GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, how could I not vote for this document protecting animals, which, although certainly destined for a cruel fate, should at least be treated as beings that deserve our respect and our protection in matters of transportation, as Mr Ebner has just said. However, I would ask you, Mr President, when we are going to do something for the dogs in Bucharest. While we are on the subject of animals, Mr President, I cannot fail to take this opportunity to tell you about the stray dogs in the city of Bucharest. They have no owners and should be caught and sterilised, but, instead, they are the victims of indiscriminate hunting by the people of the city, who receive a reward for every dog they kill and whose body they take to the mayor as proof. As I see it, the real villain is the mayor of Bucharest, not the poor dogs killed in the city. I hope that we will soon do something to improve this situation as well.

Political group: PPE-DE
I should like to thank all my fellow MEPs in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development who have helped find a consensus with a view to presenting, today in plenary, a resolution in response to the oral question to the Commission and in response to the debate that took place on 25 September in Strasbourg on the difficulties encountered by European beekeeping. This resolution is very balanced, as evidenced by its unanimous adoption by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. I hope that this unanimity will finally encourage the European Commission to follow up the requests we have made in our resolution. I hope it will cease to ignore the fact that, for years, beekeepers have had to face severe problems connected with losses of their bee populations, amounting in some cases to more than 80%, and with a sharp decline in honey production, leading to significant loss of income. More and more beekeepers, in all regions of the European Union, are giving up beekeeping. An interesting but difficult profession, young people are not prepared to make it their own. Moreover, beekeeping – which has always been practised by many people not only as a source of income but also as a hobby – no longer has the same attraction, particularly because of the difficulties resulting from new diseases. (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137, paragraph 1 of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: PPE-DE
Would the Commissioner be in a position to say whether there is universal support for the ratification of the 1996 Hague Convention? Just in case there is any confusion, this is not the Hague Convention on Parental Child Abduction – that dates from 1981. I am talking about the next one. I understand that there may be some problems concerning ratification by some Member States. If there are, could you tell us (a) what the problems are, and (b) which Member States are concerned?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, political murder is a heinous crime in darkness: it is even more chilling in daylight. Mr Chea Vichea, trade unionist and member of the Cambodian opposition, was shot and killed on January 22, beside the road in Phnom Penh, in the middle of the day. So brazen was his killer, that passers-by mistook the bullets for firecrackers. Mr Vichea is the fifth member of the opposition Alliance of Democrats to have been murdered in 2004, and the latest victim of a year of violence. His funeral brought into the streets a crowd estimated at 30 000 strong. I know why, having met Mr Vichea last April and been deeply impressed by his commitment to democracy and good government and improving the lives of his fellow citizens. Mr Vichea was a founding member of the Sam Rainsy Party. He was a committed advocate of the rights of Cambodia's 200 000 garment workers. His killing, along with that of activists from the Funcinpec party, adds to a temper of political intimidation in Cambodia that is worsened by the failure of the caretaker government to respond to these murders. Whether the Cambodian People's Party is responsible for these killings or not, its persistent failure to apprehend and punish the killers leaves it accountable for the rising tide of fear in Cambodian politics. Hun Sen's government continues to rule Cambodia without full legal and constitutional authority. It is imperative that a negotiated settlement be reached to enable legitimate government, yet negotiations cannot take place in the shadow of political murder, which sours attempts to construct a viable coalition and threatens to provoke retaliatory violence. The European Parliament must condemn not only this killing, but also the climate of intimidation and impunity that Cambodian authorities allow to persist. Our resolution calls for the suspension of all non-humanitarian aid to Cambodia and for the European Commission to refuse to deal with Hun Sen's government. The EU should not do business with a government that fails to safeguard the lives of democratic leaders. In conclusion, we call on the Council to issue strong words of condemnation.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, an agreement was reached in Rome yesterday on the European arrest warrant; Italy too will sign it. It is certainly a positive step, but it is no more than the beginning of a long process of trying to set up, at last, a genuine European area of freedom, security and justice. The new European Constitution should lead to harmonisation of criminal law and procedure in our Union. The Member States should work towards a situation in which crimes and penalties do not differ from one place to another. We must all, in short, commit ourselves to establishing fair trials, that is, to having a third judge, allowing evidence to take shape in the course of the trial and to having the prosecuting magistrates separate from the judges. This is not blackmail, Mr Watson; it is not an Italian caprice, as has been suggested in this House; it is the will of Parliament, which, in 1997, voted for the Roth report, which invited the Member States to carry out a genuine reform of justice in favour of a fair trial. That is why so many criticisms levelled by the left against the Italian Government in this House are unfounded and the result of propaganda by a handful of fundamentalist magistrates. Moreover, the foreign press in Italy has recognised this; in this respect, I quote the words of a respected journalist in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Hans Jürgen Fischer, who said, ‘All these charges against the Berlusconi Government seemed quite out of proportion to me.’ It is therefore our duty to reject all the attacks made on the Italian Government by left-wing MEPs who do not understand the situation in Italy and who, beginning with the leader of the Socialist Group, Mr Barón Crespo, have made absolutely unfounded attacks on the Italian Government and on Italy. I repeat, they are attacks that we firmly reject because it is all just propaganda. In short, a lot of fuss has been made about nothing and Parliament has not achieved any results. The results were actually achieved thanks to the action of the Italian Government, which concluded the agreement with Mr Verhofstadt yesterday.

Political group: PPE-DE
I regret that my proposal to call on ‘the Commission and Council immediately to make the necessary adjustments to the economic and monetary policy guidelines with a view to replacing the Stability Pact with a Social Progress and Employment Pact in line with the objectives of full employment, sustained economic development, and economic and social cohesion’ has not been taken on board. I say this because it is a matter of great importance, in the current context, to establish a policy to boost economic growth with a view to promoting economic development, employment and social cohesion. It is essential for us to have an expansionist budget policy to secure and accelerate the required economic recovery, and in order to achieve this we need to strengthen public investment both at national and Community level. I also regret that my proposal to ‘assess the impact of implementation of the Stability Pact on the implementation of the Structural Funds’ has not been approved, given that this is the chief Community instrument for promoting economic and social cohesion.

Political group: GUE-NGL
As part of the work of the Convention and in thinking about drawing up a Constitution that will enable us not only to successfully complete the enlargement process that is in progress but above all to provide the European Union with a democratic and effective government that responds to the challenges and concerns of the world in which we live, dividing competences between the European Union and the Member States is essential. In order to ensure that the Union functions properly we need to define the responsibilities of each of the institutional levels within it. And for those of us who advocate a federal model, that division of competences means that we can establish a federal rather than a subordinate relationship between the Union, the Member States and the regions with legislative powers, which is the foundation for a federal Europe based on the principle of subsidiarity. That is why this excellent report by Mr Lamassoure is so important and why I have voted in favour of it. It is a shame that the proposal to create a status for a region associated with the European Union was ultimately rejected through the opposition of those who do not wish to understand that the European Union is a global entity that does not end at the borders of the Member States. But it must be said that the Lamassoure report has taken a step in the right direction. The fundamental texts of the European Union cannot continue to ignore the existence and functions of the regions with legislative powers as a result of, in cases such as Catalonia, an irrefutable sense of collective identity, because those regions are responsible for managing a large proportion of Community policies and because Europe cannot be built behind the backs of the people that are part of it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the area of freedom, security and justice is something that many Members of this House still imagine to be a highly advanced position adopted by a European Union that offers its citizens the greatest possible degree of freedom and protection from the State. It is not only in the last year that events have proved the opposite to be the case: repressive measures are enjoying a boom, with the European Union and its Member States forcing through controls on the EU's external borders no less than in its interior. On top of that, there is increased monitoring of personal data and of free communication. Biometric means are being used to evacuate privacy of any meaning. Finally, the EU's racist character is enhanced still further by the many laws aimed at so-called ‘foreigners’, with the introduction of the Eurodac system and the development of the Schengen Information System representing only the tip of the iceberg. This security means, then, the greatest possible security for the State, whereas freedom would require a quite different policy – some would call it a more mature one – backing effective data protection, the demolition of Fortress Europe and the repeal of all racist special laws, including those on the right to citizenship. Such, though, is not the case. What we are building here is a Union of state security, control and monitoring. Baroness Ludford's Liberalism, does not, unfortunately, extend to addressing any of these points in her question.

Political group: GUE-NGL
We have indeed before us two massive and authoritative reports for which we are indebted to the two authors. Mr Wuori said, in introducing the debate, that this is about the fundamental principle of respect for human personality in all its manifestations. Charters and conventions and rights seek to quantify and give exact terms to the impermissible forms of disrespect and then discountenance them everywhere. The moving section on enlargement in Mr Wuori’s paper reminds us that both a condition and a consequence of enlargement of the Union will be to expand the recognition, enforcement and upholding of human rights throughout this continent. What could be a more welcome outcome? Mr Cornillet suggested that we should not take the two papers together. I think we have to. We must always remind ourselves, as we call upon others outside the Union to rise to the standards of respect for persons which seem to us fundamental, that we are continually at risk ourselves of falling below the standards. Last night as the Echelon Committee adopted its report, it made it clear that running systems of random interception of messages breaches the fundamental right to privacy in one’s personal life and communications. That must stop. Those who are doing it in the United Kingdom and elsewhere must be urged to put a stop to it. There are other areas, such as the right to a speedy trial, where other states are not up to the mark. We must press for rights to be recognised at home as well as abroad.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I should like to thank the Commissioner very much for his answers. He really is very convincing on this issue. I should also, however, like to thank the questioner for even raising this matter. I have a small and perhaps naive supplementary question: would it not be possible then for either the Commission or perhaps even Parliament's Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities to invite one or other of these women to visit us and describe to us what is actually happening there? I would be interested to talk to this woman in person. Perhaps it would not be without interest for the Commission either to hear a personal account of the situation on a one-to-one basis.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, work on the amendment of this Directive began over a year ago. We have finally reached an agreement and I would like to congratulate Mrs Hautala on such a satisfactory outcome. We encountered a number of difficulties during the first reading, but I believe we have now reached compromises acceptable to all. As we heard, this amendment will mean that trade in diesel and petrol with a sulphur content exceeding 10mg/kg will be banned from 2005. The ban will be implemented gradually, with a total prohibition coming into effect from 2009. I think this is a good solution and a good compromise. Whatever your point of view however, although this measure will improve air quality, the production of the new fuels will undoubtedly cause an increase in emissions from refineries. If the production and sale of new fuels do not go in tandem with renewal of the fleet of vehicles, there may be an overall increase in carbon dioxide emissions. Considerable costs would be incurred too, as it is much more expensive to produce these fuels. It is therefore important for the Commission to assess the progress made. In 2005 it should also revise the date after which only low-sulphur diesel may be sold, especially where diesel agricultural tractors and road vehicles are concerned. This is because diesel vehicles are replaced far less frequently than their petrol counterparts and their fuel consumption is relatively low. There is a risk that the improvements in air quality we all hope for may not be achieved. Finally, Commissioner, as rapporteur for the biofuels Directive, I have to say that I think the Commission should authorise biofuel mixtures in excess of 5% as a matter of urgency. It should propose new specifications on levels and new testing methods for biofuels and for fuels used by the inshore fleet. Several makes of car are currently able to run on mixtures exceeding 5%. There are however, no technical standards relating to vehicles of this type. Countries have undertaken to reach specific targets. Though the latter are not set in stone, they ought to be met. If countries are not able to use biofuel mixtures, it will be very difficult for them to do so. Biofuels significantly reduce the emission of greenhouse gases and are a useful way of improving air quality. I would like to end by congratulating the rapporteur warmly once again, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party . Congratulations are due also of course to the Commission and the Council. I recommend voting in favour of this report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, you will perhaps be aware of the serious allegation on the front page of today's Independent newspaper that the British Government tried to muzzle its own top scientific adviser when he warned that global warming was a more serious threat than international terrorism. This follows from the US Administration's failure earlier this year to continue policy drafting on the back of the Arctic Council's Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. This is a huge scientific report and the US response is entirely untenable. Last Friday I attended, on behalf of this Parliament, a meeting of Arctic parliamentarians. We listened in shock to the various scientific presentations and the US reaction. Can we please try to ensure that both Commission and Council take seriously their various involvements at all levels with the Arctic Council and support open dialogue and action on this important global issue. It must not be hushed up, covered up, slowed down to please the US or anyone. If self-interest serves, then perhaps we might note that the latest scientific evidence forecasts that Europe will get colder.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, this is a small and modest report, an amendment to a directive that I, however, believe is an important and significant example of the great success of the awareness and information policies and of the fact that the regulation often comes after society has sorted itself out. The fact that practically all manufacturers and producers in all the Member States have removed the products we are now trying to remove indicates that there are now many mature areas in which ideally we would not have to establish legislation, and would not find ourselves in situations like this. I would therefore like to emphasise, so that it may be taken down in the Minutes, that we must work to this formula where possible in a mature society and a mature industry. I think the exclusion of oriental carpets is marvellous, as I believe it is good that flexibility in favour of art and beauty is entering into the spirit of a legislative machine that often forgets small details. Furthermore, as far as I know, people do not normally tend to eat carpets, and therefore this level of risk could be avoided. I repeat, I believe it is positive for us to work towards progress, for society to be one step ahead of us and that all we have to do is ratify what has already been recognised.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to echo the many compliments that have been addressed to the rapporteur. She has compiled an excellent report, with a pertinent appeal for more European cooperation in health care and care of the elderly. This cooperation should not be restricted to public health, the quantitative and preventive aspects, but should also pertain to the cost-conscious and effective handling of provisions and the reinforcement of the financial basis for the health costs and the costs resulting from an ageing population. The Directorate-General for social affairs and employment should play an active role in this. I have mainly focused on the aspects of financing and supporting the national care systems, and have tabled a number of amendments to that effect which relate to the internal market, inter alia an amendment to paragraph 37 which, to my disappointment, the Group of the European People’s Party wishes to delete. Decisions by the Court of Justice about the internal market already affect the national health systems. The funding of care is no longer a purely national matter. Many fellow MEPs from different Member States fail to understand why I make this into such an important issue. They continue to stress that health care must be protected from the market forces, that it is of general interest and, consequently, it has nothing to do with the rules on competition and free movement. I would like to say to them – and to Mr Herman Schmid in particular – that this has not been the case for a long time. We cannot be blind to private commercial parties within the health market operating according to free-market logistics. That is why we must provide a solid counterweight against market forces. In the Netherlands, there is currently a discussion about the review of the public health cost system, in respect of which it is planned to hand this over completely to private health cost insurers. I see this as a risky strategy as long as there is no framework provided for it. I have nothing against private insurance companies, as Mr Karas can attest, but the government should be able to put sufficient conditions in place. It should not be possible, for example, for sick people to be turned down, for people with a high health risk to have to pay a higher premium, or for insurance cover to be more expensive for women because they can fall pregnant. The Dutch Cabinet takes little account of the fact that the European agreements about the internal market could thwart its plans. If, in due course, insurance companies feel too restricted by the government, they can head to the European Court and refer to the European rules. This will be at the expense of the weakest groups. The national governments will then blame Europe. I should like to prevent that from happening and that is why we must try to achieve better coordination at European level. One last remark: I am pleased with Mr Solbes' announcement that a progress report will soon follow for the high-level reflection process. I am really looking forward to this.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, my Group voted against this agreement. We agree that some good things were agreed in the review of the packaging directive. However, there is a major problem in that the agreement itself violates the spirit of the landmark ruling by the European Court of Justice, in procedural terms both in terms of the substance and the letter of the European Treaties. In February, the European Court of Justice ruled that waste incineration in municipal waste incinerators could not be counted as a form of recovery, even if energy was generated as a result. The Council, however, instead of increasing recycling or environmentally sound recovery to meet the recovery target, insisted on putting incineration on an equal footing with recovery, contrary to the ECJ ruling. Although this issue was not a subject for conciliation as no parliamentary amendment to the Council’s common position had been adopted, by bringing it into the conciliation process the Council violated Article 251(4) of the EC Treaty. My Group very much disagrees with the procedure and the result of the conciliation. We also find it very alarming that incineration, which we consider detrimental to the environment, has actually now been included as something to aim for.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I would like to talk about an item on the agenda for Wednesday, which you have not yet announced. I understand that there is no argument about the fact that the Council declaration, on the next sitting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, is not going to include the declaration on the 50th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions, and that this declaration has been proposed for the plenary part-session in March, so that it may be delivered in a solemn and formal way. I understand that there is agreement on this issue.

Political group: PSE