GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the EU’s internal market is a fundamental pillar of European cooperation. It has given Europe free trade, competitiveness and welfare. There is however no need, in terms of the market, for uniform rules on the sale of vitamins and minerals. Member States have different traditions in this area. In Sweden, as in the UK and Ireland, individuals can buy many preparations with strengths up to the maximum recommended daily intake over the counter. This tradition must be respected and take precedence over the requirement for uniform rules. What is really behind the proposal to regulate the sale of vitamin and mineral supplements at EU level? Opponents shift the blame onto the pharmaceutical industry on the grounds that it wants to sell more tablets. Those in favour of the regulation also point the finger at the pharmaceutical industry, but in this case as being opposed to the proposal because it wants to see even higher volumes of sales. I personally believe both sides are wrong. I have not encountered any lobbyists from the pharmaceutical industry on this issue. The main driving force behind the eagerness for regulation is instead an overprotective mentality among EU civil servants and politicians. Naturally, it is inappropriate to overdose on vitamins and minerals, but there is a huge margin between overdose and harmful levels. With the help of information on the bottles, most people are able to manage their daily vitamin intake themselves. We should trust individuals to do so. I myself am a dialysis doctor and have seen many cases of poisoning. I have seen two young women poisoned by nutmeg and an older man suffering from severe nicotine poisoning, but I have never met anyone with vitamin or mineral poisoning. Kidney stone patients have to be very careful about taking much more than just vitamin C and calcium. It is Mrs Roth-Behrendt’s doctor whose job it is to tell her what she should be careful of. Doctors have more important things to do than prescribe vitamins and minerals in higher doses than those accepted as food supplements.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, we did not need the Green Paper on the future of the common fisheries policy to tell us about the serious problems facing fisheries in Europe. The Green Paper has merely made clear once again how serious they are. Our Committee is earnestly discussing the various approaches to solving the problems. We know we shall not be able to make all the difficulties simply disappear by waving a magic wand. If somebody really wants to pull the wool over our eyes about it, we must call it what it is, namely eyewash. The common fisheries policy as it has existed up until now has not succeeded in preventing the crises affecting a number of fish stocks or in reducing overcapacities in fleets. Whether we will all survive economically depends on the Union’s future ability to shape a fisheries policy in the new century. The Commission is now proposing extending the current multi-annual guidance programme for one year. In the light of the ongoing debate on reform, I think we also need such measures for the sake of continuity. We cannot of course solve the problems in this short space of time, but perhaps we can alleviate them a little. The crucial thing is that the programme should be properly carried out. We need data, but some Member States fail to provide that data or their data is incomplete. We therefore need a system of penalties to ensure the data is supplied at all, and we need comparable criteria and categories. Every shipowner wants to increase efficiency. But we must not shift the premises. We want better safety at sea. That is a central part of the European Parliament’s demands. But at the same time we should be careful to avoid negative effects on safety, even dressed up as increased efficiency. The proposed change to structural measures also misses the target at the present time. Making the achievement of objectives in all segments of the fleet a precondition for public subsidies is counterproductive because it penalises everyone for the failings of a few. Our policy will only find acceptance among fishermen if the conditions are fair.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the debate that has taken place today will be remembered as one of the most significant demonstrations of the European Parliament’s work on the enlargement process. I wish to express my gratitude, mainly to the authors of these two reports, but also to Mr Moscovici and Commissioner Verheugen, for their interventions. They managed to be both realistic and pragmatic in their analyses, without losing sight of the far-thinking objectives that give real meaning to the European project. Despite the obvious differences in points of view, we have seen broad consensus on the fundamental aspects of the issue. Amongst these, I would highlight the following: the full inclusion of each new country in the European Union means complete commitment, bringing together economic convergence and partnership in a political project. This project has various characteristics which the candidate countries and current Member States absolutely must respect, otherwise enlargement will do nothing but dilute our current strengths. Amongst the characteristics that must define the identity of the European project, the most prominent are cohesion and solidarity between Member States, democracy, the ethic of responsibility, the social dimension and equal opportunities. Lastly, Mr President, the fact that this debate is taking place at a time when Germany is celebrating the tenth anniversary of its reunification should give us food for thought. We have exorcised the ghosts of the past. Although the twentieth century was marked by the greatest possible disunity in Europe, with two terrible wars, the twenty-first century will see the peoples of Europe unite, if we want this to happen. They will unite in a common project, which is unmistakably a project of peace between Europeans and between Europe and the rest of the world.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the rules of professional conduct of European Community lawyers state that it is in the very nature of a lawyer’s work to be entrusted with clients’ secrets and to receive other confidential information. If there is no guarantee of confidentiality, there can be no trust. For this reason, professional secrecy is both a fundamental right and a fundamental duty of lawyers. This fundamental duty, which applies, mutatis mutandis, to all members of the legal profession, is also a fundamental right of anybody in need of advice, i.e. potentially every single one of us. We shall not stand for any further dismantling of fundamental rights, even if justified by the alleged need to combat organised crime, which is why we agree on this text with Mr Lehne and shall be voting in favour of the proposed amendments.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I refer to the continuing media reports that US President Bush is accusing the EU and EU leaders of funding Hamas. These reports have been ongoing over the past week. I ask you to communicate strongly to President Bush that there is no truth in this allegation. In Rome this last weekend, at a meeting of the EU-US delegation, I and other Members of Parliament strongly refuted this allegation and outlined the stringent budgetary controls in place for the funding of the Palestinian Authority, to make sure that such funds are not misappropriated. I urge you to raise this issue with President Bush at the earliest possible opportunity.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is no place for emotion in this debate. Terrorists have no fear of our debates, nor of directives or regulations; the only thing they fear is real and effective action. We will have to get on with taking appropriate steps to protect ourselves and the European public. What this means is that we have to act rather than holding interminable debates. What we need is cooperation within the European Union and cooperation with those outside it, specifically with the United States of America, but we do, obviously, expect certain ground rules to be laid down for them and, of course, we expect them to be obeyed. We have proposed, and the Commission has agreed, that certain expectations would have to be met, for example that the only data forwarded would be such as would help to combat terrorism, that data would be stored for decent period of time, which we demanded should be reduced, that only one authority in the United States would have access to it, that it would be possible to monitor what was done with it, that passengers had to be informed and that the European public would have an EU authority to represent them. Those – among others – were our demands, and we were assured that they would actually be complied with. If they have been, and if we can also set up a ‘push’ system with filters, then we should use the opportunity to seek out others with whom we can cooperate in the fight against terrorism. We are one step away from bringing this to a close. We should see to it that we take prompt action, before it is too late for the European Union and for the security of its citizens.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the problem of the great discrepancies in medicines policy in our Member States cannot be solved today. We are, however, taking a step in the right direction as far as greater harmonisation in registration is concerned and also with regard to the conditions for placing medicines, particularly generic medicines, on the market. Admittance to Member State markets, however, remains at the discretion of the individual Member States. One of today's important areas of discussion is the relationship between the original medicine and the generic product that is introduced onto the market once the patent and data protection have lapsed. A fragile compromise has been tabled, in respect of which I have tabled a better worded amendment. I would ask my fellow MEPs for their support, but I do endorse the compromise. In fact, I should also like to take this opportunity to issue a warning that speeding up the launch of a generic product will not automatically lead to lower costs. In the Netherlands, I have noticed that the price of a generic product there is higher than the price of the original medicine in a large number of Member States. I should also like to comment on pricing policy. Although we are once again bringing transparency to your attention, it is frustrating – and I am also addressing this comment to the rapporteurs of 1989 – that the directive on transparency is not being fleshed out. There are large discrepancies, and we will not solve them today. It is too ridiculous for words that medicines from the Netherlands, where the price paid by consumers for generic medicines is so high, are exported to other Member States in parallel. We should put a stop to this. Finally, I am not in favour of advertising. I am in favour of making self-regulating information accessible on the web. Whether this information originates from national agencies or the industry itself is irrelevant, as long as it is self-regulating. In my view, articulate consumers should not have to resort to websites in America but should also be able to access this information in Europe. I should ask you to carefully reconsider my amendments on this score. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I am more distressed to have to disagree with Mrs Roth-Behrendt than she is to have to disagree with Mr von Wogau. There are precedents for delaying the debate for some period of time. Commissioner Monti will remember that on one occasion in the last Parliament he had to come in when a debate had already begun, because of transport problems. These are problems endemic in our meeting in Strasbourg in the way we do. It is a good week for this point to be brought to our attention. I would like to support the suggestion that this full debate takes place in the presence of Commissioner Byrne. I mean no disrespect whatsoever to Commissioner Monti, but Commissioner Byrne has been the honest broker in this terrible dispute from day one. We need to have him here when we attempt to reach some conclusion on it.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Ghilardotti’s report on the directive on information and consultation of workers is very topical indeed. Many Member States of the European Union have, unfortunately, been faced with a wave of mergers, restructurings and numerous redundancies, such as at Danone, Marks and Spencer and Moulinex, to name but a few. Until now, the directive has not enabled employees to take any effective action and to have a real bearing on their future, and that of the business. In many other cases, the directive has not been applied. That is why I support the proposals made in the report by Mrs Ghilardotti, because the directive strengthens provisions and provides the means to apply these provisions. The Council included Parliament’s amendments in its common position; the reference to the most favourable provisions for employees, the obligation to respect minimum requirements, and the non-regression clause. Although this is a step forward, we must go further, as proposed in Mrs Ghilardotti’s report. Some important amendments have again been proposed, which improve the report. For example, employees shall be consulted and informed at the planning stage, before decisions are taken. For example, if the decision has an adverse effect on employees, such as collective redundancies or closure, the final decision must be postponed so that consultations can continue with a view to avoiding or mitigating the consequences. This directive will enable us to begin to encourage an approach to economic and social issues, which includes improving working conditions and economic efficiency. This efficiency requires the involvement of employees, naturally. That is why we are proposing two amendments, which rule out the possibility of withholding information where there is a risk or prejudice to the business. To demand discretion is one thing. To enable the company’s management, once again, to take unilateral decisions on the nature of the information is quite another. Obviously, we must be determined to ensure this directive is observed, and I hope that, this time, the Council will heed Parliament’s will.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Baltas, the rapporteur, most sincerely for his very balanced report. Both the country from which I come and this group to which I belong are very well disposed towards Croatia, but that does not mean that we turn a blind eye, or even two blind eyes, when it comes to assessing whether it is ready for Europe. I only wish the Commission would see how important it is for Croatia that we should give a positive opinion; I agree with the previous speaker totally in that respect. It would also send a signal to all its neighbours that the way to Europe is open to them as well as and when – and provided that – they take the necessary steps towards Europe. Sadly, no country in the Balkans has done so much. Are the problems already resolved? No, they are not. Although Croatia has basically good relations with its neighbours, I believe there are still a few problems to be resolved with Slovenia. I am very pleased that there are not only good relations with neighbouring Bosnia-Herzegovina, but that both the previous government and the present one have demonstrated that Croatia is now interested in a common Bosnia-Herzegovina and not only in the well-being of the Croatian-speaking population there. As far as the situation with the war criminals is concerned, I believe that Croatia has done a lot in the last few years and months to make progress here. I believe we must be fair and objective about this, too. I sometimes feel that many countries that have themselves taken longer to come to terms with their own past and their own crimes and to face up to them are making greater demands on Croatia. Croatia needs to know that this is a crucial issue, however, and it must therefore show every willingness to cooperate. Regarding the return of refugees, this has always been a very important point for us in talks with Croatian representatives and here in the European Parliament. I think Croatia needs to intensify its efforts to bring back all refugees, and this of course includes exchanges with neighbouring countries. With these things in mind, Mr President, I believe we should give a favourable reception to the Baltas report. Also with this in mind, I ask the Commission to be very positive in its approach to Croatia.

Political group: PSE
This report contains general points on what is referred to as the urban regeneration strategy for town centres and neighbourhoods affected by the crisis in the capitalist economy and its consequences, i.e. increasing unemployment, exclusion and delinquency. It underlines the fact that, in order to ensure sustainable urban development, an urban policy must be implemented which does not leave out the main victims of the economic crisis, namely the unemployed, immigrants, refugees, women and the socially excluded. However, nothing is said about the causes of this crisis and those responsible for it. At best this report simply corrects certain aspects and effects of the crisis. Yet only scandalously limited resources are available for this work. As the report itself indicates, the funds allocated to the URBAN II programme for the 2000-2006 period are approximately 30% less than those in the previous period, which were already low, at EUR 900 million. Added to this is the fact that only about fifty projects are considered for the whole of Europe which is pathetic when practically all European city districts, both suburban and inner city, are affected. This is why we will vote individually in favour of the specific measures planned to help certain social categories which are most disadvantaged but will abstain on the report itself in order to denounce the fact that in the main it consists of pious hopes financed on the cheap.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Firstly, I would like to express my satisfaction, both at the existence of Article 13 which has been mentioned, and for the action plan which the President-in-Office of the Council has referred to and which has been developed for the issue that we are considering today. However, since not everything in the garden can be rosy, I am not completely satisfied at the moment. It is true that Article 13 covers practically all possible – at the moment at least – forms of discrimination. However, subsequent regulatory development and the initiatives being proposed are incomplete and unbalanced. The President-in-Office of the Council has mentioned three examples and I would like to refer to them specifically. There are certain cases in Article 13 which are susceptible to discrimination, such as the one we are dealing with today, the case of disabled people, which I believe have been implemented in an irregular way. It is true that there are others which are still much less developed, such as discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. However, returning to disability, I believe that the European Union requires more complete legislation which covers every possible type, including cases of double disability. I would like to know the Council’s opinion – as well as that of the Commission – and I would like to know whether it is considering any initiative for cases such as, for example, women and disability, discrimination on the basis of gender and for the kind of disability involved in the case I have referred to.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, very briefly, it is essential that an evaluation of the impact of liberalisation is carried out at WTO and European Union level, not just at Member State level. A moratorium is not a good idea. Bilateral liberalisation is very successful and, most importantly, developing countries frequently request it. Progress has been made in transparency but there is no WTO forum and the European Parliament has only a very limited power of consultation. The battle to defend public services is falling far short of expectations. The threats of disintegration lie within the European Union, where competition policy is inappropriately applied and the specific rules much too weak. Examining Mr Lamy’s offers, we see that they are strictly confined to the internal choices of the Member States and the Union. We must not forget the priority of development, and we must not speak in place of the South. That said, I would like to see whether our demands for liberalisation take into account the need of the countries of the southern hemisphere for services of general interest, and I would point out that there is no framework for the activity of multinational firms. Lastly, there is a dreadful imbalance between the rapid rate of liberalisation and the lack of public goods at regional and world level. When will there be an action strategy for the European Union?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, there is a need that we have to pursue with determination: the need for the matters concerning the Intergovernmental Conference, or rather the draft constitution, to be addressed in a transparent way, with an approach which can be understood by public opinion, the citizens and by Parliament itself. You see, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, we all appreciate – I think I speak for the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, which has discussed this a great deal in recent weeks – the determination and delicacy with which the Irish Presidency is acting. It is a fact, though, that we have been in darkness for three months. Following the strong element of transparency provided by the Convention for 16 months, we are now in the dark. You talked of a range of important issues, both institutional and non-institutional, which have been raised with the Irish Presidency. What issues? Raised by whom? By how many and which governments? We do not know. You used – and I also acknowledge this – a confident tone, and said that it will be relatively easy to find consensus over the vast majority of outstanding issues. We can only try to guess at these. With regard to the most well-known issues, the only ones which have been openly discussed, we set great store by what Mr Giscard d'Estaing said yesterday to our committee: on no account may the double majority criterion be called into question for the calculation of qualified majorities. Furthermore, Mr Giscard d'Estaing called for us not to ‘torture’, on the one hand, the double majority figures, and on the other, the range of subjects for which decisions can be made by qualified majority. In this regard, I would like to reaffirm, since you spoke of papers presented by the Italian Presidency ahead of the December Council, that those documents, in our opinion, contain serious reversals precisely in this respect, and are therefore not acceptable to the European Parliament. Lastly, you were absolutely right when you claimed that the key to early agreement is political will. We hope that an awareness of the importance and gravity of this time for the Union will prevail among the Heads of State or Government at the forthcoming summit: not adopting the Constitution would amount to a real leap in the dark for the European Union. Nevertheless, if the path to the Constitution should still appear blocked during the occasion of the forthcoming summit, with all the consequences that we can easily imagine, the positions and responsibilities of the individual governments must in that case be clear to Parliament and to the citizens. (Applause)

Political group: PSE