GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, first, we should all congratulate Mr Schnellhardt on his work on these reports. It has been something of a marathon and a lot of hard work, but he has done a very good job. We now have a package of measures that is going to ensure the health and safety of the European public and the quality and safety of the European meat supply for the foreseeable future. These measures, when put in place, are ones in which we can have confidence. Some of the issues have been more difficult than others. We all recognise that the system should not be overburdened with too much bureaucracy, and we have acknowledged the need – certainly in some sectors – for self-inspection or inspection with a light touch. In the areas of poultry and rabbit production, there is clearly a demonstrable need for that and there is no serious problem of public health. However, there is a need for an independent inspectorate to keep a close eye on certain sectors, such as the work in abattoirs and slaughterhouses across Europe, where there is a lot of time pressure and pressure to perform and where there is evidence to suggest a potential public health risk – most notably in the red-meat sector. Whilst I do not know anyone who eats raw rabbit or raw poultry, I know many people – some are Members of the European Parliament – who eat red meat that is either raw or close to raw. Consequently, there is a greater and more serious health risk in that sector than in meats that are cooked before being consumed by the public. For that reason, I consider the compromise arrived at by the Council – regarding the possible extension of self-inspection to areas such as pork and veal – to be a dangerous one. I feel it is one that we should not be stepping into at this moment: it crosses the species barrier and it opens up the possibility of self-inspection in the red-meat sector in the future. I cannot support that. All of us realise the importance of these public health measures: we need only recall the terrible food poisoning incident that took place in Scotland owing to the contamination of red meat only a few years ago. We have got to protect public health.

Political group: PSE
We vote against this report, because by allowing trans-border interception of telecommunication and reversing the burden of proof, the Convention will create the legal ground for large scale bugging operations in the EU. That means, making a European bugging system like the transatlantic spying operation ‘Echelon’ perfectly legal. This Convention will lead to gross abuses of people’s rights to privacy. It is a major threat to civil liberties in EU. Also the following points are unacceptable for us: joint investigation teams, controlled deliveries, undercover investigations, inaccuracy of the text on the scope of the convention, lack of respect of the principle of proportionality, lack of democratic guarantees. – Resolution on the Commission’s strategic objectives for 2000-2005

Political group: Verts-ALE
I rise to speak about the women of Afghanistan. At a time when Christmas is approaching, this offers one opportunity, among the multiplicity of human rights abuses globally, for Muslims and Christians to come together against the forces of evil. For Islam and Christianity both uphold the rights of women, and the abuses of human rights against women that are taking place in Afghanistan, and have been taking place for so long now, are against the ethics of Islam. No proper Muslim in the world will support the treatment of women that has been meted out by the bestial Afghan sadists and torturers. It is an unbelievable situation but it is one in which we can join hands, bring forces to bear upon the Taliban society and free those poor women. Why have we held back? I am ashamed of this. I call upon us all to intervene in Afghanistan with Islam, with Christians, with Jews, with the entirety of the world. There can be no hanging back in the millennium: free these poor women now!

Political group: ELDR
The programme of support for the production and marketing of honey is known to be very important for the survival of beekeeping. According to Portuguese beekeepers, one aspect of this programme has proved essential: the part relating to varroasis control. The beekeepers believe, however, that varroasis control should be carried out through a specific programme, as happens with other diseases in other animal species. In relation to the Parliamentary report, there is general agreement underlining the need to retain the programme of support for the production and marketing of honey. Lastly, it is considered important that other measures should be applied, namely: - support for the restoration and development of the bee population, given the growing problems in this sector; - restructuring of the agro-environmental measures so that this measure may be regarded as effective support, as happens in other sectors of agriculture. It is also essential, however, to take account of the forthcoming enlargement of the European Union and to provide for an increase in the budget allocated to the beekeeping sector.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would, of course, also like to commend Mr Boselli’s determination to achieve a balance in a text that has been under discussion for nearly three years. His task was made all the more difficult by the Council’s failure to adopt all Parliament’s amendments at the first reading stage. As has been mentioned, the aim of the new directive is to adapt current legislation to the new technologies while respecting the international treaties adopted in 1996. There is a legal void with regard to copyright protection in the digital age. The Internet is a powerful tool but it must not be an unregulated area. The cultural and economic stakes are high and, with the Internet expanding at an incredible pace, a legal framework in Europe must be found, as in the United States, where this kind of framework was adopted two years ago. It is, therefore, an urgent matter, all the more so because this directive is a key factor in the fight against illegal copying, a matter particularly close to my heart, and because pirate copying is the scourge of the information society. It becomes all the more crucial in a digital age because the first copies and any subsequent copies retain a quality close to that of the original. Consumers are acknowledged as being entitled to make private copies. It is only natural that the eligible parties are fairly compensated in return, it is only fair. In order to ensure that we are talking about purely private copies, the law must be written in sufficiently restrictive terms and the wording of the definition must be perfectly unambiguous. So I am in favour of a restrictive definition of private copying. In order to protect works of art against illegal copying, eligible parties must be given the opportunity to use technical protection. That is why hackers, as they are called, must be fought by clamping down on the means they offer to the public to overcome protection systems, thereby encouraging the illegal copying of protected works of art. This new context is constantly changing and raises many questions and concerns. The directive must balance the interests of consumers and eligible parties. It is trying to resolve these issues as quickly as possible but in a necessarily imperfect way. If we amend this directive, we shall, in two years’ time, be able to determine its shortcomings and weaknesses in the light of the incredible developments in the information society.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, much has been said about policy relating to Iraq, to most of which I do not need to add anything, but I would like, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to address two remarks to you. There appears to be broad agreement in this House that Resolution 1441 does not automatically result in military action, but rather that, in the light of the weapons inspectors' reports, any further action must be subject to a resolution by the Security Council. It is important that the presidency should also say this on behalf of the EU, and so I ask you to take the initiative by stating this here and now. That you should do so is made all the more important by the powerful impression that the United States of America takes a different view, and we do indeed need to state what our differences with them are. They do indeed believe – and how else is the deployment of 100 000 troops in the region to be explained? – that Resolution 1441 does not exclude the possibility of immediate military strike action, but there is also the implicit danger that international law, to which nations are subject, and by which alone world peace can be guaranteed on a long-term basis, will be jeopardised by unilateral power-seeking on the part of one UN member state. This is where the European Union has to state its position in clear terms, the primary reason for this being that international law cannot be enforced in an arbitrary and opportunistic way. In the case of North Korea, against which there is a mass of evidence that it is desirous or capable of producing weapons of mass destruction – and its actions suggest that this is the case – negotiations are in progress, and yet it is Saddam Hussein who is threatened, despite the presence of a host of inspectors in his country, who have found nothing. I might add that this threat is not justified under the UN Charter. Bringing this difference between us into the open is one of the primary tasks of the European Union and of its Greek Presidency, and I know that you are determined to do this. You can count on the support of the Group of the in this House! (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on behalf of my group, I would like to thank Mr Schmitt for the excellent work he has done in preparing this report. The formulation of common rules for civil aviation traffic and the establishment of an Aviation Safety Agency are important steps forward in the area of improved air safety. Other important goals are improved levels of environmental protection, and the promotion of fair competition and proper certification processes. To achieve these goals the Aviation Safety Agency must function as independently as possible. The necessary acts must be applied uniformly at both national and Agency level. Commonly applied rules will lead to greater cost-effectiveness and a reduction in superfluous administration. The longer transitional period contained in the common position is necessary to allow time for the Member States to replace the current complicated regulatory and certification procedures with certificates. Most air traffic accidents are due to human factors. As aviation becomes ever more technically complex the compilation of data and information exchange are of paramount importance in the improvement of civil aviation safety. Although air traffic has always been a relatively safe form of transport, its growth, as well as airport and airspace congestion have increased the risk of accident. Close cooperation between Member States for the purpose of raising levels of civil aviation safety will be an important precaution as air traffic grows. The safety of European airspace is in the interests of everybody. In my opinion we should move towards a compromise as quickly as possible and avoid conciliation.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, this is a very serious matter. I call upon the Commission to study very carefully whether these patents which have been awarded genuinely comply with the Patent Directive, and not to act as if this House had no role in this area and were not entitled to adopt decisions. I hope that you will take serious steps to comply with the decisions which are about to be adopted by this House.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, this debate on the Commission's White Paper on European Governance in some ways comes at a bad time, and in other ways at a good one. It is a bad time because any debate on the internal structure of the European Union and the way it functions, and on the legitimacy of the European Union itself will at present be dwarfed by the need to protect Europe's citizens against international terror and violence, with more arcane subjects being overshadowed. However, it is also a good time for the same reason, by which I mean that the European Union has an opportunity at this precise moment to respond to people's fundamental need for safety within the EU, and for legitimacy combined with an ability to act outside its own borders. Transparent, open and accountable decision making can accordingly help to make Europe's citizens more aware and at the same time conscious of the added value Europe can bring. Your White Paper is a contribution to that added value, Mr Prodi. Against this background, I particularly welcome those proposals in the Commission's White Paper that aim for a systematic dialogue at regional and local level, at a more active role for the Committee of the Regions, and the proposal that from 2002 onwards there should be an annual report on the implementation of the Amsterdam Protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality. Subsidiarity and the Community method are not after all mutually exclusive. The division of tasks between the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament must be clear, just as a balance between the Member States, the regions and the EU needs to be struck under their institutional triangle. It is obvious that the European Parliament and the national parliaments should play a central role in the public debate on the future of Europe. That is why I find it amazing that in its White Paper the Commission does not consider the idea of a convention as requested in the report by Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo. An open convention which works out the decision-making basis for the Council, with representatives from the Commission and from national parliaments and from the European Parliament, together with representatives of the Member States and the candidate countries and from the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee sitting as observers, is an appropriate and essential forum for bringing the Union closer to its citizens and achieving transparency, and it must supplement and support internal reforms.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner Byrne, I welcome your statement here this morning, but I understand that you went to Thailand and were told that it was not avian flu but chicken cholera. It was only when you returned that you later found that it was actually avian flu. I welcome the ban you have imposed on Thai chicken meat but you have not banned cooked meat or canned meat, and this accounts for about 75% of our imports from Thailand. The Thai authorities have been found wanting in international compliance. They have hidden the Thai flu for maybe two months. If they protect their market from a deadly disease, surely they will protect it against minor infringements of EU standards. Will they run the same risk with cooked meats? Will we see nitrofuran residues and hormones entering the EU in this cooked meat? Is the public health of the EU overridden by the trade interests of EU exporters? I believe Thailand should be completely delisted from all poultry meat exports until that country can prove it has the infrastructure and the integrity to apply EU standards all the time. Can we also have a labelling of country of origin for principal ingredients in processed food, because this is where most of this Thai cooked meat comes in? How can we be sure that meat cooked in Thailand has reached the correct temperature? There is perhaps a slight risk – how do we know? Cooked chicken may come into the UK frozen, then thaw and be eaten with no further treatment from the time the Thais cooked it. Is this a risk to our consumers? The tariff for Thai cooked chicken meat is one seventh of that on frozen fresh chicken. Why is this so, Commissioner? This seems to be a loophole. Finally, has the disease moved to the United States of America?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we have had many discussions on space travel before, and I am glad that the subject is now accorded much greater importance in European debate than was the case ten years ago. I might add, with all modesty, that this House can take the credit for this. We grasped the strategic significance of space, but also the fact that very little money is to be made from it, so that means that space travel needs to be supported by public funds, but what will certainly show a profit in the years to come will be the activities derived from space travel in the fields of telecommunications, measuring techniques, and so on, which we have often discussed. There is no future for space travel, though, without carriers in the form of satellites, if – let me add – there is no manned spaceflight. In Cologne, there is now a centre providing training for astronauts. Our disagreements are in fact not so much about the purpose of space travel – about which I believe there to be broad consensus – as about its military aspects, which are a new factor. Let me say that I do not think that we should shy away from this issue, as – in contrast to ten or twenty years ago – Europe now has its Foreign and Security Policy. We cannot separate one from the other. I will admit that I find learning rather difficult, but one is never too old to learn more, and so I would very much urge that particular attention be given to this aspect.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, to summarise today’s debate, there are basically three issues at stake here. First, the sustainability of energy sources. Secondly, security of supply, which has a quite special effect as far as Europe is concerned, not least because of the unstable political situations in the countries which currently supply energy to Europe. Thirdly, of course, the economy, because energy is a fundamental factor in our international competitiveness and we must therefore ensure that we have an economical supply of energy. I personally come from Upper Austria and, at present, Upper Austria has broken the energy-saving and energy-renewing records. Where I come from, renewable energy takes top priority, and Upper Austria has an energy savings agency which runs like clockwork. The principle of subsidiarity applies here and I think that it was this energy savings agency which inaugurated the energy savings fair held a few days ago, thereby meeting the need for education and information for the public as a whole. I also think that research and development in this area need greater support. In the final analysis, we should endeavour in Europe to apply the best practice, i.e. to see where there are models – at this energy savings fair in Wels we presented a thick directory of best practice models – and, at the same time, to use benchmarking to show where we have taken the lead in Europe and where progress is being made elsewhere in the world. I think that this management system is particularly significant for the future of energy supplies in Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Although the European Council defined the elements of a common asylum and immigration policy in Tampere in October 1999, we are obliged to note that little progress has been made and that it is essential that we take the necessary measures, in particular to put a stop to illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings. We must improve the welcome we give to refugees so that potential immigrants are no longer tempted to use illegal means. In June 2002 in Seville the European Council committed itself to speeding up the implementation of the programme adopted in Tampere; we therefore call on the Council to abide by its commitments and stop obstructing the expected progress. We therefore call for a speedy and effective implementation of the conclusions of Seville and we regret that a common immigration policy has not yet been put in place. We must respond quickly because we cannot close our eyes to the dramas currently being played out in our Member States. - Roth-Behrendt report (A5-0001/2003)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr Cunha's report is an important one, seeking as it does to review compliance by Member States with their obligations. Clearly, if European Union rules and regulations are agreed, then there is a responsibility on Member States and governments to comply. I have no difficulty whatsoever in supporting that principle, but how should a defaulter be penalised? Is there a need in this case for new sanctions? If so, are the sanctions proposed by Mr Cunha likely to be effective? Paragraph 6 attempts to address the issue of quota sanctions which Mr Cunha and Mrs Fraga Estévez support so strongly. I make no apology for having raised points of order on this issue earlier in the morning. The proposal to utilise automatic quota cuts is doubtful in its legality, impractical and almost unenforceable and punishes the fishermen – not Member States, as my Scottish colleague said a moment ago; and most importantly, threatens to undermine the principle of relative stability. Mrs Fraga Estévez has rightly reminded us that quota penalties have been raised in this context in previous debates in this House; in 1998 a similar proposal was debated, and it might even have had the same author. The then Commissioner, Mrs Bonino, in her response to that debate said, and I quote: 'one amendment contains proposals for sanctions. The Commission does not agree with this proposal for several reasons. Firstly, because the automatic reduction in quotas for non-complying countries seriously undermines the basic principle of the common fisheries policy, which is that of relative stability.” She summed up saying – I quote again: “I would therefore ask Parliament to reconsider a reduction in quotas as a sanction because of these possible implications.” I hope that the new Commission will take the same line following today's debate. I am sorry that Mr Fischler is not here to answer for himself although he did, at this hearing, make very positive comments about relative stability, which I welcome. Amendments to paragraph 6 have been tabled but I cannot support them because both accept the principle of using quota cuts as a penalty. Quota-setting should be based solely on science and conservation objectives, not used as an automatic penalty. If defaulting Member States are to be encouraged to comply with their MAGP targets, then an effective system of sanctions must be targeted at governments – not at fishermen. We have asked for split votes on paragraph 6 and I hope that we will have the opportunity to exercise these. I hope that Members of this House will oppose, in principle, the use of quota penalties as a deterrent in this issue.

Political group: Verts-ALE