GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I really want to thank Mrs Avilés Perea for this initiative concerning the use of the Structural Funds. When I was reflecting upon what I should say in these two consecutive debates, it occurred to me how concentrating upon women’s issues induces a degree of political weariness. There is no lack of men who maintain that progress is being made but, rather than agree with their view, I just get weary sometimes. In the fifth century, what was then an elitist male Church in Europe decreed at one of its Councils that women had souls. In 1993, the UN conference in Vienna decided that women’s rights are also human rights. In other words, there are more than 1 500 years between these two decisions. Women I meet throughout the Member States are also extremely weary. They are weary of participating in projects that do not lead anywhere. I usually urge them to find out what the situation is in terms of options offered by, specifically, the Structural Funds. In her report, Mrs Avilés Perea indicates the difficulties arising from the individual nations’ unwillingness to see an equality dimension in the Structural Funds. In the Swedish Parliament, my party has, for quite a few years, called upon the Swedish Government to provide us with assessments, especially in a gender perspective. Our calls have fallen upon deaf ears. I genuinely hope, therefore, that the Commission and Parliament – and the Swedish Liberals where Sweden is concerned – can cooperate in bringing this about. How, then, is a change in traditional male thinking to be effected in board rooms, for example? Boards often talk about competence, but no one has ever really succeeded in defining what is meant by competence and what type of competence is genuinely needed in a modern society. On this issue, I really do support the Swedish Minister for Equality who, with her recent pledge to use legislation to introduce quotas if we cannot get more women onto company boards, has hopefully also promised a new approach. I said in the previous debate that we needed gender-based structural transformation. That is what I am backing. It is so rare for us to have debates on equality here in plenary. In this context, I cannot forbear to mention the Convention – one that now wishes to introduce a Christian basis, but no equality between the sexes. That is why I was thinking of the fifth century.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I would like to take the opportunity of the vote on the Boselli report to state that this report, and the ensuing debate, raise the issue of the future of European culture, one which is very closely related to the resources granted to creative artists. The report does not fool the cultural world and creative artists and they have joined forces with great enthusiasm. I met several of their representatives and have read their statements. I believe, as do many Members of the House, that they are, generally, in the right. Naturally, it is in everyone’s interest for works of art to be widely distributed, particularly by the new methods of communication. It should not, however, lead to daylight robbery. That is why it is absolutely necessary to control the process properly and, in particular, to ensure that private copying retains a status that is truly private. Despite today’s vote, the battle is still far from being won. That is another reason why citizens should continue their battle for a European Union that is not just an economic, financial, cold and heartless monster.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to stress that the Commissioner was quite right in what she said. The Treaty can only be revised, and rightly so, if equivalent measures are introduced. Exactly what are they then?

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Finland is prepared to increase imports of beer from the internal market. The derogation has been restricted in terms of time, and I thus support the Commission’s line here. Finland’s alcohol policy has been a valid one, and we see evidence of this that goes unchallenged anywhere in the world. Our problem is the enormous difference in taxation. Hardly anywhere else does such a huge difference exist as is the case on the eastern border of our country. The reason is obvious if you think about it for a moment. A whole state collapsed over there and, at the same time, the price of vodka and beer likewise collapsed. That is what happened over there, and we will not get carried away in the flood, whatever you tell us. The cost of alcohol fell. Besides, they concoct alcoholic beverages over there by mixing tap water and home-made spirits. That makes for a pretty powerful brew. You can buy that virtually for the price of the bottle alone. What production could be so cheap that you could compete with that? Besides, who will be bothered by this restriction on imports from the east? It will not bother anyone, at least not the EU. It is being said here that taxation cannot reduce the consumption of alcohol. What sort of experience have you had in this regard? Because we do have experience of it. The first thing that the poor cut back on if prices rise is alcohol consumption. There is research data on that. Then you say that education helps. I happen to come from a region where such education has been provided. What happened? Vodka continues to be drunk as before, and on top of that there is wine. In other words, total consumption is increasing. And we still have an additional problem. We have high taxation, which I used to be in favour of. If private citizens are allowed to bring in more foreign beer, tax revenue will fall. Then we would be obligated to lower taxation in our own country with a consequent decrease in tax revenue, but in either case the consumption of alcohol will increase. In other words, there is quite a significant double-edged problem. I regard a gradual switch as being the correct approach and one where consideration is given to our country’s levels of taxation. Excise duty on beer is very high in our country but, ladies and gentlemen, what we cannot eliminate is the price gap that exists between us and our neighbour to the east. Our resources are insufficient for that. This gap is so great that, as a result – as Mr Pesälä said – our special position is quite important for us. And if it is removed, I will just say that our roads to the east will be soaked in vodka if all import restrictions are lifted. That is the issue here.

Political group: PSE
Our position in the final vote on the Piecyk report was to abstain. We do, of course, realise that the aim of withdrawing single hull tankers is to protect the environment by preventing other tragic accidents at sea. We are without doubt in favour of this aim, as we have demonstrated by voting in favour of all the previous reports on the subject. These final arrangements, however, appear to be the result of political reaction in the heat of the moment to the shipwreck of the Prestige. This also explains the eagerness for the EU to proceed this time independently of the IMO, while it is a known fact that for shipping, which goes beyond European borders, international solutions are preferable. Especially as the previous withdrawal timetable has not yet started to apply. We do not believe, therefore, that serious account has been taken of the consequences that these arrangements will have on the competitiveness of the economy. More specifically, Greek shipping is being hard hit, harming the workers in the shipping industry. In abstaining, we are expressing our acute scepticism about the stand of the Council of Ministers and, more importantly, the Greek Presidency, which should deal with the issue with greater sangfroid, especially as we Greeks have more experience of these issues and our economy is affected more by these arrangements.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, before we vote on Amendment No 88, I should like to draw the attention of my fellow MEPs to a mistake that has crept into the translation of Amendment No 91. In this Amendment, it is stated that if Amendment No 88 is adopted, No 91 will lapse, but there is a crucial difference. Amendment No 88 contains the word ‘prostitution, and the fight against prostitution’. In No 91, the word is deleted from the English translation. All other translations are incorrect. Amendment No 91 therefore states that opposition is being expressed in respect of human trafficking and prostitution of minors, but not to prostitution itself. This is the key difference between Amendments Nos 88 and 91. Regarding Amendment No 45:

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, are we going to support a country that pursues barbaric practices? Now we are faced with the drama of Mrs Lawal. More and more states within Nigeria are introducing Sharia law. The political climate is often so influenced by Islam that politicians only have a chance in elections if they support this legislation. Barbaric ancient desert practices such as stoning women or hacking off limbs are naturally at odds with the most fundamental human rights. The much-discussed clash of civilisations, cultures or faiths can only be prevented if the strict Sharia law is abolished everywhere. Nigeria is a very fragile and unstable democracy. The European Union supports the democratisation process there, and with good reason. However, it can only continue to do so if the federal government does everything in its constitutional power to stop barbaric punishments from being administered. If they fail to do so, the support we recently promised must be reconsidered. Development aid and support for good government makes little sense if the recipients of this aid persist with their barbaric practices.

Political group: ELDR
Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I want to thank Mrs Cederschiöld and Mr Cappato for the sound work they have done. I am in no doubt that the forum supported by the Commission and Mrs Cederschiöld will highlight new issues and new problems. Moreover, the political front lines will probably not be the usual ones. This was also abundantly clear in today’s debate on electronic communications. I want to point out that the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party does not support Amendment No 55, for I think that the Committee’s proposal is clearer on the issue of storing communications data. A minority of the Group believes that we should wait and see how these systems work and that we should apply the principle of subsidiarity. We support Amendment No 61 concerning the supervision clause. Our approach is characterised by humility, for we do not believe that any of these proposals is the decisive factor. Rather, it is enlightened citizens who decide. I believe that many of those who will be making decisions in the House tomorrow are really not aware that the issue of spamming is, in large part, also regulated through the general data protection directive. We have a situation, for example in Great Britain, in which 44 per cent of all e-traders do not know that they are contravening this directive. Moreover, people do not know what service they can obtain. I believe that responsible and aware behaviour on the part of consumers is the most important thing of all. I come from a country in which we have an opt-in arrangement, but we still cannot do anything regarding, for example, people who make use of changed addresses. We are constantly seeing different forms of spamming. I wonder if we shall begin to be required to have some form of register of addresses in the future. I want to ask the Commission whether it has considered addressing the issue in the transatlantic or global dialogue. What truth is there in what is said about America’s attitude? We have received different information about this. Many say that the Bush administration does not yet intend to do anything, that it is too soon and that there is a wish to monitor technical developments. I also wonder which rules apply if a European company spams outside the EU. Is it the e-commerce directive or this directive which applies in that case?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, on behalf of my group, I would firstly like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Angelilli, for her report, and I would also like to express my thanks for the work done in our committee, which approved this particular report unanimously. I believe that it is only by acting in unison that we can make progress in the battle against crime. This report provides us with a basis for establishing an efficient network which will allow us to fight crime across Europe in a coordinated way, but without limiting our scope for action. This is not an attempt by the European Union to arrogate powers to itself, but rather to optimise the exchange of information between the relevant authorities in the Member States. Over and above this objective, the report also deals with the involvement of civil society organisations, universities and European institutions such as Europol and Eurojust in the crime prevention network. This is something we would like to see because it saves reinventing the wheel in terms of crime prevention in each individual Member State, so that available resources are used better. We welcome this. This crime prevention network is also important in other respects. The network will provide the Council and the Commission with the information they need to draw up appropriate crime prevention strategies. This is to be welcomed, because it will give the various national authorities a greater interest in exchanging information with the network, not least because they will be able to air their concerns at European level. This will also significantly speed up the process of coordinating national strategies. When it comes to organised crime and modern forms of crime, this is particularly welcome, as the national authorities often complain that criminals have the upper hand, because these authorities cannot react quickly enough to evolving trends and types of criminality. This will enable us to create a network providing universal information, greatly improving reaction times in crime prevention. The network is also very important as regards the candidate countries, as it can help to get a better handle on the problems that can result from transition periods. We will therefore be voting for the report with our own amendments, and we are very pleased that those responsible for implementation are finally getting the support they need from Parliament and the Council. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I wish to begin by welcoming the Commissioner to her new and important task. It is hard to imagine anyone better qualified within the present Commission. In Zambia, several women are murdered every week by their men. In the United States, a women is beaten by her husband every fifteenth second. In France, approximately 25 000 women are raped each year. Those are the facts that greeted me when my radio woke me this morning. They were a few extracts from Amnesty International’s report on the appalling situation of women throughout the world. I am not a moralist, but there is a point beyond which only disgust can be felt faced with the wave of pornography sweeping into our homes, onto the Internet, into newspapers and advertisements and into hotels. If you are a parent with two children, you will have difficulty defending yourself against it. Now, the time is approaching when enough is enough. There is a clear link between, on the one hand, prostitution and every cruder pornography and, on the other hand, the oppression of women and violence towards them. Within the EU, half a million women and children are sold every year. According to Mrs Gröner, the figure is perhaps one of 800 000 women and children. That is scandalous beyond belief. The Lisbon process is certainly needed to strengthen women’s situation in the labour market. There is no question about that. If, however, Europe is to become a decent continent, a halt must be called to this odious trade. My appeal to you, Commissioner, and to the President, Mr Cox, is to address this issue as the first item at the Spring Summit in Brussels. On 1 May, the bells of freedom must ring in Europe, not those of female slavery.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, firstly I should like to congratulate our three rapporteurs – Mr Hatzidakis, Mr van Dam and Mr Grosch – for the work they have done. The level of knowledge of the members of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism never ceases to amaze me, in regard to technical details such as the number of axles on buses, turning circles of buses, and so on and so forth. I am grateful to them for their work. As far as the Group is concerned, in relation to Mr Hatzidakis' report, we are happy with the common position and the same goes for Mr van Dam's report. We will be voting accordingly. Regarding Mr Grosch's report, I welcome the directive because it recognises that we now have an opportunity to improve road safety. Working conditions for drivers have direct economic but also safety implications. By proposing a training regime for professional drivers we will be enhancing the status of those drivers. It is also important to recognise that in light of enlargement these provisions will have to be incorporated into legislation by the candidate countries. I know many Member States include driver education in their basic education system, but for those that do not, this directive will make it possible for all drivers to receive proper training. The issue of subsidiarity was raised in committee and indeed is raised again in plenary through a number of amendments. My group believes that the compromise position that we reached in committee, with the help of our rapporteur, Mr Grosch, enables the directive to offer mere guidelines and therefore negates the need for subsidiarity. My group will therefore be voting against most amendments that advocate this principle and in support of the rapporteur's position. We will also vote in favour of Amendment No 43, which proposes an assessment of the effectiveness of this directive and vote against other amendments that try to be too prescriptive. We are, in short, agreeing with the rapporteur. I thank all the rapporteurs for their work and congratulate them all on producing three well-balanced reports.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I will not go into the substance of this matter since we all know what it is about. My Group has no objection to taking part in 600 votes tomorrow, but we have a clear preference for your suggestion that we simply vote on the original report paragraph by paragraph. A long voting session is already foreseen, colleagues on both sides have had their say, and, therefore, I propose to you that we follow your suggestion of voting on the original report paragraph by paragraph. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the European Union's permanent preoccupation, at the level of communications alone of course, with people with disabilities, forms part of the effort to conceal the tragic reality, which is that there is 90% unemployment in the European Union – and not 70% as the leaders assert, with a dramatic increase in unemployed people with disabilities, in conjunction with a dramatic reduction in disabled children attending special schools or parallel departments in recent years. In Greece, only 7% of disabled children attend special schools, which are financed by the insured, not the state. For autistic children over 14 years old, there is not one rehabilitation centre, while few children with mental health problems attend some sort of school. Of the 2 000 rehabilitation centres which should exist in Greece, there are only 200 sub-standard centres in Athens. The problem of people with disabilities is deeply class-based. Equal opportunities for people with disabilities mean a free national health and welfare service, special education, assistance and dignified work for everyone. It means a different policy, which the European Union, by its very nature, is unable to practice. That is why it takes refuge in ‘lying on a massive scale’, as we say in Greece.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, I support the reports by Miguel Angel Martínez Martínez and I consider it essential that the Council should accept the proposals made in them. I shall remind you of some aspects of the opinion approved in the Committee on Budgets: 1 – The revision of the POSEI programmes must comply with the Community’s pledges to increase support to the outermost regions; 2 – As the Commission proposals are based on the principle of budgetary neutrality, they reduce the spending level for the programmes in comparison with the early 1990s, when they were launched, which is unacceptable; 3 – The current revision must not threaten the livelihood of farmers operating under existing regulations. Community support must be strengthened and not reduced; 4 – New agri-environmental measures and measures for the development and adaptation of rural areas must be launched, and, lastly, the Commission should present new proposals if any of the measures prove to be insufficient or expire before 2006.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, the images from Göteborg were alarming. Vandalism, a blind destructive frenzy and criminal violence, all of which should be condemned, and my Group most certainly does condemn them. We must never allow anything like this to happen again. But people who want to make their views known, who want to exercise their right to demonstrate or who want to protest against political decisions should still be able to do so peacefully without any restrictions in future, just as some 20 000 peaceful demonstrators also did in Göteborg. Committed citizens will continue to see European summits as a political opportunity to express their ideas and expectations, and that is a good thing, because we need to take the public's views into account more when building a democratic Europe. Politicians and governments should no longer be allowed to sweep over the heads of the public and ignore their sentiments. The Swedish presidency in particular has made great efforts in this direction. It has made an effort to tackle the problem of the democratic deficit in Europe, and we really must recognise that. Unfortunately, the results have been somewhat disappointing. However, that cannot be laid at the door of the Swedish government alone – all governments have to be held to account here. When it comes to a public debate on the future of Europe, that debate should be a wide-ranging one. It needs to be purposeful and result-oriented. Madam President, Mr President-in-Office, you know that we in this House want a convention to prepare the next intergovernmental conference. We have done some preliminary work here, and it will now be the job of the Belgian presidency to initiate this convention before Laeken. I very much welcome the fact that there are already proposals on the table to extend the agenda and to address further issues in the debate on the future of Europe.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for his intensive and hard work on the enlargement of the European Union. It will be written down in golden letters in history. We need more cohesion. I would like to ask Commissioner Barnier's successor whether he is prepared to draw up or create a new and effective cohesion strategy.

Political group: PSE