GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I should like to thank Mrs Fraisse and Mrs Gill for their excellent report and their contribution to the realisation of this action programme. In order successfully to complete the ambitious development of this European e-content programme, the procedures envisaged need to be simplified and made secure. The Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has studied this subject in terms of two specific aspects of the report: on the one hand, public access to documents and the commercial exploitation of information originating in the public sector; and on the other hand, the exchange of intellectual property rights. Public sector information plays an important role when it comes to citizens’ participation and the expression of their freedoms, but it also represents an important potential resource for the European information market. The dual use, public and private, of this information justifies introducing a Community regulation which must respect the specific obligations of the public authorities as well, of course, as the confidentiality of personal data. Cost must not act as a filter for access to the information from which commercial suppliers ought also to benefit. A common basis for billing and a common legal framework governing the right of access must therefore be defined, and this effectively means defining the very nature of this information to see whether or not it can be protected by copyright. The purpose of exchanging intellectual property rights is to permit the realisation of digital content involving more than one format (video, music and text), with the payment of fees administered through a single European system. The goal is to stimulate the creation of digital content while protecting intellectual property rights in such a way as to ensure respect for beneficiaries and for consumers legally accessing the content. Actions taken will have to take account of the future legal framework at present under discussion, designed in particular to define the exclusive rights of descendant beneficiaries.

Political group: PPE-DE
The spread of flexibility and atypical forms of work, in order to share out unemployment, entrepreneurship, the extension of working life on the pretext of the ageing of the population and sustainable pensions and lifelong learning are the basic Commission guidelines on employment. At the same time, by making not only relative but also absolute cuts in wages and linking them to productivity, cutbacks in the welfare state and social protection and the non-application of what are inadequate safety regulations in the workplace are being promoted. Unemployment is rising constantly and exceeds 10%, not counting hidden unemployment. This situation, especially the large number of long-term unemployed and unemployment among the young and women, who are unable to enter the labour market, is giving rise to acute manifestations of poverty and social exclusion. The term employment policy is completely misleading. The proposed measures are essentially measures to reinforce the unaccountability of big business by granting it new privileges. This policy represents an escalation of the attack on workers' rights, the objective being the further promotion of plans for a cheap workforce, with no employment, insurance, wage or trade union rights, and increased profits. The workers are not only rejecting these measures, but are also reacting proactively and en masse against pro-monopoly choices by stepping up their fight.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I agree with what my friend and colleague, Mr Miller, was just saying. At the moment it is a pious platitude to say that the polluter pays - polluters on the whole do not pay or pay only a small part of what they should pay. It would be a great thing to move forward to a situation where it becomes a principle of law and not a pious platitude that polluters have to pay. I was grateful for Commissioner Bolkestein's remarks about Amendments Nos 48 and 61. It is important to take account of permits and state-of-the-art. However, as the common position indicates, there are permits and permits. The degree of detail and specificity of what is permitted varies from situation to situation. In these circumstances, to have an all-or-nothing principle - either something is covered by a permit and, therefore, exempt from any liability, or it is not covered and fully liable - seems like a mistake. It seems right to adopt a principle of mitigation so that there is a sliding scale taking account of the variability of permits and circumstances. The Commissioner also talked about nuclear liability. I happen to be the rapporteur for the still stalled report on the reform of the Paris Convention. I take his point that this will expand the range and level of liability of nuclear operators, but it remains the case, unhappily, that nuclear power still travels in a boat of its own, subject to a rather special exception to the 'polluter-pays' principle - the polluter pays quite a lot, but not necessarily everything in that case. My Group resents the special treatment of the nuclear industry. We said that during the Euratom debate and there will, no doubt, be other occasions to say it. We are also concerned about going too easy on the GMO cases. That is another example where deliberate economic activity aimed quite laudably at profit and gain can cause exponentially spreading damage of a most alarming kind, and not to bring that within the scale of this directive would be to create an unjustifiable exemption. There are other points I could make, but there are many speakers in this debate. We are very strongly in favour of this directive and hope that it will leave this House in a really strong form.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I am extremely pleased with this report on the Commission communication, which seeks to lay down the principles and guidelines of Community audiovisual policy, in order to adapt it to the digital age. Such adaptation is actually crucial, given recent developments in digital technology. We will only achieve this if we respect the principles governing this field, which are: - the protection of pluralism: to achieve this task, I once again stress the fact that, as provided for in the protocol annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam, public service broadcasting plays a central part in safeguarding pluralism as well as cultural and linguistic diversity. - the possibility of targeting intervention to provide strategic support for services of general interest: the public must be guaranteed access to audiovisual services on the basis of criteria such as universality, affordable costs and non-discrimination. - the maximum protection for those producing audiovisual works, and hence the possibility of providing better protection for intellectual ownership rights, copyright and related ownership rights: the effectiveness of copyright protection is jeopardised in the digital age. Respect for intellectual property is nevertheless a source of vitality in the audiovisual and cinematographic sector and the proposal for a directive on copyright and associated rights in the information society must therefore be speedily adopted, both to protect created works and to ensure that they are accessible and can circulate freely. - the increased protection for users, who will be covered by various safeguards depending on the different services that they use: I approve of the idea of stepping up experiments with programme filtering systems and other methods of parental control for the protection of minors. To conclude, I wish to stress that a revision of Directive (89/552/EEC) on ‘Television without Frontier’ is crucial. We must strengthen the provisions on the circulation of European works and on independent production in order to make them more effective. The obligation of public and private television broadcasters to allocate a proportion of their annual net income to investment in production and to the acquisition of European audiovisual programmes, including films, works aimed at minorities and ones made by independent producers, must be included in this piece of legislation. - Heaton-Harris report (A5-0199/2000)

Political group: PSE
I see that the results that have come out of this survey also confirm what I claimed: among them, the fact that whenever foreign citizens travel to Israel to get to Palestine – because the Palestinians do not have any borders that they monitor – they are constantly subject to this procedure, and we ourselves have experienced obstacles to movement. There is another issue, over and above our freedom of movement, that I believe the Council must take into consideration, that is to say Palestinian sovereignty. In the current situation, not only can Palestinians no longer receive voluntary workers, officials or citizens but, in effect, they are also prisoners – partly due to what is currently happening with the Wall – within Palestine. Therefore, the Oslo agreement, which instead provides for autonomous Palestinian areas, is being rendered totally ineffective by Israel when the latter restricts the movement of foreign citizens too. I therefore believe that the Council should consider this aspect too and, above all, take specific action to stop Israel preventing freedom of movement, partly because, as things are, we can also respond in kind. If we have problems entering Israel, then perhaps Israeli citizens could also have problems entering Europe.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Has the Commission taken account of the Cancún Conference? Reading its communication, tabled with a view to a possible relaunch of the negotiations on the Development Agenda that began in 2001, it is difficult to tell! Its supposed ‘flexibility’ on the Singapore issues is just tinkering around the edges; the call for a balance between rights and the market and its avowed intention to adopt more flexible positions in no way weaken neoliberal European policies. Contempt, a lack of self-criticism and a reluctance to question remain at the heart of the Commission’s creed. Faced with Commissioner Lamy’s statements – rubberstamped by the Council – the poorest countries neither wish to sign up to the supposed new proposals nor are they awarding full marks to the policies implemented since Seattle. On the contrary, the people of the South are organising themselves and resisting European ambitions and the WTO. The opening up of trade in services provided for by the GATS and the no less sacrosanct opening of the market – put forward as a clear benefit for developing countries! – have been clearly identified as dangers by the countries of the South. International relations, which are based on cooperation and trade between equals and are respectful of individual and collective fundamental rights, deserve better. A public debate, relayed by elected representatives, to show the fallacy of this way of thinking is now unavoidable.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, our discussions have focussed exclusively on the broad outlines, and, whilst these are, of course, very important, the problems lie in the detail. One of the central issues in the neighbouring countries is what will happen at the borders. Will there be new, decentralised instruments to facilitate practical cross-border cooperation? Will the border arrangements be eased, or will the borders lead to a real and tangible division by separating ethnic groups and severing existing relations? What interests me is what the Commission's strategy says about this issue. What form will the financial instrument take? Will it be a centralised instrument, as is currently the case, with the problems that we have, or will it be a decentralised instrument?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, let me begin by thanking Mr Mussa sincerely for his flawless cooperation with us all. The figures speak for themselves. One in four people in Europe dies of cancer. The suffering caused is enormous, not only for those hit by the disease, but also for their families and friends. As terrible as cancer is, however, it is possible to survive it. That does mean, however, that the disease must be detected very early, since that leads to a considerable reduction in the number of deaths from it. It has been demonstrated that there is a link with the screening programmes, and that is why it is so important for us MEPs, too, to hold detailed discussions on reports such as this, based on sound data supplied by the Commission. I must also compliment the Commission on the report it presented. I should actually recommend that the Commission circulate that report widely. It should be compulsory reading for all policy-makers, because it reveals that preventive action saves lives. The European Union has an enormous task ahead of it. We must ensure that the available expertise is not wasted. I therefore concur with Mrs Jöns’s words a moment ago on the cancer networks. We must also keep innovating. That means that we must not just persist with old, classical tests. Combining a number of things that, according to this report, have been proved or are currently being proved, will enable us to do a much better job. I am thinking of not only the HPV test, but also the test for prostate cancer in Luxembourg and the test for colon cancer. Given that we also still have a European research programme, of which health forms a major part, we can do a good deal more for European citizens, particularly if the Commissioner and all of us really put this at the heart of our policy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Real conflict prevention comes from below, from people who do not feel oppressed by anyone and the great majority of whom are satisfied with the national unit to which they have been assigned. On the other hand, you cannot keep any state lastingly together from above against the will of the majority of the inhabitants of a region, or maintain internationally recognised borders. Right across the area populated predominantly by Albanians run national borders they never wanted, and within Serbia and Macedonia they find themselves against their wills in the position of an ethnic minority. The Albanians believe they suffered an injustice in 1913 when a large part of their native region was not assigned to the new state of Albania that had just seceded from Turkey. Since then this has created a breeding ground for popular uprisings which aim at finally creating a Greater Albania. One way of avoiding this might be to quickly introduce a federal constitutional regulation into Macedonia, along the same lines as that which enables Flemings and Walloons to live peaceably side by side again since Belgium’s federalisation. Anyone wishing to combat nationalism must first remove its breeding ground by offering people a solution acceptable to them. Because the resolution gives people no hope of improvement and does not remove the causes of violence, I am unable to support it. - Conflict prevention

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, as , and as the Group, our commitment to the defence of the value of human life and dignity, and the defence of the fundamental rights and freedoms required for that dignity, lead us once again to vigorously condemn the violations of human life and dignity represented by the death sentences – and, what is more, death by stoning – handed down in strict application of Islamic law; and to urge the authorities responsible to show clemency in order to prevent the ignominy of the execution of such sentences. It also leads us to remind not only the Federal State of Nigeria, but also Niger, Sudan and Somalia, that the current interpretation and application of the sharia is not only a clear violation of fundamental rights, but that it evidently contravenes the international commitments to human rights which they have signed up to, including the Cotonou agreements, article one of which clearly states that the rights of the individual will be respected and that the situation of women and issues of sex equality will systematically be taken into account in all areas, political, economic and social. Therefore, as well as our absolute rejection of the death sentences which have been handed down, and as well as asking for mercy for Amina Lawal, Ahmadu Ibrahin and Fatima Usman, we must and want to demand that the governments of these countries bring their legislation into line with the international standards and commitments in the field of human rights, in order to prevent an application of the sharia which violates human rights. Furthermore, as the European Union we must be prepared to use the mechanisms available to us under the Cotonou agreements in the event of the violation of the principles they stand for. Only in this way, Mr President, will we contribute to progress on freedom and respect for human rights in the world.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I too think that this is a good proposal. It is important for us to guarantee free movement for detergents, but I think it is still more important that the detergents we put on the market should damage neither the environment nor people’s health and that, as consumers, we should always know the nature of the everyday items we buy in the shops. I am able to support the proposals concerning bans on the use of carcinogenic and other poisonous substances in detergents, and I am also able to support the supplementary proposal to the effect that the ban should include those chemicals that are difficult to break down, together with hormone-disturbing chemicals. I agree with the rapporteur that those Member States that have implemented restrictive rules governing the use of phosphates in detergents must be able to uphold these rules, and I think it is important for us now, at EU level too, to address the issue of phosphates. Where labelling is concerned, it is naturally important for us, as consumers, to be provided with information about the characteristics of substances included in detergents, including substances that cause allergies. With regard to the system of EC environmental labelling, I would point out that these substances are covered by this system, but apparently not all manufacturers think it worthwhile participating in it. To a large extent, they use their own labels, and I am therefore able to support Amendment No 48, based on the idea that, if other environmental labels are used, it must be stated in what way they differ from the EC’s official environmental label. Finally, I would say, on the subject of animal experiments, that I am fully able to support the amendments designed to restrict animal experiments. To the extent that there are any alternative methods at all, we must naturally try to use these and, ultimately, I also think we should put pressure on industry and manufacturers to develop alternative methods in those cases in which these still do not exist, so preventing as many animal experiments as is humanly possible.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ‘illegal work’ could also be referred to as ‘underground work’. When I told my pensioner friends that this matter was under debate, they urged me to do all in my power to ensure that they are not left underground for too long – they have trouble breathing – and to bring them up into the open air. ‘Why underground?’, you may ask, Mr President. Sadly, this is the situation. Some pensioners are forced to work ‘underground’ – i.e. illegally – because, in certain States, it is not possible to receive both a salary and a pension. If we want to combat illegal working practices we must also permit pensioners – who live on low, paltry, starvation-ration pensions – to receive a regular salary in addition to a pension, or else they will be forced to remain underground, where they could well end up suffocating.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this report was originally limited to the Commission communication outlining the progress achieved by the Member States in the wake of the Lisbon European Council. I thought that it would also be helpful for the report to cover the implementation of the European Charter for small enterprises. I wanted to present a simple and specific report to you based on the work done by the Commission and the Member States over the last two years. I share the Commission’s concern about the slow pace of progress and about the downturn in the economic situation, which is not necessarily favourable to long-term reforms. However, it is these structural reforms which we are being slow to implement, particularly as regards opening markets and reducing the tax burden. One of the reasons for the slow pace of reform is the failure to comply with the method decided in Lisbon, which presupposes cooperation between the Member States and coordination by the Commission, with exchanges of information and an assessment of the measures adopted. This is still lacking, and that is detracting from the coherence of enterprise policy. That is why I am suggesting that the Commission should publish an enterprise policy scoreboard, just as it has done for employment policy, which should both prioritise actions to be taken and set out a timetable. I am also calling on the Commission to provide us with better information on progress with structural reforms in the Member States. Furthermore, I am asking the Commission to assess the effectiveness of initiatives taken by the Member States and effectively to disseminate best practice. Small enterprises are a pillar of Europe's economy and a breeding ground for jobs that we should support and develop. The regulatory and administrative environment in which our companies have to operate also has an impact on their competitiveness. We need to bear in mind that small enterprises employing fewer than 50 people provide jobs for 65 million people in the European Union. They account for 99% of all businesses and provide 53% of jobs. In other words, it is better to legislate, taking account of small enterprises, which means serving 65 million people more effectively. That is why I am calling on the Commission to step up consultation with bodies representing small enterprises and to help them to set themselves up as a network. It is also the reason why I am stressing the need to differentiate more clearly between different types of company in legislative proposals. And it is also why we should not make life difficult for our entrepreneurs by overburdening them with legislation. The aim of the measures I am proposing is to support initiatives taken by the Commission and the Member States in favour of companies. I wanted to emphasise the methodological problems that are impeding the Lisbon strategy while advancing some specific proposals likely to meet the expectations of entrepreneurs and applicable in the context of small enterprise. I hope that this House will support this approach. IN THE CHAIR: MR VIDAL-QUADRAS ROCAVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE