GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I welcome, understand and support the recent statements by President Prodi on public finance policy in Europe. If I understood correctly, the Commission has now made an intelligent start to a process of defending the Stability and Growth Pact, which will only be possible if it demonstrates political courage and if it is able to break with some of its current positions. We hope that the European Parliament, which is, by definition, the Community institution that is most open and most representative of the common citizen, understands and supports the positive process that President Prodi has set in motion. Only those who have been going around with their heads completely in the clouds and divorced from Europe’s economic reality could be surprised today. It was clear from the earliest days that the Stability and Growth Pact was founded on rules that would work reasonably in times of economic growth but which could prove to be a hindrance when faced with certain unforeseen circumstances and with only moderate growth. The Europe of the Euro is founded on a framework of a single monetary policy and twelve separate budget policies. This justifies the existence of clear rules preventing undisciplined economies, especially the larger ones, from jeopardising the stability of the system. Budgetary rigour is the guarantee that today’s generation will not bequeath excessive debt to future generations. Forcing States to rationalise their spending and to make their services more efficient is crucial to a genuine development strategy. I am sure that we all agree on this. Nevertheless, the disciplinary rules must be understood by the markets and must not contravene national policies and the legitimate interests and commitments associated with them. This requires them to be worded flexibly, and adapted whenever this should prove necessary. This is the original sin of the Stability and Growth Pact and this is why more and more voices are calling for it to be amended. Closing our eyes to this new reality would be to reject out of hand all of our commitments, condemning the Pact and especially its aims, to total failure. A static interpretation of the Stability and Growth Pact is beginning to look unsustainable, because it does not respond to the current economic situation and even less matches the aims that the European Union set for itself in Lisbon of becoming, in the short term, the most powerful economy in the world. Using the Stability and Growth Pact intelligently, emphasising the pillar of growth in the current economic situation is absolutely crucial for nature not to rebel and for the building that has been constructed so laboriously not to collapse.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we know that violence against women and children remains an open wound on the everyday lives of our societies. Hence the importance of adopting measures to change the situation. Unfortunately, however, the very small sums allocated to the DAPHNE I Programme has only enabled 13% of projects submitted to be accepted, which has disappointed the expectations of the organisations working to combat violence and this has been the case more or less throughout the European Union. I therefore support the proposal to increase funding to EUR 65 million that the rapporteur has tabled for this second five-year phase of the programme. I also regret the fact that the Commission does not support this proposal because it is simply not enough to adopt good proposals and good positions – practical measures must also be adopted, measures that do not involve only this programme, even if funding to combat violence is increased. Priority must be given to policies for social integration, we must invest in educating people about equality, we must increase resources and materials and also legislation that protects and promotes the social integration of victims, that throws rapists out of their homes and that helps to create a new mindset which respects the dignity of women and children.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I welcome the Commission’s initiative because I feel that the old directive on the regulation of tobacco products in Europe is out-of-date. Several years ago, we dealt with the BSE crisis here in Europe and left no stone unturned in terms of health and consumer policy. We brought about a great deal of change, and rightly so. When you consider how much was spent in connection with BSE, it is shocking to note how lacking in courage the European Union is when it comes to actually doing something for health on the tobacco front. There are four or five key points at issue here, to my mind. We must reflect on the subsidisation of tobacco growing in Europe. We must pluck up the courage to do more to promote transparency where health policy is concerned. We must provide the citizens with more information, which is not a matter of whether the logo should cover 15% or 45% of the surface area of the packet, but of bringing about a change of mentality in society. I believe it is vital that we do all we can to get the message across to young people that they must not take up smoking. God knows, at my age it probably does not matter if I carry on smoking or not. But our children must not start smoking. That is what this directive should aim to achieve. It is absolutely scandalous that we are subsidising the tobacco industry. We allocate enormous sums of money for the production of tobacco that we in Europe should not smoke on account of a pathetic set of standards. We are going one step forwards and two steps back. What we must aim to do is to help farmers not to grow tobacco. Supporting non-production, that is the goal. I would like to see less tobacco overall in Europe. Permit me to say a few words about the legal basis. It is not for me to decide who is right. Nor is it for this House to decide. Let the courts decide. What we need is a directive that makes sound recommendations, so that we can be sure to reduce tobacco consumption in Europe in the future. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, for me the year 2002 is one of the most decisive and historically significant years in the development of the European Union. As the European Parliament, we want to make a full and complete contribution to peaceful enlargement. Negotiations of individual chapters are making good progress in many fields and the Council presidency is really making every effort to get formal negotiations with the candidate countries concluded by the end of the year. The agricultural chapter is one of the biggest topics for negotiation and along with regional policy and budget matters certainly one of the most difficult areas. For me, one of the most important points is still the much criticised question of phasing-in the countries seeking accession. But I fully support the Commission proposal concerning phasing-in. Particular attention also needs to be paid to ensuring that the acquis communautaire is actually transposed into practice. Only products that satisfy the same requirements as those of the EU Fifteen must be allowed on to the internal market. The quota system must be maintained as an important instrument of control for that. I would also like to stress how deplorable it is that such slow progress is being made with setting up Sapard payment agencies. So far, they have been set up in only seven candidate countries and regrettably only a small amount of the funding has been disbursed since Sapard was implemented in the 2000 financial year. We must do more to encourage the new Member States to create the administrative conditions necessary for adequate financial management for decentral administration without losing sight of the targeted nature of the aids. On the other hand, I am glad that the Commission is aware of the difficult situation in the border regions and is investigating the socio-economic situation in those regions. I personally welcome that very much and would like to say in conclusion that a common Europe can only come about through intensive cooperation and that the European model of agricultural policy must also be safeguarded for the future.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, when dealing with the issue of European jurisdiction, limited itself to seconding the proposal for the Commission’s preliminary draft, which provides for increases for two reasons; the first being in consequence of enlargement, and the second in response to new tasks for European justice, in which context more funds are allocated for the purposes of documentation and translation. What that means – no more and no less – is that the Commission’s preliminary draft does not include any structural improvements in the conditions under which the European justice system functions. Nevertheless, we went no further than doing this, and I would like to urge the Committee on Budgets not to reduce this still further, for, if we allocate only the funding relating to enlargement, and not the funds for the additional tasks, the situation cannot fail to deteriorate still further. The Committee on Budgets will have to decide whether to take sides with the Council or with the Commission and the Court of Justice. The second point that I would like to address has to do with the Academy of European Law, the work of which, over the past ten years, has met with immense success. Its founding members, Germany and Luxembourg, have since been joined by Ireland, Poland, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Hungary and Sweden. Finland has announced its intention of joining. Over the past ten years, a total of 38 000 people from the European Union and the new countries have taken part in seminars and training courses. The Academy of European Law has, in that time, become the secretariat of the European Judicial Training Network, and it will, in future, be particularly involved in promoting cooperation between judges in Eastern Europe. All this justifies a commensurate increase in the grants to the Academy of European Law under the financial programme, not only for 2004, but thereafter.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am sure there are still many more questions. You can of course always revisit everything, but I think that we now need labelling of beef and beef products as a matter of urgency, by which I mean as from September this year and not as from January next year. We have discussed this at length in committee. As regards guarantees of origin, great progress has already been made as a result of improved transparency, and it was possible to make a positive impact. There are many regional programmes, for example in my home region of Rheinland-Pfalz, and these demonstrate that this is feasible and have led the way here. It is not so long since farmers and meat-processing plants were threatened with annihilation, and it has only been through a combination of comprehensive information and strategically sound and effective marketing measures that it has been possible to rebuild consumer confidence to some extent. We must not allow this success to be undermined by deferring the introduction of labelling, which would be a step backwards. Designation of origin is particularly important for consumers. The preparatory work our farmers have done on labelling has been good and clear. We have made good progress with beef labelling in Germany. In this context I would like to ask you, Commissioner, what progress the other Member States have made. We certainly need to keep an eye on products imported from third countries. These should be clearly recognisable as such when they are sold. But what about those sometimes excessively detailed descriptions? They are confusing. For example, how many consumers know what a heifer is, who would be interested in that, and why is it important? The Commission has not yet clearly presented its proposals on category here, but I think it will have to adopt a simple and clear approach. Descriptions such as ‘veal’ or ‘beef’ are sufficient, and anyone who wants more information should also be able to obtain it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I also want to thank the presidency, and Mr Roche in particular, for the way in which he has handled our dealings together. I also enjoyed it very much. I must say that sometimes I find it difficult to attack him because he is so nice and so it is difficult to say how much I disagree with the Irish presidency. I thank him very much and it was a pleasure for my Group too to work with the Irish presidency. I have very little time so I just want to concentrate on the question of Cyprus. We all share the sadness at the disappointing result of the referendum. I understand and I respect the response of the Greek Cypriots. I want to believe that they want a solution and that they are not happy with the status quo. But now it is time for them and for us to act. We have to act quickly and positively to ensure that agreement can still be reached this year. The Greek Cypriots should tell us their ideas to ensure that enlargement is completed and the rest of the European Union must assist and remind them that this business cannot remain unfinished. I have two small suggestions. The first is for the Commission and the Council. To say that EUR 289 million have been earmarked is quite good, but how much time elapses between earmarking and spending? I became very worried when I heard Commissioner Nielson talking about legal problems and complications. Could the Commission and the Council give us a timetable for committing this money and solving the European Union's formal problems with northern Cyprus? The Government of the Republic of Cyprus has a problem with the implementation of the law governing the European elections in Cyprus. In order to be able to vote, Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots, Latin Maronites and Armenians have to be registered on the electoral roll for the European elections. Unfortunately, the Cypriot Parliament took a decision requiring all Cypriots to register themselves on the electoral roll. As a result of this procedure, only 503 out of an estimated 80 000 Turkish Cypriots are eligible to vote. This is too few. If the Cypriot Parliament decided to include on the electoral roll all persons who have either an ID card or a passport issued by the Republic of Cyprus, 40 000 Turkish Cypriots could vote. I have two requests to the Government of Cyprus. Firstly, people from both communities who are in possession of an ID card or a passport from the Republic of Cyprus should automatically be entitled to vote. Secondly, the Government of Cyprus should re-open the electoral roll over the next three weeks and make a public announcement in both communities and in both languages to ensure that those able to vote in the European elections do so.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I wish to raise a matter of a highly sensitive nature for this House and which affects the debate about enlargement. It concerns a statement by the Turkish Foreign Ministry about Mr Poos’ report on the accession of Cyprus to the European Union. In that statement, the Turkish Foreign Ministry makes an unfair and slanderous attack on an honourable Member who presented his report to the relevant committee. The committee accepted the report as it stood with only two votes against. I can see that parliamentarianism in Turkey has not yet reached the stage where they can understand what is in this report and what responsibility, if we can call it that, Mr Poos has taken on. It is a report of Parliament. I would therefore like to see Parliament respond to this unfair attack. Madam President, to give you just one example of the bad taste, it says here in point 1 of the statement: (FR) ‘Mr Poos is known for both his opposition to Turkey and for his personal links with the government of Cyprus.’ That is a slander bordering on the criminal. I would like to see a response to this accusation from Turkey not from Mr Poos but from this House and also from the Commission. Thank you, Madam President. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, this is a day for which I have waited a long time as rapporteur for Parliament’s report on sustainable development. I am pleasantly surprised that the President of the Commission mentions both political leadership – which I consider to be one of the most important aspects – and the local level. If we have both levels, we have gained a lot. The global level was also mentioned, and I think it good that we should clearly single out that too. I should nonetheless like to have more practical details. What does that mean for the European Union’s activities when it comes to the ways in which we trade, create investments etc? Finally, is this to be regarded as an overarching instrument of control for all the European Union’s activities, or how are we to view a sustainable development strategy?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, more than a year ago, in a report on the same subject Mr Swoboda remarked that Macedonia is, in fact, a stabilising factor within the Balkans. He spoke those words with the backing of the entire Parliament because, of course, we remember the time before the Yugoslav wars, when Macedonia, in particular, played an extremely intelligent and constructive role by drafting compromises to make the warring parties change course. That is something which we will not forget in a hurry. Secondly, we remember the reception in Macedonia of refugees from Kosovo: that too was an enormous effort which caused the necessary tension within Macedonia. It was not an easy task and we will not forget this. The western world, and the European Union too, on the other hand, have not always behaved impeccably towards Macedonia. A boycott was introduced, the effects of which Macedonia had to shoulder. Macedonia was fobbed off with humanitarian aid and was not really given any opportunities for its own industry. It is extremely important for the European Union to take an emphatic and positive step forward now with this Stabilisation and Association Agreement, by means of which fresh opportunities will be created for Macedonian industry. Needless to say, we were also critical of Macedonia, and still are, because it was slow in establishing interethnic relations. But all hell is breaking loose precisely at a time when the University of Tetovo is turning over a new leaf by offering opportunities to Albanian-speaking groupings in Macedonia, as a result of which the official apparatus will probably be less one-sided. It is extremely unfortunate that the Copenhagen criteria, which apply across the board to all candidate countries, are at now risk there. I would therefore call on the Macedonian politicians to make a special effort to act as advocates for the constitutional state, because in this way they will be welcome to join the union of constitutional states of which we are all part.

Political group: PPE-DE
Conservative MEPs fully support the fight against terrorism and all the means which can be deployed to meet this end. We are aware of the fact that considerable negotiations have been underway between the European Commission and the US authorities regarding passenger information. We are satisfied that the agreement which has been reached provides the right balance between privacy and the means of protecting our lives and liberties. Whilst we understand that passengers may find this inconvenient from time to time, recent events have shown that we must all remain alert and vigilant. We are all in this fight together.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to ask a question. Mr Fischler, in the light of all of these disasters – and I am sure that this will not be the last – should we not consider introducing something along the lines of a disaster fund – I cannot think what else to call it – of around a cent for every fish fin, so that we can actually offer help in those cases when it is really necessary? You see, we also have to be able to give help spontaneously. Recently the idea was floated of distributing the funds over several years, if we do not get the money now, but of course that would not help the fishermen either. Is this something that the Commission might also consider?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr van den Bos , D'66) has declared that he has voted against joint resolution Nos B5-0165/2004 B5-0182/2004 B5-0183/2004, in which the Council is once again urged to reconsider the association agreement with Israel. Now that Prime Minister Sharon himself calls for withdrawal from the occupied territories and dismantling of settlements, the EU must support fresh policy in this direction. A boycott of Israel would further restrict the already minor impact of Europe on that country and seriously hamper communication. Additionally, Mr Van den Bos considers the text under No 40 unbalanced, because it does not condemn the terrorist attack on Ashdod, while the assassination of the Hamas leader has been condemned. - Lisi report (A5-0159/2004)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to corroborate what Commissioner Byrne has just said, with great authority, gravity and professionalism. Whether the donation is voluntary or not does not affect safety. Safety – and Mr Trakatellis, another man of science, has confirmed this – depends on the quality and sophistication of the tests. Today we are concerned about prions because there are still no very advanced tests: there has only been one article published in Nature. I hope that soon, through the flexible and rapid updating mechanism, those tests too can ensure safe blood, but certainly that does not depend on whether a donor is a volunteer or receives an incentive.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we are concerned with this Amendment and also with Amendments Nos 4 and 5 to the resolution. As rapporteur, I should inform you that these amendments have already been presented in committee and were rejected in committee where there was a tied vote. The very fact that I mention this shows you what my personal opinion is. I just wanted to have informed the House of this. (Parliament adopted the resolution) * * * Report (A5-0061/2001) by Mr Brunetta on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy on a proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities [COM(2000) 384 –C5-0433/2000 – 2000/0186(COD)]

Political group: PSE