GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, it is very sad. The name of Mr Cappato, who is so hardworking and friendly, has almost become a swearword among MEPs and civil servants who have worked long and hard on this matter. Despite a compromise, the European Parliament and the Council are still far apart. Unfortunately, it is difficult to feel satisfied with the result, but separate national regulations would create even greater differences and even more problems. There is a great risk and lack of consistency in the Council’s position whereby the issue of the Data Act would be included in the directive. Issues which fall under the third pillar quite simply do not work in a directive within the framework of the first pillar. The pillar system quite simply does not work, and the Commission, which has just notified us of this, is aware of the fact. Now, we are told that a framework decision is being planned on general surveillance. Citizens have reason to be worried. The EU must not proceed too quickly on these important issues which, under the guise of data protection, risk limiting the protection of personal privacy. A proper discussion is needed between industry, politicians and interest groups before we proceed further with more new legislation. Maybe we just need to look a little closer at what other countries have done, such as the United States. The issues must be subjected to democratic and legal controls. I place my hope in the European Convention in this respect. I campaigned on the issue of costs even during the previous term of office. I returned to the issue in my report on the strategy for “Creating a safer information society by improving the security of information infrastructures and combating computer-related crime” (A5-0284/01). This is quite a while ago now. Light must be shed upon the costs of compulsory data storage and of searching for information. I have received a positive response from the Commission on this subject, both in writing and orally. It is good to hear that the Commission has taken these arguments on board and promised to get back to us on this issue. I will content myself with this welcome message and have therefore withdrawn my request on this matter. I also hope that the Commission really will get back to us on the question so that we are able to address it not so as to adopt fixed positions at an early stage but so as to obtain reasonable relations between the United States and the EU.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, it is with great sorrow that we follow the events in Nigeria. I was among those who believed that the election of President Obasanjo some years ago would usher in change. This latest report and discussion is just one in a long line indicating that the security forces are not acting as they should and that the causes are not being investigated. There are reports that some years ago the president was in principle calling for all those belonging to the Oodua People's Congress, that is, several hundred people, to be fired upon. Transparency International still classes Nigeria as the second most corrupt country in the world. The figures for child labour and trafficking in children are highest in Nigeria. If we were really sincere about these matters, we should now also call on the ambassadors to take steps in Nigeria to publicise the fact that Amina Lawal is welcome in any European country. We should act to say that she can come here, that we, as Europeans together, are prepared to save her. That is the only honourable way to proceed. I would ask the Commissioner to consider speaking with the ambassadors.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, as our colleague, Mr Seppänen, said, our group is no supporter of the trade in emissions allowances, because we believe it may contribute to the imbalance between rich and poor countries, but we Members on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy do support Mr Moreira da Silva’s proposal, because it tries to establish stricter controls on this trade, restoring some of the amendments from first reading, which we believe to be important. Despite this lack of enthusiasm, I hope that the rapporteur is right when he says that this trade will correct the situation of non-compliance on the part of the majority of Member States – my own country is perhaps one of the worst offenders – and contribute to teaching European companies in preparation for 2008 when the international trade comes into effect, and, most importantly of all, may convince the United States to comply with the Kyoto Protocol. We agree with the rapporteur on the need to include the six greenhouse gases, although the common position only establishes that, as of 2008, the Member States will be able to request their unilateral inclusion in the allowance trading system. We believe it to be important that projects which relate to the mechanism for clean development and joint application should not be a replacement for prioritising emissions reductions, which must be achieved within the European Union. In any event, the common position includes certain proposals from the European Parliament which we believe to be very important, such as, for example, the demand for greater transparency in the registers, in relation to the ownership of transfer and the cancellation of allowances, the obligation to publish the names of non-compliant operators and penalties imposed for non-compliance, which are now fixed.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, if the rapporteur's original draft report had gone through and had been accepted, it would have decimated industry across the EU. Yes, by all means protect workers, but do not throw workers out of work! It was essential that hearing protection should be taken into account, and I congratulate those industries and everybody else who convinced the rapporteur of the need to do so. If this had not been the case, with the exposure limit set at 87, hammering steel at 95-100 decibels, bottling at 98 decibels, and pig-feeding at 100 decibels would have ceased to exist, as would the construction and mining industries. Cement works and part of the engineering industry would have been decimated. I recognise that the rapporteur has moved and I welcome that. I welcome the fact that she has moved from daily measuring to weekly measuring in exceptional circumstances, but I would like her to move further to weekly measurements, to go back to the main body of the text as in the common position. I am very pleased that we have got the compromise amendment on music and leisure, whatever the rapporteur says: to have five years' exemption for the music and leisure industry, for the Commission to do a report, and then to come back to this House, but to consult with both sides of industry. I hope it goes through and I hope all MEPs will vote for it. Otherwise, we will have the ridiculous prospect of bar staff wearing ear-muffs when people go in to order a pint of beer. I am also glad that we have a chance to debate this because if it had been rejected on a second reading in committee, we would have had no chance to debate this today in the plenary session – no chance to put forward the amendment to exclude music and leisure for five years, and Parliament's view would not have been taken into account. So I say to those people who voted against the report in committee: if you had got your way, there is no way we would be standing here today.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, when I think of Mr Radwan, who drafted this report, I see him as I saw Walt Disney’s Uncle Scrooge when I was a child – sailing through a pool of gold. I do not know whether, in the heat of this past summer, the pool of money in which Mr Radwan bathed was full of euro or dollars, but the fact remains that this report provides excellent protection for the money which the European citizens deposit in their banks. Once again, however, I have to speak on behalf of many pensioners, who ask me when they will have rules forcing banks to give pensioners more money and to be more willing to give loans to the elderly who, having few years left to live, have trouble obtaining loans because they do not have much time to repay them.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, may I first of all raise the issue of why this subject is on the agenda? I was in this House on Monday night when the agenda was agreed by this body. The item was not agreed for the agenda. Later on, when one of our colleagues, Mrs Doyle, raised the issue, all of a sudden the President decided that this issue should go on to the agenda. That is not a democratic and fair way of drawing up this House's agenda. This House draws up the agenda, not the President at the whim of one Member. I also notice that Mrs Doyle is not here today to take part in this. That said, I will go on to talk about the subject in question. It is time we had a debate on the subject. I listened to Mr McCartin earlier and it is evident he has got the wrong end of the stick. This is not discriminating against every other driver or road haulier in Europe to the benefit of British drivers. This applies to all road hauliers, whether they come from the UK or any other country. That should be made quite clear. Also, the details are yet to be fully worked out but I was quite heartened to hear the statement from the Commissioner about how it is going to be proposed and developed. I am sure the British government will be in discussion with the Commission in applying this vignette. I should also like to pick up on a point raised by Mr MacCormick. He talked about the trade between Ireland and Scotland, the south west of Scotland, coming over to Stranraer and Loch Ryan. He said that he hoped the money raised by this vignette would go towards improving the infrastructure around the south west of Scotland. I know the south west of Scotland is part of my area and yes, the infrastructure there is not the best, it can be improved. But can I point out to Mr MacCormick that this vignette is for the whole of the UK. It is to improve the road structure throughout the whole of the UK. We cannot take one small area of the UK and say that is where it is going. It is for the whole of the UK. That is a point we should be making quite clearly.

Political group: PSE
Perhaps I should start with a historical, not current, declaration of interest on why I have voted in favour of Amendment No 5, Article 1(6), concerning junior doctors. My husband, Dr Rhys Jenkins, currently a GP and working restricted hours, has in the past worked in excess of 100 hours a week whilst training to become a doctor. This first-hand knowledge has highlighted for me the dangers of requiring doctors to work such long hours. This potentially endangers the lives of patients and certainly can have a detrimental effect on doctors’ health. I believe that a much delayed and staggered transition such as that proposed by the Council of Ministers is unnecessary and inappropriate. In addition there is a particularly acute problem in Wales where the British Medical Association calculates that 30% of junior doctors are working longer than the recommended 40 hours a week. The figure in Scotland by comparison is calculated at 10%. There is a huge problem in terms of recruitment in the profession, and a haemorrhaging of trained doctors to other countries due to the excessive working hours.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I feel that this report marks a decisive moment for the future of electronic communications in Europe. I would stress, in particular, the fact that the legislation which we are going to vote on and adopt tomorrow will, of necessity, prove to be a regulation which will become obsolete within a very short space of time. Technological development in the sector is, in fact, so rapid that Parliament and the Commission will have to go back to the issue in a very few years’ time and update the legislation we adopt now. Moreover, I would argue that the laws on telecommunications should be kept rigorously separate from laws governing other sectors, particularly the TV information and broadcasting sector, and this point will have to be clarified tomorrow when we vote. With specific regard to communications, I feel that this is a good starting point and that we all agree upon its structure and substance. The rapporteur, Mr van Velzen, has done some excellent work, for which all thanks are due to him, although we must be aware that any regulations we adopt today can, by definition, only be limited in time and are destined to become rapidly obsolete. With this in mind and commending this approach, I would like to state that I am in favour of the report which has been presented.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that we must send a clear warning to the Council and the Commission that the conditions for democratic control over a fundamental issue have not been met. Moreover, the mandate given to the Wise Men referred to the method, whilst the political debate on the aims and the substance of regulation and political control is still far from over. To create a European financial market could be a move in the wrong direction because of the finances of unstable and discriminatory markets or an obsession with financial assets. However, the exercise may turn out to be positive if it is a question of pooling resources to develop a productive system, social cohesion or inter-generation solidarity. However, who can say that we are actually preparing that? It is not the European Parliament that is slowing things down. The Member States have said yes to a pan-European financial market, but they have not bothered to consider its impact. They have not developed a strategy and have come up against a great deal of administrative opposition. The Committee of Wise Men had to propose an extremely complicated procedure which was typically intergovernmental, whilst a method giving powers of initiative to the European Parliament with the establishment of a European regulator who was equipped with a clear mandate would have certainly succeeded in an effective, acceptable and rapid fashion. So we have a method which is totally inappropriate. This is what we are saying today in unanimity with the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. We want at least a power of recall, which would enable us to control this extremely bureaucratic procedure, which is slipping from our grasp. We demand that this challenge be brought within reach of public opinion. Once again, it is a question of democratic choice. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
I thank the Commissioner, and do not at all question his intentions and interventions, which adopted a positive line. However, things are really quite different. The operation of the Community Support Framework is ruled by a centralising hand and indeed at this time we are experiencing state, government and party delirium as regards the European Union’s funding. I cannot show you the television programmes here but I can show you the Greek newspapers from a few weeks before the elections. In the Sunday papers all over Greece: the Ministry of Public Works concerning the structural fund: the Minister’s work; the Ministry of Agriculture: the Minister’s work – just a few weeks before the elections – the Ministry of Telecommunications: the work of the Minister for Telecommunications; the Ministry of Education: the work of the Minister for Education and a photograph of the Minister; the Ministry of Employment: the work of the Minister for Employment, a photograph of the Minister and a photograph of the State Secretary, and behind them all the symbols of the Community Support Framework. There are only a few weeks to go before the elections. This is both propaganda by the party and propaganda by the candidates, financed by the European Union, the CSF. My question to the Commissioner is this: what is to be done? Will the Commission remain silent? Will it discuss the matter? Will it bring it up with the Greek Government or will we persist with the pathological situation we had with the previous Commission?

Political group: GUE-NGL
On more than one occasion – this is the fourth – the Commission has asked the European Parliament to vote in favour of restrictive measures against certain individuals and organisations in the aim of combating international terrorism without any prior debate on the issue, either in plenary or in the relevant specialised committee. This is a method that we reject and hence our vote against this proposal. We reaffirm our complete and unequivocal condemnation of the terrorist acts that took place in the USA, as well as the need to produce a response based on joint efforts and international cooperation, within the framework of the UN and in full respect of its Charter. We also find it unacceptable that a list of organisations and individuals should be submitted to the European Parliament for its approval without any basis and without any evidence being provided, and this is the second reason for our vote against this proposal. Furthermore, it is our view that the necessary fight against terrorism cannot be used as an excuse to broach fundamental aspects of the sovereignty of the Union’s Member States.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I understand the need to maintain the integrity of the telecoms package, but I understand there have been some final changes to the declaration the Commission has issued on 'must carry' rules. I would like to know whether this text genuinely reflects Parliament's views, particularly the amendments of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, and whether the Commission would be kind enough to read out that text so that we can see what we are agreeing to vote on.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, we voted on 4 December. The report is extremely complex; moreover, Amendment No 10 and Amendment No 35 were adopted under protest. We believe that this report needs further consideration, which is why we would ask to be able to discuss it and vote on it in January.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it may surprise you to learn that I do indeed wish to raise a point of order. I note from the Minutes that the aforementioned ... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the report contains proposals which, if they were binding, might go some way towards reducing the difficulties that we are experiencing with family reunification. However, it does not go far enough and some of the amendments proposed are a step backwards and we will reject them. The right to family reunification has to be an absolute right. In fact the report seems to be primarily concerned with placing limitations on this right on a wide variety of pretexts so as to prevent it from facilitating so-called illegal immigration. This motivation, which is despicable from a human point of view, reduces the scope of the few positive aspects of the text. Society is so lacking in egalitarian values and there is so much poverty in the world that more and more poor people are trying to escape hunger and suffering and find refuge in the countries of Europe; all too often they unfortunately fail to do so. The national States and the European institutions can put up all the barbed wire they like, both literally and in legal terms, to prevent this happening, but they will not succeed. The measures of constraint to turn away those who are fleeing poverty only serve to show the inhumanity of those who take and support these measures.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the results of the Ghent Council are without a doubt positive and encouraging, not least – although not exclusively – in terms of the fight against terrorism. The Convention’s decision is extremely important and mention must be made of the Belgian Presidency’s firm undertaking to achieve these results. However, in a world political and economic climate which is changing rapidly in the wake of the tragedy of 11 September, and in the face of the new demands from democratic States – primarily for terrorism to be combated, of course, but also for an area of peace and respect for human rights to be created in Asia and the Middle East and, moreover, for economic growth and employment to be boosted – we would like to make quite clear the need for a better coordinated European Union initiative which can speed up the institutional reforms, which are still far from completion, and thus empower the European Union to enter the field as a world political entity, an initiative which is able, that is, to speak with a single voice in Washington and Islamabad alike, as President Prodi advocated. To give some concrete examples rather than limiting myself to describing vague needs, we would point out the urgency, in particular, for an incisive, coordinated action from the Commission and the High Representative laying the foundations for an – economic and social as well as political – agreement which will lead to the creation of a reunified, coherent, manageable State of Palestine while fully safeguarding the security of the State of Israel, together with an explicit international guarantee, as Mr Van den Berg said just now. Secondly, we would point out the urgent need for a Commission and Eurogroup initiative to reach long-term agreements with the oil-producing countries in the Middle East in order to secure the continuity of oil supplies and the stability of oil prices in Europe with a guarantee in euro. This would be a huge political boost to consolidation of peace in that area. Thirdly, we feel there should be a Commission and Eurogroup initiative to create the conditions for revitalising economic growth and employment in the Union, both by promoting forms of open coordination in the research and development and training sectors, thus setting the Lisbon project in motion, and by transparently inviting the Central Bank to join this effort, using the room for manoeuvre for monetary policy rightly recommended at Ghent, and further reducing interest rates. After that, Mr President, everyone will be able to assume their responsibilities transparently, in full respect for the independence of the Central Bank.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am delighted to speak to the House - and in public - as a member of the gagged and muzzled committee of this Parliament which has been unable to conduct its business properly because of a decision by the Conference of Presidents about interviewing Mr Prodi on one of the subjects I will be raising shortly. Following the normal practice within my committee, this year I have used the matters that we found during our discharge procedure to draw some budgetary amendments to get what the Committee on Budgetary Control would like to see from the Commission and other institutions. It breaks down into three different areas, two are related and will be touched on later, and the other is the Committee of the Regions. We have yet to grant discharge to this committee for the 2001 set of accounts and, as more revelations appear about the state of its accounts and what has been going on within that committee, it is highly unlikely that we will do so. Therefore we have tabled an amendment asking for 25% of members' allowances within the Committee of the Regions to go into the reserve until the rapporteur provides us with much of the information we have requested. The main point concerns Eurostat and OLAF. We have tabled an amendment asking for a significant sum of money to be placed in the reserve for OLAF. This achieved near-unanimity in the committee, because we have been unhappy with the way OLAF has been reporting to the budgetary authority, in many cases contravening its own rules. Finally, I turn to Eurostat. We are very concerned about some of its activities and the way in which the Commission is dealing with it. We have tabled a number of amendments and, when it comes to the main budget debate, more amendments - that we shall be pushing on behalf of our committee - may be tabled by the political groups, because it is about time that someone took responsibility for the problems within Eurostat.

Political group: PPE-DE