GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, at the last sitting, we were all horrified at the possibility that Safiya Husseini might be executed in Nigeria. I was going to ask for the floor, but Mr Corrie asked for it and I felt that he was representing me when he asked the President to intervene. There is currently a mobilisation in my country, because it appears that the execution has been brought forward to this Saturday. This horrifies us even more, because the case of this woman, like that of many others, is a display of savagery. It is horrendous that a woman is going to be executed for having had a daughter, which is her fifth child, whatever the circumstances of the child’s birth. We should make a final effort to prevent this execution which the authorities have brought forward to this Saturday in an attempt to avoid the international pressure on them not to carry out what I consider to be a murder. Mr President, I would ask you to make the appropriate representations.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the Commission has given its proposal for a regulation the title ‘Protection of animals during transport’. I should probably say that, in my view, there is a considerable disparity between the title of the proposal and its content. With the Commission’s proposal, it is still possible to transport animals thousands of kilometres throughout Europe under wretched conditions and, moreover, without the animals being allowed at any time to leave the lorries. In my view, that cannot be called protection of animals during transport. Nor do I think that the report by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development remedies the Commission’s proposal, and I therefore hope that, in the vote, Parliament will stick to the position it has, moreover, held for two years that the transport of animals to slaughter or for fattening should not be for periods in excess of eight hours or for distances in excess of 500 kilometres. Because it is defensible in terms of animal protection, that would be the proposal to implement. I am, moreover, also able to support our obtaining better conditions for animals during transport. There is a long list of amendments that I think would remedy some of the shortcomings in the Commission’s proposal, so that animal welfare is given precedence over the financial considerations that otherwise govern the transports. I also think it important that we implement tighter controls, including random checks on the roads. I believe that these would be some of the most effective measures that could be implemented. As others too have mentioned, I think that export refunds for livestock should be abolished. It cannot be right that, under the EU system, we give direct transport subsidies to these long transports of livestock. Finally, I also think that individual countries must be entitled to give higher priority to animal welfare and so to lay down more restrictive rules than those proposed by the Commission. I hope that the majority of Parliament will show that it is considerations of animal welfare that are crucial in connection with the transports.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the debate has certainly shown the Group that we do not make things easy for ourselves, and that, at the end of the day, although the assessments are similar, different conclusions may be reached. However, I would like to begin by congratulating the Greek government on the outstanding results it has achieved in the course of the last year as regards public debt and inflation. But it is the current situation that we need to consider. It is certainly true that by the very nature of its national economy, Greece is not destined to be the driving force, the big market within the euro zone. Turning now to the question of inflation: Mr Goebbels, I hope – I do not know if I understood you correctly this morning – that the low inflation rate you referred to is here to stay. We will have a struggle on our hands. However, this is the first accession to the euro zone. Unlike the beginning, when Italy and Belgium also failed to make the reference values, we must now take care, in the light of enlargement eastwards, not to create new reference values, and allow this to become a never ending story. But that is precisely the problem it seems we are going to have to face. The important thing is to reach a decision today that will boost political confidence in the euro. In other words, we need to ensure that, in future, the markets believe that these are economic objectives and criteria and not political decisions. The CSU (Christian Social Union) is proposing to vote against the motion today, which does not mean that it is saying ‘no’ to Greece and to the euro, rather it disagrees with the timing and hopes to be able to admit Greece next year. The ECB itself raised the issue of ‘sustainability’. It is precisely this view – i.e. deferral of the decision for a year, so as to allow the local economy to stabilise – that could send out a signal, both to the Member States of the euro zone and to the financial markets.

Political group: PPE-DE
It is not for nothing that so many different interest groups have circulated their voting recommendations on the amendments on copyright. Creative producers’ interests are different to those of consumers, and together their interests are different to those of dealers in music, written works and productions. For artists, the work they produce is their income. Society exempts them from doing other types of work by paying them for their products. If they lose this money they will have to look for alternative work. Consumers, on the other hand, would prefer to get hold of these products for free. Whilst they still accept that you have to pay for a book or a trip to the theatre, and that museums are paid for by public funds or by charging an admission fee, a great deal has changed with the spread of photocopiers, video recorders, recordable compact discs and downloading from computers. People pay the manufacturer for these appliances of course, but they would rather not have to pay those whose work they are appropriating in the process. There are also companies that use artistic products to make money from the distributive trade, or as a way of luring clients for other purposes. When it comes to the vote on copyright, I shall be voting in accordance with the wishes of the trade unions and artists’ associations, for the sake of the producers and consumers, and not for the sake of business. - Recommendation for second reading (A5-0039/2001) by Mr Miller

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, from a public relations point of view, I believe it is very important to distinguish between internal and external effects, and I would be interested to know if the Commission intends now, with the physical introduction of the euro not far off, to launch a campaign to explain the difference between the internal and external effects of currency stability to the public?

Political group: PPE-DE
Today it is widely recognised that cabin crews bear a huge responsibility and are of increasing importance to passenger safety, given the current climate in civil aviation. It is crucial that we harmonise flight times, working hours and rest requirements for cabin staff, not only in view of future enlargement but also, and especially, because we feel that there is an urgent need to protect these workers in light of the expansion of low cost airlines in the European Union. This is why we support this report, which seeks to remedy a shortcoming on the part of the Commission in not including this matter in its proposal for a Regulation, which we can only deplore, all the more because various Members States still have no legislation on this matter. Nevertheless, we wish to stress the importance of maintaining existing national legislation that is more favourable to workers than the proposal that has now been approved.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, speaking on behalf of the Socialist Group on this Danish initiative for a framework directive on combating environmental crime, I must say that I support the principle of this initiative. Environmental crime, whether it be the illegal trade in endangered species of flora and fauna or their products, or whether it be the illegal export and dumping of toxic waste in other countries, either inside or outside the European Union, is a growing and increasingly a cross-border problem. Those engaged in these crimes in the search for profit hide within the interstices of European law. This cannot be allowed to continue. It is important that we have legislation in place to protect us against serious environmental crime before we see further enlargement of the European Union. At the moment, we have nothing to combat these crimes but derisory financial penalties. We must impose prison sentences as well as serious financial penalties and orders for restitution when people are found guilty of environmental crimes. We must identify as culprits not the victims who drive the lorries full of toxic waste, or hawk the products which threaten species, but those who make the decisions and who supply the goods, the big men and women rather than the little men and women. As usual, of course, the devil is in the detail. The Danes want harmonisation in criminal law, increased European cooperation, a register of expertise and know-how and the use of Europol. Some difficulties exist in resolving all of these to the satisfaction of the 15 Member States of the Union. All can be resolved, but some will have to wait. It is probably too early at this stage, for example, to widen Europol’s remit without overloading the work of this important organisation. This proposal suffers from the same problems we have too often in the European Union. Without increased resources, Europol’s capabilities are limited, but I congratulate Mr Di Lello Finuoli on his report.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, like many here I welcome the report and congratulate the rapporteur on the work he has done so far. The compromise we have agreed and voted in the environment committee has resolved many points of difference between various colleagues in the Parliament, but not all of them, as we know. Like many, if not all here, I am a strong supporter of this proposal. It is developing into a flexible measure, it is market-based and it will definitely help the EU to achieve the CO2 reduction targets that we have in front of us. This will also be at a reasonable cost, which must not be overlooked. With existing nationally-based schemes we are learning by doing, and we must continue to do so. Therefore we must allow the schemes in front of us to come to a natural conclusion and allow some industrial installations to opt out and opt in, at least in the earliest phases of the new scheme. I will be pleased to see all six major greenhouse gases included. I will not be happy to see, however, limits on the allocation of allowances, on the introduction of an untried system of benchmarking, or on limiting access to international trading systems as foreseen by the Kyoto Protocol. They are measures that still need to be addressed. Every journey begins with a first step. We should not underestimate the length of the journey that we are beginning today by starting on this legislation. We should not underestimate just how steep, stony and difficult the path is going to be, but I do hope, for all our sakes, and for the world, that we can set off on the right foot and in the right direction.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, excuse me for laughing but we are not alone anymore, Mr Monti! I can see two other Members arriving! I thought we could have been alone, but another time maybe!

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteurs, congratulations. A great deal of work has been done, and as you know, the Group of the holds the development of rail transport dear. That applies to both public transport and freight. Ultimately, we have had to take measures in order to stimulate the development of rail, railway licences and railway infrastructure by, among other things, opting for liberalisation in this case. I would point out that we have a duty, in view of some forms of liberalisation elsewhere, jointly to keep monitoring safety and the social aspects which are related to liberalisation. We are, to a certain extent, in favour of efficient transport, but we are mainly in favour of environmentally friendly transport. I would like to make one critical comment, and that is that the environmental advantages of rail compared to road transport are dwindling fast. This can be put down to one simple reason. Parliament has taken decisions on the Euro I to V standards and limit values for a truck fleet which is rapidly being rejuvenated, and it is now up to us to quickly improve the emission limit value and the energy efficiency of rail transport. Otherwise, the advantage which we mentioned a moment ago will no longer apply. Research has now provided adequate evidence of this. Against this background, I believe that it is fair to say – we have asked questions and have received answers in this connection – that a great deal of fine-tuning is still required, and I would now like to see the sector make a political gesture. We have taken the political decision, but we now want to see the sector send us a signal that it is about to launch into further development.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my thanks to Mrs Jackson for tabling such an important question and to Mrs Wallström for her honest answer. It is, though, a pity that, realistically speaking, no serious political progress is expected in New Delhi because people are in fact hoping for something else. After the dreadful floods in Germany and neighbouring countries, people expected the climate problem to be resolved once and for all in Johannesburg, only to be told that it had a different agenda. The same appears to be true of New Delhi, but we must continue to be tough negotiators, even if we cannot always make rapid progress. We must also remember that Kyoto is, of course, just the first step, which is why we reiterate quite clearly in our resolution that all citizens must end up with the same rights, which basically means that per capita emissions should be the same the world over. For the developing countries, this implies a great deal more than we promised in Kyoto. In view of the recent debate on emissions trading in Germany, we have to keep reminding ourselves that all the parties in Germany are in fact agreed that we need to reduce emissions in the long term by 80% – I repeat 80% by 2050 – and if we are already arguing so energetically against it now, when first steps need to be taken, then I do not hold out much hope for this long-term objective. Nonetheless, we must stand by it and our resolution reaffirms this. Ratification by Russia, Japan and the USA is still very, very important. As we have been told on numerous occasions, all we can do is keep on making demands and ensuring that every meeting, at whatever level, between representatives of the European Union, be it the Commission or the Council of Ministers or us here in the European Parliament, between the EU and the USA, between the EU and Russia, addresses this issue. It must be our top priority in our dealings with these countries. We must not relax in our efforts and I expressly endorse what Mr Moreira Da Silva said about the WTO. We must get the WTO to agree to allow us to keep certain products off the European market if they have been manufactured using processes that cause additional climate change. The credibility of the European Union is, of course, vital. We have to clean up our own act. Parliament has, by a very large majority, taken a clear stand on emissions trading. I am sorry that the Council of Ministers has postponed its decision yet again and I am sorry to hear from initial reactions that important amendments which we adopted, for example on the CAP or on 1990 as the base year, may not meet with the Council's approval. The Council needs to adopt a clear concept, and quickly, and we, the European Parliament, need to be tough negotiators. That is all I have to say. Three minutes is too short a time to expand on the whole issue but I think it really is important for us to keep clarifying our position here in this House. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, last night the Committee on Fisheries approved the report by our colleague, Mrs Miguélez Ramos, on the restructuring of the Community fisheries sector affected by the non-renewal of the fisheries agreement with Morocco. I would like to say to the House that this report is restricted to regulating the technical aspects relating to the social measures aimed at the many people affected; it is a very sensitive issue from a social, and therefore political, point of view, in the Member States affected by this restructuring. Therefore, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am in a position to ask the House to vote in favour of this request for an urgent procedure presented by the Council, so that this proposal can be debated in Council by the Fisheries Ministers at their meeting called for the 27 November.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, five million people die each year of AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis in developing countries. One of the reasons for this is that medicines are for the most part too expensive for the people of those countries. And medicines are often unavailable altogether. Of the more than 1 450 new medicines which have come onto the market in the last twenty years, only thirteen are intended for tropical diseases. There is a severe lack of effective medicines in developing countries. They are either non-existent or too expensive. It would appear that investment in treatment of tropical diseases is not profitable enough for pharmaceutical companies. A more tragic example of the failure of the market is hard to imagine. These sad facts give the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy cause to propose drastic measures. Firstly, we propose a system of differentiated pricing. Medications should be made available free of charge or at affordable prices. For this, it will be necessary to prevent re-importation, and the industry’s cooperation will be essential in this. Secondly, there is the matter of patents. Rapporteur Khanbhai mentioned the great importance of these. Nevertheless, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy proposes to shorten the period of patent protection for essential medicines in developing countries. This is important, since in 2005 and 2006, the TRIPS Agreement is to be implemented in developing countries. By then, there will be major problems in combating AIDS and also tuberculosis. If the system of differentiated pricing works, this measure will not be necessary. But should it not succeed completely, it would be an important weapon in the battle against disease in developing countries. A third point which is also of extreme importance to the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is an extensive European research programme. This is necessary to tailor pharmaceutical research more to existing needs. Therefore more research into, and investment in, treatment of tropical diseases, but also investment in remedies which can be used in developing countries. Remedies which, for example, do not require refrigerated storage. Cooperation with the developing countries is essential, and a substantial increase in the budget to go along with this. I thank the rapporteur for his cooperation and for his willingness to listen to other committees.

Political group: PSE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. – Mr President, could I first join with some of my other colleagues in thanking the rapporteur for the work that he has done this year. As someone who was responsible for the budget on behalf of the Committee on Environment for the first time, I found him very helpful and very considerate of the points I made – not agreeing with everything but nevertheless being very fair-minded. I would also like to welcome the decisions taken by the Council and the Commission. The decision with regard to the money for Kosovo is helpful and their other agreements have, generally speaking, made the Committee on the Environment relatively happy. I am glad Mrs Schreyer mentioned earlier the additional monies for the Veterinary Office which are particularly important if we want them to deal with the problems that have arisen because of the BSE crisis, the dioxin crisis in Belgium and of course the continued work in Portugal. That money is necessary and we are very pleased that you agreed to it. In the area of health, we have had some very small and moderate improvements. The budget headings for the Committee on the Environment generally concern very small amounts but they have enabled us to start the preparatory research that will help us develop the issue of health competence under the Amsterdam Treaty. The sum involved is small but it is important. As regards consumers, there we are pleased to see that the agreement reached on the Whitehead report and the conciliation on the Whitehead report last year has been honoured and the money will come through. We are looking forward to that bringing general benefits in the coming year. As regards the area of the environment, the most important outstanding measure of course is the Lienemann report and the conciliation on LIFE and we are optimistic that we will get a reasonable result there. I would however make one final plea. The question of the money for the drugs agency is urgent now that we will approve the orphan drugs regulation in February. Something must be done quickly.

Political group: PSE