GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I wish to thank our rapporteur, Mrs Elena Valenciano Martinez-Orozco, and the committee as a whole for the high-quality work that they have presented to us and for the courageous social choices that they are leading us to make today. Female genital mutilation endangers health and leads to serious and irreversible consequences such as serious and potentially fatal complications in sexual relations, pregnancy and childbirth, and so it strikes me as essential that we vote for this report today and thereby condemn all female genital mutilation, to whatever degree it is carried out. This report is all the more deserving of a favourable vote because it calls on the Council, the Commission and the Member States, to define all female genital mutilation as a crime and to impose criminal sanctions on any of their residents who have engaged in this practice, even if the offence was committed outside the EU's borders. This principle of the offence's extraterritoriality must be firmly upheld. If any further proof of the need to vote for such a report were required, I shall give the following reason: the fact of being a victim of such practices, as well as that of being born a woman in a place where one runs the risk of undergoing genital mutilation must constitute valid and conclusive grounds for the right of asylum or of humanitarian protection to be granted. The Commission, the Council and the Member States must, within the framework of the immigration and asylum policy agreed in Title IV of the Amsterdam Treaty, adopt measures on granting residence permits to the victims of this practice and recognise the right to asylum of women and girls who risk being genitally mutilated. For the sake of equality, liberty and dignity, to which every human being has a right, it appears to me – and should appear to us all – imperative that we protect women and vote unhesitatingly for this proposal. This is a political responsibility that we must shoulder.

Political group: PSE
Taxation on savings has always been a hotly debated issue. There are some who support a withholding tax, implemented as a tax levied at source which settles the tax position of the person concerned. The other, which is certainly more up to date, is the information system: in this case people do not settle their own tax liability because it will be subject to a subsequent levy on their income tax return. From the point of view of fairness, the second method certainly provides the Community with a guarantee that the income, whatever it may be, is taxed in its entirety. However, this method is only fair if applied by everyone. As soon as one country decides not to adopt it, for historical or opportunistic reasons, the structure that has been built upon it is blown apart. All this applies to the Pérez Royo report, which has taken the information method as the basis for taxation on cross-border savings. For this directive to work effectively, it must be implemented when the third countries adopt it. Therefore, agreement with the third countries is a sine qua non for this directive to enter into force. Implementation without an agreement would cause a disturbance in the savings market, the negative effects of which cannot yet be readily assessed.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the passage of this directive at second reading has perhaps been historic. No amendments! I congratulate heartily our rapporteur on her original strategy and I hope what will be her achievement of obtaining continuing consensus. I do not believe it has been easy for any of us as politicians to curb our natural instinct either to improve on or alter someone else’s text. Yet it was a carefully considered decision. We know the proposal is not absolutely perfect but the general feedback, both at a recent hearing in committee and from those who have lobbied Members has been: ‘let’s have what might be an imperfect directive with a review rather than none at all’. Speed with certainty in this fast-moving new world is essential. Now we have an initial road-map; a reference point for European businesses trading on the Web; a road-map that has clearly established the country of origin principle while still protecting consumer interest. That is a good balance. This should really open up the internal market to the many and increasing opportunities which e-commerce promises to businesses of all sizes, but particularly SMEs. We must continually be aware that the Web is not limited to Europe. It is, of course, global. A large part of consumer transactions from Europe on the Web is directed at American sites and in future may well be directed at Asian sites. European business has to keep up and the key to this will be confidence. We have to aspire to the establishment of the highest quality of e-businesses in Europe. Companies setting up or changing to this way of doing business have to look carefully at the way they operate, at the information and the service they provide to customers if they are to survive. We should also take care to provide coherent legislation. Confidence is essential. There are many opportunities but what of the threats? Only this weekend we have seen in London the down-side of the communications and information revolution that the Web has created by putting elements in society in touch with one another, who have then wrought violence on the streets of London. This may be extreme but there will be unscrupulous people who will set up scams on the Web. One bad news story may blow confidence in e-trade for years. E-commerce is in its early stages. We need, as legislators, to be watchful, not necessarily interventionist, but wary of implications as the medium grows. Our rapporteur has given us an extremely good basis. The Group will stick to her original ‘no-amendment’ line. IN THE CHAIR: MR COLOM i NAVALVice-President

Political group: ELDR
I would like to pick up on the Commissioner's last reply and I am delighted that he is talking about thorough impact assessment. I would like to put it to him that at the moment impact assessments that we receive attached to Commission proposals in many cases are not thoroughly done, they are not looking at the full implications, they are not necessarily independent. Would he agree with me that it is vital to have an interinstitutional arrangement for independent impact assessment so that when proposals come through this House and colleagues add burdens on business they are properly costed? Also, when the Council adds provisions to Commission proposals in common position, they should be properly costed too? Would he not share my view that this is the sort of bold proposal we want to see? I have to say that the proposals we have seen so far from the Commission on regulatory assessment are far too timid.

Political group: PPE-DE
I voted for the resolution to adopt an opinion is in favour of convening the IGC. I did so because it sums up the philosophy of the Portuguese Presidency, which is supported by a broad majority in Parliament, of opening up the IGC agenda beyond issues strictly related to redressing the balance of power between Member States, large and small, as was originally stated when the Helsinki Council was convened. Unfortunately, in the issues covered by the resolutions on future subjects for revisions to the Treaty on European Union, nothing has so far been stated about the need to review Article 7, which deals with suspending a State in the event of a serious and persistent violation of the “founding” principles of the Union, as laid down in Article 6. As the present crisis involving Austria has demonstrated, the Union has the right to protect itself. Nevertheless, the legal mechanisms that exist in the Treaty are weak, difficult to apply politically and legally, do not define the powers of the institutions and do not guarantee fair legal treatment for processes of major importance. Suspending a state is just such a process, and is to be condemned. I therefore think that this issue should be included as a matter of urgency in the IGC agenda, and in itself this justifies a thorough revision of the Treaties.

Political group: PSE
The conclusions of the Copenhagen Summit demonstrate that the European Council has opted to put off resolving serious problems, and has instead taken a radical step forwards, having decided on an enlargement involving more than ten countries, on a basis of discrimination, not only towards these countries, but also towards the current Member States with the weakest economies and greatest social problems, such as Portugal. It has also discriminated against Cyprus, creating further doubts about what will actually happen there. Nevertheless, the reference in the Summit conclusions to the specific situation of Portuguese farming was made in such vague terms that it provides no guarantees at all. The consequences could be extremely damaging unless Portuguese interests are properly considered in the negotiations still to take place, even after the political decision on accession. It is unacceptable that a thoroughgoing revision of the CAP and the financial perspectives has not been advocated, in the joint motion for a resolution, for example, which we rejected. There is a real risk of inequalities and differences being accentuated, with the aim of economic and social cohesion becoming increasingly distant. We also reject the conclusions’ support for closer links between the EU and NATO, under the comprehensive agreement that has been concluded.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The question before us is whether the 77/270/Euratom Decision, which empowers the Commission to issue Euratom loans for the purpose of contributing to the financing of nuclear power stations, must be adapted to suit the circumstances of certain third countries about to join the EU, in which such investments are clearly of considerable significance. There does not appear to be any place for technical nuclear considerations in this proposal for an amendment. Whether or not the principle of these loans is acceptable is another matter. This is a question, however, which would arise regardless of the amendment currently before us. It should be noted that the mechanism of loans was introduced in 1977 and at the time covered only Member States. It was amended in 1994, when the question emerged of the EU’s contributing towards encouraging safety improvements in nuclear installations in third countries, in particular Soviet-designed reactors in former Eastern Bloc countries.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the Convention method as a method of implementing treaty changes is something quite new. Success has been achieved in the main aim of broadening the EU debate and bringing the negotiations out from behind the closed doors of dusty meeting rooms. We who had hoped, however, that the EU would fully move on from the stage of being a technocratic union and become a genuine democracy based upon a common European debate have reason to be somewhat disappointed. There are too many ground rules and too many exceptions to the norms. I nonetheless hope that this outcome will lead to a strengthening of the EU’s competitiveness, something that is crucial. The next Convention must take up the loose threads that have been left dangling. Anyone who wants to see what this Convention really entails must read between the lines in analysing the outcome. Among the issues that will be on the table for the next Convention are foreign policy – a clear example of a loose thread – as well as merging the jobs of the two executive presidents into one and continuing to develop the Council into a second chamber. This constitutional treaty is really not the EU’s last treaty change. The Charter of Fundamental Rights, devised at the time of the last treaty change, was not introduced then but has been incorporated now. That is the way the EU process operates. Exceptions to the normal decision-taking model in this Convention must be taken care of at the next Convention. The trend is nonetheless in the right direction, so the compromise must remain in place. Influence on the part of the people has, in spite of everything, been significantly strengthened. This may get to increase, but it may never ever decrease.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like the House to know how pleased I am that the Committee which I have the honour of chairing has unanimously, and rightly so, adopted the detailed, comprehensive report of the rapporteur, Mr Vander Taelen. Without going back over aspects which have already been debated, I would point out here that the rapporteur has provided comprehensive proof, as I said before, that both a cultural problem and an organisational problem exist. The problems are related. I feel that the measure tabled by the committee and the decision the House makes tomorrow are so important as to warrant due reflection from the Commissioner and, indeed, a number of proposals and initiatives as well. As we have said before and will continue to say, there needs to be a substantial cultural element in the integration of Europe, and films play a major, fundamental role in both informing people about cultural diversities and providing authenticity, allowing the message of cinema to be disseminated in all the States. There is a need for more than just organisation. That is important and, in my opinion, the report certainly raises basic issues which will lead us to greater organisation and investment than in the past. What Mrs Sanders-ten Holte said just now is important. If European film production increases, the number of distribution channels will have to increase too. That is why the problems are related, and it is therefore our task, our responsibility, the responsibility of Parliament, especially, and of the Commission, in particular, and the Council, to achieve this. There is nothing we can do to change the current structure of the industry. When we debate television without frontiers, then we will be able to establish rights and clear guidelines; we will be able to require television companies to distribute, promote and commission European films, but it is imperative that, in cultural terms, we realise that we must make it quite clear that all the European countries must be able to benefit from films.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Maat, for his report, which I support in its entirety. And thanks as ever for the usual good work of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. I would also like to thank my good colleague and close friend, Freddy Blak, of the Socialist Group, for his support for my amendment. The school milk scheme concerns health and nutrition. Children and infants must learn healthy eating habits, and milk, with its protein and calcium content, is a very important part of this. On behalf of the , Mr Pesälä and I put forward three amendments which basically aim to make the school milk scheme a lot easier to administer, but which also seek to make the scheme more flexible with regard to the products which are subsidised. There are various traditions relating to which dairy products are consumed, and the scheme is simplified by awarding the subsidy on the basis of a quarter of a litre of milk per pupil per school-day. For products other than full-cream milk, the subsidy should be calculated on the basis of low-fat solids or a maximum butterfat content of 50%. In this way the scheme takes account of the differences in the milk traditions which exist in the different Member States.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it must indeed be recalled that an entire people were traumatised by the terrible years under Pol Pot’s regime in Cambodia. Some two million people lost their lives, while an incalculable number were displaced and deported. Even the wearing of spectacles put your life at risk, and higher education meant that you were doomed. If, today, you travel through this beautiful tropical country, with its impressive stone buildings that testify to the antiquity of its culture, then, wherever you go, you still come face to face with the physical and mental damage done to a tormented people, who, first, were terrorised by the Khmer Rouge, and then put under the yoke by their Vietnamese liberators, finally achieving a small measure of normality under the UN mandate. The reason why I have been able to follow this process is that I have visited the country a number of times and was one of the many who observed the elections in 1998. I might add that nowhere else in the world are there so many households headed by a woman in comparison to those headed by a man. Even more than the women, it was their sons, husbands and brothers who fell victim to a system that held human life in contempt and in violent conflicts, including American bombs and Vietnamese landmines, which, time and time again, blew people to their deaths or left them gravely wounded – something that they continue to do. What is left is poverty, need, a people torn up by their roots, and – it has to be said – a certain willingness to resort to violence. The latter is now, of course, being manifested in the run-up to the elections, but I do believe that it has to be made clear – as has been unambiguously stated by, among others, the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Cambodia – that the situation is proving to be less hazardous than it once was, and the organisation ‘Asian Network for Free Elections’ notes a marked decrease in violence in comparison to previous elections. As regards these elections, it will be very important that we keep an eye on how things develop before they are held, for it is clear that they will not pass without any friction whatever. Nor, I believe, can we expect them to do so in view of the history on which this country can look back. If, though, we can help to strengthen the forces of democracy in it, and deeply impress upon the population the significance of democratic elections, we will have taken an important step towards creating, in this region, something of an enclave journeying towards democracy, for we have to concede that conditions in neighbouring countries are no better – indeed, they tend to be even worse. I therefore hope that Cambodia will find its way to democracy, a way to be humane and a way to renounce violence, and will be able to lead its neighbours by example. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
We support the rapporteur’s action on this proposal, on two points. First, the harmonisation of the health policies of European countries would be a sensible decision, provided that it is in an upward direction, and second, the budget planned for a health policy at European Union level is ridiculously small. Disease prevention and early diagnosis of cancers and other serious diseases, where early treatment can reduce the risks, should be one of the basic principles of the Union if it is more concerned with people than with the flow of capital and goods. This is not the case, however. The amendments proposed to Parliament, some of which are a step in the right direction, would not be enough, even if they were adopted, to make the policy recommended by the Commission acceptable. A valid health policy requires resources that the Commission is refusing to provide itself with. We have therefore abstained from voting on this report, though we have voted on certain proposals.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I agree with the rapporteur: the proposal submitted for reform of the voting in the ECB Governing Council is not a step in the right direction. It is because it was developed from the perspective of national representation, not a European perspective, that it must be rejected. What we actually need is an ambitious European solution. Here, no Member of this House can be neutral, for the way in which such a key macroeconomic partner arrives at its decisions is important. We must therefore know how the decisions are shaped, but there is still time for that at the next Intergovernmental Conference. Specifying that representation should be on a national basis conflicts with the aim of an integrated monetary policy. However, I should point out here that when drafting its proposal, the European Central Bank's hands were tied, for the paltry spirit of the Treaty of Nice is also reflected in the enabling clause contained in Article 10.2, and we therefore do indeed need a proposal from the Convention for the Intergovernmental Conference so that a number of issues become clear: should the Executive Board have a special role? Should we differentiate between monetary policy and operational decisions? Where should the strategic decisions be taken? This is possible with a unanimous amendment to the Treaty. I really do think it is important for us to make this distinction, simply because it is necessary. As the European Parliament, we also have a particular interest in doing so because we attach importance to transparency. Like our colleagues in the USA, we want to be able to follow how decisions are taken and also how weightings occur in the discussions. In this respect, the difficult proposal by the ECB, which we in the Socialist Group cannot endorse, sends out quite a hopeful signal – for up to now, we have always been told that the outcomes of the votes in the ECB's Governing Council could not be published because no votes take place. I think that in a democratic system, majority voting should apply, and then the voting behaviour of the individual members of the central banks or the Executive Board can also be published. I am all in favour of anonymity, so that no names are mentioned, as in the USA. Our key concern is to gain an overview of the various perspectives on monetary policy. This will remove confusion and insecurity, create the clarity that is required, especially at present, and underline the Central Bank's democratic duty of accountability.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, this debate was opened by Mr Da Costa, who merely confirms that the EU presidency is trying to influence the composition of a government of one of the Member States. This debate, and the background to it, reinforced the point that the Council, the Commission and this Parliament itself are dominated by s. My delegation of 37 Conservative and Unionist Members from the United Kingdom reject absolutely the underlying philosophy, programme and tone of Austria’s Freedom Party. We share the widespread outrage at its attitude to history, in particular World War II, but also its policies on enlargement, on immigration, on race and its attitude to the European Union itself. We were also outraged, however, at the tolerance of the for the tyranny, the terror and the excesses of the former USSR. Even today, surely it is high time for the to break their fraternal links with China’s Communist Party. Not a word was said by these same EU governments about coalition governments involving fellow-travelling communists in French or Italian governments, or in German state governments, or even the British government’s willingness to promote those with terrorist associations as ministers in Northern Ireland today. This, Madam President, is the hypocrisy of the . So we condemn that hypocrisy and the double standards, especially of the British government and the other largely heads of EU governments and include that of the United States. We should recognise, however, that the democratic process sometimes produces uncomfortable results. This requires action to address the underlying causes, including an examination of the electoral process itself. That should be our task, not political posturing. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
On behalf of the Netherlands delegation I wish to report that we have voted in favour of abolition of Friday sittings, on the assumption that a thorough reform of our parliamentary work is necessary, to allow more time for legislative work. We hope that our decision will be seen as a pragmatic and not a moral one. - Stihler report (A5- 150/2001)

Political group: PSE