GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, just two final touches to add to the 2001 budget, which are totally unconnected. Firstly, I would like to say something about the backlog of payments which each year causes headaches as a result of the Council’s eagerness to cut payment appropriations, with the aim of obtaining this absurd and false saving, which looks very good on the national balance sheet, but which in reality only produces what we call a burden for the future, because it is clear that what has been committed to – commitments entered into – in previous financial years has to be fulfilled. And what we have heard today from the Council, according to which there have not been any problems with payments, is not true. It is not true, and I would have liked to have been able to remind Mr Patriat in person that in 1998 payments were even suspended for the Social Fund because EUR 1 million were lacking for the Structural Funds. This is something that has been repeated. There have always been a great deal of problems with payments. Having said this, and also taking into account that the Commission itself has admitted that for 2001 applications from Member States for payments for the Structural Funds exceed the predictions of the PDB by EUR 8 000 million, I think that it is now time for the Council to start considering very seriously that we should do something about payments and not increase the backlog of payments. I would also like to express my concern about the fact that the various Youth Parliaments have been included in the Socrates programme. I am in no doubt about the reason for the existence of these parliaments, but there is no harm in pointing out that the Socrates programme derives from a legislative codecision procedure between Parliament and the Council, and that decisions such as this set a serious precedent which will, in the future, allow the inclusion of comments on programmes of any type of action that do not fit in elsewhere. I think that this distorts the legislative procedure for adopting programmes and, above all, the content of those programmes.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, everybody in this House is concerned about the human rights situation in Colombia, and the visit of the President of Colombia, Mr Uribe, gives this House the opportunity to make plain our concerns about that situation. I rise specifically, Mr President, to ask you to raise with Mr Uribe, the President-in-Office and the Commission the question of support for a proposed conference on humanitarian rights later this year. It has been proposed by the Alianza umbrella organisation – an alliance of 115 NGOs and civil organisations in Colombia – which is seeking to engage the civilian population in finding solutions to the 40 years of conflict. Mr President, I will send you the details of this proposal and ask you to consider them and to raise this matter with President Uribe when you meet him.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to associate myself with the previous speakers' comments and to congratulate the Commission and the Council first of all on their swift action and then to offer my congratulations to Mrs Gill on her excellent work. For all the communication problems between the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport and Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Industry, our aim was ultimately the same, namely to secure a speedy, smooth and efficient decision. The much-vaunted cultural and linguistic diversity of Europe is indeed a frequent barrier, especially in the context of the single market. But if we make a virtue out of necessity and change the minuses into plus signs, if we consider our languages as bridges rather than obstacles, if we recognise and exploit the benefits they offer, they can form the foundations of a European market and lend us a certain independence. The oft-invoked closeness to the people can be put into practice to some extent through the use of language. The stumbling blocks of modern technology and the possible need to communicate in a foreign language can now be more easily overcome. The big questions now are how efficiently all interested parties will cooperate with each other and whether we shall be able to ensure not only that content is produced in sufficient volume but, more crucially, that it is also of a sufficiently high quality. The content providers, the creative element, the people who are ultimately responsible for the production of content, the very people who are targeted by the e-content programme should therefore be involved in the consultation process. The are in favour of the report as adopted in committee. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Amendment No 41, upon which we are about to vote, contains a misunderstanding. It is not the fault of the staff; there is a misunderstanding in the translation, which, as it stands, means that the amendment makes no sense. The final part states: ‘deplores, in particular, the preparation by the EU and the United Kingdom of bilateral agreements with the United States, agreements which authorise the Member States to extradite persons condemned to death to the United States.. Therefore, in order to make sense, the amendment should read as follows: ‘extradite those citizens liable to be punished with the death penalty in the United States’.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, both these regulations are meant to establish a single new, Europe-wide, legal framework for the authorisation, labelling and traceability of genetically modified food and feedingstuffs. Consumers have minds of their own and want to be informed – about ingredients, composition, and additives; some of them want information about methods of production. We have to meet this need for information, especially in those areas where ignorance gives rise to fears. Consumers want to use choice as a means of getting rid of uncertainty. People are afraid of anything that is new. As we have no long-term experience of GMOs, information is urgently needed if there is to be freedom of choice. I support the compromise. If we are to put this important regulation into effect, we now have to avoid a conciliation procedure. Only if it is adopted soon will it be possible to end the moratorium, thus avoiding trade disputes with the USA, Canada and Argentina. I hope that the EU will shortly abandon its reservations about GMOs. If people had opposed the wheel when it was invented, we would still be going everywhere on foot.

Political group: PPE-DE
I am glad that the Council has responded positively to this question, specifically with regard to the countries of the Middle East. I live in the Canary Islands, 100 kilometres from Tan Tan, a Moroccan location where the Moroccan Government has now begun a nuclear programme. My supplementary question to the Council asks whether it would consider the possibility of contacting the Moroccan Government with a view to preventing this enterprise which is dangerous for Morocco and, of course, for us, who are its closest neighbours.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I voted for this report because it is important for us to intervene wherever anything harms our environment. It is my opinion that, in this report, Parliament has been able to marry the requirements of the industry, which needs time to reorganise itself, with the requirements of public health. I refer to the fact that it is essential not to place the citizens in the situation where they have to change all the equipment they use because a potential source of harm to the environment has been found, caused by the emission into the environment of substances produced by the machines – often common appliances such as refrigerators and cars – that they use. I therefore feel that it is right for the European Parliament to intervene in this matter.

Political group: PPE-DE
Sometimes, one may well be surprised that, in the year 2001, we are still forced to discuss equality, for who is actually against equality? When you then hear certain speakers here, it is obvious that the debate is still all too necessary. It may well be that there is no-one who wants to speak out against the word equality, but in truth there are many people who are against the introduction of equality in practice, which is, after all, what we are attempting to do with this legislation. I would like to thank Mrs Hautala for the considerable work that she has put into this legislation, since this is, in fact, an example of how necessary it is to have legislation we can support, if we are to implement equality in practice. This is, after all, what all the judgements have shown. I think it is great that Mrs Hautala has been able to draw up a progressive report whilst at the same time succeeding in achieving a broad majority for it. That is necessary because, after all, 314 people have to vote in favour in order for the report to be adopted. After all, equality is one of the areas in which the EU still leads the field. That is something that we women should perhaps point out somewhat more in the public debate when we are discussing the EU in other contexts, and at any rate in contexts in which we face very strong opponents who believe that the EU does nothing whatsoever for its citizens. This is, of course, an outstanding example of the EU actually doing something for its citizens and being way ahead of the field, even compared with the Scandinavian countries. We can really describe it as a case of a very positive synergy effect between the Member States and the Commission. The proposal deals, of course, with various matters, including sexual harassment and matters related to childbirth, but also with opportunities for fathers. I think it is very good that we have managed to bring fathers more into focus, for if we are really to have equality then it is crucial for men also to become involved to a greater extent.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, it has taken nearly a year and a half to conclude this tobacco directive, and I wish to thank the rapporteur for all his hard work. This piece of legislation will have a dramatic impact. It will transform the way in which cigarettes are sold in Scotland, the UK and the whole of the European Union. The directive will reduce the most addictive and dangerous substances in cigarettes; it will ban the use of misleading descriptors such as ‘ultras’, ‘lights’ and ‘milds’ and it will introduce giant health warnings. Through the work of MEPs we have also been given a guarantee that the Commission will draw up new rules on the use of picture health warnings on cigarette packs by December 2002. After decades of deception and misinformation from the tobacco industry, the message about the true cost of smoking will finally start to hit home. As we all know, smoking is the biggest cause of preventable illness and disease across the European Union. Over half a million people in the EU die needlessly each year from smoking. In fact, someone diagnosed with lung cancer has an average of between three to ten months of life left. At the end of this month there is the World No Tobacco Day. There is no better way of celebrating this than by the coming into force of this new directive next year. At this point I should like to encourage colleagues to sign the written declaration for an EU No Tobacco Day. However the battle against big tobacco continues. I look forward to the new proposals for a tobacco ad ban which the Commission will be introducing shortly. One life lost due to tobacco is one life too many.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, you mentioned the ongoing evaluation that you will be making over the next two years. I wonder whether it would not have been wiser to have carried out an assessment of the economic impact on small clubs before you travelled down this road. Many of the smaller clubs in my region, who cradle players for the obvious talents of the north-west clubs in the UK, are particularly worried about this. There has been a lot of talk about football here today, but you mentioned sport and this is specifically a sports remit. Other sports have transfer fees and I wonder which other sports you have discussed this with. I find it very interesting that players now have different rights depending on their age – 23 being the case in point here. I was wondering for Commissioner Diamantopoulou whether this sets a precedent for other European employment legislation. Finally, Commissioner, you mentioned the changes to FIFA rules and regulations. The calculation behind the effective training costs was recently posted on the FIFA website. FIFA state it would be impossible to do this for individual players so they want to do this by league and type of club. This recommendation means that the smaller the club, the smaller the amount of money the club will receive in compensation for training costs. The categories are a category-one club of a top level, with a high quality training centre; category two: still professional but on a lower level – second division clubs in the UK; category three: all types of third-division clubs, as in the UK; category four: amateur players – Vauxhall Conference and other amateur footballers. Are we not building another type of discrimination into football, which we really did not need in the first place?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to offer my sincere congratulations to Mrs Fourtou on this important report. It is vital for intellectual property to be protected. There are huge financial interests at stake for companies or people in possession of intellectual property. The development of society may suffer because artists are less inclined, in view of the enormous amount of counterfeiting that takes place, to invest time, energy and creativity in new products. The taxation system is adversely affected as a result, because counterfeiting is usually done on the black market. So I welcome the fact that something is to be done about it. If rules are to be put in place, then, as a liberal, I feel they ought to go the whole distance and not just part of the way. Indeed, that is why rules must be put in place, and why we have tabled an amendment together with other groups to make the end-user liable for punishment for possession. After all, as long as the end-user is able, without let or hindrance, to possess and make use of counterfeit products, there will still be a market for them and it will be difficult to cut off the producers and manufacturers at source because it is easy to make a profit and it will also continue to be a lucrative business. Therefore, we are pleased that several groups have given their support to Amendment No 8, which states that possession will have a deterrent and preventive effect on the consumer. This will be under certain provisos, of course, because the amendment came about on the basis of a compromise. We welcome the fact that possession is to be made punishable, or that the possibility will exist of making it punishable in any case, and I would like to see this extended to the handling of stolen goods; if someone were to offer me a bicycle at a very low price, I would not buy it. It is a different way of thinking and the intention is not to introduce a separate supervisory body. This report has got us off to a good start, but we do hope that the Member States will implement it in an effective and robust manner.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I wish to begin by congratulating the rapporteurs, but in particular Mrs Scheele, whose report I followed, for her excellent work and the way she has brought about this compromise agreement on what is a very important report for all our constituents concerning human and animal health and the environment. The labelling of all genetically modified food and animal feed will give consumers in Europe what 93% of them are asking for: the choice of whether or not to buy GM products. Meat producers, for example, will be able to avoid using GM feed for the first time through labelling. It is not complete choice, because of the threshold levels for authorised – and temporarily for unauthorised – GMOs if their presence is adventitious or technically unavoidable. These levels are too high, but they can be reviewed in the light of developments in technology. Under the new regulations GM food and animal feed will have to go through a strict authorisation procedure – not just a notification process – and once on the market they can be monitored for effects on the environment. However, as other colleagues have mentioned, of central importance are the measures which can now be taken by Member States to avoid the contamination of other products by GMOs. Coexistence has become a major issue since we started discussions on these reports, and conventional and organic farmers, and food producers, as well as consumers, will welcome the proposals before us today. I represent Wales, a country where the National Assembly tried to implement separation distances between GM and non-GM crops, only to be informed by the Commission that this action was not legally sustainable. About a quarter of agricultural land in Wales is under agri-environmental schemes, or registered as organic, so this is of crucial importance to the economy as well as to the environment. I am sure that my constituents will be very pleased that action can now be taken on coexistence. I particularly welcome the fact that it is clear here that producers and users of GMOs must take all necessary measures to prevent contamination of other products so the burden is not on the conventional farmer. These new regulations will defend the fundamental principle of consumer choice and we will see people exercising that choice by not growing GM crops and by not buying GM food. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, the following problem has arisen in connection with the report by Mrs Schierhuber now being put to the vote: the Group of the and the Group of the filed a motion for a split vote on a number of points. However, for some technical reason, the services did not receive it. Now we have the following problem: either you now allow an oral motion for a split vote on the article in question during the voting procedure and we vote today or, if that is not possible, then I move that we postpone the vote until tomorrow. The services have, however, said that we have a tightly-packed voting programme tomorrow, so that it would perhaps make sense to vote today. We would be happy to vote. The vote is not the problem, the problem is that you did not receive the motion for a split vote in time.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, we need to be clear about what we are trying to achieve in this directive. This directive, as a piece of intellectual property legislation, must try to incorporate structures to reward the creative industries, which in my own Member State alone contribute GBP 60 billion to our national economy and GBP 8 billion of exports. They also employ 1.4 million people. At the same time we must not strangle or restrict freedom of access for legitimate users. This fits in with the EU action plan and the forthcoming summit in Stockholm. The fact is that the Internet genie is out of the bottle. We cannot stop technology, but neither can we allow it to render copyright dead or to let it be abused as a safe haven for piracy, parasites and mass illegal copying. Yesterday's Napster ruling clearly showed that copyright has to be applied to cyberspace. We must not encourage people to infringe copyright. The composition of the compromise amendments tabled by the rapporteur has maintained this balance between rightholders and users effectively. The exceptions which currently exist in Article 5 mean that the generous provisions on exceptions that we have in the UK will continue to help vulnerable users and ensure that schools, libraries and research and education institutions can benefit from private copying. In the UK we also record programmes so that we are able to watch at the time and place we choose and that, of course, needs to remain intact. It is however regrettable that some unnecessary, unhelpful amendments have crept in at the last stage in committee. I refer to: Amendment No 11, which seeks to give an exemption to broadcasting companies which no one else enjoys and which would reduce performers' and artists' rights in contravention of the WIPO Treaty; and Amendment No 4 which, in the second part, introduces an unnecessary and unwarranted EU restriction of the freedom of national courts to decide how to deal with injunctions, in particular concerning piracy, and amendments on levies. While this is well-intentioned, we cannot support this approach because it could be interpreted, taken in a vague sense, to mean that levies should always be introduced when you have no technical protection in place. The UK does not operate a system of levies and we do not want to see it introduced through the back door. Finally, as with every other piece of legislation on the Internet that comes before us in this House, we should use the provisions of the directive, the review clause in Article 12 and the role of the contact committee to prevent both the abuse of private copying and any abuse or limitation on fair use.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, thank you for your explanation. It seems to me that this is a very serious problem, because since I asked this question five joint flights – as you call them – have departed from France. They were carrying groups of people of the same nationality leaving under the same conditions, often handcuffed, sometimes gagged, so effectively that two immigrants even died of suffocation. The government has, I might add, decided that from now on there will be a Red Cross doctor on board these so-called joint flights to ensure that everything runs smoothly. My question then is as follows: what is the difference between a joint flight and a group flight? By definition a group is a number of individuals. When you have 42 Senegalese together, who is going to decide what criterion should be used to determine whether they constitute a group or a number of individuals? I am not aware of a group that is not a number of individuals. But it is my misfortune to believe that when you have 42 Senegalese or 20 Ivorians together – Ivorians, I would point out, whose lives are in danger in their own country – it is more or less the same thing. So my question is as follows: who determines the difference in meaning between a joint flight and a group flight? Explain to me what a collective expulsion is, that is what is forbidden.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Notwithstanding Mr Posselt's angle on this question, and the Council's response – neither of which I disagree with – would the President-in-Office agree that, sadly, forced prostitution, child prostitution and trafficking in human beings are all also consequences of and an inevitable feature of poverty-ridden states which lack better economic opportunities. Whether we like it or not, it is true. The parallel that the Minister makes as a 21st century equivalent of slavery may be true on one hand, but there is also another angle on it. Does the Council consider that much greater investment in and economic support and assistance for these countries bordering the new external frontiers of the European Union – and in the Balkans – will be essential when we have enlarged the European Union? President-in-Office, what action do you personally feel would be a good idea for either the Irish presidency or any future presidencies to take?

Political group: PSE