GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today we are debating a report that gave rise to much controversy when it was discussed in our committee, all sparked off by the term subsidiarity. But at a time when we not only have a surplus of audiovisual offerings but also excess consumption of these offerings, we cannot retreat behind the word subsidiarity. As politicians, we simply have a responsibility, in all the areas in which we act, to protect young people from that surplus. At a time when we are witnessing so much violence, hatred and intolerance in all our countries, we surely have to ask ourselves where it is coming from. Now, I cannot say: it all comes from television. But no doubt much of it can be traced back to the excessive consumption of these television offerings, some of which incite to hatred and intolerance, including intolerance towards other nationalities. So we must give serious thought to how we can check this. We have a responsibility towards minors! Subsidiarity is to be welcomed. And we want to preserve it; but I beg you, let us not hide behind it. It is our job to do something, and indeed we have already tried to introduce this kind of protection of minors with our first “Television without frontiers” directive. I am thinking now of Mr Hoppenstedt, who fought for the V chip. But what can we achieve with that kind of technological barrier? Not much; children usually know how to handle it better than adults, which means we really must think very seriously about how to remedy this situation. We do not intend to replace anyone who is doing a good job at national level, but we do want to introduce common criteria and minimum requirements at Community level and propose rules that help people effectively to implement measures to protect minors in their country. Of course I also think that we are not in a position, either as politicians or as technicians, to tackle this problem on our own. Far more important than all this, of course, is the role of the teachers and the parents, and handling this medium correctly. Television and the Internet have to be learned and, of course, also taught. So what we are doing today is just a small part of the job that society as a whole has to perform. I believe we must bring up our children to enjoy this medium in the right way and to get parents to encourage their children to watch suitable programmes and disregard the less suitable ones. That is why we should do both, do our job as politicians and urge society to do its bit. Unfortunately, I cannot endorse the Liberals’ demands. I find them too liberal and not really geared to the interests of the minorities we are considering here.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I understand that the report could do no other than refer to the definition of the political party at European level, established, as has just been said, in Regulation No 2004/2003. One of the more significant outcomes of this is the requirement that parties must be represented in one quarter of Member States. The injustice of this situation is, however, exacerbated by the Bureau being granted the authority, both general and exclusive, to manage subsidies, which is totally at variance with the principle of transparency. I deplore this, firstly because it is far from certain that it complies with the letter and the spirit of the aforementioned Regulation and also because it will inevitably convey to the general public the impression of a carve-up, rather than democratic progress.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, first of all I would like to welcome the proposal. It is perhaps long overdue, but certainly welcome. I also take this opportunity to congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent report on this very important subject. Sheep production is important especially in hill areas, not only because of the environment there and the role it plays in keeping the social fabric of society together, but because it has proven through the centuries to be one of the most important aspects of production in the agricultural sector. In the United Kingdom because of foot-and-mouth, sheep farmers have suffered greatly. I recognise that in Northern Ireland we have had a distinct advantage over our colleagues in the mainland UK, including the prices we have been receiving recently. Our producers have been very lucky. Over recent years, farmers have been getting less for their sheep than they were 15 years ago and they are receiving less support. Is it any wonder that young farmers and sheep farmers are actually leaving the industry? We have to ask ourselves how best we can support them. I want to make it very clear: I will support the EUR 30 in the amendment in the vote in this House this afternoon. I hope all of you will be here to vote in favour of this amendment because we must give the political leadership this requires. For far too long, the sheep sector has been the poor relation. It has been the poor relation with respect to the milk, beef, tobacco and wine sectors. It has been the poor relation because it has been deemed to lack a strong voice in Europe. I would like to congratulate the Commission in coming forward with this proposal because it will be fairer than the present system. Yes, there will be some budgetary problems but we can get over them. I ask this House for its support.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Laeken Declaration on the future of the European Union is a positive step towards a European Union that is more citizen-oriented and more transparent. A good declaration, however, must not remain mere empty words. For example, the conclusion of the Lisbon Council that the European Union should be made the world’s most competitive area has to an extent met with a surprising degree of reluctance on the part of Member States to do anything about it. It is essential from the point of view of the Union’s credibility that words and deeds go hand in hand. The Union and its institutions have – with good reason – been criticised for being too distant from the people. In order to promote a more citizen-oriented approach, any preparatory work for revision of the Treaties in the future must be carried out in a more transparent manner. The European Council must observe the same principles of democracy, efficiency and consistency that we also expect of the other EU institutions. The expected – and positive – decision of the European Council at Laeken, was to set up a Convention. So, in this respect, I disagree with my good friend, Charles Tannock. The problem, however, lies in the fact that three distinguished European statesmen, each with a long life’s work behind them, have now been appointed to lead the Convention. No women were even shortlisted for the presidency. Experience is obviously invaluable, but in order to guarantee a citizen-oriented approach we ought now to be thinking about the sort of age and gender distribution there should be among the Convention’s other members so that the EU can really be brought closer to its citizens and in particular the shapers of the future, that is to say, the young. At Laeken the question of the location of the urgently needed food agency to be set up in the new year was discussed. In view of the diseases among animals that have recently occurred in practically all Member States, Europeans have the right to expect Heads of State to do their utmost to ensure there is complete safety with regard to food. The way the matter was dealt with by the Council, however, was more reminiscent of a farce, which, according to the German newspaper Die Welt, put even all the soap operas in the shade. It is quite indefensible that populist objectives should be able to hamper decision-making in a matter that is crucial to the health and well-being of our citizens.

Political group: PPE-DE
The British Conservative delegation voted against the Brok report on ESDP for the following reasons. It regards ESDP as a fundamentally flawed concept, driven by the divisive and mistaken desire to provide the European Union with an autonomous military capability as an aspect of its political ambition to create a European state. NATO should be the military security organisation of first resort not only for collective defence, but also for the full range of military crisis response operations. Only in this way is the transatlantic security link properly guaranteed. Adequate arrangements for the development of a European Security and Defence identity within NATO were agreed at Washington in 1999 and subsequently. These enable all European allies to make a coherent and effective contribution to the Alliance and to act by themselves as agreed and required. ESDP is a serious deviation from this concept. Furthermore, there is no indication of any serious resolve on the part of EU Member States to increase defence expenditure or enhance their military capabilities in any significant manner. We do not consider that meeting the requirements of the ERRF should be the 'absolute priority' for defence procurement. Instead, the priority should be to maximise the operational effectiveness of our own armed forces in the context of the full range of threats we now confront. Defence procurement and defence budgets are essentially matters of national concern and should not become a Community responsibility. The development of European defence industries should not be motivated by the desire 'to compete with US industry' but by the need to provide our armed forces with the best possible equipment and to meet national security and industrial requirements. This may involve partnerships with the US, as well as European and other companies. - Defense – related industries

Political group: PPE-DE
Allow me first of all to say that the SEK 20 billion that Mr Sjöstedt talks about could instead be used to reduce the Swedish national debt and in that way, of course, contribute to a stronger Swedish economy. Moving on now to my follow-up question to the Commissioner: is it not shown by experience and by numerous scientific studies that an independent Central Bank and a common currency make a major contribution to strengthening the economy and, in that way, increase people’s real wages and purchasing power; or, in other words, broaden the scope for the reform mentioned by Mr Sjöstedt in his question?

Political group: ELDR
I would like to congratulate you, Commissioner, on your decision to keep the Directorate-General for Fisheries. For my part, I retained my question in order to have the opportunity to hear in this plenary sitting, the ratification of your commitment to the Committee on Fisheries. I hope, as I am sure you do, that this decision will prove useful to the development of an economic and social sector which is fundamental for the people of Europe who make a living from fishing, and for European citizens’ food in general.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, we have been in a position to discuss Mrs Paulsen's report since last week. The Council has not given us any indication that it still thinks there is any room for manoeuvre. I therefore see no reason for postponing the vote today. We are well prepared and we also want to vote today.

Political group: PSE
I did of course vote in favour of the resolutions on the storms and the oil slick and I should like to express my heartfelt sympathy for the people stricken by these disasters. I am thinking in particular, with great warmth, of the inhabitants of my own region, Champagne-Ardennes, who suffered greatly from these storms in December. I deplore the further consequences which this oil slick may have for the communities on the Atlantic coast. Indeed I am concerned about what chance the marinas and local communities still have of obtaining the Blue Flag 2000. For twenty years the European Blue Flag has been testimony to the considerable efforts made by municipalities to promote economic development that respects the environment. Around fifty municipalities in the five French departments affected by the oil slick are involved in Blue Flag 2000 schemes. I am also concerned at the rumours regarding a request to postpone awarding blue flags to French beaches on the Atlantic coast. What then of the loss of reputation suffered by these beaches and the injustice, when some municipalities would no longer have the flag but others would? Should there be a decision to award the blue flag to a few municipalities in order to enhance the reputation of the whole coast as a tourist area, or not award it to any of them to ensure fair treatment all round? I call upon Member States and the European Union to relieve the problems arising as a result of these disasters by means of long-term financial aid, certainly, but also by means of ‘moral support’ (these resolutions play their part in this) for the people so seriously affected by the polluted beaches, the uprooted trees, the flattened and indeed devastated forests. What is important is the time factor, for we are not talking short term here, like the multinationals, but rather in terms of centuries for the reforestation of France. That should give us a lesson in humility. - Joint resolution on the Middle East peace process

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, there is no hierarchy of discrimination. I welcome this directive as the first-ever EU law introducing Europe-wide rights for our 37 million disabled citizens, an end to the back-door route to legislate for disability rights and a tribute to the disability movement which has campaigned for this day. In particular the agreement of the principle of reasonable accommodation, pioneered in Sweden and Ireland, will now ensure that employers across Europe adapt their workplaces, acquire specialist equipment and amend their working practices so that disabled employees really do get a fair chance. It might simply mean lowering a light switch by a metre but, for the wheelchair user it makes the difference between a job or no job. I thank Mr Mann for his support on this point. I also thank my colleague, Mr Cashman, for accepting my amendments on the action programme which will guarantee European money to cover the extra cost of disability, to promise information accessible to all, and to ensure that disabled people can speak for themselves. Two more messages. Firstly, to all MEPs, remember that we achieved a strong directive combating race discrimination, for which I was proud to act as co-rapporteur, with action against incitement, for the right to go to court, to empower NGOs, to shift the burden of proof. Do not meddle with these hard-won gains. Secondly, to the Commissioner, I know you will not today be able to accept my Amendment No 56 on procurement, but in your reply I ask you to promise this House that you will bring forward new legislation to link the power of the public purse to companies' compliance with these laws. Please also tell us that it was a mistake for the Commission to propose core funding for only one European NGO representing each discriminated group. This legislation is about valuing diversity. Do not ignore your own words by denying deaf people, people with learning difficulties, and self-managed organisations of disabled people the possibility even to sit at the table. IN THE CHAIR: MR PROVANVice-President

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I listened carefully to the two Commissioners emphasise the positive role played by the European Union during the negotiations at the Johannesburg Summit. I think that it is true that the European Union played a positive role. I would like to draw everyone’s attention to the fact that if we really want to make progress at this type of summit, we must be credible to the partners who take part in negotiations and discussions. In this case, however, our credibility is marred by the fact that the European Union, in a whole string of policies, is doing the opposite of what it claims to want to do. If we take the case of the common agricultural policy, the current debate on Mr Fischler’s proposals shows that the majority of the Member States are reluctant to change, are reluctant to abandon the privileges that we acquired in the area of export subsidies. We absolutely must make an effort in this area to withdraw export subsidies and to gain this credibility in countries which are affected by these subsidies. If we do not do this, how can we ensure that, at summits of this type, these people listen to us slightly more earnestly than they do at the moment? They are not listening to us, because we are not credible. I am thinking of the agricultural policy, of the fisheries policy, which we are proposing to reform as well. The future will tell us that if we are not capable of revising these policies, in the appropriate fashion, we will not succeed in gaining more influence at forthcoming summits, because the Johannesburg Summit is not the only one, there will be many others. It is absolutely essential that we put our own house in order before we tell others what to do. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the compatibility of ecology and economics has been much talked about for many years. The problem is that while there is in theory no internal contradiction between economic growth and preserving the environment, up until now economic growth has in practice normally been detrimental to the quality of the environment. However, on the other hand, economic decline combined with rising unemployment and poverty have also always resulted in a loss of environmental quality. So it is a very complex subject and one particularly difficult to grasp because we still have no universal indicators for putting a monetary value on environmental assets. We need yardsticks that are valid for all the EU and we can conceive of them only for the EU. The Commission must put its communication on a statistically secure footing if we are not to continue building castles in the air. Even assuming that we have such a secure footing, the question remains as to what conclusions should be drawn. Many things have been considered. Subsidies, tradable emission rights or the so-called eco-taxes, that is environment-related taxes or levies. Models for these exist. It is important, however, that such models should be introduced in all EU Member States in the same way and at the same time, so as to offer fair opportunities to all involved. Only fair competition will ensure that environmental measures, of whatever kind, find acceptance. Subsidies must be examined for their effectiveness and changed or replaced by other measures if necessary. Trade in environmental assets must be fair. Environmental taxes and levies are worthwhile and effective only if related to emissions and imposed in such a way as to be neutral in their effect on the amount of tax paid by the citizen. In no case must such taxes and levies be misappropriated and spent on other areas than the environment. That is the only way we shall actually meet the justified demands of our citizens and of people outside the EU for a healthy environment.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we are debating today the problem of access for women to science and research. Neither the Commission text nor the report achieve that objective. First of all, they fail to link this issue to the more general women’s issue. They do not present quantitative data which give a clear picture of the situation over and beyond a few statistics on the ratio between the sexes at university. However, there is a huge gap between university and a career in research. The biggest problem in the texts is that they do not go into the problem in depth or indicate the causes of it. In fact, the non-specific reference to the existence of complex structural barriers or to the fact that the prevailing culture of research is generally male cannot be considered as a serious interpretation of the situation. The inability to make full use of productive resources, especially human resources, and the lack of equal opportunity are basic features of the capitalist system. This has significant repercussions, especially on the more sensitive social strata, such as young people and women. It is not by chance that the situation and social position of women was far better in the former Socialist states than it is in the West. The society in which we live has created a framework which is hostile towards women. For example, the policy of constantly reducing social benefits and dismantling national insurance systems has resulted in increased pressure on women to take on their traditional role. This applies all the more so to women scientists. For certain, the problem will not be solved by so-called flexibility or by part-time employment, since research calls for dedication and consistent work. No one will have any objection to numerous proposals in the resolution, such as more detailed statistics, a database of female experts etc. However, these measures will not solve the problem. More importantly, the problem will not be solved with quotas. A different policy is needed, a policy which respects people in general and women in particular, the driving force behind which is not profit for a few and the objective of which is not exploitation of the masses. Of course, we do not expect the European Union to pursue such a policy, but we do expect the people of the European Union to impose it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as you know, the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party has voted basically in favour of the Gil-Robles/Tsatsos report and the proposed European Constitution offered by the European Convention. As I stated in the debate, however, the Catalan Members of Convergencia i Unió cannot accept this position and we have stated that we will abstain. Having seen how the votes have unfolded, furthermore, we confirm with even more conviction our decision to abstain and to wait to establish our final position until the result of the draft European Constitution, which may be presented by the Intergovernmental Conference. We regret in particular that the Group of the European Peoples’ Party and the Group of the have voted against our proposals to recognise and associate the regions with full legislative powers with the institutions of the Union, and also that the idea that the Ombudsmen of the parliaments of these regions with full legislative powers should be associated with the work of the European Ombudsman has been rejected. I believe this is a mistake, since it leaves millions of citizens far from the reality which is closest to them. This is the case for, amongst others, the stateless nations and the regions with a strong personality and sense of identity, and I believe it goes entirely against our stated aim of being closer to the citizens and building a Europe of the peoples.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I voted for the Karamanou report, whose objective is also of major importance: the creation of a European Police Office. However, a question mark has formed in my mind because, the other day, a pensioner, Mrs Lucia Boroni, said to me: ‘I was walking down the road when someone ran off with my handbag. Then I saw a policeman nearby with a badge saying 'European Policeman' on his jacket, and I asked him: “Why aren't you chasing that thief who has stolen my handbag?” And the policeman replied: 'Because of the principle of not interfering in national responsibilities, the principle of subsidiarity. That thief was Italian: an Italian policeman should have been chasing him. I am the future European policeman'.’ I hope that this question mark remains nothing more than a question mark! We shall see ...

Political group: PPE-DE