GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I firmly condemn terrorist acts. Terrorism is abhorrent, whatever adjectives you use to describe it and whatever ideological label you attach to it. I too feel that we must establish very close cooperation with the United States and form an extensive world-wide alliance of all the countries that wish to be part of it to combat terrorism. The world-wide anti-terrorism alliance must certainly address military issues to ensure safety, but it must also address all the possible forms of terrorism which exist, which range from financial to banking terrorism, and from economic, food contamination and environmental terrorism to electronic terrorism and terrorism in the form of computer hacking. The debate between the European Parliament, the OSCE and the WEU, which met at the assembly of the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe, focused largely, on the one hand, on the need to speed up the process of democratising those countries and, on the other, on the upholding of human rights. These are the two fundamental pillars for eradicating poverty and underdevelopment through the rational use of economic resources. Henceforth, the European Union must stipulate the upholding of human rights and the implementation of democracy as firm conditions in all its external relations. This stipulation is fixed and unconditional because it guarantees the protection of the dignity of every citizen in the world. The European Union must encourage respect for every religious faith and, at the same time, it must require all faiths to condemn and abhor terrorist acts, to make a clear distinction between civil society, which is free to practise any religion, and terrorism, which cannot claim to have any religious justification. I support the idea of convening a Mediterranean Forum condemning terrorism, supporting the Middle East Peace Process and reinvigorating the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership. Finally, Europol and Eurojust must, together, become effective European tools, concentrating on enhancing the European corpus juris and thereby creating a basic legal reference framework which will serve as the basis for European civil, penal and administrative law.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I must first thank Mr Cunha for his excellent report. It is a considerable achievement, if we take into account that he has had to cope with a scenario created by the Commission, which, as stated by a previous speaker, is plainly hypocritical. We might agree that tobacco is a danger to health. Taking this argument to the extreme, one could suggest banning the import of tobacco. I suspect, however, that few Members of this House would be prepared to vote in favour of closing our borders to tobacco from the United States. Treasury Ministers are delighted with the income generated by tobacco, whilst Health Ministers rail against it. Just now, for the first time, charges of smuggling have been brought against multinational companies bringing tobacco into the European Union and attempting to avoid paying the duty due. There are a number of lessons to be drawn from that and from the prohibitionist experiments conducted in Europe and elsewhere. In the first place, ceasing cultivation without stopping imports has no impact on the availability of a harmful substance. What it does is make the Community market more attractive to goods from third countries. Secondly, prohibition does not stop consumption. Instead it boosts smuggling, to the detriment of health checks and of the Treasury. Thirdly, tobacco production generates more employment and stimulates more economic activity than many other agricultural practices such as meat production. Yet the Commission often displays undue leniency towards these other practices. In conclusion I also believe that the confusion the Commission may create between the documents submitted to the European Council at Göteborg and the conclusions of the Council is totally unacceptable, and drastically alters the institutional balance. In my view therefore, the Commission’s assessment of the Göteborg European Council destabilises the principles and operation of the Community institutional relationship. I trust the European Parliament will reject it, taking account of the Council’s Legal Services’ contribution to the work of the COMIT.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the change in the definition from 'forest ecosystems' to 'forests' is a step backwards scientifically, in that 'forest ecosystem' is scientifically a much fuller term. In addition, a forest ecosystem does not qualify as such merely by reason of the fact that it measures half a hectare; a set of criteria and preconditions are needed in order for an area to qualify as a forest ecosystem. Moreover, the report makes no reference to forests which have shrubbery and where trees account for less than 10%. Tens of millions of acres of forest ecosystem in my country, which are today protected by Greek legislation and are a basic protected factor, according to recent announcements by the government on the bill which, basically, brings Greek legislation into line with the proposed directive, are in danger of becoming the object of exploitation, with incalculable consequences on the forest ecosystem, on the subsoil, on water retention and on preventing floods and enriching the water table. Any so-called forestry policy to date – and I quote my country as a typical bad example – has failed to address the basic problems of forest ecosystems; on the contrary, they have contributed to the privatisation of the forests, hence the large number of arson attacks, given that we are talking about fires, the rapid appearance of big business and speculation in ecosystems of huge size and importance, such as national trust lands and so on, and appropriations and changes of use, in the aim of stepping up speculation by making use of them for tourist and housing purposes. Finally, mere lip service is being paid to a greater interest in forest ecosystems; in fact, the application of more general policies and economic options is hardening, with more suffocating control and complete indifference as to the peculiarities and actual requirements of the forest ecosystems of the Member States, again serving speculation by big business.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, one of the complaints most frequently voiced by the public concerns the very limited role they are given to play in representative democracy. Our citizens complain that they are given the right to vote every now and then, but that they do not enjoy full rights of participation in the day-to-day activities of the institutions for which they vote: at European level, at national level, and at regional and local level. It is precisely in the area of the environment that the dissatisfaction of communities has been most keenly felt. When they disagree, often rightly so, with a particular project, their only option is to express their anger on the streets or in the courts. This indignation increases exponentially when many of these projects with unacceptable environmental impacts are funded under the common agricultural policy and the Structural Funds. It is, therefore very important that, as a follow-up to the Aarhus Convention, the Commission has produced legislation on public access to environmental information, on public participation in certain plans, programmes and policies and on public access to justice. Greater public participation not only gives greater legitimacy to the decisions taken by our institutions; it can also improve their quality. I wish to congratulate the rapporteur for the work she has done on this proposal for a directive on public participation in drafting environmental plans and programmes, especially for having sought, by means of various amendments, to extend citizens’ rights and to eliminate some ambiguities. There is nevertheless one subject on which I disagree with Mrs Korhola. Public consultation will only be feasible if the definition of ‘the public’ is not too vague. I therefore prefer the Commission’s approach, which defines the public affected by a given project as the target of consultation and not the rapporteur’s choice of a broader and, therefore, vaguer definition of the public.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on the one hand we have heard predictions to the effect that by the year 2007, tourism will have created an additional 1.84 million jobs. On the other hand, we are aware that in practically all developed countries there is a lack of manpower in the tourism sector, which cannot be completely overcome, even in times of high unemployment. This contradiction applies when we talk in terms of the tourism labour market having two sides to it. On the one hand, tourism provides jobs in regions where there is a severe shortage of other jobs in trade, industry and agriculture, or the number of jobs is declining; it offers employment opportunities to those population groups who cannot find work in other sectors on account of a lack of qualifications, or technical and global developments, and, in particular, tourism enables many young people to get a foot on the ladder of working life. As such, the tourism sector offers employment policy a ray of hope. However, we can also see that there are many lamentable disadvantages to working in this sector: long working days and large amounts of overtime, work at weekends, on public holidays and during the holiday season, none of which are conducive to people spending quality time with their families. Add to this seasonal unemployment, physically demanding workloads on account of unhealthy working conditions and times of peak demand, and a lack of promotion prospects. We should focus exclusively on all the tensions at work here, leaving no stone unturned. In my country, Austria, tourism and the leisure industry are of central importance to the national economy, contributing as they do to income and job security, as well as to the balance of payments. In 1998 alone, total income from tourism and leisure activities was 450 billion Schilling. The net product share of the overall sector was around 13%. I would therefore like to extend sincere thanks to all those who work in tourism, as well as all those who work to conserve nature, culture and recreational areas. I would urge that we exploit the possibilities of working time arrangements with a view to shortening periods of unemployment, and that we undertake a subtly differentiated analysis of the labour market in the tourism sector. We need a European marketing strategy, bearing in mind the competition we face from other continents. In the course of our deliberations we must also analyse price structuring, as a result of which it is cheaper to fly to America these days than it is to fly from Vienna to Brussels. Training has been mentioned and a great deal else besides, but there is still a great deal to do if we are to provide a really firm basis for this growth industry and ensure that this is what it continues to be. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, for most Europeans, the era of the euro will not actually begin until they are required to use euro coins and notes in the shops. Out of respect for all our European citizens, it is important not to underestimate the political significance of the changeover, and for this changeover to occur without any hitches. With this in mind, it is necessary to organise the practical dimension of the changeover well as a matter of priority. It is, in this context, extremely useful that, after extended pleas, also on the part of this House, frontloading has become possible. In addition, people need to have faith in the process as a whole. In order to instil this feeling, we must provide them with information as a matter of priority. We endorse the plans of the Commission, which set out to achieve this for each target group and by mobilising the organised midfield. After all, the hallmark of sound information is that it is tailored to the specific circumstances of those involved, and people and companies have a great deal more faith in their own associations and organisations than they do in public institutions. But not until we manage to reduce the costs of cross-border payments and exchange rates within the euro-zone will people and companies have a sufficient level of confidence, and this confidence is crucial. It is a prerequisite for motivating people to make the necessary efforts, efforts which are needed to adapt to the new situation. Let us not delude people into thinking they will not need to make any sacrifices. The changeover will require an effort. Everyone will need to adjust, everyone will need to make an effort. If we can help them in this and guide them in the right direction from the outset, we will have succeeded in our task of providing information. Mr President, Mr Karas’ report was approved by a large majority within the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. This is only right, because it is a sound report, on which I would like to congratulate him.

Political group: PPE-DE
For the past eighteen months, British Conservatives have been calling for the Commission to introduce more efficient financial management and administrative procedures so that it can deliver external assistance and implement programmes, such as mine action, urgently in time of crisis or when lives are at stake. They support proposals with these objectives in mind and therefore welcome the Commission initiative for a Rapid Reaction Facility (or Mechanism), in spite of its confusing title and some unnecessarily politically-correct elements. Their fundamental objection is to the amendments which seek to use this proposal as a vehicle for establishing a 'European Public Security Force'. This concept, for some sort of European gendarmerie, has far-reaching implications and no place in the Commission proposal under discussion. We were prepared to support the Commission proposal if it did not contain these amendments (9 or 39) but abstain if they were included. - Oomen-Ruijten report (A5-0338/2000)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, our thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Brunetta, for his thorough report on access to electronic communications networks as part of the open network provisions package. It refined and specified certain aspects of the Commission’s proposal. That is to be welcomed, also in the interest of culture and education, because I viewed the report from the perspective of the draftsperson of the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport. Telecommunications are changing our lives at a fast pace. Particularly with the rapid development in telecommunications it is important that directives are put in place in good time in order to regulate access and interconnections within the European Union and beyond its borders as effectively as possible. The Commission’s proposal focuses mainly on competition and a level playing field. It is of great importance to national regulatory agencies, certainly in relation to a position of considerable power. It is therefore a purely commercial approach and focuses on the infrastructure. What I feel is missing is the proviso that cultural diversity and plurality should be guaranteed. This is the reason why we in the Committee on Culture have tabled a number of amendments strengthening this aspect. I am consequently very happy that these amendments have also been accepted by the Committee on Industry. In this context we are very concerned that the ‘must carry’ obligation should be extended to broad-band format, as indicated in Amendment No 14. Finally, I would like to turn my attention to the regulation of the APIs and the EPGs and other accompanying facilities in accordance with the procedure of a regulatory committee. In the view of the Commission that only needs to be implemented when there is a revision, but it is now clear that developments are so far advanced that they should fall within the scope of the regulations. Well, Mr President, that will in fact be much too late. It is to be welcomed that the rapporteur has taken this line of reasoning into account.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the starting point of this debate is incredibly simple. It is that the terms and conditions of Members of this House are not satisfactory, either from a Member's or from the public's point of view. Not only should MEPs receive a fair day's wage for a fair day's work, we should be taxed on the same basis as those who send us here. As a number of speakers have already said, we are not civil servants – we represent the citizens of the four corners of the European Union, here at its centre. The arrangements put in place should be appropriately drawn up and transparent, and the expenses regime which is back-to-back with them should not be disguised remuneration, and in particular travel should be reimbursed on a cost basis. Although politically, expenses and remuneration are two sides of the same coin, their legal bases are distinct. We must not be pompous, hypocritical or self-serving about this. For obvious overriding political reasons the Council and Parliament must reach a political agreement about the two together. If either steps back from this it is breaking faith with the electorate and is culpable of wrecking the process. As a Member, I am sick and tired of cheap jokes about the 'gravy train': let us recall that the basic salary we, the UK Members, receive is, so I am told, about the same as that of a decent-sized supermarket manager in a provincial town. Such jibes degrade Parliament as an institution and the European Union as a political process. Quite simply, I say, let us stop the talk and sort it out, because if we do not, we demean ourselves and degrade the process of which we are part. As far as the contents of the Rothley report are concerned, we British Conservatives have deep reservations about some of them. The only way to break this impasse is to vote for the report as a whole, to take the process a step forward. We shall continue to work for a final outcome which will meet with our stated policy requirements. The immediate priority is to stop talking incessantly about the Statute and take some steps to do something about creating it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, progress has indeed been made, but it is nevertheless an open secret that, in various accession countries, public enthusiasm for the EU has waned, and the European elections will demonstrate this. Unemployment in Central and Eastern Europe is at a lamentably high level, never before has the gulf between rich and poor been so wide, social tensions are increasing and corruption is rampant. The one-sided pressure exerted by the EU towards privatisation with the minimum possible delay has positively laid waste centres of industry in Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia that were once vigorous. Social instability endangers democracy, and so the Copenhagen criteria are no longer the right instrument to deal with it. Such tendencies should be firmly brought under control and nipped in the bud. Although individual countries have been given warnings about their treatment of the Roma, it is clear that the EU must take a Community approach, or else the problem will prove unsolvable. It will not be achieved by states acting on their own. The issue with the Russian minorities in the Baltic states is a political one, one in which Moscow may well appear to be exerting influence, but which is in fact a conflict centring on education and citizens’ rights, and it demands a political solution. It is, in my view, more than a political scandal that someone like Mr Telička, who has competently guided the Czech Republic towards accession, should have public doubt cast upon his appointment as its Commissioner for having, as a young man, belonged to the Communist Party for two years or so. This is the work of the evil genius of stagnant anti-Communism, which is capable of poisoning the atmosphere not only in this House but also in the acceding states.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as the third Austrian to speak, I was starting to worry that I would have nothing to add. But having heard Mr Chichester, I think it is worth reiterating that we have to pay serious attention to the wishes and concerns of the people of Europe, and of Austria in particular, as regards nuclear energy. This applies especially to the Temelín nuclear power station. My group is supporting this motion for a resolution on Temelín for reasons of principle, because we take the people's concerns seriously and because many of us have, for a long time, been actively fighting against nuclear energy in the East and in the West. The political battle against the Zwentendorf nuclear power station in Austria has had an enduring formative influence on me personally, so I did not need to be convinced by the conservative arguments in the Austrian media over the last few days which I have followed with surprise and sometimes with quiet amusement. Like Mrs Echerer, I oppose the single, very vaguely worded amendment, because I believe that the phrase ‘high level’ does not mean anything, because the Czech Republic itself is surely aware of the need for a high level of safety. I therefore fully support the motion for a resolution before us and oppose the amendment.

Political group: PSE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. – Mr President, I am very much in favour of this programme. Mr Bradbourn has made very sensible suggestions and has a feel for the needs of the travelling public, in particular those in cars who are delayed by heavy freight vehicles. I applaud the entire Marco Polo Programme, which is badly needed to stop congestion. I am a civil engineer by background. I served on the Transport Committee in the House of Commons in London for eight years and know only too well by travelling up and down to my north-west region from London how very difficult it is to do something about this problem. I applaud the fact that new initiatives will be encouraged by this programme, ensuring that traffic is phased into junctions by using light-emitting diodes etc., things which are cheap but which are very effective and absolutely vital. We must ensure that this scheme is properly monitored. That is the idea behind the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. We emphasise that, half way through the period up to 2010, there should be a thorough audit and investigation of what has been achieved. I agree entirely with Mr Bradbourn that we should not just go for large schemes, because out there the logistics industry – and I applaud its efforts up and down the country and across all countries in the European Union – has a lot of ideas that it wants to start up. That is where much improvement can take place. I understand that the Council is anxious to reduce the amount of money being made available for this project. However, I hope that even if that does take place, we will show by the mid-term review that we are getting excellent value for money and that the budget should be raised in future years. I applaud everyone involved in this very forward-thinking scheme.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, my colleague, Mr Lange, has again produced an excellent report, which will have a considerable effect on air quality, and our Group unreservedly supports it. Trucks and buses contribute to air pollution in ever greater proportions, as we have actually done a lot to reduce car emissions, for example by using better quality fuels and tax concessions, as Mrs Myller said. In the first reading, Parliament was very successful in getting through strict limit values for particulate pollutants, which are very dangerous for the health. The Ministers of the Environment then adopted Parliament’s proposal and now our job is to demand that industry adopts just as strict a line on nitrogen emissions. Industry needs sufficient time, and industry will certainly get the time it needs to prepare itself for this technological change. The engineers have proved very inventive before, and I trust that the right technology will be in place by 2006.

Political group: Verts-ALE