GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, on a point of order. As you know, Rule 2 states that Members of the European Parliament shall exercise their mandate independently, they shall not be bound by any instructions and shall not receive a binding mandate. I have heard on good authority that there was a meeting of the Pesca Group of Fisheries Ministers in Portugal on or around 15 September 2002, that is to say the Fisheries Ministers of Spain, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy and Portugal. I have further heard that at that meeting there was some discussion of three draft European Parliamentary reports, one by Mr Jové Peres and two by Mr Varela. If this is the case then that seems to me to be a most scandalous attempt to violate the independence of Members of this House in carrying out their functions as rapporteurs. I would ask you to draw it to the attention of the presidency of the Council that such behaviour by sections of the Council is unacceptable, and to ask the Chairman of our own Fisheries Committee that he should ask his rapporteurs to ensure that they act with independence as rapporteurs for this House.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, in my opinion, the priorities of the Commission’s working programme for 2002 must focus on the European Union’s immediate challenges, both in the internal field (the internal market and Economic and Monetary Union), and in the external field – especially following the attacks of 11 September – including, of course, the fight against terrorism. These challenges are very clear – how to revitalise our economies just a few weeks before the introduction of the single currency, how to take advantage of the challenges and opportunities offered by accession, with 13 countries seeking entry to the Union and, at the same time, how to reinvent Europe in a situation and at a moment when we are about to begin the work of a convention aimed at preparing a new Intergovernmental Conference, the objective of which must be to prevent the ‘Old Continent’ becoming an outdated continent. This Commission’s working programme for 2002 is accompanied by a communication on the Community method. I believe that that is an absolutely fundamental issue and we would be making a grave error if were to devote ourselves entirely to incidental issues and allow what is really crucial at the moment to stagnate. Next year there will be elections in several countries of the European Union and we need an institution which not only cares for the coming generations, but which takes account of their concerns and challenges. And that institution must be the European Commission, Mr President. This is not the time to analyse the decimal points presented to us by financial analysts. This is a time for considering the broader picture and I believe, Mr President, that it would be a serious mistake for this Parliament to exaggerate the errors which may be made by the European Commission. I want to say this, Mr President, because it is in the interest of Parliament and the Community as a whole to have a strong Commission. It therefore seems to me that, before preaching about how to sort out the world’s problems, we should take a good look at our own institution and respect the work and decisions taken in the field of our parliamentary bodies. I say this in relation to something Mr Barón mentioned – I regret that he is not present at the moment – and frankly I do not believe that we should take advantage of this debate to introduce extemporaneous issues which are not currently amongst our concerns or relevant to this debate. I also believe, Mr President, that it would be a serious mistake for the Commission not to direct all its efforts towards restoring that alliance, that harmonious partnership between Parliament and the Commission, which has led to all the progress made within the Community. Mr President, I hope that, by means of this working programme, the disagreements of the past may be transformed into the agreements of the present and I hope that that method will prevail in the work between the Commission and Parliament. Anything else would be to confuse what is incidental with what is fundamental. We should mobilise all our forces in order to consolidate, as I have said, this strategic alliance.

Political group: PPE-DE
Although the main achievements in the construction of an area of freedom, security and justice should be mentioned, we must remember that there is still room for progress. The role of the Court of Justice is still too limited and communitisation is incomplete. The unilateral decision by Belgium to re-establish border controls is a clear illustration of this. The decision to establish a Charter of Fundamental Rights is to be welcomed but it is difficult to predict whether its content and legal scope will be restrictive or symbolic, including all people, whatever their nationality, or excluding some. The total lack of progress in European citizenship and the political rights of all European residents is to be regretted. Although action plans established by the high-level working group aim to limit migratory flows in the future, these plans do nothing to improve human rights, civil liberties and the economic situation in the countries concerned. We know that readmission clauses are included in the cooperation and association agreements. Yet these represent a serious threat to the principle of ‘non-refoulement’ [no turning back]. Furthermore, it should be noted that these provisions were adopted within the Council by a procedure without debate and without consulting Parliament. However, the main concern remains ... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like the Commissioner to clarify whether a piece of information that I have is correct. It appears that this substance is manufactured in Austria, from there it goes to Holland and from Holland it is exported to non-EU countries. Commissioner, is it true that it is manufactured in Austria, from there goes to Holland and from Holland is exported? The Commissioner’s words confirm that this is the case, that within the European Union we are manufacturing it and marketing it.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, my thanks to all the honourable Members for their constructive cooperation and, above all, to the Commission and the rapporteur, Mr Boselli. Numerous problems, numerous conflicts of interest have still not been resolved. Harmonising cultural traditions is no easy task. A compromise does not really satisfy anyone and the European Parliament does not hold a magic wand. There is talk of a balanced common position. A balance between whom? Between rightholders and the public interest. First and foremost – and this is my opinion and the opinion of the – the rightholder's status under copyright law must be strengthened. Copyright law must serve the rightholder. His position must be strengthened for future contract negotiations. As a politician for culture, my responsibility is, firstly, to give rightholders a secure basis for their existence and, secondly – and I do not mean secondarily but equally – to guarantee the public free access and, at the same time, ensure that high-quality works are available to the public in all their diversity. We are opposed to extending the list of exceptions; some of the contentious points can perhaps be resolved between the parties, because we too are keen to find a satisfactory solution which we can all live with. The , you may have noticed, confined themselves to proposed amendments which relate solely to the rightholder – I refer to Amendments Nos 34 and 36. Perhaps, you will say, they anticipated future contracts. Allow me now to reply: much is anticipated in the recitals which is of benefit not to the rightholder author but to other interested parties. And as the Napster case has already been raised, Europe should discuss whether or not it wants a miniature version, a European Napster, and then it should hold a round table discussion between providers, producers, rightholders and consumers. But I would not want Napster to find its way to Europe, in through the back door simply because copyright law is weak and the wording woolly. This too is a possibility which we should debate. We shall also have to hold a discussion at some point in the future – soon, I hope – on performing rights societies and on the possibility of contracts for copyright contract law.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, at this point in the debate, there is not perhaps a very great deal new to add, but I shall nonetheless have a try. It is very important to create common basic conditions and rules for tobacco advertising. In a situation where these do not exist, there is often scope for discretion, and different actors proceed as they themselves think best. That is why it is good that we now have proposals that are also considered capable of operating legally. There are many difficult considerations that must be taken into account if we are not again to end up in the same situation as we did with the previous proposal for a directive on tobacco advertising. The public health perspective is very important when it comes to the way in which tobacco is marketed. By regulating the marketing of tobacco, public health can be protected. At the same time, it is important, however, to send out the right signals, above all to children and young people. Tobacco is an addictive product that causes over half a million deaths per year within the Community. By being very restrictive when it comes to tobacco advertising, we can help stop young people taking up smoking, prevent suffering and save human lives. According to Article 95.3 of the Treaty, the Commission ‘will take as a base a high level of protection’ in its proposals concerning the setting up of the internal market and its operation. It is undoubtedly the case that tobacco advertising increases consumption, both by encouraging children and young people to take up smoking and by deterring existing smokers from giving up or reducing their daily consumption. Studies have also shown that children and teenagers are particularly vulnerable to tobacco advertising and tobacco-related sponsorship. A partial ban on advertising is not, therefore, enough to protect public health.

Political group: PSE
I wish first of all to offer my congratulations to the Irish Presidency on the way in which it has managed the issue of adopting the Convention’s Draft Constitution. As usually happens, it took the presidency of a small State to demonstrate the necessary intelligence and pro-European approach to attempt to solve such a significant problem. I say this despite the fact that, as a Member for a Stateless nation, Galicia, I must disagree with the constitutional text where this still fails to recognise Stateless nations, which are a fundamental part of Europe’s political, historical and cultural diversity. Having said this, I wish to focus on the section of the motion on the outcome of the Brussels European Council last week that deals with the terrorist attacks in Madrid. As I said in the amendment that I tabled through my group, I wish to express my admiration admiration I know we all share at the exemplary behaviour of the people of Madrid and of Spanish society as a whole following the terrorist attack that took place on 11 March. I must highlight the remarkable public-spirited and humanitarian way in which the citizens acted, the efficiency of the rescue services and the assistance given by all the institutions to the victims and their families and I would underline the fact that no xenophobic attitudes or attitudes rejecting any particular religion or country have been expressed. (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the rapporteur has presented a very comprehensive report demonstrating, in an impressive and multi-faceted way, that there can be no sustainable development without good health. Poverty reduction must therefore be linked as a matter of urgency with measures to combat diseases, and great efforts are needed to build an effective healthcare system in the developing countries. In this context, we must focus first and foremost on the most vulnerable population groups, such as children, who die, as previous speakers have said, in their hundreds of thousands every year from diarrhoeal diseases. They die of infectious diseases because they are denied the vaccinations which could save them, and they fall victim to malaria – hundreds of thousands of children every year – because their immune systems are not robust enough to survive this disease. These examples show that health problems in the developing countries, especially among children, certainly do not always result from life-threatening diseases. Often, they fall victim to illnesses capable of being cured or prevented if the necessary drugs or vaccinations are available. Women, too, are especially at risk. Giving birth to many children at short intervals destroys women’s reproductive health, causing severe anaemia and increasing their susceptibility to infectious diseases. Poor food or malnutrition also undermines the health of large sections of the population – for hunger is not just hunger, it also saps the strength necessary to build a good life. It has quite rightly been pointed out, and I say this again, that sustainable development is under threat. It is true that a holistic strategy is required. It is not just primarily a matter of medical care. The scenario we are dealing with today – and this is where the campaign against tuberculosis, malaria, and AIDS comes into play – is that we are dealing with diseases – AIDS in particular – which are not curable but which can be treated, thus giving people the opportunity to live for longer. Nonetheless, the fact that there is no cure for it means that we must also address the issue of prevention. This is an extremely important area, and must also be included in a holistic healthcare system. I am convinced that we can generate more support for these campaigns in many ways if we highlight the severe economic impacts sustained by countries where a large number of people are affected by these diseases. According to the statistics which I have available, in Burkina Faso, agricultural production has decreased by 16% because people are sick or have already died of AIDS and therefore can no longer work in agriculture. In Swaziland, school attendance among girls has decreased by 36% because they have to care for their parents who are sick with AIDS. Ultimately, only the grandparents will be left. This means that massive economic damage will result in these countries unless there is an effective healthcare system to help restore public health to the necessary level.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it feels quite strange to be standing here again today, as I have been doing at regular intervals for almost ten years, and all because of an accident caused by human hand and by a lack of human competence, and not by force majeure. The victims are waiting outside. They want answers. They do not want any more promises that we then fail to keep, or to see any efforts that we then fail to follow through. The citizens are right to ask: “do our regions now count amongst those which are lost forever?” Who will provide us with new jobs? When will those responsible at last understand that sparing resources is not something we do for fun; nor is it just a question of creating a system for its own sake or a new study group, rather it is a joint European challenge. That is why I welcome Mrs Palacio’s action plan with open arms. It is equally important to note that “prevention is better than cure”. But there is an art to that as well. Deploying the German multipurpose ship “Neuwerk” – it is right outside my front door in Cuxhaven – entailed the swift provision of European neighbourly help. We are particularly in the debt of those who undertook the difficult deployment of all their crew. Valuable experiences were gained, and also the knowledge that we cannot master such environmental disasters using state-of-the-art technology alone. We are therefore right to demand improved controls, sanctions and preventive measures. I have been fighting for a European environmental coastguard service for almost ten years, here in Parliament. The issue is as topical as it was before. Furthermore, I will not withhold my support but will endeavour, alongside my fellow MEPs, to bring about improvements and logical solutions within the framework of European and international cooperation. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, promoting the mobility of students, trainers and teachers is being seen as an ever more important part of the European strategy. It was given attention, for example, in Lisbon last March at the summit there, in which matters of employment, social participation and the information society were focused on. In the Lisbon conclusions, mobility was recognised as an essential element in the information society and in the promotion of lifelong training. Robert J. Evans’s report therefore discusses an extremely important issue. The greatest credit goes to the rapporteur for an approach based on the point of view of the public and the practical problems involved. Mobility is not to be promoted by noble objectives but by removing the day-to-day obstacles. I hope that the main amendments adopted by the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport will be received positively by the Council, as they deserve to be, and that legislation is speedily brought into effect. When it comes to student and teacher mobility, experience shows that the real problems of mobility are not found so much in the area of educational administration, but with the social, tax and immigration authorities. Problems with regard to retaining social security benefits, transferring benefits, and taxation still hamper mobility within the Union. Questions of responsibility have also been raised, especially when it is a matter of on-the-job learning. Regarding our own problems in the education sector, we cannot steer away from the difficulties there are in approving study credits. Students are still pretty much dependent on the good will of the lecturers. If that is missing, study abroad might unduly extend the actual length of time a person studies. I am very glad that the rapporteur pays attention in his report to the opportunities for nationals of countries applying for membership to be included in the recommendations on mobility. The most serious problems at present concern those coming from non-member countries. Improving their status will be an effective way of building a common Europe. What is also important in this report is the attention given to the equal treatment of those who are the most disadvantaged, for example, the disabled.

Political group: PSE
I want to welcome the work done on the social agenda by the French Presidency and by Martine Aubry, in terms of both form and content, and I therefore offer warm congratulations to Mrs Van Lancker. This agenda, which goes back to an initiative by the French Presidency, is a genuine programme of work for the next five years. It is in keeping with the decisions of the Lisbon European Council, whose main conclusions relate to establishing a more competitive knowledge-based economy and achieving full employment. It was drawn up in consultation with the European institutions and the NGOs, which were kept fully involved. The Van Lancker report takes account of some of the proposals made by civil society and experts at the joint conference on the subject between the European Commission and the European Parliament on 21 and 22 September 2000. So this agenda sends out a strong political message to European citizens, who all too often perceive Europe as merely the creation of a large market. It highlights the existence and reality of the European social model, but also the need to bring it up to date. We do not have the right to disappoint our citizens. The social agenda must therefore be very ambitious in order to confirm that social, economic and employment policies are closely interlinked and interacting, and that they must have equal status in the Community policy triangle, with the aim of improving the social quality of life for all. Indeed, social policy must be a policy in its own right, with its own objectives. It cannot be seen solely as an adjunct of economic and employment policy or as a by-product of creating a large single market, and even less as mere “dross”. In the five years to come, we will have to create quality jobs, anticipate and manage the adjustments to the new social environment, draw on the opportunities offered by a knowledge-based economy, modernise and improve social protection, promote social inclusion, encourage gender equality, reinforce fundamental rights and combat discrimination. I welcome the adoption at Nice of this social agenda, which, together with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, shows that we have reached a turning point in European integration, which, at present, seeks to strengthen the social and civil fabric of the Union.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would also like to praise the work of Mr Corbett, who is our expert on the Rules of Procedure and it is right that we should place our trust in him. His aim is to improve how Parliament works, to couple efficiency with democracy. Mr Corbett is today proposing that we anticipate the ratification of the Treaty of Nice. No one, in my view, can criticise us for doing so, since, realistically speaking, the provisions that Mr Corbett is proposing should enter into force at the same time as the Treaty. This solution seems to be reasonable. I also imagine that we will be needing Mr Corbett again in the future because, as Mr Fiori said, it seems that, in the light of the European Union’s agenda, whether this tackles the Convention or enlargement, the Rules of Procedure will again have to be amended in several respects. I shall only discuss two aspects, namely the monitoring of subsidiarity and comitology. The results of the Convention in these areas will obviously need to be included in a new set of rules. I should like to draw your attention to various points made in the Corbett report. First of all, it discusses taking into account the nature of a convention, how to appoint its members and how to establish its mandate. I think that this shows how our Rules of Procedure can be adapted, which is something that I welcome. Next, the report puts across the idea that the European Parliament must involve the national parliaments in drawing up the broad political and economic guidelines. This is an essential element which we approve through the Rules of Procedure, and I welcome this. Lastly, like my fellow Member, Mrs Kauffmann, I would also like to draw the attention of our rapporteur to the issue of gender neutrality. I already touched upon this issue in plenary earlier and, in the context of the report, I would like to reiterate what I said. From now on, we must speak of ‘the rights of the individual’, and whilst quickly leafing through Mr Corbett’s report, I unfortunately noticed that, despite vigilant efforts on both sides, some mistakes have still slipped through the net. For example, the French version of Amendment No 51 in Article 104(a) still speaks of the ‘droits de l’homme’ (literally, ‘rights of man’).

Political group: PSE