GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would simply like to inform you that last week I tried to visit the prison at Villeneuve-les-Maguelone, where farmers’ leader José Bové is serving his sentence. I tried to assert a right which is recognised as belonging to any member of the French Parliament, namely that of meeting the prisoner of his choice. After almost two hours of beating about the bush in telephone conversations with the French Ministry of Justice, I was informed – amazingly as it may seem – that a Member of Parliament elected in France by universal suffrage is not a member of the French Parliament. In other words, because I am a Member of the European Parliament, I did not have a right that is enjoyed by all my counterparts in the French Parliament. I should be very grateful if you would take this up with the French authorities so that in future the work of an MEP is no longer beset by obstacles of this kind. Perhaps, more generally, our institution could study the limits that can be imposed on our working capacity with regard to the rights and protocols enjoyed by our counterparts in the national parliaments. I am sure that, if the Secretary-General could submit a report to the Parliament’s Bureau, suggesting action that could be taken to approach the national authorities, this House would enjoy more respect as a result.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the report goes a long way to meeting our wishes, although there are a few points in respect of which we have tabled an amendment. Given the sensitive and emotional nature of the topic, the sets great store by a realistic account of the facts, for example by reporting the very diverse expert opinions on the subject of radiation limit values. Secondly, we believe it would be misleading to suggest that the nuclear industry act in a self-regulating capacity, especially when it comes to safety. The nuclear industry, too, is subject to internationally binding safety rules on the basis of which consistent standards have been established with which all actors must comply. Thirdly, recital e) is right to draw a distinction between, on the one hand, radioactive material which consists of isotopes for medical, industrial and research purposes – which makes up the lion’s share of such movements – and, on the other hand, radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuels intended for re-use. That is the most hazardous form of radioactive material, but, relatively speaking, it only makes up a very small proportion of the total. The distinction between specific nuclear material and radioactive material in more general terms, however, is not clarified elsewhere in the text. If the Commission were to look into all transport movements of radioactive material, this would duplicate the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is soon to embark upon a similar enquiry. It would be useful if the Commission were to focus on the transport of nuclear material in the European Union, however. Fourthly, my group opposes the fact that the wider topic of the duty of consultation, with regard to the transport of all dangerous substances, is addressed in this report. This is not what the report is about. The liberals do believe, however, that the local authorities must be consulted on the transport of radioactive materials. The emphasis should then, however, be on compulsory prior notice of the transport of nuclear material. Finally, we welcome the IAAE’s decision to evaluate its transport rules every two years and adapt them, if necessary. We would like to emphasise that, in the interests of a consistently high safety level, the rules will have to be implemented by all Member States at the beginning of next year.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, even as we try at second reading to tweak the common position on copyright here and there, we should not lose sight of the fact that, whatever the outcome of tomorrow's vote or of the impending conciliation procedure, we have achieved both very little and a great deal. Very little because the level of harmonisation of copyright in the European Union will not be very high, much lower in fact than in many other less important areas. National traditions are simply too varied here and the interests of all those involved are too diverse and too contradictory. But, compared with the current situation, we will have achieved a great deal if the directive as contained in the common position or, even better, with the amendments adopted tomorrow, can be improved and can enter into force quickly. At least we now have a standard definition for a few core concepts. The full development of the information society will no longer be impeded by a grossly insecure legal framework and rightholders and their agents will have ways of protecting their interests. Technical means of protection in particular are developing at a very fast pace. At the same time, however, we must guarantee wide public access in the interest of cultural diversity. This obviously includes not criminalising consumers or charging them several times over. It also includes developing cultural heritage, such as the cultural heritage stored in television archives, and ensuring that libraries are able to fulfil their valuable role in the online world. Like some of my fellow Members, I feel that the outcome of the vote in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has compromised the hard-struck balance in favour of the exceptions and I therefore hope that at least some of the proposed amendments tabled by my group will still be accepted.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, what can I say in two minutes? Well, first of all and very simply, I shall say goodbye and thank you to President Karlsson. I shall say goodbye, now that you are leaving us, after giving many years of loyal service, and thank you for the excellent cooperation that you developed with this House and for the quality of this report, which now seems like an impressive aircraft carrier, surrounded by a squadron of special reports. I shall make three brief comments, as I have very little time. First of all, I believe that you are right to emphasise that the major problem with the 2000 budget is the massive under-implementation of a number of funds. Admittedly, Mrs Schreyer is right to say that there are sometimes good reasons for this under-implementation, but generally the budgetary authority feels a sense of frustration and is aware that there are problems related to this under-implementation. I shall give four examples. The first is the overly complex regulations, the difficulties in managing the project cycle, the poor interaction in execution and control between the Commission and the Member States, and, lastly, the often pernickety control which has the effect of taking away responsibility. These are the areas we will be focusing on in the discharge. I have one comment to make on the DAS. I am pleased to see that the Court of Auditors is keeping a good distance and we must do the same thing with the error rate. The overall error rate is merely the scientifically dubious aggregation of spot checks, which, whilst interesting, are random. I do not want everything to hinge on the error rate, which will determine everything. The Court of Auditors is reassessing this issue. Parliament must monitor and support this. My third and final comment relates to the management of surpluses. In my view, it is a shame that surpluses are systematically reimbursed to Member States. In fact, economically speaking, this management strategy has a pro-cyclical effect, which is absurd. We support growth when it is strong, and then, since there is a lack of money, we penalise growth when it is weak. We should consider other forms of multi-annual regulation from a statutory point of view.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the progress Greece has made in its endeavours to fulfil the convergence criteria is indeed impressive. It bears witness to this country’s desire to become a member of euroland, sparing no effort along the way. I am in favour of treating all countries equally when it comes to forming an assessment of the criteria. In other words, whilst I approve of Greece joining the euro zone overall, I have definite reservations when it comes to the results we are considering at present. The inflation criterion and the debt situation certainly give cause for concern. Greece has only been able to achieve the reference value for the permissible inflation rate in the last few months. No stone was left unturned in order to attain this objective, which begs the question as to whether the currency stability that has now been achieved can be secured in the long term or, put another way: how do matters actually stand on the sustainability front? Another worrying aspect is the total debt situation, which, being in excess of 100% of GNP, as compared with the reference value of 60%, is far too high. We must also take into account the fact that the current free-fall of the euro is not exactly favouring a sustained reduction in Greece’s state debt, and the anticipated medium-term rise in the level of interest rates is unlikely to help matters either. Let us be clear about one thing where this decision is concerned: the financial markets immediately draw their own conclusions about the forthcoming enlargement eastwards. Therefore, the standard we set for all the euro aspirants amongst the countries of Central and Eastern Europe must not be so much as a fraction higher than the standard we are currently setting for Greece. And so we should be careful not to be over-generous in our interpretation of these results. They constitute – and I would emphasise this again – a hard-won snapshot of the situation and qualify Greece for membership by right. In short, a ‘yes’ vote must be qualified with an equally clear ‘however’.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I would like to inform you once again of the difficulties of travelling to Strasbourg from the countries where we live. This morning, there were only 18 seats in total on the flight from Milan Malpensa to Strasbourg, as a result of which Mrs Morgantini and other Members found that their seats had been double-booked, and she was unable to get a plane in time to be here before the beginning of the part-session, despite the fact that she had left Rome at 7.30 this morning. I would like to make this extreme inconvenience known. I realise that airlines have limits, but surely Air France could provide an aeroplane with more than 18 seats on the first day of the part-session, Madam President. This is an obstacle to the work of this House. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it is a positive step that the draft law on the trial of the Khmer Rouge members in Cambodia has been adopted in the country’s National Assembly and that King Sihanouk is to sign it after it has been discussed by the Constitutional Council. The form the trials will take has been agreed between the UN and the Cambodian government. As the Cambodian judicial system is still frail, the trials are to be organised in such a way that both international and local judges will be presiding. During the time of the Khmer Rouge, nearly all those in the country’s legal profession were killed, and the country has not had time to evolve a new professionally run judicial system. The international community has been concerned that many of those found guilty of genocide will not receive sentences, despite the law that supports the trial. This concern is well-founded. Those who caused the Cambodian state so much damage and its people so much unspeakable suffering must be held legally responsible for their actions. In addition to this, however, account must be taken of the requirements of stability and the country’s future. Last spring I myself was able to see how ordinary people were aiming at forgiveness, so that life could go on. It is not always easy to distinguish clearly between the victims and the persecutors. Restarting a spiral of large-scale revenge is to be avoided. Although Cambodia’s problems and its bloody history are still close to us in terms of time, the country has been able to build the foundations of democracy. Cambodia is the only country in Southeast Asia to have abolished the death penalty. A friend of mine who works in the region said that at present Cambodia is the only multi-party system in the former French Indo-China, although there is still much to do to strengthen democracy and the rule of law. While we joyfully welcome the legislation on a trial, we must give our dedicated support to the positive developments that have started in the country.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I was in Uganda in January when some of the abducted little girls who were put into the army by the LRA were released. Many of these young girls lose sight of their families and are gone for many years from their own homes. As a result of rape and abuse they become mothers themselves, which further alienates them from the communities from which they have been so brutally taken. However many finely-worded resolutions we have, as long as we in the Community fail to get to grips with the issues relating to children in our own community, we do not have a strong voice to raise our concerns about this. Many of our policies affect children's rights and interests but this week Commissioner Prodi said he did not feel it was necessary to have a dedicated unit looking at children's rights within the Community. This will weaken our voice if we attempt to raise it within the context of the UN Special Summit on Children next year, at which the issue of child soldiers will be a significant point. Situation in the Moluccas

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, may I just say that the whole discussion on this directive shows that there is an urgent need to make laws and rules clearer. There is a huge misunderstanding about how this is to be interpreted, when Article 4 makes reference to annexes and other things. I urge us all to support better regulation.

Political group: ELDR
The goal of full employment which reappears on the agenda whenever growth returns is clearly an admirable intention. It is difficult to achieve, however, without attacking the real causes of unemployment. Despite current growth, job creation in Europe is notoriously inadequate. Those jobs which are created tend to be precarious, particularly where they involve women and young people. We must move away from simple declarations of intent, no matter how positive they may be. In view of the extremely high social expectations, we must urgently define measurable and verifiable objectives. What I would have liked to see was a commitment on the proposals indicated in my Group’s motion such as: – The introduction of a process for reducing working time without any loss of wages or flexibility; – A review of the directives on Euroworks councils and collective redundancies to reinforce the rights and powers of employees and their trade unions, particularly in the event of mergers and restructuring; – The establishment at Community level of taxation on speculative capital movements and reinforcement of the fight against fraud and tax evasion. I deeply regret that we are not embarking on a new type of sustainable development, based on the fairer distribution of wealth, an increase in the purchasing power of households and the stimulation of public and social investment. For all these reasons we will vote against the joint motion.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, as a Scandinavian, I do not usually go in for flowery language, but I wish to thank Mr Whitehead and the Commission’s officials for the intensive work done so that we might quickly have this proposal turned into a reality. We have all worked in a spirit of how important it is to strengthen the consumer organisations and reinforce the objectives of consumer work. I therefore want to say thank you to Phillip. The previous speakers have already mentioned the situation in the candidate countries. It is for the new Europe that we are developing the consumer area. In this area, as in many others, I believe there is an old heritage we must combat. I believe that strong consumer organisations are extremely important for enabling people to participate and for giving them the opportunity to exercise influence. For those reasons too, approval is important so that the candidate countries become part of the required network. In Parliament’s amendments, we indicate the importance of genuinely integrating consumer issues into other areas. This has been an issue especially close to my heart. As MEPs, we see how strong the lobbying is in other areas. We must give the consumer the power to study, inform and share best practices. The next issues must be those of mobile telephone conversations, price fixing or the ways in which billing operates in different countries. I therefore think it important for us to highlight this issue. The previous speakers, especially the rapporteur and the Commissioner, spoke of the administrative procedures. The work we have done together – and I want to emphasise the word ‘together’ – may be genuinely groundbreaking in bringing about rapid procedures and quick responses in place of a situation in which applicants are constantly forced to communicate when there is no need to. I hope that the outcome of our work will serve as an example of better procedures. We in the committee proposed that the committee, mentioned in Article 15, should be disbanded. We knew that the Council would not perhaps accept the proposal. I nonetheless hope that the Commissioner, the Commission and all of us are agreed about following up the question of what the committee costs. Does it give value for money? In an enlarged EU, it may be extremely difficult to have large committees of this kind that decide about quite small funds. I hope that the Commission will genuinely look into what the committee mentioned in Article 15 will, in reality, cost.

Political group: ELDR
Labour is still a commodity. It is attractive to employers if they can get their employees to work at the times that involve the least costs. They prefer drivers on the road who can be called on at any time of the day or night, all through the week. Sometimes twenty consecutive hours, and at other times five times a day for a couple of hours. This helps them avoid having to take on more people to share tasks. However, the result is that people become stressed and over-tired, cause more accidents and scarcely manage to maintain a private life. Only a well-coordinated campaign by government and trade unions can help put a stop to this. Now that road traffic is becoming increasingly international in nature and cheap Eastern European companies with poor conditions of employment are trying to capture a portion of the market in the European Union, there is an increasing need for measures. Above all in the field of cross-border problems there is an urgent need for measures on a European scale, but the Council has been sabotaging those measures for two years and even now only wants a toned-down version. It is good that the rapporteur wants to continue the main thrust, and calls for measures to prevent large transport companies avoiding their responsibility by offloading commercial risks onto their unprotected freelance drivers.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, at the Tampere Summit, the European Council declared that the legal status of third-country nationals should be approximated to that of Member State nationals so that they have a uniform set of rights as close as possible to those enjoyed by EU citizens. The Commission’s proposal set out, in a very clear and balanced fashion, the conditions that must be fulfilled in order to acquire long-term resident status. This is a balanced proposal. The criteria are, amongst others, the length of legal residence and adequate resources. Furthermore, the individual must not constitute a threat to public order or domestic security. I must say, however, that some amendments cause me great concern as they run counter to the Tampere objectives. Article 7 of the Commission’s proposal on the threat to public order is clear and I think it is worrying and counter-productive to draw a parallel between immigration and terrorism. On the other hand, we share the view that the level of language knowledge assists in an individual’s integration but it should not, under any circumstances, be considered a condition for obtaining resident status. Why is this? Well, quite simply because it is not an objective and precise criterion. There is no cause and effect link between a specific level of language knowledge – what level do we mean? – and integration itself. I myself know people who have been living in my country for ten years, and everyone says that they are perfectly integrated, despite the fact that they still have some difficulties with French. Lastly, I think it is unfair to introduce the requirement for suitable housing as an additional condition to avoid granting status to third-country nationals legally residing in the European Union. Many nationals do not have suitable housing, unfortunately, and they are not second class citizens because of this. Everyone would like to have suitable housing. It is fundamental that we create a welcoming society and acknowledge that integration is a two-way process requiring adaptation by the immigrant as well as the host society.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Budgets has for some years been closely following the Commission's public relations, and I think that it has succeeded, by means of various instruments that budgetary law, thank God, puts at our disposal, in making a distinct improvement in the information policy of the Commission and of all the European institutions. This shows us on the Committee on Budgets that we are, on the whole, definitely on the right road as far as the Commission's information policy is concerned. At the same time, though, we also have to strike a critical balance. Looking at the great need for public information occasioned by the introduction of the euro, being aware also of how much money the European Union made available for this purpose, and, still repeatedly reading surveys that show that many citizens feel themselves to be badly or inadequately informed or not informed at all, questions have to be asked about the effectiveness of our information policies. We will have a great common task on our hands in the coming months and years. We on the Committee on Budgets will also be very closely monitoring the process of accustoming the public to the fact that this European Union of ours is going to grow, that it will have more members, and that we will have new challenges to face together. Hence the request by the Committee on Budgets – and I know that Mr Andreasen and the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport will not let us down – that it is together that we should press on with this change in strategy that we began together many years ago, so that the European Union's information policy may do what it claims to do and satisfy the public demand for objective information about current problems and developments in Europe. Everything else, I think, can adequately be dealt with via Parliament's groups and individual Members. They, too, can safeguard Europe's diversity; I do not believe that to be a task for the Commission.

Political group: PPE-DE