GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
There are controversial aspects to this report as there are, in fact, to the Commission’s own proposal. As the rapporteur for the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market said, it would perhaps be preferable for the two directives, that is, the current proposal on the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector and the directive on universal service, to merge. Furthermore, the Commission proposal to give employers the right to monitor their employees is a complicated and very sensitive issue. Equally, the bulk sending of unsolicited e-mails (so-called spamming), is another cause for concern, for which a satisfactory solution should be found. This is why we should devote our full attention to the position of DECO, which endorses the Commission proposal, which in turn seeks to make prior opt-in consent compulsory for unsolicited emails, since this appears to be the best guarantee for European consumers’ choice as to whether they receive spam mail or not. This option thereby attempts to protect consumers from being bombarded with unsolicited electronic mails in the form of advertising, except when they have given their consent to receive such mail.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President-in-Office of the Council, I thank you for this reply and, as a supplementary question, I would like to know whether you approve of exerting international pressure both against the Taliban regime and against the States that support it, specifically Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates. Are you prepared to work during the Belgian presidency so that progress may really be made in relation to this disastrous situation?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, earlier we voted in favour of the report by Mr Maaten on tobacco products, which contains some excellent measures. Now, we have exactly the same problem with alcohol; in other words, we are faced with approximately the same number of deaths, not only caused in road accidents, which is what we seem to focus on, but from cirrhosis of the liver, stomach cancer, throat cancer as well, and this is without including the various social problems. As in the case of tobacco products, we know that smoking a cigarette is no more dangerous than drinking a glass of wine. However, as in the case of tobacco products, we also know that drinking alcohol and adopting the habit of drinking begins at a young age, particularly because of the example shown by adults and the positive image it is given in advertisements. We should, in fact, adopt the same type of measures for alcohol as for tobacco products, and from this point of view, although the Commission report is good, it does not go nearly as far, perhaps because the alcohol lobbies are still more powerful than those for tobacco products, or perhaps because of our culture and customs. We should, in fact, bring in labelling for all alcoholic drinks to cover 30% of the product’s surface, indicating that alcohol kills, that alcohol is dangerous for health. We should ban advertising of alcohol, however implicit. We should ban sponsorship of all activities, particularly sporting activities, by manufacturers of alcoholic drinks. I shall not give a lecture but the truth of the matter is, as in the case of tobacco products, we will not make progress through clamping down on consumers – only through prevention. That is why we must immediately take action against everything that may incite young people to drink alcohol.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, we all know that words are no longer enough to condemn these situations in which whole families are thrown out of their country, like the 908 people crammed into the holds of the “East Sea”, seeking a better life, or fleeing war, violence or poverty, sometimes both. Words should now be followed by actions. In March, when Parliament rejected, fortunately, several Council initiatives, I wondered when we would have any Council initiatives and proposed directives drawn up in a spirit of openness towards the world, of welcome and humanity, rather than reflecting an approach concerned solely with policing and security. Yes, Europe does have a duty to take initiatives, but not the sort of initiatives that would cause a breach of solidarity, or impose arbitrary sanctions on transport companies. On the contrary, a common policy on immigration requires ambitious initiatives based on improving and strengthening the right of asylum, guaranteeing both that right and the right to freedom of movement, and facilities for receiving migrants with dignity and with respect for human rights. We also need to take restrictive and punitive measures, not against the victims, but against those who are behind this human traffic. So when shall we see an end to the expulsions, when will the situation of illegal immigrants living on European soil be regularised, and when will non-Community foreigners have the right to vote in local elections? It is impossible to avoid answering these questions if we want to move towards a policy that is more just, more humane and more effective.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I wish to thank Mrs Redondo Jiménez for her splendid work in drawing up the report on the Forest Focus programme. It is excellent that the European Union is taking this important step to improve the condition of our forests and support a better and diverse forestry policy in all the Member States. For the Nordic countries, and Finland in particular, forests are especially important for recreation and the economy but also for nature conservation. The forests in the EU Member States are very different from one another owing, for example, to local natural conditions. The social significance of forests and the principal reason they are needed also vary in different parts of Europe. Last summer we saw what sort of massive destruction forest fires cause. I am glad that Parliament has now also given attention to forest fire prevention in addition to monitoring activities. In particular I would like to express my support for Amendment No 19, which concerns the status of the Standing Forestry Committee. In my opinion, the Standing Forestry Committee should be involved in this programme and take account of coordination of forestry issues at EU level. The forthcoming enlargement of the EU will also mean the coordination of forestry policy will have to be improved. There are big differences between the current and the new Member States with regard to the forest ownership structure, and in the promotion of private forestry, for example, we Finns could be active in offering expert help to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, on the basis of our experience. Amendment No 4, which emphasises the multifunctional role of forests, is also welcome in my view. This is important, just as Amendment No 15 regarding compliance with the principle of subsidiarity is, because they both highlight the differences between forests and our regional and climatic conditions. The scheme quite rightly supports national forestry policies in Member States whilst respecting the specific ecological characteristics of the remoter regions of the EU. In future we have to stress the primary importance of national measures and the rules relating to the management of forests. The creation of norms and regulations governing the management of forests must in future, I think, fall within the powers of decision of each Member State. In this respect I also want to support the view of my colleague, Peder Wachtmeister, that the sustainable use of forests and decision-making in forestry matters are above all the responsibility of the forest owner.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, once again, a woman, Mrs Amina Lawal, has been sentenced to death by stoning in one of the Muslim states of the Federation of Nigeria. Her crime is to have given birth to a child after her divorce. Some months ago, Safiya Husseini, sentenced to the same fate, was spared following an international outcry. But how many people have been sentenced to the same barbaric fate before this victory and how many will be sentenced in the future? It is high time that these highly antiquated legal decisions, which show complete contempt for human dignity, are prevented from being passed in Nigeria and elsewhere. This strict application of Sharia law, which has nothing to do with respect of the Muslim religion, was declared unconstitutional by the Nigerian Minister for Justice, including in the federal Muslim states of the north. In its constitution, the Federation of Nigeria describes itself as a secular State. Nigeria is also signatory to conventions which spell out its commitments at international level. Although the Katsina state is involved, there are other responsibilities: those of the federal Nigerian authorities which have a duty to ensure strict respect of the constitution and the protection of human rights for all Nigerian citizens, regardless of status, religion or sex. The international community, and Europe in particular, must condemn this unacceptable breach of fundamental human rights. Europe is opposed to the death penalty. It has committed itself to protect women’s rights against sexual discrimination and against religious intolerance. Doing everything in our power to save Amina Lawal from death by stoning is also one of Europe’s duties. Human rights organisations are bravely fighting in Nigeria. These organisations are often under threat, but they are working together despite the lack of resources and the lack of support, other than support from European organisations. We must support their demands. Lastly, as part of the Cotonou partnership agreements, Europe can and must urge Nigeria to respect its international commitments and to promote democracy and women’s rights.

Political group: GUE-NGL
British Conservatives fully support the values of the Olympic Movement and the Olympic Games in Athens in 2004 but even under these very important circumstances we are unable to support the principle of a common visa policy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, transparency and the right to study the contents of documents are central elements of a living democracy, but the proposal on which we are now to adopt a position and which concerns access to EU documents is a disappointment. In some areas, it is downright worse than the EU’s existing practice. Moreover, the very negotiations concerning the proposal have been a display of lack of transparency. The normal parliamentary process has been set aside, and significant parts of Parliament, including our group, have been excluded from influence. Respect for national rules on transparency is not guaranteed by the proposal. National rules are subordinate to an EU Regulation. Paragraph 14 of this Regulation also specifies that the Member States must be loyal to the contents of the Regulation. Furthermore, Article 5 states that, in cases which are not clear, Member States must ask the EU’s institutions for guidance in order to decide if EU documents are to be handed over. Nor is it the case that the Swedish principle of public access to official records is guaranteed by this proposal. On the contrary, it is the EU’s Court of Justice which has the power to decide in the event of conflicts arising in this area. There are extensive and partially unclear exemptions from the rules concerning access to documents. Whole areas such as security policy, internal documents and documents from the Member States are exempt in practice. What are called ‘sensitive documents’ do not even need to be shown in the registers. These exemptions substantially undermine the improvements made by the proposal, for example the demands for registers, time limits and access to electronic documents. The European Parliament’s access to classified documents has also been dealt with in these negotiations, at the same time as the public’s right of access to documents. It is an unfortunate confusion of different issues which ought not to have happened. I cannot see how the advantages of this proposal significantly outweigh the disadvantages. This is not the time to conclude this work, for it is not complete. The conciliation ought to continue as normal.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, from Brussels’ point of view, the budget for 2002 is coherent and comprehensive, despite the criticisms made by the European Court of Auditors, which I have been examining with great interest. The Berlin decisions still offer some scope, particularly since there is apparently no need to maintain the levy on the Member States at its present level. In the implementation of the budget for 2002, I expect the structural support funds for the development of rural areas to be spent in full and all surplus revenue to be reduced to zero before or during the year 2006 if possible, by ensuring that eligible projects are realised within the shortest possible time frame. In response to another complaint that I hear time and again, I also expect guarantees that enough flexibility will be shown for projects to be replaced if necessary. At the same time, I expect the Commission to reconsider carefully whether the intended lowering of the support rates for major investments in the least affluent areas is necessary and warranted.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, after 17 years as a Member of this European Parliament, I am standing here today, on behalf of the , to deliver what is probably my last speech in a plenary debate. I am proud, and at the same time thankful, to be here today in a historic place at a historic time. This is a historic place because the European Parliament is at the heart of democracy in Europe and the only European institution to be elected directly by 450 million European citizens. Very soon, on 13 June, the peoples of 25 European countries will collectively choose their MEPs at the same time. Today, Europe is one, reunited in a voluntary, peaceful and sustainable manner on a footing of equality, parity and solidarity. Eurosceptics say that we are investing in a dream. That may be so, but what is wrong with that? At least, and that is important, we are, to a great extent, managing to realise our dreams and unifying Europe. Today, we are specifically commemorating Jean Monnet, the first thinker, or can I say the first dreamer, of a unified Europe, the architect of the Schuman plan, and the initial founder of the present European Union. With Jean Monnet in mind, we can dream to our heart's content. We can cherish dreams, as long as we know how to translate them into action. Although our great European dream is not complete, we have made a good deal of progress. In addition to Jean Monnet, I should also like to pay tribute to all those thousands of others who have helped pave the way and, not least, to the European citizens themselves. The step we are taking on this journey today should also give renewed impetus to the European integration process, because the lack of a truly political European Union will be even more tangible from today. If the European Union is to play a real role of any significance in the world, it should stop appearing to be a purely economic alliance and grow into political adulthood. Today is about more than just the European Union's enlargement; it is about a mutation, a reunification of Europe and of all Europeans. Indeed, today, we are taking a historic step – a step from division to unity, from threatened conflict to guaranteed peace and stability, a step from socio-economic inequality to sustainable growth and prosperity for all our European citizens. Congratulations to all in this House, because we have not missed this historic opportunity of a European Union. Consequently, it is with confidence that I am passing on the torch to the many new, young, enthusiastic Europeans in the unique assembly that this European Parliament is. I should like to say to these young Members, and to all MEPs: the future of Europe is in your hands. Fare well, Europe. Remain a beacon of peace and quiet in the stormy sea that our world, alas, has all too often become. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I want to talk mainly about the European Aviation Safety Agency, the EASA, but I am bound to make an observation about passengers’ rights, also directed to the Commissioner. Whatever the airlines promise and whatever agreements they reach among themselves to display splendid lists detailing the rights of passengers, in practice very little comes of it. Also from my own experience, it is clear that many things often go wrong. I should therefore wish to call for as many binding agreements as possible that are also laid down in legislation as well as for sanctions for failure to fulfil all kinds of promises to passengers. As I said, I wish to speak mainly about EASA. The setting up of EASA and the provisional definition of its responsibilities are an important step on the way to complete harmonisation of safety rules in civil aviation. This is necessary and desirable, given the growing importance of the sector at European level, of unambiguous competition rules and of uniform standards, and in view of the need to strengthen the EU’s influence at a global level. We have opted for a cautious start which, in the first instance, will only involve European certification of new types of aircraft, such as the A 380. That is quite reasonable because the Authority still has to find its niche alongside the national aviation bodies, which will, of course, continue to have a role. Duplication must be avoided by efficient pooling of available expertise and capacity. Based on a certain timeframe, the mandate of EASA can then be expanded to include other aspects of flight safety, such as the human aspect, the quality of pilot training, etc. Legislation and the amendments too rightly cover the health and wellbeing of the passengers on board and of the environment, particularly the question of emissions. Our citizens are increasingly worried about these things. The work of EASA will have to help reduce these concerns. The amendments by the European Parliament make it clear that the independence of the Agency has priority. It must be able to operate free of political interference and certification processes. At the end of the present Regulation, the inevitable comitology crops up. We continue to have our doubts, however, whether this will contribute to the efficient and independent functioning of EASA.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I believe that if ever there was a time to congratulate a rapporteur and the Chairman of a temporary committee, this is it, since they have produced a report which has been produced against all the odds. The results of the work of the Temporary Committee on the ECHELON interception system, in my view, send the important political signal that the European institutions, and in particular the Commission, must take much more care over the security of their communications and that the Member States and the European Union must create a new legal framework to protect their citizens and to guarantee that the privacy of their communications is not jeopardised as a result of interception because those States have the technological means and potential to use it inappropriately. These days, electronic mail, mobile telephones, videoconferencing and the Internet have broken down the physical borders between countries across the world. And the most serious thing is that organised crime is using these means for their own advantage and even funding. This gives rise to a question: why not direct all this potential for intercepting communications which, as has been demonstrated, the countries making up the ECHELON system have at their disposal, to combat terrorists, drug traffickers or the organised mafias which traffic in human beings, instead of using it for an international competition between States which is unfair by any reckoning? All Member States of the European Union must dedicate all their efforts to defending the rights of their citizens, whether they be economic, social or political in nature, since anything less would represent a lack of compliance with the commitments laid down in the Treaties and, in particular, with the recent Charter of Fundamental Rights proclaimed at the Nice Summit by the fifteen Member States.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, the reality of the situation cannot be denied. We cannot turn our backs on the consequences of the Prestige disaster. Fuel oil is still washing up on the coasts of Galicia and in the Bay of Biscay; a week ago I saw this situation for myself, in the Rostro sandbanks at Cape Finisterre. The Prestige is still lying at the bottom of the sea. It is haemorrhaging fuel oil and we do not really know what it contains. Fishermen, scientists and Galician and Cantabrian society as a whole are all extremely concerned at the damage that has already taken place and crucially, at the uncertainty of what the future holds. Objective studies state that the final balance of the damage caused by the Prestige will exceed EUR three billion. Compare these sums, Commissioner, with those you have just mentioned, which are totally inadequate. I therefore put the question to you once again: is the Commission going to remain passive or is it going to take the bull by the horns once and for all and shoulder its responsibilities in order to solve this very real problem and to impose some order on the unregulated traffic that plies our seas?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso, it seems to me the height of cynicism, and absolutely repugnant, to hear you once again justifying crimes, in this case affecting a pensioner and a Spanish girl. It is absolutely repugnant. It is also repugnant to discover that a proportion of public resources, the money of the European citizens, which you receive, ends up in the hands of the criminals and fascists of ETA. That is how repugnant it is. Mr President, something is not working in the system if we in this House have to endure the indecency of people who come here to justify crimes. Mr Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso, please be aware that the impunity of individuals like you and the impunity of your activities is coming to an end throughout Europe. Democracy has the right to defend itself and it will do so. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to thank Mr Sterckx for his initiative and to say that I regret the stand being adopted by the s. Obviously, we shall return to vote on his initial amendment which, I am sorry to say, contradicts Article 193 of the Treaty and Rule 151 of our Rules of Procedure, because it basically makes provision for a covert committee of inquiry. Consequently, I think that we are voting for something which contradicts the Treaties and the Rules of Procedure. (The President cut off the speaker)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this plenary week is the week of conflict prevention. A lot of wise things have been said, but the most important action in this context is this EU initiative for the UN conference on the illicit trade in small arms. We know that this very trade is a major reason for the aggravation of conflicts and that the innocent civilian population suffers the most casualties. The positive thing about the EU proposal is that it involves both sides, users and producers, and that the EU is striving for more binding commitments. This conference must be the first step towards stopping arms exports. But there will have to be a permanent commission to check that it is enforced. It would be good if the EU would not only call for this but be the first to enforce it in its own ranks. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, according to our information, Mrs Stauner withdrew the explanatory statement in the relevant committee yesterday, but despite that, it has been distributed today. I would just like to ask you, Mr President, to establish if this statement was withdrawn by the rapporteur or not. If it was, then it should not be distributed as an official document.

Political group: PSE