GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner Lamy, ladies and gentlemen, since 1979, fifteen Jews have been executed in Iran. The charge was espionage, but their real crime was being Jewish. Today, a new trial is starting in Shiraz, in the South. Thirteen Jews and eight Moslems have also been detained for a year in Iranian jails, facing death by hanging. The youngest is only sixteen years old. Back in September, Parliament resolutely called for respect for the fundamental rights of these prisoners in terms of a fair, just and public trial, with their own lawyers and with international observers present. When the more moderate elements won the last elections, we thought our call had been heard. But now there is this parody of a trial, a summary procedure behind closed doors before a revolutionary court presided over by a single judge, and a cleric at that. As for observers, so far Teheran has not granted any visas. In other words, we are disappointed, disappointed and alarmed. We are continuing to insist that the international community be able to follow the proceedings from start to finish. Furthermore, at the request of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, the European Parliament is urgently calling on the Council to send an official delegation to visit the prisoners. There is no such thing as an internal matter where human rights are involved. Our feelings are as strong as our concern. We must make ourselves perfectly clear. Iran’s possible return to the bosom of the international community has a price today. We hope the Council and the Commission will rally unequivocally to our position. We must remain intransigent on this point – human rights are not negotiable.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the right and the opportunity to live and work in other Member States of the European Union are important political aspirations for Europe’s citizens. The basis for the EURES network is the existence of this right, enshrined in law, for workers to move freely within the territory of the European Union and the European Economic Area and the unpleasant fact that barriers to labour mobility remain in place. This network, which centres on the exchange of information, on providing advice and on support for appointing professionals, is supported by EURES advisers in dialogue and in collaboration with the Member States’ national employment services and by an Internet access service. This service must be more widely publicised in future, which will make it easier for the average user to consult and research. EURES contributes to making the European employment market more flexible and increasingly mobile and provides a range of opportunities for vocational training in cross-border regions. The positive characteristics of this network, which must be strengthened, as the rapporteur, Mr Ribeiro e Castro, whom I congratulate, quite rightly emphasises, include ease of access and the exchange of information on employment opportunities across this huge area, the multilingual content of the system, which must be regularly and rigorously updated, and legal assistance for citizens, particularly with tax systems and social security. Having said this, we must not overestimate the value of EURES. Although this network is a very positive thing, it is merely an instrument for implementing the European strategy for employment. The truth of the matter is that specific directives do exist in the field of employment, which seek to eliminate the social, cultural, and linguistic barriers that obstruct mobility in the European Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, thank you first of all to Commissioner Wallström and Mr Davies for the good work they have done on this matter. Specifically where ozone is concerned, we are of course in an odd situation. High up in the atmosphere, the ozone layer is too thin, which causes problems, including health problems. Down here on earth, on the other hand, the concentration is, of course, far too strong. I think, however, that we have obtained a good result from the conciliation negotiations and, in actual fact, probably a better result than many of us had dared to hope for when we listened to some of the Member States’ negative attitudes towards solving the air quality problem with which we are concerned here. Together with the Directive on National Emission Ceilings, for which Mrs Myller, here beside me, was rapporteur, this directive makes an important contribution to securing a lower concentration of ozone in Europe and, especially, in the large cities of Europe. I think it is good that we have been given a starting point in the form of the WHO’s assessments of the existing risks to health and to the environment. We have got some partial goals established, or target values for 2010, and these must be met. However, it is naturally cause for concern that, for many years, we shall be obliged to accept that the WHO’s thresholds are being exceeded to a certain extent on a certain number of days per year. I therefore think it good that we also obtained agreement to there having to be some more long-term objectives, in terms of which the WHO’s target values must be complied with. What was agreed was not quite so precise as we should have liked here in Parliament. A reference point was set for 2020. Many of us should have liked to have seen 2020 become a more definite deadline for meeting the WHO’s recommendations. I also believe it is good that the Member States should not only be obliged to prepare practical programmes for achieving the targets, but that obligations should also be imposed in terms of informing people about the programmes that are being prepared and about the results – both positive and negative – that are obtained, just as we have acquired a number of rules as to when people are to be notified that there are problems with the unduly strong concentration of ozone – both people in general and people belonging to groups which are especially sensitive to problems in this area. Finally, I would say that I also think it is good that we have got the candidate countries on board so that they can be involved early on. We can of course now look forward to the directive’s coming into force before the first candidate countries accede to the EU so that, even at the time of their accession, they will have to comply with the obligations imposed by the directive upon existing Member States. I hope that, by means of this directive, we can prevent and reduce the harmful effects of the unduly high concentrations of ozone upon people’s health and upon vegetation and that today might prove to have been a good day for future air quality in Europe.

Political group: PSE
We Swedish Social Democrats chose to vote against Amendments Nos 2, 4 and 5. We believe that the machines for which the proposals seek to make exceptions are a group of extremely dirty machines which have a major impact on the health of users. It is important to take into account the increase in weight of these machines in terms of ergonomics, as well as the emissions which primarily affect the users. We believe that the common position is better. It provides the Commission with a mandate to provide extra time of up to five years for manufacturers to improve the technology. In taking this decision, the Commission must, however, consider whether such a long time is necessary or whether a short time will suffice. This is something which the amendments do not allow. Finally, we would like to stress that it is important in the future to take into consideration the weight of the machines when technical and environmental development is carried out. - Report Savary (A5-0191/2002)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, in two minutes or even less, it is terribly difficult to express the full extent of our disappointment that so far nothing has been done to help European shipbuilding. I do not believe that this will be the last time that we discuss this matter in this Parliament. Mr Monti, you are quite right to say that shipbuilding, research and development and intelligent maritime transport are our future. I would so like to believe this, from our position in the here and now. We know that shipbuilding is the last industrial sector to be subsidised. We know that this is an anathema to you, and actually it is to us too, but the shipbuilding industry needs help quickly, help which is relevant to its current situation, not long-term subsidies – please do not misunderstand me – but financial help until the market has returned to normality. This is not just about Europe any more; nor is it just about South Korea. I know from my own experience – I have just been to China and Hong Kong – that other nations are observing us and that our attitude is setting them a bad example. We, therefore, need to make positive statements, redouble our efforts and implement our shipbuilding standards and our intelligent maritime know-how with conviction. In actual fact this is not just about a few jobs; it is not just about a sector of the economy whose difficulties we have, after all, been able to overcome so successfully up until now. It is in actual fact about the new image of a modern European Union. That is why we are asking you so urgently to provide help. I have got to know you personally, Mr Monti, through our discussions on the maritime sector and have come to hold you in high regard. Believe me that we do not wish to discover that our trust in you has been misplaced.

Political group: PPE-DE
I have chosen to vote against the report and the proposal for a directive, which was however adopted by 325 votes, with 221 votes against and 7 abstentions. A certain harmonisation of the EU countries’ rules governing the financial markets may be needed in order to favour the internal market and, thus, growth. The directive on takeover bids is, however, along the wrong lines. If the directive is adopted, the Swedish system of A and B shares will continue as an exception. The directive is to be reviewed after five years, with an obvious risk of the Swedish system again being brought into question and abolished once and for all. The system of A and B shares is open and non-discriminatory and based upon purchasing agreements freely entered into. There is no evidence for assertions to the effect that the system involving differentiated vote values impedes company takeovers. A more principled objection is that forms of ownership should not be decided upon at EU level, nor the right of ownership brought into question nor long-term shareholder liability in a company impaired. I have also voted in favour of amendments aimed at giving company employees an opportunity to give their views of a takeover bid through having the company’s board consult their representatives.

Political group: PPE-DE
The (NGL), which consists of the Nordic members of the Group of the , has today voted in favour of the report concerning the recognition and enforcement of judgements in matrimonial matters and in matters concerning the custody of children born of the same parents. We have done so because the aim of the proposal is to recognise decisions by the Member States and to protect children’s interests in connection with divorces across national frontiers, and this is something we can fully support. The rejects, however, the idea that the proposal should be in the form of a regulation. The prefers a convention. In that way, the proposal would not be directly binding in the Member States, but it would be up to the countries themselves to decide whether they wanted to participate in the convention or not.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The fifth fisheries protocol between the European Community and Côte d’Ivoire expired on 30 June. With this proposal, the Commission seeks to extend the current protocol for a further year, which warrants our support. I share the rapporteur’s view, however, that the Commission must consult the European Parliament, instead of presenting us with a fait accompli, and a delay of more than three months is completely unjustified. Extending this protocol will provide fishing opportunities for 71 vessels of the Community fleet, in particular tuna seiners, including five Portuguese surface longliners, as well as providing a reasonable amount of time for negotiations on renewing the agreement. This agreement has been mutually beneficial and clearly demonstrates the importance of international fisheries agreements, not only for the Community fleets, but also for local development. Although tuna catches have in recent years been slightly below the reference tonnage, the catch value exceeds the cost of the protocol, which has been financially advantageous to the Community. Furthermore, the agreement has contributed to local development. The port of Abidjan is the main West African tuna base, and the fish unloaded bolsters the local processing industry.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, to begin with, I want to agree with most of what has been said in this regard, especially by my colleague, Mrs González Álvarez. I also want to take the opportunity to appeal to the Council. As I understand it, Portugal does not intend, during its presidency, to take any initiatives on this issue. I would therefore appeal to France do so in the course of its own forthcoming presidency and, last but not least (and if nothing has happened by then), to my own country, Sweden, to take measures during its own presidency with a view to achieving a peaceful resolution of this conflict after all these years. I am also particularly glad that Commissioner Nielson is present here today. I hope that we shall be able relatively soon to have a meeting in connection with what was stated here in the European Parliament by German aid organisations the other day, namely that refugees in the camps are in danger of starving and that infant mortality and deaths in childbirth have already increased by an alarming amount in recent months. ECHO has assumed the major responsibility of constantly providing for the refugees and, whenever this organisation wavers, the voluntary organisations are left powerless. They have ceased to provide aid and there is no effective coordination. I really would appeal to Commissioner Nielson to act quickly. I would also appeal to the chairman and members of the Committee on Budgets to deal with this issue quickly. I cannot think of anything worse than languishing for 25 years among the sand dunes and being taken in by referenda year upon year, only then to starve to death.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the report we are debating here is, in my view, an extremely important one, and I would thank the Commissioner for her explanatory comments on the amendments. The international community sets great store by the fight against racism and it is also high on the agenda of the Member States, but a great deal still needs to be done in order to protect human rights and fight racism, xenophobia and intolerance. It is also becoming increasingly evident that cooperation within the EU is indispensable. Certainly within an open, internal market which enjoys the free movement of goods, people and services, further harmonisation with regard to the scope, content and options for enforcement is vitally important. It is with pleasure that I compliment Mrs Buitenweg on her report. It is an excellent report which deals with the equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial and ethnic origin, in general. I would like to point out, however, that women, in particular, are being disproportionately affected by discrimination and, among women as a group, it is especially women and girls who are often doubly discriminated against on the basis of their race and ethnic origin. I have another four points I would like to make, Mr President. It would be beneficial if organisations or other legal entities which intend to fight discrimination were to have the right to initiate the procedure to promote the observation or application of this directive or to support victims in the procedure. I am also of the opinion that it is advisable that each of the Member States should have an independent body, such as we have in the Netherlands, to assess the complaints. This body is called the Committee on equal treatment. It is an independent body which works extremely well and efficiently. I am pleased with the amendment tabled by the delegate, Mrs Smet, who advocates that the directive should also apply to elections of employees’ representatives in works councils, for example. This would be a gain, in my view. Finally, I would like to say a few words on the already mentioned problem of sharing the burden of proof. This is popularly termed the reversal of the burden of proof in the case of possible discrimination and already applies with regard to women. The same system is now also being proposed with regard to this directive. In order to actually tackle discrimination head on, it is extremely important – if not imperative – that this shared burden of proof enter into force. As the Commissioner said, in practice, this has never led to any difficulties in other spheres before. All the more reason to accept a swift implementation here. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, with your permission I am going to read a paragraph from the editorial published in the Diario Vasco [Basque Daily], the financial director of which, Santiago Oleaga, was murdered by ETA. This paragraph says: ‘There is no doubt about the purpose of Santiago’s murderers. They killed him with an indescribable sadism in order to spread unease and fear amongst the professionals who work in the different media which ETA has targeted. The terrorists, however, could not have chosen a more suitable victim to demonstrate the ultimate intention of its action: to silence the messages of those sections of the media in order thereby to silence a whole society to the point that it comes under the control of its abominable tyranny’. Madam President, I believe that the greatest homage we can pay to Santiago Oleaga is to express our firm rejection of those people who wish to impose that abominable tyranny on us and also express our complete disdain for its spokespeople. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, these debates on the hot topic of media policy have been going on since 1992, and Parliament had always taken a democratic approach to the issue. Since 1997, though, silence has reigned, but now it seems that I can congratulate Parliament on having, like Sleeping Beauty, woken up. I would like now to speak on behalf of my group. I cannot but underline the arguments of those who have spoken before me, and I would like to pick up two of the significant points they made. Entrepreneurship, on the one hand, has become out of balance with journalistic activity on the other, as it now is also with those who produce creative material. It is for us to restore this balance. The EU, which announced the creation of the internal market as one of its priorities, must assume its political responsibility in this process involving consolidation and concentration. We did not liberalise a few years ago by breaking up media monopolies simply in order to create new media monopolies. Both economic diversity and pluralism in the media are equally under threat. The wide-ranging nature of concentrations merits particular attention. My second point is that one of the pillars of democracy is the separation of powers, something that is of especial concern to my group. Having successfully accomplished the separation of church and state, I believe we ought now to devote our energies to separating political power and the media. I am speaking here of a European official culture, especially on the eve of enlargement. One more practical question for the Commission: in 1997, the directive on media ownership disappeared back into a drawer, quite possibly as a result of political pressure, although we cannot be certain of that. We need a better legal basis at European level, but then we know that; it is a statement we heard all of five years ago, and we do not need to have it repeated. Why, then, has the Commission only now started to do something about it? We are all aware of these problems; they are not new, and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. Action is needed, O esteemed Commission! I repeat that I support the arguments of those who have preceded me on the floor, and, as Mr Barón Crespo said, media policy is not a party issue. We must not let it become one. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I intervene in the same sense as my colleague to stress that in the draft resolution in the Blak report – and of course I am intervening after checking with the rapporteur – I want to state for the record first that it is the English version that is authentic. Secondly, in conclusion number 8(ii), under the title Flax, there should be a language correction not only in the Spanish but also in most other languages: where in English it says ‘competent authorities’ it should be translated in Spanish as ‘autoridades competentes’, and the same in all the other languages.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, regarding the Varela report on structural assistance, we rejected the report because it aims to keep the current structure of CFP subsidies. The subsidies system has led to a contradictory situation where subsidies are spent on the one hand on scrapping vessels to reduce capacity, and on the other hand on financing the building of new vessels and modernisation of others. The subsidies system has helped to drive over-capacity of the EU fleet. It has mainly supported the large boat-owners at the expense of smaller operators and local fishing communities, and this subsidy system has financed the export of our over-capacity to other parts of the world. This is unacceptable and that is why we rejected the Varela structural assistance report.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we have adjourned the debate on beef labelling until late this evening. I should like an assurance from Mr Byrne that he will be present at it.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the financial effects are, of course, considerable, and so I would be interested to know to what extent the Lisbon Process – showing as it does the strengths and weaknesses of individual countries – has been taken into account in the planning, whether that will be shown in specific Budget lines and what strategies you are envisaging for this.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would simply like to say that the Committee on Budgets has taken no decision in this field. There are plenty of Members, particularly from my group, in the Committee on Budgets who believe that the urgent procedure is perfectly appropriate. We understand the reasons that the Chairman of the Committee on Fisheries has been able to give. We believe that, in this case, a legal basis is necessary and, in any event, from the budgetary point of view, if it is necessary to amend that basis as a result of the negotiation with the Council on the 21 November, it could be done without any problem. I therefore do not believe that this Parliament’s position would be damaged by accepting the urgent procedure today and voting on the Miguélez Ramos report, which, furthermore, relates much more to the technical issues in the Commission’s proposal with regard to the restructuring of the fleet than to actual budgetary motivations, which will be the subject of another report.

Political group: PPE-DE