GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is basically an animal health problem that has assumed the proportions of a huge crisis because it has affected food safety, even though medical specialists say that it is not highly infectious. It is a problem that emerged in the United Kingdom more than a decade ago and which, since then, has spread to the whole of continental Europe. At the time, the Commission probably underestimated the problem and did not adopt the necessary measures to prevent the disease spreading. We must acknowledge that it was a mistake to wait until 27 March 1996 to adopt emergency measures, starting with the ban on animals and meat meal from the United Kingdom and to give in to pressure by then derogating this decision two years later, on 16 March 1998. It is time that we learnt from our mistakes and adopted effective and appropriate measures, which can be complied with without trying to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Most importantly, these measures must be uniform, because what is causing the greatest confusion, lack of direction and distrust is the lack of clear and concrete criteria. You have told us what the Scientific Steering Committee thinks and what the Council intends to do, but what action is the Commission prepared to take, when is it going to act and how will it do so? Furthermore, we must ensure that all of these rules are complied with, because controls have proved to be our greatest shortcoming. I have always said the same thing: it is crucial that the Commission coordinates and harmonises controls and, most importantly, that it controls the controller. Clear and practical rules are essential because there are fifteen countries, each with its own problems and in some countries – in my own, to be precise – in which responsibilities for control in this field lie with the seventeen autonomous governments. Lastly, I would suggest to the Commission that it should make an effort to communicate risks, because the profusion of news and comment in the media is contributing to the confusion and alarm in society. In addition to all of this, Commissioner, we need to think about the future of the CAP, because the root of this problem lies in the competitiveness that has been forced on the agricultural sector.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, representatives of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to join previous speakers in expressing my concern over the physical and moral siege that the leader of the Palestinian Authority, Yasser Arafat, is currently experiencing. It is clear that this policy does not contribute either to reducing terrorist activity – but rather, on the contrary, stimulates and increases it – or to democratising the Palestinian National Authority, which had been planning legislative and presidential elections for January next year, nor does it contribute to finding safety valves to put an end to the damaging situation that this region is currently experiencing. Mr President, I believe we must ask the President-in-Office of the Council to request, clearly and convincingly, a resolution to this situation. This resolution must necessarily involve the lifting of the siege of the President of the Palestinian National Authority and compliance with the United Nations resolutions. The European Union, Mr President, must demand, clearly and convincingly, that the United Nations resolutions be complied with. Mr President, a truce allowing the Palestinian National Authority to control terrorist activity is also essential. It is ludicrous to say that the President of the Palestinian National Authority should control Palestinian terrorist activity when at the moment he is fighting just to survive. I also consider it absolutely essential to establish a series of measures aimed at ending Israeli military oppression, which is causing countless casualties, most of whom are civilians. It is clear, Mr President, that only on the basis of these premises will the initiatives of the Quartet, a peace conference for the region and the European Union’s desire for peace, understanding, concord and reconciliation prevail in the region. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
I cannot tell you how delighted I am to discover that Mr Brok all along was a dangerous revolutionary! Could I congratulate Mrs Lalumière on her report. Clearly we have made huge leap forwards on European defence cooperation in the last 12 months or so, but there are certain things we need to bear in mind. Firstly, a key factor must be to maintain the consistency of the European Union's external policy. Unless Pillars 1, 2 and 3 are working towards the common goal, any other mechanism we set up is bound for failure. So we must always hold that in mind. Secondly, while attention has inevitably been focused in recent weeks on the military dimension, we must not lose sight of the need for civilian conflict prevention and one cannot be at the expense of the other, otherwise you are actually pulling in opposite ways. Thirdly, while I welcome the Rapid Reaction Force, we have to be clear from Europe's perspective, as we only get one chance to get this right. It is not a question of not being halfway in or halfway out, there has to be a clear commitment by all the Member States involved to making this work. We should not therefore try to force this to do anything it is not intended to. NATO of course is the arm of collective defence of Europe and the West. The Rapid Reaction Force's job is peacekeeping and peacemaking and the Petersberg tasks. To do that we have to have the capability. At the moment we are grossly short of that capability and ultimately Member States have to consider their defence expenditure plans, which are dramatically different from one country to another. I would like ultimately to see us move towards greater convergence of defence expenditure. We also need proper coordination. No duplication, not only with NATO, but no duplication within EU Member States. We should be working together and coordinating. We should move towards greater European procurement policy, so we have a more efficient defence industry delivering better value for money.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, this is not about the Minutes but about a point of order. I was contacted several times yesterday and have already been contacted several times today, by people from the press who have got wind of the fact that the Court of Auditors sent you a report yesterday on the funding of the political groups. I am aware that this is a very tricky business and that we must prevent any half-baked stories from getting into the papers. The question on quite a few people’s lips is: what is to become of this report? Will it be made public? I understand that the chairmen of the groups have been able to have a look at the report. I would like to ask you what you are intending to do with it. Will you find a way of making it available to the press or to those who favour doing so, appending a few comments, yes or no? I believe we must adopt an open and transparent strategy here, so that we can say in all candour how we dealt with the funding that was made available to the groups.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, every year, tens of thousands of women undergo surgery for the insertion of at least one breast implant. In Belgium alone over the past ten years, over 4 000 prosthetic implants were inserted, with, in 1999, 313 women needing hospital in-patient treatment because of complications. So there are at least three reasons to justify this action being taken at Community level: improving information for patients in certain cases; shedding the maximum possible light on the potential secondary effects of having a breast implant, in particular by means of research; and, of course, taking into account the petitions presented by citizens' groups, giving consideration to whether or not their request that silicon implants of this sort be subject to an immediate ban is well founded. These three aspirations are set out clearly by Mrs Stihler, whom also I wish to congratulate, in her report, the broad outlines of which the endorses. I am thinking especially of the prohibition of advertising aimed directly at the public, and of the authorisation of prosthetic implants for young women under the age of 18, strictly and solely for medical reasons. The does not, however, support all the measures advocated by this report, specifically mandatory entry in national registers, or Amendment No 3, which proposes the introduction of a passport for wearers of implants, which strike us as being like so many ideas which appear to be good but turn out to be misguided. Over and above that, primarily, where the cost and feasibility of such interventions is concerned, should we be contemplating the imposition of requirements that go well beyond those in place for other equally invasive and extensive surgery? I am thinking, for example, of heart surgery, the requirements imposed on which by the Commission are sufficiently restrictive. In conclusion, Mr President, what women expect is clear answers to issues that frequently cause them anguish or even traumatise them, when raised in the event of an illness. It is self-evident that what we owe them is the truth, and the truth is not about imposing a ban that risks simply sending these women across our European borders. The Liberals therefore give their active support to Amendment No 2 tabled by the Group of the . The truth is that women tempted to undergo this sort of operation which – as has been said – is becoming increasingly common, need to be informed and protected, and that is what we have tried to do.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, allow me to put a question to you in your capacity as legislator. It is, of course, the Council which, in the last analysis, makes the rules governing this cooperation. If it now appears that, with the help of this type of legislation, a Member State can prevent the free movement of labour and of citizens and create problems in terms of EU citizenship, would you be willing to alter the common regulations so that it is quite clear that individual countries cannot introduce restrictions of this kind?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the rapporteur, Mr van Velzen, is to be congratulated on having produced a balanced and well-founded report and a balanced and well-founded speech in support of it. I can applaud, as always, his comprehension of the need to regulate but with carefully argued parameters. It is right to remind ourselves that when we talk about regulation, it is not something of which we have either more or less; within the European Union we plan to regulate for a purpose, for a goal, over a certain period of time. It is good, too, that Mr van Velzen's report has a clear appreciation of what the convergence of various technologies means. He and many other contributors to this debate have reflected on how both Parliament and the Commission have been able to look at what has happened in the past and try and guess – educated guesses – about what may happen in the future. Where we have not guessed correctly, we have been able to put things right. The speed of change, not only in terms of technology, but also in global competition in this field, has meant that the margin of error is much less. This is why this report is so important. It lays the groundwork for the future development of the Commission's plans and Parliament's response for this industry. The Socialist Group will not be able to support all of the amendments and the details of qualified criticisms of the 'auctions versus beauty contest' proposals. We had hoped to be able to have split votes on that. I regret that we cannot; nor can I support the amendment that calls for mobile telephones and the mobiles market to be excluded. We ought to take great care not to introduce rules that limit growth in this startlingly versatile market. Nor do we want to enter into a situation where mobiles are excluded and other forms of telecommunications are included. Finally, I would like to draw attention to Amendments Nos 3 and 4. Amendment No 3 calls for a clearer and unambiguous formulation of the political aims and principles underlying the further development of the European telecommunications market, which is absolutely essential. Amendment No 4 highlights the urgent need to devote special attention to implementing the existing directives so that major differences in the liberalisation of national markets do not become entrenched and thereby hamper the implementation of new rules. We still have 15 partially liberalised and still largely segmented markets. What we have here is the basis for opening up the European Union market in a genuine sense. I commend Mr van Velzen's report to you and congratulate him again on it; and I congratulate the Commission on the speed, diligence and thoughtfulness with which it has approached the redrafting and relaunching of European Union legislation in this field.

Political group: PSE
Would I be correct, Commissioner, in summing up your thorough answer in one word, 'no', i.e. the Commission is not going to do anything? When I spoke to you some months ago in this very Chamber you said that by autumn we will have made progress. But it seems to me that what you are saying is that the Commission is not going to do anything to follow up its communication or its action plan. What you have said is a summary of what has happened up to now but not an indication that there really is going to be dynamic action in the foreseeable future, as it is autumn now.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to begin by congratulating our rapporteur, Mr Schmitt, on his report which now brings a sensible compromise to the original Commission proposal. It is fair to say that all of us in this House would have fully supported the creation of a pan-European body dealing specifically with the certification of aeronautical products, which is eminently sensible and which I fully support. However, my own view was that the scope of the original Commission proposal was too broad and there were a considerable number of concerns regarding the issues of sovereignty, the regulatory framework and in particular the autonomy of the proposed agency. It must be emphasised that, as with national civil aviation authorities which quite clearly deal solely with safety matters, this agency should not be drawn into dealing with other aspects, such as environmental and competition issues. In addition, I would expect it to work along similar lines to those of national civil aviation authorities whose responsibilities are as independent regulators. Although I received a comprehensive response from the Commission regarding the future of the national CAAs, their role still needs to be further clarified in terms of their future scope and remit. It should also be emphasised that efforts should continue to be concentrated on achieving uniform applicability of ICAO, JAA and Eurocontrol standards that are already in existence. The safety agency should not seek to parallel and create unwilling distortions of the current ICAO-based safety framework. Finally, as we would expect independent experts to run this agency, it would not be in anyone's interests should there be undue political or Commission interference, thereby potentially rendering the issue of safety a secondary factor.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, although it breaks with customary rail practice in Europe, we have accepted the idea of dividing the use of the railways between, on the one hand, those who run the rail network and, on the other, those who use the railways for transport purposes. We have accepted this as a worthwhile experiment, partly because it is not beyond the bounds of possibility – although this is by no means proven – that it will help increase the amount of goods transported, and partly because it will enable a more detailed comparison to be made between rail and road transport, with the latter having, from the start, been familiar with the dual approach being introduced by the Community to the railways. The same reasons have led us to oppose the ceaseless efforts on the part of the right to anticipate the possible parameters of passenger transport, the Commission’s proposal, the current wishes of the Council of Ministers and, above all, the Commission’s evaluation of experience, included by Parliament at first reading in the draft directive. This constant push on the part of the right towards anticipating liberalisation demonstrates what we have persisted in saying, namely that, for many, liberalisation is only a back door to privatisation. We have voted against such anticipation by rejecting Mr Jarzembowski’s report, and we shall continue to do so. In spite of the many and varied efforts made by Mr Sterckx, we have also voted against his report on safety. In spite of many major improvements, emphasised by my colleague Mr Savary, Mr Sterckx’ report does in fact ratify what has been accepted by the Council of Ministers, namely the subordination of safety to profitability. The fact that Europe – a little, a lot or passionately, depending upon the circumstances – contributes to making safety dependent upon profitability, even though experience clearly shows that liberalisation, by its nature, increases the risks, says a lot about the wayward liberal approach to European integration. Acceptance of this notion is all the more dangerous in as much as, once it has taken root in the railway sector, it will spread like a cancer to the other means of transport. For this reason, among others, my colleagues and I shall therefore also continue to oppose Mr Sterckx’ report.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, this afternoon, in this Chamber, reference was made to a series of reports on the BBC Today programme this morning, which claimed that certain of my colleagues were running personal lobbying companies or somehow misusing their position as Members of this House. These are serious allegations. They are completely untrue, malicious, politically biased and were broadcast in the full knowledge of their falsehood. We are taking legal advice. My colleagues’ register of interests is complete. If we find that any Member of this House or their employees collaborated with the BBC in this farrago we will expose them to the opprobrium of this House.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on behalf of my group, I would also like to thank my colleague, Mrs Corbey, for a well prepared report. It is absolutely necessary to revise the packaging directive. A clear solution regarding objectives for the utilisation of packaging waste must be achieved, because the situation as it is at present is very confused. The Commission’s proposal for a general level of recycling regarding packaging waste is an ambitious aim, but it is attainable on certain conditions. Material-specific recycling targets should be closer to one another. There can be no justification for very different targets, at least with reference to environmental criteria. Material-specific targets within the EU accord a different status to each material, but Member States are also in an unequal position if their practices regarding packaging and, as a consequence, the proportion of different packaging materials they use varies greatly from one to another. As has been said here already, it is especially important to prevent the generation of waste. This can be done, for example, by making effective use of renewable raw materials, by manufacturing good quality, hard-wearing, durable and recyclable products, and by reducing the hazard of waste that results. Whether the re-use of packaging should be encouraged must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. For example, fibre packaging is easily manufactured from recyclable, renewable raw materials. It is often more beneficial environmentally speaking and cheaper than re-usable packaging.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, on behalf of this House, I ask you to convey your sympathy and commiserations to the family of Mrs Jean McConville, whose remains were accidentally found in the last week or so. She was one of the nine 'disappeared' who the IRA in Ireland claims responsibility for. This woman – a mother of ten children, a 37-year-old widow – was abducted, murdered and buried in a secret location nearly 30 years ago. Five of the nine people for whose disappearance the IRA claims responsibility remain unaccounted for. I also ask you to appeal to the Irish and British Governments to use whatever intermediaries they have with the IRA to seek more precise information about the location of those five unfortunate victims of IRA terror. The peace of mind which the families of these 'disappeared' need is more important than the security and safety of the perpetrators of these murders. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I can support Mr Heaton-Harris’ arguments. This a controversial report. It is important that there should be as wide a consensus on this subject as possible and I should therefore like to propose that the report be referred back to the Budgetary Committee.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, of course it is also a pity that the Council tried to pre-empt Parliament's opinion with a political agreement and did not have the courtesy to let Parliament express its views first. That by way of a brief reply to what Mr Bolkestein just said. But may I say that, pursuant to Rule 68 of the Rules of Procedure, Mr Bolkestein's answer is incomplete. The Rule is clear. We ask the Commission if it intends to withdraw its proposal. Mr Bolkestein has not said if it intends to do so. He said that he would confer with his colleagues on the course of action to be taken now, from which I conclude that the Commission refuses to withdraw its proposal. Consequently, we need to proceed to the third paragraph of the Rule, which states that the matter has to be referred back to the committee responsible, without voting on the draft legislative resolution and I propose that we do precisely that.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, the extension of the Socrates and Youth programmes is a clear signal sent by the Union to Turkey, to those in Turkey who want Europe and who need Europe. This programme targets young people and does so with good reason: young people are the sap which will nourish the whole tree and it is through young people that democracy and human rights may be enabled to take root in that country. We must also ensure that the young Turkish people who join us are representative. It is up to the Commission then – we are counting on you Mrs Reding – to be extremely vigilant in ensuring that all young Turks, regardless of sex or ethnic background, are eligible under this programme. The substance of amendment 5, if not its wording, has been adopted by the Council. It demands absolute respect for minority rights. It is almost impossible, or at least extremely difficult, to approach this debate without mentioning Turkey’s possible accession to the Union. Turkey is an Associate Country and we demand more, much more than this from an Associate. As a result of the inflexible way it has dealt with the Kurdish question in particular, but with other matters too, Turkey has sent a very negative signal to Europe. Ankara is still a long way from meeting the Copenhagen criteria. Through this programme, we are staking our hopes on Turkey’s young people. It is up to the young people to act as a link between us.

Political group: ELDR