GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Whilst I support this report on general product safety, it is important that we do not go too far. It is important that our products are safe, but we should not go over the top with extreme actions. People across Europe are extremely concerned about the safety of consumer products, and rightly so. This report welcomes an improvement in current European law on product safety, but in my view the directive should not be applied to charity shops, a key feature in the British high street. It is absurd to think that the average charity shop can provide the authorities with information about product risks and product origin for second-hand goods acquired from the general public. Let us not forget that it was my Labour colleague, Mr Whitehead, who introduced the amendments exempting charity shops, and we should congratulate him on his achievements. The threat to charity shops occurred because it simply was not understood on mainland Europe. It is now, and the Labour amendments offer a guarantee that charity shops will be left untouched and will be exempt from the directive. The overall aim of the directive is extremely important in ensuring that there is a consistent and high level of consumer protection, as well as the efficient functioning of the single market. I wholeheartedly support the drive for clearly-worded, understandable warnings about possible risks to be put on products where they are on sale. Clear labelling is the best way of reassuring worried consumers that the goods they buy are safe. Public confidence in the safety of products we all buy has taken a real knock in recent years following a number of scares, especially in children's toys. Only by taking a safety first attitude – and being seen to take a safety first attitude – can public confidence and the safety of our children be restored. - Lagendijk Report (A5-0324/2000)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I too should like to add a few things on behalf of the MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece and the whole Confederal Group of the who, with other groups, have signed and are supporting the joint motion calling for the immediate release of the members of the crew of the Tasman Spirit, who have been held illegally in Karachi by the Pakistani authorities since July 2003. This is a clear case of hostage taking for financial gain. It is telling that the engineer, Mr Pappas, who arrived in Karachi 20 days after the ship had run aground as head of the salvage operation, which was a success, is being held together with the crew. It is inconceivable that the entire crew should be held on the grounds of the ecological disaster caused when the ship ran aground at the entrance to the port of Karachi and for even the ship's cook to be held to account. Besides, the ship ran aground when it was under the responsibility of the port authorities of the local pilot. The situation is particularly worrying for the health of the detained seamen who, without having any responsibility, have been prohibited from returning home, a state of affairs which has even led to a suicide attempt. We must again emphasise that these unacceptable tactics, which are used by numerous governments and which benefit shipowners and insurance companies, that is, using seamen as scapegoats in order to resolve financial disputes and to apportion them responsibility, which they do not have, for whatever happens at sea, cannot continue. We call on the European Commission and the Presidency and the Greek Government to intervene decisively and demand the immediate release of the seamen being held in Karachi. They must not be held hostage any longer.

Political group: GUE-NGL
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Development and Cooperation. – Mr President, I should like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Färm, who is a true friend of development. I look forward to working closely with him during the course of this year. In my contribution I should like to refer to paragraph 26 of the report, which states explicitly to the Commission, on behalf of this Parliament, that we are not satisfied that development aid is sufficiently focused on poverty eradication and that we need to build on the agreed benchmark system. Let me explain that for everyone's benefit. Two years ago Parliament voted a series of input targets on development aid to ensure that the large amount of spending that takes place through the regional budget lines was actually held to account and to insist that more be focused on social infrastructure, and in particular on basic health and education policies. The extent to which the Commission took action in this regard is questionable, particularly as Mrs Schreyer herself issued a so-called reservation, something that this Parliament does not recognise. Last year, therefore, when we undertook the same discussions, we had further and more intensive deliberations with both external relations Commissioners, Mr Patten and Mr Nielson, and agreed that a minimum of 35% of EU external assistance would be focused on social infrastructure, and in particular on basic health and education. I say to the Commissioner this morning and to this Parliament that we are relying on this being implemented this year within the budget and we will, as we say in this resolution, be looking to build on it next year. I would also like to say in relation to paragraph 33 that it is a matter not just of development aid to the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, but also of the funds to Asia, Latin America, the Mediterranean and other regions. All of it should be poverty-focused. The Commission has brought forward a development policy statement and it is time, through the budget, that it matched its words with deeds.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, after listening to the Members who have spoken before me and with whom I totally agree, I have had to change my views and alter the content of the speech I had prepared to give during this debate. Mr President, have you seen how we all agree on this issue? There is no dissent: we all want society to recognise that people with disabilities should receive what it is right for them to have. However, people have been saying these sorts of things for 35 years, and still nothing tangible has been done. In your opinion, who is responsible for this, Commissioner Diamantopoulou? The answer is clear, for the bench normally occupied by the culprits is empty: it is the Council's bench. It is the governments which do not want to give people with disabilities what it is right to give them. And it is the Council of Ministers of the European Union that has the power to do something: its absence tonight is proof of that. And that means the Swedish Presidency, which we all consider to be one of the most enlightened. Well then, Commissioner Diamantopoulou, I am sending you a message saying that I am sure you are the best ambassador and determined supporter of the rights of people with disabilities: it is the governments and the Council of Ministers of the European Union who have to do what we all agree has to be done. If nothing has been done thus far, it is because the governments of our 15 States are blind, deaf and dumb. They are the true disabled in this European society.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I represent an Atlantic coastal region in France, and therefore in Europe, which has just been affected by the pollution from the Prestige. I would like to say that people are genuinely disturbed by what is happening, in particular because this is a new kind of pollution, because it is chronic and because we do not know how long it will last. I consequently believe that Parliament should accept the committee of inquiry that it previously rejected. We cannot want to strengthen the liability system and at the same time reject the idea of a parliamentary body such as ours going to the scene to find out what happened and drawing the appropriate conclusions. Secondly, I believe we must decide what to do with the wreck. We cannot leave thousands of fishermen and shellfish-gatherers as well as workers in the tourism sector, waiting around indefinitely, without proposing an industrial solution. I personally would ask the European Union to issue a call for projects soon, in order to try to find this industrial solution, which we are assured exists, in particular within the COMEX, which is one of the major world specialists in this area.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this is a very well-balanced report and provides a sound basis for the work of the next European Parliament without seeking to prejudice our successors’ decisions, which it could not do anyway. Many of the questions that will have to be discussed with regard to the budgetary policy of years to come can only be answered by the enlarged European Union, and we must also give due consideration to the adoption and implementation of the constitution. For this reason it should be re-emphasised at the present juncture that, while the Union must, of course, provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies, as prescribed by Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, it must equally ensure that contributions and appropriations are fairly distributed and that budgetary processes are open to scrutiny. It is certainly true that, under the new headings, the Commission is concentrating on growth targets, employment and sustainability, but I must say that we should be all the more credible if this were not confined to the allocation of budgetary resources but were also reflected far more clearly in the application of the Community acquis and if we focused far more sharply on this aspect in the adoption and consolidation of European legislation. Let me also say at this point that it is too soon to talk about figures today – whether 1%, 1.24% or somewhere in-between – because we must first deliberate carefully on these things on the basis of the constitutional discussion. To this extent, the letter from the six leaders was neither helpful nor in any way expedient in its timing or its content. I also insist on the need for synchronisation of the financial perspective with the legislative term of Parliament and the Commissioners’ term of office, and let me make one last point, Mr President. On the basis of our experiences and the turbulence that is often part and parcel of political life, adequate budgetary flexibility within each financial perspective is surely one of the major objectives that will have to be discussed, and we in Parliament shall play our part in that discussion.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is about five years ago that the Council consulted us on the proposal to simplify seven vertical directives on foodstuffs. The aim of those proposals was to simplify the existing legislation, which contains far too much detail, or to replace it by directives containing only the essential requirements. In that way, they would be easier to implement and better correspond to the horizontal directives. This is a commendable effort which is in line with the expectations of both consumers and those who are involved in other ways. We, the Group, are keen to lend our support in this connection. We have established that the Directive on cocoa and chocolate products, which also originally formed part of this package and which had to undergo the lengthiest legislative procedure, namely that of co-decision, was the first one we managed to complete. As for the five other directives of the package of seven, the five we are debating today, we will ultimately require more than five years to complete the simplification procedure. We do wonder if we should not aspire to faster working methods and other decision-making methods, for we do not believe that that is what the public wants. The Group would like to congratulate the rapporteur on his work. The delay is certainly not due to him, but due to the fact that the Council has fundamentally changed certain components, thus necessitating fresh advice from us. On behalf of the Group, I can say that we are in agreement with the report as it emerged from the vote in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. That is the case for all components of the package, except for fruit juices. On these, our view differs slightly from that in the report, but that was also apparent in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. I do not believe, therefore, that I need to go into any more detail here regarding the reasoning, motives and strands of thought behind that difference of view. However, I do not want to conceal the fact – and I should like to devote the rest of my speaking time to this – that we in our group, further to these issues arising, have held a serious debate on the issue of whether it is really up to a Parliament to discuss such detailed measures with 626 Members. This is creating problems for us. Parliament is being slated for this from outside. That does not mean that we underestimate the importance of food legislation. We realise that the detail is important in this connection, but we do wonder whether, with the material being at such a high technical level, we really are the people best placed to take the decisions and whether we should inconvenience 626 MEPs with these kinds of far-reaching, technical measures. The question we asked ourselves is: should we not move towards two kinds of derived legislation, one on which Parliament deliberates and another which, surely, should be entrusted to the executive? This discussion has certainly not reached its conclusion, but I should welcome a discussion which includes groups other than the Group.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I share the honourable Members’ intense disappointment at the outcome of the Conference in The Hague, which is effectively an outright failure. I should not, however, like to enter into personal squabbles, and I think we should refrain from that sort of completely negative discussion. I should like to congratulate the Commission, and Mrs Wallström, on keeping to the commitments it had always made towards reducing emissions, including among others greenhouse gas emissions. Without doubt, it was better to have no agreement at all than a poor one and it is true that, in this instance, the American proposal was a third-rate proposal, and one which was completely unacceptable to Europe. In any case, an agreement can only be accepted and acceptable if there is a balance between North and South, between developing countries and industrialised countries. I am already extremely concerned about resorting to the right to pollute. In my opinion, this can only hinder the economic development of countries that are already extremely underdeveloped. The United States’ position, resorting to the idea of forests being carbon sinks, is unacceptable, for, then, no one would make any effort. We must reject these American diktats. This situation highlights the limitation of a Europe which, with its rotation of presidencies, does not have a strong political image to present to the United States and does not speak with a single voice. It also clearly highlights, once again, the desperate need to reform the European institutions and the way they operate. When will we have a President of the European Union that is strong and capable alone of representing Europe with regard to our partners? Let us conclude, however, on a hopeful note. The Conference in The Hague is to be resumed, as you have informed us, Commissioner, next spring in Bonn. You may count on our support, Commissioner, so we might be able to stand up to the United States and take up the gauntlet.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I welcome the report insofar as I think it is important to keep developing new technologies. I think it is important, above all, to give as many people as possible the means to communicate freely with whomever they wish, as and how they please. People must be allowed to choose for themselves in matters of information. This alone brings us up against the main obstacle to this free network, to free communication. There has already been a great deal of talk here about consumer confidence. However, I think that this expression alone is most telling. Consumer confidence means simply wanting to create confidence so that consumers believe that communications are secure. Privacy is a different concept; it means that communications really are secure, which is why I should like to stress again that privacy should be the real objective, i.e. really guaranteeing that communications are secure. There is one obstacle: monitoring is being driven further and further forward, including at European level. It is often argued that there are now new Internet crimes or old crimes which are now being committed over the Internet. However, the measures being taken in response are based on the belief that these crimes can be contained using state monitoring methods – as if. At the same time, most measures are only able to frighten off the really stupid offenders. They will not do much more than that because most of those who commit crimes in cyberspace also know how to protect themselves against monitoring. The question of data protection is addressed in Articles 10 and 13 of the report. However, it is partly restricted by calling for protection for data with financial or health implications alone. I think privacy is important for all data. Everyone has the right to choose for themselves in matters of information, which is why our slogan should be: down with monitoring, up with privacy.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I would like to congratulate Mr Mauro Turco on his excellent work. His report states clearly that the results of the 1994-9 Structural Funds programming period, taking into account the assessments available at the end of 1998, have not met expectations on a number of fronts. This is particularly true in the case of Italy. Suffice it to say that there was a considerable delay in the use of many of the appropriations, although improvement was apparent at the end of the programming period, obtained purely by mathematical calculation through transferring Objective 2 appropriations to Objective 1. Suffice it to say that, as far as Objective 4 is concerned, in 1998, Italy did not fulfil any of its undertakings and has only paid out 3% of the funding. The checking and assessment mechanisms have been decidedly inadequate. There are essentially three reasons for this poor management and they were highlighted by the Court of Auditors: firstly, lack of planning and poor interaction between the measures funded and the various funding instruments, factors which prevented us achieving the expected added value; secondly, lack of global vision which meant that the projects defined were not ambitious enough; thirdly, delays in concluding previous projects and programmes, largely due to the absence of documents justifying the actual expenditure. Now, considering the forthcoming 2000-2006 programming period, even though management has been simplified and the number of objectives and Community initiatives reduced, I cannot contain my concern and I sympathise with many regional council chairmen as they tackle the issue of the failure to use Community funds and the responsibilities of the Italian Government. Months after the rejection by the European Commission of the Objective 2 area map it had put forward on the grounds that the area definition criteria did not correspond, the Italian Government had still not presented a valid, compliant proposal, and this was not for lack of good will on the part of the European Commission. The result is certainly not outstanding. We cannot afford to lose more time, and we cannot afford to decline L 10 000 billion either; neither the Italian economic situation nor the Italian taxpayer would allow it. IN THE CHAIR: MR INGO FRIEDRICHVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, according to Mrs Schierhuber’s present report, if something goes wrong with a certain regulation in Europe, in this case flax, it is quite possible to ensure that that regulation can remain intact by means of new proposals. Flax, like hemp, is a special product, with a long European tradition. The mere fact that both my trousers and jacket are made of linen and flax which is processed in Flanders and partly in Zeeland, and grown in France, bears out this product’s long-standing tradition. The reason we are having to hold this debate is to do with the fact that the regulation has gone off the rails. We all know what happened to short flax. We also know that that derailment occurred in Southern Europe and we need to be prepared to adapt the policy. But what is now happening with the Commission’s proposal is tantamount to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. People have overstepped the mark. At the same time, it is quite possible to tighten the flax and hemp regulations so that we can manage on a normal budget such as the one we have had over the past couple of years and, despite this, continue to grow flax and hemp in Europe at a profit. I am saying this because, although the cultivation of flax and hemp is traditional, they are also used in special applications in linen for clothing and in other applications in the non-food sector. I am thinking of dashboards and bumpers for cars. At the same time, they form a true complement to agricultural policy. They are special products which offer a great deal of added value and employment. It is exactly because of these three facets that we have to be so much more careful about drafting a sound regulation. This is why I give my full backing to Mrs Schierhuber’s report. The amounts which have been mentioned guarantee that cultivation remains profitable and also ensure sound processing. What we need is tighter control on processing to ensure that malpractices are prevented in future. I would like to end on a historical note. My country suffered an eighty-year war at the hands of Spain, which was eventually settled with the Peace of Münster. The people who met round the table came from the southern Netherlands – Belgium as it is known today, – the northern Netherlands – the Netherlands as we know it today – and Spain, and all three wore linen jackets, most probably made in Flanders, the linen being grown in Northern France and Belgium. An eighty-year conflict failed to destroy the cultivation of flax along the North Sea coast. Surely, we cannot afford to let the current regulation go under on account of a minor derailment in Spain which has meanwhile been rectified and which has led to crops being cultivated there over an area reduced to 50 000 hectares. I would like a new flax regulation for Europe to reflect this historical awareness that was achieved with the Peace of Münster.

Political group: PPE-DE