GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I greatly welcome the content of these two reports, and also wish to thank the Commission for its initiatives to combat these appalling crimes: the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. It is right that we should think not only about how to define child pornography and sexual exploitation but also to what extent and where we set the age limits. It is also right that we should discuss the maximum penalties. I support the proposals put forward in the report. However, I should like to draw your attention to a further point – and I am grateful that it has been included in the reports – namely the problem of minimum, rather than just maximum, penalties. A society's condemnation of a crime is reflected to a substantial extent in the minimum penalties it applies. Even today, in many cases of child pornography crimes, the inadequate minimum penalties available mean that a suspended sentence is imposed. However, child pornography is certainly not a crime where a suspended sentence is appropriate. I therefore call for this House, through its cooperation on defining adequate minimum sentences, to create conditions which ensure that society genuinely recognises that these crimes are the worst form of harm that can be inflicted on a child. Together, through these initiatives, we should lay the foundation stones for this awareness within the European Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to congratulate Mr Savary on his determined efforts and very successful report on this important but problematic subject. This report, together with those reports aimed at liberalising the railways that were adopted last week, is a breakthrough in the development of the European railways. The idea got under way during the Finnish Presidential term, and was continued with successfully by France. Improved competitiveness in the railways is vital to relieve road and air congestion. The development of rail transport is also a step towards more environmentally sustainable transport systems. Improved interoperability of the railway system is a necessary requirement for the whole rail package to succeed. There have been far too many long delays with regard to this matter, but now Mr Savary has managed to untie this difficult knot. There is still much to be done but now the work is off to a good start. Our group supports Mr Savary’s proposal to adopt the Council common position as it stands. It has taken account of Parliament’s important amendments and thus the proposal should be swiftly advanced. At the same time we must remember that the interoperability of the rail networks is a long-term project. For that reason, it is important that a timetable is put in place to carry out the work and that we determine just which networks should be given priority. I would further like to thank Mr Savary for also having understood the special needs of Finland. The compromise achieved regarding the use of Russian railway carriages and wagons between Finland and Russia will not put the aims of the report in jeopardy, but will ensure that transport on the Union’s eastern border will continue undisturbed. I believe that the importance this decision will have for the whole of the Union will be clearly evident when the time comes that north-western Russia’s massive wealth of natural resources starts to be exploited seriously.

Political group: ELDR
I welcome the recognition in Parliament that although the European Women's Lobby is recognised as a valuable lobby group on behalf of certain women's positions, there are other women's lobby groups that deserve and must receive support, both financially and politically, at a European level. No one in the European Parliament would support discrimination or violence against women; we must remember that to deny women a voice is a form of violence against them. The Budget Committee ruled again this year that this was a monopoly situation, regarding this fund under A-3037, which is unacceptable within the European Union, and the budget line should be opened up to other women’s groups. As things stand the EWL is, and remains, the sole recipient from this budget line for women’s groups. Other women’s organisations representing many thousands of European women are thus ineligible for funding and left unrepresented. Democracy and subsidiarity are not served by the EWL having a monopoly and control on all of the woman's budget line. In the interest of giving fair and equal expression to the voices of European women there must be an end to monopoly funding It is the duty of every elected representative to ensure that the voice of those who are voiceless is clearly heard. If the diverse voices of the women of Europe are to be heard, this monopoly funding situation must end. We must dedicate ourselves to upholding the European ideals of inclusiveness and democracy and resist the pressure of those groups that wish to maintain an anti-European monopolistic control.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I do not share Mrs Sommer’s view that the preconditions for the internalisation of external costs should not be created in technical terms in this report. If the Group does not accept this on principle, it should vote against it, but it should not use technical arguments as a pretext. (Heckling and applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Thank you, Commissioner. I should just like to correct your last finding: I do not foresee any deterioration in the situation and, may I say, nor do I wish for one. I am just a little concerned by what I see. You say that the programme will be updated at the end of the year. But Greece's entire economic policy is already being drawn up on the basis of the assumption that there will be a large budgetary surplus rather than equilibrium, as you said, and that unemployment will fall. At the same time, there are absolutely no data concerning Greece in all the statistics on the Union. You have no official data. At least those of us who read the statistics do not. If you have some other statistics, then maybe things are different. This was the thrust of my question. And my question does not refer just to Greece; it refers to all the countries of the European Union, which is why I should like you to tell me more about public finances and changes in unemployment. I think this updating exercise should already have begun.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, it is remarkable that the European Parliament has not yet adopted a position on the possible release of Mr Pinochet, despite the fact that international arrest warrants have already been issued. Since the Belgian Government’s appeal to a higher court was declared admissible last week and since the decision has essentially not yet been taken, it is important for Parliament to at last give out a strong message, a message which should signify that nobody can escape a just trial. It is inconceivable that the European Parliament, which quite rightly pays so much attention to respecting human rights, should fail to adopt a clear stance on this.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, congratulations are due to Mr van Velzen because he has done excellent work and produced a really good report. I was rapporteur for the first e-content report and I can see that Mr van Velzen has worked very hard to try to ensure we give Europe an advantage in e-content. As he stated earlier, the US has the world's most advanced digital economy and Europe, with its fragmented markets and smaller media and telecommunication companies, is trying to catch up in terms of quality of content and products. Rather than talk about what is in his report, which has been eloquently summarised both by the rapporteur and the Commission, I want to talk about the Council. I am extremely concerned about the sort of attitude and approach that the Council has adopted. It has stated time and again that it wants to achieve the Lisbon objectives, key among which is the opening-up of opportunities for Europe in the electronic age. However, when it comes to the Council putting its money where its mouth is, nothing at all happens. As the reporter said, the Council has treated Parliament with complete contempt. We have been haggling over figures – 20 million, 30 million, 50 million – because it is unwilling to provide sufficient resources to make this programme happen. In a Europe of 25 Member States, adequate resources will be needed if we are to gain a competitive edge over our major competitor, the US, in this area. Many high-skill jobs rely on us being able to get our content right and on having this programme and reaching SMEs and other providers. It is a great pity that owing to the Council's attitude we have been unable to finalise this initiative. It was key for this legislature to do that and have this programme up and running for 2005, and there was real will on Parliament's part to make this happen. It is to the detriment of the EU that it has not, and this has been because the Council has been unwilling to pay for it. What it is offering at the moment is peanuts in terms of a Union of 25. I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, who did his utmost to achieve closure, because some of us in other Groups wanted to stick to the original Commission proposal, which was for EUR 165 million. That is the amount needed if we are genuinely to deliver on this eContent proposal. This failure is not due to a lack of effort on the rapporteur's part. I hope that at second reading the Council will get the message that Parliament is not willing to support programmes that are simply piecemeal efforts.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, representatives of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, we now have to decide on the report by Mr Nisticò, an important report because, as has just been mentioned, it aims to prohibit the marketing of substances newly classified as carcinogens, mutagens or substances toxic to reproduction. It also constitutes – and I would emphasise this – the twenty-third amendment to the directive. We must of course welcome the European Union’s decision on this question, and also welcome the fact that it regularly comes up for discussion, as our knowledge of the subject grows. The examples quoted by Mr Lisi are a good illustration of the need to prohibit these hazardous substances. During the conciliation procedure, however, the Council was unwilling to approve the proposal to extend the subject matter of the text to include products, so as to avoid legislation which in its view would be too complex and which would run the risk of being impossible to apply. Admittedly the argument that these substances are present in 30 000 products and it would be difficult to carry out assessments of such a large number of products makes good sense. However, surely we could ask, here and now, that such assessments should be carried out on new products placed on the market which contain the substances in question? Moreover, the Commission has undertaken, following agreement between Parliament and the Council, to submit a legislative proposal aimed at prohibiting the use of products containing CMR substances when it is scientifically proven that exposing the public at large to such substances involves risks. It is desirable that this proposal, which is in line with what we want to happen, is put into practical terms as soon as possible. As for the method of working, I would remind the House that, whereas this report concerns the twenty-third amendment to the directive seeking to prohibit the marketing of CMR substances, the Committee on the Environment is already looking at the twenty-fifth amendment to that directive. Of course the twenty-fifth amendment is concerned with other substances and preparations, but would it not be better to coordinate the adoption of the various texts, particularly when they are concerned with products that are hazardous to human beings and to the environment? CMR substances, chemical products and pesticides should be examined from the same angle, namely that of safety and the risks that they represent to human beings and to the environment. There is also another question which we shall have to take increasingly into account from now on, and that is the question of risk and the burden of proof. A company which places a product on the market has to assure consumers that the product is not harmful. It is not the task of the consumers to demonstrate that the product is hazardous. A product should not have to be banned after it has been placed on the market because the product has actually shown itself to be harmful: it should be banned before it is even placed on the market.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as an Italian and a Member of the European Parliament I feel embarrassed and worried but at the same time proud that my country, Italy, is today taking on the leadership of the European Union. I feel embarrassed at all the criticism, censure, sarcasm and derision levelled at my country for what has, I regret to say, quite rightly been called the Italian anomaly, or the serious conflict of interests that involves our Prime Minister. I also feel humiliated, because I recognise indeed that, whenever our Prime Minister expresses an idea, illustrates a proposal or presents a measure on the economy, finance, information or especially justice, we never know whether in doing so he is thinking of our interests or his own and those of his friends. Or rather, we in Italy know only too well, unfortunately, given what he has done up to now. I am worried because I do not want the conflict of interests virus that is humiliating Italian democracy to spread to a European level, because this is the real cancer for democracy, Mr Berlusconi, not the work of the judges, as you foolishly stated the other day. I am, however, also proud – yes, proud – because, thank God, Italy’s institutions are not just made up of the Prime Minister and the friends he has brought in with him, especially in the Italian Parliament. That is why I am sure that Italy’s leadership of the European Union will, as a whole, with the involvement and collaboration of all the institutions, including the oppositions, rise to the occasion despite the Italian anomaly, which I am glad to say is transient.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I am not taking the floor in my capacity as former Mayor of Bologna, or as an MEP elected in Bologna. I have, of course, already expressed my solidarity with those who were directly affected by these acts of violence, but I do, however, agree with those who say that we must not give too much publicity to those who want to weaken the democratic institutions though violent acts and intimidation. In taking the floor, I am doing so to ask you, Mr President, and all my fellow Members to support an idea that was put forward by the former Norwegian Prime Minister a few days ago: the idea of awarding the Nobel Peace Price to the European Union. Just as Mr Poettering mentioned a short time ago, this is the greatest and most extraordinary labour of peace that has ever been achieved. I believe that the European Union – I am not saying the European Parliament, the Council or the Commission, but the Union itself – would be entirely justified in calling for and supporting the Nobel Peace Price being awarded to the Union. I hope that all Members, starting with you, Mr President, will support this idea. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
No, Mr President, I am not, on the other hand, a supporter of the ‘Youth’ programme. I voted for the motion because I would never want it to be said that a representative of the Pensioners’ Party, of the elderly, that is, is against young people. I am for young people: if we were not young once, we would never have been able to grow old. However, I am opposed to one point of this report, or rather, to what I learned on reading page 13 thereof, namely that the young people of the candidate countries have had difficulties in obtaining visas from some of the Member States of the European Union. Oh no – that is not acceptable. It is imperative that we do something and I am sure that Commissioner Reding, who is listening to me even though she is not here – I am sure she is in her office watching the monitor and will hear why I voted for the motion – will investigate the matter and ensure that, in future, no young person from the candidate countries who applies to enter our European Union will be refused a visa for this purpose or have its issue delayed.

Political group: PPE-DE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. – Mr President, when Pandora opened her box all the ills of mankind were released. Sometimes, in health terms, that is how it must have felt when the borders opened after the Iron Curtain was ripped apart. We had a two-way traffic of bad habits, many of them linked to health. Bad habits of course move fast and good practice moves more slowly afterwards. Many of those bad habits were linked to health – infectious diseases, some drug-resistant and some we thought we had seen the last of. And there was drug abuse, the horrors of Aids and syphilis and the problems of tobacco and alcoholism. That would happen with or without enlargement. You cannot erect some new curtain, some cordon sanitaire, to protect west from east and east from west. Enlargement or no, it is in our mutual and collective interest that such problems are dealt with. It is my belief that enlargement can help that process. Since the 1950s in Europe we have introduced standards on health and safety and over the years we have extended competences and standards from public health to health promotion, tobacco to blood safety, rights from mobility of doctors and patients to human rights and laws such as those for mental health. Pharmaceutical companies have been regulated, medicines for people and animals licensed, and a range of measures taken in research, dissemination of good practice, education and training. We are building a compendium of directives and regulations on matters wholly germane to health, such as pollution, emissions of radioactive and other dangerous substances, waste disposal, water, air, soil quality, food safety and novel foods and product liability. Now we are moving to a requirement for health impact assessments for all major legislation. It is a long list and one that is often more honoured in the breach than in the observance by Member States. There is a message for EU governments and indeed for the Commission: for governments on compliance and the Commission on enforcement. More importantly there is a message for all of us who are interested in enlargement: we need to use all the channels available to us to support progress among the accession countries. That is why my report devotes a lot of its recommendations to the need to encourage the Phare programme to do more in the health field and to bring the countries into partnership now in the health action programmes and other areas. This includes bringing the European Investment Bank into the partnership.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this morning in the Irish press there was a very interesting report by the European Research Institute in Ispra. In the light of concerns expressed in the past about air quality within the institutions, I propose to email to colleagues this article which once and for all scotches any feeling that smoking within an enclosed area is anything but harmful. The research is quite alarming and I hope that colleagues who like to smoke will respect the health of everybody else by refraining from doing so within Parliament, except in the very limited areas where smoking is permitted. The report, which is considered to be one of the best ever on air quality, raises very many serious concerns which I have proposed, as Quaestor, to bring to the attention of the services in the building.

Political group: PPE-DE
The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice is of significance for the EU’s future. The particular resolution with which the European Parliament is dealing contains important standpoints which Finland, as the country currently holding the EU Presidency, together with the European Council, ought to consider in advance of the summit. In the main, I support the motion for a resolution, but with a number of important exceptions. I think that comprehensive co-operation at European level in the fight against crime is important. I do not, however, support the idea of a federal Europe and do not therefore want to contribute to changes in the direction of qualified majority voting within significant areas. I think that co-operation in the fields of police work and criminal law ought, in the future too, to be between Member States. Paragraph 3 is too general and far-reaching. I am therefore voting “no” to this paragraph. The same applies to paragraph 19 which is about giving Europol the ability to act in various ways at operational level. Paragraph 6 deals with qualified majority voting but is too unclear, especially paragraph 6 c, for me to be able to support it. Certain parts of paragraph 21 are too far-reaching, especially 21(b) and 21(d).

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to point out that competition is an important area of policy, but that it is not part of the Built-In Agenda. I therefore still urge Members not to vote for this amendment.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mrs McCarthy, ladies and gentlemen, I am very pleased that the URBAN Community Initiative is being continued as this aims to support the social and economic conversion of cities and neighbourhoods in crisis, all with a view to achieving sustainable urban development. With some 80% of the population of Europe living in an urban area, cities are at the forefront of economic, social and cultural change in Europe. At the same time, the social and economic problems facing European society are more pronounced in urban areas. Many European cities are divided into neighbourhoods characterised by high-added-value activities and high-income residents and other districts characterised by low incomes, high unemployment, substandard and overcrowded housing and high levels of welfare dependency. The concentration of economic and social problems in certain urban areas calls for targeted intervention taking full account of the complexity of the problems involved. This is why the European Parliament successfully called for the URBAN Community Initiative or CIP to be extended during the reform of the Structural Funds. The success of URBAN during the 1994-1999 programming period is indisputable. The results are clear in terms of the improvement of the quality of life in the target areas. This CIP has encouraged the development of best practice models in the economic, social and environmental sectors. It has also had the distinction of strengthening the role of local authorities, the non-governmental sector and local communities and of supporting new partnership approaches to urban regeneration. The new initiative will continue to pursue these goals by reinforcing them, while particularly promoting equal opportunities between men and women and integrating socially marginalised and disadvantaged groups. We can therefore welcome its adoption. We must, however, admit that in financial terms we cannot proclaim a victory! The total appropriation allocated is not up to the challenge. The amount for the 1994-1999 period was EUR 900 million and will be EUR 700 million for the 2000-2006 period. This represents a drop of 30%! This reduction in funding has led to a reduction in the number of programmes in the new URBAN initiative. The chosen threshold of 50 projects seems too low. It needs to be increased to reflect regional and local factors whilst maintaining financial awards to the Member States. In view of this concentration on a limited number of projects, the publication and dissemination of the results of the new URBAN Community Initiative will perhaps be particularly important to achieve a multiplier effect.

Political group: PSE