GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, as Mr von Wogau has pointed out in the presentation of his report – which has my Group’s full support – we are at an historic moment, with the culmination of the process of introducing the euro so close, but we are also, as has been said, at a delicate moment for the European economy. The forecasts, which were rosier some months ago, have had to be revised downwards. There is enormous resistance to setting the inflation rate at the target of 2% and there is clear concern about the current economic situation. This obviously leads to the question of what is the correct way to try to overcome this situation and ensure solid and sustained growth. In this respect, Mr von Wogau’s report contains many elements which should be taken into account, but I would like to highlight some of them which we have already stressed. There are some which we have in fact mentioned in various debates. The first is the need for Member States to remain rigorous and resolute with regard to the commitments established in the respective stability programmes: we are worried that there may be flexibility – in the field of deficit and public debt – with regard to those issues intended to ensure that objectives are achieved and complied with. We would also like to mention the need for better and greater coordination of economic policies – you know that we are not satisfied with the current level of coordination, and this Parliament has stressed this on many occasions – and we would like to stress the issue of structural reforms and the need for flexibility in certain markets which affect the productive structure of the European Union, such as the labour market, and, obviously, the process of liberalisation in certain sectors also considered to be key sectors.

Political group: ELDR
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. – Mr President, I would like to welcome the passion with which Mr Belder has delivered his report on the Roma and on the East European situation. It is the most extreme versions of racism on the edges of Europe which we are disturbed about. When the debate about Austria – which has many elements, many complexities – was unfolding we realised that on the edges of Austria there were significant candidate countries which, while they were making progress in economic, progress in social aspects, represented a real problem with regard to their treatment of minorities. In Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Hungary there were significant problems with the treatment of the Roma. What we must realise is that, as we enlarge Europe, we have a significant responsibility for ensuring that any country that wishes to join the European Union must also reform the way that it treats minorities and the way that it treats the whole question of race discrimination. I would make two or three other very simple points. What the Roma situation shows, what Mr Belder's report shows, is that an extreme version of discrimination clearly exists throughout the European Union, otherwise we would not be discussing this issue. There are many questions we must discuss: How strongly will we push the question of Article 13? Do we really want race discrimination protection throughout the European Union? The answer is yes. We must have it quickly and we must have comprehensive legislation. If we look around the European institutions and Parliament, we realise there are very few faces from ethnic minorities. That situation is improving, but ultimately we have institutions which are bereft of representation. It is representation and other similar issues that we must now tackle. Racism is a complex issue. We have begun to discuss it adequately but we have so much further to go.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, there is no doubt that the European Union must, with the passing of time, equip itself with a new chemical policy. The one we have at present is unsatisfactory. There had been advance indications that there would be a vast array of tests, but the overall test result is unsatisfactory. The Commission's principled involvement is therefore to be welcomed even if we cannot support every aspect of its proposal. There is, though, something of which I must warn you. You, too, Commissioner, are on my mind today in particular. When you introduced yourself to us, you announced that the experience of your own country led you to want to establish a new policy on chemicals in Europe. My impression is that today, like Goethe's Faust, you have conjured up something you cannot control. What the rapporteur, Mrs Schörling, has presented is not a proposal about environmental policy. It is a classic export of pollution, as many enterprises that are already being marginalised by the European Union will move themselves very quickly even nearer to its boundary and indeed also outside the EU in order to save themselves these unimaginable impositions. This cannot be a modern environmental policy. Rather, we must take this branch of industry with us in integrating high but feasible standards. I believe that the aspects already mentioned – temporary approval, obligatory regulation under 1000 kilos, the principle of substitution and regulation of use as well – are an attempt at multiple protection, for every owner of a medium-sized business is being enslaved, because only industry can now meet the obligations which your proposal envisages. I believe that this proposal should be sent back to the Commission, but certainly not to the rapporteur, whom I otherwise greatly respect and who, on this occasion, has thoroughly disappointed me.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, my Group welcomes this proposal. It is important that this instrument should remain in force for the entire five-year period and that the core elements of a common asylum system should be codified within this period. The Fund should help to balance up the differences between Member States in the acceptance and integration of persons in need of protection. A precondition for this is that the various factors must be given due consideration in allocating the money. It is necessary that the legal basis for the Fund should be adopted as soon as possible so as to ensure continuous EU financing of refugee projects. I welcome the fact that, under Article 5, the money for routine projects is to be separated from emergency aid measures. Mass refugee situations require special measures and separate budgetary allocations. Only in this way can routine long-term measures also be maintained. The effective distribution of responsibilities which the Fund is striving for can only be achieved in the long term if the existing problems of widely divergent capacities are tackled. This requires additional support for the Member States with a less well established asylum system. I therefore consider that a fixed sum for the Member States which are experiencing difficulties in establishing their asylum system is advisable. The description in Article 3 of the tasks and measures which are worthy of promotion could lead to a priori support for measures to improve the acceptance conditions for asylum seekers, but this should not mean that measures necessary for fairer and more effective asylum procedures are neglected. I am of the opinion that the Fund should finance measures to inform the public concerning the policy and practice of the Member States with regard to refugees, asylum seekers and other temporarily protected persons. The positive results of such activities in the past speak in favour of the continuation of such financial support, which should be made available to every eligible applicant. I congratulate Mrs Frahm on her excellent report and gladly support the request of Mrs Frahm and Mrs Buitenweg for the addition of this sum to the Refugee Fund.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this is the second time that I have spoken in a legislative assembly in support of a British Prime Minister contemplating sending British troops into action in Iraq. I did so 12 years ago when the then Conservative Prime Minister, the then Conservative Government, of which Commissioner Patten was a distinguished Member, committed British troops to repel the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. I find myself in the extraordinary position today of supporting a Labour Government, a Labour Prime Minister and a Labour leader of the delegation here in this Parliament in the words that they say and in the actions that they propose. Twelve years ago we stopped at the gates of Baghdad. We did so on a commitment by Saddam Hussein that the weapons of mass destruction would be dismantled. Twelve years later, countless resolutions later, countless promises later, countless inspections later, that commitment has still not been fulfilled. We are where we are today because of that. We have a simple choice: either we believe what Saddam Hussein says and believe that he will still go on to disarm in a voluntary way, or we take the hard, difficult decision to commit the lives of our young men and women to enforce the will of the international community. We may have to do that because, if we do not, we send a message to those who would follow Saddam Hussein that they can get away with it, and we send an even worse message to the great nation of the United States which has stood by this continent in good times and in bad that it is on its own. As Winston Churchill said 60 years ago: 'We are either with the American people, we are part of them, or we are not'. That remains as true today as when it was first said. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, sea transport and its importance have been discussed on numerous occasions in this Chamber. Because it is more environmentally friendly, we have also talked about the need for or the suitability of modal transfer onto short sea shipping, which could be an element in the Community strategy to comply with the Kyoto commitments; about the fact that recent studies show that sea transport is responsible for only 12% of all discharges into the sea, or that it is the most energetically efficient mode of transport, and that compared with overland transport structures, which are highly saturated in developed countries, especially in Europe, the sea is an open, free infrastructure that is still far from saturated. The media occasionally report on the tragedies that occur, sometimes with the loss of human lives. Fortunately, because of both the extensive international safety regulations and the more rational attitude and greater awareness that today govern sea transport, accidents and pollution have been considerably reduced. I believe that the measures under consideration today reveal the commitment of our institutions to take on and to enhance vessel safety and the protection of the marine environment, and for that we must congratulate the Commission and the Vice-President, who have tabled six legislative proposals in less than a year. They have reacted well. As a member of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, I want to talk about vessels not just as places of work but also as places where the living conditions of professional seamen are developed, and therefore I think that, in addition to the efforts to improve safety for the lives and wellbeing of seamen, an effort also needs to be made to improve the living and working conditions for these workers while they are aboard ship.

Political group: PPE-DE
Although we will support the report, we, as British Conservatives, have particular reservations regarding certain aspects of the report, as follows: extension of QMV – in respect of Europol the Council will act by a two-thirds majority in accordance with Article VI of the Treaty (Article 1 (1b) – Amendment No 3); centralising Europol's powers – the Court of Justice will have jurisdiction to rule on any dispute or conflict between Member States regarding the interpretation or application of the Convention (Article 1 (1d) – Amendment No 5).

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I thank our rapporteur, Professor Nisticò, who has done a lot of work considering how controversial this debate was in first reading. The directive based on the common position text will introduce a regulatory regime for traditional herbal medicines, giving the public assurances as to safety and quality, as well as systematic consumer information relating to traditional herbal remedies sold over the counter. The common position incorporates significant additional areas of flexibility over the scope of the directive, as had been sought by Labour MEPs, including a number of herbal interest groups as well. These include greater flexibility to take account of evidence of traditional use from outside the EU and the possibility of vitamins and minerals being added to traditional herbal remedies which are ancillary to the activity or the active herbal ingredients. It is due to this progress that we have had very few people disagreeing with our approach during this second reading. As I described in first reading, presently consumers are unaware of some shoddy practices going on in this sector. Last year I gave the example of echinacea root. Over the past few weeks there has been some debate over echinacea due to a report by the University of Washington in Seattle questioning its effectiveness. However, there are plenty of other reports highlighting its effectiveness and, as a user of this product, I believe it helps especially at this time of year in combating colds. Sadly, in information provided to me analysing four different echinacea root products only one contained what it claimed it had on the label. This is not good for echinacea and certainly not good for the consumer. One product failed to comply because of excessive amounts of ash and acids in soluble ash. Another did not contain echinacea root at all and another had not been solely manufactured from echinacea root powder, as was claimed on the label. This means that when I purchase this product I have a one in four chance of getting what is described on the label. This is just not good enough. That is why the Consumers' Association, the British Herbal Medical Association, the European Herbal Practitioners' Association, the UK National Institute of Medical Herbalists, the Register of Chinese Herbal Medicine, the International Register of Consultant Herbalists and similar herbal practitioners across Europe back this initiative. The message from genuine manufacturers who love the herbal sector is clear: they need basic regulations which reward quality producers and give consumers the standards they deserve. The herbal sector is no longer a cottage industry. It is a multi-million-dollar industry, and genuine manufacturers who are doing the right thing are suffering commercially because cowboy dealers are breaking the rules. We need regulation in this sector in order to protect the consumer and reward those decent producers making quality products. I hope Members will back this recommendation for second reading and the sooner this becomes law, the better. I should like to thank Professor Nisticò once again.

Political group: PSE
I would like to ask the President-in-Office if he would agree that the original question tabled is actually factually incorrect when it talks about endangering the health of people in Britain and Ireland. In the report Melanie Johnson quoted from – and as Mr Atkins has just commented – the authors actually state that there is no health risk whatsoever: there is no correlation whatsoever here with the original question. In fact, some of the highest readings taken were 260 miles away from Sellafield and some of the lowest were 50 miles away from Sellafield. It seems ironic that these comments are being made when the UK department's own report stated that the levels were a thousand times smaller than those of other radioactive substances present as a result of natural sources. Would the President-in-Office not agree that the question was factually incorrect and put purely for scaremongering reasons, as Sir Robert Atkins mentioned?

Political group: PSE
I have today chosen to vote in favour of Parliament’s report, the Haug report, on the Council’s Draft Supplementary and Amending Budget 1/2001 in view, for example, of the BSE crisis, despite the fact that other Swedish Social Democrats are voting against it. This difference of approach does not reflect different attitudes to agricultural policy. On the contrary, we are in complete agreement about the need for a radical reform including, in the longer term, a greater acceptance of responsibility by the Member States for those costs that arise as a consequence of BSE and other crises. This view is also expressed in the report. The background to our voting differently is, rather, the fact that I participated in the handling of this matter in the Committee on Budgets and do not see any possibility of influencing agricultural policy by voting ‘no’ today. Nor will the Supplementary Budget lead to the Budget’s being overstepped, but only to those margins which are under the Budget ceiling being reduced. What is more, this is a decision on which Parliament does not have the right of codecision – which is in itself a matter for discussion that is called into question in the report. A ‘no’ vote today would not, therefore, lead to any real change but only to delays. It would delay making available those resources required for the testing and destruction of cattle in the wake of the BSE crisis, as well as delay extending the mandate of the European Reconstruction Bureau in Kosovo/Serbia to include Montenegro, as referred to in the second part of this Supplementary and Amending Budget. Parliament’s report makes clear demands for a change in agricultural policy, entirely along the same lines presented by myself and other Social Democratic and Liberal MEPs in an article in Wednesday’s Göteborgs-Posten. Those demands will now be pushed hard by Parliament, something which all we Swedish Social Democrats applaud. We are not therefore concerned here with substantially different views of agricultural policy. On the contrary, I feel very sympathetic towards the voting intentions of my Swedish Social Democratic colleagues. We differ only in our view of what can be achieved by voting against this practical report.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to express the ’s support for the report by Mrs Cristina Gutiérrez-Cortines, which, as she herself mentioned in the introduction to her report, is not, and should not be, considered to be purely a formality, a summary of the application of the European Year of Learning in 1996, but rather as an analysis that serves to make a series of proposals on what the standing of education should be in its various fields, including the fields of lifelong learning and vocational and technical training, which deserve special attention. This coincides with the ideas expressed a few months ago at the Lisbon and Feira European Councils, when all the Member States pledged to develop a series of measures at European Union level so that, during this decade, the European Union can become a leading society at international level and achieve the levels of competence that North America has today, particularly in technological areas. To be precise, the key element in the process to achieve this level of competence lies in training, education and in a society with levels of excellence that lay the necessary foundations for progress to be made in the most technologically developed and advanced fields of scientific and technological innovation. The report by Mrs Cristina Gutiérrez-Cortines, and she has also mentioned this today, shows the imbalances that still exist in the field of education between the level of the European Union and national level, that is, on the one hand we want action in education at European Union level, but on the other, the Member States do not want to give up their competences and establish true cooperation on an educational level. It is true that there are some programmes that we always use as references, such as Socrates or Leonardo, but in precisely these programmes, we must recognise the lack of sufficient resources to achieve the scope and effect that we would like. Finally, I therefore recommend that you pay particular attention to points 16, 17, 18, 19, 23 and 24, which constitute a good guide for the achievement of these higher levels of education at European Union level.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Mr Ebner, well done! A good report. Like under a burning glass, mountain farming shows what happens when you try and master sustainable land management tailored to a particular location. Your report also has a drawback, however. It only focuses on this aspect. It is interesting that the House, or rather those still in it – although they do, after all, represent the majorities – can reach a majority understanding on these numerous excellent proposals and warnings. It is true of agriculture as a whole that we should have fostered sustainable management in general, but then there would have been no agreement here, so that this acts as an alibi and that is a pity. However, that should not detract from the usefulness of this report and we shall, of course, vote in favour of it. We should like, however, to widen this debate to agriculture as a whole in order to achieve sustainable land management tailored to each particular location.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I think that we have all noticed from your tone of voice that you have shown a great deal of personal stoicism in presiding over this part-session despite your ill health. I would like to say, on behalf of all the ‘budgeteers’ and in the name, I believe, of all my fellow Members, that we are very grateful to you for presiding over the votes on the budget in the first and second reading. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, whatever the vote on the adjournment of the subsequent items, I should like to ask you nevertheless to put the Cyprus resolution to the vote, because it is important that the European Parliament’s views should be made known in plenty of time for Saturday’s referendum. (Applause) (Parliament rejected the proposal to interrupt the vote) *** Motion for a resolution (B5-0188/2004) on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, on Cyprus (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0192/2004) by Mr Radwan, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on a legal framework for a single payment area (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0261/2004) by Mr Wijkman, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Integrated Product Policy – Building on Environmental Life-Cycle Thinking After paragraph 11:

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, I share Mrs Smet’s view that the great challenge in the socio-political area too has to do with enlargement. The introduction of the EU’s socio-political legislation on the working environment and labour law will mean a very great deal for wage earners in the new Member States. It will also, however, mean something for the present Member States. The risk of social dumping between our countries will be much reduced, something that is incredibly important. Another important issue in connection with enlargement is the dialogue between the two sides of industry. In many of the new Member States, there is no dialogue up and running, and no employers and employees used to participating together in the socio-political agenda. A third issue is the Lisbon cooperation, which we must review and stick to. This must not, however, mean that we do not put forward proposals in new areas, for example in the area of the working environment in response, for example, to atypical jobs. We must therefore cope successfully both with enlargement and with new risks and new socio-political challenges.

Political group: PSE