GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Thank you, Mr President. I should also like to congratulate Mr Casaca on behalf of my group. I share his relentless ambition to improve agricultural controls. If this policy is already controversial, and European agricultural policy is controversial, then we must in any event ensure that the money is well spent. What is the essence of the Commission's proposal? It aims to reduce the number of controls, but to improve them at the same time. We hope that the latter is the case, but everything is yet to be proven, of course. We will be closely monitoring this process, something that I support. The proof will be in the pudding. You will be given the benefit of the doubt, but I hope that your premises are indeed genuine. Something which Parliament has always asked for are margins of error for the individual sectors of the budget, and this also applies to the agricultural budget. How great is the margin of error in the dairy sector, for example? How much is it in the cereal sector, or the tobacco sector? The big question is whether you are able to supply these figures by means of this other system, because based on the Commission's new system of accounting, we expect that these figures will be available in due course. The Court of Auditors has said that it will not be able to do this. We would therefore ask the Commission to indicate, more or less on an annual basis, what the estimated margin of error and the estimated improvement will be. This will enable us to assess improvements in the Commission’s control procedures. One subject that has not been touched upon, not even in the Commission proposal, is that we have noticed an increasing emphasis on rural policy in Commissioner Fischler's proposals. Funding for rural policy is subject to good agricultural practices, which is excellent, and we must incorporate the environment and similar issues in this. However, what exactly are good agricultural practices? My guess is that good agricultural practices in Sweden may on the whole be different from good agricultural practices in the Netherlands, or Portugal, or Greece, or wherever. This is the essence. What is considered normal in one country is still not normal in another country. My final comment concerns Amendment No 10 pertaining to the publication of all data on the various destinations of agricultural funds. I agree with this in principle, but as far as I know, this does not apply to any of the other subsections of the budget. This is why we will be keeping our powder dry for the time being and will not be voting for this amendment at this stage.

Political group: ELDR
The potential delay in implementing third-generation mobile communications networks and services is today a major risk factor for a sector that has been considerably weakened by the bursting of the speculative bubble in the USA, which could have a knock-on effect on the communications and information technology sector and hence on the economy in general, given this sector’s influence on telecommunications, and particularly on mobile communications, in some Member States. This situation is largely due to the great expectations raised for the sector’s development and to the enormous financial sums obtained by some Member States by auctioning UMTS licences. Consequently, these States are now considering adopting unilateral aid to ‘rescue’ this sector from a situation of considerable debt. In addition to this risk factor, we must consider the issues of equal access for citizens to third-generation mobile communications, content-related issues, specifically in terms of public service provision, the consequences of the further liberalisation of the sector and the effects of radiation from the electromagnetic fields created by mobile phones, making it crucial to extend scientific research in this field. - Paasilinna resolution (A5-0013/2003)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, it would be difficult to deny that the people who spend most time watching television – one of the objectives of the Mr Harbour's report – are the elderly. Therefore, I welcome the fact that, with this directive, the European Union is starting to realise that it needs to do something about the programmes broadcast on television as well. I feel that it would be appropriate if, without introducing unwanted censorship, cultural programmes were also to be made which would be educational for viewers and serve the community as a whole, so that we had something to watch other than violent films and spectacles which do nothing but destroy the values that the elderly still have but which young people, I regret to say, have lost.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in my committee, very few things are subject to Community law. In other words, a great many issues are based on subsidiarity, and that is how it should stay. Accordingly, we have confined ourselves to a handful of issues and I only intend to pick out two particular aspects. The audiovisual sector is very important. We have established that the candidate countries have simply not made enough effort on the legislative front, and the legal provisions governing the audiovisual media fall a long way short of meeting the requirements of the acquis communautaire. That was my first point. My second point is that there has also been precious little effort made to approximate the legal provisions on the intellectual property front, i.e. with regard to copyright. We have also addressed the issue of minorities, because the integration of these minorities – including their linguistic integration – in these countries, is also of significance. We have included a number of comments concerning the Russians in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and concerning the Roma in the other countries. Criticism and questions aside though, I would also like to highlight a positive development. In fact we have some positive feedback for you on the educational and cultural front. For years now, we have had links with these countries through the Tempus programme, and likewise, for a year and a half now, they have been entitled to participate fully in the educational, cultural and exchange programmes for young people. I believe we have been truly successful in building bridges here. We must not concentrate on economic matters alone, for it is in the very areas I have mentioned that we must find common ground and build on it. Indeed it is already there. I would like to make the honourable members aware of how unsatisfactory it is that the exchange under the Socrates programme always involves people from Eastern Europe visiting Western Europe, and that we must encourage our young people to visit the countries of Central and Eastern Europe instead. Only then will we truly find common ground in Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this report creates a depressing picture of the situation of women in some Mediterranean countries. It demonstrates that they are disadvantaged economically, that they are disadvantaged in terms of health and, perhaps most significantly, in terms of education, with the levels of literacy among women in some Mediterranean countries way below that of men. It is important that Parliament draws attention to that issue, but that is not sufficient. We should also ensure that EU policies are designed to help women improve their standing in some of those countries. For example, the MEDA programme so far has no lines particularly dedicated to the education of women, to improving the health care of women. We should look at that. We should also look at the way our economic relations with some of the Mediterranean countries operate and see if they could be used to enhance the status of women, for example, by supporting women's cooperatives and other activities.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there seems to me to be no question as to the validity of the proposed directive on harmonisation of the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products. Obviously, the proposal to tighten up standards for maximum nicotine, tar and carbon monoxide content in cigarettes must be considered one of the ways of ensuring better public health protection. As a member of Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I should particularly like to highlight the fact that tobacco producers are not opposed to the changes proposed by the Commission, insofar as these changes are justified on public health grounds. Like them, however, I deplore the fact that the Commission has not carried out an impact study concerning the effect of the proposal on the production sector, as it did for a number of businesses, particularly small- and medium-sized businesses. They thus failed to take account of the fact that, on the whole, European producers will not be capable of supplying products to the required quality by the deadline of 2003. This leads me to advocate delaying the date when these new provisions come into force. Let me remind you that the tobacco sector, involving 130 000 producers and 400 000 seasonal workers, is more often than not located in regions which present very few alternatives for farm production. This is a social reality which must not be forgotten, especially since, in economic terms, European production accounts for less than 25% of European tobacco consumption. In these circumstances, jeopardising the situation of European producers would only be of benefit to the multinationals involved in import and export. I should not like to think that this might be our objective.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would very much like to underline the fact that Mrs De Sarnez, by using the title ‘Erasmus Mundus’ has found the right expression, and I am glad that she has. It needs no explanation; that this is a better description than Erasmus World is self-explanatory. For ‘Mundus’ shows that we have a multiplicity of languages and do not express ourselves in only one language, the so-called lingua franca, English. So I am glad that we have chosen the Latin word. Mrs De Sarnez' report takes up three points that are of great importance to us on the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, and also in my group. The first is the European dimension and the European value that the opportunity of mobility adds to education. Secondly, Europe is given an enhanced presence on the international stage, becoming more attractive and also more competitive – particularly in the field of university education. The third point is the accent on language learning, and here I want to contradict all those who have said that this is not important. I am glad that this additional amendment is there, for it is the learning of our region's languages that helps the people who come to us to grasp its cultural diversity. Fourthly, the increase to EUR 300 million reflects the desire to create a real European educational area. If, on a Sunday, I talk about how important that is, if I make statements about it in Bologna or in Lisbon, only, on Monday, to fail to make the money available, then the written word is worthless. That is why we should remind our masters in the Council that they now have to make their contribution, in order to do justice to the high expectations they have of themselves. The stunning success of the Socrates/Erasmus programme, on which I was the rapporteur on more than one occasion, is the inspiration behind this new programme. Erasmus has enabled a million students to study, and both programmes, which are mutually complementary, make it possible to gain an additional qualification abroad. They also facilitate access to European languages, to European culture and to European values. They are indispensable in terms of cultural understanding and dialogue, both of which have been mentioned a number of times today. This means that the limited budget that we have must be replenished. That is an obstacle. There is also a lack of demand on the part of teachers, for whom there is the hindrance that what they do abroad is often not recognised at home. With the new programmes, that are soon to follow, in mind, we have to give some thought to how we can really harmonise these programmes with each other. I would also like to make another appeal that has not so far been heard today. It is an appeal to the Convention, that these measures – Socrates, Erasmus, Erasmus Mundus – should not be merely support measures, but rather supplementary competences, which we value, and which constitute the heart of the European Union. That is something you could find out if you were at last to talk with the public instead of constantly peering at your books! (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission communication and Mr Bowis's report are based on the vicious, infernal and fatal circle which robs developing countries of any real right to health for the majority of their population, which only aggravates their underdevelopment still further. The same applied, incidentally, to my own report on the financing of clinical interventions to combat AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, which was adopted several months ago. I therefore give my unreserved support to the rapporteur and to the proposals he and the Committee on Development and Cooperation have put forward. We need to increase the level of financial contributions, particularly those earmarked for water. As several other Members have said, three million people die in the world every year for lack of drinking water. Major vaccination campaigns are needed. Preventive health measures need to be built up. Medicines need to be made accessible and methods of treatment need to be adapted for developing countries, not to mention palliative care, the provision of analgesics and the fight against trafficking in counterfeit medicines. In March 2003, in the wake of the Sixth Framework Programme on Research and Technological Development, I persuaded the European Parliament to adopt a EUR 600 million research programme to combat AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis under Article 169, which also made a concrete contribution towards achieving the same objectives. I am seizing the opportunity I have been given this evening to inform fellow Members about the implementation of this programme since its final adoption on 16 June. Commissioner Busquin has returned from Africa, where he was able to confirm interest on the part of researchers in the countries concerned following the establishment of appropriate management structures. Measurable progress has already been accomplished over several years, very often with the encouragement of this House, acting in close partnership with the European Commission. We also, and above all, need to be aware of the dramatic situation in the developing countries, which is an indication of everything that remains to be done and of the enormous effort that is required in terms of imagination, partnership and budget resources. By way of conclusion, I would like to reiterate my support for the committee’s proposals, my total support for our rapporteur, my personal commitment in these areas, not to mention the commitment of my group, the Confederal Group of the , and I invite the Commission, and above all the Council, to step up Europe's commitment if we are to avoid a situation in which far from improving, the developing countries' position deteriorates in future.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, some old shibboleths have resurfaced in this debate. There are those who reject any form of taxation, including tax on e-commerce. There are those who, rather than trying to resolve a question at European level, imagine that it is always better to refer it to other fora so as not to resolve it. I am thinking in particular of Mr Dell'Alba’s intervention. There are those, like Mr Titford, who vigorously defend their own national interest, preferring tax competition to European coordination. I am not among these. Like Mr Skinner, I think that the proposals from the rapporteur, Mr García-Margallo y Marfil, regarding VAT on e-commerce are good. We do, in fact, think that we must review our tax system in the light of technological developments. The current situation is an unfavourable one. The facts are that, today, a French person can purchase software from an American company exempt from VAT, whereas an American making a similar acquisition from a French company is taxed at the rate current in France. I see this as a double competitive advantage for the American company. I am not sure that this is the best way of supporting our own e-commerce industry. Now, it seems that very many voices, in this Chamber too, have been raised in support of this industry. We think this distortion of competition between Member States and third countries is unacceptable. The Commission’s proposals would permit progress towards greater coordination, and they are along the right lines. Then, there is the argument according to which a sector should be exempt from tax on the grounds that it is experiencing rapid growth. That is not my view. Finally, the French Presidency’s proposals were discussed, according to which tax should be levied at the point of consumption, with a requirement for service providers to be registered in all the Member States. Our rapporteur’s proposal echoes those of the Commission, favouring one-off registration in a single Member State. If this can provide the basis for a compromise, it will probably be a good compromise as long as it is not used to reintroduce distortion of competition due to the different VAT rates applicable in our various Member States. The equalisation mechanism proposed by our rapporteur is along these lines. That is why, together with the other members of my group, I shall support the proposal.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, immensely rich élites, members and accomplices of which have enjoyed university training, are attacking our financial, economic and security institutions. This horrific tragedy requires a response. The citizen asks the government to take action. In terms of external policy, the European Union is able to do this because we increasingly speak with one voice. The value of our input in the eradication of breeding grounds for terror has increased by leaps and bounds, as will be seen, I hope, in the near future. As regards internal policy, we still cannot manage to speak with one voice. Basically, the ‘every man for himself’ mentality still prevails. Fortunately, the Commission has realised that this is not acceptable. Mr Vitorino, I would like to commend you on the fact that you, and the Commission, have realised that speaking with one voice on behalf of the European Union is absolutely necessary. Within the space of one week, you produced a detailed plan with proposals which are both practical and also truly necessary. This will be rewarded in the form of the citizen’s trust. I hope that none of the Member States will dare to distance themselves from this critical plan, inviting the outrage of its own citizens in doing so. Needless to say, justice is important in this context, for we are dealing with a crime here, with whatever fine motives it is presented. This is also evident in Northern Ireland where agreements contain terms which are used incorrectly and which are an insult to anyone who takes their religion seriously. We have reason to be pleased with the Watson report which provides an initial impulse to the Parliament’s endeavours and may be supplemented with propositions concerning the preparation of crimes which are committed elsewhere, that is, outside the European Union. We trust that the Commissioner will not accept draft framework decisions which contain weak formulae such as we now see from time to time and which have absolutely no meaning whatsoever. The real added value must lie in the fact that it becomes clear to the citizens that the European Union, as such, takes charge where guaranteeing internal security is concerned.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, as committee Chair I do not simply wish to point out that we actually have a report which enables us to carry out a careful analysis of the stability and convergence programmes; this work is not only very substantial but also needs to be done very conscientiously, because what is really at stake is whether we as Member States of the European Union adhere to the Maastricht criteria, both before joining the single currency and, above all, after doing so, as there are already 12 Member States in the eurozone now. This is an extremely demanding process, which really calls for very careful political judgment. That is why, Mr Poettering, we do indeed need to have all the information, but the information that we receive is chiefly contained in written reports, and I believe that this House would be well advised to entrust this work to the relevant specialist committee in the first place. I would like to recall the difficulties we had in agreeing the Stability and Growth Pact here at all, and that there was a big question mark hanging over whether investment in education should be added to the budget deficit. At that point, this was questioned not only by Members of the Group, but also by Members of the PPE- Group. That is why I really urge that we should on no account hold a debate, which will happen of necessity if the question remains on the agenda, but that this should instead be done in committee. Mr Solbes can help us in the committee, we can deliberate on this matter and that will allow us to reach a balanced and appropriate decision in the plenary session on the basis of the report by our rapporteur.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I concur with my colleague, Mr Ford, that of course if we only sat in Brussels, we would not be here debating this building. That underlines the problem that we are confronted with the enormous task of managing two buildings across the European Union. Nonetheless that is the task that the Council has decided that we must undertake. I would, therefore, like to thank the services, Mr Priestley in particular, and all his staff for the strenuous efforts they have undertaken to make this building work. This week this building has worked. While there have been problems, our parliamentary business has not been hindered by the defects and this is thanks to the efforts of Mr Priestley and others. There are significant design defects, particularly in relation to access. It is not an architecturally welcoming building particularly to people with disabilities. That is going to be a real challenge for us all to overcome. On the whole, a lot of the resistance is due to the fact that people just do not like change. They do not like unfamiliar surroundings. In my view, it is not appropriate to discuss our own internal business at a full parliamentary session here in the European Parliament. We need to find, perhaps, a less formal form of ongoing dialogue with you and Mr Priestley and his services to discuss the issues of accessibility and other issues relating to the internal organisation of this Parliament. This session is an illustration that the dialogue between ordinary Members and the administration is perhaps not working as effectively as it could be. In conclusion, putting all this in perspective, yes we have problems as Members. Our staff have problems too, but this is nothing compared to the problems faced by those we represent. I hope we all bear that point in mind.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like my name to be added to yesterday's attendance register. I can prove that I was also here for the roll-call vote, but I had not entered my name.

Political group: PSE