GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I want to begin by cordially thanking the rapporteur and the Commission for the superb way in which they have handled this difficult but extremely important issue. The new technology is in the process of transforming our lives and, together with the new currency, can create a completely new Europe. However, we are not alone in the world; e-commerce means competition, not only for companies but also for politicians. Faulty regulations and obstacles both old and new can mean our failing to make the most of our historic opportunity for new freedom and success. The development of information technology provides new opportunities to communicate and to disseminate information simply and cheaply. The increased flow of information through Bulletin Board Systems, electronic mail and the Internet ought not to be subject to greater restrictions than traditional information channels and communication facilities. A guiding principle for the new technology ought to be that everyone should have considerable freedom to make use of it and exploit the advantages it has to offer and that everyone should also be responsible for what they do. The basis of a democracy must be that freedom of expression should be protected, not restricted. Communication using computers should be viewed in the same way as any medium of communication. It is stated in one of the items, item 48, that the directive does not affect Member States’ ability to prevent a certain amount of illegal activity by imposing demands upon service providers who store information from their clients. I proposed that that sentence should be removed because it does not have anything to do with the criteria for being able to impose the restrictions concerned. It is not appropriate for the Member States to decide this issue or to demand that service providers be held liable for the actual details of the information provided. That would be as absurd as making a café owner liable for monitoring what is said across the café tables. Is there anyone who wants to see a utilitarian nanny State? I do not think so. I therefore also support Amendment No 1, which I think is extremely important and deals precisely with this issue. E-commerce crime, or cyber crime as it is called, should, in my view, be combated by means of better working methods on the part of the police and not by means of legislation which is in danger of compromising basic democratic values. It is time to implement the decisions about quality labelling and, in cooperation with the service providers, to devise practical codes of conduct without thereby raising the cost levels for consumers or introducing costly bureaucracy. Freedom with responsibility ought to be the motto for continued work on developing this area.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, firstly, and as a Member of the Committee on Budgets, I would like to thank the two rapporteurs, Mrs Gill and Mr Mulder, who are present at the moment, and the President of the committee, Mr Wynn, for the work being done at the moment in that committee, which we hope will have a favourable and happy outcome in December. I would like to refer to the agriculture chapter, and I would also like to thank Mr Fischler for being here and say to him that, despite the lack of success in Cancún, I am particularly grateful for his defence during these meetings of the interests of European farmers and breeders, of all Europeans and of the whole commercial world. The amendments proposed to the agriculture chapter are aimed above all, in my view, to the promotion and quality of European products. It is important to bear in mind the amendments I have presented, because one of our fundamental tasks is to protect and defend European products, because their production involves stricter methods with regard to quality and respect for the environment. We must also promote information in relation to the common agricultural policy. At this moment, when the whole of the common agricultural policy is being changed, it is important that the citizens know what this policy is and, above all, the opportunities it represents for European agriculture and livestock. I have placed particular emphasis on the introduction of agricultural insurance systems and I would like this to take place and for it to be reflected in the 2004 Budget. Finally, I would like to refer to the restoration of funds for the ‘Forest Focus’, for the prevention and combating of fires, because, as we have seen this summer, the absence of prevention and combating of forest fires may lead us into very dramatic environmental situations.

Political group: PPE-DE
My group has long been critical of the Lisbon process, not least because of its unquestioning belief in economic growth per se, with no attempt at any qualitative evaluation of it at all, yet we still cling to this as a key indicator of economic wellbeing and assume that that means social wellbeing as well. If I have to fence my house, put up burglar alarms, catches on the windows, etc., it may be good for the economy, but it is not good for my quality of life. We also criticise the ambition about being the most competitive knowledge-based economy, on the basis that in any competition, there are going to be losers, both within the European Union and globally. What we are looking at with Lisbon is that we have to beware that social cohesion, which was another of the goals, does not become a casualty of our search for competitiveness. We are also very much aware that Lisbon is not enough. Gothenburg added the environment and the promise of Spring summits, which Barcelona is, as sustainability summits. In my group's view, all summits should be about sustainability, but I would settle for at least one a year as a start because the environment underpins our economic development, and if you do not have sustainability, you can kiss goodbye to the stability pact. Mr Bullmann's original report gave us a comprehensive reminder of a number of issues concerning employment, social cohesion and the importance of sustainability, but I think we saw considerable tension introduced with that report, with certain EMAC resolutions; not least, paragraph 25 and its push for liberalisation with no qualitative evaluation on the social and environmental side whatsoever, and paragraph 36, which tells us that the European Union did a very good job at Doha in our push for the liberalisation of world trade as the catalyst for international growth. We have to get away from this idea that sustainable growth somehow means 3% year after year, if that is going to eat up our finite resources and pollute our environment. We have to decide as a European Union what we mean by sustainable economic growth and it is not what we are voting about here.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, at a time when we are debating the revision of the common fisheries policy, the budget for 2003 assumes particular importance, and so we hope that the Commission will provide the budgetary authority with information on the budgetary impact of the revision, as the Committee on Fisheries recommends in the opinion that it adopted for the Committee on Budgets. In any event, we must now guarantee the use of a flexibility instrument for the EUR 27 million that will be used to fund the specific measure of promoting the reconversion of the ships and fishermen that until 1999 depended on the Fisheries Agreement with Morocco, covered by the heading on the structural measures of the financial perspectives under heading B2-200 of the draft budget for 2003. In its opinion of 11 September on the budget for 2003, the Committee on Fisheries declared itself in favour of protecting the use of flexibility instrument for the E 27 billion for this funding, but as to the proposal to use the EUR 32 million for the funding of additional measures to destroy fishing boats in line with the Commission proposal on the revision of the common fisheries policy, the majority of Members of this House declared themselves against, since the entire issue is currently being debated and since the information we have is incomplete. The disagreement about any attempt to reprogramme or redistribute FIFG appropriations was also reaffirmed as was the principle that new means must be provided for new needs in order to protect the importance of the strategic sector of fisheries for the Community in general and for certain countries and regions in particular, given the deep-rooted link certain local and regional communities have with fishing. Other proposals crucial to the fisheries sector were also adopted, amongst which I would highlight the following: the creation of a Community support programme for coastal and small-scale fishing; increasing aid to the outermost regions; aid to aquiculture and to the processing industry, principally the canning industry; support for improving the monitoring of products that are placed on the market and support for improving and standardising control and monitoring systems and the increase in inspections and monitoring of fisheries activity.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Commissioner Byrne, thank you for your factual explanation, but still, I have to say that I wonder what it is we are actually doing exactly. Indeed, like the Liberals, we cannot fail to observe that we do not only have one external border, but fifteen different external borders where assorted attempts are being made at controlling the possible import of avian influenza. We have witnessed a similar scenario in the case of FMD, and we must take measures in order to prevent a similar situation from occurring again. I need to get something else off my chest. If our elderly are at risk of contracting flu, vaccines are available on a massive scale. In this case too, we know that vaccines are necessary, but nothing, or far too little, is being done about it. The only country that is working on vaccines is Italy. I think that the European Union should make a concerted effort to develop vaccines so that we can combat this disease in a humane manner.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, first of all I should declare an interest. I am the absentee boss of a very small enterprise, our family business in London. I will not say what it does, that might constitute an advertisement, but it was founded by my father, Francis Chichester, and I am very proud of it. It also enables me to come here and do my work for my constituents. I would like to welcome any measures, like this proposal and this report, that indicate our support at European level for the importance of SMEs and small businesses in particular. I would like to congratulate Mrs Montfort on all her hard work in her report which, as we have heard, commands wide support across the House. In my view, the best thing for small businesses is for the authorities to leave them alone and to desist from the temptation of trying to pick winners. Diversity, safety in numbers, from which the winners will emerge, is the best way forward. I am reminded of what the Commissioner said to us a year ago about the experience in the United States, where they are not afraid of failure and they believe in the old Scottish proverb of 'if at first you don't succeed, try, try again'. The importance is to strike the right balance, to avoid having a continual situation of people failing at the expense of other people. I suspect that the real obstacles and hurdles that small businesses face are in other areas of European and national legislation, where they face great burdens in terms of administration, taxation and regulation. That seems very onerous indeed for small businesses, disproportionately so. I recently looked at the forms required for filling in tax returns for small businesses in the UK and the detail required great concentration on getting the right answer. Let me close by saying that in my view the most important thing for small businesses, the best medicine for them, is competition. That is the way they achieve efficiency, innovation and profitability.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, allow me first of all to thank Mr Vander Taelen for his sterling report. I fully subscribe to his view that it is sheer madness to think that we produce excellent films in Europe, while only 22% of those end up in cinemas, not to mention the percentage of non-national films that are being shown in the Member States, despite the fact that for people of all ages, film is the ideal medium to get to know each other’s culture. Why is it that European film attracts such a small audience, while the cinema-viewing public is on the increase? It seems appropriate to me to commission the European Audiovisual Observatory to carry out an in-depth study into the motives of the film public and its film choices. Based on this, it would then be possible to use a programme such as Media Plus to support the distribution of the European film in a more focused and effective manner. In addition, the other media play an important role in the promotion of European film, of course. Radio and television may devote attention to it, but television in particular could do so in a more structured way by means of a fixed amount, or quota, in other words, of transmission time. An alternative example might be specific European channels which specialise in one particular field, for example, a pan-European children’s channel which broadcasts high-quality European children’s programmes and children’s films. Unfortunately, I am not of the same mind as Mr Vander Taelen when he states that it should be compulsory for TV channels to invest a proportion of their turnover in the film industry. As a Liberal, and also on behalf of my group, that is excessive intervention from the powers that be. As has been stated before, it seems to me that the European Investment Bank has a role to play in this. One of the areas in which investments must be made is e-cinema. Among other things, it will enable producers to make different language versions of their films in a more straight-forward manner, which will certainly benefit children’s films, for example. After all, although we insist on a sound command of languages here in this House, the supply of adapted language versions would be another excellent way for the citizens of a Member State to get to know the culture of their European fellow citizens.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to add to the congratulations directed at Mr Cunha and to the praise for his work in the Committee on Fisheries and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. With regard to this report, I would like to say that international fisheries agreements are undoubtedly a highly important aspect of the common fisheries policy, since they ensure that fishing activity is maintained in many regions of the European Union, and provide direct employment for 30 000 people. They help reduce the Community trade deficit in fish products and account for more than 20% of all Community catches. For these reasons, we should give this report our full support. Studies indicate that every euro invested in these fishing agreements generates economic activity to the value of three euros, meaning that the benefits clearly outweigh the costs. It is important, therefore, to improve and enhance this area, even taking account of the conclusions of the Fisheries Council of October 1997, which has been mentioned here already. This is even more important, moreover, given that there are those who would cast doubt on these agreements. I would like to remind you, however, that the Commission should take account of certain important aspects of these agreements. One of those central questions is that of appropriate funding. While coherence is certainly needed between the common fisheries policy and development policy, it should not be forgotten that these agreements are essentially commercial in nature: though they should take the development angle into account, the funding for these fishing agreements should come from the fisheries sector, while funding for development policies should derive from elsewhere in the Community budget – from increased amounts for cooperation and development, to be more precise. More partnership agreements should be developed, therefore, balancing the interests of the various countries and parts of the fleet concerned in an equitable way. I would like to conclude by echoing the rapporteur’s statement that it beggars belief that different conditions should apply under agreements within the European Union: under certain agreements, the vessel owners pay fishing licence fees, while under others they pay nothing. This problem, therefore, must be resolved urgently, as must the issue of paper quotas and the opportunity for unused fishing rights to be temporarily transferred. I hope that our support for Mr Cunha’s report will also convince the Commission to take equal note of the proposals he presents in the course of his work.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, 100 years ago, two of my relatives lived to be almost 100 and, in those days, the age of 110 was also reached, albeit sporadically. Those were the exception to the rule, for the large majority of people died at a relatively young age due to adverse conditions. Nowadays, an increasing number of people live longer thanks to better health care, provision of information, care, housing and pension schemes. Some researchers anticipate that people could actually live up to 120 years, but they invariably die earlier because a vital part of their body ceases to function. Provided we organise our care and social security well, we can allow an increasing number of people to reach the maximum age. Collective expenditure on public services prolongs our lives. Over the past decade in Central and Eastern Europe, we have seen a fall in life expectancy as soon as governments have withdrawn and left elderly people to their fate. The shortage of employees in a growing economy puts pressure on older people to stay in their jobs for longer. In fact, this shortage is being seized upon as an argument for increasing the pensionable age and for nipping in the bud such initiatives as there have been to lower it. That is a development in the wrong direction. Needless to say, people above the age of 60 or 70 can still do many useful things, but it is wrong at that age to make their income dependent on completed working hours. These people are far more useful as a bonding agent in society who help others function more efficiently. It is precisely in voluntary work that they can pass on their life experience and promote cooperation in their own living environments. By forcing them to continue in paid work, they cannot fulfil those useful tasks, and it is likely that their life expectancy will be reduced if we impose obligations such as these on them. I have a feeling that the aspects which I have mentioned, namely the importance of collective care and the importance of timely retirement, are considered to be of slightly less importance by the rapporteur and that, moreover, she is too optimistic about the possibility of the elderly thriving without our creating the social conditions to match. One way in which we could strengthen their position would be to adopt Amendment No 4, tabled by my colleague, Mr Alavanos, which aims to better adapt housing and transport to the needs of the elderly. I hope that the House will adopt this amendment.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the incomparable natural landscape of Galicia’s coasts and the Minho estuary as well as the communities living along the coasts are once again under threat, this time from this appalling shipwreck, which is a veritable showcase of everything that should no longer be happening on our seas. How many more disasters do we need before effective measures are adopted? There is considerable indignation, but this indignation must be followed up with emergency measures; we must not simply wait for these long deadlines for the ‘Erika I’ and ‘Erika II’ packages to be met. Expressing moral solidarity and demonstrating sympathy are not enough; we must act as rapidly as possible and, as I said, adopt emergency measures. There must now be effective solidarity, particularly with the communities of northern Portugal, which will be the first to suffer the consequences of this accident, of this shipwreck, the likes of which must never happen again on our coasts; unless we adopt such measures, the people themselves will make their scepticism about Europe and European governments clear. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, for we citizens who live in the Canary Islands, one of the European Union’s outermost regions, everything that happens in Venezuela affects us significantly, since thousands of people from the Canary Islands had to emigrate to that country in the middle of the last century, and in that respect we regard Venezuela as our eighth island. Therefore, we have been greatly affected by this disaster in Venezuela, in the states of Vargas and Miranda, in the middle of last December, as a result of torrential rain, avalanches and floods on the Venezuelan coast, at the foot of Ávila, a national park where I have had the opportunity to work professionally. The human losses were high, as well as the number of injuries, while the material loss amounts to thousands of millions of euros. We all reacted to the enormity of the disaster, from Europe and from America, with humanitarian aid and economic support, with exemplary solidarity, that is to say, there was a speedy international response on all levels, including the European Commission, certain Member States and some Spanish communities having family ties with Venezuela. Having overcome this initial phase, and despite other natural dangers over recent days, it has become more necessary than ever to rehabilitate and reconstruct the damaged housing, facilities and infrastructures – as well as to make the relevant hydrological corrections – and to support the victims of this natural disaster, both morally and economically, since this disaster is one of the most serious tragedies to have hit Latin America, and Venezuela in particular, in recent years. For these reasons, we have all presented a motion for a resolution aimed at producing, basically on the part of the European Union, a technical and financial cooperation plan, amongst other things, in coordination with the Member States and other institutions, which will provide relief and compensation for the effects of this natural disaster. I can guarantee that, on this occasion, the disaster in Venezuela has genuinely become a ‘topical and urgent subject of major importance’.

Political group: ELDR