GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I agree with all the speakers so far. It is unacceptable that when we are making such enormous scientific advances we still accept the infliction of pain on small animals in order to find out whether a new face cream is safe. I would like to express my strong support for the report. The rapporteur has struck the right compromise: the ban would not be immediate but could come into force in five years, and that means that, in effect, we have given the companies concerned at least 15 years' notice since we first started discussing this about ten years ago. I also support the idea that we should demonstrate our own responsibility – a concept which is foreign to the – by introducing a marketing ban as tests are developed where at present there are no alternatives available, even though we then have to set a deadline for these tests, perhaps ten years ahead. Parliament's report will give the search for alternatives a new urgency. I have two questions to the Commission and I hope that when Mr Liikanen answers he will address himself specifically to my points on Amendments Nos 21 and 28. Mr Nisticò and Mr Nobilia raised this earlier on. I am very concerned that, on the labelling of fragrances, aromas and essential oils, Amendments Nos 21 and 28 involve the introduction of unnecessary requirements which may have a very unfortunate effect on the composition of products, their continued availability and indeed the viability of some of the smaller firms that make them. The rapporteur proposes a very comprehensive system of labelling when perfumes and aromas are present in products, even in tiny amounts. In fact, although this is designed to protect the few consumers who have allergies to certain fragrances, the proposal is unlikely to provide a significant public health benefit. There may be no safe fragrance for some allergic individuals. The best they can do, as they well know, is to steer clear of products with fragrances in them altogether. The rapporteur is reacting to representations by the European Consumer Bureau, which says it is putting the case for allergy sufferers and clearly sees the issue as part of its war on chemicals. I have to say that I have received no representations from allergy sufferers on this point. The European Flavour and Fragrance Association points out that the amendments will saddle consumers with products carrying references to up to 50 ingredients in 11 languages. This is stupid and unnecessary. Furthermore, there is a danger that some essential oils would be removed from formulations, thus damaging the economic interests of some countries, including some very poor countries. These amendments are a bad and unnecessary deal for consumers and the industry. I hope that the rapporteur will consider withdrawing them and that the Commission and the Council will reject them.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, as draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Budgetary Control, I would like to highlight two points that we included in the report. But firstly I would like to thank both rapporteurs for the enormous amount of work they have done. I would also like to thank Commissioner Barnier for his open-mindedness, and I would like to thank Mr Vitorino for making a particular point that I would now like to address myself. My first point concerns the discharge, which is very topical at the moment. The EU Treaty states quite clearly that the European Parliament grants the Commission discharge to implement the budget. In practice, however, this act on our part is twofold, the first stage being to undertake a political assessment under the discharge procedure, and the second being to close the budgetary accounts. Now the first stage, that of the political evaluation, can have mixed results. There is assent, there is refusal, and matters are sometimes deferred. This does not necessarily affect the budgetary accounts, the second stage that is, for they can be closed even if the first stage met with refusal. This has the advantage that a balance from the budgetary accounts can then be carried forward to the following year. This should be enshrined in the Treaty, for it is already included in our Rules of Procedure and is, as I said, established practice. In addition, we would like to receive information directly from the Member States, so as to improve the way in which we conduct our assessment of budgetary management. My second point relates to the creation of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office. For years we have endeavoured to protect the financial interests of the Community more effectively. This now also needs to be done under criminal law, at European level, in very open and clear cooperation with the Member States. In other words, there is not enough police and judicial cooperation between the Member States in the face of increasing cross-border crime that is harmful to the EU budget. That is why we need coordination at European level, without prejudicing the right of national courts to administer justice. I am most grateful that some Member States, but particularly the Commission, have been so willing to take up this theme.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to say a few words on the question tabled by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, especially on the basis of the findings obtained by Mr Santer and other colleagues of ours on their visit to North Korea. I believe that we in the European Union have a more important role to play there than we have previously done and that our policy cannot stop at support for the KEDO programme. It is certainly regrettable that, with eight Member States having now established bilateral diplomatic relations, we have not been able to adopt a concerted approach in our dealings with North Korea. Last year was an exceptionally interesting one in the Korean peninsula, especially on account of the rapprochement between North and South Korea and the reuniting of families that was made possible by this thaw in North-South relations. We must be aware that this area still has the potential to be a major trouble spot, but there is nevertheless a real political opportunity now to achieve a lasting peace settlement. That is why it is essential that the European Union, as an international player in a multipolar political world, should become active in this domain. It is a matter of supporting a policy which can pave the way for democracy and human rights in North Korea and which, on that basis, can play a significant part in the development of ever greater understanding between the two parts of Korea, an understanding which, following the meeting between the two Presidents, has sparked off the first public debates about national reunification for many decades. Such a policy must also be combined with a means of obtaining details of the food situation and the health system in North Korea and must enable us to incorporate appropriate measures of aid into a political strategy so as to bring about an improvement in the general situation and perhaps also to initiate the development on which the long-term peace of the region depends, for the peace of that region, of course, is of global importance too. As an arms supplier, North Korea is an important player on the world stage, and its development of modern weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems makes it a country which could undoubtedly pose a serious threat to other parts of the Asian continent and to other continents. Madam President, I believe that we must therefore seek improvements in these domains, so as to curb the proliferation of armaments and thus contribute to global stability. I hope that you will support this motion for a resolution and that the Council and the Commission can agree on a coordinated approach with Parliament which will enable us to make our contribution in that part of the world, not least in our own interests.

Political group: PPE-DE
The joint resolution states that “the EU is the main trading partner and the leading investor in the countries of Mercosur”. We should take a further look at these investments. They are directly related to liberal policies of structural adjustments. For example, French companies such as EDF, Suez Lyonnaise or France Telecom have taken advantage of the wave of privatisations of public services in order to enter into these ‘markets’ with the sole aim of making profits. That is translated into redundancies for workers and increases in charges for users. The last straw is that a company such as Edenor in Argentina, the main subsidiary of EDF, is today asking the government to renegotiate its debt as well as an agreement to increase its charges! Privatising profits and nationalising losses, that is what the “Union’s strategic and supportive commitment to the countries of Mercosur in relation to their economic and political integration projects”, which the policy praises, really looks like! Mass redundancies, insecurity, unemployment, poverty, the dismantling of public services; that is what the IMF policy which the countries of Mercosur have implemented means. For our part, we reaffirm our complete solidarity with popular movements developing in these countries, Argentina in particular. The first minimal measure Europe could take would be the complete cancellation of the debt of the Mercosur countries. Since none of this appears in the resolution, I have voted against it. - Brok Report (A5-0296/2002)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to thank Commissioner Barnier for this recent communication on the evolution until 31 August 2002 of the budgetary implementation of the Structural Funds and of the outstanding appropriations. The fact that these same problems are being repeated calls into question once again the reliability of the budgetary forecasts. With regard to the 2003 budget, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism proposes increasing the maximum limit for payment appropriations, because in accordance with the amount corresponding this year to the multi-annual programming – EUR 27.5 billion – EUR 8.1 billion must be used for the RALs accumulated between 1994 and 1995, which is EUR 2.9 billion more than was forecast. We also ask that account be taken of the difficulties which will arise during the next financial year as a result of the application of the N+2 clause. Great effort will be required in terms of cooperation and control between Parliament, the Commission and the Member States. With regard to the pre-accession structural instrument, the ISPA, we must take up the Commission’s proposal, which means increasing the appropriations for this programme during the 2003 financial year to EUR 1 117 million in commitment appropriations and EUR 750 million in payment appropriations. It makes very little sense, when enlargement is about to take place, to weaken a useful and, above all, necessary instrument. In the budget we oppose the reduction in payment appropriations which the Council has made in relation to the Commission’s proposal on FEDER programmes and various Community initiatives. We must prevent them being insufficient to cover the commitments in the near future. It is better to anticipate these problems than to regret them at a later date. I would also like to say that we are worried about the scant support, especially in the budget, we believe there is for transport safety systems.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, our external policy in relation to the Balkans is an inevitable consequence of the enormous mistakes we made at the beginning of the 1990s; at that time we did not have a common policy for this region, but today we do. The Stability Pact is the right answer to the region's problems. The negotiation of the Stabilisation and Association Process, together with financial assistance such as the CARDS programme and the annual progress review, assists progress towards the frequently mentioned objective of the ultimate accession of these countries to the European Union. So this is the right way to go. What then is this new cliché about ‘European Partnership’? The Stabilisation and Association Agreements are the launch pad for a partnership and if all the criteria are met, the application for membership is the next step. Is there any room for a new catchword without any new financial backing? This proposal from the Council is meaningless, and the Commission knows that, but it cannot say that in so many words. We, on the other hand, can say what we think! Commissioner, the Commission and the Council could demonstrate how serious they are about this much-vaunted partnership by taking Croatia as an example. Croatia has been on the right path for years. Cooperation is good in all areas. The extent of cooperation with The Hague is also positive. Two more generals have just been sent to The Hague. We should not be setting ever-higher standards just because one general with a French passport is still at large and is nowhere to be found. We should remember what has been achieved already. This positive view of Croatia would give a signal and add impetus to compliance with the European Union's criteria throughout the region for which European Partnerships are envisaged – and I know what I am talking about. Our common foreign policy in South Eastern Europe is currently being put to the test, and a rigorous one at that. The proposal for a European Partnership without any substantial added value as compared with the Stabilisation and Association Process and without any additional financial assistance will not, I regret to say, enhance our credibility.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, in the context of these issues, a teething problem has arisen with the four-day week in relation to transport. It is impossible until next December to get on the Strasbourg-Brussels flight at 4.30 p.m. on a Thursday. That has resulted in many of our staff and press officers having to leave on the 12.30 p.m. flight on Thursday. That is not acceptable. Could you please talk to the powers-that-be and put extra flights back to Brussels on Thursday evening to accommodate our staff, so that they can stay here all Thursday.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as the Council is present today, I wonder if you would like to ask the President-in-Office to comment on the observations made by Members.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, at Marrakech we were promised an assessment of the previous round of negotiations before entering into new negotiations. Today, this assessment has still not been made and there is a simple reason for that: it would not be a positive one. It would say that we should kill off liberal dogmas, as well as the old theory which says that wealth is created by developing trade. In 50 years, the volume of trade has increased seventeen-fold, whereas we have only produced twice as many goods in the world. It would also kill off the idea which says that the future of third-world countries would be improved. Inequalities have continued to increase there as they have in our own countries. It would say that we should change course, and that is what we are asking you to do, Commissioner. Changing course means firstly obtaining, by means of the existing package, the one that has already been negotiated, real social and environmental regulations, instead of vague references to standards that are never applied. Yes, that means setting up a logical approach in opposition to ecological and social dumping. This assessment would say “Beware, so as not to open up Pandora’s box in other sectors and I am thinking here particularly of investments. This Parliament has said “no” to the MAI for sound reasons and you, Commissioner, must uphold these arguments in order to prevent the investment sector experiencing the disasters we have seen happen in other areas. Finally, this assessment would condemn the patentability of “living things” and the fact that plants and life itself are becoming saleable commodities. The 20th century has been characterised by a fundamental crisis of humanism as a result of xenophobia and acts of genocide. I would not like to see the 21st century also characterised by a crisis of humanity on account of the all-powerful principles of money and the market taking precedence over the development of mankind and over the fundamental values that make human life what it is.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all agreed that the directive on the reorganisation of credit institutions is long overdue, which is also why we welcome it. A uniform procedure is at last to be established and there is to be coherence between the reorganisation procedure and the insolvency regulation. We would do well to stress that the provisions on protecting creditors’ rights, in particular, are of crucial importance here, since they establish the principle of providing creditors with information, as well as the conditions governing payments made to them. In this way, all creditors, including those in countries other than the home Member State, are guaranteed equal treatment under the winding up procedure, and a consistent approach. Although the text in its current form is absolutely excellent, some clarification is needed. Thus, for example, the all-important principle of universality was strengthened by a series of amendments in committee, and several areas of incompatibility with the provisions relating to financial conglomerates, and which could lead to legal uncertainty, were ironed out. You will already have noticed in the course of the debate that we differ on one point, specifically in relation to Amendments Nos 3 and 5. The close correspondence between the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions and insurance companies is not desirable for all aspects. Opinion differs on this because we believe what we are talking about here are different products, and sometimes different markets, and that different products and different markets should be treated differently, and not automatically the same. The common position is well-balanced to my mind and was improved on, to some extent, by the committee’s amendments and those tabled by the rapporteur, Mrs Peijs, whom I would like to thank. The text ought, therefore, to be adopted without delay and transposed by the Member States. I regret that the dispute in the Council has led to this being delayed by more than a decade. I would point out that the Commission’s first proposal was published as early as 1985 and Parliament’s first reading was held back in 1987. The reason I stress this is because we constantly discuss the balance between the European institutions in our debates – particularly in the wake of the Nice European Council – and in many cases discuss how the procedures ought to be accelerated. This does not just apply to Parliament, which is often the impression given in the public arena, although we would, of course, do well to consolidate and accelerate quite a few procedures of our own too. But this is not about apportioning blame. However, doubtless the opinion-forming and decision-making process in the European Council offers the best bet for accelerating the procedures between the European institutions. That has been made crystal clear again here. The Commission proposal is designed to ensure that a credit institution and its branch offices in other Member States can be reorganised and wound up according to the principle of unity and universality. That is guaranteed under this proposed directive.

Political group: PPE-DE
The Irish government has published the wording of the question which is to be submitted to Irish voters for the purpose of ratifying the Treaty of Nice by way of referendum. I believe the inclusion of an article which would prohibit Ireland entering into a common EU defence policy is a tactical mistake and it shows a clear misunderstanding of why Irish voters rejected the Treaty of Nice in the previous referendum. A survey examining the attitudes of those that opposed the Treaty revealed that ‘fear of loss of power influence and money’ rather than the issue of neutrality were the major factors. Furthermore, this decision by a government led by a Fianna Fail Taoiseach is a betrayal of the European idealism of his predecessors as far back as Sean Lemass who indicated that Ireland would be willing to participate in a common EU defence policy. It is also in marked contrast to the previously stated remarks of Foreign Affairs Minister Brian Cowen in the Irish Examiner of the 3rd July 2000: Instead of pandering to eurosceptics within his own party, such as Minister O’Cuiv, and eurosceptics outside it, he should be giving decisive leadership instead of further confusing the voters. (Abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137 (1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: PPE-DE
On behalf of the European Parliamentary Labour Party, we voted for those parts of the Mann report which encourage entrepreneurship, and we believe in supporting the work of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) which on some estimates account for up to 70% of all employment in the EU. Our vote is in line with the need for those running SMEs not to endure unnecessary tax burdens or inappropriate regulation. I fully support the report in saying that the innovation and information society will play a key role in making the EU competitive and more research should be channelled into these areas.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Group of the believes that the European Parliament’s decision to rush headlong into giving its opinion on the Intergovernmental Conference undermines the political significance of the request for talks with the Council, and in the end, makes it rather irrelevant. We would have preferred to have had greater clarification of the agenda and more guarantees on the method before giving our opinion, and frankly, we did not appreciate the discourtesy the Portuguese Presidency showed towards the European Parliament by scheduling the start of the Intergovernmental Conference for Saint Valentine’s day, the first day of the Strasbourg part-session. Moreover, given that this opinion is quite important, we can still vote for it, and indeed, the majority of our group will be voting for it. I nevertheless wish to stress the fact that it is quite distressing to see the lack of real interest in this reform. The events in Austria make it crystal clear that we need a body or structure for democracy in Europe and we need to establish principles which provide bases all the Member States. It is also distressing to think that the initiative taken against Austria is actually the result of an agreement between governments and that, in any case, the European Union and its institutions would not have had the means or the consensus to allow them to act, and to prevent and rectify the course of events. We must take action on this at the Intergovernmental Conference, and I firmly hope that this opinion, that was given reluctantly, will not mean that the European Parliament ceases to exert pressure on the Council and the Member States to make sure that this Intergovernmental Conference is not merely a technical exercise, but rouses the passions that we saw a few hours ago in Parliament.

Political group: Verts-ALE