by their family or by the wider social environment. But what happens to the large section of the population which has no such access, such as economic migrants? According to information from the Greek Addiction Treatment Centre, 97% of the people using these centres are Greek citizens. However, according to prison statistics, the majority of drug users in prison are economic migrants who, either because they do not speak the language or because of a lack of information and social exclusion, have never set foot in such a centre. Consequently, according to the data collated and evaluated by the Treatment Centre, this category of users is almost non-existent. In my opinion, every user should have the opportunity to go to a detoxification centre without being obliged to give his or her full personal details. We all know that using drugs leads to crime, not only because drugs per se are illegal, but because the high cost of drugs set by the huge financial rings which supply them, inevitably forces all users into crime.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I too have companies in my constituency that are benefiting from this public procurement regime. Indeed they are benefiting from providing euro slot machines for public authorities even though Britain is not in the euro zone. There are lots of opportunities here. But I want to direct some very pertinent questions to the Commissioner and I hope he will answer those questions in his response. Commissioner, we need some clarification regarding thresholds, as Mr Harbour has indicated. I would genuinely like to know what would be the effect on the public procurement market if thresholds were to be increased, and particularly on small and medium-sized enterprises and on consumers. I would also like to know, as regards our international obligations under the WTO general procurement agreement with third countries, whether it would be the case, as has been established by Commission services, that the US and Japan would actually be favoured contractors and that our EU suppliers would lose out because we would be operating two distinctly different regimes. I should like to raise questions on the social criteria. Members have already stressed the compatibility of incorporating strong social progress criteria in award procedures while respecting the principles of competition law and of equal treatment and non-discrimination. It ought to be possible to combine economic reform and competition policy with strong and sound social justice and social progress principles. I cannot understand why, if we have a system of transparency and open competition, how we cannot prevent that from being used as a protectionist smoke screen in the publication of tenders. Why has the Commission not incorporated the full force of good practice from European case law into the body of this directive to ensure that we guarantee the highest social and economic standards in public procurement? Surely we owe that to our public authorities, to our consumers and indeed to our businesses. Why has the Commission gone down the route of a voluntary approach? I hope the Commission will accept the amendments mentioned by my colleague, Mr Hughes, to allow for reserve contracts for sheltered employment schemes. I hope it will respect Parliament's wishes for a strong line to be taken in this directive, ensuring compliance with core labour standards and permitting the exclusion of those in breach of those standards.

Political group: PSE