GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, world cultural heritage – we have just heard the statistics – is distributed relatively unevenly. Most of it is here in Europe, which is something we can be very proud of, although it also shows that there are certain inequalities. Also, there are very few sites, i.e. places that have been deemed part of world cultural heritage, in comparison with the number found in the rest of the world, and it is a real drop in the ocean, because there are many more sites that would merit this kind of status and support. This simplifies neither the decision-making process nor the selection procedures. More applications are rejected than are accepted, and I think there is a need to redefine the criteria. The diversity of cultural heritage underlines the identity of a country’s own regions, which is why responsibility must primarily be taken and asserted at regional level, whilst acknowledging that they must be afforded substantial support from outside, from the European Union and from all those who are jointly responsible. These regional responsibilities include the preservation of homelands, customs and traditions, the development of a country’s own regions and so on and so forth. As I see it, these are criteria that can primarily only be managed at regional level. The importance of world cultural heritage sites transcends the scope of regional development. They are cultural treasures, and bear witness to epoch-making changes and unique occurrences in nature. They have outstanding universal value. Architectural cultural heritage, land developed and cultivated by man and urban cultural heritage belong together, but the picture is not complete unless it also includes monuments to contemporary history, from the world of work for example, such as developments in working life, the building of factories, machines and so on and so forth. They trace the development of the working process of our document, and also elsewhere in the world. It is therefore just as important to tackle the plundering of architectural finds as it is to combat the thoughtless destruction of the remnants of social institutions. Rapid technological development and changes in our environment really bring home how important it is to spare a thought for our natural heritage and take responsibility, in other words development planning and changes of designated land usages must feature more prominently in our responsibility for the conservation of our cultural heritage. Accordingly, when selecting world cultural heritage sites, there must be more emphasis on striking a balance between historic sites, religious monuments, the various religions from prehistoric times, contemporary history and natural heritage, and the assessment criteria must be amended with this in mind. The conservation of our cultural heritage is associated not only with a high level of responsibility, but also with high levels of cost. We therefore need to find ways of alleviating the financing aspect, of considering the legal and fiscal instrument and providing sponsors with incentives to make us more conscious of this responsibility.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I asked to take the floor earlier because this morning our group, in writing, called for the Commission to apply the ‘Erika’ legislative packages to the terrible situation in Galicia following the Prestige accident. It is no coincidence, Mr President, that the Erika and Prestige accidents took place in Brittany and Galicia, respectively. We need to provide protection for both these regions, in particular on the European Atlantic coast. The Erika disaster resulted in the legislation we know today being drawn up. The Galician disaster should lead to the immediate implementation of this legislation. We cannot continue to allow ticking time-bombs such as the Prestige to travel our waters irresponsibly when they are vulnerable to disaster. The routes to Europe from every other continent pass through Galicia. Four extremely serious accidents of this kind have recently taken place along the stretch of Galician coastline known as the ‘Coast of Death’, which is a privileged area. People are hoping that the socio-economic and ecological disasters will be remedied and that support will be given to those affected, and that the 77 000 tonnes still remaining on the Prestige will be prevented from flooding our coastline. We are hoping for immediate decisions from the Commission.

Political group: Verts-ALE
After a deadlock sustained by the mobilisation of the public against software patenting, Parliament declared itself in favour of the report. I voted against the directive. This project is useless; there is no justification for it because no one asked for it, apart from the multinationals, who want to hold on to their monopoly! Under the pretext of protecting ‘invention’, patents will eradicate innovation. By voting against this project we are refusing to support such manipulative behaviour. This is because this plan, even if amended significantly by Parliament, is still dangerous. Its very name: patentability of computer-implemented inventions, allows software to be patented. If such legislation had existed at the time of Mozart or Beethoven, authorising the patenting of musical works, then the whole of our world heritage would have been undermined at its very roots. The system of copyright currently covering software should continue to be enforced because this alone guarantees that authors remain justly and permanently rewarded.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, we have just heard an outstanding speech by a highly qualified representative of the Commission. We have held a high-quality debate lasting for over an hour on the most important topic in Europe today. I would like to ask if we can guarantee that this is properly recorded by the Parliament’s Press Service, and is not limited, as so often happens on Thursday afternoon, to just a few lines, while all the other debates are recounted in epic detail.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I wonder whether I could crave the indulgence of the House. I have spoken to Mr Sterckx about Amendment No 60 and the block that relates to it, which is Nos 52, 62, 57, 38 and 60. With the agreement of the rapporteur we would like to move my Amendment No 60 to be taken between Nos 52 and 62 if it comes to that. Mr Sterckx and the rapporteur are agreeable to that.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, with some difficulty we have been able to reach Strasbourg to participate in this debate which is so important to the future of European agriculture and to the COM in sugar in my country and in my region. I find it difficult to understand the Commission’s proposal to reduce the quotas by 115 000 tonnes or reduce storage aid in order to save EUR 300 million, as well as reducing time limits. I believe that these are substantial changes, which are unjustifiable. And why until 2003? I would like the Commission to tell us whether it thinks that, after 2003, there will be more resources and this provisional amendment will be justified. I would like to congratulate Mr Daul on his work on the Commission’s proposal and on the special sensitivity he has shown in relation to each of the problems which we have raised, with regard to which he has been able to reach a compromise and has included them in his report. I would like this provisional amendment, tabled by our parliamentary committee, in which it opts for maintaining a system of quotas without modifying the system of prices, to be taken into account by the Commissioner and that the Commission will change its position in the way proposed by Mr Daul, whose report we agree with on all its fundamental aspects and which we are prepared to support tomorrow morning.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I would like inform you and this House that two citizens of my country, from my region – Castilla y León – have been held captive in Georgia since 30 November of last year. Mr José Antonio Tremiño Gómez and Mr Francisco Jesús Rodríguez Cabal, who travelled to that country six months ago, have been held in an unknown location since then, and there has been no information from any source there. Madam President, I would ask you to take note of this serious problem, which affects these two European citizens and their families, so that you may urge the Georgian authorities to immediately locate and free these two Spaniards, who are being deprived of their main fundamental right; freedom.

Political group: PPE-DE
The foot and mouth epidemic that affected Europe in 2001 was a great disaster, and not only for the United Kingdom, where mass slaughter of livestock was necessary. Quite apart from the tragic consequences for farmers, the effects of this catastrophe and the urgent sanitary measures implemented have reached far beyond the agriculture sector. The report highlights a number of factors that exacerbated the situation: livestock farming and the agri-food sector were subject to the demands of importers and exporters and the race for world market domination; European sanitary directives were not transposed into national legislation; veterinary border controls were sometimes insufficient, despite the tremendously high value of the interests at risk; and there has been a continuous reduction in the number of veterinary surgeons. However, although it highlights the aggravating factors and ‘failures’ on the part of the authorities (which some amendments attempt to conceal), this report fails to challenge the general financial principle of ‘commercial breeding’, the principle of the pursuit of capitalist profit. This is precisely why, in order to avoid losing their position in the world marketplace, the authorities decided to prohibit prophylactic vaccination at European level, even if it meant resorting to mass slaughter in the event of an epidemic. We therefore abstained from voting on this report, although we do support some of its recommendations.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, the present document, like the report, is a labelling con. The wording on the outside belies the actual contents of these documents. We would be delighted to endorse family reunification measures, for this would be deeply humane and would also be key to an integration component, but what we have is something entirely different. This is about initiating sociopolitical debate on how far the circle of those entitled to family reunification can be extended beyond the core family. You include a proposal relating to unmarried partners, whose parents and children would be allowed to join them, according to which, testimonies from the country of origin would be enough to satisfy you as to the authenticity of a relationship, regardless as to how it appears. This would mean that children or parents joining members here would have the same rights as EU citizens in the educational, employment and social spheres. The traffickers in human beings and the document forgers will thank those of you who support this proposal, and you can rest assured that the general public’s response will be one of indignation. You also include a proposal relating to multiple marriages, i.e. the first wife is to be accepted along with the children and relatives in the ascending line. However, you also make the point in this document that naturally it would be possible to bring another wife and her dependants in, if this were necessary for the sake of the child’s welfare. This begs the question as to how much wider the door is to be opened to uncontrollable immigration? As far as we are concerned, the proposal under discussion is unacceptable. It lacks an overall frame of reference, a statistical basis and there is no differentiation. You are also overstepping the mark in respect of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which requires the integration capacity of each of the Member States to be taken into account. We have no intention of voting for this document unless it includes our amendments and follows our political line. (Applause from the right)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is obvious to us, too, that increased prices lead to a drop in the consumption of tobacco products, particularly cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco. The situation in the United States and Sweden, where excise is very high and consumption relatively low, illustrate this trend, as well as a study conducted by the World Bank. In two previous resolutions from 1996 and 1997, the European Parliament left no doubt as to the fact that it is seeking an upward harmonisation of tobacco prices by means of increased excise duty. As the Commission proposes in the explanatory note, the new minimum excise amount in euros for cigarettes is based on the average excise yield in the Member States, namely EUR 90 per 1 000 cigarettes and subsequently reduced to EUR 70 per 1 000 cigarettes in order to prevent the majority of the Member States from having to increase their excise duties. It is, in this connection, once again worth mentioning that the excise yield in nine Member States is even more than EUR 70 per 1 000 cigarettes. This is why my group is opposed to a further reduction. In our view, Commissioner Bolkestein’s proposal is a big improvement on the current situation. He already mentioned health aspects during previous discussions a few months ago. We would like to further reinforce this aspect. We have tabled a number of amendments, in conjunction also with Mr Blokland. Firstly, there is the VAT issue in respect of which the rapporteur has submitted proposals which we support. Secondly, we believe that this matter should be firmly placed in the context of existing negotiations in the World Health Organisation. We are of the opinion that more should be done to combat differences in smuggling prices, since they form one of the reasons for fraud and smuggling, although they are not the only reason. In our view, a system should be considered during the four-yearly review by means of which the use of more harmful products can be discouraged. In the final analysis, and I am taking this opportunity to repeat what I have said before, it remains an unacceptable anomaly, on the one hand, to increase the excise duty on tobacco products, although partly for health reasons and, on the other hand, to continue to heavily subsidise tobacco growing in the European Union.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I want to condemn the absence of the Presidency-in-Office of the Council. On Third Pillar matters such as these conventions which are so important for the construction of an area of freedom, security and justice, it is unacceptable for the Presidency-in-Office of the Council to be absent. I also want to mention the translation problems, of which I will give just one example, as we do not have much time. Correct translation is vital in this subject as it involves very precise legal concepts. Amendment No 83 in Italian, which is the original version, states that ‘il minore deve essere assistito da una persona di sua fiducia o da un perito o legale esterno’. The term ‘legale esterno’ has been translated into French as ‘avocat neutre’. I have no idea what an ‘avocat neutre’ is. It rather seems like a contradiction in terms. However, in the Spanish version the ‘abogado’ has disappeared completely. Madam President, you have said several times that this is a very serious problem. The lawyer-linguists should work very carefully to ensure that a reasonable version is produced.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on behalf of the ecologists’ group I should also like to pay tribute to the political and intellectual achievements of Mr Herzog in this assembly over many years and particularly to his work on this report. As several speakers have already said, this report, compiled on the initiative of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, is essentially designed to clarify the terms of the debate and particularly to ensure that the opening of individual sectors of the economy to competition in the European Union is accompanied by greater legal certainty and is subject to funding guarantees and an evaluation requirement. Let me say that the will support the amendments that have been re-tabled in plenary in order to return to the spirit of Mr Herzog’s original proposal. I should like to add two elements to the debate. Firstly, I must remind the House that the Convention also debated this issue and concluded that there was a need for a legal basis other than the one currently provided by the treaties. Accordingly, if the European Parliament, in tomorrow’s vote, were to come out against the position of the Convention, we should have an interesting conflict of political legitimacy between the two bodies. Secondly, I would add that, in the course of this debate, we ecologists have observed that there is a curious underlying alliance between the advocates of maximum subsidiarity – a precept, incidentally, that is also supported by Mr Herzog and our group – and those who believe that there must be no barriers at all to engagement in free competition. As a result of this alliance, there is basically no agreement within the European Parliament, just as there is no agreement in the Council, on the need to proceed towards framework legislation. So I should simply like to ask the following question: when we have all delivered our speeches, who will be the winners in this debate? It clearly will not be the advocates of subsidiarity but rather the defenders of the right to engage in unbridled competition. The fact is that, month after month, we vote on sectoral directives, and we can see how difficult the Court of Justice finds it to justify the imposition of any obligation to provide services in the public interest. The result is the reinforcement of a European model which is largely based on tax, wage and welfare competition between locations. If we want to redress this imbalance to some extent, we really need greater legal certainty in order to guarantee the funding of services of general interest, however they may be defined by the Member States. For this reason I call on each of you to reflect on this dubious alliance between those who aspire to define services of general interest in their own countries and regions and those who swear by completely free competition with no holds barred. We agree with the former but urge them to dissolve their alliance with the latter.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I am going to talk about the administration of the EU structural fund, something which is more than in need of improvement. This is not only in the light of enlargement, as the 12th Annual Report on the Structural Funds 2000, the Cohesion Fund and the Instrument for Structural Policy for Pre-Accession shows, as the rapporteur has rightly said, that there is substantial underutilisation of commitment and payment appropriations. Despite the lowering of targets, concentration and simplification of planning, take up of the new forms of intervention for the structural fund planning period has been much slower than was intended and was desirable. Even if EU Finance Ministers are currently pleased at every euro that is not spent at EU level, since it eases the burden of the EU Member States’ net payments in the short term, they are economising in the wrong place because EU money is urgently needed especially in times of rising unemployment. The reasons for the difficulties must be sought both in the Member States and in the EU Commission. In some cases there is a shortage of suitable projects. Not infrequently the problem is the necessary cofinancing. But appreciable administrative bottlenecks are also a reason why the Member States are unable to take up funding. According to the Annual Report 2000, not one intervention was approved in connection with the new Community initiatives, and as a result 0% of the budget plan was implemented in this area. That is atrocious! In future, the Commission must ensure that the new planning period starts on time and it must insist that the Member States do their groundwork early. On the other hand, the Commission must also intensify its scrutiny of the implementation of programmes and inform the European Parliament in good time of all irregularities found.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr van Dam. I think he has submitted a very good report. Looking again at the explanatory statement, one realises that it contains a whole lot of arguments and material about what is happening on Europe's roads. What is happening on Europe's roads can either be described as criminal or disgraceful, or both at the same time, and it is often simply unacceptable. The fact that we are not solving all the problems with this dossier has been described in detail by Mr van Dam in his report. However, I think that we are really getting to grips with at least one important matter, that of clamping down on social dumping by a few black sheep in the haulage sector. One must always stress that the great majority, as I believe, do things by the book. Here we are talking about a very few people, but their behaviour has devastating consequences. Driving and rest periods are one thing, and these must be adhered to, there is no question about that; the social conditions of the drivers are the other aspect of this. All drivers have a right to be employed in accordance with the conditions that usually apply in the Member States. The attempt to use two drivers from central or eastern Europe to comply with the driving and rest periods, while at the same time gaining competitive advantages by means of wage dumping, must be stopped, because if two drivers together earn less than a driver who is employed on the usual terms, then that is simply out of order. It is a disgrace and must be denounced as such. It is good, therefore, that we are starting with third countries first, as we have suggested. We should not wait too long to extend this to the Union, and to the Member States, so that this regulation applies to everyone. I hope that it will not take as long as the ERIKA package, but that we can arrive at a regulation speedily. Eastward expansion is imminent and we need to have decent social conditions, but also fair conditions for competition, on our roads and in the haulage industry.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I hereby suggest that we insert the word 'unconvincingly' between 'government' and 'claims' in this amendment. I have no objection to its being drawn to our attention that the Italian Government has made a certain claim, but especially since the Commissioner has disgracefully shown that he perhaps believes the claim, let us put the word 'unconvincingly' in or reject this amendment.

Political group: Verts-ALE