GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I have asked to speak on behalf of the Group of the on a point of order in order to draw your attention to the situation of Vincent Reynaud, originally from Strasbourg in France, and Thierry Falise from Belgium. These two journalists and their interpreter have been secretly detained since 5 June in Vientiane in Laos. They have been accused by the Laotian police of cooperating with bandits in a professional capacity in relation to the murder of a Laotian security officer, while in actual fact they were preparing a report on a minority group living in the mountains. They are currently facing capital punishment. On behalf of my group, I call on you, Mr President, to take immediate action to ensure that the Laotian authorities free the journalists, Vincent Reynaud and Thierry Falise, and that justice and truth prevail as we are very much concerned and emotions are running high. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would just like to say that I am pleased Mr MacCormick received his answer, but I feel that, before asking a question of this nature, given the harm he is causing to one of Europe’s major tourist destinations, the Balearic Islands, as a result of these inappropriate comments, we would have liked to have had the chance to ask a question, because I believe that the only thing the person Mr MacCormick is representing wanted was compensation and, given that the British company in charge of the trip did not pay up, they thought that the Spanish State should do so, causing damage to its image in the process, which I believe is inappropriate.

Political group: PPE-DE
Regarding the Attwooll report on shark finning (A5-0043/2003) I voted against Amendment No 13 which allows for shark fins and body parts to be landed separately. The procedure renders futile attempts to monitor the numbers of sharks being caught. That the Commission and the Council will determine the final shape of the regulation should be a consolation. But sadly this is not the case. The proposed regulation originated with a petition presented to Environment Commissioner Wallström by the Shark Trust, and with a question I tabled in the Environment Committee. I feel sure that Commissioner Wallström will feel let down by DG Fisheries. That an official from this DG's Conservation Unit can dismiss the concerns with the words ‘I must trust much more the opinion of our fishing industry if it is for them to obtain good returns from their landings’ suggests to me that he has a strange idea of conservation. Perhaps Commissioner Fischler should put him in charge of inspecting abattoirs. European citizens seeking to protect fish species from extinction can have no confidence in a Commission DG which seems to have sold its soul to serve the interests of the Spanish fishing industry.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, at Laeken, a number of steps forward have, at last, been taken towards the creation of a stronger Europe with wider borders. The Convention will have to pave the way for a Constitution which establishes the respective competences of the institutions and includes the founding values underlying our Union as well, but it will also have to represent an essential stage in terms of the harmonisation of the laws of our countries, not least in judicial matters. However, we must make haste and decide before the end of 2003 to avoid the elections getting in the way of the process and the Constitution being adopted slap-bang in the middle of the electoral campaign. Without the Constitution, without new institutions, it will be difficult to achieve the enlargement which we all, like President Prodi, see as irreversible. Moreover, I welcome the fact that the Laeken conclusions reserve a chapter for relations with Russia, a country which deserves increasing attention from the Union. At Laeken, Europe, at last, spoke out authoritatively on major issues such as combating terrorism, and the decision to adopt what has been dubbed the first ‘Marshall Plan’ for Palestine is confirmation of Europe’s intention not just to wipe out terrorism through military force – as is right and proper – but also to resolve the issues by political means. The Italian proposal on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian crisis has moved on from declarations of principle to the practical planning stage. Moreover, we feel that the decision to establish joint control of external borders is extremely positive. Of course, there is still a great deal left to do. Not all the issues were resolved at Laeken: I refer to the sites of the agencies, which should be decided on the basis of the specific suitability of the applicant cities and not allocated on the basis of incomprehensible vetoes. However, it is our duty to be optimistic: the fate of Europe depends not least on our will, on the will of the European Parliament and the national parliaments which represent the people of the Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, democracy and human rights in Mediterranean countries are still in a wretched state, the main cause being that the authorities never relinquish power and do not even want to share it. Autocratic regimes can only maintain their hold on power by means of repression and by restricting freedom. The worst hit are the people who are badly governed and lag behind economically and socially. This forms a breeding ground for radicalism on the part of disaffected people that impacts on not only the region itself, but also the rest of the world. The European Union must do everything in its power to exert a positive influence on the situation, therefore. The partnerships provide a good framework for this; one, however, of which we have up to now made insufficient, and insufficiently binding, use. Financial aid alone, without political conditions, will only lead to a deterioration in the situation, and for that reason I welcome this spur to the reinvigoration of policy wholeheartedly. The Commission communication, with its ten priorities, is truly excellent. Many of the proposed actions are in line with the specific suggestions I made in my report on human rights last year. The intentions and approach are good, but, of course, results are by no means guaranteed. We are ultimately aiming to induce the regimes to make fundamental changes in their behaviour that they would not have been inclined to make of their own accord. The new actions must not lead to bureaucratisation, but rather to specific objectives that are tested systematically. It is very important to give the situation a positive boost. Can the Commissioner tell us how our partners have reacted up to now, apart from Morocco and Jordan, which he has already mentioned? Can he also explain how the EU’s approach relates to the policy of the United States with regard to the region? To what extent is there transatlantic coordination? The proposed spur to action comes not a moment too soon. Further deterioration in the region could have far-reaching consequences. Many regimes say that security is more important than democracy. This contradiction could hardly be more mistaken. It is precisely a lack of democracy that makes the situation hopeless and dangerous. Anyone striving for security and prosperity must first safeguard democracy and human rights. I should like to hear answers from the Commissioner to my questions.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, what the Commissioners have presented here basically reaffirms the continuation of the Stability Pact policy, the policy that has just been set forth at the Brussels Summit of speeding up liberalisation and making the labour market more flexible. In other words, it is an insistence on more of the same. The consequences are proving disastrous, particularly in the country I come from, Portugal, where we have entered a technical recession, where we are falling farther behind European Union averages, where unemployment is growing faster than in the European Union as a whole and where we have the highest rate of poverty, including persistent poverty. A change of policy is therefore needed. My question is: when will the stability pact be reviewed, so that we can be sure of public investment, job creation, improved purchasing power and effective measures to tackle poverty and social exclusion?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this directive is of great importance to growth and competitiveness in Europe, but the directive does not need to be worded in such a way as to make using the Internet more difficult and more expensive. If we impose higher costs on e-commerce and increase the cost of connection, Europe will not be the world’s most competitive economy in ten years’ time, which was, of course, the goal set in Lisbon. If we in Parliament are to increase people’s confidence in us as European legislators, European legislation must be coherent. The e-commerce directive and this directive must be in line with each other. We must not therefore alter Article 5.1 or recital 33. Copyright must not become a patent right because of the new technology. Our good will towards copyright holders must not involve our creating regulations which restrict freedom of expression or obstruct the free flow of information. The ceiling above which an outsider’s server may be closed down must be set very high. If every bit of data that passes through the server every second is to be monitored, we forfeit what basically has made the Internet successful and has increased productivity in countries with high Internet use, namely the fact that everyone gets to be involved and to share knowledge. I would therefore ask you to support Amendment No 4. Our copyright legislation must be created around the work and around the artist entitled to remuneration, and not around the technical form. TV channels must decide for themselves how they make their programmes and the music they want to play available. A right to copy on-air broadcasts for storage on electronic systems is required because, otherwise, the giant recording companies will be able to control the radio and television companies’ music output. I would therefore ask you to support Amendments Nos 31 and 32. Copyright is not absolute. Exceptions are required. I therefore hope that the Chamber will safeguard the exceptions for libraries and for people with disabilities so that we do not undermine democracy by shutting people off from information. Finally, we have a WIPO position to defend, and we must vote consistently. I am hoping for a positive decision, for then we shall be accepting international responsibility.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, this proposal will probably succeed as a transitional measure to regularise what is at present a flawed system of financing our fledgling political parties. I agree, however, with some of the critics who say that the proposal in front of us will not provide a lasting statute for the development of campaigning political parties, which are an essential factor should our vibrant transnational European parliamentary democracy flourish. We are proposing one amendment that will improve the proposal, which is to grant the political parties legal personality under European Union law. To leave things as they are at present, with 15 competing national jurisdictions, will be a cause of confusion and future problems. We should sort this out now and address the other outstanding issues more seriously and more successfully once the Treaty of Nice comes into force. We also welcome the compromise amendment, which lowers the threshold for the registration of political parties from a third to a quarter, which is in the interest of both fairness and pluralism.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would first like to stress the importance of this report, and in contrast to what some fellow Members have just said, to say how courageous it is to identify countries guilty of failure to respect the most basic human rights. I say that because, unfortunately, we have to recognise that Mr Sylla's report is full of such examples, and it is not enough for us as Members of the European Parliament to denounce violations of fundamental rights in countries outside the EU if we do not point the finger at violations in our own countries. Our good name is at stake here. Furthermore, the conclusions of the report are extremely important as regards the other challenges we face. For example, the current economic crisis and the many redundancies associated with it mean that we have to be particularly vigilant about respecting social rights. For example, we are unfortunately having to contend with the closure of an assembly plant in the Somme region of France. Recent events both in France and in other European companies also demonstrate that the freedom of the press is often violated. That certainly happened during the summer heatwave. On an entirely different point, I would also like to support what some of the previous speakers have said: if the war on terror is to be legitimate, it should not involve flouting the most basic rights. To conclude, Mr President, given that the Annual Report on Human Rights is the fourth of its kind, I would like to ask the same question as my colleague Mrs Swiebel: what is the human rights situation, and what changes has the report brought about?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for her serious and very committed work on this issue and also the work that our own committee has done, as Mr Rocard has just pointed out. This action programme is a very serious and important step forward for the European Union. It is part of the recognition of the huge problem of social exclusion which is not only the result of poverty, although it is of course linked to it. Some of those links are picked up in the excellent report by Mrs Lynne which we will be debating later, concerning the European Year of Disabled People, and in Mr Nobilia's report which recognises the problems faced by elderly or disabled people in exercising, for example, their freedom of movement because disability benefits are not included in the coordination of social security systems. In our discussions on this action programme, Parliament has insisted on the need for civil society to be involved in the programme itself and its evaluation. This involvement is critical. It is clear that the top-down policies, and the hope that overall economic growth would somehow overcome the poverty and lift the poorest out of that state, have not worked. It is the constructive involvement of the people themselves that is part of the solution. We therefore expect that the research and programmes funded with this modestly increased amount of money, a limited range as Mr Rocard has just said, will not just concentrate on policy but also on the process of policy formulation and funding decisions, which in itself could be an innovative dimension. I recently attended a local government conference looking at the national social inclusion plans. Speakers representing organisations from groups which often experience social exclusion – poor people, those with disabilities, those from minority ethnic groups etc. – were asked whether they would rather see the implementation of a few policies that have worked elsewhere or have a full programme of real consultation, even if they did not then get what they wanted. The answer, without exception, was that they wanted to be consulted because that implied respect for their experience and their opinions. It is also my hope that the activities funded under this programme will not just concentrate on work as the answer to exclusion. It is not a solution if the work is poorly paid and exploitative. I, like many others, look forward to reading and evaluating the results of this programme and hope that they will make real progress in tackling social exclusion.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, we should be delighted that the Commission is at last intending to deal in a general and in-depth way with the problem of the decommissioning of the obsolete nuclear installations of the Joint Research Centre and the management of radioactive waste. We should also be concerned, however, at the conditions in which this initiative is being undertaken, very late in the day, on the basis of partial information and in the utmost confusion regarding the funding of this action programme, despite its urgent and important nature. Not only are there no budget provisions, but the regulations in force mean that financing arrangements are particularly uncertain. There were no provisions, even though all this was anticipated long ago. We have been aware, ever since the nuclear installations were built, that one day they would have to be decommissioned and that this would not be a simple matter. So the fact that there are no provisions is indicative of the fact that no one wanted to make provisions for this so as not to undermine the pro-nuclear dogma. The Commission communication provides an opportunity for us to prioritise as a matter for concern the issue of the decommissioning of nuclear installations, a matter of the utmost topicality of direct concern to the European Union, its Member States and the candidate countries, not just the JRC and the Commission, an already highly topical matter which is going to become ever more urgent in years to come. This is why we consider it so important that Parliament should be kept fully informed in order to have all the facts at its disposal when debating the matter. The Commission communication makes the pertinent comment that the Euratom Treaty, signed in 1957, envisaged the establishment and rapid growth of the nuclear sector. The time has now come, however, to decommission the installations in this sector. Clearly, then, this Treaty and the role assigned to the EAEC have now also proved to be truly obsolete. While the European Union must respond, above all, to the problem of historical liabilities deriving from nuclear activities, then we consider it a matter of urgency to re-evaluate the Euratom Treaty and the role of the EAEC in the course of the negotiations currently in progress within the context of the Intergovernmental Conference.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I do not wish to delay proceedings, but just to follow up on the point, which has been made on a number of occasions, about parliamentary immunity. I could be wrong, but my understanding is that the purpose of parliamentary immunity for Members of Parliament acting in the Parliament – not outside the Parliament – is to allow you to represent the people who elected you. It is not so that you can necessarily represent your own views in whatever manner you choose. In other words, when you are outside this House, you are just the same as anyone else. You are on your own.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the report by my honourable friend, Mrs Zorba, gives us another important opportunity to understand the importance which developing the cultural industries has for the economic and political objectives of the European Union and to reflect on our obligations at European, national and local level. Their contribution to the Lisbon objectives is undisputed. Apart from creating wealth and jobs, the cultural industries, by their very nature, promote initiative and innovation, which are valuable factors for the competitiveness of the European economy. Their development can also help in particular in reversing isolation, by developing local societies, because it makes use of their comparative advantages and can easily be linked to tourist development and promotion. I should also like to point out that the cultural industries have sectors which can create employment opportunities, especially for people affected by unemployment, such as young creators or women and the disabled. That is why I agree with the rapporteur that use should be made of the cultural contribution of the Structural Funds, especially now with the mid-term evaluation of the 2000-2006 programming period, so that we can take additional or corrective measures, such as promoting vocational training and, of course, promoting education at higher learning level, because in many countries, such as my own, Greece, it is inadequate.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I come to this debate having been the Chairman on the Committee on Deregulation of European Air Transport with the DTI and the National Consumer Council in the early '90s appointed by Mr Norman Tebbitt. We found the regulation of open skies a very difficult issue. I am also a former director of the second largest airline in Britain. I am also concerned to tell you that I left London at one o'clock this afternoon and I arrived here at nine o'clock this evening. That is as a consequence of a complete monopoly on this route to and from London. That is not the reason why I am standing up although I am taking action about what happens to me and my other colleagues from the English contingent regularly when we fly from London to Strasbourg. Deregulation is important, competition is important and in Mr Stockmann's report ably shadowed by my colleague, Ms Foster, we have struck a balance of some kind. It is also important to understand that although we want to open things up quickly and deregulate quickly and introduce competition the aviation industry also requires heavy investment. Therefore it is not just like starting a taxi firm to start an airline. I speak as someone who has started two airlines. Therefore we have to be careful that we do not destabilise the European aviation industry like the reforms in the United States where the entire American aviation industry went into a tailspin. We must be careful that we do not destabilise it by moving too quickly without carrying industry with us. It requires heavy financial and capital investment to be able to do this and I would like to ask the Commissioner to be careful when she implements some of these proposals.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, quite frankly, I believe it is the European Parliament’s duty to be the first to hold a public debate on this subject. Politics, I regret to say, has its idiosyncrasies, and so I do not feel it would be very wise to put this proposal to the vote now, for it would certainly be rejected. We will therefore wait for all the various exceedingly important decisions to be taken within the Group of the , and then we will see whether we shall be able to convince the Socialists to launch the debate, with or without the Chairman, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing. I would stress that it is not so much a question of deciding our position on the Convention as carrying out an initial assessment of the outcome of the Convention as soon as its work is finished and before the governments can do so. I feel that this is the very least we can do politically, not least for the sake of public opinion. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE