GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the common position, as amended by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, is an attempt to strike a fair balance between the interests of artists, authors and rightholders and the interests of consumers. The common position therefore regulates when third parties can copy copyright protected works such as texts, graphics, music or films. Member States are also required to protect copy protection under the law. It is important, from the consumer's point of view, that private copies will be allowed in future. There are – and this has been addressed several times today – differing views as to what constitutes a private copy. In my view, the definition should include the family environment. That means that the proposed wording accepted by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has my full support. Finally, it is also important from the consumer's point of view that new remuneration schemes, i.e. levies on equipment or media, can only be introduced if they help to achieve equal levies throughout Europe. Unilateral national action, such as the so-called PC levy, which keeps cropping up in discussions in the Member States, would only make equipment even more expensive. The Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has also tabled proposals here and I call on Parliament to support them tomorrow. Finally, the directive also regulates when broadcasting organisations are entitled to use their archive productions for on-demand services and when they must first sign a contract with all the rightholders involved in the TV production giving them the right to do so. The rights, the archives of broadcasting organisations are of immeasurable cultural and historical value. We must therefore do everything we can to make these archives accessible, including for online use. I therefore urge the House to support Article 11 and I agree here with my fellow Member, Mrs Villiers. I think that there is every reason to offer a separate regulation for public radio.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I voted for the Plooij-Van Gorsel report on the communication “Towards a European research area”, although I would have been very pleased if the decision had at last been taken to place all the research carried out throughout Europe at various levels of government under the same umbrella. Town, provincial and regional councils all spend money on research, the individual State governments spend money on research and so does the European Union. All this money should be managed by a single expenditure centre: the European Union. I am concerned because I would like to see more research in the field of science which aims to prolong human life. I am concerned because I would not like the State budgets and pension agencies to try to hold back this research, which would have negative implications for them because of the greater expenditure they would incur.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we are living through an era full of contrasts and contradictions and while, in the European Union, women’s rights are fully recognised, in some countries they are even denied the right to be, the very right to exist. While this morning a Member pointed out the fact that the three institutions of the European Union responsible for signing the budget were presided over by women and saw this as an illustration of what the third millennium may represent for the consolidation of equality of rights and opportunities for men and women, in Afghanistan we see how the Taliban regime not only denies women – millions of women – their most basic rights – such as rights to education, healthcare and a profession, not only does it commit violence against them for the mere fact of being women but, through the denial of these rights, it is also denying them the freedom to live their own lives, it is denying them their status as human beings. The European Parliament, which is always sensitive to the cause of human rights, cannot remain inactive in the face of the greatest violation of these rights: the systematic discrimination and violence which women are today suffering in Afghanistan of which the public execution of Zaarmeena is just one tragic example. Therefore, once again, we want to roundly condemn the Taliban regime. We want to demand that the international community, in particular the United Nations, but also the European Union and its Member States, intervenes with all the means available to it, to put an end to the extreme discrimination suffered by Afghan women. And, above all, we want to send evidence of our solidarity with the women of Afghanistan and communicate to them our commitment to continue working with them so that they may regain their full dignity as human beings. IN THE CHAIR: MR PROVANVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to thank the MEPs – the rapporteurs – who have done so much work in order to put a coherent package on the table; because that is what the finished product is. Since last week, I have been able to see with my own eyes that it is indeed possible to do business on the railways in Europe. I visited a private company in Rotterdam that now transports half of its containers by rail: that means a 50% market share compared to the old monopolists that are stuck in their ways. The entry of private entrepreneurs into the market has therefore contributed towards halting the comparative loss of a mode of transport. We must therefore encourage more private players to invest in the use of the railways, so as to secure their future as an alternative mode of transport. I admire and endorse Mr Jarzembowski’s commitment to going the full distance with the railways and also to the aspiration of liberalising passenger transport by 2008. I do hope that the Council adopts this. I should also like to warn, however, that in so doing we must not hinder a number of countries from liberalising freight transport. Here, I am referring in particular to countries such as France and Belgium: although their organisations are investing abroad, they do not permit foreign undertakings to develop activities on their railways. I hope that, by January 2006, that will be a thing of the past, and I do believe that it will. Safety and interoperability go hand in hand, and are also the most important reason why the railways have the potential to be a good, quick and competitive mode of transport compared to road transport. For that to be the case, however, a great deal will have to change. I have observed that a train travelling from the Netherlands to southern Germany – through two countries and three Bundesländer – has seven changes of locomotive. It is absolutely ridiculous that this is supposed to be the alternative to road transport. I am happy, therefore, that there is an excellent proposal on the table here that will enable us to eradicate conditions such as these. It will enable us to ensure that we have uniform training throughout Europe, a single, recognisable, system, which is accessible and also promotes through-travel; thus increasing the real speed of freight railways, and, with it, safety and reliability. I should like to advocate that a great deal of attention be paid to the interconnection of route plans at international level, therefore. This will clear the way for those wishing to travel by rail to be able to do so. This would necessitate interconnection of routes. Such things must not be organised separately for each Bundesland and each country. An all-encompassing, integrated approach is required, and I think that it is extremely important that this proposal is on the table. In my opinion, this issue of safety and interoperability presents us with a very good chance of making the railways an attractive mode of transport, alongside road transport and also alongside transport over water. I think that this represents a step that is of considerable importance to freight transport throughout Europe.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in the course of these two minutes, I should just like very briefly to emphasise first of all that this e-content programme is coming about, let us not forget, in the wake of the Lisbon and Feira Councils which, where e-Europe is concerned, concluded in particular that this new economy needed to be founded upon knowledge which favours integration and overcomes the digital divide. I should also like us to remember, when devising this e-content programme, that we are concerned not only with information but also with knowledge and, moreover, with knowledge which favours integration and prevents social division. That is why I have proposed a lot of amendments to emphasise the importance of access for all. As has been said, information ought of course to be available to businesses, but it ought also to be accessible to everyone. I therefore want us to emphasise the possible democratic aspect of digital content or e-content. Secondly, I should like to point out to the Commission that it chose not to define the term ‘digital content’ and that this gives me grounds for concern. I should like to know what will be included under the heading of ‘content’. If we include only content useful to businesses, particularly meteorological and geographical content (as is extremely desirable), it must not of course be forgotten that, where content intended for citizens is concerned, it is a much more complicated matter than of simply taking information useful to businesses. Citizens are involved because content relating to the arts, education, sport, tourism and so on, seems to me to be just as important. In implementing the programme, I therefore want us to have a requirement for a definition of what may constitute digital content. It is in fact necessary to show concern for everyone. This means that digital content offers an opportunity to all those who have not had access to schooling, be it lifelong training or because they are handicapped, and I want digital content to make a better approach to such people possible. To conclude, why deprive ourselves of digital content? Cultural and linguistic diversity is served by the e-content economic project, and I am pleased to know that we shall be able to support linguistic diversity thanks to digital content.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, as we are reminded in Mr Bösch’s meticulous and exhaustive report, OLAF’s current director took office three and a half years ago. This body has grown so much that it now has 364 members of staff. The time for expectations, transitions and adjustment is, therefore, over. The time has definitely come for a balance sheet, for an evaluation and for accountability. The audit that has been planned for OLAF is crucial, as is moving from the current ‘Supervisory Committee’, which is simply a figurehead, to a monitoring, evaluation and decision-making body with ultimate authority. Our Committee on Budgetary Control has always viewed OLAF as a working instrument for a European Prosecution Service, an institution made increasingly necessary by the growth and sophistication of transnational European crime. The outcome of the current Intergovernmental Conference will consequently be crucial. We must ask ourselves whether, until OLAF is given the status of a European Prosecution Service, it makes sense to continue investing in police action that this organisation cannot legally pursue and instead employ auditing methods that are used in all financial crime-fighting and which no financial investigation body can do without. Clearly contributing to OLAF’s poor performance in the recent Eurostat case was a lack of understanding of basic concepts of communication and information, and an imbalance between the interests in play. Another contributing factor was the lack of auditors, whose skills must always be at the heart of combating financial fraud or irregularities. This is a time for rigour, strictness, hard work, professionalism, balance, reason and common sense and this is precisely what we hope to see OLAF achieve.

Political group: PSE
I too would like to compliment Mr Hudghton on his report and to endorse his additions to the original proposal in relation both to the matter of compensation and encouragement of vaccine development. I too agree that Amendments 7 to 13 are unfortunate, indeed Amendment 13 would not merely negate the intended effects of the proposal but actually would make the situation even more difficult than under current rules. This is not though to deny the importance of environmental considerations in relation to fish farming. Mr Hudghton has already referred to the final report of the UK joint government industry working group on ISA and the measures there are of relevance for fish farming wherever it happens, not just in farms affected by ISA. Secondly, looking forward to the motion for a resolution on the Katiforis report later this evening, paragraph 28 is of particular importance. This calls on the Commission and Member States to step up the adoption of measures to combat the possible negative effects of aquaculture on the marine environment. Thirdly, referring to the earlier discussion on the collection of fisheries data, I very much hope that the Commission will engage in projects and studies looking at aquaculture in the environmental context but I believe that is the way forward in relation to the environment, not the way that is suggested in Amendments 7 to 13, and I hope honourable Members will reject them.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, the future belongs to the young. This well-known [Dutch] expression perfectly embodies the spirit of the Socrates programme. Europe is the future and in order to achieve this future, we need the young. They need to get to know each other and gain an understanding of each other’s cultures and how better can this be achieved than by studying together, having fun together and by learning each other’s languages. In this way, we can achieve more understanding and solidarity among the young within the European Union. Mr President, this is important now but this will certainly be important in the future too, with a view to enlargement. I would therefore like to touch upon two additional aspects which have been highlighted in a conciliation. Firstly, I am delighted that we have finally managed to convince the Council of the fact that more funding should be made available for such an important and successful programme. This is mainly thanks to the rapporteur, Mrs Pack, who I could not praise enough for her commitment and tenacity, in particular, and also you, of course, Mrs Reding, for the intelligent and frank remarks you contributed. It was not easy to make the Council see that, in view of the pending enlargement, this programme will be used a great deal more. But governing is all about anticipation and this means that, if necessary, the programme should be able to be adapted sooner if more countries would like to take part in it. I would hate to exclude the young from candidate countries. Secondly, I am pleased that the selection procedures for the projects too have been somewhat simplified, but there is more room for improvement. I hear many complaints about the fact that the application procedure is both complicated and lengthy.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the Intergovernmental Conference mandate needs to be widened. The most important issue with regard to this is internal differentiation within the Union. It is unfortunate that there has been no serious consideration thus far here in Parliament of the issue of internal differentiation within the Union, which will, however, be necessary if the Union is to enlarge as planned. The Commission’s former president, Jacques Delors, has once again publicly raised the issue of a European Confederation. He has also said that the countries in the vanguard of integration should be able to proceed faster and that they should have their own institutions, for the sake of clarity. The Commission’s current President, Mr Prodi, and the High Representative, Mr Solana, have put forward ideas along the same lines. Last November, the Group of the European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party adopted a position on internal differentiation within the Union when it proposed a system of concentric rings for Europe: the onion skin model. In the next resolution on the IGC, Parliament must take a long and hard look at the questions of differentiation and flexibility. Both enlargement and the achievements of integration will come under threat unless we can create a system of concentric rings, as proposed by the Group of the European Liberal Democrats and Reform Party.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the declarations on employment from the European Union Summit meetings are continuing at a steady pace. With the same steady pace, however, mass unemployment, underemployment and part-time employment are also continuing to torment the working people of Europe. Mr President, the European Employment Pacts, the Cardiff, Luxembourg and Cologne processes and their combined effects, the macroeconomic dialogues and the technical and political bodies engaged in those dialogues are doing nothing positive to boost employment levels for the working people in Europe. This dramatic worsening of the unemployment situation is due to the initiatives being undertaken and the policy currently being pursued; that is, a policy which not only puts economic factors before social factors and price stability before social security, but also one which declares that the Stability Pact is the supreme law which must be applied at all times. This is not a policy for the working people, rather a policy for capital gains. When the European Central Bank considers a growth rate of over 2.5% dangerous, whilst the Commission is calling for a growth rate of over 3% in order to reduce unemployment to 7% within 6-7 years, then this can only lead to greater pressure on the labour market which in turn will upset working relations. It will also lead to part-time employment, fewer jobs and reduced salaries, and it will cripple the social security system. From this viewpoint, the only success that can come of macroeconomic dialogue with the participation of employer and employee representatives is to enforce collective bargaining and readjust salaries to suit the demands of credit capital, the euro and the ruling economic policy which is guided by EMU and the Stability Pact. The transparency which goes hand in hand with the procedures for macroeconomic dialogue and the continued absence of the European Parliament from this dialogue are giving rise to concerns that we are once again faced with attempts to overturn fundamental rights of workers and to undermine any social model still in existence in Europe.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I wish to support Commissioner Lamy on the far-sighted and important programme he is pursuing. The whole question about the importance of services and opening up service markets is one we are about to address seriously within our own internal market. We do not yet have an internal market for services. I expect we will hear some of the concerns in the debates tonight when we look at our own market. However, it is absolutely right to address broader issues. After all, as Mr Lamy has said on a number of occasions, within the European Union we have the best-developed single market technologies of any trading bloc in the world. It is right that we should be leading in this field. One of the most important proposals we have worked on here is the liberalisation of electronic communications, a single framework for a converging sector. It is those electronic communications that are really opening up the way to a global trade in services that we have never seen before. It is right to anticipate that. Liberalisation is always going to be difficult. If you accept market disciplines and the opening-up of a market, you must expect reconstruction; you must expect firms to close and look for new possibilities. Surely we are not saying here that we should go back to the days of protectionism? Far from it! We want to look at how markets will evolve. That includes the developing world as well. A couple of months ago I was at an important meeting in Brussels, with representatives from the developing world talking about electronic communications and how they want to build their infrastructures. They realise that having the infrastructure in place is going to open up great opportunities for their own economies and for trade globally. That is what we want to encourage. Let us be positive about it. I urge you, Commissioner, to continue your work on this and not listen to the siren voices in this Chamber tonight that are urging you to stop or slow down. Let us move ahead!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Commission's proposal for the motor vehicle market would provide Community legislation with undoubted benefits for consumers. For that reason it deserves our support, regardless of any changes that may still be made with a view to achieving a better overall balance of all the parties involved, but at the same time recognising that Parliament is currently being consulted on this. In particular, there is a place for actions to improve road safety through proper vehicle use. The new regulation represents a significant advance across the motor vehicle market, because above all it puts an end to the excessive power of car manufacturers, which in some cases are not far from abusing a dominant position. For example, the draft regulation deals with the roles of the motor vehicle trade, of wholesale distributors and of retail distributors in a balanced way. However, the basic philosophy of the new regulation is, and I would like to reiterate this, essentially to defend the interests of consumers, not so much immediately, because there is no guarantee that there will be instantaneous significant changes in vehicle prices that will benefit consumers, but above all in the medium and long-term, once all the rules for active competition enshrined in the regulation have been assimilated. It is therefore vital for rapid progress to be made with this regulation so that economic operators can prepare for total liberalisation of this sector as from 2010. Nevertheless, we can and must accept that the entry into force of the localisation provisions should be deferred for a reasonable period, and I regard such a deferral as being very much a question of positive discrimination for small and medium-sized enterprises. The public debate surrounding this legislative initiative has at times been dominated by the suggestion that there will be immediate and significant cuts in car prices. This will certainly not happen automatically. There could even be some perverse upward movement of prices in the short term. The objective announced by Commissioner Monti on behalf of the Commission will only lead to a satisfactory outcome if we make progress towards fiscal harmonisation. I hope that this new regulation will contribute to that.

Political group: PSE