GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this is both an incredibly complicated and, at the same time, incredibly important area. It is a logical continuation of the Treaty of Amsterdam and the Council of Ministers’ summit in Tampere. It is a classic area requiring cooperation. When we look at the Danish text, as well as at Mr Di Lello Finuoli’s report and Mrs Schörling’s opinion, which are both excellent, we see, however, that it is an extremely complicated area. We must have good coordination between the assistance agreement, which has recently been debated here in the Chamber, and the rules concerning money laundering. I am not completely certain that the instrument is ready in every respect, but I am pleased that the attempt is being made to avoid duplicating the work of the Council of Europe. We see that there are really three parts to the Danish initiative, plus the demand for ratification of the Council of Europe’s Convention. It is important to have regulations in criminal law so that we can prevent environmental crime. I personally believe that confiscation rules are more important than the demand for strict penalties and severe fines. Experience shows that a very great deal can, in fact, be achieved by means of strict confiscation rules. We have the old saw, ‘Crime must not pay’. As Mrs Schörling also pointed out, we must have close cooperation, including when it comes to the rules relating to environmental liability which we are to draw up and which are mentioned in Article 2 (a). I am pleased that, in the opinion she has drafted, Mrs Schörling also takes up the question of animals, which does not surprise me at all. I think that we in this Chamber should say loudly and clearly that this must be an instrument with which we tackle the disgraceful ways in which animals are transported. We are quite surprised that the Commission, for example, has not set to and wanted to apply the existing rules. Why is the Commission so passive – much more passive than in many other areas – when it comes to being the Guardian of the Treaties on the issue of protecting animals in transit? Amendments 16 and 19 introduce interesting matters which I doubt would be a part of many other countries’ criminal legislation. They concern misleading information provided by local or national authorities, at the same time as the latter, in their turn, have been misled. I think this is something we should study in the future. I see this as a clear illustration of the current questions in Baia Mare and of the investigation which is under way there concerning who is really liable. Who has misled whom? These are very complicated, very interesting and very important questions. I am also pleased that specific vessels have been cited and that there is also a readiness to apply measures outside the territory of the EU. We should nonetheless be aware that, if we do this, we must also define what constitutes the type of serious environmental crime we are talking about combating.

Political group: ELDR
Yet again, faced with a Commission recommendation on the broad economic policy guidelines, the European Parliament report has endorsed the anti-grass roots policies of the European Union which demolish the rights acquired by the workers for the sake of monopoly interests. Yet again, the workers are being called on to pay the price of the slump caused by antagonism between imperialist systems, the way in which the monopolies operate and act and the shameless goal of increasing the return on capital. The report goes overboard about stability and convergence programmes and coordinating the Member States' application of anti-grass roots policies 'which take into account the complex nature of the world recession'. Under pressure from the monopolies, taking political decisions which result in lower labour costs and national insurance contributions, circumventing collective agreements and working hours and introducing lower-paid, flexible forms of work are all applauded and re-tabled as proposals. The ‘problem of Europe's aging population’ is being used as a pretext for reforming pension systems or extending people's working lives by raising the retirement age and cutting pensions, that is, by phasing out the state's social security obligations and encouraging privatisation of the health and welfare sector. Dismantling the insurance system and arranging working times to suit employers by making part-time work and ‘flexible’ working arrangements the rule will simply create a huge army of employable people with no rights or entitlements, enslaved to the unaccountability of big business. Pressure to sell off the national silver is being stepped up, with the call for faster privatisation by liberalising the electricity, natural gas and transport sectors and privatising the utilities and liberalising services of general interest, never mind the impact on workers or consumers. The MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece will be voting against this report, which secures a guaranteed level of poverty for the workers and maximum profits for big business, which is getting stronger and stronger and intends to demolish workers rights and make part-time work the rule. The workers will condemn and oppose these barbaric and inhumane policies by fighting to try and calm the impending storm and we shall be by their side.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I have voted decidedly in favour of the amended proposal and of the legislative resolution with regard to the new tobacco directive. It is certainly the case that the texts need to be cleaned up because we have adopted quite a few texts which, according to the rules of lawmaking, do not belong in this directive at all. Despite this, these texts too are of value because they send out a message. They show that Parliament puts public health first. Protecting public health is effectively our responsibility. Even if we harmonise legislation, public health should not be compromised in any way. Public health is not just any old interest, it is of general interest. Today, we have proved that we stand for this, and that is how it should be.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we all sympathise with Turkey after the traumatic experience it has been through. We must, however, strive to see that out of this trauma comes something of a catharsis, so that civil society is reinforced by its great efforts to cope with the aftermath of the earthquake crisis. The Turkish Government should be made far more accountable to the needs of the citizen, and the forces of reform such as Mr Selçuk, President of the Court of Appeal, and his colleagues must be everywhere stimulated and supported. Such a cathartic effect would certainly allow us in the European Union to formulate a fresh approach to our relations with Turkey and to develop a more positive collaboration in a spirit of true solidarity, and Greece must show itself to be a willing partner in this project.

Political group: ELDR
First and foremost, I should like to thank both the rapporteur in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, Mr Markus Ferber, and all of the Members of that committee for their proposal. The compromise amendment tabled by the rapporteur, Mr Ferber, is unsatisfactory, indeed even unacceptable. This amendment is unsatisfactory because it calls for a unilateral evaluation, which would be made by the Commission alone, and not, as I would have wished, a more controversial one carried out by all of the stakeholders. It is unacceptable because it rejects Parliament's initial proposal to limit the next stage of liberalisation to 150g and four times the basic tariff, and yet does not give any guarantee that a high level of social cohesion will be maintained. It is also unacceptable because this amendment refuses to tackle the problem of the conditions under which access will be available to the networks of the new operators. Finally, it is unacceptable because this amendment refuses to raise the issue of how the universal service will be funded; in fact if there is a legitimate request it is surely that of funding: we actually have a right to know how the universal service will be funded, which is to say how the universal service will be able to be guaranteed as such. Nevertheless, I will vote in favour of the common position for lack of anything better, because if we were to try to amend the text again we would run the risk of seeing the common position fail; we would therefore be running the risk of not having any directive on postal services and consequently of this sector being fully liberalised within two years. It was therefore more out of a concern to play safe than a real enthusiasm for the text – which in my opinion is far too cynically liberal – that I voted in favour of the common position.

Political group: PSE
We are very pleased to join in the protest against the harassment which Yannick Bigah is undergoing in Togo. We are, however, shocked by the fact that the protest is restricted to this single case and only seeks guarantees for human rights associations, whereas Mr Eyadema, Togo’s dictator, is creating many other victims with much more serious consequences. The European Parliament’s call for a kind of safe-conduct to protect certain associations from the dictatorship is better than nothing, but it would be preferable for it to protest against the dictatorship itself. However, we have to assume that the European Parliament is sensitive to the fact that Mr Eyadema is one of the oldest protégés of French imperialism in Africa. Rather than running the risk of condemning the protector by condemning the dictator, we are restricting the problem to an individual humanitarian case. - Miguélez Ramos report (A5-0071/2003)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, audiovisual production has an important role in preserving and developing the cultures of European countries and Europe’s cultural diversity. The importance of national cultures is being emphasised with globalisation. The audiovisual sector is one of the most global of cultural sectors. While audiovisual production is big business, the cultural dimension also plays a major part in it. Neither must we forget the sector’s impact on employment. The total number of jobs in the cultural sector in Europe is more then three million. A considerable number of these are in the audiovisual sector. Although the sector may be run by large consortiums, we have to remember that its new jobs are created primarily for SMEs. The work of the Audiovisual Observatory is important for these SMEs. We must safeguard the development of SMEs in the audiovisual sector. They mean greater competitiveness and more diversified production for Europe’s audiovisual sector. There are actually 34 European states, plus the European Commission, that are members of the observatory. In other words, states that are only now applying for membership of the Union are also included in the collaboration within its framework. The Audiovisual Observatory will improve the operating prerequisites of European companies in this rapidly developing area. The collation and dissemination of information particularly helps SMEs to cooperate and, hence, develop. For that reason, it is important that the operating prerequisites of the observatory are safeguarded. It is unfortunate that, as a result of a vote taken by the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, it is being proposed that financing for the observatory should be safeguarded for just three years, going against the position of the rapporteur, the chairman of the committee, Mr Gargani, among others. I am very happy that Mr Gargani made his opinion clearly known here in this plenary session. It is true that Parliament must be careful with taxpayers’ money. At the same time, however, it must be remembered that savings should not be made in the wrong areas. It is better to support SMEs through services and not, for example, through business aid that distorts competition.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, honoured colleagues, if we are talking today about the future Commission, then we are also talking about our political priorities. And what do these include, Mr Prodi? They incorporate areas of life which are among the most significant for human beings and which are of importance every day for us and our children. Examples include clean air and drinkable water, safe food which does not poison people, the safeguarding of their personal economic interests and the development of a basic standard of health within the European Union. In the course of the hearings before the relevant committees, Margot Wallström and David Byrne have shown brilliantly and convincingly, as well as to the satisfaction of the committees, that these priorities have been recognised and that full commitment will be given to this policy and to its fulfilment. How, though, do such policy areas become political realities and priorities? That can only happen with the support of the whole Commission around the Commission table and with the support of the President of the Commission, that is to say of yourself, Mr Prodi. So, can we be hopeful? I have been asking myself that question for a number of days now and, Mr Prodi, I have been asking it whenever I hear a speech by you. That is four or five in all now. I will also tell you the answer. I am not hopeful. My impression is that, in the past, you have merely been paying lip service. And because it was too much trouble, you do not do it at all now. In your speech today, you did not say a word, not a single word, about environmental policy. You mentioned sustainable development once. This is a compulsory exercise which everyone engages in. You did not say a word, not a single word, about consumer protection and safe food. And that is after BSE and dioxin! You used the word “health” in connection with the economy and sport. You betray your ignorance here, Mr Prodi, not that of your Commission, merely your own. Mrs Wallström and Mr Byrne have quite clearly come through their examinations before the European Parliament with flying colours. But they will probably often feel themselves to be alone around the Commission table, for you, Mr Prodi, have no idea about the interests of people inside the European Union despite the fact that you are always spouting about the “European soul”. You say you have learned lessons. So what lessons have you learned, Mr Prodi, other than that enterprise is important? You have shown in the past that you do not seriously mean what you say, and so you no longer say anything at all. I am telling you quite clearly, Mr Prodi, you have not passed the examination as far as I am concerned. So far, you have clearly failed it. So if I vote “yes” tomorrow, it is because of your esteemed colleagues, Mr Prodi, and not because of you. If, when voting, I was able to differentiate between yourself and your colleagues, you would get a clear “no” and all the others a clear “yes”. In football, a good team with a bad coach would never reach the top of the league. I only hope that the future Commission will overturn this rule.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, a large number of Members of this Parliament and of its staff are deeply affected by the war and want to express their deep sympathy with the victims. That is why many Members of Parliament and members of staff have decided to wear black armbands during this week's part-session. We would ask for your understanding for this mark of solidarity with all the victims and with public opinion, which has come out against this war. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
The Commission White Paper advocates the principle of public participation in defining and implementing policy, which is to be welcomed. Nevertheless, the EU’s broad policy guidelines are being implemented without and sometimes in opposition to the will of the people, particularly of young people. Although the financial assistance that is proposed for education and training bodies proves that there is a desire to contribute to developing our education systems, it has an elitist vision, which is far removed from the problems facing young people today and does not match the needs of each Member State’s educational systems. The attempts to contribute financially to actions that will help to improve education and training conditions are, however, to be welcomed, especially if they take account of the seriousness of early school leaving in some countries, such as Portugal, ongoing illiteracy, the need to end child labour and to promote education and training. Also to be welcomed are the proposals for a debate on these issues and for the programme to be monitored by the Member States. Report: Iivari (A5-0359/2003)

Political group: GUE-NGL
This report is too important, Mr President, for me to decide how to vote without consulting the elderly people and pensioners who, through the Pensioners Party, by voting for me, have brought me to this important Parliament. All of these pensioners said to me: ‘Mr Fatuzzo, Mr Fatuzzo, Mr Fatuzzo, what a short memory many MEPs have, what a short memory many people have. They have forgotten when, during the Second World War, the United States, Great Britain and other States saved Italians, Germans, Japanese and so on from many dictatorships and many dictators, who should be overcome before they cause harm and before they commit their many injustices, which we are all aware of.’ (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, not only in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport and here in the plenary are GATS and culture the subject of the most in-depth discussion; they are also being discussed everywhere where people make art and culture their business, and there is great disquiet about it – resulting from a lack of information, deficient transparency, and concern about the excessive influence on culture and the audiovisual sector exerted by market forces. I might add that the extent of the disquiet and the size of the information gap are also demonstrated by the day of action and protest against GATS to be mounted this coming Thursday in many European capital cities – in Rome, Paris, London and Vienna – by school and higher education students and trade unionists, which will be a day of European education and action. The concept of a cultural industry makes this development more marked. Critics are concerned that, in this field, countries are seen as growth areas subject to market mechanisms and capable of developing their own dynamics going far beyond what was originally laid down. One example of this is the American proposal for promoting the import of virtual goods, at the same time as removing such things as audiovisual programmes via the Internet from the GATS safeguard clauses, something that must be firmly rejected. Not only is cultural diversity to be respected; it must also be safeguarded. Although what is termed the cultural exception in the GATS negotiations is meant to be an exception from the usual rules of competition, the fact that the concept has never acquired legal force justifies the questions that are being asked and the concern that is felt as to whether that is sufficient to maintain our values. Or do we not need an international legal instrument whereby it is acknowledged that states have the right to determine cultural policy on the basis of their own needs, and to take measures of their own to promote artistic endeavour and public audiovisual services? Cultural diversity does not mean limiting oneself to one's own borders and cutting the industry back; it is about being open to diversity, and that means giving it a chance to survive. (The President cut off the speaker) IN THE CHAIR: MRS CERSCHIÖLDVice-President

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, age is the future for Europe and – I hope for you all – it is your own future too. I have already reached it: I am already seventy years of age. I am also very proud that the European Union, in Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, has the only constitution in the world to include a ban on discrimination on grounds of age. Yet this is no longer provided for in the Convention's draft. My question to you is this: do you see any possibility of bringing influence to bear, even at this stage, so that this unique ban on discrimination which currently exists in Europe can be included in the new constitution as well?

Political group: PPE-DE
Exactly, Mr President, this is a point of order. I think that you must have not been paying attention, Mr President, when you said, just now, that I was the first to attack Mr Ribeiro e Castro. This is not true. In his own speech, which preceded mine, Mr Ribeiro e Castro referred to me in a completely unacceptable way and you said nothing about it, Mr President. As you will remember, he said that I have manipulated public opinion, that I have manipulated the press, that I have sought to use this Parliament, and he referred specifically to the fact that I am Chairman of the Committee on Development and Cooperation. What I said in my speech that gave Mr Ribeiro e Castro the pretext for answering in the way he did was simply that some friends of UNITA, specifically Mr Ribeiro e Castro, had gone ahead with certain initiatives. Mr President, I did not mean any insult by this, because it is public knowledge and widely known that this party, to which Mr Ribeiro e Castro belongs, has clear, public and acknowledged links with UNITA. This was the precise tenor of what I said and nothing more! That is why what was said... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, many of those involved in this business used to wonder whether regulation is needed – they still do. It is my belief that the answer to this question should be an unambiguous ‘yes’, even though many of the actors take the opposite view. I am, in principle, opposed to the proliferation of rules. I hope that the future will see politicians, policies, and even the Commission, judged on the basis of what rules and directives they have abolished or unified, rather than the opposite. This situation, though, is rather different. This is about honesty, about trust; this has to do with the prevention of theft, insecurity and, in the final analysis, fraud. I am glad that there is to be an increase in controls and, it is to be hoped, that there will be more sanctions in future. If I may turn to the subject of journalists and media freedom, I cannot but agree with what Mr Karas has said about the principle that we stand up for freedom of opinion and oppose any sort of censorship. I do, however, see it as inadequate to take the view, as some in this House do, that the good name of certain media and media organisations that have been referred to guarantees that abuses will be prevented. I was myself in that line of business and am, alas, all too well aware that publishers and journalists are human, but that there is a very, very narrow dividing line between honesty and respectability on the one hand and debatable conduct on the other. It is for this reason that I believe a good reputation does not at present offer a sufficient guarantee, and that there is a need for regulation. Arthur Andersen also had a good reputation until that business was struck by disaster. (Applause) I am in favour of these interests being disclosed. I believe that we owe a duty to the public to address problems and find approaches towards a solution even in sensitive areas. It will be for the future to show whether we have been able to do that properly in the first stage, with all the nuances involved. We will then have to make any adjustments that turn out to be necessary. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE