GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to very warmly thank the rapporteur, Mrs Fourtou, for her excellent work. I am sure that it was really not easy to reach agreement on this complex dossier not only between the groups but also with the Council and the Commission. The text now before us, which is to be voted on tomorrow, is a good compromise that we should all accept. We are all familiar with fake, cheap Rolex watches, Lacoste shirts, with the cheap imitation Levi Strauss jeans, Louis Vuitton bags, and many other products besides. Music and films on CD and DVD are being pirated. When you see everything available on the market, you might well think that product piracy is a trifling offence. But it is not, ladies and gentlemen, far from it: counterfeiting and product piracy certainly are not minor offences. They cause losses running to millions in Europe every year and they are consequently a threat to our economy and above all to jobs in Europe. The object of the directive is to create uniform ground rules for combating product piracy. On the eve of EU enlargement, it gives the right signal at the right time. What is the directive intended to achieve? It is of course intended to have a deterrent effect on product pirates and counterfeiters. The directive provides a process-based framework here. It does not actually introduce anything new, but it attempts to provide a new framework in terms of process, so that we can take action against product pirates across Europe in accordance with uniform rules. What should the directive not be allowed to do? It should not of course be allowed to criminalise or stigmatise young people who occasionally download some music from the Internet, but the directive has also made provision for this. The criminal penalties originally included in the draft have been taken out again – also thanks to the pressure exerted by our rapporteur – and the directive stipulates that sanctions should only be applicable in a fair and proportionate manner. There are provisions that go beyond these mechanisms in order to prevent young people from being criminalised. The directive makes this clear and it will not come to that. One point that Mrs Fourtou also mentioned, and with which I agree, is that the directive should not of course create any barriers to competition. It is not acceptable for competitors to be kept out of the market by relying on alleged infringement of copyright. A recital has been specially included in the directive to the effect that this should not be the aim of the directive. The directive, including the amendments we are to vote on tomorrow and which I hope will be accepted, provides a good, fair compromise between the interests of all the parties involved, and I urge you to support the line taken by the rapporteur.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to make two points. The first of these concerns Mrs Lambert’s report, which is sensible and pragmatic and contains the necessary changes in the light of the annual updates. This is a technical report and the Group of the thinks it right and proper that it has been separated from our political reports. For this very reason, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten, I do not understand your outburst. I think you are getting worked up about a report which really does not warrant it and that you are putting the rapid harmonisation of legislation in jeopardy. The position we have adopted, which is one we have held for the last six years and more in our committee, is, quite understandably, to secure the right to freedom of movement, the rights of frontier workers and also the rights of third-country nationals whose families are in Europe, as quickly and as comprehensively as possible. That is why the position of the Council seems to me somewhat lacking. But our motion for a resolution, which we tabled together with the other left-wing groups of this House, contains a clear and, I think, urgent request for the Council to lay the directives, the regulation and the revision of the regulation on the table by the end of the year. From what I have heard, I am convinced that the Belgian Presidency will follow suit. Mrs Ria, I regret, therefore, your zigzag course. When we look at your proposals, we find they do not tally with what you have said. For instance, in Amendment No 1 on paragraph a, why did you remove social security? We all want social security to remain a component; we do not want only economic interests to be to the fore. In the case of Amendment No 4 to paragraph 1, you have removed third-country nationals. That is a big problem. It has always been close to our hearts that we are dealing not only with the citizens of the European Union but also with workers and people from other countries, who are legally resident in our countries. That is why we expect you to include these groups of people. You can be sure that this problem will return to haunt us at the time of enlargement – but probably sooner – namely when the glaring deficit in qualified workers, which will make itself felt in all 15 Member States, is all too apparent. We cannot restrict legal status to workers; we must also include workers’ families. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, one of the thoroughly positive effects that Europol's excellent work makes possible is the high visibility of the European Union's internal security policy. We must, however, seek to adapt Europol's position to its present tasks, and to give it the best working conditions possible. This, though, is where we have the problem referred to earlier, in that, even though we transfer functions to the EU level, we still have to use the tools provided by intergovernmental cooperation, because that is what the legal base requires, and we need unanimous resolutions. We will, tomorrow, decide to enlarge the European Union to twenty-five Member States by adding another ten, and, when we have done that, we will have to give some thought to whether this arsenal can indeed remain functional when there are twenty-five Member States. My fear is that Europol is no longer able to perform its functions, and no further amendments will be feasible if we wait for twenty-five states to ratify the convention. So it is the debates currently in progress that once again call on us to emphatically demand what the two rapporteurs have demanded in their joint report – the necessity of securing for the future Europol's existence and that of the European Union's security policy. We must therefore press home the demand for those things envisaged by the rapporteurs – communitisation, that is to say, transfer to the first pillar; control, as is necessary, by Parliament; allocation of the budget to the European level, and, most essentially, the transfer, subject to appropriate controls, of operational competences. What other speakers have already mentioned must of course be added to this – namely, more intensive coordination between the computer data systems that we have, in order to conduct investigations into organised crime and criminality in an even more efficient manner. We have no more need of systems that work in parallel or that hinder each other; what we need instead is one system, to be used in the same way by all, combined with a single system of data protection. Here is a wealth of options, of which we may well be aware, but of which we must now make use if they are to be implemented with the help of the Convention documents and with full backing and support from all parties in the European Parliament. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am able to follow on from where the preceding speaker left off. We give our unqualified support to the report by our colleague Mr Napolitano. We, on the Committee on Budgetary Control, have recommended that the changes that have become necessary as a result of OLAF should be incorporated directly into the Rules of Procedure. The Committee on Constitutional Affairs has suggested that a single basic rule be incorporated into the actual Rules of Procedure and that the full wording – consistent with the interinstitutional agreement – be added as an appendix. That is perfectly acceptable. It is crucial that the substance remains unchanged. The key point, as has already been mentioned, is that we, as a Parliament, should give a clear signal that we are not just demanding or stipulating that others should be subject to investigations by an external, independent authority, but that we want to subject ourselves to this process too. I would have liked us to be able to discuss this decision of Parliament’s together with the question of appointing the new director of OLAF. We had planned to hold the hearing for shortlisted candidates last week, in the Committee on Budgetary Control. The Commission, however, did not draw up the definitive list of candidates in time. Some people, moreover, have the impression that we have sought to interfere improperly with an appointment procedure that is, and must remain, the responsibility of the Commission. Yet those who have this impression overlook or gloss over the fact that this is by no means a normal appointment procedure, rather it is a matter of filling a key post that has far-reaching powers and the right to conduct administrative investigations into every organisation and institution of the Union. The Regulation on OLAF of 25 May 1999 lays down specifically that the Commission can only appoint its director once Parliament and the Council have voted. Therefore, there must be harmony between the three bodies. This procedure was chosen to guarantee the director’s independence. I hope that this week, here in Strasbourg, we will succeed in resolving the confusion over the procedure which has emerged. Ultimately, we must not be the ones to delay any decision of this kind when, almost exactly a year ago, the overwhelming majority of Members of this House gave their support to the idea of launching an independent anti-fraud office.

Political group: PSE
There is an Italian proverb which says, literally: “laughter makes good blood”. Pensioners and the elderly – who, like everybody else, would like to have a healthy circulation – therefore approve of the fact that, every so often, I am able to introduce a lighter note into our proceedings, such as this preamble to my explanation of why I voted for the Trakatellis report. My reason for voting for the report is, of course, that pensioners and elderly people are greatly concerned with their health, for it is they who are most frequently hospitalised, and they therefore welcome not only the movement of goods but also the healthy circulation of the blood. - Souchet report (A5-0228/2000)

Political group: PPE-DE
The European Union seems to be developing into a federal superstate. In federations many powers are in the hands of the individual states, but only the federation decides on foreign policy and defence. On the other hand the EU Member States have so far retained their own ministers of Foreign Affairs, their own embassies, their separate seats at the United Nations and their armies. This contrast is causing some Members of this Parliament to start working towards a single EU representative on the Security Council and a single European army, with a view to becoming the second world superpower alongside the United States of America. Not a superpower opposed to the US, but an ally of equal standing that can intervene in the rest of the world together with the US. My party, the Socialist Party in the Netherlands, considers this a mistaken development. The EU will do better to concern itself with the resolution of cross-border problems within Europe and keeping control of large international concerns that take no account of the interests and the democratic rights of the vast majority of people. In a military context Europe should confine itself to the defence of its own territory, purely humanitarian aid outside Europe and if necessary peacekeeping assistance at the request of all the parties concerned in candidate countries, as is happening now in Macedonia. Anything that goes beyond this I reject.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the first part of the motion for a resolution in the report repeats the now familiar findings on the poor situation and prospects of young farmers in the European Union. However, no mention is made of why this should be so, given that the previous two Community support schemes promoted two programmes for the benefit of young farmers, which the European Union vaunted as a panacea which would solve all the problems faced by young farmers and reverse the negative trend. This conscious omission runs throughout the resolution, which fails to mention three basic factors which, unless they are dealt with, will render the third Community programme for young farmers equally ineffectual. These factors are, first, that the CAP, especially in its post-1992 form and following Agenda 2000, does not safeguard a viable income for most small or medium-sized farming households, or a survival income for the heads of these households, which is why no one wants to invest anything at all in the farming sector, however many grants there may be – not that there are that many – because not only is it unprofitable, it does not even afford a basic income. Secondly, there is usually nobody to apply the incentives to; in other words, because of the quotas, young farmers have no reason to work, given that the quotas have been used up for all the products and they must wait for a national stock to be created and distributed to young farmers or buy quotas, in which case, good luck to them. Thirdly, however high the incentives, the terms and conditions are such that they are more suited to large farmers and exclude small and medium-sized farmers. The requirement for very large cultivated areas, even in island regions, is a typical example. This requirement becomes prohibitive when combined with quotas. In other words, the Community requires young farmers to have a large farm and large-scale production, but nigh prevents them from producing anything with the quota system. This incongruous situation is not, in my view, an inadvertent, random choice by the European Union. It is deliberate policy, the purpose being to ruin poor, medium-sized farmers and support large farms or rather large companies in the agricultural sector. That is why we cannot vote in favour of this report; it is because it conceals the real reasons. Even these grants, when they are given to poor, medium-sized farmers, are meted out in drips and drabs and Greece is a typical example here. I do not know, for example, if Mr Fischler is aware of the fact that our grants for young farmers have still not been received, despite the fact that the government used this type of argument to saturation point in order to win votes last April.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, it goes without saying that the hotchpotch of laws and regulations governing social protection in the various countries of Europe needs to be harmonised. This is done to a minimal degree, however, and never with a view to bringing each country’s social legislation into line with the national legislation that is most favourable to workers. Some amendments tabled by the European Parliament improve the Council proposal for a regulation and we will be voting for them but how can we talk about these few changes without condemning the policy currently being pursued by the European States, the general thrust of which is to weaken the social protection of workers, to reduce pensions, to increase social security contributions whilst reducing benefits: in short, what we are seeing in most European countries? Whether this situation develops gradually or overnight, life is becoming impossible for low-paid workers, self-employed workers and the unemployed to support themselves properly. Access to care is increasingly becoming a privilege of the wealthy. This is an outrage. Why, furthermore, should we have this political guideline when national prosperity is increasing, admittedly slowly but increasing nonetheless? In France, for example, we are told that social security is in deficit. Why is this so? Partly due to unemployment, a situation for which the workers are not responsible and of which they are in fact the victims. Mainly, however, because the State is digging into the social security coffers in order to bestow gifts on employers through reducing social costs. What governments call pension reform or social security reform is basically large-scale plunder from workers to the benefit of a few wealthy parasites. In any event, I wish to use this speaking time to state that European workers have the moral right to defend themselves, to strike and to demonstrate because they have no other way of opposing what is actually nothing less than organised theft.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I had the honour of representing the European Parliament on the management committee of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia and one of my colleagues there was Professor Doctor Anton Pelinka, representing the Austrian government. He played an important role in our deliberations, counselling moderation when others wanted to move too far and too fast, resisting cheap easy stereotyping of those we were investigating and imposing fact in preference to fantasy. All in all, he was a frustrating friend for those of us who wanted to move further and faster. I was therefore shocked to discover that state victimisation has been taking place against Professor Pelinka, first when Haider's lawyer, acting as prosecutor and judge in the case of libel against Mr Haider, whom Professor Pelinka described as responsible for having made National Socialist positions and statements politically acceptable. Second, when he was constructively dismissed from his position as vice-president of the management committee of the Monitoring Centre through administrative harassment by sections of the current Austrian government. This resolution charges our Committee on Civil Liberties, as Mr Watson requested on Monday, to follow these developments closely. Perhaps we should not be surprised at what has happened. Mr Haider said in 1992 of Professor Pelinka, after the latter had pointed out the Nazi past of Hans Steinecker, a precursor of the Freedom Party: 'The time is up for falsifiers of history and those who insult Austria. Pelinka has a disturbed relationship with Carinthia and his manner of permanently propagating falsehoods is unacceptable.' In March this year the Freedom Party said: 'The newspapers were right once again. Now he (Häider) is threatening us.' But he is not threatening anybody. It is quite normal. When I feed a dog and it bites me then I will not feed it any more because otherwise it may bite me again. The wise men have a hard task in front of them over the coming six months. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, first of all, I should like to welcome the statement from Barcelona with regard to the Middle East and I trust that the intentions and ideas put forward there will be followed up by intensive diplomatic activity on the part of the European Union. Could I remind my colleague, Jonathan Evans, that the decision in Lisbon was for the most competitive European economy in the world based on social inclusion, social cohesion and territorial cohesion. We all know that the market on its own will not deliver social justice for the people of Europe. It simply cannot and never will do it. We know that despite the ideology purveyed by the Tories in the United Kingdom who have lost two elections in a row based on their approach to the economy and the people of the United Kingdom. My response to Barcelona is one of relief that the hype about liberalisation and privatisation was in fact just hype, that the balance of political power on the Council still remains with the centre-left, with the common sense to know that the people of Europe want a social Europe as well as a market Europe, and that the balance between social policy and economic policy, of employment policy and sustainability needs to be maintained. I welcome the fact that the Council in Barcelona recognised that reality. I wanted to specifically welcome one particular aspect, namely the commitment to a directive for a framework for public services. This is a critical area for delivering a people's Europe. We know the people of Europe want high-quality public services, we know they want them at an affordable price and they want them delivered universally. The companies who operate universal public services and the Member States have a responsibility to ensure that they are delivered and that the workers in these companies have legal certainty. The Commission, Council and Parliament know what needs to be in a framework document of that kind. So why does it need to be put off until December? In my view, it should be brought forward in Seville. My final point relates to the call on the Commission to produce a regulation for a block exemption for services of general interest in the event that the European Court may find such support for services of general interest to be in breach of competition law. Why do we not bring that regulation forward immediately and not have our hands forced? We should do it now while we have the time and the calm to do it and, as I say, guarantee the services we need in Europe.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on the Commission's proposed regulation gives us an opportunity to stress that, for the third time in the space of a few years, we are witnessing the very foundations of the internal market being undermined. Three times we have seen consumer confidence in food safety shattered, which is why this debate is absolutely topical and the decision to proceed immediately with the creation of a European Food Authority is absolutely the right decision. It is not just that consumer confidence was lost when these three successive crises occurred; we also watched as consumers restructured their consumer habits, we watched as numerous companies which never imagined they would be excluded from the market folded and we watched as several thousand people who were in no way to blame lost their jobs. So it is not just a question of the financial damage sustained by budgets which have to cope with destroying products and animals; there is also a social cost and we must take very fast, very serious action here. I should like to take this opportunity to say that it is imperative that we take account in food legislation of the special nature of traditional products, which are typical of certain areas and places in Europe and which form part of our culture. Finally, the role of small and medium-sized enterprises in this area must be clearly and officially recognised, given that it is these enterprises that produce the high quality goods and create the jobs.

Political group: PPE-DE