GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I subscribe to the general comments made by my honourable friends in the Europe People’s Party and shall confine myself to commenting on two criticisms levied against Greece which, because they go too far, undermine the credibility of the report and real fundamental rights. The first concerns the ban on women pilgrims entering Mount Athos in Greece. This ban has been in place for 1200 years and is enshrined in the Treaty of the European Union and the Greek constitution. It cannot therefore be changed, nor should it, because to do so would be to accept that the home is not inviolable. Mount Athos is home to 5 000 monks and it is their right to receive whomsoever they please in their home, just as it is our right, as simple citizens, to receive and offer hospitality to whomsoever we want in our home and keep out anyone we do not. This is not a tourist area and any women interested in how Orthodox monks live need only visit the hundreds of other monasteries in Greece and other Orthodox countries in order to satisfy their curiosity. My second comment concerns conscientious objectors. Unfortunately, religious convictions or an aversion to the violence which the army may stand for are used as a pretext by a number of people to avoid military service and while away their days in the civil service at the state’s expense, even though some of them have no hesitation in using violence if it serves their ideological purpose. May I inform you, my honourable friends, that some of the November 17 terrorists who were recently arrested in Greece, whose much-publicised trial is due to start in a few days’ time, and who have so far murdered some 50 foreign diplomats, ministers, politicians, journalists and judges, have stated that they are conscientious objectors and have been exempted from military service, while another conscientious objector serving in a mental institution has been getting his kicks out of torturing the inmates. It is a pity that we always go too far and end up ridiculing fundamental rights.

Political group: PPE-DE
A comment and question to the Council’s representative: is the answer he just gave us specific? For goodness sake!

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, this debate is about much more than our view of human genetics: it also about the role we assign ourselves as European politicians in the assessment of ethics, science and the integrity of the European citizen. I have no monopoly on truth and I believe that it behoves us to show humility. Citizens are quite capable of taking their own decisions honourably and conscientiously. Personally, I am in favour of scientific research that is as free as possible, with the possible prospect of a cure for hitherto incurable diseases like Parkinson’s, diabetes and cardiovascular disease, although in the latter case you can, of course, simply stop smoking. The work of our committee has shown that European science treats its responsibility conscientiously. I cannot square with my conscience the fact that we do not support and in some cases even ban the types of research under discussion, including therapeutic cloning and stem cell research using residual embryos. Of course, others reach different conclusions and I respect that, but we should take note of the fact that different Member States will arrive at different legislation. Therefore I find myself unable to support the motion before us, if it remains unchanged.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, I would also like to congratulate the rapporteur for his excellent work, and the Commissioner for her tenacious efforts in this field. It makes sense, almost a year after the Prestige incident, to assess the situation and see what lessons can be learnt. First of all, with respect to the environment, credit is due to the efforts made by the Spanish authorities, with the invaluable help of fishermen and thousands of volunteers, to extract the remaining fuel oil, minimise the risks, clean up the coastline and repair ecosystems, though it is regrettable that pollutants are still leaking from the wreck every day. Secondly, with respect to assigning liability, it is deplorable that, a year on, investigations should be so faint-hearted. This is a matter not simply of investigating, trying and punishing the polluter, but also of assigning liability at other levels: firstly, at the level of those who should have inspected the ship and failed to do so and, secondly, at the level of those who conducted inspections and then failed to act on them. Lastly, it should be determined to what extent those who managed the crisis are liable. Assigning liability may be an uncomfortable process, but it is an essential one. Rather than set up a belated temporary Parliamentary committee on the Prestige, however, our responsibility is to implement, on a daily basis, all the democratic controls falling within our competence, as, indeed, we have today. Thirdly, with respect to legislation, I welcome the Commission proposals to shorten the implementation deadlines for the Erika I and Erika II packages. The Member States are now responsible for ensuring full and speedy compliance with the regulations enshrining the ban on single hull vessels, more thorough inspections of vessels in our ports, monitoring systems, the list of safe havens and contingency plans in case of accidents. Above and beyond these initiatives, however, it is vital to go further and implement new rules, such as establishing shipping lanes further away from the coasts, inspecting ships carrying dangerous substances within the 200-mile zone, drawing up a code of conduct for manufacturers and freight companies, establishing a European fleet of pollution-fighting ships, laying down minimum requirements for resources and equipment for providing assistance, rescue and preventive measures. Finally, a clear timetable for introducing changes to international maritime law must be established.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I do not know whether the procedure would be appropriate, but in Amendment No 3, relating to paragraph 5 of Article 8, there has been an error on presentation. If we take account of the justification for the amendment, which is aimed at increasing legal certainty and protection of holders of earlier trade marks or geographical indications, on drawing up the text, earlier trade marks have been mentioned on five occasions and on only one occasion are earlier Community geographical indications mentioned. I would therefore like, if possible, to introduce an oral amendment now, to the effect that each time the text of this Amendment No 3 mentions an earlier trade mark, it is followed by ‘or Community geographical indication’, because that was the purpose of the amendment, but for some mysterious reason, caused by printing gremlins or I am not sure who, Mr President, it has not been included. (The President established that there were no objections to the oral amendment) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Second Report (A5-0291/2003) by Timothy Kirkhope, on behalf of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, on the initiative by the Federal Republic of Germany with a view to adopting a Council Directive on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air (14848/2002 – C5-0011/2003 – 2003/0801(CNS)) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** (The sitting was suspended at 11.50 a.m. and resumed at 12.35 p.m.) IN THE CHAIR: MR PROVANVice-President

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, despite the fact that it has welcomed some of the positions adopted by the European Parliament, I find it deplorable that the Council persists in maintaining a proposal for a directive that fails to meet the expectations of workers in the European Union. When you see the behaviour of the directors of many companies, especially the multinationals, who decide to restructure, relocate or even partially or totally close down their businesses, making hundreds or thousands of workers unemployed simply to cut costs and/or increase profits, it is all the more intolerable that the Council should not have accepted proposals that we have adopted in this House. Examples of these are: - the reference to the planning stage in the definition of consultation, its extension to cover economic and financial developments in the company and the obligation to seek agreement on all issues subject to the information and consultation of workers. - extending consultation in particularly serious cases; extending the concept of a serious breach of the obligations to inform and consult; the implementation of the directive on public administration. - the abolition of the employer’s right to retain particularly sensitive information and the obligation for Member States to promote social dialogue within SMEs. These are our reasons for supporting Mrs Ghilardotti’s proposals, which once again take up the positions adopted at first reading, with particular emphasis on the amendments that seek to step up sanctions and specific legal proceedings in cases where the directive is breached, on suspending decisions at the request of workers’ representatives when their implementation has serious consequences for workers, with a view to eliminating or minimising these harmful consequences, on eliminating the transitional periods for the directive’s implementation in Member States that do not have a system of worker consultation and on reducing the period of transposition into national law to two years as well as its implementation in the public sector. These are positive proposals which, as I said, we support. I can only regret the fact, however, that the rapporteur has dropped her two proposals on eliminating the option the Council wishes to give employers to, in certain cases, neither inform nor consult their workers, although the rapporteur’s proposals envisage sanctions against employers that fail to act promptly. The Council’s position, however, opens up loopholes that could prove dangerous for workers and it is, therefore, important to eliminate this possibility. This is the basic justification for the two amendments that we have tabled in conjunction with the Group of the . We hope that a majority in Parliament votes in favour of these and that the Council takes account of the positions that have been put forward here in one of the most sensitive areas of the protection of workers’ rights.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, first of all, I should like to congratulate Mrs De Sarnez on her report, which gives a sound and clear overview of the present situation in higher education, the existing programmes and the possible forms of cooperation with third countries in the field of higher education. The summary she gave us a moment ago is excellent. In the Seventeenth century, some 40% of all students at the universities in the Netherlands were of foreign origin. With the advent of the national state, education became increasingly national. We now see another trend towards internationalisation, and this is also necessary. With the enlargement and extension of Europe, we need more people whose hearts are in Europe and who have a feel for Europe, together with a knowledge of, and a feel for, the various countries, languages and cultures. But the world extends beyond Europe, and it is becoming, as it were, increasingly smaller due to growing mobility and further internationalisation. Not for nothing is the term ‘global village’ used. The digital knowledge-based society turns the world into a single coherent whole. This creates a demand not only for citizens who have technical and scientific knowledge, but also for citizens with a feel for world citizenship. And this is precisely why cooperation with third countries in the field of higher education is important. A society must be supported by its citizens. The Ancient Greeks already recognised the significance of education towards citizenship. They observed that politics, training and education towards responsibility belong together. Education plays an important role in integration. It is a well-known fact that it can contribute to greater understanding and, as a result, to better relations. It is important for the EU to seek, and intensify, cooperation. Even if education is a national competence, more harmonisation is possible and necessary. This report is about cooperation with third countries. As has been said before, Europe does not appear to be the first choice of students who wish to study aboard for a while. The US is still far more appealing. This is partly due to the language problem, but this is not the only reason. The quality of the curriculum, the reputation of the institution, as well as the recognition of qualifications play an important role. I agree with the report that we in Europe must work towards a consistent and high level of education, which inevitably goes hand in hand with a command of languages, international recognition of qualifications, a Credit Transfer System, at least at European level, and more flexible opportunities for students from third countries who study in one Member State to also study temporarily in another EU country. Finally, I should like to focus on the importance this has for development cooperation. It is crucial for the advancement of a country. It is a sound proposal to critically analyse the EU programmes in this respect and to look for other options.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to start by thanking Mr Harbour for his excellent report. I am not just flattering him, I really mean it. My congratulations on his report which contains both a comprehensive evaluation of the Commission initiatives and many of his own suggestions. I should also like to thank him for his open-minded attitude to our positions, suggestions and proposed amendments. Similar thanks go to the Commission, which really has proven over recent years that it is able to start its own European initiatives in an extremely important sector and implement them internationally. We have to deal here with opponents – perhaps I should say partners at international level rather than opponents – who are very very strong in this sector, especially the United States. It is becoming more and more important for us to come up with our own ideas on what future prospects we want to give the Internet sector as a whole. So heartfelt thanks to the Commission – and the Council – on their innovation-friendly approach to this sector. I should like to pick up on a few points addressed by Malcolm Harbour. This initiative is concerned primarily with what should happen in the area of future research on the Internet. I think it is important here to progress beyond the Commission’s previous initiatives and anticipate the future. Malcolm Harbour mentioned this. What does that mean, anticipating the future in the Internet sector? It is tough terrain because forecasts are hard to make in both this and many other sectors. Here, however, we are dealing with a sector which is moving very very fast, which is regulated but where it is increasingly important that we look ahead and decide what standards will be needed in the future. The other question which keeps cropping up is exactly how this sector is perceived and understood by the people, by consumers as a whole. It is becoming more and more important here to create real confidence, so that we do not just have the technology, which is fantastic, we do not just have clever and intelligent regulation, we do not just have standards which anticipate the future, we also have people and consumers who are ready and willing to invest in this sector, not just by making telephone calls, but by using it in future to conduct their transactions. We shall need to invest much much more in this sector than we have done in the past. If we are to create real confidence, I should like to call on the Commission to do more here. To close, my request, my plea to the Commission is this: please bundle all the initiatives which you have started in the Internet sector into a single, cross-sectoral initiative with a real, overall, conclusive concept.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would just like to ask the Members to reflect a moment. If the matter is a legal one, we should proceed along legal avenues and the Court should pass judgment; those who need to appeal should appeal and those who demand justice must have it. If the matter is of a political nature – and therefore a matter for Parliament – it is a pity that we do not approach matters of this kind with due caution. I fully appreciate the Commission's position and, indeed, as Parliament, we must be very careful. I am not defending my government out of solidarity – it is not my government, I belong to an opposition party – but I am trying to clarify the matter. We make every endeavour to ensure that the citizens enjoy the same rights in all the States, but they also have to respect and face up to the same responsibilities in all the States. It is intolerable for European citizens to have some sort of privileged access in a State other than their own and not to have to undergo the same tests and bear the same burdens as the citizens of that country, in the case in the point the citizens of Italy. In the European Union, education and teaching is structured according to the principle of subsidiarity, with the result that the laws of the Member States differ. Under Italian law, you do not become a university lecturer automatically by virtue of experience, you have to pass a public examination. Therefore, until we manage to harmonise the laws – which we hope to do – respect for the principle of subsidiarity for the moment means that it is impossible on the grounds of discrimination to do away with something which is in all probability a request for a privilege. I repeat: there must be the same rights but also the same responsibilities for all. Otherwise, this problem, which is political, not legal in nature, will arise again and could occur in other States of the European Union where laws governing university career paths and education are different from elsewhere. I therefore advocate caution.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we have on a number of occasions expressed our disagreement with the Commission’s strategy concerning services of general interest. It is unacceptable that it should continue to intervene in this area, thereby undermining the very existence of high-quality public services that are essential in combating poverty and in ensuring social inclusion and a high standard of living for the whole population. What is urgently required, as we have proposed on many occasions, is a moratorium on liberalisation and a root and branch evaluation of the consequences of what has already been implemented in the various social and economic sectors, especially in terms of jobs, of the universality of the services provided, of client satisfaction and of making the functioning and management of services more democratic. Firstly, however, the Commission must refrain from implementing measures that, in practical terms, may result in further erosion of quality public services in the various countries of the EU.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Austria has very strict laws prohibiting fascism, national socialism and the resurgence thereof, and there has been a succession of convictions over the past few years. Does the President-in-Office of the Council know of any similar, or better, legislation in other States? Will the Council continue to ignore the fact that the sanctions against Austria decided on by the 14 Heads of Government are in violation of the European Treaties? Will it persist in its refusal to take a stance on the matter, thereby remaining in breach of the Treaties? Are bilateral decisions not to be dealt with by the Council in future?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I was struck today by an article in The Wall Street Journal; the subtitle read: 'Why do America and Europe differ on the importance of consumer interests?' It went on to say, from a US point of view: 'when it comes to putting the consumer at the center of its economic model, Europe remains stubbornly old-fashioned.' E-commerce, of all types, still lags behind in Europe. By 2005, 11% of US retail sales will be online, only 6+% in western Europe. Our hope must be that this Commission initiative for a European Extra-Judicial Network will help build consumer e-confidence and force those European figures up. These were the problems that we wrestled with during the passage of the Brussels regulation: how to allow Europe's consumers access to cross-border justice without over-burdening business and yet, at the same time, exposing business to necessary competitive forces. We must be clear that this is an attempt to deal with a large number of low-value cross-border consumer disputes, outside the normal legal system. Alternative means that almost replace the lower end of our traditional court systems will be introduced. This is a very ambitious project, and such an exercise needs to be seriously undertaken and properly funded. One of my greatest concerns about this initiative is its funding, both substantively and in terms of its publicity. Our citizens know where their local courts are, but will they know how or where to access the EEJ Net? From what I have seen, I am not over-optimistic. Secondly, is the system coherent and efficient? At the moment, progress is very variable in the different Member States. The Commission must get tough in this respect, hence our suggestion of a service-level agreement with each clearing-house. Only such an arrangement will ensure that our citizens get the service that they really deserve. This brings me to the amendments. We can happily accept Amendments Nos 2 and 3, but we have grave concerns about Amendment No 1. Not to allow the clearing-houses to give legal advice flies in the face of reality. Some of the centres already operating as Euroguichets, have trained lawyers on their staff. They could not function without that. We cannot offer our citizens a second-rate service. Good legal advice, or knowledge, at the outset of a claim is essential if it is not to veer off in the wrong direction, causing aggravation, disappointment and denial of justice. Lastly, let us turn to the legislative method, ADR and the EEJ Net, are examples of soft law or co-regulation. If this is the way of the future, it is important that Parliament be fully involved from start to finish. For example, most of us would applaud the other sectoral initiative in this field, the FIN Net dealing with financial services for instance, but when was this initiative referred to Parliament? If we are replacing or enhancing our legal system and access to justice, these issues are key to civil society and they cannot and must not be tackled without the input of democratically elected Members.

Political group: ELDR