GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would like to thank Mrs Buitenweg and Mr Howitt for their excellent work and the Commission for their proposals. It is essential that we take advantage of the opportunity that is represented in the Commission's proposals on the whole of Article 13. The time is right to do so. In recent years we have witnessed across Europe a steady rise in racist crime, violence, discrimination and, it pains me to say, ‘political rhetoric’ which plays on racial discrimination. I feel a heightened sense of urgency as we contemplate and embark upon the enlargement process. That is why this debate is so important because it strikes at the heart of how we define Europe and ourselves as Europeans. We are more than a trading block. We are a group of nations based on a set of values – a set of ideals which must be incorporated and reinforced in all that we do. I hope that this approach will be addressed when we look at the situation effecting all minorities. The price if we do not is a Europe falling far short of its true potential. That is why this directive and the Article 13 package, as a whole, are so significant. They demonstrate that the Member States, Parliament and the Commission are serious about the long-term eradication of discrimination and racism. It is not perfect. It does not fulfil my every ambition, yet it represents a start to a fight against racism in Europe, in our nations, our regions and, more importantly, in our communities. One day I hope to be standing in this Chamber debating directives which will aim to eradicate discrimination specifically based on, for example, disability, age and sexual orientation. These current steps must be applauded but there is still a long way to go. Finally, the spectacle of a white middle-class British male Tory giving a lecture on discrimination and the effects of discrimination would be laughable if it was not so damning and lamentable. (Applause). Ultimately, discrimination kills and it blights the souls of those who practice it and those who encourage it.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I do not think there is any harm in making people smile while explaining the reasons for one’s vote. I voted for the report which proposes to appoint Mr Lucas Papademos Vice-President of the European Central Bank. Why did I vote for the report, Mr President? Well, I had another dream last night. I dreamt that I was invited to lunch at Lucas Papademos’ house – in Athens, of course – and that he let me take a bathe with him in his swimming pool, but the pool contained euro coins, not water. Like Uncle Scrooge, he was swimming in euro coins, and he said to me: ‘My dream is that all the candidate countries will adopt the euro immediately: indeed, the whole world should adopt the euro.’ So, Mr President, what better candidate could there be than Lucas Papademos? Moreover, when I woke up, I found that my pockets were full of euros because I had gone swimming with all my clothes on, being too embarrassed to take my clothes off among the euro coins.

Political group: PPE-DE
We cannot live without work, but that certainly does not mean that an increase in employment enhances our lives. This is where two opinions clash. According to the , we must ensure that together we produce what we want to consume, whereby we distribute jobs and income as fairly as possible and protect people from high stress levels at work and long working hours. The opinion from the Right, on the other hand, states that we must continuously pursue economic growth by forcing women with young children, handicapped people and many pensioners to do paid work. Only the very elderly and those who can live off the interest on their own capital are exempt from this. Economic growth is always upheld most forcefully by those who refuse to share their wealth with the less well-off and who, for this reason, want to deflect attention from the distribution issue. In order to preserve the status quo in wealth distribution between rich and poor, they call for everyone to get more. Today, the President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Aznar, and the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, are acclaiming the further liberalisation and integration of markets, cost reduction and a yet larger European share in the global economy. Too few in this Parliament focus on the damage which the Lisbon and Barcelona Summits cause to the welfare of people, public services and the conservation of the natural environment. The price is too high in my opinion. This is why I reject the outcome.

Political group: GUE-NGL
A sound argument in favour of maintaining European agricultural subsidies is that they enable small farmers to survive falls in their products’ prices and to contribute to preserving a viable countryside. This argument is cancelled out if tax money is misused to line the pockets of rich farmers and agricultural multinationals. A recent study by the development organisation Oxfam shows that EU agricultural subsidies in Great Britain mainly benefit large landowners. For example, it is estimated that the richest of them, the Duke of Westminster, receives some GBP 38 per hour in agricultural subsidies. Even the rapporteur, Mr Garot, who, as a Social Democrat, unfortunately considers the liberalisation of agriculture as a natural phenomenon, now observes that something is amiss where agricultural subsidies are concerned. Between 1995 and 2002, agricultural incomes rose by 7%, but at the same time, the number of farms fell by 15.7%. The remaining farms increased in size and became more intensive. Agricultural support is being distributed unevenly: 20% of the farms receive 73% of the direct support for 59% of the acreage and only 25% of the jobs. The rapporteur is, above all, anxious about farms that produce little but do receive support. I would be more in favour of a ceiling, a maximum limit of support for each farm. Without such a measure, the agricultural funds would become a source of useless bureaucracy and an unjust form of redistribution.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I just wanted to clarify three points: firstly, Commissioner Verheugen is still here. Secondly – and this is also an important point – you made an exception at the last part-session. I will check in the Minutes to see which Member was concerned. I have a very clear recollection of this precedent being set. Thirdly, I should like to say that I would request that Question Time begin, as in previous years, at 5.30 p.m. precisely, regardless of what is happening in plenary. That was the practice in this House for almost 20 years and it was something that we could rely on. But being sloppy about the start time, only then to be strict when applying this rule, and extreme when interpreting it, is not something that I can accept. Either you are liberal in both cases or strict in both cases!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Algeria has been a troubled country for many years. Its reputation and image abroad has been damaged by the violence, massacres and abuses of human rights there, but that is nothing compared with the pain and suffering of its people at home. One million people died in the fight for independence and another 100 000 have died in the current power struggles between Islamic militants and the military and among the minority Berber community seeking political and cultural recognition. Now in this country, four fifths of which – ironically – is Saharan desert, we have the catastrophe of flooding in Algiers with the death toll in flash floods rising towards 1 000 as the grim task of sifting through the mud and the rubble goes on. It is not the first such calamity. In 1994, 30 000 people were made homeless in the Tindouf area, but the difference is that on that occasion seven lives were lost, while this time 693 people have already died and over 300 people are missing, with some 20 000 people thought to be homeless. The urgency now is for the European Union to play its part in providing humanitarian aid. There is a clear need for shelter, for food, for medical supplies and I certainly welcome the EUR 750 000 which has been given for this purpose under the ECHO fund, and indeed the promised EUR 225 million from the European Investment Bank for drinking water supply lines. There is also a need for adequate heavy equipment to deal with situations like this and even picks and shovels seem to be in short supply. Certainly no sniffer dogs appear to be available. Given Algeria's position in an earthquake area it would certainly be prudent to have such things available for the future. I would like to hear from the Commission what proposals it has to deal with this. There is also the need to look at the policy of sealing the floodwater drains against terrorist activities, which in this case has clearly exacerbated the situation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would first of all like to express my appreciation for the sterling work carried out by Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen. I believe that this is one of the best reports which have so far been produced in the framework of IGCs over recent years. I am making this statement as former rapporteur on the Maastricht Treaty. By the way, Maastricht is not a strange city, Mrs Frassoni, it is a very exciting city where the Dutch-Flemish, German and French cultures all flow into one. Just try one of the pavement cafés and you will see what I mean. I will repeat this to Mrs Frassoni in Italian some time. Mr President, it is rather a shame that so many amendments have been tabled as this might affect the quality and balance of the report. The large groups should, therefore, restrict themselves to the absolutely necessary amendments during the vote. This seems the best way to retain the good work which the rapporteurs have put in. As far as our Group is concerned, the resolution needs to be amended on a number of points. For example, we do not agree with the proposal in the resolution to restrict the number of Commissioners to 20 and to introduce a rota system for the smaller countries. One Commissioner per Member State seems a much better solution to us. In order to boost citizens’ confidence in the European Commission, it is vital that each Member State should have a Commission Member. Our Group, too, has therefore tabled amendments to this effect. Next is the number of MEPs. The resolution argues in favour of the possibility of European lists. This is a sound idea, but if we want 10% of the European members on European lists, then this should not, of course, result in additional MEPs on top of the 700 which have been agreed upon. It is important that we retain a maximum of 700, with or without the European list. Parliament is already vast, the buildings are already packed and the whole thing has to remain workable. The third point concerns the issue of unanimity. We believe that in an enlarged Union, decision-making should not always be blocked by an excessive right of veto. Unanimity should, therefore, be restricted to the bare essentials. These are constitutional issues such as the deployment of military troops and issues pertaining to territorial integrity. All other decisions should be taken by qualified majority with weighted voting, as is proposed, and – this is vitally important – with colegislative powers exercised by Parliament. We would also thank the Commission for this support. I would like to end by commenting on the Charter of Fundamental Rights. According to our Group, it is of paramount importance that this Charter be included in the Treaty. Work to this effect is being carried out, and we sincerely hope that a text can be produced which everyone can agree to incorporate into the Treaty. This is a key issue for the citizens of Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
In spite of constructive efforts, current fisheries policy still means that the EU is buying itself the right to misuse the natural resources of the poor. It is a modern form of colonialism. A genuine reform of fisheries policy is required, and a totally transformed view of our relations with poor countries. We have therefore chosen to vote against this report in its entirety.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, the Kyoto Agreement is very important and we can all be satisfied that at long last it is to be adopted. The EU has shown astonishing powers of leadership in talks on climate change. Without that, the Protocol could not have been saved. European companies have had to agree to strict measures to try to achieve an 8% reduction by 2012 compared to the 1990 levels. Our competitors in the United States do not have to withstand this burden, President Bush has stated quite coolly that this way he is protecting American industry and production. The EU cannot bear the responsibility for the entire world alone. The USA, Russia and China must all commit themselves to a common aim. This has been insisted on strongly at WTO talks. It is not merely a matter of commercial policy but the world we share and our future. The burden has already been shared within the EU. Now there is talk of emissions trading. We cannot let emissions be auctioned off; we have only bad experience of the UMTS and other auctions. I am especially worried about those industrial sectors and companies that have already made massive investments to reduce emissions. These responsible companies cannot now be allowed to pick up the bill again. Surely it is nobody’s intention to force successful and environmentally caring companies out of the market? The Union’s need for energy is only increasing with economic growth, regardless of the savings made. To achieve the Kyoto targets we have to continue to save energy and adopt the use of renewable energy sources. To ensure the supply of basic levels of energy, however, nuclear energy is the only realistic option.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I assume that it had escaped Mr de Gaulle's mind that our discussion today is on theatre rather than television or journalists. I would prefer to speak to the matter on the agenda. I wish to congratulate Mrs Fraisse and say something on just a couple of points that have not yet been mentioned today. First of all, I am glad that a Member has taken up this matter again after an interval of ten years, in the course of which the issue has lost none of its topicality. It was in 1992 that I produced a report on the state of artists, and I can only say that I still search in vain today for the practical results that the Commission could have brought about in these ten years. Whilst believing that the topics addressed today are very multi-faceted, I would nonetheless like to limit myself to two things, the first being the way in which the cultural sector is financed at both national and European level. It is the subject of politicians' speeches, but does not give rise to political action, and it is for that reason that I believe much is still amiss in this area. I would like to observe that there are two things that are in need of improvement. Firstly, the Culture 2002 programme, to which Mrs Reding has already referred, has to have more money allocated to it; if the Council of Ministers suddenly attaches such importance to culture, then it should provide funds for it. In addition, we should also bear in mind that it is the performing arts that are popular with quite specific viewers and listeners. So far, these are small-scale projects, for which the Commission has no love, but which we want because the public likes them! Secondly, the private sector must be involved more than it has been before. Patronage and sponsorship are important. There are no Budget resources available, and so we have to look for ways to enable people with a lot of money to spend it in the right way. That is why we should do more about this. I regret the way that the coalition agreements in my own country mean that it is precisely this that is to be done away with. Thirdly, artists face a very large number of technical obstacles in terms of the material they have to work with, and here in particular the Commission could really do something, for example, for circuses and small travelling theatres. Please do something in this area; it would be a great help to the performers!

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Amendment No 6, as it is included here, does not accurately reflect the vote that was taken in the Committee on Budgetary Control. I have taken it up with the chairman of the committee, who does not agree. But it is important to point it out here. I will tell you what the difference is. The Committee on Budgetary Control voted for the first part of the amendment from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market – because that is what this is – and against the second part. So the text should actually read: “(...) believes that whilst the overall pay and benefits package for officials must be attractive and competitive as regards the overall level of remuneration, the structure of the package is in need of modernisation.” The committee was in favour of the first part, which is a linguistic change, but against the second part, which is a substantive change.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, our group has a history of calling for the entire spectrum of measures and action needed, from suspending production to destroying stocks, stopping trading, clearing mine fields, rehabilitating victims and raising public awareness. However, I should like to make the following comment: the number of mines placed increases in direct proportion to the international community's inability to find political solutions to major problems. When, for example, a country feels insecure along its border with another country, its government will take recourse, wrongly of course, to the easy option of a minefield. When the international community cannot deal with the poison of nationalism and confrontation or help find political solutions, those involved will be more willing to take recourse to minefields. We must bear this in mind because it seems to me, as far as the Balkans are concerned, that the West and the European Union must take their share of the responsibility, as the result of their political interventions, for the fact that half the Balkans are a total minefield. I would like to end by saying that special action is needed in the Balkans and I should like to use this platform to say that the Greek Government should ratify the Ottowa Convention at once.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to thank you for the comments you made earlier and to say briefly to the House and to the citizens who are listening, that when terrorists become madmen and when madmen become terrorists and kill Members of Parliament, at a time when civilians are the target of increasingly ruthless attacks which seek to eliminate politicians and MPs, it is worthwhile recalling that these people, these MPs, are showing utmost courage to protect the public good.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am glad that the Greek Presidency has returned after an absence which had attracted some criticism. Having looked up which of our Members have spoken so far, I find that, of all those who have spoken on this subject, I am the one from furthest south. That is something that we perhaps ought to organise differently in future, as we should give attention to the regions in a more even-handed way. When, in 1997, President Ahtisaari was the first to mention the Northern Dimension as a concept, many of those present did not at first know what to do with this mere form of words. The word has subsequently acquired a great deal of substance, and we have already heard that the second action programme is being planned, and the priorities chosen for it are also, in my view, the right ones. My fellow Members have, of course, listed the various subject areas more than once. My personal experience of all these topics – including in earlier years when I was involved in the area of Baltic cooperation – has, unfortunately, led me to the same conclusion that Mr Suominen has already reached, that being that we have, in the meantime, offered Russia, sometimes grovellingly, a whole bouquet of issues along with concrete proposals, but often find the Russians unwilling to do the business. In all this, the benefits to Russia are obvious when one considers the potential for increasing export capacity or our willingness in the environmental field – which is also of course in our own interest – to dig deep into our own resources in order to provide for improvements in Russia. I would like to say something about border management. I hope that the EU, the three Baltic states, and Poland, even before these latter four join the EU, will engage in detailed talks with Russia in order to make it possible for their border-crossing procedures, from 2004 onwards, to run as smoothly as those we find at the crossing points between Finland and Russia, which have already been modernised. I believe that many working in the field of exports and imports would see their costs for goods and services fall substantially. I also hope that, as regards the combating of criminality at these borders, the Russians ... (The President cut off the speaker)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to say firstly that I am speaking on behalf of Mr Pérez Álvarez, a Galician, who has had to return to his region urgently. I would like to say that I fully agree with the Commissioner’s words and support those measures which offer a clear line of action. We also share her desire for their application to be speeded up. This is what is needed, and what we do not need is any more political demagoguery such as that expressed in some speeches we have heard here. Perhaps these are the thoughts of a Galician countryman, whose future and family situation is looking grim following what has been described as the worst ecological, economic and social disaster in the history of Galicia. We understand that the people of Galicia are today sad and angry, and that sadness and anger has known and identifiable faces: each and every one of the people directly affected by the oil slick caused by the oil tanker disaster, and each and every one of the Galicians who, in Galicia and throughout the world, love their homeland and all of those of us who feel solidarity with them. On the other side are the people responsible, whose faces are obscured behind flags of convenience and legal procedures distorted to this end, and with a view to fraudulently avoiding the rules of the internal market, without caring about possible ecological damage – which is now real – and social and economic harm, and, without wanting to be alarmist, the damage which may also be in store for other coastal areas as the result of a domino effect. I believe that enough has been said and that we must look forward, learning from the lessons of the immediate past. The Galician Government has said that it is not going to impose any limits on the aid to the people affected. The Spanish Government and the European Commission is announcing measures. But situations such as this cannot and must not happen again, and we must repair and prevent the effects which may yet extend to other areas of Galicia or Portugal, because the risk remains there. We will all be grateful for the measures taken, especially those who live, work and suffer along our coasts.

Political group: PPE-DE