GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I am actually somewhat disappointed, because there seems to be a big difference between the rules for drivers of trucks transporting animals all the way to the Middle East, and the conditions that the animals themselves are kept in. The Commission's scientific committee on animal health and animal welfare concluded that levels of animal welfare drop as journey times increase. As you mentioned, Commissioner, Parliament's position was eight hours. With a journey time of nine hours, a rest period of twelve hours, another nine hours of travelling and another twelve hours as a rest period you could just keep on going: you would have a situation where animals could be transported right around the globe and back again. This may continue until the animals are dead. This is completely unnecessary. It is quite clear that we are supposed to be striving to create an incentive where the animals will be slaughtered as close as possible to their place of origin. We must get rid of these excessively long journeys, particularly where animals are being transported to places as far away as the Middle East. I would hope that the Commission will look again at what it is proposing and come forward with a maximum journey time, rather than this situation where animals can continue to travel long distances with periods of rest. That is not sufficient to ensure the animals' welfare and the scientists have actually pointed this out. I would hope that the Commission will take this on board. In the long term, we must consider the welfare of the animals and create incentives to reduce the need for long-distance transport. You will not do that, Commissioner, by creating a situation in which it can continue.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, on behalf of the , I wish to say that we believe the Stability and Growth Pact is an essential pillar of economic stability in the euro area and in the Union more widely, and should be respected in letter and spirit. We do not recognise the view, apparently emanating from the Socialist Group, that the SGP currently incorporates unnecessarily restrictive fiscal rules. For the 11 countries whose budgets are in a sustainable position – those which, in other words, can face a normal recession with a fall in tax revenue and continue to respect the 3% limit on budget deficits – there is no need to raise taxes or cut public spending and the automatic stabilisers can and should be allowed to play. Moreover, for many of these countries, this is the first slowdown since the first oil shock in 1973 in which the automatic stabilisers have been able to work fully. Previously, financial market worries have been a serious constraint on governments. So monetary union, the Stability and Growth Pact and fiscal consolidation have given back to Member States a useful policy lever which has been out of the policy box for too long. For the four euro-area Member States whose budgets are not yet fully compatible with the Stability and Growth Pact – France, Germany, Italy and Portugal – it is wholly reasonable that they should continue the process of putting their underlying budget positions right. This means allowing some effects of the slowdown on the deficit, but certainly not all. In our joint motion with the Group we urge the proper respect of the SGP. We point out that it would be particularly useful in a year like this one – in which many stability programmes were drafted in expectation of 3% growth, but the out-turn is likely to be less than 2%, as the Commission has said – if there were a commonly agreed measure between the ECB, Ecofin and the Commission of the underlying budget balance, stripping out the impact of the slowdown on taxes and cyclically determined spending and, perhaps, interest rates as well. Such an underlying budget balance would allow better between-years monitoring of the fiscal position, underpinning the discipline of the Stability and Growth Pact and reassuring the financial markets that the fiscal stance is not being eased, even if the nominal deficits are inevitably somewhat larger. Similarly, such an underlying budget balance would discourage finance ministers from fiscal easing in upturns, merely on account of cyclically buoyant revenue. I urge us to respect the Stability and Growth Pact and add to its ability to check finance ministers' discipline.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the abolition, in October 2000, of the main opposition party in Mauritania, the Union of Democratic Forces-New Era, and the arrest and subsequent sentencing, to five years’ imprisonment after a summary judgment, of the leader of the Popular Front, Chbih Melainine, calls into question the fundamental principles of democracy laid down in the constitution of Mauritania. What, then, is that constitution worth? There is no freedom of association for political parties. The Green Party, which submitted its articles of association several months ago, has still not been recognised and has not even received an acknowledgement that its application has been received. These anti-democratic manoeuvres are taking place on the eve of the legislative and local elections planned for October. We have no guarantee regarding these elections, because there is no independent electoral commission. In our opinion, the release of Chbih Melainine is a prerequisite for holding the elections in October, as is the reconstitution of all the opposition parties. It is in order to allow all these political actors to participate that we are asking that the elections should be postponed. In order to re-establish democracy and guarantee the organisation of free and fair elections in Mauritania, we are asking the Council and the Commission to enter into consultations with the government, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement. IN THE CHAIR: INGO IEDRICHVice-President

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I too should like to welcome this proposal for a regulation from the Commission which improves upon certain control measures within NAFO. I have often voiced my opinion that NAFO fishing grounds are undoubtedly among the most regulated in the world. Such vigilance is sometimes the result of excessive mistrust, on the part of some Contracting Parties – who have almost unlimited power in NAFO - towards other parties who operate completely legitimately. We all remember the unjust and regrettable incidents that took place a few years ago, regarding a Community vessel. These incidents were the product of suspicion bordering on persecution which has often concealed a desire to throw a smoke screen around management errors in some coastal states. This is why I must applaud the fact that this proposal aims at incorporating into Community legislation three NAFO recommendations on controlling activities of vessels of non-Contracting Parties, and in particular non-Contracting Parties whose activities are, without a shadow of a doubt, much more suspect than those of any Community fleet. As is usual procedure when discussing the transposition of measures into Community law, I must once again express my disappointment over the Commission’s delay in starting to work on adapting legislation. If it is indeed true that the proposal covers NAFO’s latest recommendations on sightings and transhipments from its annual meetings in 1998 and 1999, it is also true to say that this represents nothing more than a reworking of the 1997 recommendation, which is only now being taken into account. Besides this now traditional complaint, this proposal for a regulation represents an opportunity to debate the real problem of flags of convenience and discuss what the European Union is doing to deal with them. Given the current state of marine resources, and at a time when there is growing awareness of the need for real protection of marine ecosystems, the fight against illegal fishing must become a priority and vessels flying flags of convenience should be first on the list. The European Union is responsible for taking the lead in the fight against such harmful forms of fishing and must be capable of putting forward its own alternatives. The first step must be to propose unified and clear measures in the fight against such activity to Member States. The aim of such common rules is to ban the flying of such flags and stop Member States allowing these fleets to dock in their ports. Currently, not all Community ports are aware that, directly or indirectly, they are often providing cover for illegal activity. We can only develop their awareness through an information campaign and by introducing rigorous measures to accompany it.

Political group: PPE-DE
The Treaty of Amsterdam incorporated a legal base (Article 299(2)) recognising the need for the EU to give the outermost regions special treatment in accordance with their unique and specific reality. This was now a ‘legal-constitutional’ recognition and no longer, as was the case until Amsterdam, a ‘de facto’ recognition, done through declarations annexed to the Treaties or instruments such as Poseima, symptomatically called the Programme of Options Specific to the Remote and Insular Nature of Madeira and the Azores. I therefore give my full support to Parliament’s favourable opinion on a set of measures that we have just debated, presented by the European Commission, which aims to put into practice the outermost region principle. A special mention, finally, for the proposed revision of Poseima. This is a programme that has proved highly significant in that it has guaranteed the application of important aspects of the common agricultural policy to Madeira and the Azores in a manner suited to the specific conditions of agriculture in these regions. Poseima has thus made a significant contribution to the maintenance of our agriculture. Poseima has also been crucial in that it includes specific measures aimed at cutting supply overheads, particularly in terms of transport, for foodstuffs for consumption or industrial processing. The proposed revision of Poseima with the changes recommended by Parliament is highly positive. New instruments are introduced and current ones are modified in the light of the experience acquired. I hope the Commission will accept the changes proposed by Parliament.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, your suggestion of pausing to listen to the interesting explanations of votes is not being heeded, but I am, nevertheless, pleased. I voted for the report on the proposal for a Council regulation amending the regulation on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products because I am convinced that it represents a positive technical step. We cannot deny the Commission the chance to intervene in such highly technical matters. I would nevertheless like to take the opportunity afforded by the explanation of vote to remind the House that there is a need for Parliament and the Council to make radical changes to the legislation on milk quotas as well as to the legislation governing the distribution of agricultural produce, regulated within the European Community, in terms of the quantity produced and how it is marketed. The milk quota system was full of holes and we need a new one! - Maat report (A5-0074/2000)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is a proverb which says that good things come to those who wait. The words of Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf certainly illustrated the aptness of that proverb to the present situation. Besides the week's major topics, namely our discussions, decisions and votes on enlargement and institutional reform, there have been other subjects that the public has also been following with interest, subjects on which the position of the general public can also be said to have moved perceptibly. Over the past few years, public awareness of food-safety issues in particular has heightened considerably, and this naturally extends to animal feed as well as human foodstuffs. Just think of BSE or dioxin, and you will know what I mean. The discussions on the Paulsen reports, of course, clearly illustrated this. The marketing of animal feed, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say the trading of animal feed, also engenders this awareness. When mixing takes place, in the case of compound feedingstuffs, I believe the need for caution is even greater, whether these compounds are functional foods or feed mixes. In the case of these products, more detailed labelling is expected. Higher priority must be given to verifiability. The mandatory open declaration is essential, and the greatest possible degree of transparency is necessary throughout the supply chain. I believe, too, that transparency will ultimately strengthen competition; it stands to reason that transparent competition creates a greater incentive to manufacture the best possible mixes. Farmers quite simply have to know more precisely what is in their compound feedingstuffs, and they must also be able to find out, at least on request, the percentage content of each ingredient. That is their right as purchasers as well as being consistent with the interests of consumers. Equally important, of course, is the food-safety aspect – beef is another issue here – and traceability. This, at least, is well embedded in the proposal. The amendments make the proposal better still. The Group approves Amendments Nos 1 to 5 but cannot support Amendment No 6. The question of genetically modified cereals should be regulated elsewhere. We support the amended Graefe zu Baringdorf report and the legislative resolution. Let me express our thanks and appreciation to the rapporteur, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, and to Mrs Roth-Behrendt. Nevertheless, it is essential that we continue to stand firm. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
The Parliament and Council Directive on the subject of company law concerning takeover bids is designed to harmonise Member State legislation in cases where companies governed by the law of one Member State are subject to a takeover bid, with their assets, i.e. property and shares, admitted to trading on a regulated market. The main purpose of the directive is to protect the interests of minority shareholders, and, by means of harmonisation, to protect these interests when the takeover bid is of a cross-border nature. By defining a principle for the equal treatment of all shareholders, the directive therefore seeks to establish minimum conditions for all shareholders to state their views and to study the terms of any bid made. At the same time, it seeks to ensure, by means of regulations on making the bid and time limits on the acceptance period, that the company remains operational during this period. I therefore give my full support to the agreement that has been reached and, consequently, to the joint project, adopted by the Conciliation Committee, for a European Parliament and Council directive on takeover bids, which thereby seeks to create a set of harmonised rules that will add rigour to the process and ensure equal protection for all shareholders.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, a few days ago, the UN General Assembly, with negative votes by the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Israel and the USA alone, adopted the well-publicised resolution on Arafat. This resolution, interpreted politically, does not only have the narrow sense of what Arafat means and what the problem means today; it also expresses the demand of the international community for a solution at long last to this impasse of a crisis which has lasted 40, 50, 60 years, with thousands dead and thousands murdered. What we are or are not debating today is immaterial in relation to what must be done there. We here are a political body. We are not judging intentions. In this sense, we must only speak about what needs to be done politically. We are talking about one roadmap in relation to what is happening in the area and we fail to see the other roadmap, the map of violence, of blood, of suicides, of innocent people murdered and so on, of the wall, of anything else. Over recent days, there has been a new representative of the European Union in the region, Mr Otte. Unfortunately, however, he has been ill-received by the Sharon side, which has refused to receive him, as it refused our other representatives, because they also wanted to see Arafat. This is not a positive development. We must send out certain positive messages. The Quartet is not enough, it is not enough as a body of observers. It needs to be converted into a task force which will impose terms and conditions and procedures. Otherwise, every time we come here, we shall list our complaints, some of us from a position of security, others in line with their sympathies, but without any final result. I therefore agree with the proposal made by my honourable friend Mr Poettering for international blue-helmeted observers to be installed at long last on the border between the two states, as has happened elsewhere in the world. I agree with all the proposals which do not have us as neutral observers, which do not lead us into inaction. I agree with all the proposals which, at long last, call for us to take action on our own responsibility and not for us to simply wait and follow others' instructions.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, can I just make a small point because one or two colleagues have raised a question, albeit at the very last moment, about some of the terminology. The phrase 'illegal trafficking' is used or added to ensure – or we hope to ensure – linguistic clarity and to avoid any ambiguity. Once parts of human organs, blood and tissue are included in the report, it is necessary to ensure that any legal trade that exists in, for example, blood, sperm or human tissue, is not criminalised or penalised. There is no suggestion whatsoever that there should be any legal trade or trafficking in human organs – quite the opposite. That is the purpose of the report, and I hope it is now clear. (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0356/2003) by Bastiaan Belder, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the proposal for a Council decision on additional macro-financial assistance to Serbia and Montenegro amending Decision 2002/882/EC providing further macro financial assistance to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (COM(2003) 506 – C5-0428/2003 – 2003/0190(CNS)) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Motion for a resolution (B5-0456) tabled by the Group on the outcome of the European Council and progress report on the Intergovernmental Conference (Brussels, 16/17 October 2003) (Parliament rejected the motion for resolution) *** Joint motion for a resolution(2) on the outcome of the European Council held in Brussels on 16 and 17 October 2003 (Parliament adopted the joint resolution) *** Report (A5-0348/2003) by Elmar Brok, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, on the annual report from the Council to the European Parliament on the main aspects and basic choices of CFSP, including the financial implications for the general budget of the European Communities – 2002 (7038/2003 – C5-0423/2003 – 2003/2141(INI)) Before the vote on the resolution as a whole:

Political group: PSE
Mr President—in-Office of the Council, the problem you have raised in the reply to my question satisfied me only in part. That is because, unfortunately, over the last ten years – as you well know – specifically in Ciudad Juárez, more than 320 bodies of women and girls have appeared. Furthermore, more than 4 470 women and girls of between 14 and 16 years old have disappeared. I would therefore like, in addition to the action the Council is going to take with Mexico in relation to the Agreement, to see an examination of what specific actions – since we are not talking about a violation of human rights in general, but a very specific case which involves the disappearances and deaths of many women and girls, specifically in Ciudad Juárez – have been taken by Mexico to try to verify these facts, and, on the other hand, whether it is possible, and whether the Council will allow it, to consider what assistance is being requested by the authorities of that country so that the international community may contribute to clarifying these facts, which are very serious.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, before I start on the subject of tyre noise, may I make a more general point to the Commission. They are bringing forward far too much legislation and, with legislation, quality is usually in inverse proportion to quantity. We talk of doing less and doing it better. In fact we do more, and we do it worse. Now turning to tyres. I little thought when I came to this House that I would end up defending the Commission's position – and yet the Commission has done its homework. It has consulted with the industry. It has come up with a proposal that sets challenging, but achievable, targets which protect the environment whilst also recognising the interests of road users and tyre makers. Some of our colleagues are seeking to sabotage this careful work by demanding arbitrary and ill-considered decibel reductions. In some cases their figures are achievable, in others not. But they have forgotten that changes in the production specifications of tyres affect not only noise, but also grip, safety, fuel economy, cost and durability. They may end up with quieter tyres that are expensive, that wear out quickly and that allow cars to slide off the road and crash into trees! Let me speak plainly. More road users will die if Mr de Roo's amendments are passed. The electors I represent will not thank us. We are being far too prescriptive. It is our job to set a broad legislative framework in the public interest. Instead, we seek to micro-manage a highly technical and complex industrial development programme, a task for which we have neither the time nor the skills. I call on colleagues to reject the amendments and support the Commission proposal.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, as has already been said here, it would be hard to say that the end of this agreement comes as a surprise, given that this scenario has been foreseen since December 1995. This is why we are somewhat perplexed that the Commission has still not explained its plan to us for dealing with this situation. By making the substantive part of the FIFG regulation an implementing regulation, the Commission will cause fisheries to be the only area in the agricultural and structural domain not to be decided on in the first six months of this year. It is also worth pointing out that even if the Commission’s proposal for an implementing regulation had been adopted, it would not have helped us in the slightest. In article 17(3), concerning financial compensation in case of a temporary stoppage in activity, it excludes fishermen from any compensation and imposes ridiculous limits on boat-owners. I do not know if you have noticed, Commissioner, that one of the annual financial ceilings that you are proposing in order to deal with situations of this kind in Member States is lower than your own salary as a European Commissioner. We know that when you assumed your new responsibilities for fisheries, you made a show of highlighting your distance from the sea. Nevertheless, you should not forget that you are a Commissioner for Europe and that here, both on the coast of continental Europe and on archipelagos such as the Azores and Madeira, there are many people who make their living from the sea, and as a matter of fact, these people tend to be some of the most deprived and the least supported. To conclude, I would like to say that I agree wholeheartedly with two things said here by my friend and colleague Manuel Medina Ortega. We, the Portuguese Socialists, are radically opposed to any kind of nationalistic rhetoric or rhetoric about re-nationalisation. More than this, we are also extremely concerned, as my friend António José Seguro has also said here, about the support to Morocco, and not merely in terms of its commercial aspects, as has been suggested by certain speakers. But for this, Commissioner, you will need a radically different attitude to the one you have had in the past, particularly towards my country.

Political group: PSE