GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to argue realistically – not emotionally, and certainly not ideologically. Plant protection agents contain substances that protect cultivated plants and keep them free of pests and diseases, and they can be applied and used in many ways. They are often indispensable in vegetable and fruit growing and in viticulture, for a producer's economic yield is essentially dependent on a good harvest, on which a business relies for its income and its survival. We cannot therefore take away from users the option of using plant protection agents where necessary. It is clear to all of us that the effects of plant protection agents are not only beneficial. They can also involve hazards to human health and to the environment. Ten years ago, we enacted at EU level our own directive on plant protection agents, which stipulates in the most precise terms which active agent may be used on which plant and for what purpose. The Commission communication is supplementary to it, aims to manage risks better, and is therefore a step in absolutely the right direction. The Group of the endorses measures to further train farmers in state-of-the-art and targeted applications of plant protection agents, promotion of alternative concepts such as what is termed integrated crop management, harmonisation of VAT rates on plant protection agents in order to remove existing distortions of competition in the internal market, careful disposal of packaging and expert testing of agricultural machinery, for we see it as particularly important to maintain the purity of our drinking water. The Group of the is, in principle, in favour of the proper and up-to-date use of plant protection agents. Risks can be reduced only if cooperation between producers, users and the authorities is maximised. Mrs Van Brempt's report goes beyond the Commission communication. Above all else, a legally-binding 50% reduction in the use of plant protection agents would involve additional risks. Experts have warned that such a reduction encourages the development of resistance. The resultant higher incidence of weeds then makes it necessary to use plant protection agents in larger quantities. As Mrs Redondo Jiménez pointed out earlier, the use of an active agent is, however, far more a matter of location, local weather conditions and a plant's general condition in terms of development and health. An obligatory levy on plant protection agents certainly does not minimise risks in real terms, any more than would the introduction of a pesticides passport and a total ban on spraying from the air. Any such ban would impose severe limitations, especially in viticulture. Ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the cannot support the points I have just mentioned in Mrs Van Brempt's report. I therefore ask the Members of this House to support a realisable and practicable approach, one that will reduce risk without hindering users in their work, for Europe's fruit, vegetable and cereal farmers produce food for us all. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I agree with most of the statements that have been made today and, therefore, if you do not mind, I shall not repeat them. Instead, I shall focus on other aspects of Euro-Mediterranean cooperation, which is of such great importance. The adoption of the action plan between the European Union and the twelve States bordering the Mediterranean is a step forwards in the much-needed creation of a Mediterranean free trade area, which I would call a genuine form of discreet enlargement towards the South. In formalising this project, we must ensure that criteria of sustainability and ecological, economic and social benefit for both sides of the Mediterranean are taken into account in sectors such as agriculture. In this process it is a matter of priority to foster mutual knowledge and cultural ties between peoples. We saw that the first action to be taken when the tanks entered the refugee camps was to ban the media. For this reason, we must promote joint projects such as a Euro-Mediterranean television service that would maintain stations in all the States bordering the Mediterranean, and which would broadcast in all of the region’s languages and provide live transparency for this action plan and others. Ladies and gentlemen, let us learn the lesson of what happened in Jenin. We must prevent any repetition of these episodes and be prepared to address and resolve issues as explosive as this one – or as in the case of the Western Sahara, to which no one in this Chamber has referred – and which are extremely important to the creation of an Arab Maghreb union.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, key to the 1994 directive were targets for Member States for packaging recovery and recycling, to be set initially for a five-year phase and thereafter to be reviewed for subsequent five-year phases – and hence we are here today. I support the objective of this directive to minimise the impact of packaging and packaging waste, as long as the costs are proportionate to the environmental benefits. It is often forgotten that packaging waste is only a small proportion of total landfill. The key concern in relation to the amendments to this directive is the deadline for achieving compliance with the proposed higher recovery and recycling targets. The deadline, or 'time-line', should be realistic, proportionate and achievable in line with best practice. This will allow infrastructure and recycling capacity to be built up at a pace that ensures progress with the objectives of the directive whilst not imposing excessive or disproportionate costs. I wish to draw attention to the derogation that sets the same recovery and recycling targets as for the other twelve Member States, but allows Ireland, Greece and Portugal longer to achieve them. I urge support for the common position, which sets an accepted deadline of 2012. There is an assumption that all Member States should ultimately reach the same recovery and recycling rates, irrespective of size, geography or infrastructure. It is not a question of having done nothing alone. Yes, far more could be done, but in Ireland's case we have a population of less than four million and too small a market to sustain a packaging manufacturing infrastructure. We import 75% of our packaged goods. There is one paper recycler, little plastics recycling, no metal recyclers and the only glass recycler in the country has recently closed down. Therefore we are at a permanent geographical and structural disadvantage. To comply with this directive we must ship packaging waste overseas or build more reprocessing facilities and export the empty packaging, which is uneconomic. The cost will not be proportional to the environmental benefit. I underline what Ms Jackson said to us, on the Commission's recent communication on the Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste, published in May 2003. From an environmental point of view it is more important to optimise collection and recycling in the Community as a whole, rather than to consider whether this takes place in a particular Member State. This should be reflected in the overall recycling target at Community level. In the Commissioner's own words, could she please explain how this squares with what we have here today?

Political group: PPE-DE
We have heard, both from the rapporteur and the Commissioner, that we are dealing with a Schengen Information System which is of a decidedly new generation that is very different from the first and which therefore has a new and different significance for the European citizens and a new and different responsibility towards them. SIS I was set up as a compensatory measure to allow free movement of people, but, in recent years, it has started to be seen more as an instrument, which is also useful in terms of police cooperation. The data from SIS II and SIS I can, in other words, now become a useful resource for purposes other than those initially intended. Furthermore, the enlargement of the European Union means that it is necessary to develop a second generation information system by 2006. Consequently, the Council framework decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States also provides for recourse to the SIS and, therefore, for the need for it to be updated in due time. On the basis of all this, it is necessary for the Council to promote a public debate on the nature of SIS and on the political objectives to be achieved with SIS II to ensure that the development of this system takes place in a transparent and democratic way. An assessment will, of course, be made on respect for fundamental rights, and it will therefore be necessary to entrust the strategic management of this and other information systems to an extremely reliable European agency: an agency run by an administrative board composed of representatives of the European institutions and the Member States; an agency that is, moreover, financed by the European Union budget and, therefore, subject to Parliament’s control. A swift decision is therefore needed by the SIS centre on the location, if possible the definitive location. In addition to this, a study needs to be carried out on the possibility of amalgamating the various databases that exist today or will be launched in the coming months and years – the SIS banks, Europol, VIS, Eurojust and so on – on the basis of a single technical platform, in order to create a comprehensive, integrated information system across the European Union. To this end, a great deal of attention needs to be paid to the potential implications of a system of this kind for privacy, human rights and the risks involved in including biometric data. Citizens should, therefore, be well informed so that nasty surprises are avoided. I would like to conclude with a point which could seem somewhat out of place, relating to the immigration emergency. Everyone can see that the illegal entry of immigrants into the Union’s area of free movement calls precisely for SIS II to carry out an unexpected role: a role of managing data and security that was not conceivable when the first generation Schengen Information System was launched.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the statute of the Members, an oral question to the Council, now features on the Brussels part-session agenda. There was a minority in our group who thought it unwise to table this question to the Council at this stage, because we are still debating it ourselves, but a democratic decision has been taken. From the Conference of Presidents report, I noticed that you have held talks with the prime ministers of the Member States. Could I ask you, Mr President, to write to the Members of this Parliament who do not attend the conference about the contacts you had and what you discussed with the prime ministers, so that we too are well equipped for the task ahead and know what we are talking about in the plenary meeting on 4 December.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for coming here today to give us his statement for the meeting which is going to take place next Monday. He has rightly said that the transatlantic relationship is one which has expanded greatly in the last ten years – mostly, it is true, on the American side thanks to President Clinton; but I think that history will relate that there has also been a European contribution to this new relationship, which has been a fundamental key to the way in which it has worked, through the Transatlantic Declaration of 1990 and through the new Transatlantic Agenda under the Spanish Presidency in December 1995. I think it would be very helpful, as the Commission prepares this new document on transatlantic relations, if we in Parliament could be given a document which analyses the progress which has been made so far in this relationship in looking at, for example, the success of the EU educational centres, success in terms of policy cooperation on such matters as AIDS, immigration, aid development issues and even on foreign policy questions such as work on transatlantic houses in Ukraine. Equally it would be very helpful to know, because we are financing these in the budget of the European Union, how the dialogues have been developing. The TABD, the Business Dialogue was very successful in its last meeting in Cincinatti, but we note that since then the Environment Dialogue has closed down in the last couple of weeks. Therefore, I think an analysis of what has happened would be very helpful. To conclude, what next? I believe that where we in this House are, as the Commissioner rightly pointed out, building up relationships, through the Legislators' Dialogue between the European Parliament and Congress, we would hope, in the longer term, to see that turn into a form of transatlantic assembly. Equally, we would like to see how the different dialogues of the business dialogue can be put into a broader partnership framework. I would ask the Commissioner, in the run-up to the release of this document in April, under a new US Administration, apparently, it was decided today, under a new US President, hopefully George W. Bush, to see how to deepen this partnership in the future, based on the new Treaty of Nice which extends the activities of the European Union so as to enable it to be a real partner with the United States in the decade ahead.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, many people still suffer from incurable degenerative diseases that affect the whole body, such as multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, diabetes and leukaemia. Others, in an otherwise healthy body, have poorly functioning or damaged vital organs, such as heart, kidneys, liver or lungs. As human beings we have succeeded in changing all kinds of things in the world outside ourselves, but can still only solve our own physical defects to a very limited extent. We find the repair and enhancement of our physical fabric quite simply horrific. Is man about to act like his own creator and does that conflict with the purpose for which people were put on earth? Few people will be enthusiastic about creating invulnerable superhumans who will eventually oust normal human beings. In addition, the sacrifice of human life in order to improve the quality of other lives, evokes feelings of cannibalism. The discussion is sometimes about extremes. One extreme position is the desire to ban all scientific research and imprison researchers, the other is the wish to allow every commercial use, such as those, for example, being developed by the American company Advanced Cell Technology, and hence making possible, at the individual level, everything that wealthy people can and are prepared to pay for. I reject both extremes. The use of stem cells from one’s own body or if necessary from residual embryos, is defensible. Any creation of separate life for this purpose should be preceded by investigation of alternatives, and with the trade in embryos we are definitely overstepping the bounds of acceptability. That also applies to the valuing and modification of human life at the request of the insurers. Weighing everything up, I feel closer to the line followed by Mr Caudron than to that of Mr Fiori.

Political group: GUE-NGL
We would emphasise the importance of our finally getting closer to obtaining a Members’ Statute that would mean the end of the system of covert compensation that has so far existed in Parliament. We welcome a system through which actual travel expenses are reimbursed. A system involving one salary – even if this is higher than many MEPs’ present salaries – is better because it is an open system which can be scrutinised and assessed by the electorate. Despite this basic approach, we now wish to make it clear that we consider the salary level recommended by Parliament’s report from June 2003 to be too high and that we shall continue to press our government to argue in the Council for a more sensible salary level.

Political group: PSE
I would like to thank the Council for its answer and I now have a supplementary question. In the light of the deplorable attempts by the US to undermine the International Criminal Court and the rights of the Guantanamo detainees to a fair trial, will the Council raise these matters with the US administration at every opportunity and place them on the agenda for the next US-EU summit?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, while I was in the aeroplane on the way to Slovakia, I closed my eyes for a second, as frequently happens, resulting in interesting dreams which I have related in many explanations of vote. This time, I saw my daughter, Cristina – who, as we all know, has been striving to finish her degree in law for six years – graduating at last. She had specialised in Community law and received a prize of EUR 1 000 for developing Community law, which is also what the von Boetticher report seeks to do. I therefore voted for the report. But Mr President, which was the dream: the fact that my daughter Cristina had graduated in law or the fact that we had, at last, succeeded in establishing the European lawyer, with a EUR 2 000 prize, which is what should happen in Europe?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the terrorist attacks of 11 September have meant that our debate on the need for Community action to combat terrorism is now extremely topical. We are still overwhelmed by the horrendous pictures, the horrendous truth and their grave consequences now and, we imagine and fear, for the future. Quite apart from the effect on the economy or on world political relations, however, thousands of people have died, thousands have lost their parents, children, spouses, friends and loved ones. I would like to dedicate my first words to those people who are suffering, to the victims: they, the victims, must be present in our future deliberations and decisions. Because we owe a debt to all of them. We will have to act so that justice is done and in order to prevent, through action or omission, more innocent victims. We know that something has to be done, that there has to be a response, a just, democratic, proportionate response, but a response nevertheless, because terrorists cannot be allowed to have, or believe they have, impunity and because we are obliged to assure the citizens that, living under the rule of law, we have the necessary instruments to defend their life, freedom and security. I cannot and will not ignore the fact that I am Basque. I would rather have not had this experience in this field, I would do anything not to have had it, but I have. I know that international cooperation is the right approach, that the initiatives presented today by Commissioner Vitorino are the right approach: political cooperation, judicial cooperation, police cooperation. Joint responsibility in dealing with terrorism is our main, most effective, political response. Ladies and gentlemen, terrorism – as has already been said – has no borders, no homeland, no religion and no ideology. It has a common objective and method. They have never wanted peace. They have always sought to destroy us, to destroy democracy. I therefore say to them that what the Commission has decided today, what has been approved today, is historic. Allow me to describe it as such. The necessary step has been taken to move on from solidarity, which is necessary but insufficient, to common action by all. Thank you very much, Mr Vitorino, and thank you to all of you for this decision.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the arrest of the European journalists and their Laotian companions raises grave concerns: first, about the freedom of the press. If one looks at what has happened since, there have been restrictions on access to people in prison, their place of detention has been kept secret for more than a week now. Clearly the trials did not respect their rights under international law. They did not get a fair trial. The situation in Laos is quite alarming. Not only are these people suffering, but so is the rest of the country. People's rights are not being respected: their civil, political and religious rights are not being respected. There are no rights, for example, for people in prison. Many of these people are unjustifiably in prison. They do not have visitation rights. This morning we met with a delegation from Laos. The evidence that they gave us raised serious concerns. Some speakers have said that we need to reconsider our relationship with Laos if the authorities do not take notice of the situation in their own country. It is clear that there should be an immediate release of these journalists. There should be freedom of the press. They need to end the persecution of the Hmong and other minorities. It must stop. The court case was also criticised by Washington. They called it a farce. They called for a fair trial. We need to be very careful here in respect of who is pointing the finger at whom, considering that Washington is responsible for the Guantanamo Bay issue. Those people have not had a fair trial, nor have they had legitimate charges posed against them. I doubt that this would happen in the European Union. The Americans need to look at what they are doing before they point a finger at anyone else.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Can I first of all congratulate the rapporteur on his excellent report. Conservation is something that I hear on many occasions and a lot of people pay lip service to it. A lot of people are all in favour of it until it arrives on their own doorstep. It is all very well to talk about conservation and I agree with it totally. But at the end of the day one has got to strike the balance between those who are dependent on their life and their livelihood from the sea and those who are making the laws which govern who may or may not fish and where, when and how they may fish in any particular waters within the European Union. Commissioner Fischler, of course, knows me from a long time back and I have written to him on BSE and many other issues in agriculture but now that he is responsible for fisheries I am going to have to berate him on fisheries, along with his lusty colleagues, because one of the areas that has been most affected has been my region and the fishermen of Northern Ireland. In actual fact they have had a moratorium imposed upon them without any recompense, without any real negotiation or discussion. It has been imposed upon them that they cannot fish for about an 11 to 12 week period. Now we all accept that there is a problem in conservation and a problem of stocks, but what I am really saying to you Commissioner, and I have said this to you in the Fisheries Committee and I will say it to you again: There is a wide divide between Brussels and the working fishermen. It does not matter whether you come from Galicia, it does not matter whether you are from Northern Ireland or whether you are from Scotland. That chasm exists and we in Brussels have not been able to cross that divide. And we have got to take on board the views of the fishermen. We have got to take on board the concerns of the fishermen and we have got to work closely with them and I hope that you, as the Commissioner responsible for fisheries, will recognise that divide and will try and work as closely as you possibly can to ensure that all sides are brought together and their views are taken on board.

Political group: PPE-DE