GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
We are very grateful to Mr Perry for this question because Parliament has in numerous reports asked for a revision and for the Commission to do something about this. We had a report on digital television where this same issue was raised. I cannot say whose name this report bore, I am too humble for that. So, there were a number of reports where we asked for that as well. It is ironic that we have a directive called television without frontiers while the copyright and the rules on collection societies are preventing us from doing anything. I would ask the Commissioner about this review and the study that he is going to undertake: are you also going to look at the differences in operation between cable and satellite that also exist in the directive and are also unsatisfactory? In your report will you look at the role the collecting societies for the copyright owners are playing in this field which also prevents the functioning of the internal market?

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, as the rapporteur, Carmen Fraga Estévez, has said, the introduction of the proposal for a new Council regulation establishing the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products is taking place at a time when the European Union countries together constitute one of the largest markets for fishery products in the world. As there is a shortfall in our internal supply, we import 60% of the products we consume. In this context, the regulation of the supply and demand for fishery products must respond to a dual consideration: it must meet consumers’ needs and safeguard the development of the fisheries sector itself. As we all know, the fisheries sector, which is concentrated in certain countries such as mine, is one of the major contributors to economic activity. The report by Mrs Fraga Estévez responds adequately to this dual consideration and deserves the support of this House. In any event, it will certainly have ours. The regulation would doubtless improve if her thoughts and criticisms concerning the limited budget allocated to the regulation and the exclusion from the common organisation of the markets of almost all of our aquaculture, amongst other things, were taken into account. It will also improve if her partial criticism of the standards relating to consumer information and to its defence of tariff suspensions when there is Community production, is heeded. We also ask for your support for the report by Mr Pat Gallagher.

Political group: Verts-ALE
On balance, this is an excellent report with the exception of paragraphs 52 to 56. This section is poorly drafted and ambiguous. It deals with issues that are firmly in the competence of each Member State, and should so remain.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I do not like the result of this vote. Could we have it again, and maybe set up a forum to discuss it first? That is what we are asking the Irish people to do on this issue. (Laughter)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I was astonished to read the briefing by Parliament’s Information Office, which presented the Goebbels report as follows: ‘In a resolution on the operation of the International Monetary System, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is critical of the introduction of a Tobin tax on financial speculations’. This appears to be the headline which is supposed to attract the press, and this still appears to be the subject around which the debates here revolve. In my opinion, this does not at all do justice to the balanced and excellent report by Mr Goebbels. To start with, the resolution does not in any way speak in favour of, or against, the Tobin tax. The extensive explanatory statement does contain a few observations, but what is more important is that it also contains many other alternatives in order to achieve the two objectives pursued by those in favour of the Tobin tax. Capital movements and foreign exchange markets must be founded more on actual economic reality and must be directed towards long-term investments and financial stability by taking a number of measures, but also by adopting a more flexible stance with regard to developing countries. Their debts should be cancelled and they must be granted an appropriate way of refinancing in order to be given a new lease of life. Actually, one could say that, in fact, this report fits in perfectly with the Tobin tax action points. It would be unfortunate if the report were seen as an opposing force, for I believe that it complements the Tobin tax well. In an amendment tabled by my group, a proposal has been formulated in an entirely neutral way that was also formulated in the ECOFIN Council. This amendment warmly welcomes the proposal by the ECOFIN Council to carry out such a study and further analysis. That seems to be far more fruitful than another instance of polarisation concerning the method: yes or no to the Tobin tax. In this way, those in favour of the Tobin tax can again endorse the objectives which are now actually on the agenda, and those against can be pleased about the fact that research can be carried out in a neutral way and that the objectives, namely, better management of capital movements and more opportunities for developing countries, can be achieved.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would first like to convey to Mrs De Sarnez my most sincere congratulations. In the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, we all caught from her an enthusiasm for this new and important project, and let me say loud and clear that our discussions of it brought us joy because we had a sense of playing our part in shaping the future. So, as well as extending congratulations, let me also thank the Commission, and Commissioner Reding, for submitting this programme to us, so that together we are making a contribution to investing in Europe's future and in that of the younger generation. I believe that Erasmus World is the logical continuation of the Erasmus programme, with which we are all familiar, and which has helped generations of young Europeans to get to know the other countries of the European Union as well as their own. Erasmus World is now going one step further, both inwards and outwards. Its inward dimension involves something that, even a few years ago, we would have thought impossible, namely that the European Union, and its Member States in particular, are willing, on the basis of their own decisions, of the Bologna Process and the Lisbon resolutions, to cooperate more intensively at university level. An EU quality mark for Masters' courses – excellent! This will bring us closer together, and, together, further forwards. That makes this new programme an important step for us all in improving the situation as regards a shared European education. In its second step, Erasmus World opens the way for postgraduate students from third countries to study at European universities. That is what we want a forward-looking intercultural dialogue to involve. Has there ever been a time when a contribution to this intercultural dialogue was more needed than in the present days and weeks? So let me conclude by appealing to the Council in these terms: you cannot, in view of the terrible conflicts in Iraq, afford not to provide the necessary funds for this programme – which amount to at least the EUR 300 million that Parliament has called for! All of us here are duty bound to take an especially responsible approach to investing in this area.

Political group: PPE-DE
The very title of this report arouses distrust because, generally speaking, incentives for employment are actually about granting employers aid, tax relief or tax advantages for job creation, when, in fact, they do not create any. Of course, the text is not particularly explicit in this regard, and the basic intentions are wrapped up in general considerations, some of which are pertinent, particularly on the lack of equality between men and women in employment. The expression of good intentions does not a policy make. Even more, this may indeed conceal a policy which provides no solution to the problem of unemployment. In order to solve this problem, binding measures should be implemented with regard to those that hold the key to the problem, i.e. the major industrial and financial groups. But to expect this of the European institutions is to ask the impossible. We therefore voted against this report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, the Busk and Attwooll reports and the Commission documents they deal with are most timely and extremely useful. In fact, we are at a pivotal moment, when all the chapters of the common fisheries policy are in the process of being revised. The reports throw light on the matter and help to explain an essential element of fisheries policy: control and sanctions. It is worth repeating that the conservation of meagre resources, however renewable, is the vital issue. The fish mortality rate can be regulated, as we know, in various ways; by limiting catches, the TAC and quotas, by limiting the effort and days spent at sea and by holding periodic closures; the model of exploitation can be also be regulated by technical measures, net sizes, minimum fish sizes and closed or restricted zones. Nevertheless – and here is the rub – control systems are essential, because they are designed to ensure that fishing activities respect and comply with the conservation measures that have been adopted. Unfortunately, what we are seeing today is that the effectiveness and the quality of fisheries control is unequal and leaves a great deal to be desired. There are activities that are controlled effectively and others that are completely uncontrolled. Progress has certainly been made, but as everyone is saying, it is inadequate. Control and the concomitant sanctions, says the report, vary so much between Member States that the final result is biased towards the quite unfair treatment of the fishermen of various countries, which is damaging to the reliability and the acceptance of Community regulations as well as to respect for them. Under these circumstances, it is crucial to put the finishing touches to the instruments for controlling Community fisheries in the areas of vigilance, inspection and implementation. I should like, lastly, to encourage the Commissioner to give commitments and make adjustments that make his proposal for reform, which is so controversial, acceptable to all the Members States. We sincerely hope that an agreement can be concluded by the end of this year and that we do not sink into a mess of poorly defined regulations.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to apologise for Mr Sterckx's absence. I wish him well in Sunday's elections. I do not like nuclear options, to use the term adopted by someone in Mr Bolkestein's cabinet to refer to Mr Monti's proposal to force the postal market to split its activities. Only recently did I find out that nuclear options or nuclear explosions are not always dangerous. Thailand is about to decide on digging a canal right across the country, just like the Suez or Panama Canal. This mechanical excavation work would certainly cost 20 billion. The Japanese are very interested because this would save them USD 300 000 annually if oil tankers heading for Japan would no longer need to pass through the perilous strait of Malacca. The Japanese subsequently suggested helping to build it by removing a number of difficult mountains along the way by means of a few friendly nuclear explosions. This would cut down the building costs to 3 billion. As you can see, the nuclear option does not always cause as much damage as we imagine. The Commission has applied Article 86 before, notably in the early nineties, to the telecom sector. This worked well then. The liberalisation of the telecom sector is still known as one of the most appealing successes of European policy of the nineties. To me, Mr Monti's proposal is therefore aimed at the Council, which will now have to take some serious decisions concerning the liberalisation of the postal services. The fact that the EP is being by-passed with this proposal is not easy for me, and cannot be dismissed just like that. Nevertheless, together with the European Commission, I am turning my gaze to the Council, for they are the ones that matter in this case. With regard to the universal provision of services by postal companies, Mr Bolkestein once mentioned the compensation fund which could be a purely mechanical way of solving the problem of cross-subsidisation at the coalface. It will therefore remain possible, Monsieur Savary, to send a letter to the remotest corner of Provence. Does the Commission intend to table further proposals in this area? Would a compensation fund of this kind then be able to run parallel to the Commission's recent proposal? As for the plans to impose VAT on public post office services, I should like to point out that these post offices can also deduct the VAT from services they would need to pay for. In addition, the plans provide for the possibility of charging a lower VAT rate. With reparations and new-fangled proposals of this kind, we will not achieve a sufficiently effective and decisive policy in Europe in a hurry, not to mention the Lisbon objectives. Surely we wanted a dynamic Europe? Let us, then, try to send out a signal that the European Parliament will make every effort to give this economic sector in Europe, which is currently in difficult waters, a shot in the arm. I do hope that we will stand united and attach more importance to the goal that we want to achieve than to these methods, which may be needed just once to make true progress.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, the report by Mr Andersson stresses the need to take account of the poverty suffered by many pensioners and the inequalities between the pension entitlements of men and women. With this in mind he recommends a sufficient level of minimum guarantee pensions and increasing the employment level among women in a bid to promote equal opportunities. I and my group agree with these parts of the report. Mr Andersson even indicates that he is anxious to ensure that a balance is struck between social and financial concerns. Unfortunately, this undertaking is contradictory and causes the rapporteur to call into question fundamental social principles in the name of financial criteria. Indeed the vote in the committee was not unanimous. We did not vote in favour of this report in the parliamentary committee because it supports the Commission's proposal to raise the retirement age. In so doing, it aligns itself with the liberal approach, manifest at many European Councils in the past, which advocates greater flexibility and increased working time. We are opposed to this kind of reform, which imposes increased working time and yet does nothing to resolve the employment issue. The report claims that the Member States have taken measures that are heading in the right direction, which is to say towards increased working time. Given that a majority of workers in France, Austria and Germany have demonstrated that they reject a move towards increased working time and funded pension provision, do we wish to settle the European debate on pensions without public involvement? With my group's support, we are tabling amendments that seek to reflect these aspirations. In them, we of course oppose raising the statutory retirement age and extending the contributions period. We are also opposed to funded pension provision, which provides no guarantee of an income and undermines the principle of solidarity inherent in pay-as-you-go schemes. We propose that contributions be calculated taking into account how hard the work is and the number of dependent children. Finally, we propose studying new ways of financing legal pension schemes. The argument of increased life expectancy is used to broach the issue of funded pension schemes; this does little to mask the financial appetites of multinationals in favour of this option. There are other ways to resolve the issue of financing in the long term that are more viable and characterised by greater solidarity. We propose, for example, extending social security contributions to all revenue, with the amount adjusted depending on whether the companies are creating jobs or not. These proposals do not appear to me to be entirely irresponsible. In conclusion, I would say that faced with mounting criticism of the choices made in this field by Europe's Heads of State or Government, what matters now is to listen to the demands that people are making and not to go against them, unless we wish to see the people of Europe grow even more disaffected with the Union.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, allow me to start by welcoming Imen Derwiche and Nourredine Ben Tisha to the public gallery; they are young Tunisian students who were tortured and imprisoned for several months. Action is needed quickly, which is why we decided to include this item on the agenda. The very existence of the oldest human rights league in Africa and the Arab-speaking world, the Tunisian League, is under threat, despite being recognised by President Ben Ali. Judicial proceedings to have it wound up were instituted following its last congress, which appointed directors who are obviously not to the Tunisian authorities' liking. Its fate is to be decided at a hearing scheduled for 25 December, which is surprising, because this date is also a Muslim public holiday this year. As we speak, police forces have surrounded the premises of the Tunisian National Council for Liberties and even the private residences of some of its members. This police operation has already used force to prevent the National Council of the League from meeting in Bizerte and the Tunisian National Council for Liberties from meeting in Tunis. Its spokesman, Moncef Marzouki, risks being sentenced to over 10 years in prison at a hearing the day after tomorrow, on 16 December. Finally, political prisoners have been on hunger strike in prison, some of them for two months. Some, such as Béchir Habid, are in a critical condition. Their very life is in danger. Repression is on the rise, arrests and intolerable cases of torture are increasing in number. This is no longer a question of attacks on the freedom of expression, association or assembly; now, freedom of movement, freedom of speech and the freedom to receive persons of one's choice are difficult to exercise in Tunisia. Men and women are harassed daily and their families harassed as well. One example is Mehdi Zougah, a French-Tunisian citizen, who was arrested at Tunis airport on 11 August. For four months his wife and children have been waiting for him at home in Marseilles. He will stand trial on 8 January on charges of having attended a meeting of the Tunisian opposition in France, which he denies. It is a case of the most blatant arbitrariness. The Tunisian authorities should pay heed to the concern and outrage being expressed in this Chamber. They should listen to the representative of the UN Secretary-General for human rights who expressed her acute concern on 7 December, calling for an end to the practice of harassing defenders of human rights. The Tunisian authorities should realise once and for all that we are determined not to relax our vigilance and to continue to press for fundamental rights to be respected.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I have been talking to some of the Members, and they said: ‘We do not agree with Bush but, if we had to choose between Saddam Hussein and George Bush, we would choose George Bush’. I, however, believe that there is a middle way between killing and dying, which we must take. I am not making a philosophical statement: this must be our political strategy, a strategy of living. However, in reality, George Bush’s decision to use war as a deterrent takes us back to the Pax Romana: they called it peace and turned it into a desert. After 1945, we Europeans said ‘No more war, ever’. This is the strategy we must pursue, a strategy of dignity, for our dignity is also diminished by dishonesty such as that we are currently displaying. Of course, Saddam Hussein must be made to change, but his people must change too. We must promote democracy in Iraq, we must ensure that the UN resolutions are complied with, but we also have to ensure compliance with the UN resolutions by Israel as well as by Saddam Hussein, and Israel has failed to comply with hundreds of declarations and resolutions. Commissioner Patten asked when death and suffering for Palestinians and Israelis will come to an end. Yes, when will it end? I believe it will not end until we stop producing statements like those made by the President-in-Office of the Council today. As long as we continue along this path, Palestinians and Israelis will endure death and suffering for, as everyone is aware, Ariel Sharon’s policy is a criminal policy which is destroying both his own and the Palestinian people. Yet it is not just the violence and cruelty which concern me, it is the political decision to colonise a country. Indeed, in recent days, while all our eyes have been fixed on the siege of the Muqata, Ariel Sharon has been appropriating land at Rafah and, at Kalandria, the airport has been reopened as an Israeli airport. What we are witnessing here is a colonial war. It is my genuine belief that, in the interests of peace, it is essential that we follow the example of the Israelis and Palestinians who are stating clearly that it is military occupation that is responsible for the situation. On no account can we continue as we have been doing. I am truly appalled and saddened, for we are all, myself included, responsible for what is happening in the Middle East and for the continuing deaths in the region. (Applause from the left)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to congratulate the Commission on its synthesis report and on keeping up the pressure on the Council and this House to deliver the promises made in the Lisbon process. However, I would like to address one specific issue where the Commission and indeed all of us are rather weak: that is the issue of regulatory burdens. We need to be a little better informed about the kind of regulatory burdens which we might be creating wittingly or, more importantly, unwittingly in the legislation that we pass. I see in the Commission's synthesis report no more than four or five paragraphs on this very important issue. Regulatory burdens and the reduction of regulatory burdens is a subject which is thick with rhetoric and clichés, but rather thin on action and practicality. It means that as legislators in the European Parliament we are often legislating blind. We often deal with proposals that come from the European Commission which do not have proper impact assessments attached to them. We then table amendments when we do not know what the effect of those amendments will be. That is clearly an inappropriate way in which to legislate and not a particularly effective way to pursue the goal of competitiveness. Therefore, I urge the Commission to reflect on this quite seriously and not dismiss it as just an add-on to the Lisbon process but place it at the centre of its reflections and perhaps think of new institutional ways of creating an agency specialised in these matters. Commission proposals ought perhaps to be subject to proper impact assessments and, similarly, MEP amendments, so that we actually know what we are doing when we legislate in pursuit of this overall aim of competitiveness.

Political group: ELDR