GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Yesterday evening after the votes in the Chamber, a comment was made which I would like to distance myself from and not to be associated with. There was no mistake in the interpretation and Members of this House did refer to the Technical Group as the Technical Group of Racists. This was an unfair comment. No one could, by the wildest stretch of the imagination, consider someone like Emma Bonino a racist. People need to be extremely careful how they treat other people in this Chamber. Some people may not like the fact that the Technical Group has been set up, but it has been. These Members were elected just like me and every other Member in this House and we have to accept that fact. People have rights and I do not think that the comment that was made yesterday was acceptable.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The role of foreign forces is particularly evident in the military conflicts which are tearing the Côte d'Ivoire apart, with tens of thousands of innocent victims. At the same time, the European Union has turned this country into an experimental laboratory to test its ‘crisis management’ policy which, in essence, is a policy of imposing its imperialist intentions. The European Union has no business in Côte d'Ivoire. The French troops should withdraw immediately and the problem should be dealt with within the framework of the UN and the African Union. We MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece voted against the resolution, not only because it fails to name the guilty parties, but also because it welcomes the interventionist role of the EU. These positions turn any positive elements which the resolution contains into nothing more than a wish list.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Regarding Amendments Nos 22-28, which are the subjects of a joint vote, we would state the following. We regard the problem of child pornography with the utmost seriousness, whether it be on the Internet or in other media, and we obviously share the view that both the Member States and the Applicant States should do everything in their power to combat child pornography. In the same way, it is important that joint, effective measures should be taken and that the European Parliament should be kept informed of how this work is progressing. For the same reasons that we have a negative attitude to the proposals to establish special registers of convicted sex offenders (Amendments Nos 21, 30 and 32), we do not consider Amendment No 24 to be politically desirable. Even if it were technically possible, registering the identities of everyone allocated e-mail addresses would constitute too far-reaching a curtailment of personal privacy, as well as risk discouraging such lawful use of the Internet as is much to be desired.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, in the proposal for a Regulation on trans-European communications networks it is noted, as in the case of other networks, that there has been no progress in the implementation of the projects of Community interest as a result of the lack of funding, either private or by the Member States concerned. In this regard, forgive me if I leave behind telecommunications and comment on the planned South-East European high speed railway, where it is surprising that the Vitoria-Irún-Dax Atlantic branch, with a link to Bilbao, has been removed from the Commission’s final report, according to the requirements of the European Council, despite the fact that the Basque Government has made a financial commitment to this line and has been prepared to build it since February 2001. Furthermore, this project can be in operation from the outset linking the French and Spanish States, via Irún, since there is already an international European gauge track throughout the French network as far as that point. For these reasons, the fact that this Vitoria-Dax branch is not included is not comprehensible either strategically or politically and I would call publicly on both the Council of Transport Ministers and on the Spanish Commissioner, Mrs Loyola de Palacio, for it to be reinstated.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, here we are again, voting for third time on the proposal for an amendment to the directive on the data protection in the telecommunications sector and discussing opting in and opting out. Unlike the rapporteur, I am still firmly in favour of the citizens having the right to choose initially whether or not their data should be inserted in public directories and whether or not they wish to receive unsolicited communications. I am pleased to note that this is the position of both the Commission and the Council, which have also proved willing to achieve compromise solutions that go some way towards meeting some of the more reasonable demands of telecommunications undertakings. That is why Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi and I have supported new compromise amendments. If these amendments are adopted, we will, at last, after tomorrow’s vote, have a new major directive which will help to develop the electronic market while safeguarding the citizens’ fundamental rights. To this end, we also had to find a solution which was acceptable to the Council to the issue of retaining data for the purposes of protecting national security. In my country, Italy, these data are kept for five years. Article 14 of the present directive already stipulates that the Member States can adopt legislative measures seeking to limit the confidentiality rights in respect of communications necessary for the safeguarding of national security. The solution laid down in compromise Amendment No 46 adds that, in accordance with the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, these measures must be appropriate and proportionate within a democratic society, that data retention is only admissible for a limited period, and that the legislation on the subject must comply with the principles contained in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union and therefore, in particular, with those enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and in the shared constitutional traditions of the Member States which are now – these traditions – included in the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights. Like all solutions which have to strike a balance between different interests, this one has to be assessed in the overall context. I feel that the solution is sensible and sustainable, for the European Parliament certainly does not have the power to make the Council prevent the Member States keeping traffic data for reasons of national security. We cannot prevent this; what we can do is provide a framework of guarantees and certainties safeguarding fundamental rights so that future legislation has to respect them.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, the service sector is far and away the most important sector in the European economy. The European Union is the biggest exporter of commercial services in the world, accounting for 26% of worldwide trade in services, as opposed to 22% in the United States and 7% in Japan. The trade in services in the European Union therefore accounts for more than two-thirds of our gross foreign product and jobs. So trade in services far exceeds trade in goods. Further liberalisation also benefits developing countries, because trade in services promotes the infrastructure, such as telecommunications, and also the financial infrastructure for the trade in goods. Thus GATS also contributes to the Doha round. In my view we must therefore stand four-square behind liberalisation and in particular avoid focusing too much on the exceptions that some of the Member States want to implement. The most important sectors are the transport, tourism, financial and telecommunications service sectors. Audio-visual services form a relatively small part of the offer. It is therefore ridiculous that Member States who do not want this are denying this Parliament any say because they are afraid of changes to the audio-visual sector. I therefore support my colleague Mr Nicholas Clegg’s plea for change during the Convention.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, in Africa small elites often deem the struggle for power and wealth more important than the suffering of the population. At first, that did not apply to Guinea. Despite the poverty, it offered a safe refuge for refugees from Sierra Leone and Liberia. Now Guinea, too, is caught up in a regional struggle for power. There is nowhere else for the refugees to go. Thousands are hiding in the jungle or are wandering fearfully in the heat without food, water or hope. If a corridor is not quickly created, an unparalleled humanitarian disaster threatens. There is a great deal at stake. The whole region seems to be heading for chaos. The purchase of weapons is more important than feeding people. Above all, Charles Taylor must take Liberia in hand. It is harrowing to see how indulgently Europe, too, is reacting to this catastrophe. What is the European Union doing, I ask the Commissioner, and when will the petty tyrants in power finally concern themselves with the lot of their people?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Mrs Lynne stated in her amendment that there are currently 22 cases before the courts in Indonesia and in Timor. I spent one and a half days checking her figures against mine, and they are incorrect. As there are 19 cases in Timor and 24 in Aceh, I have to ask the House to reject that amendment. Mrs Lynne’s figures are incorrect. (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0376/2000) by Mrs Theato, on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control, on the Commission communication “Protection of the Communities' financial interests – The fight against fraud – For an overall strategic approach” [COM(2000) 358 – C5-0578/2000 – 2000/2279(COS)] Amendment No 2:

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, both my Group and I appreciate that when we are seeking parliamentary time it is advisable to be brief. That being so, we recognise the Conference of Presidents' decision last week to refuse to have a separate debate. We would therefore like to propose that this oral question be attached to the overall debate on the legislative and work programme for 2004, because over the weekend we heard that President Prodi will be raising the question of OLAF during that debate and we have a number of questions we would like to ask in that context, which are included in the substance of this oral question. That is a reasonable way for the House to proceed. It is what happens in normal practice. We will not be asking for a separate debate, but we have questions we wish to raise when Mr Prodi is with us on Tuesday.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, our group, the Confederal Group of the supports the two proposals presented without question, both for the People’s Republic of China and for the customs territory of Taipei, and agrees with all the arguments and pertinent issues put forward by Mr Gahrton, who has a profound knowledge of this issue. For this reason, we think it is of fundamental importance that the European Union should take an extremely responsible attitude when facing this momentous challenge for the world. The People’s Republic of China’s accession to the World Trade Organisation will have repercussions in China itself, as we have already seen. They have now had many years to prepare for and take control of the possible consequences. There will also be significant repercussions for the European Union: I am aware, for example, of what could happen to us with regard to agriculture. There will also be repercussions for the functioning of the World Trade Organisation, which is going to be completely restructured, although it must be said that this is already a matter of some urgency. For this reason, although we are aware of the whole range of problems, dangers and possibilities that this accession brings, our group supports these two proposals without reservation.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, every year 100 people die in my West Midlands constituency of asbestos-related diseases. Every year 4,500 people die in the UK from these diseases according to the trade unions, and studies predict, as Mrs Thorning-Schmidt said, that in excess of between 250,000 and 500,000 will die cross Western Europe in the next 35 years. The evidence is there. The facts are clear, based on scientific studies. Exposure to asbestos can maim and kill and asbestos workers have to be protected. Manufacturing of asbestos has been banned in almost all Member States, but there are still millions of tonnes of asbestos left in Europe's buildings, industrial plants, railway carriages that were built in the 1950s and the 1960s, etc. I agree with the report that the presence of asbestos has to be presumed in a building if it has not been proved otherwise. Workers will continue to be exposed for many years because of demolition, removal, refurbishment and maintenance still having to take place. That is why I sought further tightening of exposure levels in committee by proposing an amendment, which was accepted by committee, which would effectively halve the exposure allowed. Instead of the eight-hour exposure limit, it was opting for a four-hour exposure limit. It would also reflect the current working patterns within an industry because shifts are a lot less than they are in other sections of the industry. An eight-hour reference period will allow higher levels of exposure over a shorter period like one to two hours, which to my mind is unacceptable. I would like to see this limit for all workers who are exposed to asbestos, with the exception of people working in asbestos cement. I genuinely believe that is a separate case. It is important we do not have different exposure limits, however, depending on the type of work, as Amendment No 21 has, but this will be dealt with in conciliation. I urge you to vote for Amendment No 21 and for the last six words of Amendment No 42. My understanding is that if Amendment No 21 is accepted then we can vote for the last sentence of Amendment No 42 which deals with asbestos cement, but we need clarification on that from the President. I urge you to vote for this excellent report. It is one example of an EU directive where there is compelling scientific and medical evidence that it is needed to save lives across the European Union.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I should like to say right away that the vote taking place in this House today is without precedent. It is a rather exceptional vote because not only is the competence of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market and of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy at stake, it is, first and foremost, a question of consistency with the Rules of Procedure – as you indicated a moment ago – and with for the commitments we gave in the debate. There has been a clear pronouncement on the conflict – as you have reminded us – from the Conference of Presidents in favour of the Committee on Legal Affairs, for it is the Conference of Presidents that has to decide on conflicts of competence, as we established with the amendment to Rule 154. Mr Corbett himself made this proposal to the House and the House acknowledged it. Indeed, the Conference of Presidents has the tools to conduct an in-depth analysis, in other words to assess matters case by case, and to take a decision. By voting for the proposal, as I am asking, this House will, above all, be giving the Conference of Presidents the go-ahead to confirm the validity of the Rules of Procedure. There are many factors that point towards giving competence to the Committee on Legal Affairs, and I should like to point out two of them. The Committee on Legal Affairs has been working on the subject since March 2000, when it was given the competence – kindly note – to deal with the Green Paper on legal liability in environmental matters, the consultation document that preceded the proposal for a directive that is the subject of the conflict. Today’s rapporteur on the proposal for a directive is the same person who dealt with the Green Paper, the extremely capable Mr Manders, who, over these years, has acquired a thorough knowledge of the subject. In addition, in accordance with the competence attributed to it, the Committee on Legal Affairs has already discussed the issue and, on 21 May, held a very important hearing. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the traditional competence of the Committee on Legal Affairs in matters of environmental liability is derived precisely from Annex VI to our Rules of Procedure, which makes this Committee responsible for matters of civil liability, regardless of the sector in question. This is a proposal for a directive which clearly places civil liability on the polluter’s shoulders, and it is on the basis of these problems, these issues, that I now ask Parliament to vote for the motion and confirm the decision that the Bureau has made. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
The 2005 APS (Annual Policy Strategy) forms part of the framework proposal for the 2007-2013 financial perspective and is the result of the project known as the ‘European Constitution’. This takes neo-liberal, federal and military development yet another step further. The main axes place competitiveness ahead of cohesion, security ahead of citizenship and ‘foreign responsibilities’ – both civil and military – ahead of cooperation. This at a time when the financial context is increasingly restrictive, when new reductions are envisaged in the size of the budget and when a policy of spending cuts and redistribution is pursued in order to fund these priorities. The first axis – the economic one – obliges us to comply with the objectives of the ‘Lisbon Strategy’, specifically with the (liberalisation of) services Directive, which proposes to use the financial services markets as a template for the ‘defence market’ and to create a ‘research’ space aimed at commercialising scientific and technical progress. The second axis – security – suggests that we should put in place border management and create a police force, in order to control migratory flows, in line with the interests of employers, and in so doing strengthen the trend towards security in the name of combating terrorism. The third axis – external affairs – is concerned with ‘defence’ and places emphasis on creating a free trade area in Europe and the Mediterranean, thus turning the EU into a regional power. We oppose this project. A different Europe is possible and necessary.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr Harbour’s document – another directive on telecommunications, on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services – seeks amongst other things to obtain the greatest possible benefit for consumers. If, then, what I said in the previous explanation of vote is true, that consumers are for the most part the elderly and pensioners, that means that it should seek the greatest possible benefit for the elderly and pensioners. That is precisely what many pensioners asked me when once again they went with me to the airport on Sunday afternoon, when I was catching the plane to Strasbourg. They asked me to tell Parliament, with regard to these documents, that they would like there to be much more on television about their problems and their desires.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, following the result of the vote there are certain inconsistencies, but they are minor. We are at first reading, and if every time there are inconsistencies of this type we returned the report to committee, we would have to return a huge number of first readings. It is therefore completely wrong to return the report to committee. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Sacrédeus report as presented to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, was adopted unanimously without amendments. My group warmly welcomed this report, which would have put an end to the shameful lack of transparency with which grants had been awarded to various bodies in the world over many years. Meanwhile, however, in the context of the budgetary procedure for 2004, Parliament has once again pronounced itself in favour of earmarking funds for various bodies that are dear to some of the Members of this House. Personally, I deplore that pronouncement. This situation now compels us to accept amendments tabled by Mr Salafranca, which are entirely out of tune with the spirit of the original report by my honourable colleague Mr Sacrédeus. Nevertheless, we rely on the Council, in its wisdom, to take the right decision in order to ensure that the future budgets of the European Union are transparent. We need to guarantee fair competition among the regional bodies and to identify those that can best contribute to the propagation of knowledge about the European Union. IN THE CHAIR: MR PUERTAVice-President

Political group: PSE
My group agrees with this report for the following reasons: 1. In recent years, drivers have faced ever-increasing demands as part of their job. This makes it, in our view, a matter of urgency that all the Member States should put in place obligatory basic vocational training culminating in the award of a certificate of professional competence. 2. We expect that improved quality of training will result in a significant improvement in safety in road traffic. 3. This Directive, in conjunction with the Directives or guidelines on tachographs, the regulations on work time and the social security conditions applicable to drivers, represents another building block for the social protection of professional drivers. 4. The transport sector plays a major role in the context of EU enlargement. The more harmonised provisions have already been transposed into the acceding countries' legal systems, the fewer problems of adaptation there will be with regard to technical standardisation, social security standards, provisions on the protection of the environment and road safety regulations in the future. 5. We share the view that the subsidiarity principle means that, although there must be targets as regards what training must incorporate, the actual form and method of training must be left to the national authorities. There are of course regulations that we view in a critical light, such as, for example, the low number of total training hours stipulated and their division into teaching blocks. In the final analysis, the decisive factor for us is that, in future, the job will require not only a driving licence, but also specialised knowledge of the areas of service provision, health protection, safety and logistics.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, my warm thanks to Mr Costa Neves, Mr Wynn and all the members of Parliament's team in the conciliation negotiations. There was nothing else to be done. The Commission's amending letter being as modest as it was, one could hardly build up anything great on it. As we know how little room there is for change when it comes to compulsory expenditure in the agricultural sector, I think we have to give you credit for having fought and won a few points. I would like to single out one point, one, which makes very clear the dilemma as regards the agricultural budget. We all know that our hands are more or less tied when it comes to compulsory expenditure, that they are tied, too, when it comes to outlining compulsory expenditure and thus outlining the common agricultural policy. Where we could make headway – the second pillar, which is a no more substantial beanstalk than it was before, where we have more obligations than we can meet – we are unable to transfer funds from the compulsory expenditure. Our self-imposed captivity must at some point come to an end. Not for the first time, I claim for Parliament not only the unhindered right to set a Budget, but also I claim for it the full right of co-decision in the area of the common agricultural policy. If these rights are not granted to us, then this dilemma will remain unresolved. (Applause)

Political group: PSE