GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
As we read in the explanatory statement, ‘The focus on silicone-gel implants since the 1990s has led to many different epidemiological studies that have consistently showed no evidence of serious risk for major diseases’. Over recent years cosmetic surgery has made considerable progress and the techniques used have reached a more than satisfactory level of safety. However, if the danger warnings are increased and consumers are overprotected, doctors could become disheartened. Let us take the example of Caesareans. They have dramatically increased, because women are gripped by the idea of a lower risk. Therefore it is their trust in the medical profession that is called into question. While we need to protect patients, we also need to preserve the service providers by placing a degree of trust in them.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, this proposed Regulation on sales promotions in the internal market will allow European companies to take better advantage of the removal of borders in order to carry out their economic activities. I therefore believe that the proposal is very appropriate in order to humanise the national provisions on the communication of sales promotions. This proposal has given rise to a very important debate in this Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy on a very specific aspect, namely, once again, sales at a loss. I am glad to see that the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has included the views of the Environment Committee in its amendments, and I therefore congratulate Mr Beysen, rapporteur for the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, and Mrs Patrie, draftsperson of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. It is reasonable that sales at a loss should be regulated at national level. At the moment, the majority of Member States prohibit this practice: Germany, Austria, France, Ireland, Greece and Spain, amongst others, and it is not an arbitrary prohibition. I am going to be the last speaker to say that sales and re-sales at a loss cannot be considered commercial promotion practices, because these practices distort the principles of fair competition and in particular prejudice small retailers, who do not have the margins to compete in such a situation. Furthermore, they create a false alarm in terms of consumer information, harm the image of the brand and seriously alter the planning of manufacturers and suppliers. Specifically I support Amendments Nos 27, 28, 29, 30 and 32 and I trust that the majority of this House will approve them and that the Commission will accept them.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has up to this moment been more vulnerable in every respect than the USA, and will remain so for as long as cooperation between Member States in both the legal and operational aspects of counter-terrorism is not optimised. Admittedly, we have Europol as an institution whose remit covers terrorism among other things, but Europol is powerless if not all Member States comply with the Convention, supply in due time comprehensive information for the analyses required and subsequently make aid available to their fellow Member States. Europol is toothless if it has insufficient personnel at its disposal, and at present a mere 12 Europol staff are pursuing inquiries into terrorism in Europe. Europol is also toothless if the technology it needs is not made available to it. A package of measures is therefore urgently required, and quickly. I therefore want the Member States to be exhorted to adhere strictly to the Europol Convention, in particular Article 4, and a mechanism to be introduced to compel the Member States to supply this information. Secondly, we must provide a budget sufficient to equip a centre of operations with an appropriate number of analysts to engage in investigations into terrorism. Counter-terrorism demands, thirdly, that we set up joint investigatory teams within the framework of collaboration between Europol analysts and representatives of the Member States. We welcome the accelerated initiative of Mr Vitorino's two framework decisions as a new and urgently needed legal basis with which to effectively combat terrorism. Europe, above all others, has demands made of it. Europe is called, now, to be more than decisive in taking a stand in the face of terrorism and taking action to counter it. Such is the demand of the moment.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I have rather mixed feelings about this debate and about the Johannesburg Summit. It is encouraging that the Environmental Summit is in actual fact to take place and that both rapporteurs have done a very good job when it comes to expressing the European Parliament’s misgivings, hopes, proposals and demands prior to the summit. I want to thank both rapporteurs for the sterling work they have done. I feel disappointed and frustrated, however, about the fact that the world’s leaders do not appear to take the situation in the world seriously. Just a few months before the summit is to be held, the world’s leading politicians have not even said definitely whether or not they intend to be present at the meeting in Johannesburg. The EU’s sustainable development strategy and statement prior to the world summit have also come very late, given that the matter is about our future and concerns everyone. There ought, however, to have been more respect for democratic debate and for the opportunity for civil society to take part in the debate. I would also point out, as other speakers have already done, that the Spanish Presidency is not represented in this House. That also indicates the lack of respect for this important issue of sustainable development. Nor do I think that the EU has attached appropriate importance to the Johannesburg World Summit. The Barcelona Summit, in which the EU’s position was to be firmly set out, was also a disappointment. In Johannesburg, the EU must show clearly how it intends to reform, for example, its agricultural and fisheries policies, which have major global consequences, especially for the poor countries. We in the EU must also show that we have a credible sustainable development strategy to enable the world summit to obtain the result that is required if today’s growing environmental crisis is to be averted. The EU must play a pro-active role in this respect. I think the EU countries have a specifically moral and economic responsibility for showing the way to sustainability. Many seem to rely upon voluntary undertakings by industry and major companies, but these alone will not lead to the pledges of ten years ago being fulfilled. Voluntary undertakings can help, but what is required is for a world environmental organisation within the UN to ensure that human rights and environmental regulations are complied with. The international environmental and human rights conventions must also take precedence over the WTO’s regulations. The situation should not, as at present, be the other way round. This is a policy which must be pursued by ourselves in the EU and by all who take part in the Johannesburg Summit.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, there was a report in the newspaper recently – and we examined it in the Fisheries Committee – about the cod catch in the North-East Atlantic and a bilateral agreement between Russia and Norway, two States which – together with other States such as Iceland, Poland and those of the European Union – are equal contracting parties in the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. All the States, including Russia and Norway therefore, have committed themselves in this Commission not only to multilateral cooperation but also to obeying a common code. This is based, amongst other things, on technical data recommended by ICES, the scientific organisation, and now Russia and Norway want to break away and, on the basis of a bilateral agreement, fish possibly three to four times the quantity recommended by the scientists. This is incredible! Whenever anything connected with the misuse of resources has gone wrong in the EU in the past, we have always looked admiringly at the Norwegians and their fisheries management, but now we see that the Norwegians are no different from anybody else. That is why this report by Mr Busk is so important. It is about a significant legal instrument which seeks to establish a coherent and permanent system of control measures involving all contracting parties in the areas mentioned. The experience of the fisheries commissions in the north-east and north-west Atlantic must be transferred into EU Community law. The EU can be the forerunner here. Is it? Can it sharpen its image as a driving force? If so it would be well on the way to marketing itself and its policy better than in the past. This is precisely what Commissioner Fischler has in mind; he is calling in general for an improved marketing strategy in the fisheries sector. Control measures at EU level and at Member State level need to be balanced out. This buck-passing game has to stop!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to support the rapporteur’s motion. We have given our utmost attention to this report in committee and feel that our proposed amendments substantially improve this regulation. So far, the Commission has not seen fit to adopt these improvements. I hope we will be able to reach an accommodation in the compromise negotiations, which we will then vote on in October, because no group wants a blockade. We want this regulation but we want it with our improvements. It is the old story: Article 37 provides the basis, we have no power of codecision and so we make sure that we influence the proceedings. I hope the honourable Members will recognise this and give us their backing.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we are engaging in a rather curious debate, and I cannot say that I understand all the various standpoints. We are all in favour of putting international relations on a legal footing. It is for us to create the international law that we all desire. That is why I consider the request to the International Court of Justice to produce a report on how it views the reality of this wall to be justified. We basically want a clear statement about what the wall implies. One very simple outcome, as I see it – and you do not have to be clairvoyant here – is that the Court could rule that a wall built on the 1967 borders recognised by the UN might not be to our liking, but would be in accordance with international law. Whether we like it or not, the Israelis are entitled to build a wall on their own territory. We might well regard it as being wrong politically speaking, but the issue of security is not one that we can just brush aside. The key factor is that building this wall amounts to annexation. Under international law it is an extension of the State of Israel, and an illegal extension at that. It has not been negotiated – force has been used to appropriate part of the land. That being the case, I believe that it would be appropriate for the International Court of Justice to give its opinion. I consider that the European Union, which fought, against the Americans for example, for this court to be established – and we have always said that we want international law – was ill-advised to abstain on this. This is not about opposing Israel. It is about opposing any state arrogating to itself the right to annex land. That is the keystone of international law. It is permissible to exchange land by means of negotiations, but not – and this is also at the heart of the UN Charter – to annex land. As I see it, the same would apply if an opinion were being sought on the content of the programmes of the Palestinian organisations. The programmes of Palestinian organisations that do not recognise the State of Israel are also illegal and should be identified as such. The issue of the PLO Charter is a complicated one. It would also be possible to determine as a matter of law whether or not it refers to recognition of the State of Israel. That means that it would also be possible to examine the constitution of groups and parties that defend the Palestinian state and Palestinian autonomy. The end result would be that it would no longer be possible for one side or the other to claim a right for itself while refusing to recognise the rights of the other side. That is the key factor in this conflict. The Palestinians have to recognise Israel and any terrorist attacks in Israel contradict that. And the Israelis have to recognise the Palestinian State, and this wall amounts to a rejection of the Palestinian State. That can be legally established.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the signature of the budget was a scene of satisfaction, adulation, peace and joy. However, because of a small cutback in funds, about which I wish to protest, I am not totally happy with this budget. I voted against the budget repeatedly during the last parliamentary term because, despite unanimously approved reports on the worrying situation of beekeepers in Europe, the Commission was simply not prepared to provide the appropriations for the measures which we demanded in order to preserve beekeeping. Since 1998 we have had a mini-heading of EUR 15 million in the budget to finance 50% of the national programme to improve the production and marketing of honey, based on a regulation which we have criticised as inadequate. Now we have seen this mini-heading of EUR 15 million for 15 countries reduced by a third to 10 million. I fail to understand how this could happen, given that the Commission itself quoted a funding requirement of 15 million per annum in its justification of the regulation. I am grateful to the rapporteur for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, Mr Görlach, who also protested about this reduction in his letter to the chairman of the Committee on Budgets. I should like here to register my protest that the Committee on Budgets has failed to take account of this. I hope that a way can be found in the Council of Ministers of increasing this budget line to EUR 15 million, as in 1998 and 1999. I shall, of course, continue to lobby steadfastly until the Commission finally proposes the various measures demanded unanimously by this Parliament to preserve beekeeping in Europe – pollination premiums, inclusion of beekeeping in the structural programmes ... (Interruption by the President) ... cost EUR 65 million. That is peanuts in a budget of 90 billion, a mere 0.072%. (The President cut the speaker off) ***

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on 31 March, in the space of two hours, 224 litres/m2 of rain fell on Santa Cruz de Tenerife, in the Canary Islands; a violent downpour which caused a great deal of destruction. Such climate changes were also seen in the Autonomous Community of Valencia, causing a great deal of destruction to districts such as la Marina and la Safor. The local community, European neighbours, the fire brigade, medical services, the police, the regional government and the Spanish Government all lent their support. I think that Parliament needs to be sensitive to this loss of both human life and over 400 homes, and ask the Commission to provide economic assistance, to provide European support for the Canary Islands and the Autonomous Community of Valencia, which have both suffered the devastating effects of the climate change that has been affecting the Mediterranean region recently and, on this particular occasion, the Canary Islands. Therefore, we would ask the Commission to show solidarity and we ask the Commissioner what can be done in this regard. For example, large infrastructures under development in Santa Cruz de Tenerife, created under the Urban programme, have been destroyed, and they need to be rebuilt. Budgets will clearly have to be revised because everything that had been done – in this case using Community contributions – has been lost. We have the sad task of having to pass on our sincere condolences to the families of victims who died in the floods and of all those who were injured but next, and in order to provide for all eventualities, we also need to adopt the appropriate means to demonstrate, in real figures from the budget, the solidarity of all Europeans with the suffering caused to families, goods and infrastructures in these two Spanish regions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to add a remark to what Mr Deva has just said. It is one of the real scandals of Europe that sums amounting to billions from the Member States have still not been placed under the control of the European Parliament and made subject to this Chamber’s budget law. No-one controls this money, and this is entirely the responsibility of the Member States and of the Council and, Mrs Rühle, also of the red-green government in Germany which, despite having previously stated otherwise, is also not now prepared to take this step. Secondly, reservations were expressed a few weeks ago in terms of what would happen if a movement really were to arise in Serbia. Would the European Union be in a position to act in this matter at all? We had, it was said, not set aside any of the money we had generously promised. I believe that, in the last few days, the European Union has shown, faster than the United States and faster than the Member States, that it is in a position to respond appropriately to such a situation. Moreover, Parliament has this week, and before the Council too, reached important decisions to enable the developments which Doris Pack discussed actually to occur, namely the arrival of the initial sums before Christmas of this year and a situation in which people sense that the efforts on behalf of democracy are worthwhile. That leads to my third remark on what now faces us. I am concerned that, while our common foreign and security policy progresses ever further, becomes ever more skilful and even acquires a ‘Mr CFSP’, and while we are also further developing the European security and defence policy and coming up with practical measures, we are, in the long term, spending less and less on foreign policy measures. Special attention has again been given in this Chamber to the fact that we are beating a retreat from Latin America, Asia and Africa, and particularly from Latin America. In the long term, it is therefore just not on to talk more about foreign policy and less about international solidarity. We need to bring about changes in this area. It is not right that the Budget should penalise other regions of the world, and it is also necessary for the Commission to bring about a situation in 2001 in which Commissioner Patten’s declared view prevails, to the effect that the money should flow more rapidly.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the commitment that has been obtained on the text of the new Water Framework Directive is generally positive, even though it contains certain controversial aspects, worthy of criticism, which can nevertheless be ironed out when the various studies, action plans and draft regulations provided for in the text we have just approved are drafted. It is a positive development that water management requirements are to be integrated into a single system – hydrological basin management, which is based more on geographical and hydrological areas than on administrative and national borders. This is a particularly important issue for Portugal, whose main rivers are shared with our neighbour, Spain. Equally positive is the statement that water is not a commodity that should be bought and sold like any other. This means, of course, that special measures must be put in place to protect a commodity that is publicly owned, whilst safeguarding the interests of the population, in particular, domestic water supply and agricultural activity, especially small farms and family-based holdings. The final text does state that Member States can attend to the social and economic effects on the affected area as well as the geographic and climatic conditions. This will enable Member States to deal with their different situations by means of established exceptions, which may nevertheless prove to be insufficient to cope with agricultural situations in the South, particularly where Portugal is concerned. We shall nevertheless pay close attention to the way this policy is implemented in practice in the years to come.

Political group: GUE-NGL
As is to some extent implicit in the Oostlander report on the ‘Action Plan for the collection and analysis of Community Statistics in the field of migration’ – on which we have also voted in this plenary session – what is here expressed quite explicitly is an initiative to create an instrument intended to achieve the communitarisation of a repressive migration policy, in line with the idea of ‘Fortress Europe’. Just look, for example, at the political interpretation made by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy: ‘The creation of the immigration liaison officers’ network can be considered as a step in the direction towards the establishment of a common external service of the EU ...’ As a matter of fact, the stated aim for the activities of ‘immigration liaison officers’ is, as the rapporteur points out, to combat illegal immigration – as the individuals responsible for implementing this policy in the countries in which this immigration originates, including the task of compiling ten categories of information that these officers will have to gather. The rapporteur states that, as regards the aim of ‘contributing to the management of legal immigration’, ‘the form which this management might take is never spelled out elsewhere in the Regulation’. Hence our vote against the report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, this electronic Europe project met with enormous difficulties when spectrum auctions started to be held. It resulted in bankruptcies, which are still continuing, and unemployment. What do you intend to do to prevent this from happening in the future, with certain Member States collecting charges against the general intentions of the e-Europe project – at the same time leading the sector into a wild downward spiral – and others not?

Political group: PSE