GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the European Parliament had to make a statement on this issue, especially given the sense of uncertainty that prevails on the eve of another WTO round. The European Parliament is sending out a clear message, which offers a coherent vision of the future of the WTO. I therefore voted for Mr Schwaiger's report, which calls for greater transparency within the WTO and in the way its meetings are conducted. I am satisfied with the clear and precise mandate given to the European Commission on the use of the precautionary principle in the WTO with regard to agriculture. I deplore the fact, however, that the European Parliament did not call on the WTO to take account of the multifunctional role of agriculture; this must not give way to intensive and mass farming, which in any case, European consumers plainly no longer want.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is not often that I completely agree with my colleague in the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, Mr von Boetticher, but this time I agree with him that we need a national choice regime to allow opt-out on e-mails and I am speaking against the amendments. There is one great myth that has gripped the and that is that spam is the same as unsolicited e-mail. I am afraid to say, Commissioner, that the Commission is at the root of this confusion. In your original proposal you said that spam equals unsolicited e-mails. It is not true. I am afraid the spammers who are already breaking the law are going to carry on breaking the law. Mrs Paciotti, you will continue to get spam! I support the opt-out on two grounds. The first is that opt-in will unjustifiably harm both business and charities. Big American firms can afford TV advertising, press, billboard and so on. We are going to damage small- and medium-sized European firms for whom commercial e-mail provides a legitimate way into e-commerce. It is going to put them at a disadvantage. It is going to put charities at a disadvantage and studies show that people do not mind receiving them. They will not opt out even if they could. But of course it is human nature not to opt in to get them. There is also a misunderstanding about the civil liberties implications. Under opt-out, it is very easy to show that you have opted out and reputable senders have no interest in ignoring your request because they will just irritate you. Opt-in is superficially pro-consumer, but you would have to prove that you never opted in, which is actually more difficult. Finally, under an opt-in regime, people might opt to receive mailings from organisations that could be embarrassing for them, such as gay organisations when they did not wish to come out, or they could be open to malicious abuse. If they opted in to get mailings from subversive political movements they could find themselves attracting unwarranted surveillance from the police, for instance. The has got it wrong and for once Mr von Boetticher is right.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I am sorry that it is Commissioner Kinnock who has to be here this afternoon to take this criticism on the chin, because I in no way regard him as personally responsible for the situation in which we find ourselves. I shall put some simple questions to which we all know the answers and on which we are all agreed. Is the average European citizen in need of extra information about the European Union? Yes. Is information needed in the Member States and locally rather than in Brussels? Yes. Do the Info-Points help meet that need? Yes. Is next year, with enlargement, with the new Constitution, with elections, a year when the information will be more necessary than usual? Yes. Has the Commission got its organisation and priorities right on information policy? That is questionable. Of course expenditure must meet legal requirements and if a legal base is necessary then it must be found. We employ lawyers precisely to check on those points in good time, advise if there is a problem and indicate a solution. We knew about the problem in January and the Commission's solution was to send the Info-Points a letter at the end of September. That really is not good enough. After all, the amount of expenditure is pretty minimal. It has been allocated over a good many years. If the Commission doubts the need for Info-Points and the more effective information programme, let me draw attention to statistics in recent polls. 90% of Spaniards have never heard of the Convention. 31% of Germans have never heard of the Commission and 25% of Britons do not even know that the United Kingdom is a member of the European Union but 7% of them think that America is! The English language is rich in expressions. Let me try and find some that fit this situation. The tail is wagging the dog. The Commission appears to be unable to see the wood for the trees. Experts should be on tap, not on top. I could carry on with vulgar expressions about breweries and organising parties in them. There is not a major legal difficulty here, it is a technical problem. If the Commission had clear and accepted priorities and could see the wood for the trees, we would not be having this debate this afternoon. I welcome Commissioner Kinnock's statement, but he knows as well as we do that it has come far too late and it really should not have been necessary. Sadly, this is another own goal by the Commission. I hope that the letter that will be sent to the Info-Points will contain an apology.

Political group: PPE-DE
I would like to thank the Commissioner for the statement he has just made. One thing is quite clear: unless we get better cooperation between the donors, we will never get rid of the duplication and voids we see in aid. Does he find already that we are getting better coordination with the United Nations because of what he is doing? I noticed in the ninth EDF that 90% of the funds will be going to the least developed countries. Do you think they have the capacity to deal with such a large amount of money? And if not, are the United Nations organisations helping to build that capacity? The EU policy is to move towards regional cooperation and integration. Is that also a policy that the United Nations organisations are following and will support?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I voted for Mr Martelli's report on the current status of Slovenia's application for membership of the European Union. I would like to extend a particularly warm greeting to the Slovenian pensioners and elderly people, who are represented in the country's government by the Slovenian Pensioners' Party, which won 5% of the votes at the last elections. Pending a similar success in Italy – hopefully in the near future – I hope that the problems of the Slovenian pensioners and elderly people will be resolved too. I may add that it would be as well for Slovenia to withdraw all claims and cease all animosity – which, regrettably, have recently come out, here and there, in certain major statements – in respect of the Italian Republic.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I rise to request that the threats of terrorism against this House be taken seriously and that the Secretary-General draw up a plan to actually guarantee the safety of this House.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the right of employees to be consulted and informed has been enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, but what use are frameworks set up at national or EU level, when employees are too often presented with faits accomplis, learning of restructuring processes only after the event or from the media? I support Mrs Ghilardotti's Amendment No 5, which requires them to be consulted as early as the planning phase, so that they can have some degree of influence. There was long debate on Amendment No 7, which laid down what information supplied by the employer must include. This includes the economic situation – developments in the market, the structure of the organisation, the company's strategy – but also turnover and production figures to show the financial position. This is about in-house information and not in any way about investment control by stealth. More and more employees have a financial share in their business, now, and so they are well positioned to think entrepreneurially in local and global terms. They are ready and willing to share responsibility for significant strategies that make their firms more competitive. Dialogue between informed social partners is a major challenge, and so we also need training and development for qualified employees. People with in-depth knowledge add to productivity. These employees are willing to share responsibility even for crucial decisions. All this adds up to another element in the structure of a modern organisation. It is in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that dialogue between employer and employee is particularly important. Mr President, you are right to emphatically put the case for them as well. This dialogue is to be set in motion in the Member States, in accordance with their current national regulations. The pressure of competition and the challenges posed by globalisation mean that there is no alternative to cooperation within businesses, provided that it is founded on fairness, openness and timely information. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, despite the late hour it has been a refreshing debate. It is important and good that we have gathered together so many excellent rapporteurs. I thank them all for tackling different aspects of the subject. I reflect on the Commissioner's news that he has now given us another four reports to work on. We need to think about the most efficient way of making an input into the process. I congratulate Mr Van Velzen and Mr Paasilinna, who are both here tonight, on the initiative of the hearing we had the other week in which the Commissioner participated. We have a shared interest in moving the knowledge economy forward. What we are talking about today is the tools, the means and the framework in which we do that. I have detected a bit of gloom among a number of colleagues. However, it is worth reflecting on the fact that within weeks we will have the first commercial third generation services in a major country. They will be provided by a new investor in the market, not in any way connected with any of the incumbent companies. A new investor has made a commercial investment in the marketplace. Let us remind ourselves that the knowledge economy will be driven by private investment. That is where the bulk of the money is going to come from. The innovation and the technology are going to come from there as well. None of us know how and in what ways that technology is going to develop. But I think we can make one certain prediction: in a few years' time – about the most accurate forecast – we can expect that more people across Europe and the world will be connected to the Internet through a wireless device than through any other mechanism. That is the importance of third generation. Let us not underestimate it. The move to the third generation is going to open up new markets for small and large businesses. It will also take cost out of businesses and will help businesses do things differently. In Japan I have been to the research laboratories of DoCoMo, the Japanese telecoms company, where they have people inventing third generation commercial applications. Let us remember, above all, that what we must do as politicians is to let the market work. We have the right legal framework, but we have to make sure that the regulators do not intervene too soon or too harshly, and that they allow the creativity of the market to work. That is what has been successful in mobiles so far. That is what will be successful in third generation. That is what will power the knowledge economy. That is the most crucial message that we must all remember.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I supported this report with these qualifications: National allocations of the rural development fund are not equitable and should be changed during the mid-term review. The regulations should be more flexible and less bureaucratic. Measures to promote food safety, food quality and support for local products, while welcome, must not be allowed to distort competition. There is a wider rural world than farming and tourism. There are two districts in my region which have low unemployment, but low average incomes. Our ambition for rural areas must be higher economic activity and higher incomes.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, only another eight ratifications are needed for the International Criminal Court Treaty to enter into force, but there are a number of problems to be resolved before the Court can become that instrument of international justice and the fight against impunity that we want it to be. The first obstacle is the persistently hostile attitude of the United States. We call upon the Presidency of the Council and the Commission to make it clear, once again, at all formal and informal meetings with the United States, how much importance Europe attaches to this issue. It would be genuinely feasible to find some creative instruments to put pressure on the United States, and I believe this has not been seriously attempted. The second problem concerns the difficult issue of internal rules to bring national legislation into line with the Court’s Statute. This will certainly be a difficult process but we must not allow it to become too drawn-out. From this point of view, I would genuinely like to express my pleasure at Commissioner Verheugen’s words to the effect that he and the Commission are in favour of supporting the training of specialists to help the Court operate more effectively, not least by providing financial aid.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, after 11 September, we succeeded in cutting back on the leeway which terrorists had, by taking numerous and effective European measures. At the same time, we have realised that the security which we promote by doing this forms part of a greater security and that we essentially touch a deeper, more fundamental issue, namely the great inequality in this world, which often serves as a breeding ground for conflicts. If security is not shared, it has no chance of succeeding. One in five people in this world do not have access to basic education or basic health care. This requires a multilateral approach. At present, we notice how the United States, which has operated more multilaterally over the past few months, has now started to act more unilaterally again over the past few days by withdrawing from the ABM Treaty, and is also taking a far more unilateral course with regard to a number of other treaties. It is of the utmost importance for us, as Europe, to try to use this large coalition to exert pressure so that we continue to operate multilaterally: making enormous investments in new technologies and then winding up with too little funding, attention and energy to help fight poverty in the world is, of course, ultimately not the most effective way of achieving shared security. Aid is needed for the reconstruction of Afghanistan, once again with Europe at the helm, so that not only the military aspect is highlighted, but that shared security is sought via the route of reconstruction. The same applies, in fact, to the Middle East. Europe must exert pressure and not be frightened of having a military presence within NATO using its own institutional forms and organisation – the Convention will need to create an institutional form for this – but must at the same time also have the courage to commit itself to this shared security. And I wish this fundamental aspect had been slightly more underlined at the Laeken Summit. Although reference is made to the unilateral cancellation of the ABM Treaty by the US and to Europe’s leading role as the world’s greatest commercial power, we could, and should, do more about shared security. I would call on the Presidency and the Commission to continue to take initiatives in this area, also in the coming weeks, both with regard to the Middle East, the Balkans and Afghanistan. We are on the right track. There are tendencies towards unilateralism: let us not get drawn into this, let us persuade our allies to adopt a multilateral approach and give Europe a central role in this.

Political group: PSE
Devastating floods have once again struck my region, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, and Languedoc-Roussillon. I should first like to express my utmost sympathy to the victims of these disasters. Although the French Government has taken the necessary emergency steps and declared a state of emergency, we need European solidarity. This has already been seen on the ground, and I wish to thank the German, Italian, Belgian and Czech teams that have gone to the aid of the victims. Hopefully, European solidarity will also manifest itself in the mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund. The French Government is in the process of preparing a request to this end, which will be submitted at the beginning of 2004. My region has already benefited from such funds, following the storms and appalling floods of September 2002, and I can assure you that these funds are of enormous importance. Whilst the Structural Funds enable the cofinancing of some preventative and aid measures, zoning and normal consumption of funds limit their scope. They are thus insufficient to help the stricken populations and regions. Nonetheless, I hope that the prevention of natural disasters will, in future, become an integral part of their aims: while we have a duty to repair the damage, the only real aid policy is prevention.

Political group: PPE-DE
To make speed-limiters mandatory in a wide range of vehicles, effectively imposing a speed limit of 62 mph or less throughout the EU, is far too prescriptive. The main aims of the proposal – to improve road safety and reduce environmental pollution – are worthy ones, but there is not sufficient evidence that this is the best way to achieve them. Conservative MEPs also fear it is inevitable that, in due course, there will be calls for speed limiters to be introduced for private cars, which really would be far beyond what would be acceptable for most people.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, a large number of prospective immigrants drowned recently in the waters off the coast of Sicily. When, I wonder, will the institutions of the European Union forego their callous and reprehensible indifference to tragic deaths such as these? Moreover, when, I wonder, will we ourselves, the Members of this Parliament, observe at least a minute’s silence for these poor souls who were looking for a better life in our countries?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, yesterday afternoon, an extraordinary meeting of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs was held to discuss the serious implications of the referendum which has just taken place in Ireland. After a very broad, coherent debate resulting in general political agreement, a declaration was adopted. This is the French text: (FR) The result of the Irish referendum casts an unexpected and dramatic shadow over the method adopted by the Intergovernmental Conference last year. This result shows a serious lack of understanding by public opinion in the Member States, which is due to the lack of transparency in the negotiations, the tortuous nature of the agreements concluded and the complexity of the issues relating to EU enlargement and the process of integration, all questions which have not really been discussed head-on with the citizens and therefore clarified. We can certainly not leave any question marks hanging over the commitments we have already entered into with the candidate countries. At the same time, when the national parliaments come to examine the Nice Treaty prior to ratifying it, they must not disregard the problem posed by the Irish vote. Quite aside, however, from seeking solutions to the situation that has arisen, to which the Irish Government will make a vital contribution, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs wishes first and foremost to reaffirm, with even greater conviction, the positions it expressed in the resolution adopted in plenary on 31 May on the method to be followed from now until the year 2003. The Irish vote confirms the need not only for a wider debate on the issues relating to the Union’s future but also for a mandate to draft texts that have a constitutional value. This should be entrusted to a convention which, thanks to the participation of the national parliaments and the European Parliament, can guarantee the kind of transparency and complete legitimacy that have been missing until now. Thank you.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin my speech this evening by pointing out some of the facts. Civil sector shipbuilding in Europe still employs 250 000 people, and it is a high-tech industry. Shipbuilding is an industry for developed countries, not an industry for low-wage countries. Finally, public aid for shipbuilding is now no longer possible in Europe, as was confirmed by the Council of Ministers on 5 December. Yet the same Council gave the Commission a mandate to propose to the next Council in May 2001 a mechanism affording protection against unfair competition from Korean shipyards. Personally, I feel we are heading for a conflict with Korea, and that no solution will be found between now and then. I would like, finally, to remind you that the Council asked the Commission to look into the possibility of facilitating access to aid for research and development. In such circumstances, our discussions will focus on whether shipbuilding will be taken into consideration in the Sixth Framework Research and Development Programme (DP). The fifth programme actually contained a line on “land transport and marine technologies” including the draft presented by Commissioner Busquin, based on focussing resources. This line no longer exists. Of course, the industry expressed its concern to me, in my capacity as rapporteur, and to many of my fellow Members. This evening, then, I would like to ask you in the strongest terms, Mr Monti, to please outline just what you intend to propose, in response to the requests from the Council of 5 December, in order to facilitate the return to forms of aid for research and development, to support and undertake commercial measures against unfair competition by Korea and, finally, to propose an appropriate temporary aid mechanism, while awaiting the outcome of the procedure in the WTO.

Political group: PSE