GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
We fully share the view that cultural diversity should be recognised as a fundamental right, and we therefore choose to support Mrs Prets report on cultural diversity. The EU is, and must remain, a mosaic of minorities and cultures. As liberals, we always put the private individual at the centre of all political decisions. We therefore believe it to be of the greatest importance both to confirm in international law that every state or group of states has a legitimate right freely to decide what cultural policy they wish to pursue, and to strengthen the policy of international cooperation and solidarity on cultural issues. Linguistic diversity must also be retained within the EU. We are, however, dubious about the idea of the EU being legally entitled to take measures within the area of culture and the media in order to preserve and promote cultural diversity. We do not therefore wish to support the EU’s developing a legal instrument for cultural diversity.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I am speaking on behalf of Mr Napolitano who cannot be here. It concerns these two reports about relatively non-controversial amendments to our Rules of Procedure. These reports were adopted in committee last autumn and we in our committee were unanimously of the opinion that nine months is a long enough gestation period for any report. We have of course enquired as to why the Conference of Presidents has not placed these two reports on the plenary agenda already. We are anxious to know quickly because we need to know what will happen to these reports before we move to the general revision of the Rules of Procedure scheduled later this year. It is therefore a matter of urgency. We have been told that the Conference of Presidents has not had time to consider this in full because the matter is still being examined by the meeting of secretaries-general of political groups with the deputy Secretary-General of the European Parliament. We all know about Coreper in the Council. Perhaps not all of us are aware that there is a sort of Coreper in the European Parliament that filters reports before they come to the Conference of Presidents, before they come into plenary. This is a highly dangerous way of proceeding and, after giving them nine months to consider the matter, it is now high time to put these reports on Parliament's agenda, if not today, then later in the week. I am sure the committee would be willing to accept an undertaking that they be put on for the next part-session. But I must move this on behalf of the committee, supported unanimously by every political group in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner. As draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on his report and to thank him and all the other members of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs for being so cooperative. The committee responsible was able to include some of what we in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market proposed in one form or another. We were able to confine ourselves in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market to a very small number of proposed amendments, because we support the Commission's basic approach. You can never quantify it exactly, but I would say that we fully endorse 95% of the Commission's proposals. On numerous other questions, it was rather up to the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to express an opinion. We came to one main basic conclusion in committee. The current debate and all that has gone before have shown that this block exemption regulation, however esoteric it may sound, directly affects all our voters and will have far-reaching ramifications throughout Europe. And yet it is an act which the Commission can decide on autonomously, with the European Parliament only involved under a voluntary consultation procedure. With all due respect to the Commission and, more importantly, given the need for the Commission to remain impartial when it makes unilateral decisions and for the Commission to be shielded from unacceptable political pressure, I think that, when it comes to general competition law, these matters should come under the codecision procedure in future. As a member of the European convention, I took the liberty of submitting a proposal to the convention along these lines last Friday. Naturally, the Committee on Legal Affairs also considered measures to maintain confidence and legal certainty, which is why we have proposed improvements to conditions of notice and compensation for dealers and focused on the location clause. My proposed transitional arrangement, which will be put to the vote tomorrow as the lead committee's Amendment No 28, is based on a number of considerations which give us cause to believe that it will improve competition. If nearly every other restriction on competition is removed from the new block exemption regulation – which, as we have said, is a good thing which we expressly support – then I think that we can keep the location clause in place for dealers for the time being, in order to ensure, among other things, that dealers in areas with less purchasing power – and I come from just such an outlying region – can survive and that the consumer supply line is not cut. Location clauses on a non-growth market can help to protect us from the all too negative fallout from the concentration process. I think it is worth keeping an eye on this process for another two years. Then it will automatically be up to the Commission to introduce the final, decisive measures. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in Zimbabwe too the situation seems to be developing into a never-ending story. I myself was able to experience the escalation in violence when I visited the country on the occasion of the parliamentary elections as an election observer, albeit under the wrong label, because I was not recognised as representing the European Union. Over thirty opposition politicians lost their lives in these disputes, and we are now seeing a renewed escalation in violence. We must now face the fact that not only is Mr Mugabe using live weapons against peaceful demonstrators, but he is also using hunger as a weapon against his people. It has already been mentioned here today that over half of the population is dependent on food aid. We too, therefore, find ourselves in a quandary: if we do not want to let the people starve, we have to help them, but in so doing we are also unintentionally helping to keep Mugabe in power. Prices for essential goods are soaring in Zimbabwe. The rate of inflation is exploding, and is currently the highest in the world. The economy is in ruins; exports and tourism, once flourishing sources of income, have collapsed. The rule of law, once so dependable, has been set aside, and the most recent outrages have shown that the Council was right to agree to the sanctions against the Mugabe regime. However, those sanctions are not being consistently applied. This must be demanded as a matter of urgency! If we expect these measures to make any impression on the regime, then they must also be consistently applied. We had this problem with an ACP meeting, which broke up as a result. We shall continue to come up against this problem, and if the Commission grants a travel permit for ACP talks or other meetings, then the regime will be strengthened still further, and our position, namely that we are in favour of the restoration of the rule of law and democracy and in favour of the protection of human rights, will be weakened. This in turn weakens our position within the ACP meetings too, where we are, after all, trying to get our African partner countries on our side, and that is certainly no easy task. We have experienced many disappointments. We have even experienced the situation in which we have not received support for our position in favour of the rule of law, for the protection of human rights and finally for a life fit for human beings in that country, complete with full democratic rights. I would like to emphasise, however, that, in a secret ballot, a good quarter of those present at the ACP meeting agreed with us, and some delegates even dared to say so openly, and to condemn, very forcefully, what is happening in Zimbabwe. However, we must remind all those who sit around the table with Mugabe in Africa that to support such a regime cannot be to follow the path of legality. We need to make our position absolutely clear here, and so, too, must the Commission. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on behalf of the , I should like to welcome this report and to thank Mrs Sörensen for her excellent work in drawing up such an important document. I welcome the underlying Commission communication, but I would say, on behalf of my Group, that we regret that this communication was not much stronger. It is quite clear that the Treaties provide the Union with the instruments that are necessary to strengthen protection of the victims of crime. I think, for example, of some of the conclusions of the Wergens report, and we would have expected more from the Commission than proposals for greater dialogue and the exchange of best practice. We need clear measures to help victims with access to assistance, justice and compensation. However, it must be said that if we feel the Commission could do more, the biggest problem is by far the Member States. It seems to us incredible that seven Member States have still not ratified the 1983 Convention on compensation for victims of violent crime and that standards of justice are still so low in so many Member States. Let me give just one brief example from my own constituency. Mr Pike, a lorry driver in my constituency, was recently assaulted by his employer in the Netherlands. Mr Pike is not a wealthy man and the cost of legal redress is high. He does not have access to legal aid in Britain because he has to employ a lawyer in the Netherlands to help him. He does not have access to legal aid in the Netherlands. He is unable to secure any compensation or, indeed, any justice for the injuries he has suffered. Unless we are able as a Union to help in relatively clear and simple situations like this, our citizens will not have confidence in the single market and will not feel part of the European Union. I hope that we can take up some of the ideas put forward in this report to improve their situation.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, with respect to the floods, it could be said that, in times of trouble, you find out who your friends are. This old saying might illustrate the attitude of the European Union towards those affected by the floods, which have devastated Member States and candidate countries. By reacting swiftly, by dispatching representatives to the affected areas and by agreeing to make available financial aid, the Union has boosted its Community policy and its closeness to the people. The Union has proved that it can show the solidarity expected of it and which we work to achieve. Although we can welcome the commitment to set up an assistance fund for natural disasters in the Union, we must certainly bear in mind the causes of this unpredictable weather. Scientists throughout the world are all telling us that global warming is irreversibly changing the way we live and greenhouse gas emissions are only serving to make these disasters worse. On one side of the planet, we have to sell livestock due to a lack of water and fodder. Elsewhere, entire regions have been devastated since July due to thunderstorms. Incidentally, Mr President, let us reiterate that, in Nepal, 422 people have died and 173 people have been reported missing. In Russia, 50 people have lost their lives and 100 have been reported missing. In Mexico, torrential rain has cost 21 lives and 15 000 people have been affected. In Asia, 250 people have died this year. Millions of homes have been affected by the rising water levels. Unfortunately, as we know, these geographical areas do not have the opportunity that we have here to provide victims with solidarity. Although Members can welcome the fact that aid has been granted and emergency measures have been taken swiftly and effectively, it is not enough to call for the application of the Kyoto Protocol, we must do much more than that. We must integrate the environment into all our projects, into all our policies so that we can create a glimmer of hope. We must lead the way in trying to slow down climate change. The Rio Summit brought little in the way of results, so it is up to us to lead by example!

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I actually wanted just to say on the record that there are an increasing number of cases here in Brussels of bagsnatchers smashing in the side windows of cars and women drivers getting injured in the process. I would like to ask that this be noted and consideration given to the possibility of doing something about this.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to illustrate the past success of Socrates through soup. Yes, you heard me correctly. This was not my idea but the idea of Whitfield Primary School in Dundee, Scotland. These people came up with a 'Soups in Europe' project, working with partner schools in Austria, Denmark, Italy and France. Their idea was that soup is a common food amongst people and that soup transcends boundaries. Through this project, which was directly related to the Scottish curriculum, they organised a parents' soup day and, with their other partners, produced a book with 25 soup recipes. Through soup and the support of Socrates the outcome of this project was more motivated pupils and staff, a greater awareness of their own environment as well as other places, and increased understanding of information communication technology. I hope that the next Socrates programme produces more projects like that of Whitfield Primary School and maybe the next time you tuck into a bowl of soup, you will remember the educational value Socrates has across the Union.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the framework agreement between Parliament and the Commission, as has been presented to us today, is diametrically opposed to the prospect held out by President Prodi of making European documents as widely available to the public as they are in those Member States which have moved furthest in the direction of transparency. The agreement bears out existing practice and even limits public access to a certain extent. A right which all MEPs still have at present would, on the basis of this decision, soon be limited to a chosen few, whilst at the same time, the list of documents which can only be supplied with the permission of third parties would be extended to include international organisations such as the WTO and the World Bank. Parliament has not even had the opportunity to discuss or amend this agreement. A government which keeps information from its citizens is unreliable but a government which does not even take its own parliamentarians seriously is not ready for democracy yet. Fortunately, a number of Member States, including the Netherlands, have enjoyed better practices for many years now. This framework agreement illustrates how backward the European Union still is, and this promises little in the way of the possibility of involving the electorate in a democratic way. This is why I have naturally voted against.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we often talk about people washing their hands of the matter. These words do not apply in this case, however, because, although they tried, the matter has not been washed away. In spite of the Intergovernmental Conference, the draft Constitution produced by the Convention is still on the table, amongst other things because of the impetus given by this House and words such as those spoken by its President, Mr Cox, last Monday in Madrid, demanding that the IGC finish its work and finish it properly, in time – in other words – for the European elections and – why not? – before the end of this legislature. Well, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I would ask the Irish Presidency to support, and place its confidence in, the process; but also to demand that work be done, – and, moreover, be done publicly and transparently – on the draft Convention and not on mysterious compromises and shady deals that are incomprehensible or that amount to retrograde steps. Bilateral contacts may be useful, but the IGC is a body which must act jointly, debate and reach agreements on a final consensus.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I had hoped that we would have the opportunity for an urgency on the subject of the plane-spotters (12 British and two Dutch nationals) who were convicted on 26 April at a court in Kalamata in Greece. They were given very severe sentences. I am speaking especially on behalf of my constituents, Paul and Lesley Coppin. They were found guilty of offences which were not an offence in their own countries. The sentences were totally disproportionate. This throws doubt on any ambition to develop an area of freedom, security and justice in the European Union based on mutual trust between judicial systems. It certainly reveals potential flaws in the European arrest warrant. Mr President, I should like to ask you to express our concern to the Greek authorities and urge them to expedite the appeal process for the plane-spotters with a view to quashing their convictions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in Amendment No 6 to this report, Mrs Boudjenah proposes to add a sentence to paragraph 1. She stresses the important role of access to energy for development and suggests that we characterise access to energy as an essential human right. I am sympathetic to her reasoning, although I do not think we can make such a statement. Access to energy is not part of any human rights convention. I would, however, be prepared to replace 'essential human rights' by 'economic and social rights'. If the House agrees to such an oral amendment, I would then recommend that it support the amendment thus corrected. If not, I would advise the House to vote against the part of the amendment which refers to essential human rights. (The President established that there were no objections to the oral amendment) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0158/2003) by Laura González Álvarez on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy on the Commission communication: ‘Towards a strategy to protect and conserve the marine environment’ (COM(2002) 539 −2003/2065(INI)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0199/2003) by Adriana Poli Bortone, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, on the Commission’s annual report on the Instrument for structural policy for pre-accession (ISPA) 2001 (COM(2002) 596 – C5-0025/2003 – 2003/2021(INI)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0163/2003) by Niels Busk, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on a Community Action Plan to reduce discards of fish COM (2002) 656 – 2003/2036(INI) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** President. – That concludes the vote.(2) EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE - Report Matikainen-Kallström (A5-0211/2003)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, it is quite right that the municipal elections in Himara were marked by violence and fraud at the expense of the Greek minority living there. That this happened is beyond question. We have the findings of international organisations which monitored the elections. Albania is a country whose own minorities have suffered persecution at the hands of other countries and, as we all know, the international community reacted to this persecution. It should not repeat inside its borders what it suffered outside its borders; that is, I think, the first lesson in democracy which we should bring to the attention of this country, which is starting to establish an internal democracy. I should like the European Parliament to take note of these violations and, of course, to call for repeat elections in Himara.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Poland has made great progress in its journey back to Europe, at the cost of great sacrifice and the risk of unpopularity on the part of its governments, which have determinedly pursued this objective. I regret to say that, in Poland, as in the other candidate countries, accepting compromises with Brussels, giving the impression of yielding ground, is seen as extremely negative, and there is now a price to pay for those who do so. Poland is paying this price with great European determination. In this regard, I would like to stress how important and useful the information campaign on accession to Europe organised by the Polish Government is proving to be, yielding excellent results. It could be used by other countries as a model. I would also like to express my firm support for the Commission and the Council’s refusal – Commissioner Verheugen mentioned this just now – of Russia’s request for transit corridors from Kaliningrad. Those who are familiar with the history of Poland know what corridors mean for that country. I would just like to express one concern in what is, on the whole, a positive picture for Poland, regarding what appear to be clumsy attempts on the part of the current left-wing government to influence, or rather to restrict the independence of both the press and television and the National Bank of Warsaw. I trust that the debate currently taking place in Poland on these two key institutions of any democracy will not result in decisions which mar the esteem in which this country is held in the world. I will end by sharing a further concern with you, which has already been expressed by Commissioner Verheugen, namely that there is resistance to enlargement in the air. There is, in effect, something unhealthy in the air: enthusiasm is waning and the anti-European parties are gathering support everywhere. In my opinion, we really do need to redouble our efforts: it is our duty.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I have almost finished my intervention; the Commissioner has not listened to a word I said and is not therefore in a position to answer the questions I have put to him. My intervention took the form a series of questions to the European leadership, which has done absolutely nothing to stop the crimes being committed against women in Nigeria. Nigeria is a signatory to the Cotonou Agreement, which contains clauses about respecting human rights and women’s rights and yet, as far as the Commission is concerned, it is a case of out of sight out of mind. The political leadership has done nothing whatsoever and the entire matter has been left to the loyalty of women’s organisations and the media; in other words, to pressure from global public opinion. This pressure is very strong and it does bring in results but, in the final analysis, the European political leadership also needs to do something and insist that the Nigerian Government do what it should to protect women’s rights in Nigeria. And I also have this to say to you, Commissioner: in the final analysis, what is Nigeria? A democratic regime, a secular regime or a theocracy? Because on 25 March, Amina Lawal’s case will be heard before the Sharia court of appeal. We are out of our minds with worry. We have no idea what is happening in Nigeria. Three years ago, we were celebrating the return of democracy to Nigeria and a democratically elected government. And yet this government is completely incapable of imposing the constitution and the law on the country. The mullahs rule the country and are sentencing women to death by stoning for allegedly engaging in sex outside marriage. We want the Commission and the Council to intervene at once. The leadership must take a stand against these issues. That is what we are asking of you, Commissioner. (Applause)

Political group: PSE