GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, to her credit, the main thread of the rapporteur’s argument has been the speedy revision of targets, thereby avoiding the temptation to embark on too large-scale and thorough a review now. There will be another time for that. I would like here to mention some of my own amendments, which were approved by the committee in the recommendation and also in the proposed inter-party compromises. If the targets are to be implemented we should avoid discrimination between materials on the basis of weight. That will not happen, however, if, for example, charges are based solely on weight and do not take account of each material’s environmental impact. Clarification is needed to give proper shape to the whole programme. The very fact that there is an aim to recycle 55% by weight of packaging waste and an obligation that goes with it to take the environmental costs and benefits of the recovery and recycling of packaging materials into account means that there should be no one-sided increase in material-specific commitments, even if that would mean the 55% target would be achieved more quickly. The Commission has promised to present a report in 2005, one section of which is to be on the subject of re-use. My amendment proposes that that report should examine re-use and, in particular, a comparison of the ecological benefits of re-use and those of recycling. The report should focus precisely on real environmental impact and assessing market viability. Important details include examples in the Annex of products which constitute packaging that is not subject to the scope of this directive. These include tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound, release paper of self-adhesive labels, and wrapping and gift wrapping paper sold as a separate product. I want to thank the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs for their excellent cooperation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office, Commissioner, it is a great pleasure at this time – when in the United Kingdom I fear a rather negative tone has been taken about Europe – to be able to say how much one welcomes this development of a constitutionalisation of Europe in circumstances of enlarged and expanding democracy bringing the countries of Central and Eastern Europe in. As the President-in-Office has said, it is an odd view that the European Union does not already have a constitution. Of course it does. It has an implicit and not very intelligible one, and the task is to make it explicit and intelligible and properly adopted. That does not necessarily imply a full-scale federation along the lines of Mr Schroeder. Those of us who believe in a confederal Europe believe just as much that it must be marked by respect for human rights, by clarity of democratic principle and by interaction of pluralistic constitutions, rather than a strictly hierarchical model. Too often in this House we hear the term “nation” used as though it were purely co-extensive with the term “Member State”. It is a well-known fact, to those who reflect upon it, that there are more nations in Europe than there are states. One of the interesting features of our time has been, partly under the guidance of the growth of democracy in Europe, the re-emergence of internal democracies in small ancient nations of Europe like Catalonia, the Basque country, Scotland, Galicia and Flanders. We in the hope that the process which we start today will be marked by a respect for subsidiarity in a generous and extensive sense: Amendments No 5 and 18 from the Liberals and Amendment 28 from my own group are for us keystones of this process. Surely indeed, this Union must recognise subsidiarity in a generous and broad sense, it must acknowledge the political and national diversity of the European Union and the debate on the future must take full account of the powers of the internal political units of the Member States, not only of the Member States themselves. In this election in Scotland, there is a debate going about whether there should be full fiscal autonomy for the Scottish parliament: autonomy is growing in all these small countries and it is vital that it be recognised. I was delighted that the recent statement by the Commission on tax harmonisation made it perfectly clear that there can be wide subsidiarity in these matters. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Today we have voted on a important issue. Eight thousand ingredients have already been tested and are available for use in industry, and I believe it was essential to reject cosmetic testing on animals. Some have put forward the public health argument in opposition to the amendments prohibiting these tests, but it must be reiterated that on no account can the results of tests carried out on animals automatically be considered valid for human beings. This is a genetic and scientific fact which would have serious consequences in just ten or twenty years. I am saying this not just as an animal lover but out of respect for living creatures. The fundamental question is, in fact, how much we are capable of sacrificing to the myths of eternal life, eternal beauty and eternal youth. This is essentially a philosophical and humanistic question which is currently one of a number of concerns our people want politicians to address. The debates on globalisation, large corporations and their profits and the respect for and dignity of all human beings reflect similar concerns. - Report Stockmann (A5-0186/2002)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this own-initiative report on sexual and reproductive health is surrounded by controversy, mainly because it concerns an area that is still within the competence of the Member States. It is subject to subsidiarity and, as an amendment by my Group recognises, its aim is for all the Member States of the Union to have the same policy, in other words for all the States to have the same law on a matter that is subject to subsidiarity but which, above all, depends upon the beliefs, traditions and patrimony of each State. This report contains a number of positive elements, in particular with regard to information and prevention of sexually-transmitted diseases, better education in schools and improved access to family planning centres and clinics, in particular for young people. The fact is that there has been an increase in unwanted pregnancies among young women, and even young girls, but we cannot allow unrestricted abortion to be put forward as a solution to this problem, because the fact is that the ultimate objective of this own-initiative report is to introduce unrestricted abortion and the morning-after pill into the legislation of the Member States of the European Union and the candidate countries as an effective means of combating unwanted pregnancy. This is unacceptable to many Europeans, both from a moral standpoint and from the point of view of health. This includes the candidate countries, which have not had the opportunity to participate in this debate, and which are therefore having our opinion forced upon them. Young people need to be given more information and the wherewithal to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Public health authorities must become involved in this information process and also in schools, and we must not forget the fundamental role to be played by parents and the need for them to be involved. I am sorry that we have not reached a greater consensus on the key issues, and I hope that in the vote we shall be able to achieve it if some of the Members who have spoken here are able to tone down or moderate their extreme approach. Otherwise I, like the rest of my Group, will have to vote against the report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, the proposal for a regulation contains some very crucial points for strengthening control at the external borders. The establishment of the common border agency, coordination between border authorities, with joint training involved, and the preparation of common risk analyses and of common projects for exploiting the new technological advances are all elements that will strengthen control at the external borders. During the committee reading of Mr von Boetticher’s brilliant report, we clarified two potential problem areas. Firstly, it was stated that the establishment of a common European border police neither should nor can be hurried through. The agency should thoroughly investigate whether there is any need at all for such a supranational corps and only then undertake an investigation into the implementation strategy itself. In the end, the setting up of such a corps requires a political decision to be taken for which there must be very good reasons. Secondly, it was stated during the committee reading that the agency should not have responsibility for sending home third-country citizens who are residing in the EU illegally. Otherwise, the border agency would quickly be branded as an agency for sending people home. In other words, I am more than satisfied with the report in its current form and should like to thank my esteemed fellow MEP, Mr von Boetticher, for his constructive cooperation. On behalf of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, I am able to say that we shall support his report in the vote.

Political group: ELDR
Agriculture has a major impact on the climate, on soils, on biodiversity, on the balance of ecosystems and on landscape management; in other words, there is strong environmental interaction. It is a vital socio-economic and cultural activity, which ought to ensure high-quality agricultural produce. The food and animal-health crises that have befallen the EU have shown the unsustainability of the current agricultural model established under the CAP. This model encourages intensified production, at complete variance with the multifunctional face of agriculture. In order to develop sustainable farming culture, it is, therefore, important that we develop, implement and fund agricultural research that takes account of the significance of agriculture both for the development of rural areas and for the production of high-quality food. The paltry 2% of the Sixth Framework Programme for research is too low a level of funding for research into areas such as more sustainable farming methods, food safety and quality, alternative sources of income in agriculture (non-food uses of agricultural raw materials), the question of gender, new ways of regulating the market and improving organic farming methods. Other areas in which research is crucial are GM crops and biotechnology. To be more specific, we must look into questions concerning the coexistence between GM crops and conventional/organic crops, and the potential risks of releasing these crops into the environment and of introducing them into the food chain.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, we have heard some fine words this evening, but let us recall that the New Partnership for Africa's Development – NEPAD – was a bargain. On the one hand the developed countries undertook to provide billions of dollars in new resources, but, for their part, the African governments committed themselves to good governance, democracy and human rights and the rule of law. One fact is certain: without good governance in Africa, increased aid will be of only marginal value. I note the Commission's estimate, quoted by Mr Bébéar, that illegally acquired funds deposited in mostly foreign banks amount to more than half of African's external debt. I wonder what proportion of this stolen money belongs to Mr Mugabe and his associates. After all, it is Mr Mugabe and his ZANU-PF cronies who have systematically pillaged and brutalised the once prosperous country of Zimbabwe, brought lawlessness and starvation on its people and forced so many of them to live in fear and desperation. I hear of terrible new cases every day. Unfortunately, many of Zimbabwe's neighbours not only have encouraged the Mugabe regime, but also have allowed Mugabe to dictate the terms of Africa's relationship with us. Conditions in Zimbabwe are now spiralling out of control. This House has called for effective action by the Council on six separate occasions. To date, the Council has failed to heed these calls. On Thursday we shall insist yet again that we want effective action now! This means not just the renewal of the EU's targeted sanctions when they expire on 18 February, but also the introduction of tough new measures. South Africa, in particular, needs to exercise some real moral and political leadership. After all, South Africa is specifically responsible for the good governance aspects of NEPAD. I say to President Mbeki that quiet diplomacy does not work. It did not work in getting rid of apartheid and it will not work with Mugabe. He has to get tough. I implore the African Union and the African countries to use all the resources at their disposal to persuade Mugabe and his clique to step aside. We need to set the people of Zimbabwe free. Let us be under no illusions: Zimbabwe is the test case for NEPAD.

Political group: PPE-DE
It is important that the European Parliament states its position on the future of the biotechnology industry, not only because this will be a key industry in the future but, particularly, because of the ethical and socio-economic issues that it raises, such as those of genetics and medicines, for example, in the case of GMOs. Unfortunately, Parliament’s report, drafted by Mr Purvis, does not address these issues and, dangerously, acts as a biased mouthpiece for all the interests of the huge multinationals in the sector. It follows an approach that supports, in the name of good causes, the liberalisation and increasingly widespread use of products, not all the consequences of which for the environment and human health are known, quite apart from the fact that these actions also raise far-reaching ethical issues, such as genetic modifications and the patenting of life and the environment, which is the heritage of everyone. The approach of squeezing profit from everything, without careful assessment, leads the industry, in order to compensate for high research costs, to try to put onto the market products whose safety cannot be guaranteed and which, furthermore, create an economic dependency on the part of their users, which is what is happening in agriculture with GMOs. Furthermore, in terms of medicines and patenting them, developing countries and the poorest parts of the population are being excluded, which is what is happening, unacceptably, as a result of the behaviour of multinationals in Brazil and South Africa. I therefore reject this report. This is an area in which research should be in the public domain, not controlled by private interests, since the fair distribution of the benefits and the necessary risk assessment must be guaranteed. (The sitting was suspended at 1.06 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.) IN THE CHAIR: MR IMBENIVice-President President. – Ladies and gentlemen, in response to Mr Miranda and Mr Seguro’s words before the closure of the sitting this morning, I would like to inform you that the three representatives of the Liberation Front of the Enclave of Cabinda are outside the building. The problem has therefore been resolved for the moment. Of course, there will be other considerations to take into account, but they will be dealt with later on.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, it is important for us to look after the forests in Europe. Commitment to monitoring biodiversity, climate change and carbon retention and soils calls for multifunctional action. There are tasks in this area that we can deal with jointly at European Union level. These include the development of common knowledge to serve as a basis for the ecological monitoring of forests, so that information based on genuine knowledge is obtained on the state of the forests. As we develop the measures to be taken we nevertheless have to remember that the importance of forests varies greatly in different parts of Europe. The forests themselves are also different. For this reason any questions relating to forestry must be regarded as being based on the principle of subsidiarity. Neither should we develop new institutions. The tasks contained in the EU’s forestry action plan must be dealt with within the context of present systems, making use of existing monitoring methods. At Union level responsibility must lie with the Commission and the European Environment Agency. The Commission must also work in close cooperation with the Standing Forestry Committee. I wish to thank the rapporteur for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, Mrs Redondo Jiménez, for having worked to take the Commission proposal in this direction, by which I mean she has focused on the importance of the principle of subsidiarity. I do, however, think it problematic that the rapporteur has included measures relating to forest fire prevention in this regulation. The Group of the agrees that forest fire prevention is an important part of European collaboration and a matter that requires solidarity among us. The difference of opinion is connected, however, with how this should be financed. We heard in the Commissioner’s speech that the Commission in its proposal has worked on the assumption that provision for forest fire prevention is to be made by means of the rural development fund. The Group has tabled Amendment No 47 which aims to guarantee that all operational sectors are taken into account equally in this regulation. Neither is the Group in favour of increasing appropriations for the Forest Focus action plan, as agreed by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. We first have to discover what measures are to become the European Union’s responsibility, and what again it is more sensible and more economical to do within the context of existing systems. It is not until we have discovered this that we can decide what sort of increase the budget needs. At this stage we shall oppose the increase in the budget referred to above.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, an unbecoming process and a still worse result, is what many here in Parliament are saying for a variety of reasons. All right, perhaps that is the case, but democracy is a human creation after all, and only a human creation. One thing is quite clear, however. Those who vote against the Treaty of Nice are voting against solving the EU’s most important problem right now, namely that of enlargement. That is how simple it is, irrespective of the reasons given for voting against. Those who establish the ground rules have defined the Treaty of Nice as the turning point for enlargement of the Union, and that is the case, irrespective of the fact that others want to see different ground rules. We could therefore try to find new ground rules for the future, but ones which do not affect ourselves alone but, above all, involve the people. Moreover, I must appeal to the media to participate in this process and, it might also be said, perhaps to take their public service remit seriously for once.

Political group: ELDR
There is no doubt that the EU’s agricultural aid must be reformed with a view to creating a healthy world market. Unfortunately, the proposal for reform does not address the issue of export subsidies which, in our opinion, are what it is most important to change and which have the most thoroughly distorting effect upon world markets and upon poor countries’ ability to exploit their comparative advantages. The Commission’s proposal does, however, acknowledge the multifunctionality of agriculture and would make increased modulation possible, that is to say increased flexibility when it comes to supporting tasks other than actual food production, such as the conservation of biodiversity and the cultivated landscape, or to taking other types of environmental measure. It would also make it easier for other reforms to be implemented further down the line. At the same time, decoupling presents obvious risks of disengagement and resistance to change which would, for example, obstruct the badly needed transition from one generation to the next within the agricultural community. From these two perspectives, the European Parliament’s proposal is therefore a compromise, providing scope for further necessary changes in the future. Overall, we have therefore chosen, despite many objections, to support the report in the final vote.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, given that some of us have been accused of having shady intentions for arguing that there is a lack of, or rather doubt over, a legal basis for certain articles of the directive which we are debating today, I would like to talk about interinstitutional balance. This interinstitutional balance is a source of legitimacy for European integration. I would also like to talk about the obligation inherent in the Treaties. According to the Treaty, the Commission has had the obligation, for more than two months, to analyse the judgment and to draw the relevant conclusions from it. The Commissioner today, for the first time, in his very brief intervention, has used the words “no doubt” at least three times and the words “clear” or “clearly” at least three times. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in law, when one feels the need to say that something is clear, and that there is no doubt about it, it is because there is doubt and it is not clear. In this case there is doubt and it is not clear. Mr President, how can it be said that a justification in Amendment No 2 respects what the Court of Justice has said, when according to that justification, in order to explain the danger to the internal market, several Member States have indicated that, if certain measures are not adopted, they would seek to legislate? Which Member States? Which measures? That is what we expected from the Commission, that they should tell us, that they should explain this to us. Let us take some other examples, Amendments Nos 1, 4 and 18. To add the legal basis of Article 133 is legally skilful, but has the Commission really considered Article 131 which is the mother article of external trade policy, and which says that that policy is intended “to increase the competitiveness of our companies”? How does that square with the justification in Amendment No 18, where it says that an exemption period is granted because that could seriously harm our industry? How does that square with that same justification, which says that negotiations must be held within the World Trade Organisation? Mr President, these doubts, these justifiable doubts, which have nothing to do with any shady or mysterious friendship with some company or other, are the reason for the vote of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, and I remember that it was 18 votes to 9. Although I was not present, my vote, of course, supported the Committee.

Political group: PPE-DE