GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, may I express my thanks for the strong support I have received from all the groups. This paved the way for a favourable decision on MEDIA by the Council. We have no need of conciliation procedure, and we are able to approve the common position today. (The President declared the common position approved) *** Proposal for a Council regulation extending the programme of incentives and exchanges for legal practitioners in the area of civil law (Grotius – civil) [COM(2000) 516 – C5-0494/2000 – 2000/0220(CNS)] Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (Parliament approved the Commission proposal) *** Proposal for a Council decision amending Decision 90/424/EEC on expenditure in the veterinary field [COM(2000) 542 – C5-0495/2000 – 2000/0234(CNS)] Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (Parliament approved the Commission proposal) *** Proposal for a Council decision concerning the conclusion of an agreement between the Community and the Republic of Cyprus adopting the terms and conditions for the participation of Cyprus in Community programmes in the fields of training, education and youth [COM(2000) 661 – C5-0577/2000 – 2000/0270(CNS)] Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport (Parliament approved the Commission proposal) *** Recommendation for second reading (A5-0348/2000) by Mr Maaten, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the Council common position for adopting a European Parliament and Council directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products [COM(1999) 594 – C5-0431/2000 – 1999/0244(COD)] Before the vote:

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this explanation of vote has fallen at exactly the right moment, lunch time. I voted for the motion. And why is that? Because I like gorgonzola, Mr President: gorgonzola cheese, taleggio cheese from the valleys around Bergamo. I know you will be wondering what that has to do with the Schwaiger report, but there is a connection, Mr President. The connection is that, on page 9 of the report, Paragraph 31, which we have adopted, states that it would be desirable “to extend protection of geographical indications from wine and spirits to other agricultural products” produced in our territory as well. Now then, I like gorgonzola and I am glad that gorgonzola is going to be included in this protection, and so I voted for the Schwaiger report. Bon appétit!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I shall surpass your most optimistic expectations as regards time keeping by saying that the subject of this report is the establishment of a European Institute of Police Studies which would essentially consist at the outset of setting up a network bringing together the various national police training and research bodies and which would subsequently develop in a way not specified by those proposing it with a view to offering added value to the European Union in coordinating the various police agencies in the Member States. As we see it, this initiative is a victim of one of the teething troubles of the building of Europe, which is a tendency for bodies with more or less overlapping aims to proliferate. In this particular field we already have Europol, Eurojust, the European Police College, the operational Task Force of European Police Chiefs, the European crime prevention network and the European criminal law network. So this proposal, as presented to us, suggests an increasing lack of rationality and a growing incoherence of systems in a field of Community action which is in its infancy. It may well be that certain commendable objectives which deserve to be addressed and on which we should consider coordination and experience sharing by the police, and which have been touched upon by the Presidency, would be better served by amending the statutes and regulations of the European Police College, given that, if Spain were to fully participate in that mechanism that would also give an important boost to the coordination of police agencies. It is important to identify what the new features are that would really bring added value and really represent gains in efficiency for the system, making it more coherent, setting aside changes that would result in a wasteful duplication of agencies, officials and costs, reflecting a certain bureaucratic tradition which does not serve our interests and which will not really assist EU action on crime. For these reasons, the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs agreed to deliver a negative opinion in plenary on the adoption of this initiative.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I shall focus on only one point: access to information. Many of my colleagues have raised this issue this morning. We need better access in order to move forward. In my committee, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, we are determined to take our responsibilities as MEPs very seriously indeed. We have asked Members of Parliament to volunteer to follow budget lines. These Members of Parliament are now approaching Commission services to talk to the officials responsible for those budget lines. We are having problems and we are having problems in finding out who is the right person; the people we talk to are not clear what their responsibility is, what information they should be giving us. Some services cooperate very well; some are setting up briefing meetings for Members of Parliament – but others are not. What we need from the Commission is a new system. We need a better reporting mechanism to parliamentary committees, to the spending committees, so that we know what information it is going to give us. A start would be a list of who is responsible for what in which budget lines of each committee. Only in this way can we do what we are supposed to do, and restore the public confidence that Mrs Schreyer spoke about this morning. We need to know that money is being spent properly. If we have that confidence we can pass that message on to the public in Europe. My colleague, Mrs Morgan, spoke earlier about the need to overhaul the whole discharge procedure. That is right. For too long discharge was seen as something bureaucratic and rather unnecessary – something to get out of the way very quickly. Now we have to move away from that, we have to overhaul it, and I hope proper reporting mechanisms to committees will be part of that overhaul.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I support this proposal because it gives us a chance to find a solution to this very cumbersome dossier. (Parliament agreed to the request) Wednesday President. As regards the oral questions on nuclear disarmament, I have received a request from the Group to wind up the debate with a motion for a resolution which could be put to the vote at the next sitting in Brussels.

Political group: PPE-DE
The situation in the Middle East is so serious that it requires urgent measures and greater solidarity in demanding an end to the continual illegal incursion by the Israeli army into territories under the control of the Palestinian National Authority, to the virtual house-arrest of President Arafat, to the extrajudicial execution of Palestinian representatives, to the violation of the most basic human rights, including the torture and killing of children, and to the destruction of Palestinian infrastructures and other installations funded by the European Union and by other donors. The international community must, as a matter of urgency, adopt new initiatives that lead to an end to the violence, to re-establishing trust and to reopening negotiations between the two sides, in accordance with international law and with the relevant United Nations resolutions. Hence my support for the Joint Resolution which, although watered down, could express the European Parliament’s concern at this situation, repudiate the statements and actions of Ariel Sharon, and reaffirm that the solution to the problem, including the safety of Israel and peace itself, requires the State of Palestine to be recognised in conditions that are viable. I regret the fact, however, that the majority of those on the right has refused to show solidarity with the Israeli army reservists who refuse to serve in the occupied territories, and whom history will show to be completely right, although I welcome the decision to send a very high level parliamentary delegation to the region to meet the Israeli and Palestinian authorities and to convey a message of peace to both communities, together with the European Parliament’s insistence on the need to urgently send international observers to the region. I hope that, this watered-down resolution of the European Parliament will at least be implemented immediately.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, this report was voted under Rule 110a of the Rules of Procedure, which allows for no debate in Parliament and no amendments to the report. The British delegation of the Group has previously sought to amend reports which it did not support. The new rule, however, leaves no option but to vote against certain reports. The British Conservatives deplore violence of any kind and welcome measures to combat this, including some of the initiatives under the Daphne programme. Violence, especially against women or children, is completely unjustifiable and cannot be accepted. However, the measures called for in Article 18 of the Avilés Perea report represent an infringement of the Member States' right to determine their own criminal justice systems and represent measures to introduce harmonisation of criminal law. The calls for a specific European legal base infringe the principle of subsidiarity. We strongly believe that national parliaments and not the European Parliament should lay down laws relating, for example, to eviction of violent partners. Whilst accepting that good work is being carried out by the Daphne programme, the British Conservatives are opposed to the principles of the report, for the reasons outlined.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, instead of always focusing our attention on shipping disasters and their consequences, I think we should do more about what I have to call the day-to-day fouling of the oceans. So, Commissioner, I warmly congratulate you on this proposal. I think it is a good proposal, and would also like to congratulate Mr Pex – who is unfortunately absent – on his fine report. We absolutely must do something about this. In 2001 alone, there were some thousand instances of illegal discharges into the North Sea and the Baltic, and this must no longer be regarded as a trivial offence and treated as such; it is not like wrongful parking or breaking the speed limit, and must at last be punished as a criminal offence under the criminal law – which means tough and painful penalties, such as fines, imprisonment, and, as the committee has requested, the seizure of vessels. The rapporteur was right to point out that several laws adopted by Parliament and the Council have not yet been implemented. They have to do with port reception facilities and port state control. If, Commissioner, you want to bring before the ECJ those states that have not properly transposed this directive, in order to bring this out into the open and thus to bring pressure to bear in order to get this directive transposed at last, then this House is behind you all the way. Even the best laws are ineffective unless they are enforced and monitored. For that we need a European coastguard, something else on which there is consensus in this House, for control in the ports is one thing, but it must be accompanied by control on the high seas. We have got used to the idea that it is quite normal to monitor lorries not only in yards, but also on the roads. In future, that must also be possible at sea. You mentioned, Commissioner, that the Council regards that as too ambitious. Such arguments must not be given a hearing. I believe that we must not encourage the Council’s tendency to hide behind formalities, but should compel it to act. If Europe comes together and acts in unison, then we will make progress in sea travel and maritime safety on an international basis too. What matters is that we do everything not only to avoid disasters, but also to put an end to the toleration of deliberate, malicious and criminal acts in our waters. We can do something about them. We back you in doing so and are right behind you in your endeavour to publicly stigmatise the governments that do not do likewise.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in 1992, animal welfare organisations from all over Europe presented the European Parliament with the biggest petition ever submitted in the world, a petition signed by 2.5 million people, who in signing it were expressing their support for a ban on animal testing in the cosmetics sector. My dear Commissioner, I am well aware that when one holds such high office, one no longer needs to be directly elected by the people. I am quite certain, however, that this will also make a great impression on you and that it will also be clear to you that a very large proportion of the European population backs this request. The reason for the recent postponement of the marketing ban is quite simply the Commission's fear of the WTO. And now the proposal is to replace the marketing ban for cosmetic products with a ban on animal testing in the EU. Do you really believe that the 2.5 million signatories in Europe, the general public and also this Parliament do not realise what is being proposed here? It is rather embarrassing. If we cannot even manage to oppose the WTO on such a ridiculous matter as cosmetics and formulate our own moral standards, what will happen with more important issues, such as, for example, hormones in animal products of some kind? What on earth will we do then? We will be even more scared. Allow me to make it clear that this is not about medicinal products – this is sometimes suggested subliminally – but solely about new products. Everything which is already on the market now, which you can see in any airport, from Elizabeth Arden to Ellen Betrix, all of this can continue to be sold and marketed. One more thing for the benefit of the scientists here in the room, animal tests are not 100% reliable. Any scientist will admit that this is true. Finally, with your permission, I will cite a really great European, perhaps one of the greatest Italians ever to have lived, Leonardo da Vinci. Even so very long ago he said: the generations which come after us will shudder when they discover how we treat animals.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, high-quality food is produced nowadays and it has to meet a wide range of requirements. An enormous variety of food is on offer, including food from widely varying countries outside the European Union. Our guiding principle should continue to be that our food should be safe and of a high quality, in order to ensure that consumers are protected. Food is the most basic prerequisite for people's health and quality of life. Nevertheless, past scandals have unsettled and frightened consumers enormously. For example, I find it irresponsible that dishonest pharmaceutical companies should dispose of hormone products through animal feed and food, turning consumers into walking rubbish bins. I find it absolutely horrifying that metroxyprogesteronacetate is present in sugar syrup and soft drinks! I would like to ask, Commissioner, what legal steps have now been taken to prevent this recurring in the future. I welcome the new European Food Safety Authority as an early warning system for Europe and as an efficient crisis management system coordinated between the Commission and the Member States. I am, however, concerned that the EU's controls should work properly. The network should be extended to provide better information and the reporting obligation for companies should be brought in as quickly as possible so that goods and products are withdrawn from the market if they are harmful. What has the Commission done in the meantime to implement this, and to ensure greater transparency and traceability? We need to protect consumers, and that applies to imports as well. That is why I believe it is a matter of urgent necessity to introduce control systems for food as quickly as possible in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe too, including those cases where food is already produced in accordance with European standards. However, to allow consumers to decide for themselves what they want, we need to ensure that we have practical and clear labelling both for conventionally produced food and for genetically modified food. I firmly believe that we need to set the course for this as soon as possible.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the accident in Japan has again reminded us of the very great risks associated with nuclear power. Again, it was human error which caused the accident but, as human beings, we are made in such a way that we easily make mistakes. It is this which is the big risk in connection with nuclear power. The export of MOX from Sellafield in Great Britain means that both Great Britain and the EU are involved in this problem. That is why I personally share the points of view expressed in the draft amendments submitted by the . We in the do not, however, consider that they are sufficiently at home with this issue. We shall therefore abstain in the vote.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, if my eyes do not deceive me, Mr Hans-Peter Martin did not participate in this vote, something I would very much regret in view of the extensive reform we have just carried out, and I hope that he will duly give us his backing where these matters are concerned. After all, it is only right and proper that one should participate in votes of this kind, and I would also have been glad if he had tabled a few amendments in order to put his reforming agenda to the vote.

Political group: PPE-DE
This proposal for a Council decision is in line with the action intended to improve the networks of knowledge in Europe. The actions that have been planned are designed to address the clear advantage held by the United States in the “digital content” sector and in its distribution by various means linked to the Internet. Europe is clearly in a position to respond to the challenge of the markets, due to its advantages in economic and employment terms, and, of course, due to its cultural wealth and linguistic diversity – which are shown clearly in the concept of linguistic minorities and regional languages – over the monolingualism that characterises much of the “Web”. The variety of languages and cultures – particularly if we also take account of the potential offered by new Member States – also allows us, especially where the SMEs are concerned, to facilitate exchanges and to export Europe’s cultural values, and to do so in multilingual forms characterised by an increasing interaction with translation systems. It must be emphasised that linguistic minorities, rather than being overwhelmed by the globalisation brought about by the Internet, have discovered that it opens up new cultural and economic horizons. Lastly, our huge heritage of knowledge residing in public archives, which are today often inaccessible, must be put onto the web.

Political group: ELDR
I believe that the issue of subsidiarity and its meaning in practice is central to the whole debate on the future of Europe – not only in terms of the rights of nations and regions within the Member States, but also in terms of citizenship. I represent Wales which has a new national assembly, just two years old. It is a developing body that wants to play a full part in and have strong links with the European Union and help build the Europe of the future. Would the Minister agree that involving this kind of regional level of government is crucial in terms of developing citizenship and bringing Europe closer to the people – a problem that we are all familiar with in all our constituencies. If this is something that needs to be done on a European level in order to bring Europe closer to people, how will this be reflected in the work of the Council?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, I suppose our parliamentary members should be satisfied with the consultation procedure at this stage, although I myself agree with Mr Clegg that it should have been possible – to touch briefly on legal matters – to invoke the assent procedure by now. My question, however, concerns concrete matters and the substance of this agreement. When talks between the EU and China commenced, we MEPs were told that there would really not be any great problems, as approximately 80% of the EU objectives were contained in the outcome of the negotiations between the United States and China. Now, however, it would seem that the rest, the remaining 20%, are so problematic, that time is passing by and the talks have already ended in deadlock on many occasions. I would like to ask whether it is a question of the Chinese not being prepared to accord us the same negotiating status as they did the US representatives or why we should not be able to achieve consensus on the remaining – the tail end – 20%.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I do not want to debate this either, but I have to clarify that what Mr Posselt said is wrong. I did not suggest starting earlier on a Monday. I suggested using the evening hours on Monday, which are now free, for debate, as we do on Tuesday and Wednesday. That way we might be able to vote earlier on Thursday and people would be able to attend to vote before they go home. That was my suggestion.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I voted for the Riis-Jørgensen report, although it does have some shortcomings. Yesterday, I overheard Mr Smith, an Englishman talking to Mr Rossi, an Italian. They are old friends and work in the same profession: they both work for furniture factories. Mr Smith’s salary is ITL 2.5 million per month whereas Mr Rossi earns less: only ITL 2 million per month. The reason is that Mr Smith’s pension contributions are low whereas the amount paid by Mr Rossi is very high. But why? This situation is due to the fact that British pension laws make workers’ pension contributions bring more return than Italian laws. I therefore put it to you, Mr President: are not such discrepancies in contributions also a restriction upon free competition in the European Union?

Political group: PPE-DE