GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Why not, when we are aware of the consequences of feeding bovines on animal meal, develop the production of plant proteins for animal feed instead? The report, however, is only concerned with the trade war against the United States, on which animal feed in Europe today is heavily reliant. The real needs of the world’s population are not even addressed. The basis of the food production system, however, is morally bankrupt, as it aims only to satisfy the needs of countries and social classes with high purchasing power. In order to sell foods with a high added value that make the most profit to those with high purchasing power, we are wasting what could be used to feed the poorest. Several kilos of fishmeal, for example, are needed to produce more expensive fish in fish farms. This is a revolting system, because it contributes to raiding the resources of the poorest countries and starving part of the world’s population. It is also in the name of profit that Europe funds set-aside land in order to prevent a fall in prices. We did not want to support this entire system by voting for one option.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, why do women need their rightful share in political decision making? And how should we achieve this? We all agree on the fact that it needs to be done and why it is necessary. It is a demand for simple justice and for democracy and, as such, a condition for political legitimacy. But if we look into how to achieve this, the opinions are greatly divided. Is it sufficient to provide information and training and to create practical conditions or should we give preferential treatment, much like the quota system for the electoral lists of the political parties? And is it then up to the state, in other words the legislative, to impose such measures on political parties? Or should we even consider a system in which 50% of seats are reserved for women in elected bodies? This discussion, which is being held in some parts of Europe and here too under the French banner of parité, touches the very core of democracy, and is also about the political significance which we are prepared to accord to being a woman. In my opinion, the political battle should be fought at a political concept level rather than at a gender level. I am a great fan of voluntary quotas on electoral lists, without which, in fact, I would not be here today. Like Mrs Van Lancker, I am a product of such a measure. In my opinion, though, the state should not and must not use coercion to interfere in the internal affairs of political parties, at the risk of jeopardising democracy itself. In other words, the means which we employ to give women their rightful place within the political democracy should not lead to a system of gender apartheid. We would, in this way, violate democracy.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the recent events in Turkish prisons are tragic by any standards and it is an enormous pity that the situation had been allowed to deteriorate over such a long period with the almost inevitable consequences. However, these events must be put in context and we should acknowledge the resolve of the Turkish authorities to introduce a more human, acceptable, and indeed controllable, prison regime. As relations between the European Union and Turkey develop in an increasingly positive manner, we need to take a measured approach in our comments on Turkey's problems. At the same time our relationship with the Turkish authorities should be sufficiently robust that we can make justifiable criticisms. I have to say that in the United Kingdom in the past we too have had difficulties in maintaining the right prison regime for those convicted or detained for terrorist offences. We too have had situations where terrorists have more or less had total control over their accommodation and recreation areas and we too have had to deal with the tragedy of hunger strikes. It is not easy. The prisons themselves take on symbolic significance. The situation in the prisons becomes yet another facet of the armed struggle against the established government. We should keep this perspective in mind. Turning to the resolution itself we rightly deplore recent events but my feeling is that we should be more welcoming and encouraging concerning the reforms initiated by the Turkish Government. After all Turkey is responding to the demands that we placed upon her to bring her prisons more into line with European systems. We should remember that many of the inmates are revolutionaries who will accept nothing short of control of their situation. Of course a prison regime must be humane and there must be mechanisms to enable prisoners to express legitimate grievances. This is in everyone's interests but we cannot expect governments to negotiate with prisoners over their conditions and regimes. The current problems started because the armed groups were not prepared to concede control over the prisons to the authorities. The response by the security forces is not the cause but the consequence of the problem. The Turkish security forces had to retake the prisons by force facing organised armed opposition and the circumstances of many deaths is not clear while of course every death is a tragedy. I know that the Turkish authorities are greatly saddened by recent events. They are also thoroughly committed to reform and open to close cooperation with the Commission and with the Union and its Member States on reform of the penal system. They see this as part of the natural process of adopting the acquis. We should rightly express our concern at what has happened and that the situation was allowed to deteriorate so far. Let us now offer all possible professional advice and assistance and encourage rapid reform without giving further opportunities to undemocratic forces who seek to overthrow the Turkish Government and frustrate Turkey's progress towards membership of the European Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, may I start by congratulating the Commission on the opening words, with which I very much agree. The points about the better balance between flexibility and security and the importance of entrepreneurship are very important themes in this debate and I will refer to those in my concluding remarks. I will start by sharing a very short story about the UK, which also has relevance for this morning. In my previous life in the manufacturing business, I remember vividly a certain major retailer that was losing market share and was starting to fall out with its advertising agency in this regard. The advertising agency had a very simple message 'You are not spending enough money on advertising'; the message was fine, so they increased the amount of money spent on advertising. The company continued to lose market share and the advertising agency said: 'you are still not spending enough money'. Finally the company saw the light and fired the advertising agency. The moral of that story is that sometimes when you have a problem you do not need more and more of the same solution, you need very different solutions. That is a problem that we are facing within the EU and within Parliament at the moment. We have enough employment guidelines, the Commission's report was mildly helpful but the Member States already know exactly what they have to do. What they lack is the political will to do it. I do not believe it will help very much if we contribute to making those guidelines more detailed and more prescriptive. I agree with some of the comments of the rapporteur, and I very genuinely commend him for the hard work that he has put in, the thought that he has put in, and indeed the short timeframe in which he has done it. I agree particularly on the points he makes about tax, that it is very much a national issue and long may that so remain. However, some of the more prescriptive conclusions that he comes to and certainly the idea that, and I quote, 'there should be more comprehensive involvement of social partners that represent neither the majority of employers nor employees', do not seem to me to be a helpful step, I see them rather as a retrograde step. Finally, on the issue of flexibility, security and entrepreneurship, I note that the Commissioner is not here today because quite rightly she is at this other very important meeting, the Employment Council. I hope at that meeting, where amongst other issues they will be talking about the Atypical Workers Directive, the Commission will take the opportunity to show that it wants to promote a different message and not the same old messages that have been promoted in the past and that it too believes in entrepreneurship and flexibility and does not wish to remain mired in the past. Today is a very important day, and I look forward to that meeting going the way I hope it will. I am sorry to say to the rapporteur that much as I support some of the thinking behind what he is saying we cannot support his overall report today.

Political group: PPE-DE
We Swedish Social Democrats present the following explanation of vote regarding Amendment No 4: A complete opening up of the market for national rail passenger services by no later than 1 January 2008 must take place under certain basic conditions. There must, for example, be guarantees that, in the future too, rail services will cover the whole of the EU and not leave less profitable stretches of track unused, something that would be devastating for countries with large surface areas and small populations, such as Sweden. Moreover, there must be guarantees of safety, quality and social rights before railways can be purchased.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I had the same experience as Mr Medina Ortega yesterday. I feel that the French authorities – which have the honour of housing the European Parliament in Strasbourg – should be aware of their responsibility to ensure adequate connections with all the capitals of the Union.

Political group: PSE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. – Firstly, I want to congratulate the Commission on this text. It is a good text. Many of the basic principles we wanted to see are in it. I also congratulate the Portuguese Presidency because they have pushed this through and given it their political clout to make sure we get it on the statute book because, as Mrs McCarthy has just said, people who are victims of racism cannot wait until all the procedures are sorted out. They want this legislation quickly and they want it now. That is why it is important that we vote this afternoon. It is important legislation. In the context of what has happened in Austria, it becomes even more important. There are a few things which would add to and strengthen the text. Two things I would like to highlight: Amendment No 29, which tries to make sure that there is no hiding place for racism, no hiding place behind considerations of religion, considerations of belief and considerations of nationality. We need to make sure that these are not just covers for racism. The second amendment, which is important, is the amendment on incitement to racial discrimination which is as important as the act of racism itself, and I hope the Commission will take it on board. My own committee, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, thought it particularly important that we make sure that the applicant states are aware of the legislation and are in a position to implement it as soon as possible. I hope the Commission will make sure in the Action Programme, proposed to accompany this package, that we have a lot of projects from the applicant states. This directive will have a direct impact on the lives of many constituents of mine in Yorkshire, people from ethnic minorities and many thousands of people across Europe. It is very important that we get it through today. I hope that at the end of the afternoon we will have no more shenanigans, no more delays and we will make sure we get the vote at 6 p.m. so that we can get it through before the end of the Portuguese Presidency.

Political group: PSE
Several Members have mentioned the need for measures to prevent discrimination against women in employment policies. We should be explicit in the guidelines about the measures that can be implemented like parental benefits, childcare facilities and policies to combat sexual harassment. We also need to call on the Member States to do more than promote equal pay. The directive on equal pay was adopted over twenty years ago but there is still a 28% pay gap so we should strengthen the wording in the guidelines and urge the Member States to adopt measures to ensure equal pay. The Commission’s report on the implementation of the employment policies stated that Member States had failed to go beyond token efforts at alleviating gender inequalities. Successful mainstreaming requires that the people making policy understand how to implement it effectively. So there is a need for training and awareness raising and a better balance of women and men in decision making. Research just published in Wales that I represent has shown once again that women are hugely under-represented in management positions at work and do not move up the career ladder as quickly as their qualifications should allow. We know this is a typical scenario and it merits specific attention in the guidelines. So I would ask Members to support Amendments Nos 37 and 38 which would achieve this.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would also like to congratulate my colleague, Mr Paasilinna, on an excellent report. The Internet, as we have heard, is no longer a new phenomenon. Today, more than 90% of companies and 44% of households in the EU have an Internet connection and more than two-thirds of Europeans use a mobile phone. Our everyday systems are controlled by computers and communication networks, from public transport systems to the water that comes out of our taps at home. It is no surprise, then, that security in this area is a huge concern for our citizens and businesses. I must admit that I have reservations about creating new agencies willy-nilly. However, I have to say that I totally support the establishment of this one. Nevertheless, I wish to make three points, which are also questions to the Commission. Firstly, the issue of differing security standards. Given that at present the 15 Member States are all at different stages of combating cybercrime, how does the Commission plan to tackle this obstacle and ensure effective implementation, especially once we become a Union of 25, when the real challenge will be to harmonise security standards across Europe? Will the Agency have sufficient clout to ensure that Member States take the recommendations and advice of this Agency seriously? Secondly, on the issue of cross-border cooperation, it is a fact that there is no systematic cross-border cooperation between the current Member States. We know that security is a difficult and complex task, encompassing all sorts of issues like availability, integrity, authenticity and confidentiality of data and services. How does the Commission intend to get public and private sectors and businesses and consumers to work together? How does it intend to promote security in these areas? Thirdly, security requirements are constantly evolving as networking in the community and computing develop further, electronic communications become more widespread and hackers become more adept at foiling security systems. We need to ensure that we in Europe have the highest possible level of security. How will the Commission ensure that this Agency does not fall behind new technologies and that it leaves no stone unturned in the fight against cybercrime? Finally, I hope the setting up of this Agency will lead to some rationalisation within the Commission, because often when we set up agencies it also means some sort of streamlining within the Commission.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as a Bavarian delegate I would like to highlight a point in this draft directive which has a crucial bearing on my homeland Bavaria. It is undoubtedly right to make people aware of how damaging cigarettes are to health. The citizens of the EU are entitled to a high level of health protection, as enshrined in the Article on the internal market in the Treaty. However, the present draft fails to differentiate between cigarettes and other tobacco products such as pipe and fine cut tobacco, cigars, cigarillos, mouth and chewing tobacco, as well as the traditional European snuff. In this connection, I would like to refer to the market shares of the various tobacco products. Cigarettes have a share of approximately 91%. Pipe tobacco, cigars and snuff account for 9%. These products are manufactured by small and medium-sized enterprises. Many types of tobacco reflect the cultural characteristics of the region where they are produced. For example, snuff is a crucial component of the Bavarian culture and way of life. For over 400 years, taking snuff has been the healthiest and most environmentally friendly way to enjoy tobacco. This is precisely what led to the Commission stating, in its explanatory statement in the draft directive, that scientists are no longer insisting on a strict health warning in the case of tobacco products not intended for smoking, snuff for example. Therefore, in comparison with all other tobacco products, snuff is the least harmful to health. This has been scientifically proven beyond doubt. That being the case, it is both unnecessary and factually wrong to apply a health warning, as provided for in current Amendments Nos 48 and 120. For this reason, I would urge you to vote against Amendments Nos 48 and 120 and to accept the original text of the Commission’s proposal as it is.

Political group: PPE-DE
I wish sincerely to thank the Italian Foreign Minister, Mr Frattini, and the Council Presidency for that answer. I believe it is incredibly important for Italy, as the country holding the Presidency, to have its own view and, thus, for the Council Presidency to operate as a model. I think it is very important to raise the level of knowledge and commitment and to focus more upon European issues in domestic policy, both in Italy and Sweden. My follow-up question to Mr Frattini is about the way in which the Council Presidency views the fact that more and more countries’ governments and parliaments have now said that they wish to hold referendums on the draft European Constitution. Do you take a positive view of this development? My second follow-up question is this: do you yourselves see a possibility of Italy’s being able to take such a decision as a model for other countries and governments?

Political group: PPE-DE
Following the Agenda 2000 decisions, and also bearing in mind the reforms of the common organisations of the market, the annual setting of prices and of institutional budgets has only affected a small number of sectors. Nevertheless, the Commission does not always carry out this price setting in the farmers’ interests, particularly when it lowers prices, and this warrants our opposition. In specific terms, for 2000 to 2001, the Commission is proposing the level of increments for rice, whereas we are still waiting for the next reform proposal, which should already have moved forward. For the monthly increments of cereals, it proposes a two-stage reduction of 7.5% for the equivalent reduction of the intervention price, which was decided on under Agenda 2000, which is unacceptable to various Member States particularly because, at the Berlin Council, the commitment was given to maintain monthly increments at their current level. With regard to prices for sheepmeat and pigmeat, the Commission is maintaining current levels. With regard to the sugar sector, the price levels established for the last harvest year are being maintained, and in the next few months a proposal is due to be presented with a view to ending the quota, on the pretext of commitments given at the WTO. Some positive proposals were made in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, specifically the refusal to make the sugar and agriculture sectors, almost exclusively, finance the EUR 300 million for Kosovo, given that this financing will accentuate the negative pressure on the income of farmers, which is unacceptable.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the present proposal reinforces, improves upon and tightens up on the voluntary eco-labelling system which has existed in the EU since 1992 and which has not, unfortunately, been as successful as had been hoped. We know from the Nordic Swan and the German Blue Angel that the eco-labelling of products is an extremely significant and powerful tool for getting consumers to change their purchasing behaviour and to shop in an environmentally friendly way. That is, of course, what we all want, namely to be able to shop in an environmentally friendly way and so influence producers and the development of society in ways which favour ecologically more sustainable products and services. I think that the Council’s position is fairly commendable, and I am also satisfied with the amendments from the committee and from Mr Schnellhardt. I consider, however, that the proposal needs to be reinforced in certain ways, above all when it comes to the role played by consumer and environmental groups and the co-existence of different eco-labelling systems. Those who argue the case for having only the one eco-labelling system are making a big mistake, I believe. I am totally convinced that, wherever there are well-functioning eco-labelling systems, it will be possible also to introduce the EU flower that much more easily and more quickly. It is about getting the consumer to look for and to choose eco-labelled products. Once purchasing behaviour has been altered, it is extremely simple. The key to success lies, to a very large degree, in the credibility of the environmental and consumer groups and in the good opinion in which these are held. If these groups are involved in the right way, eco-labelling will also develop very much more quickly. If you would allow me to make a point of order...

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to thank the Commission for today's communication. I do, however, remain concerned about two points. The Lisbon Summit foresaw a key coordinating role for the European Council itself. Although it remained unspoken, one of the main reasons for that was to avoid the whole procedure being dominated by Ecofin. In the procedure in this communication there is a fundamental breakdown, following the June Council. We then have the separate competitiveness, employment and Ecofin Councils making the final decisions in their respective areas. It is at that point that Ecofin will become dominant and will hamstring the other two Councils. That is a fundamental flaw in the whole procedure. My second concern is that the first and last mention of Parliament is in May, in relation to the employment guidelines. If the Commission as an institution is serious about the involvement of Parliament, it should be joining with us in calling for an interinstitutional agreement to give Parliament a formal say in the preparations for the spring Council.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as Chairman of the College of Quaestors, I have been asked to help arrange transport to Parliament tomorrow for assistants coming from Brussels. I would be grateful if colleagues whose assistants are experiencing difficulties in their travel arrangements and, indeed, colleagues in the same predicament, could contact my office as soon as possible. A train leaves Brussels at 7.20 a.m., and we are considering the possibility of arranging transport from Luxembourg, where the train arrives at 10.00 a.m. Could I ask colleagues who have problems with this to contact me in my office here as soon as possible. For colleagues who are not aware of it, there is yet another general strike in France tomorrow, so the trains will not be able to get here. I presume the planes will not be able to get here either.

Political group: PPE-DE