GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I wish to thank Mrs Jensen and Mrs Thorning-Schmidt for their work on the reports. Where Mrs Thorning-t’s report was concerned, there was a hard fight at the conciliation stage. On one point, our political group is not satisfied with the outcome, and that is when it comes to the limit value for whole-body vibrations, which we believe was set too high. It is even higher than the international industry standard and significantly higher than the level set by the Commission from the beginning. I know that Mrs Thorning-Schmidt shares my group’s view on this point. With regard to Mrs Jensen’s report, I want to point out that it is incredibly important that the Commission and the European Employment Strategy should now begin to pay attention to the local levels. The employment strategy we have had so far has often got no further than government offices and not been channelled into working life in the Member States. Now, there is greater interest in such a strategy’s being applied, and it is incredibly valuable for money to be earmarked for information activities at local level. I have followed Mrs Jensen’s work and seen how hard she has fought along the same lines as myself. Later in the year, I shall return with a report that will take the work further in the same direction. It is particularly important to set aside money for the provision of information because local information activities are unheard of and there are no trends at all towards, or guarantees of, the central authorities’ distributing information from Brussels. I should like to have seen still larger appropriations, but I hope to be able to return to this subject later.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I am very grateful to the Commissioner for his statement. To some extent it addresses the matter and to some extent it fails to do so. I think it is very important as a matter of public record that we should have a declaration in the clearest terms from the Commission in a body, that it is continuing to act as the essential European prime mover of enlargement. I applaud the view expressed by the Commissioner that we all share the task of selling this historic challenge but I deplore the fact that someone as pre-eminent as Commissioner Verheugen, at least according to a number of newspapers today, should say the Member States should not leave the Commission to do the dirty job alone. This language is not appropriate to the sensitivities and subtleties required in this historic debate and it constitutes loose talk which opens up an appalling prospect, not least in the hearts and minds of those who support enlargement, and especially in candidate States and in their capital cities. That is why this matter is of exceptional political importance this week. It is important to understand that a Commissioner, Commissioner Verheugen in this case, has a role to speak for Europe. Of course he is a German politician, but the German Government is empowered and in a position to speak for Germany. I believe it is entirely proper that Mr Poettering should demand that this issue be dealt with here this week and I would urge the Commission to give the necessary assurance, not only because I agree with the sentiments of Commissioner Patten, but because the world at large wishes to be reassured that there is no dysfunction at the heart of Europe on the question of enlargement.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, for ten years, a whole world of citizens, politicians and journalists have taken an active interest in, and been horrified by, the fate of Aung San Suu Kyi. Despite the enormous support she enjoys among the Burmese people and the crushing victory she and her party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), won in 1990, she has not been able to take on her leadership role formally. On various occasions, she has been kept isolated, and now she has been under house arrest for a whole year. The Nobel Peace Prize and our own Sacharov Prize have drawn attention to her and to her courageous struggle, but they appear not to have swayed the Burmese junta. The general human rights situation in Burma is alarming. Representatives of political parties are kept in isolation, thousands of people are in jail for political reasons, dissidents are persecuted and religious and ethnic minorities harassed. Forced labour and torture are commonplace. According to Amnesty, there are around 2 000 political prisoners, including journalists and several elected parliamentarians. The EU Troika and UN observers now confirm that there are some signs of change. Several prisoners have been released, attitudes towards the NLD have softened and several party offices have been allowed to open. From a situation in which there was a total refusal to engage in dialogue, discussions have now taken place, and a process of reconciliation may be underway. It would be very welcome in a country which, for so many years, has been governed by one of the world’s toughest military juntas. It may be the case that a window of opportunity has now been opened. In anticipation of further signs and surer indications that the junta really would like to enter into dialogue and accept the demands of the NLD, the EU should not however relinquish its common policy. When the Council meets at the end of this month to discuss Burma, it is important to keep the sanctions in place for the time being and to keep the pressure up so that the dialogue continues, genuine steps towards democracy are taken, human rights are respected and, especially, Aung San Suu Kyi is released and allowed to take her place as the elected leader of the Burmese people.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I should like to start with a little irreverence which only your Irish colleagues can take the liberty of doing. As I address you, it is a great pleasure for all of us to move from the era of Paddy the Irishman to Paddy the President. In your own area of Cork in Ireland they would be tickled pink to think that we were discussing the feminine side of Pat Cox in Parliament this morning. But it is right that we should. I concur with Mr Collins. But there would be some amusement in some of the more rural parts of Ireland at the tone of the debate. I thank you for your contribution this morning. I thoroughly support your plan, as you have laid it before us. More importantly, thank you for addressing us in a language that was devoid of Eurospeak. One of the great problems in all the European institutions is that we have developed a language, a glossary of terminology that has created a barrier between ourselves and the people of Europe we represent. We have created that barrier not just between the people but between ourselves and the media, on whom we depend to sell our message to the people of Europe. Your contribution this morning was devoid of Eurospeak. For that I warmly congratulate you. It is important that we all follow suit – from the technical end to us as parliamentarians – as we express ourselves. May your enthusiasm not wane for the next two-and-a-half years and may it prove to be infectious as you represent us throughout Europe and indeed further afield. May your affection and obvious love of this Parliament, of these European institutions prove to be infectious as you address gatherings throughout your term in office. May it be particularly infectious in our country of Ireland as we endeavour to awaken from their slumber, from their indifference the 65% of the Irish electorate who failed to turn out to vote for the Nice Treaty last June, as we yet again try to offer them the opportunity to endorse enlargement of Europe between now and the end of December this year. It is most important that we enthuse our peoples and – top of your agenda – enthuse the Irish people for the enlargement project which we all support. I wish you good health and Godspeed for the next two-and-a-half years. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, may I first pay credit to my colleague, Mr Heaton-Harris, for the initial work he did in drafting this report before he moved to another committee. The rapid development of the audio-visual media has brought many real benefits in terms of education, spreading greater awareness of public affairs around the world, and not least in the field of entertainment. However, along with the undoubted advantages, there have also been concerns that, given the generally greater adeptness of children at using audio-visual resources, in some areas there are dangers of their obtaining access to unsuitable or harmful material. This is most obvious in the fields of overt sexual material and gratuitous violence. The principles which have guided this report are to encourage greater public awareness of these issues and to support parental responsibility and to develop co-operation between the content providers, consumer organisations and the respective authorities, both national and European. Self-regulation is considered to be the main instrument, underpinned by legal requirements where necessary. The report, which analyses the Commission's evaluation report, is primarily concerned with the Internet and with video games, as it was felt important not to anticipate a possible future review of the Television without Frontiers directive. The report calls for user-friendly content filter systems to enable parents to predetermine the sort of content which they feel is unsuitable viewing for their children and, in this regard I very much welcome the fact that, since the report was first drafted, the Internet Content Rating Association (ICRA), has launched a filter system available free of charge, an initiative supported by the Commission. We also called for greater public awareness, for education campaigns and hotlines to be set up, as already exists in TV broadcasting, so that complaints about illegal or harmful content may be recorded by consumers, particularly by parents. We consider that so-called 'Internet Chat Rooms' should be subject to greater monitoring, both of the rules for their installation and in relation to their use. As far as video games are concerned, we call upon the Member States to continue to promote the rating of video games, again through self-regulation, but if that is considered to be inadequate in some cases, it should be backed up by the introduction of agreed minimum standards of content and promotion. It is also hoped that the Member States will continue to exchange best practice in this field and co-ordinate measures which are taken in co-operation with the industry and with content providers. The report does not seek to sensationalise or exaggerate perceived dangers, but it does provide a useful framework to encourage public awareness of the risks involved and to provide practical remedies. Finally, Parliament calls on the Commission to draw up a further report, preferably before the end of this year, on the implementation of the recommendation with specific reference to implementation in each Member State. I commend the report to the House. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the issues addressed by these three reports appear at first sight to be of a technical nature. The new Financial Regulation requires specific legal bases, but, as many speakers have pointed out – and I am particularly obliged to the rapporteurs for doing so – this new legal basis does in fact entail far-reaching practical consequences for the individual areas in question. I am speaking primarily about the report on active civic participation. We talk constantly about giving citizens more information about the European process and getting them more involved in it, but I want now to make it abundantly clear that there is a great danger of us, for the sake of the new legal basis and the Financial Regulation, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and that we will, next year, be complaining that we have more problems with public information in the year of the European elections than we ever did before. I therefore appeal in urgent terms, particularly to the Commission and to the Council, that greater account be taken of how Parliament votes on these issues, especially as regards the conciliation procedure this coming Monday. Let me give you just two examples. The first is the Info-Points, to which Mrs Rühle was right to make reference, and I also strongly endorse the amendment she has moved. It utterly passes my understanding how the Commission is unwilling to support this amendment. You are all aware that, in our home countries, the Info-Points serve as points of contact for information on Europe and the European institutions. Can you imagine the Info-Points in your region being able to do their job if they were restricted by a call for proposals? This financial insecurity and inadequate institutional backup means that the Info-Points will, in future, be unable to perform their function. That is what the Commission is proposing to us in this report, and so I want to forcefully draw your attention to this danger. The same is true of town twinning, from which all of you, in your regions, receive support in your work. Here too, the bureaucratic process associated with this new legal basis can very much threaten the continuation of the work they do. And so, let me conclude by reiterating my appeal to the Commission and the Council. I urge them to take Parliament’s vote on board and arrive at fair compromises that will guarantee rather than imperil public information in the future!

Political group: PPE-DE
I should like to congratulate the Commissioner on steering this package, which was not entirely unanimous, through the Commission so skilfully. The same problems exist in the UK: 52 models examined in the UK are still more expensive. My question is the same as Mrs Riis-Jørgensen's. If we have the partial reforms that the Commissioner is proposing here today, and we carry those out in opening up the market to grey trade supermarkets, in particular Internet sales, is it not the case that the block exemption becomes obsolete, and when will the day be when we actually get rid of these rules? Finally, Commissioner, in 1999 I asked you a question in response to which you told me that cars in Britain would be cheaper if Britain joined the euro. Is that still your position, and what difference do you think that would make in terms of price differentials?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the applause from all groups for Ms Jackson’s speech shows that in Europe, there is consensus on climate policy. There is obviously some sort of consensus in public opinion in the USA as well, but public opinion in the USA is different from Europe’s. This is why I believe we should not only be talking to one or two parliamentarians or government representatives; the Europeans should actually be thinking how they can influence public opinion in the USA, and indeed in Japan, if the Japanese decide not to go ahead. The task of managing climate change is so enormous that going it alone will be extremely difficult. That is precisely the issue which arises here. Even if the others do not go ahead, are we prepared to continue the course agreed at Gothenburg, which I support? Making a verbal commitment is easy. Agreeing to take on these burdens is simple and costs nothing. However, translating this into reality will be an immensely difficult task. My fear – I admit this quite openly – is that the Europeans, or many Europeans, will hide behind the US. In truth, we are a long way off meeting the standards set in the Kyoto Protocol. We all know that. The Commission feeds us a never-ending stream of fresh statistics. We face a Herculean task – I just want to make this clear. Despite these difficulties, however, let me say that for the first time since the Second World War, Europe now has the opportunity to take on political leadership at world level. We should grasp this opportunity with both hands, well aware that this is not a simple task. Incidentally, it is a noble task, not a dirty job, which Europe should address, and if others do not join us until later, we should accept this with good grace. My third comment relates to the text itself. I cannot stop myself from saying this: I must point out that what we are demanding, namely 'halting' climate change, is sheer nonsense, of course. I have no idea how this slipped into the text. There has always been climate change, but this time, we are making our own contribution to it, and that is exactly what this is all about.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, we have moved a long way from when the rapporteur brought a report first to the Employment and Social Affairs Committee. I think we still have problems for the entertainment and leisure industry but the rest of industry and the workers will find this directive very easy to live with. If the original proposals had gone through, industry across the EU would have been decimated and workers thrown out of work – particularly in the construction industry, cement industry, mining and quite a lot of engineering industry – so thank goodness we have returned to some sort of sensible solution and moved back to the Council position where hearing protection can be taken into account when measuring decibel levels. I am glad we have moved back to the weekly measurement granted by Member States if they so deem necessary. But the amendment granting the leisure and entertainment business a five-year delay for implementation while the Commission looked at the best way to regulate this industry, taking into account the special problems faced by the pub and club industry in particular, was unfortunately lost that in conciliation, although, with a code of conduct, it is better than was first proposed. I grant you that. But at the present moment the current noise directive is not being implemented in the pub and club industries, neither in the UK nor in Denmark or in many other Member States. The reason it is not being implemented is because it is not workable. My problem is that if we add another layer of bureaucracy for the pub and club industry like this, we will cause tremendous problems. That is why I personally refuse to sign off the conciliation because I believe we could have got more from the Council. I was on my own apart from one notable exception so I appreciate the vote tomorrow will not make any difference at all to the final outcome. We have, through a lot of hard work, got a better deal for industry and workers alike. We could have got a better deal for the entertainment and leisure sector and I am sorry we did not take that opportunity.

Political group: ELDR
The French initiative, through the proposed directive and the proposed framework decision, offers only the solution of criminalisation to the problem of illegal immigration. Proposing to step up the penal framework for prosecution for assisting the illegal entry and residence of immigrants is tantamount to making solidarity a crime. The proposed amendments are right to distinguish the assistance provided in return for payment from the assistance provided out of solidarity, on humanitarian grounds. Criminalising the people and organisations fighting against Fortress Europe is not, however, an effective tactic against the underground networks and smugglers. What should be combated, rather, is this ever more restrictive visa and asylum policy which forces people to enter European Union territory illegally. What should be combated are the structural adjustment policies and policies imposing the Community acquis which exacerbate unemployment in candidate countries, and the logic of development aid packages for countries in the South which are completely inadequate and unfairly distributed. A policy of cancelling debt and of ensuring equitable development aid would be a first essential step towards a different kind of European policy on immigration. We are resolutely opposed to the logic behind criminalising immigration and that is why i voted against the draft French initiative, even in its amended form.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I should like to congratulate the five rapporteurs and the Commission, who have steadfastly showed their willingness to listen to the European Parliament, both in the Caudron report and since. I will speak briefly about each of the reports. First of all, I welcome Mr van Velzen's emphasis on life sciences other than genomics and his advocacy of translational research, which means rapid transposition into clinical applications. This is something which will appeal to the public. I also welcome our amendment, which adds nanosciences to nanotechnology. The recent excellent STOA report on nanotechnologies makes it clear that we are still at the stage of nanoscience. That must be emphasised. As far as aeronautics is concerned, I am glad that there will be some attention to the health of passengers. I support our amendment on space science. Indeed I would like more attention to the big science projects in the European research area outside the framework programme. Of course I support Parliament's new emphasis on health and safety at work. I support Mrs Zorba's conclusions. Like her, I was delighted with the increase in funding for science and society. However, I agree with her that some funding should come from the priority thematic areas for the science and society implications. Multidisciplinary research, yes; a European higher education area, with the synergies that implies for the European research area. We should be training people in research management and ethics. Mr Piétrasanta has made an excellent analysis of the new tasks of the JRC as a technical reference body and a support mechanism for decision-making. I greatly welcome his emphasis on the need for monitoring and the need for the European Parliament to be involved in such monitoring – not just in the JRC. As far as Mr Alyssandrakis' report is concerned, I would welcome a breakthrough in fusion research, not least because it is far less dangerous than nuclear fission and we need to have an alternative to that form of energy. I am fairly sceptical about whether or not ITER will proceed within this framework programme, but we will see. Every citizen wants action on radioactive waste. The Royal Society in the UK emphasised that recently. It has not been solved yet. I am a great advocate of transmutation and partitioning and welcome any support that can be given to those technologies. I am not, however, a supporter of spending EU money on research into new reactors. This is something that should be funded by the nuclear industry itself. We are not in the business of giving industrial aid to that particular sector. That is not what the public is calling for. As far as Mr Schwaiger is concerned, he is absolutely right to say that we must have, before long, some sort of aquis communautaire in the sector of nuclear safety. So congratulations to everyone for their good work and cooperation and good luck to all our scientists. IN THE CHAIR: MR VIDAL-QUADRAS ROCAVice-President

Political group: PSE