GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I wish, first of all, to congratulate Mrs O'Toole on her pertinent report, on which I should like to say the following: these days it is not only the concept of the book that is changing; the concept of literacy is also changing. Ignorance or a lack of skill in the field of the new technologies and in the field of the written word and knowledge will inevitably lead to new forms of illiteracy with all the human, social, economic and cultural costs that this entails. (Noise) This is why the euphoria about the role of the new technologies in the Union’s development and in rapidly combating unemployment that has dominated international meetings, and which reached its apogee at the Lisbon Summit, should at least be sensibly tempered, because the European institutions need to reflect thoroughly on subjects such as those addressed in this report. It is not, however, simply a question of considering issues such as books, electronic publishing, printing on demand and other such matters. In my view, it is crucial that the work of the various parliamentary committees, directorates-general and leaders, at both European and national level, who are involved with these issues, reach a useful and effective form of coordination. It makes no sense to adopt divergent or even perhaps contradictory measures for policies on electronic publishing and books, copyright or e-learning. The definition and coordination of guidelines for such policies are increasingly suffering from the fact that there are at least two approaches: the growing support of qualified experts, which gives politicians skills in an area in which they are not generally proficient, and opting for legal provisions that will be able to adapt rapidly to developments in technologies and the markets. In my view, electronic publishing should not be treated as the same as the traditional book with regard to taxation and the application of VAT. It lacks a system of its own and we must therefore bear in mind that the traditional book contains a different set of values and is, by its very nature, a different type of product from the simple digitised file that is an electronic book. Finally we propose that a European Year of the Book and Literacy should be designated and that, every year, 23 April should be declared European Reading Day. These measures would contribute to the fight against illiteracy, to the policy of safeguarding the cultural and linguistic diversity of the European peoples, to the creation of incentives to acquire knowledge and to deepening people’s sense of citizenship. For these reasons they deserve our applause. IN THE CHAIR: MRS FONTAINEPresident

Political group: PPE-DE
This report expresses the content, if not the form, of the recriminations of Dutch employers against the European provisions which might result in making it, not impossible, but more difficult for them to sack their employees who are resident in another Member State. This situation arose as a result of an exceptional combination of circumstances, and the Dutch bosses and authorities regard it as intolerable, as does the rapporteur, who invites the Commission to look into this problem, as if the European authorities needed any encouragement to curtail the rights of workers, when the minds, the concerns and the actions of those authorities are already only too heavily biased towards the bosses. Naturally we voted against this rapport. - Report: Turco (A5-0275/2003)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr Carnero's report to this House is an important one, and if this call for the EU to be given a legal personality is acted upon, that would be a qualitative leap forward in the unity that Europe represents for the citizens of our countries and also for the EU's partners throughout the world. No one understands the difference between the European Community and the European Union. It is complicated and confusing and also has many drawbacks. Mr Berthu is quite right in saying that this request forms part of the major overall reform that we want. Merging the three pillars and streamlining the decision-making structures are all things that we have already approved in the Leinen-Méndez de Vigo report and in various other reports. The question of legal personality is a cornerstone that is needed to bring the whole thing together. This cornerstone was missing and we are providing it now with Mr Carnero's report. I very much support this. The Convention is an excellent opportunity to do this work. We need Europe to have a single voice in the world. Mr Laschet and others have already mentioned examples of this absurdity: in some cases the Community is represented, but not the Union. It really is very complicated. But it is also important for justice and home affairs policy. I just asked him to say that we have agreed to make EUR 5 million available for Europol. That is a good thing, because we want Europol to function, but the funding cannot be accepted, because Europol cannot accept money from the Community budget, but only from the Member States. This demonstrates the absurdity of this situation, and I hope that our representatives and others involved in the Convention will take a step forward as regards legal personality and that the rights of our citizens will finally become binding, so that they can take the Union to court. On that note, I wish this proposal every success and say thank you to Mr Carnero.

Political group: PSE
Although I acknowledge the merit of the Delegation of the Conciliation Committee and the fine work of Mr Callanan, I still believe that we have not achieved a sufficiently ambitious outcome with regard to noise pollution, to atmospheric pollution and to promoting the quality of water for human consumption. I therefore disagree with the derogation granted to steam-powered craft, with applying the 3dB allowance to all engines types and with the limit values set for exhaust emissions in specific inland waters. - Report Gebhardt (A5-0146/2003)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, the Caveri report is excellent, although that does not prevent us feeling some unease as we approach the vote, unease – I should point out – at the Council’s behaviour, which we feel to be formalistic and wholly inappropriate, deciding as it did in the space of a few hours at a meeting on New Year’s Eve, on 31 December, on a majority solution which loses all merit before the senseless fact that it is a solution which has not been accepted, has not been endorsed by the countries directly involved, namely Austria and Italy. We are also uncomfortable with the decision to offer two countries, Greece and Portugal, a free exemption for some categories of lorry, as if we were still at the very beginning of the integration process and it were necessary to proceed by means of derogations and exemptions. My unease, Mr President, is also due to the great contradiction which this ecopoints system represents without resolving the issue which Commissioner de Palacio also mentioned. Indeed, we are continuing to extend a transitional system which was only accepted when Austria joined the European Union on the basis that it was transitional, precisely because it is a derogation from the provisions of the Treaties on the free movement of goods and, in this case, also because it is a question of the Alpine arc, which is, in any case, a natural obstacle that penalises some countries in terms of the movement of goods. As the Commissioner has rightly pointed out, the solution still has to be transitional, and this is the third reason for our unease – the slow rate of our progress towards the natural solution of the Brenner Base Tunnel, of intermodal transport. However, it is already positive, as Mr Caveri pointed out, that the date for the construction of the tunnel has been brought forward a little from 2021, which was the uncertain date initially proposed to the Austrian Government for work to start. Lastly, Mr President, our unease is also due to the heavy-handed attempt to make a rather over-simplistic distinction between those in Parliament who uphold and wish to safeguard respect for the environment and the quality of the environment and those who are concerned for the interests of road haulage companies. This is not the case. It is an unacceptable simplification of the facts. Our group – and Parliament as a whole, I believe, which has not spared any effort in the quest for compromise amendments – has focused as a priority first and foremost on sustainable development and the quality of the environment in the Alpine arc. The merit of the Caveri report, which is to the credit of all the Members who have contributed to it, is that it contains compromise amendments which reconcile and achieve a balance between the demands of environmental protection and the fundamental principle of free movement. I will end, Mr President, by reminding myself that, in extending the ecopoints system, we are not adopting it as a solution but postponing the decision. Now the governments must have their say.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I welcome the vote on the resolution and would like to emphasise two points. First of all, I would like to respond to the proposals put forward by the Commissioner earlier on, by drawing his attention to the fact that Article 5 of the Treaty on the ECSC stipulates that the role of the Community is to shed light and facilitate the action of interested parties by assembling information, organising discussions and defining general objectives. It seems to me that, with regard to Walloon regional power, the Commission should consider such action. Secondly, I feel that, following the various reports that the Commission could present to us, it could be useful for Parliament to draw up an own-initiative report on the development of metalworking in the face of what will undoubtedly be at stake in the enlargement process.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, it never ceases to amaze me that a Member of this House, who belongs to an organisation declared illegal as a result of being an extension of the terrorist group ETA, who is subject to legal proceedings in France, who is apparently using the funds allocated to honourable Members in an irregular fashion, should, taking advantage of his status as a Member of this Parliament and protected by the freedom that implies – a freedom over which the terrorist group ETA rides roughshod on a daily basis – try to justify the unjustifiable. I would have hoped, Mr President, that he would have condemned the latest attack by ETA which took place this weekend, but it is clear that, from a person whose positions are morally repulsive, who has not been able to condemn the murder of a six-year-old girl or any of the crimes of the terrorist group ETA, it is impossible to expect any comments or behaviour other than the type he has demonstrated here.

Political group: PPE-DE
It is surprising to read how anxious a green economist is about safeguarding the burgeoning financial services markets against systemic risks. Following on from the Lisbon Summit in the spring of 2000, which wanted to turn Europe into the world’s most competitive economy, Mr Lipietz wants to make the EU the safest haven for financial activities. This is why he would like legislation which offers the financial markets opportunities to develop. In his view, it is not the Member States that decide which of the three methods are used for the calculation of the supplementary capital adequacy. Instead, the financial conglomerates can make that choice themselves, provided that they make their decision public. I find little concern for people and the environment in his vision and too much understanding of the requirements of companies involved in capital management. However, I am aware that it is preferable to regulate these markets than to leave them to their own devices on a world scale, whereby those with the greatest spirit of adventure are given free rein and the most immoral companies elbow the others out of the market. I consider his proposal as a first step which will make it easier to draft rules later on in the interests of the financing of public services, the fight against poverty, democratic control and care for the environment.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, there are several reasons as to why we are once again discussing Burma – in fact this is the second time since the summer – and nor is this the first time this year that this country has been on the agenda. There are several reasons for this. Not long ago, Aung San Suukyi was again denied permission to leave Rangoon and talk to the supporters of her party, the NLD, a party which won the elections by such a large majority and has never been allowed to wield power. It is true that James Mawdsley, the activist we talked about two months ago, has been released since then. We might think that this is a small ray of hope, but that must not divert us from the major issues, from the big picture that we get in Burma. At the end of the day, the fact remains that the UN rapporteur for human rights returned from Burma with a negative account. The human rights activist Soe Thein has been treated in a lamentable manner. So there is every reason to talk about Burma again, and unfortunately there is no hope of it being the last time. Of course, slavery in Burma is talked about at length within the IAO. This is a subject that has not been given very much attention here to date, but, naturally, it must be discussed within the context of the European Union. The political repression continues and the flood of refugees, mainly headed for Thailand, continues – and for that matter, Thailand is putting troops into action. This is unacceptable in every sense by international standards. The military regime in Burma claims to be able to maintain order and stability in a country where ethnic rivalries are never far away. But the repression perpetrated by the regime only strengthens the rebellious feelings that can arise there and does not in any way, shape or form, lead to a resolution of potential ethnic conflicts. The problem of course, is what should we, as the European Union, do now? Our answer is to suggest that we keep the sanctions in place. I really do not think we have any alternative. The sad thing is that sanctions have proved ineffective so far. But ASEAN’s constructive contribution has fared no better, and I also have the feeling that increasingly, the other ASEAN countries, i.e. Burma’s neighbours, are beginning to feel ashamed of their decision to allow Burma to join ASEAN. Their philosophy of taking a constructive approach has failed and I feel that we, as the European Union, ought not to let them forget it. Round table talks with Burma do not work. In any case, I would not trust our own ministers to raise the matter there. They did not say a word about human rights at the ASEAN meeting in October, and I am not confident that they would do so now. That is why we are going to keep the sanctions strategy in place for the time being. We readily support the amendments that Mrs Kinnock tabled on that aspect.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Mr Swoboda's proposals for the Council regulation are appropriate, in my view. I think they would enhance the regulation. I would also like to thank him very much for his explanations. I do not want to repeat the criticism of the situation in Turkey which has already been expressed by Mr Swoboda, Mr Lagendijk and Mr Oostlander. The situation has certainly not improved in recent weeks and months. Our parliamentary group recently sent a delegation to Turkey; it came back with devastating reports from people affected, which we would gladly make available to the Commission, the Council Presidency or our parliamentary colleagues. But I do not want to go into that here. Mr Swoboda, you said that the ball is now well and truly in the Turkish half of the pitch. What would be the result of this Austrian footballing analogy, I wonder? Which side will score? And if it is at the EU's end, is it an own goal? What we need, as I am sure you will agree, is for this process to set the ball rolling towards democracy, human rights, and the fulfilment of the Copenhagen criteria. But I believe that in Turkey, the ball – which really is in the Turkish half of the pitch – is viewed in a completely different way. I believe that what has happened recently has been provocation. It is not an attempt to pursue the application for EU membership towards its proper goal; it is an end in itself, in order to secure financial resources, to utilise the benefits conferred by the Customs Union, or even to ensure that the criticism of the situation in Turkey is toned down. This brings me to the real issue which I would like to raise. Alongside the necessary and very candid criticism of the situation in Turkey, should we not be examining our own policies very critically as well? Since Helsinki – and, indeed, in Helsinki – it seems as if the Council and Commission have been the victims of their own propaganda, increasingly having to justify the fact that progress has been made. Mr Verheugen, you informed us here on 14 November that we have, and I quote, 'good cause to hope that we will achieve precisely what we set out to achieve, i.e. that our policy will help the forces of reform in Turkey give new impetus to the reform process and press on with reform...'. I would claim that the reality is very different. I realise that diplomacy often has to work very cautiously, but we should not be taken in by our own propaganda, or Turkey's. We should approach the debate honestly and strengthen the forces of reform, thus opening the way for Turkey into the European Union.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The construction of Europe has for too long ignored private law, and the Citizens' Europe, which we represent, must, as we said last night on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the International Convention, henceforth take into consideration the real concerns of families and the welfare of children. We all have a recollection of a number of cases, such as the Lancelin-Thiemann case which last year contaminated discussions between Germany and France on the subject of the dramatic situation of the children of this couple. The Gebhardt report rightly stresses that the increasing level of free movement within the European Union is causing and will in future cause an increasing number of marriages between nationals of different countries, hence the interest of examining this question. Current European law has not managed to draw the conclusions of this development, thus placing couples, and more particularly children, in a very complex position. The regulation submitted for our opinion today is therefore particularly welcome in so far as it includes unquestionable advantages in relation to the so-called Brussels II Convention, signed in 1998, but not as yet ratified. If it is unanimously adopted in Council, this regulation may come into force very soon and shall be applied immediately and harmoniously throughout the European Union, thus enabling long drawn out wrangling over jurisdiction, which is harmful to everyone, to be prevented. I would add that this proposal for a regulation specifically targets legal judgements relating to parental responsibility for joint children, corresponding to the requests made on several occasions by this House. But, like other Members, I am concerned by two amendments, Amendment No 2 and Amendment No 5, which is going to attribute a number of responsibilities relating to parental authority to the Court of Justice. I am afraid that this is not a matter for its jurisdiction and, moreover, that this may increase the caseload of this Court. In my opinion, we should stick to the Commission text. If this is the case, I shall support Mrs Gebhardt’s report, which I hope will be widely adopted by Parliament in these terms. If there were just one thing to bear in mind, this would be the interest of the children, and I have my doubts as to whether it would be in the interest of the children if Parliament were to adopt these two amendments. Children are the ones with a lot to gain from the rapid implementation of regulations acknowledging their simple right not to have to endure the choice of their parents to live in different European countries. Of course, major problems will remain, particularly the matter of the disparity of applicable divorce laws and the consequences of this, but this regulation is just an initial step and I congratulate the rapporteur on this initiative.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, there is nothing new in companies’ assuming social responsibility. It has long been a part of European companies’ day-to-day practice to assume responsibilities – over and above those required by laws and regulations – for their employees, their surroundings and the environment. In Denmark, we have been working for a number of years on companies’ social responsibilities, particularly with a view to keeping people in work and getting excluded groups into the labour market. This has taken place in the form of very productive dialogue and interaction between companies and authorities. Another example I want to mention is the cooperation between thirteen major groups in Scandinavia which, together with the World Nature Fund, are working on developing a sustainable development programme. The key term for describing these efforts is the pursuit of excellence, rather than mere compliance with what the law requires. It is about acting from the heart and taking the company as one’s point of departure. In short, the key words are commitment and voluntarism. It also jars with me, therefore, when many here in Parliament wish to regulate voluntary efforts and force companies to report on, and explain, their efforts. That is something I have fought against. On the other hand, I think it is a good idea to promote the exchange of experiences and ideas in this area and so support the efforts already made by companies and organisations to structure and standardise this work. I think the Dublin Institute is very well suited to this purpose, given the skills and the network already possessed by the Institute. Much thanks is therefore due to the Commission for having initiated the debate. We in the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party are able, then, to support active efforts to develop companies’ social responsibilities.

Political group: ELDR