GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the impact and the development of the use of digital networks and the Internet – which we can only welcome, I hasten to add – have also provided new scope for the communication of racist and xenophobic messages. This proliferation is encouraged by a sense of impunity deriving from the perception that such offences are merely virtual acts performed in cyberspace. It is true that the Internet offers a public platform for everyone to express opinions. But some people, as they sit in front of their computers, seem to forget the public dimension of their words or actions and their necessary accountability for the material they communicate. The international dimension, the increasingly numerous intermediaries and the anonymity of the Internet have obviously encouraged and deepened the impression that cyberspace enjoys some sort of extraterritorial immunity from the law. While cyberspace is virtual, criminal liability for offences committed there is real. It is clear that if the Internet is to be counted among the instruments of free expression, if it wants to enjoy corresponding rights, it must be accompanied by the fulfilment of all obligations. And if this tool, which transcends frontiers, is to contribute to the emancipation of societies, of its ‘cybercitizens’, it must not on any account be allowed to exploit the loopholes resulting from insufficient coordination of national policies to become a law unto itself or, to put it another way, to frustrate the efforts of the European Union to function as an area of peace, security and justice. Thank you, Commissioner, for this proposal, which the report is intended to reaffirm. In short, it is not a matter of ordering action but of encouraging it.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, minimum health and safety standards are the core of European employee protection legislation. The harmful negative effects of noise exposure are scientifically documented and we do not need to discuss them in detail here. Noise-induced deafness is one of the most common occupational illnesses. Measures to protect workers from noise thus have a high priority. Everyone involved – workers, employers and legislators – should therefore seize every opportunity to keep noise pollution in the workplace as low as possible. With regard to reducing the noise levels which people voluntarily submit to during their leisure time, however, there is little we can do, other than appeal to the individual to exercise common sense. In agreeing protective measures for the workplace, however, we must also take account of the scope for their practical implementation – and especially the impact on small and medium-sized businesses. There is little point in adopting highly complex rules at European level if they cannot or will not be complied with in practice. In striking a balance, I believe that the amendments proposed by this House generally offer acceptable solutions. I would also like to thank the rapporteur particularly for her willingness to compromise, which was already evident in the committee. This defused a potential conflict over a significant change to exposure limit values and action limit values, without sacrificing the justified interests of employees. With regard to the assessment of the noise exposure level, too, the provisions of the Council's common position on individual hearing protection should be maintained. We also endorse Amendment No 8, which states that Member States may lay down values which are lower than the exposure limit values and the action limit values laid down in this directive where this is necessary with regard to the health and safety of workers. This is entirely in line with the principle of minimum standards in European social policy. We also make it clear that the employer is responsible for enforcing the wearing of hearing protectors and the provision of individual training. As ‘prevention is better than cure’, a worker whose noise exposure exceeds the lower exposure action values will also be entitled to appropriate audiometric testing. The use of a weekly noise exposure level in place of the daily noise exposure level under certain conditions is sensible, as envisaged in the Council's common position. The aspect of this directive which triggered the most heated debate concerned the treatment of workers who are exposed to music, from classical/orchestral music to disco. In my view, we take adequate account of this special area in the compromise proposed in Amendment 23. I hope this is a solution which the Council can also endorse, for an immediate and unconditional inclusion of these events will hardly do justice to the general belief that music – whether in the concert hall or the night-club – is noise and should therefore be treated restrictively from the outset. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, there is great unanimity here on our position regarding climate issues, which I believe is extremely important. We must use this unanimity to put maximum pressure on those countries which are now deciding the future of the Kyoto Protocol. In practice, we risk some sort of collapse in climate negotiations, a collapse which would risk setting us back several years. The worst thing is that those causing the collapse, particularly the US, have no alternative to offer. Therefore, everything must now be done to save whatever can be saved. The European Union itself has a credibility problem because, as previous speakers have said, many of our Member States will not meet the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol, either. We know that these requirements in themselves are insufficient to combat the problem of climate change. What we see in practice when we meet the Council of Ministers, for example in conciliation on combustion plants and national ceilings for emissions, is that no-one is prepared to take the decisions which need to be taken. By the time a decision was to be made in Gothenburg on a strategy for sustainable development, many of the most important points had been removed. Of course the EU’s credibility would also increase if we showed by our actions that we are prepared to meet the targets we set ourselves. I believe this is important ahead of the meetings which we are about to have with other countries in order to decide the future of the Kyoto Protocol.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to thank the Council for the determined action it showed in connection with the referendum on independence for East Timor, for example, by sending there a prestigious delegation, made up partly of our colleagues representing Parliament. I myself was able to be part of the presidential delegation, which I greatly appreciate. In May, we discussed here what sort of international presence was needed in East Timor. Some of us considered whether something other than a regular police force was perhaps needed there, or whether peacekeeping forces were required. It would appear that the biggest mistake was that the whole international operation was aimed only at allowing people to vote. That was the great challenge, as people were being intimidated and, since April, the terror had been really appalling. People went to vote; it was a sunny day, and I will certainly never forget how many people came to thank us, the international observers, for having come there. The joy, however, was short-lived. Already the following day, paramilitary forces began to rampage through the streets and villages, and we received news that, in particular, local people in the service of the UN were being persecuted and killed. Now I wish to add three demands to the list already presented. Firstly, we must demand that the commanders of the army, who are known to have taken part in this outrage, withdraw immediately. Secondly, we must send, through the ECHO programme, humanitarian aid as soon as possible and, obviously, the aim should be in the long-term for a programme of development. Thirdly, as the paramilitaries are still terrorising the people, international human rights monitors must inevitably be sent there

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I, too, want to thank Mrs Weiler for a good report. The Commission reports on which this debate is based presuppose that there are to be no major changes this year, because a large-scale evaluation of the first five-year period is to be carried out in the course of next year. We do not, therefore, wish to start making changes at the present stage. Naturally, this state of affairs has also had a marked influence upon the current report, which concerns what we have discussed in previous years. I think that the rapporteur has added some important aspects: quality at work, training, professional education, life long learning, equality etc. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs submitted a number of proposals for the report, of which a number were adopted and introduced into the report. These amendments worry me because some of them place such heavy emphasis upon price stability policy, budget restriction policy and such like. They worry me because we are heading for an economy which is no longer as strong. The Luxembourg procedure has been very focused upon improving the supply of labour, but this presupposes that there are job opportunities and that current economic policy is creating job opportunities and countering the trend towards economic recession. I therefore believe that, in the current situation, the amendments in question militate against a European employment strategy. I should also like to say a few words about the future. A number of evaluations are now under way. I have been in contact with people working on a number of the ongoing research projects, and I believe that one of the things that will be emphasised is the fact that the Member States are failing to implement the policy properly. There is relatively broad agreement between those pursuing labour market policy in the Member States but, in spite of that, no such policy is being implemented in the Member States themselves. The labour market administrations really do not have much to do with the procedure itself. They are pursuing their own policy. The parliaments have no influence at all, but it is nonetheless they who must fund the national efforts we are demanding. It is therefore incredibly important that more attention be paid to the parliaments in particular, but also to the entire political process in the Member States, if the result is to be effective. I believe that this will be the major task in the forthcoming evaluation. It is not enough simply to emphasise indicators and such like. The bodies that supply the finance and then administer the measures must also play an active role in the process. IN THE CHAIR: GERHARD SCHMIDVice-President

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we in the European Union must support any action leading to the abolition of the death penalty. The abolitionists, who have met in Strasbourg at the first world conference against the death penalty, can count – and know they can count – on our full and active support. A European day against the death penalty – as Mr Méndez de Vigo was saying, and I agree with him – is a good idea, but it is not enough. We must also encourage the Community institutions and the European Union Member States to take our belief to its ultimate consequences – our belief, which without any doubt is reflected in all our legal systems, that the death penalty is against the law and is just as bad as other historical monstrosities, such as slavery. The European Union should, therefore, as we request in the resolution, consider the abolition of the death penalty to be an essential aspect of its relations with third countries, and consequently this should be reflected in the conclusions of international agreements, aid programmes and trade relations. Since Mr Van den Berg has already done so, I do not wish to mention such aberrations as the execution of minors or the physically disabled, nor to talk about cases of innocent people condemned to death. I shall not go into the figures, either – because what Mr Dupuis has just said is true – and in any case I think they are irrelevant: a single case is itself a monstrosity. The abolition of the death penalty is an elementary principle in the state of civilisation in which we now find ourselves, and nobody should be deprived of their life by a court sentence. I therefore support both this resolution and the European day against the death penalty, but I believe we still have to go a little further in all our work to achieve the abolition of the death penalty.

Political group: PSE
I should like to thank the Commissioner for a wide-ranging reply and I note that two of the central achievements are those which Parliament has pushed through very strongly. However, my concern is not the work that he has done – for which I commend him very much – but rather, for example, the delays and problems that Member States are experiencing in transposing the electronic commerce directive, passed by this House with great speed. Similarly, I see that as regards copyright in the Information Society – another fundamental plank in the legislation that he does not mention – discussion is continuing on ideas for new levies on computer disks and other issues that will fundamentally hold back the development of the e-society. Does he share my considerable concern that Member States do not appear to be taking anything like seriously enough the fundamental principles that he has enunciated and would he give us some indication that he will give positive vent to them at the forthcoming meetings? Will the Commission publish evaluation reports on both of these issues so that we in this House can put some political pressure on Member States to get on with it?

Political group: PPE-DE
When it comes to relations with Russia, there are two extremes within the EU. On the one hand, there are those who want to take revenge on the old adversary, the Soviet Union, and who consider present-day Russia, above all, as conquered land which must continue to yield up oil and natural gas for some time to come. On the other hand, there are those who want Russia as a long-term friend because it is a close neighbour, has many inhabitants and deserves support as a developing country. Those two strongly opposed views ultimately have the same negative consequence. Economic self-interest or selfless feelings of solidarity lead them to prefer to overlook the shortcomings in the areas of environmental protection, human rights and democracy. If they get their own way, Russia can continue to develop unhindered into a state that intimidates opponents in order to withdraw from any political activity, deprive parliament of its role, crush national minorities with military means and make the environment completely subordinate to expected, short-term, economic benefit. If we continue to neglect Russia's current problems, the EU will become responsible for creating a monster as a neighbour. The Member States should not seek out conflict with Russia, but neither should they, at all costs, avoid tensions with its government. That is why it is necessary for Parliament to make a critical statement.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I voted against the report because of the ongoing human rights abuses against homosexuals, intellectuals and religious minorities.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, what we have just heard is unprecedented in the history of the European Parliament, of which I have been a Member since the first direct elections in 1979. The Belgian Prime Minister and President-in-Office of the Council does not belong to my party. Nevertheless, I would say to you, Mr Vanhecke, that the comments which you made just now make you and those who share your views deserving of our most critical judgement. It is intolerable that you should pick a fight like this here in the European Parliament. Do it in your own country, but not in the European Parliament! (Applause) The President-in-Office has our full support where the defence of democracy and the rule of law in Europe are concerned. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I have the feeling that some of the previous speakers have not read the 1999 annual report on the Union economy in its entirety and have made a conscious decision not to listen to my Group’s spokesman, Karl von Wogau, for the document that we are debating today, and which has had a report written on it, points to the fact that the introduction of the euro has been a success. It points to the problems experienced in 1999, when, notwithstanding the problems, there was currency and price stability, increased employment, the beginnings of a period of upturn, and it was possible to make a start on reducing unemployment. In terms of outlook, the document points to an upswing, to long-term prospects and the measures required to achieve this, which Karl von Wogau then proceeded to enlarge upon. I am pleased that the debate we have been having here has been a tough one, for it underlines the fact that there are various approaches to economic policy. We want to continue along the successful European path to growth and employment and a functioning internal market, to hasten our progress and supplement this with the necessary measures. The left-wing of this House does not want to continue along this path, rather it makes dramatic statements such as: what we need is state intervention, not the extension and consolidation of the market economy. State intervention has always led to a high level of debt, and a higher level of debt has always damaged growth and employment, as well as social justice. That is what the debate we are having is all about, on the subject of which I have this to say to you: we need more freedom and less state intervention. It is sound framework conditions and not state intervention that enables enterprises to create growth and employment.

Political group: PPE-DE
The new Intergovernmental Conference which is due to open at the beginning or in the middle of next year’s first term obviously takes on great importance for the Community agenda for the near future. Not so much because the issues are new – some of them were included in the last IGC and not resolved – but certainly because of the complexity and sensitive nature of the issues that constitute the raison d’être of the forthcoming conference. With the argument for enlargement, the realisation of which does not present us with any fundamental problems, but which we do not envisage being achieved without consequences at various levels – and in the name of efficiency and democratic behaviour, an amendment to the Treaties, particularly in the institutional domain, is being aimed for. This means giving up unanimity and extending decision making by qualified majority to new areas; it means a new weighting of votes in Council decision making by qualified majority; and it means changing the composition and functioning of the institutions in terms of the number of Commissioners, the Council Presidency, the composition of the EP or even the choice of working languages. These are, in fact, changes that essentially target issues of power and influence within the EU and, where possible, aim to make viable or consolidate political boards of management around the largest and richest Member States. The marginal role that, in this context, it is sought to give to smaller, less developed countries causes us, naturally, to take a very reserved position, one of concern and even outright opposition to the solutions that are being recommended. Our position is further reinforced by the solutions sought by some people in the area of security and defence and which aim for a militarisation of the EU, which would thus be consolidated as a European pillar of NATO, a position that we also reject.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to reinforce Mrs Sbarbati's warning: right now we need more boldness. The European institutions need to be more courageous. Together with the United States, the European Union now has the difficult and vital task of preventing either party from reverting to its past position and of assessing the possibility of finding a solution to the problems of the Palestinians and the Israelis. With a view to this, I support Mr Galeote's proposal to hold a conference along the same lines as the Madrid Conference. I will illustrate the importance of this with a historical reference: in the 1980 Venice Declaration, proposed by Ministers Genscher and Colombo, the Community first of all established the need for a solution to be found to the Palestinian question through negotiations. At that time, Arafat was still regarded as a terrorist, he was barred from obtaining a visa to go to the United Nations headquarters in America and there was no general consensus regarding the diplomatic strategies to be adopted. Following his visit to Rome in 1982 for the Conference of the Interparliamentary Union, things at last started to move and not only did Arafat obtain his visa but – following the preparatory work carried out in Oslo – the United States started to play an active part in the Palestinian question. Today, there is no question about the fact that the United States' activity is vital, but I do feel that the European Union also has a part to play and that it must not forget the past, not in order to claim any right to rule, but to regain its essential role which, as Minister Moscovici pointed out, complements the activities of the United States in the search for a solution to the matter, a solution which is still a long way off. I would like to end with a reference to what is known as the International Statute of Jerusalem. By an International Statute I do not mean that the city would have an international administration, but merely that, as an international community, we must direct this initiative so that the statutory instrument – irrespective of who has territorial sovereignty over Jerusalem – commits all parties to a system of international control, so that every believer – whether Christian, Jew or Muslim – is, at last, guaranteed access to the holy sites.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I just want to say, in addition to casting my vote just now, that we need to attempt to make the concept of State aid totally clear. Today’s document addresses this subject – which has already been dealt with in the past – in a number of respects, it develops and analyses it and also welcomes in principle the decline of that aid during the period 1997 to 1999. It remains to address the issue of regional aid, the money that passes from the State – for regional tax income is not sufficient, at least in Italy – to the regions and from the regions directly to many bodies and companies, which thus break competition rules and distort the market, particularly in respect of other companies which, for example, are not based in regions with a special statute, which are particularly favoured.

Political group: PPE-DE