GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, terrorism constitutes a threat to stability, freedom and democracy. The tragic events of 11 September 2001 and the terrorist attack of 12 October 2002 in Bali are recent, shocking and violent illustrations of this. We have absolutely no doubt that this scourge must be combated, in the aim of protecting our citizens from any threat to their security. I must praise the swift and effective action that the European Union has undertaken to provide an effective response to this scourge, defining a global anti-terrorist strategy by adopting the European plan of action to combat terrorism on 21 September 2001, with later updates in Ghent, Laeken and more recently in Seville. I am also pleased to note the significant progress made on exchanges of information, on police and judicial coordination in the fight against terrorism, and on the legislative framework. Nevertheless, whatever responses we come up with to combat this type of threat, we must always bear in mind that any measure that is taken cannot and must not call into question full respect for, assurances of and the promotion of the fundamental and human rights that have always underpinned European construction. As I said earlier with regard to the issue of the transmission of personal data by airlines on flights to and from the United States, combating crime must be done in full compliance with the rule of law and not call citizens’ rights into question. Furthermore, our fight for security cannot and must not undermine freedom. We must, therefore, ensure a degree of balance without calling into question the fundamental values accepted by our societies. We cannot allow the principles of law and civic rights to become victims of this combat. The proposal that we are debating today clearly demonstrates that, if a set of repressive measures is adopted as part of the fight against terrorism, including the freezing of funds and financial assets, we must also provide for exceptions to these actions, which could be granted for humanitarian reasons – for example, the payment of rents or mortgages, the purchase of food, health expenses, amongst others, so as to avoid potential breaches of fundamental rights. I therefore congratulate Mr Hernández Mollar on his report. This is a timely initiative, which clearly alerts us to a fact that some people appear not to want to understand: the fact that any fight that forgets these priorities will ultimately constitute an unjustified acceptance of barbarity and a step backwards in terms of civilisation, which we find unacceptable.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, they asked me, the representative elected from the lists of the Pensioners' Party in Italy: 'What are you going to Strasbourg for? They will never talk about pensions!' Well, the words of Commissioner Anna Diamantopoulou just now have been as sweet as honey to my ears. I welcome this initiative: it is a great day for pensioners all over Europe! My congratulations to Mrs Diamantopoulou and the whole of the Commission! The most important thing will now be to monitor the pension funds and appoint as their guardians in the 15 States, not the Beagle Boys but people who care about the future of pensioners. I hope that the Commissioner will agree with me.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mrs Ferrer asked me to take over her question and said she would inform the relevant service accordingly.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, since the assessment we made in December of last year, the situation in Cuba has only worsened. All the proposals for cooperation, for promoting openness, democratic transition and economic support have come up against a brick wall of intolerance, rejection and, what is worse, a response which, as has been said, affects dozens of members of the Cuban opposition, independent journalists and human rights activists. This situation requires a categorical response and, as has been requested here, a unanimous and very clear response on the part of the institutions of the European Union, in order to promote the democratic process and, fundamentally, to guarantee human rights – some of which are as essential and important to a society as the exercise of freedom of expression. I believe we must make every effort and continue to do so in order firstly to demonstrate the position of the European institutions – this is expressed very clearly in this joint resolution, which I hope will be approved by the European Parliament today – and secondly to demonstrate our cooperation and solidarity with the members of the opposition who wish to see a free and democratic Cuba, with the activists and defenders of human rights working through the respective non-governmental organisations, demonstrating our particular concern for the leader to whom we awarded the Sakharov Prize, Mr Oswaldo Payá, and in order to contribute to preventing, as far as possible, the suffering of the Cuban population, who are the main victims of the current situation.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I too wish to offer my praise for this report. It is an excellent initiative and I, like most Members of this House who have spoken, hope that we will be able, in the course of proceedings, specifically in plenary, to make Mr Katiforis’s original philosophy a reality. As Mr Katiforis stated, the crux of the issue at stake today, regarding this own-initiative report, is whether or not the activities of the rating agencies should be regulated and if so, whether such regulation should take place at national or European level. As the rapporteur suggested in his explanatory statement, this is clearly a political decision, and this debate clearly bears out this view. However, the rapporteur was initially unquestionably in favour of regulation, and regulation at European level, even though voices closely associated with the sector have been raised against such a move. Representatives of the sector appreciate that their activities form part of the sphere of economic information and that what is at stake, therefore, is to guarantee complete freedom for such economic information. The need for information is obviously not incompatible with the needs and interests of regulation and while it has to be admitted that rating agencies have, by and large, performed respectably under the current system, it is also clear that we face new problems today – and there have been some spectacular examples of these, as Members who spoke before me have already mentioned – that require new solutions and probably a new system. Moreover, there is no doubt that the rapporteur’s options are in line with the legislative approach adopted by the EU within the framework of financial services. To my mind, it is therefore in the public interest to establish bodies to regulate credit rating, especially because, as we all know, the outcome of this activity already has a decisive impact on the legitimacy and eligibility of certain financial assets for certain types of application used by the general public. Consequently, I feel that the rapporteur’s first initiative, which was not accepted in its entirety by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, must be endorsed and supported by plenary. It is extremely bold, yet completely justified.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner Fischler, on behalf of the I thank the Commission and the rapporteurs for this excellent work which does not seek only to simplify administration but this time also has an excellent goal from the point of view of farmers: simplifying the procedures for applying for support. In this sense this move is a very fundamental one. When travelling anywhere in the EU, talking to farmers, the first and only thing you hear is that bureaucracy, vast amounts of paperwork and the associated difficulties are creating a very negative picture for farmers. This is a very important issue especially as far as the smallest farmers are concerned. In the long term the scheme should be developed so that rural development activities are linked to it. The scheme should also include an expansion bonus, even now in its initial stages. It surprises me that the Commission is working on the basis of a policy whereby growth in income under the scheme would be set at a fixed level rather than being index-linked. The rapporteur has correctly intervened in the matter and pointed out that there is an opportunity for raising support outside the scheme by virtue of the agenda solution. I see this as a very important point. To make the scheme attractive also to farms attempting to improve production, our committee’s proposal on raising the level of support is justified. The level can be discussed but the principle especially on this matter is very important. For this reason this trial, which at the moment is experimental and temporary, should receive widespread support.

Political group: ELDR
My group would have preferred it if we had not concluded this, in itself interesting, debate with resolutions. This is in response to the comments made by Mr Hughes. I believe that the Council has indeed introduced new elements today. Judging from the discussion, the Council has made some progress. The Commission statement was also extremely clear and, in my opinion, we should all examine it very carefully once again. This would be the best way forward. Secondly, it is true that we need to avoid excessive bureaucracy. I fully share the view of my neighbour, Mr Chichester on this matter. This is a key point. However, I was also reminded of what happened to the Titanic. It sank because there was no observation system for icebergs in those days. Needless to say, after the sinking of the Titanic, such a system was introduced without delay. Surely over the past few years, we have seen a few cases, also in respect of industrial changes, where a little prescience might have prevented the worst from happening. I personally take the view that we could explore this route a little more, provided it does not lead to further bureaucracy, especially in our host country. We are constantly being faced with all kinds of states of affairs, blockades and such like, and I believe it would be of great benefit if more objective information on future changes could be provided so that we could perhaps prevent a few mistakes from being made, as might have happened in the case of the Titanic. I like the film, but I would hate to see it time and again.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, at a time when two-thirds of the world's population are suffering from poverty, hunger and disease, the fact that the UN organised a world summit in Geneva on the information society sounds somewhat strange. One wonders if perhaps the ultimate objective of the debate was none other than to increase the sales and profits of the information technology monopolies, in other words IBM for computers, Microsoft for software and the telecommunications companies. Under the weight of these contradictions, it is not at all strange that the summit did not result in anything specific. Not only the proclamation of principles but also the action plan which were adopted are simple wish lists. The objective of the possibility of Internet access for half the world's population by 2015 and the objective of their all having access to radio and television by then are not supported by any measures. Similarly, the questions of economic aid or regulatory issues for the Internet were not addressed. Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the problem which we have to solve is not how some people, at a time when they have nothing to eat, will plant themselves down in front of a screen and stab away furiously at a keyboard. The problem is the prosperity of mankind and the sine qua non to that is peace. However, this problem will not be solved as long as the monopolies exploit the wealth of our planet for their own benefit, as long as they control information technology, as long as the imperialists massacre our fellow human beings. It will be solved through the fight of the peoples for radical, revolutionary social change.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this report, which each year gives us an opportunity to examine the fundamental rights situation in the European Union, provides an excellent reminder for those who would prefer to forget the universal nature of fundamental rights. It is sometimes a very bitter pill to swallow, but it can teach us some very salutary lessons. I would particularly like to single out the strengthening of European citizenship, which undeniably involves the right to vote in local and European elections. This right is denied to legal residents in several Member States on the grounds that they are not national citizens or are non-EU citizens. At a time when we are drawing up a constitutional model which ensures that exclusion and discrimination have no place in the enlarged Europe, we must put an end to this situation, failing which our European project and the values that we advocate will lose all credibility. The time we have available is very short, but this House must take up this major challenge over the coming months.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, since the issue of Regulation 820 in 1997, we have been discussing rebuilding a relationship between the consumer and the production world, and I have to say that a great deal has been achieved on both sides. Much work has been done to ensure that the consumer is in possession of the correct information. That said, I am briefly going to return to some of the issues raised by my fellow Members, each of which illustrated the situation in their own country. In Italy, selling unspecified adult cattle on the market would mean suppressing a sensibility which is linked to our cultural and food traditions, and so we would find ourselves in quite a difficult situation. Apart from anything else, considering that the price per kilogram of a cow carcass is considerably lower than that of a bullock carcass and even lower than that of a heifer, it would be difficult to justify the different sales prices to the consumer, who will naturally buy the unspecified adult meat out of ignorance. Therefore, we are drawing up a law giving the consumer the right to know what he is buying and at what price, according to principles of transparency, clarity and information. The work on the traceability of all the information regarding the animal’s country of provenance and country of birth and, in particular, where the animal was fattened, is therefore excellent. Indeed, we would like the traceability criteria to be extended to minced beef, which is becoming a very popular product. We feel that a precise reference to the point of slaughter and to the provenance of the minced beef would contribute to maintaining this relationship of trust that we are building between producer and consumer.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too should like to thank all the rapporteurs. With regard to decoupling, I also support the Commission proposals to a large extent, but there are exceptions to every rule, of which I should like to mention two. It should not be the case that agricultural products such as vegetables, fruit, flowers, and so on, which were not subsidised in the past, should now be subsidised indirectly. In my view, an exception should therefore be provided for in the regulation. The second exception should apply to potato starch. To my mind, the 50% decoupling, as proposed by the Commission, is not sufficient and should remain at 75% in order to avoid as unacceptable social consequences. I too am in favour of making the payment of premiums dependent on the observance of environmental requirements, but what are these? They are very vague. If every Member State were to observe the nitrate directive, agricultural policy would become very simple, but, as thirteen of the fifteen Member States do not observe the environmental requirements, we should prescribe clearer parameters. I would like to make a third remark with regard to the budget in general. I do not know what the costs are of the reports on which we are about to vote, but the current proposals mean that the budget is already extremely tight as it is. What will the Commission do when reform proposals are tabled for sugar, for vegetables and fruit, for olive oil and for tobacco? Can we then look forward to other reductions, other degression standards? This is the question I should like to put to the Commission.

Political group: ELDR
We Swedish have today voted in favour of the report entailing stricter European exhaust and noise emission limits for recreational craft. We nonetheless reject a total harmonisation of the rules since the basic conditions in the different Member States vary so much. The levels introduced should instead be minimum levels permitting individual Member States to introduce stricter levels for environmental reasons. We also reject more stringent common exhaust emission requirements in the case of lakes, because many recreational craft, especially in Sweden and Finland, are used both on the sea and on lakes. One possible consequence of drawing this distinction is that old engines that cause more pollution will not be replaced by new engines, because these do not meet the more stringent requirements. In countries where drinking water comes from lakes, emissions cause especially major problems. In these cases too, minimum regulations would give the Member States the freedom to tighten up the requirements concerning exhaust emissions. Member States would also be able to ban or limit recreational traffic on certain lakes. Finally, we believe it would be wrong to introduce further, more stringent exhaust emission requirements only three years after the directive has come into force. It is important for industry to be given clear basic rules. Minimum regulations are a better instrument for promoting development. They give manufacturers the opportunity voluntarily to adapt and develop technology to the highest current standards so that they can make sales to all the Member States.

Political group: PPE-DE
The report confines the national parliaments to a role of scrutinising their respective governments, a role which has been curtailed ever since the extension of qualified majority voting in the Council broke the link between European decisions and those taken by each people separately. It also seeks to widen the powers of the European Parliament, failing to recognise that legitimacy is primarily granted by citizens at national parliamentary level. In order to revitalise democracy in Europe, it is essential to give each people the visible power of decision at European level. Consequently, in future we must see national parliaments as standing at the centre of the decision-making process, rather than on the periphery. The Nice European Council in fact appears to have had an intuition of this when it placed 'the role of the national parliament in the European architecture' (and not on the fringes of that architecture) on the agenda for the next IGC. Citizens in the European Union generally see elections to their national parliaments (and, in some countries, elections to the national presidency) as the fundamental democratic choice between, for example a left- or right-wing government. The legitimacy of democracy is today based on the elections to the national parliaments and, as a consequence, the institutions of the European Union must be adjusted to this fact. Most importantly, major decisions in the Council should have to be ratified by the national parliaments.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are a number of things I do not understand. I am not sure, for example, that I understand the reasons for deciding to draft this directive. If this is simply a problem for the European Patent Office and for applications for patents, I believe that this is really quite a limited starting point. What is completely beyond me is that the European Commission, which is so concerned about preventing concentrations in industry, is proposing – if we are to believe a number of experts – support for industrial concentration. This appears to contradict the Commission’s objectives. Nor do I understand the amnesia we are seeing here with regard to the disastrous directive on patenting life. No one knows how to implement this directive and its validity is universally questioned. Can one patent the cells of a leaf without patenting the leaf itself? The problem of software and of technical contributions is identical. The legal uncertainty we faced with regard to the directive on patenting life reappears in connection with the patenting of software, programmes and technical contributions. I am struggling to find the right words because the directive gives no clear definition of a technical contribution. In light of these uncertainties, I find it hard, Commissioner, to understand what is happening here. Mr Rocard referred to 6 000 years of history, but history has speeded up as rapidly in the field of biotechnologies as in those of software and computing. Are we going to be able to pursue these rapid developments when economists are predicting that we will have a number of problems to face? In the field of pharmaceuticals, we are told, it is easier to see what is an innovation and it is easier to determine what is covered by copyright or a patent. With regard to software, it is still extremely hard to tell. Publishers and teachers fear that this type of directive threatens the knowledge-based society, transparency and the circulation of information. I thought that the European Commission and Europe had made preventing such threats one of their aims. I do not understand what is going on here.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I have voted in favour of this report, which highlights the need to streamline and synchronise procedures for coordinating economic, social and employment policies, not forgetting the environmental dimension, in order to gear them towards a medium and long-term perspective. Our focus must be on implementing measures rather than on drafting guidelines. This analysis of the implementation of guidelines, which will take the form of a new implementation package, will involve the Member States providing information on a systematic basis, in line with a specific timetable. The appropriate involvement of all the interested institutions and partners such as the Council, the European Parliament and the social partners, must be ensured. We must stress the importance of strengthening the democratic legitimacy of this process and of giving Parliament powers of participation and co-decision in the entire cycle of policy coordination. To this end, we hope that the Convention proposes this improvement for the new Treaty. Finally, I wish to underline the importance of increasing the role played by the social partners through the creation of a Tripartite Social Summit and a macro-economic social dialogue, as well as the participation of the candidate countries in implementing the Lisbon Strategy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, two Spanish journalists have died in 48 hours. The second of them, José Couso, was effectively murdered when an American tank aimed its cannon at a building exclusively occupied by journalists.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I join others in wishing Portugal every good wish for a successful presidency. I notice that you said this particular issue was not currently on your agenda for the next IGC but if some people wished it, you would consider it. Well, I, and my fellow 35 British Conservative MEPs wish it and would like you to please consider it. I appreciate that it is a provocative question. It is meant to provoke because there is a very serious issue here that some countries do not hold EU law in the respect which it deserves. We have to find some way of putting pressure on such countries to do just that so we can reconnect with our citizens. I cannot think of a better way to do it. Can you?

Political group: PPE-DE