GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I believe it is true to say that there is little that matters to citizens as much as feeling safe and secure in the country in which they live or reside. There is no point at all in us promoting the free movement of workers across the European Union if our citizens do not feel that they will be protected from crime in whatever state they may find themselves. If EU citizens are to believe in the European Union – and let us face it, some of them do not at the moment – it is essential that they are confident of receiving the same standard of protection from crime and the same treatment as victims of crime as they would expect if they were in their own country. As others have said, this legislation seeks not just to help anyone who might be unfortunate enough to be a victim of such a crime, but to try to ensure that there is consistency. To be a victim of a crime is bad enough, but the problems of personal and emotional torture will continue if they do not get fair and appropriate compensation. This is all the more important when we know that the legal systems vary from one country to another, and the ways and workings of the different police forces and the actions they take are not the same from one country to the next. I applaud this proposal. I believe it will provide a central body in citizens' own Member States, which would apply to the country where the crime occurred to get compensation on their behalf. We should not forget that violent crime can take place anywhere, in any country. It is right and proper that we do everything to level out the system to make certain it works in favour of the citizen and the victim of the crime.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Fraisse’s Report contains many positive points, which require answers at Community level if we persist in hoping that Commission policies will produce a genuinely European stamp for these projects. Recital F rightly points out that the vitality of the theatre and performing arts should not depend chiefly on public subsidies. It is, in fact, extremely important to boost the diversification of funding sources and to strengthen sponsorship policies, with the corresponding tax relief likely to attract sponsors. It is also important, however, that the performing arts develop a satisfactory business dimension. We live in a market economy and neither the State not the European Union should act as a wet nurse or a nanny for cultural creation. There is no justification whatsoever for the performing arts as a rule to be directly supported by a system of public subsidy for productions. It is more important for cultural creation to run the risks inherent to it and that public resources facilitate international promotion, distribution, greater accessibility of content through translation and subtitling and proper co-production, in the spirit of the ‘Culture 2000’ Programme. There is, however, every reason why artistic training from childhood, as well as contact with cultural creation in all spheres – and therefore with the arts and performing artists – judiciously promoted from school onwards, should make a decisive contribution to finding new publics, which we can expect will lead to an increase in the demand for cultural consumption likely, at least in part, to sustain the corresponding supply. What makes no sense is to reduce supply and funding for supply without seeing any significant growth in audiences, which are still lacking. Let us hope that the Fraisse Report is also a step in this direction.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, when I read the Never-Ending Story to my grandchild, Niklas, I think of the Court of Auditors’ annual report. There are an incredible number of problems which crop up again and again, year after year. Lamentable control systems in the Member States, lost income from VAT, bureaucratic and complicated export refund arrangements, farmers who overstate how much land they have, misappropriation of structural funds, fraud involving research funds in the form of over-payment, and long-winded and bureaucratic procedures concerning the EU’s external aid. It is the same old story every single year. However, it is now the Member States that are the biggest culprits. It cannot be said often enough. The agricultural and structural funds are what cause us problems. There is a very tough approach this year to the management of the structural funds. I proposed last year in my discharge report that the Commission should impose fines upon those Member States which offend again and again, and I am extremely pleased that Mrs Schreyer and the Commission have promised to look constructively at this possibility. Denmark is also mentioned a couple of times in the annual report, and that is a couple of times too many. There are problems with farmers’ overstating how much land they have, and pathetic control systems at quite a few custom houses. The Danish practice of collecting users’ fees for the issue of export refunds has also been found to be illegal. It is thanks to the Court of Auditors that the Commission has finally realised what is unlawful about this practice. I am also pleased that we are working on the problems caused through the pile of work involving guarantee payments in Denmark, which are a disaster. In this area, too, the Commission has been a good and effective partner. I would also say to Mr Karlsson that I should never in my life have believed that a Dane would end up missing a Swede. That is, however, the case and, since I, myself, am also leaving Parliament after this parliamentary term, we must set up a club for former Scandinavian MEPs in which we can rhapsodise about the old days. I think that the children’s book, ‘Karlsson-on-the-Roof’ was written with you in mind. Thank you for your fruitful cooperation over seven years.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would also like to congratulate Mr Schmid on his work and on his attitude in including the myriad amendments tabled, which merely aimed to strengthen and extend the ideas regarding the local dimension of employment and its possibilities. It is true that all work can be considered local, and although the European Employment Strategy has focused on the efforts made at national and European level, it is increasingly accepted that the objective of full employment cannot be achieved without greater involvement and participation at the levels closest to the job-seeker, in other words, at regional or local level, both from the point of view of the job and from that of the workers. In considering the labour market as a vertical structure from the European, national, regional and local points of view, nobody doubts the role of the local market – perhaps, quantitatively, one-third of total employment – and this local dimension takes on particular significance in rural and peripheral areas. In this regard, it can and should act as a tool to keep people in certain areas and can play – and I believe it must play – an important role with regard to the most socially vulnerable groups. Many different types of direct local action for employment, with an immediate impact, are also possible, naturally with the support of the European programmes. In any event, municipal or local action can open the doors to work in the fight against gender discrimination, as emphasised by Mrs Bastos, or in the fight against social exclusion. Perhaps all that is needed may be to convince a company – sometimes the largest in a city – that incorporating workers from socially disadvantaged groups into that company is just as important as sponsoring a club – perhaps a football club, since the World Cup has just ended – and also convincing it that this attitude is probably more sensitive and, at least locally, also more profitable, from the point of view of advertising and promotion. Furthermore, where one or a few companies dominate the labour market in a given sector or area, they have the opportunity to diversify and provide greater guarantees for society as a whole. Social agents, who need to be convinced, also have an important role to play. I do not want to end without referring to the importance of the link between local employment initiatives and health and safety at work. Good communication between the local authorities and other authorities can also be a weapon in the battle to lower the accident rate.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I want to speak along similar lines to Mrs De Veyrac. The catastrophic floods which have occurred in the south of France have levied a very heavy toll with 39 deaths and widespread chaos in the region. In the four départements affected by the floods of 12 and 13 November, namely Aude, Hérault, Pyrénées-Orientales and Tarn, the bill will be in excess of EUR 0.7 billion and compensation to individuals will amount to EUR 0.5 billion. The damage to public services is estimated at over FRF 1 billion because of the extensive damage to roads and railways, power and telephone lines, buildings and public facilities. All sectors have been affected, with over 200 craftsmen having been caught in the disaster, 260 businesses having suffered serious damage and 1,518 employees having been affected. I would draw Parliament’s attention to the fact that this is indeed a natural disaster for these floods and this rain were twenty times greater than normal. This is not therefore the result, as we would sometimes like to believe, of carelessness in local development. This is truly a natural disaster. This is why I would urge Parliament to act in this region.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, our group is in favour of a European vocation for Turkey and the possibility of its eventual accession. It is also in favour of a more open policy as regards granting financial assistance, provided this aid can benefit in particular the plight of its many earthquake victims. This does not mean, however, that we agree with the delegate of the Finnish Presidency or with Mr Verheugen or with the joint motion for a resolution being tabled in the European Parliament. We believe that we, the European Union, must be a community of principles and not a cynical political entity pursuing geo-strategic policies which, to a large extent, come from Washington. Why did we lay down certain conditions for Slovakia and refuse to grant it applicant status. Was this a bad thing for Slovakia? And why did we do the same for the Baltic States on the grounds of respect for minorities? Was this a bad thing for the Baltic States? Were we not aware that Slovakia and the Baltic States had made specific progress? So why should we change our standpoint as regards Turkey? Mr Verheugen said that it is up to us to provide Turkey with an incentive, a signal or a symbol to help set in motion the democratisation process in Turkey. Have we not already done this? Did we not do this with the Customs Union? Did we not do this with the proposal for the European Conference? Did we not do this with the MEDA programme? We had no response. Therefore, I believe that we must insist on the preconditions and demand that specific progress be made by Turkey. Finally, I would like to mention that I was disappointed to hear the three groups referring to the Greek Foreign Minister’s statements and standpoints to endorse their argument for intensifying relations unconditionally. I myself do not wish to comment on this. It is not an area on which I would like us to comment. However, I would like to say that Mr Swoboda is wrong to say that progress has been made on the Cyprus issue because Mr Papandreou said so. No progress has been made on the Cyprus issue! We also heard Mr Ecevit saying that there will be no intercommunal agreements unless Mr Denktash’ regime receives official recognition. No progress has been made on the Cyprus issue and no progress has been made on the Kurdish issue!

Political group: GUE-NGL
The Barcelona Council, despite the big talk by Tony Blair before it, was disappointing and timid. The Council promised in the past to put sustainability in the forefront of European Development. This Summit has paid no more than lip-service to this commitment. The so-called 'liberalization' favoured by Blair's right wing caucus has hit the rock of French immoveability in relation to energy production in the domestic sector, so it remains the case that Electricité de France can take over companies outside France while protected from converse interventions. The rhetoric of liberalisation too frequently cloaks policies toward the single market that are dancing to the tune of monopolistically inclined interests of vast corporations. Adam Smith's vision of a free economy unhampered by interventions of massive aggregations of capital is far from the reality that we see in the contemporary globalised economy. In relation to Gibraltar, no one can fail to welcome progress between Spain and the United Kingdom. But there is no reference to the people of Gibraltar. What has become of self-determination?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, along with the Members of my group, I shall support the proposed Draft SAB. I should just like to make, as would the Members of my group, a few comments. Commissioner, my first comment is to reiterate that not so long ago, you proposed a review of the Financial Perspective to increase external expenditure and the ceiling of heading 4, which certainly was a requirement and we agree with you here, and to do this by lowering the ceiling of agricultural spending in heading 1. If we had not supported you on that issue, it would be extremely difficult for you to propose the SAB that you put before us today. You should, therefore, acknowledge that we have been more cautious and careful than you have. We think that every sinner should be allowed to reform rather than being put to death, and so we welcome your conversion. My second comment is that we obviously need to totally divorce the problems of a complete reform of the common agricultural policy from the problem we are faced with now. Today, our house is on fire. We must, therefore, do everything we can to put this fire out. When your house is going up in smoke, you do not start to question the quality of the building that you are trying to protect – you start by putting out the fire. So, let us put aside the problems of reforming the agricultural policy and concentrate on the urgent issues in hand. That is not all, however. Listening to Mrs Haug, Mr Abitbol and other speakers, I am struck by the general challenge launched on the CAP. Yet, I do not think that it can be said that it is because the CAP is what it is that there is this specific medical and veterinary problem, unless one has a slightly theological or fatalistic vision. There is a serious veterinary problem and a specific medical problem, which is the spread of the disease from livestock to humans. This has given rise to a whole raft of issues, but this could have happened, for example, in the case of foot-and-mouth disease, if we now discovered – God forbid – that foot-and-mouth can be spread to humans. We should not be like the Prophet Philippulus, the Tintin and Milou cartoon character, who walks along beating a gong saying “Retribution is nigh.” That is not the problem that we face. My last comment is to mention the problem of how the burden should be shared, either 50/50 or 70/30. I believe that it would be truly paradoxical for us to reduce the need for Community solidarity at the very time when this disease and the problems that it creates for farmers are becoming a problem that affects the entire Community. This would be an absolute contradiction, which is why we do not support Mr Mulder and his friends on the proposal before us. Commissioner, Mr President, that is all I wanted to say. You have our full support.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I have just one brief comment to make. Mrs Karen Fogg is the EU Commission's representative in Turkey. She is in a great deal of difficulty, as her e-mails were not only intercepted and read, but also published in a newspaper, and a great effort was required to get Turkey to put a stop to this. As this also has to do with contact between the EU Commission's representative and Parliament, I ask you, Mr President, to bring it to Turkey's attention that we find this unacceptable and that we expect Turkey to leave no stone unturned in finding out whether the secret service or someone else was behind this, and to prevent personal and official e-mails being published in newspapers.

Political group: PSE
I wish to thank the Commissioner for a very positive reply. However, I should like to put a couple of other issues to him. Firstly, would he agree that it would be desirable for the proposed directive on the internal market for services to cover gambling in this way? The issues raised by this judgment and by the complaints strike at the very heart of the issues and barriers that he is proposing to sweep away with his excellent proposal. The second issue – which he did not touch on – was the ability of governments to try and include public interest and consumer protection issues to prevent gambling operators from setting up in their jurisdiction while, at the same time, actively promoting their own state lotteries and gambling businesses. That seems to be entirely inconsistent and is also an issue that was covered by the Gambelli case. I would also be interested to have his view on that aspect.

Political group: PPE-DE
Effective public participation in the drawing-up of plans and programmes for the environment is of the greatest importance and, therefore, all means of disseminating information to the public are essential, particularly the Internet. There are other areas directly linked to the environment, in which the public must also participate, such as the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund and the common agricultural policy. The Commission must, therefore, review its decision to consider general policy options to be non-binding and ensure that its proposals meet the requirements laid down in the Aarhus Convention on effective public participation. It has become necessary to broaden the definition of ‘public’ as much as possible. Inequality in access to adequate means of assessment for small and local voluntary groups compared with the resources of large corporations or public authorities is an important issue and must be taken into consideration. Report von Boetticher (A5-0339/2001):

Political group: PSE
Mr President, there is indeed a crisis of succession in farming as Mr Parish with his expertise as a farmer knows well. If this crisis is particularly acute in Mr Parish's own Member State, it is the direct result of policies pursued by UK governments over the past twenty years, and to overcome it the United Kingdom must review the implications of the Fontainbleau Agreement for its contribution to European Union finances. This has been disastrous for farming. Moreover, the rapporteur, a member of the Conservative Party, must work within his own party to secure support for his proposals in the House of Commons. In countries where less than 10% of the population now lives in rural areas, it is too easy for governments to sideline the needs of these areas, and the message from this debate must be that they do so at the peril of their countries.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to raise the matter of the European Youth Parliament and the funding of EUR 180 000, which this Parliament approved for the year 2003. The difficulty is that the Youth Parliament is now at risk of having to cancel its event planned for 11-20 July because the Commission is refusing to confirm that this money is available to it in order to run this event. I am appealing to you, Mr President, to contact the Commission as a matter of urgency to seek to ensure that this money is made available, or at the very least that a letter is sent to confirm that it is available, so that these young people – who, after all, are the future politicians who will maintain this institution and other European Union institutions – are allowed to continue with their work. They need this confirmation urgently because they need to access temporary financing in order to overcome the difficulty created by the Commission.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to extend warm thanks to Mr Evans for his report. I think it is an important initiative of the Greek Presidency, as has been stated by various fellow MEPs. A shortage of donors lies at the heart of the problem. In my country, for example, there has for twenty years been a shortage of organ donors. Moreover, not every donor is suitable. A donor should, in most cases, be brain-dead, but their heart must still be beating. As a result, many donors do not qualify. For a long time, road victims were, and still are, a source of donors, but the numbers are decreasing, which only exacerbates the problem. This should never lead to the illegal trade in human organs. It is too dreadful for words to be faced with the trafficking of human beings, including women and children, with the intention of removing their organs. These are invariably poor and powerless people from poor countries, but also from China and India. Some have their organs removed in the hope of a better existence, and others are simply taken advantage of. It is a good thing that this will be regulated. In this context, it is actually a disgrace that the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine of 1997, which entered into force in 1999, has to date been ratified only by Denmark, Spain and Portugal. My country should take this to heart. The Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party is of the opinion that it is only by adopting a coordinated and tailored approach to the illegal trade in organs that human dignity can be protected. We therefore hope that this proposal will contribute to this. It is for these reasons that we support the proposal.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, just for the benefit of Members regarding the last statement made by Mr McMillan-Scott. If they do not come from the United Kingdom the words 'BBC' do not stand for Blair's Broadcasting Corporation, but many of us seem to think it does.

Political group: PPE-DE