GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, for two years, the so-called International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia has been trying to find support for accusations against Slobodan Milosevic. Despite hundreds of false testimonies and the plethora of fabricated evidence, the indictment is turning into a fiasco. The only thing those conducting the prosecution and those hiding behind them have managed to do is to destroy the health of President Milosevic in a bid, perhaps, to exterminate him physically. The new element is that, on completion of the indictment, Milosevic was given a mere three months in which to prepare the presentation of his side, at a time when everyone knows both the state of his health and the fact that he has no outside help and refuses to legitimise the entire procedure. At the same time, he has been refused visits by members of his party and the committees supporting him. The Communist Party of Greece roundly condemns the cumulative violations of fundamental rights at Mr Milosevic's expense and calls for the trial to be adjourned for two years, for him to be released so that he can return to Belgrade in order to recover and prepare himself. We are convinced that, however much the imperialists try to justify their crimes in Yugoslavia by distorting the truth, they will not succeed.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I have another brief question for the Commissioner: is the Commission prepared to lobby actively to persuade the Council that the terms of reference of this high level troika which is due to visit southern Africa must not be watered down and restricted, but that the discussions and negotiations with Zimbabwe's neighbours in the region must genuinely reflect the gravity of the situation?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this Commission Communication on the World Summit on the information society raises more questions than answers. It is clearly good to analyse at world level what is perhaps the best expression of globalisation, that is, a society which, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, is most characterised by our treatment and dissemination of information. The Commissioner has given us an excessively brief description of the results of the World Summit and we must therefore consider the issue on two levels. Firstly, within the European Union itself, given that making progress on and the use of the technologies on which the information society is based are absolutely essential to achieving the Lisbon objectives and turning the European Union into the most economically and socially advanced society by 2010. And secondly, at external level, where there are a series of elements which have been mentioned, such as intellectual property, free access to communications, security of information, digital solidarity, the use of the information society to rebalance the differing levels in the least-favoured societies, etc. I would say simply, in summary, that this World Summit has served to promote much more intensive action within the European institutions and also, obviously, to stimulate debate before the next World Summit takes place and to assess the issues raised here.

Political group: ELDR
I am very glad we were able to hold a discussion in this Chamber on the serious public health problem of doping in sport. I must congratulate the European Commission on the action plan it has proposed, together with the rapporteur and Mrs Buffet, President-in-Office of the Council. Under the terms of the Olympic Charter, sport must embody “a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play”. Doping in sport runs totally counter to that ideal. Yet doping products are widely used by professional sportsmen and women, but also by amateurs. This scourge, whose true scale is difficult to measure, is a complex phenomenon that poses a serious risk to the physical and psychological health of the sportsmen and women. It is also a form of cheating that is contrary to the sporting ethic. Because of that, we must take stronger European Union action to combat this phenomenon. I therefore support the inclusion of a legal basis in the Treaty that would allow for Community action in the field of sport. I know that this issue is giving rise to much discussion, which will in fact help fuel the debate to be held in the European Sports Forum in Lille on 26 and 27 October. I will, of course, take part in it and give my views. Apart from that, I endorse the call for the Commission to step up research into the causes of doping in the various sports disciplines, even though we know that one of the main reasons for the spread of doping lies in the commercial profits that are now linked to sport. Under the Fifth Framework Research Programme, the European Union will have to conduct more research on doping substances, on methods of detection and on the health impact of using doping products. I think it is also vital to launch information campaigns on the risks associated with doping products. These campaigns should be aimed primarily at young people and be conducted with the help of athletes with an established reputation. Since doping must be combated at international level, the creation of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) is without doubt a vital step forward. This agency, set up in 1999, is currently operating under transitional procedures that leave something to be desired in terms of transparency and independence. I am glad to say that the French Presidency has undertaken to improve the way it operates. Let us restore the true value of sport. Above all, sport must be regarded as an educational and social activity that encourages team spirit, solidarity and loyalty and helps combat racism and xenophobia.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to support the position adopted by the Group of the European People’s Party with regard to Mr Mulder’s report on the 2004 budget guidelines. My remarks are also addressed to the representatives of the Council although they do not appear to be present. Thanks are due to the rapporteur for his ideas and for the care he has taken to include most of the ideas expressed by others into the report. My group fully endorses the report. Indeed we support it so strongly that we have not tabled a single amendment to it in the House. We trust that only a limited number of the amendments tabled by other groups will be adopted. Turning to a more contentious issue, as the rapporteur mentioned, the 2004 budgetary period will be unusual throughout. Initially, the budget will apply to 15 Member States. At the close of the period it will, however, apply to 25. This will call for an additional effort to reach understanding between the three institutions, whereas relations are currently somewhat strained. Times are hard for Europe and even harder for the wider world. The 2004 budget should represent a statement of faith in ourselves. We should be confident of our potential and abilities as Europeans. Further, the 2004 budget should help to strengthen Europe’s role and influence beyond its borders. This is sorely needed as our common foreign policy, its instruments and even the individuals charged with operating them appear to have gone missing in advance of the action. The Europe foreshadowed in the Mulder report is a united Europe. It is a Europe able to generate competitiveness and employment. It is also a Europe to be relied on by its partners in the wider world, and a Europe better able to manage its common policies. Interinstitutional cooperation is one of the prerequisites to such a Europe. Unfortunately it cannot currently be guaranteed. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 5 of this very report state that enlargement financial perspectives are to be approved jointly by the Council and the European Parliament. This does not seem to be the case at present. Parliament must have a considerable say regarding the financing of internal and external policy, if Europe is to prove a reliable partner, and if we are to become competitive and create employment. Global amounts for the adjustment of financial perspectives must not be set unilaterally. Parliament must be entitled to identify the shortfall in these areas and negotiate adequate sums. The Group of the European People’s Party is prepared to negotiate with the Council and the Commission concerning these areas. They are key to the achievement of the objectives identified by Mr Mulder. In the present climate of disunity and dissent, the Union’s institutions are called on to illustrate dialogue and cooperation, not to contribute to the unrest.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, as well as thanking Mrs Thorning-Schmidt for her work on this report, I would like to make one observation. When we see, for example, someone working with a pneumatic drill on the street, or a tractor driver sitting behind the steering wheel on a farm, these people – and I am not speaking as an expert in these matters – are probably not aware that they are facing a risk that could have serious consequences to their health. For this reason I believe that today is a day to celebrate because, despite the fact that nine years have passed – as Mrs Thorning-Schmidt said – this first directive of the four planned in the proposal presented by the Commission in 1992 has come to fruition. From this day forth, therefore, we shall be able to count on a series of protective measures to try to prevent these risks I was referring to from turning into a disaster. Throughout this time, the Group of the Europe People’s Party has maintained an attitude that has, more than anything, sought to encourage constructive work and a spirit of dialogue with all of the interested parties, with the aim of achieving better applicability of the provisions of the directive and, as a consequence of this, increased effectiveness of workers’ protection methods. For this reason we are particularly delighted that the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee on 8 April has taken into account the difficulties in applying this directive encountered by a large number of, mainly small, companies, and also by many economic sectors in the search for a compromise on limit values and on the implementation deadline for the requirements imposed by the new directive on companies. Technically, the great reduction in the limit value for daily exposure to vibrations, as well as the setting of the daily exposure values, has allowed us to reach this agreement. I feel we have to welcome the fact that the Member States can have a longer period of time, until 2010, to apply the precautionary measures, as well as special consideration for the agricultural and forestry sectors, which in many Member States include a collection of small and very small companies, which have longer still to implement the measures, until 2014. To sum up, I think that the desire to make improvements, an observation of reality and common sense are good examples and good formulae to work on in the hope that these new directives on the aforementioned risks and others that are still being studied can soon be approved. I would like to finish, therefore, by congratulating the rapporteur, the Commission, Parliament, the Council, and above all, all the workers affected, because from today they will have an instrument in defence of their health.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to thank the other parliamentary groups for their support and for their contributions to this initiative in favour of Afghan women. I believe that the whole world is aware of their situation and for this reason has supported this initiative. By defending their rights we also defend our own. The resolution which we are debating today must be one more contribution to the ending of the situation of women in a country, Afghanistan, where the Taliban regime, through its authoritarianism, is causing terror throughout the population and international alarm. The public execution of Zaarmeena, the obligation to wear the burka, the denial of the right to healthcare and education for women are but a few examples of the flagrant violations of human rights committed in that country. Serious violations of women’s rights are committed every day, unpunished by a government which supports and encourages acts of repression and torture against them. This Parliament, the European Parliament, has the moral obligation to express its solidarity with the Afghan women, to request that the UN intervene more actively, to ask the Member States to continue to refuse to recognise the Taliban regime until it respects human rights and puts an end to its discrimination against women. The approval of this resolution may be a step – however small – in that direction. Women currently make up 52% of the world population and, nevertheless, we are one of the groups which is most discriminated against and marginalised. The case of the Afghan women illustrates the problem of the lack of respect for human rights which takes place every day in all corners of the planet and also in this Europe of ours. We all know about the white slave trade, murders and abuse etc.. Perhaps there is little we can do from this House, but we have the duty to put pressure on the UN and the Member States.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of Mr Mantovani, who is prevented from being with us today by air traffic problems, I would like to make a few observations on the Commission communication with regard to the difficult concept of the linkage between relief, rehabilitation and development. I would like to thank Mr van den Berg for his excellent work, on which a broad consensus was achieved at the vote in committee. First of all, I feel that it is vital to improve complementarity, coherence and the cost-benefit ratio, for these are necessary to bridge the gap between the various stages of international assistance, the famous grey zone, and, more generally, for the effectiveness of the Union’s development and cooperation policy overall. Indeed, the multilateral financial institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the various UN agencies and the Paris Club need to be more involved in this process. Moreover, it would seem appropriate to distinguish between internal and external coordination action in order to establish who does what at both European and international level and also at the level of the individual Member States; this would make it easier to plan and therefore make us more effective in implementing rehabilitation and development initiatives. The contribution of our group, the Group of the European People’s Party , focuses precisely on the need for greater complementarity, particularly as per Amendments Nos 15 and 16 tabled by Mr Mantovani, and for better coordination of the different actions, in order to obtain greater effectiveness and improved results in the action linking and coordinating relief, rehabilitation and development; in particular, there is a call for appropriate coordination and ex post evaluation methods, budgetary control and less bureaucratic interference, to provide a greater guarantee of Union development aid reaching the countries in crisis, and therefore precisely the people who genuinely need it, effectively and without time wasting or needless duplication or overlapping of effort or financial resources invested. IN THE CHAIR: MR DAVID W. MARTINVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, there are mainly two elements of relevance here: one is content and the other is procedure. Let us focus on content first, because it is obviously all too easy to overlook this aspect in a legal discussion of this kind. Is a ban on tobacco advertising effective if the aim is to prevent its use? Yes, of course it is. Hardly anyone takes up smoking because they like it. They do so for other reasons. They may take it up because of peer pressure in the playground, children of parents who smoke take up smoking, and people take up smoking because they associate it with a certain image. They want to emulate the man making his way through the jungle in a rowing boat, for example, or that other man on horseback somewhere in the wild west with pleasant music playing in the background. This is why people take up smoking. Image has everything to do with it. This is why a ban on tobacco advertising is good. It is a legitimate product, so why should you ban it? Last month, an overwhelming majority of people in this House voted in favour of banning advertising for pharmaceutical products, but, unlike tobacco, these are produced to make people better. I am in favour of legalising cannabis, but I would not dream of allowing this product to be advertised. So the problem is more complex than at first sight. As it happens, there was already an opinion from the European Parliament – and also from the Council, in fact. In 1998 we stated that we were in favour of a ban on tobacco advertising. In this connection, the Court said that we had gone too far, with good reason, in my view. This was completely unrelated to tobacco but had everything to do with the question how far we, as a Union, could go in respect of the Member States. I believe that the Commission was right to say: okay, this is what Parliament and the Council wanted, they wanted to go as far as possible. The Commission subsequently consulted the judgment by the Court, and also the opinion of the Advocate General, and copied almost verbatim what was suggested. I therefore believe that the Commission has done a sterling job, and I shall therefore advise the majority of my group to reject the amendments tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. These do not appear to be essential in order to make the directive more acceptable. I should like to make two final observations. First of all, I do think we ought to be careful not to start a smear campaign against the use of tobacco, for example by introducing a complete ban on smoking in public places, or by banning children's toys, chocolate cigarettes, liquorice pipes and suchlike. This is taking matters too far, and by doing so we would also lose our allies in the fight against tobacco. Finally, I should like to take this opportunity to once again draw your attention to an unacceptable anomaly, namely that we are discouraging the use of tobacco products on the one hand and are continuing to heavily subsidise tobacco production in Europe on the other.

Political group: ELDR
President, I would just like to say to the Commissioner, if I may, that I liked his summing up much more than his statement at the beginning. I congratulate him on it, particularly in the circumstances of his health, and I say well done, and come back and say more to us in that fashion Commissioner. (The sitting was suspended at 4.49 p.m. and resumed at 5 p.m.)(1)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, allow me, on behalf of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, to begin by congratulating the rapporteurs and all those who have contributed to the Convention. They have shown that European issues can be worked with in a new and exemplary way, a way superior to that of the Intergovernmental Conference because of its open and democratic method of working, involving full public control and opportunities for citizens to participate. The fact that European cooperation is not only based upon economic agreements has been mentioned in this Chamber on a number of occasions. This has become additionally clear in the course of last year. The growth of xenophobic and anti-democratic movements brings the issue of common European values to a head. As the European institutions acquire ever more power over citizens, it is also important to place limits upon this influence. The proposed Charter is unique in the way it gives a central place to the citizen and her rights. Naturally, political compromises have also been made. There has been give and take but, on the whole, what we have here is a catalogue of common and modern rights which give clear and concrete form to the European community of values. Because there is a certain amount of concern about this, it is important to point out that the Charter supplements, rather than competes with, the Council of Europe’s Charter of Human Rights. It is therefore important that, no later than in Nice, the legal opportunity should be created for the EU to sign the Council of Europe’s Convention. At the Nice Summit, the Charter will be accepted in the form of a political declaration. This must not be transformed into a mere ceremony with the vaguest of declarations. People are tired of this type of event. It must be made clear that the Charter is to be regarded as morally binding. As soon as possible after the Summit, the Swedish Presidency must also establish the procedures for working on the Charter’s continued status, the objective being that, following certain changes, it should become binding and part of a future European constitution.

Political group: ELDR
I would like to thank Mr Zimmerling for the work he has done on this report. Although it is an attempt to protect artists, in fact, together with the Commission proposal as it is now before us, it has actually achieved the opposite effect. Of course, I realise that artists are entitled to remuneration for their creativity, but unlike books, in the case of visual arts, this right is actually bought at the initial sale. Furthermore, in countries such as the Netherlands, where resale right has not been applied so far, there are plenty of options for both the young and more established artists in the shape of a buoyant art trade, which also benefits the artists. Resale right as it is now proposed requires a massive amount of red tape, whilst the benefit for the individual young artist is minimal. Moreover, it is exceptionally difficult to check whether the art trade keeps to this resale right. This regulation, therefore, has a restricting rather than a stimulating effect. Also, both the young and the renowned artist will suffer if the international trade moves outside the European borders due to European over-regulation. I therefore have no choice but to vote against this directive. - Oostlander report (A5-0363/2000)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I do not doubt that everybody wants to have a well-planned and sustainable transport system as the backbone of Europe. What we have had up to now, though, has been the absence of any planning and the realisation of outdated projects in national interests, backed up by cost and benefit analyses of dubious value. Even now, the Commission paper is not free of these things. The EU does not exist to provide things on national wishlists, but has a macro-economic responsibility, primarily to sustainable mobility and environmentally-friendly means of transport, above all railways, for the future belongs to them. It is imperative that planning should be compatible with EU policies on such things as protection of the environment. So I again urge that planning with regard to trans-European transport networks should at last leave the corridor approach behind, moving on instead to the regional approach, meaning that we plan with reference to a particular goal and in terms of what we want to achieve, and then check what is the best and most sustainable solution, one that will still work for the generations to come. Turning now to the river improvements in particular, the attempt to build gigantic tubs in Europe is something I find questionable, as rivers have another function in terms of people's living space, tourism, and the natural environment. I again underline the fact that ships need to be made more flexible, that is, smaller flat-bottomed vessels should be used more for short-term, flexible, and hence intermodal transport in preference to major improvements being made to rivers.

Political group: Verts-ALE