GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, first of all, I would like to congratulate Mr Mayer who, in spite of some extremely polarised positions, listened and put forward an alternative in the form of a proposal for further consideration, which met with everyone’s approval. This position is all the more important and necessary since the report refers to the crucial problems related to globalisation and European integration. In addition to the direct interests of consumers and manufacturers, the economic position of the European Union in world trade is at stake. Some may be in favour of a total liberalisation of trade, whereas others, myself included, believe that the system of Community exhaustion responds to the need to develop the integration of the single market, a favourable way of supporting Europe in the face of global competition. Apart from the concept of integration, the crux of this report is to support innovation, and God knows how much we have spoken about this in the previous report, to support innovation and creativity within the Community. Trade marks are the most important and most efficient way of protecting intellectual property. Trade marks provide the consumer with a guarantee of a product’s authenticity and quality, and they ensure pre-sales, shape investment and, consequently, creation. A change in the system could lead to a drop in investment in research and development of European products and the impact on jobs could be significant. The current system also provides the best means of protection against counterfeiting, as the channels used by parallel importers are often those used to transport pirate products. In the studies that are currently available, and I stress the ‘currently’, we found no relevant information enabling us to justify a change to the system, which could be detrimental to innovation. I hope that the further consideration proposed by Mr Mayer will confirm this opinion.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for assembling the amendments of all the groups – as other members have said – in the compromise amendments. I think he is pursuing an obvious objective which is – as he says in his document – that of guaranteeing the high levels of food safety that should exist, and a second objective that derives from the first, which is to say that of restoring credibility in the eyes of the consumer, which has been somewhat dented by scandals. I would like to remind you of one that occurred in Spain, the rape seed oil scandal – the consequences of which are still apparent now, after more than 20 years – but also the BSE scandal, the dioxin scandal and the latest worrying scandal in the United States regarding the release, for use in food products, of transgenic sweetcorn that would seem to be unsuitable for consumption. I believe the rapporteur's proposal to act on three levels is very important. The first level is to create a food authority or agency, founded on the principles of integrity, transparency and independence – independence, amongst other principles, is essential. The second is to introduce clear, accessible priority legislation, and the third is to cooperate with agencies in the other Member States, non-governmental organisations, consumer organisations and international bodies. Therefore, as Mihail Papayannakis said, we too are going to approve and support the report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I can assure you that we checked on that day that the comments we ascribe to the Commissioner were accurate. Mr Prodi did not deny those comments. He simply said that the Kyoto Treaty was important and would be pursued. I would like the Commissioner herself to state what exactly she did or did not say.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I should like first of all to say that the proposed 1% limit is actually, in my view, a sign of capitulation. It is in fact a very striking result of the fact that, for years, we have seen a lack of overview and cohesion in GMO legislation. We have not made the necessary demands when it comes to distinguishing between GM material and non-GM material. We are therefore now forced to accept a certain quantity of GM materials in all produce, without our being informed as consumers about these. For the citizens of Europe, this really is quite a depressing development in terms of consumer policy. I can support the present motion for a resolution, but I also think it is worth emphasising that the 1% limit set by the Commission is definitely too high. It opens the way to carelessness and indifference on the part of suppliers and producers. There is every reason for thinking that the limit will be eroded in future. I should therefore like to request four things of the Commission. Firstly, that a lower triviality limit than 1% be set. If this is not desired, then a one-year review clause, as proposed here by Parliament, might at any rate be agreed to, in anticipation of reducing the triviality limit. Thirdly, the claim of adventitious contamination due to GM materials must be carefully defined. This is a very elastic concept that has been built into the proposal here, and I believe it needs to be defined very clearly. Fourthly, and finally, I would ask that a very efficient supervisory system be established so that we might counter the worst examples of carelessness in this sphere. I hope that Commissioner Liikanen will be able to respond positively to these four questions and requests.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, masochists still in the visitors' galleries, masochists here in plenary – all twenty of you! – what is being played here is ‘Much Ado About Nothing’. Is what is going on here in plenary ‘As You Like It’? Is it even ‘What You Will’? Surely not. That is why we want to alter our Rules of Procedure, but we do not really dare to. We will just go a little bit in the direction we have to go in, at a time when it is no longer great industrial armies, hosts of workers, or political parties' foot soldiers that count, but networks, connections and the individual. We had to have Rules of Procedure in which individuals had as many rights as possible. They do not. Yet Mr Corbett is a bit daring, for he knows the Rules of Procedure inside out, or rather, he is allowed to take the risk. Well done! What we do not yet, though, trust ourselves to have, is an open debate. Why not? What are we ourselves afraid of? Of people actually watching us? Of them no longer seeing themselves as masochists, but rather really experiencing here what they learn at school, what democracy would mean if it were lived out? It cannot be that. But we can work at it, and that is why what we are debating here at the moment is as important as changes to the offside rule in football. This is an abstract debate behind closed doors, now being played out again briefly by a number of Members, but with very wide-ranging effects. I do think that we should support the attempt, at least, at considering how we can allow debates to be held which have an effect on the public and in which individual MEPs have rights too. If we were to carry on that way, it would also mean that ‘All's Well That Ends Well’. That too is a play by Shakespeare, which he wrote in 1601. If you are a sceptic, you look to 1610, when only the tempest is left. Is that what you want?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, no sensible person can think that the European Parliament does not have to concern itself with discrimination, even if, in the case in point, it is a matter of rewriting and expressing our opinion on a report proposing a decision for the Council of Ministers which will do whatever it wants to anyway. That is the reason why the Group would perhaps have preferred are more compact and occasionally more intelligible text, which at least avoided some of the repetition, for, as the saying goes, ‘He who grasps at too much loses everything.’ Indeed, parts of this text refer, in particular, to equality between men and women, giving rise to a specific policy or quite novel concepts such as gender-specific perspectives, or concepts which occasionally, and this is one of our fears, extend the scope of discrimination too far. The fact remains that the report tabled by our fellow Member, Mr Cashman contains many good things, particularly the space accorded to NGOs. I think it most important to rely on the support of this network of partners, but we must be selective in our choices and, especially, avoid being exclusive. In committee, I have had occasion to make a stand against the fact that there may also be experts outside NGOs that have something to say. Need I point out in this House that the principle role, particularly in terms of education, belongs to governments. Finally, this Community policy, Article 13, does not lead to a situation where the solution lies necessarily in more money. I believe the solution lies in analysis of the use of the money, and not necessarily in making unlimited appropriations available. Finally, we in the Group place great hope in the policy of assessment and coordination, and one of our proposals is that the fight against discrimination should give rise to a specific report to be presented before Parliament, which will account for the money and the use of the Community money which has been invested. Finally, and this is my concluding remark, the definition of the causes which has been given and, indeed, adopted in the Charter which we shall have to adopt in November, is an acceptable one, making it possible to resolve a great many tensions within the European Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I shall continue where Mrs Stihler left off due to a lack of time. She is right to denounce the serious situation in the north of Uganda, with a huge number of abductions of children who are used as child soldiers, sex slaves and carriers; in short, children who, under death threats and in life-threatening circumstances, are kept in slavery or are even required to kill. Responsibility for this lies in various quarters. It has already been stated here that the Ugandan Government is no soft touch. It would be useful if the European Union looked closely at all unchecked budgetary aid that goes to Uganda, from the Member States and from us, because Uganda is no model state. There may have been progress in a number of areas, but the reports of systematic cases of torture deserve a close inquiry. This applies, for example, to the cause of death of a certain Mr Murisidi, who died in a police cell. The government of Uganda leaves the population at the mercy of the terror of the ‘Lord's Resistance Army’. It is unable to guarantee the safety of the people of the northern province and neither has it succeeded in involving the LRA in peace talks, despite increased military expenditure on the part of Uganda and despite Uganda's military presence in the east of Congo where their presence is apparently more lucrative. The government of Sudan, however, does not get off scot-free either. Sudan denies any responsibility in the crimes of the LRA's rebels. It is obvious that these receive weapons from the Sudanese army itself. I have the testimony of religious leaders who described in detail a huge arms delivery, in mid-March 2003, of bombs, various types of grenades, and hundreds of boxes containing everything from bullets to uniforms. It is clear that, as long as the LRA is armed, they will shoot, kill, and abduct children rather than negotiate peace.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Wiebenga, on the work he has carried out and on his clear desire to improve the text which we have been presented with. I also believe it is fair to congratulate Commissioner Vitorino, because it is evident that the proposal for a directive, the draft presented to us today, greatly improves on the proposals which have previously been presented to this House. Although other Members have highlighted important aspects of the issues we are dealing with, I do not wish to ignore certain aspects which I consider to be fundamental. I believe that it is important to stress the guarantee of the right of these displaced persons to family reunification on the same basis as holders of residency documents and, although this may be a personal view, I believe that the issue of unmarried couples has not been sufficiently dealt with. We understand the difficulties which have arisen in studying this problem and we will support any steps which may lead to a solution. Another issue which I feel to be important is clarity on the distribution of responsibilities between the Member States in the event of a massive influx of displaced persons. The Member States must deal with this type of situation in a homogenous and cooperative way. It is also important to make it clear that people who have benefited from the temporary protection system also have the right to make a request for asylum and that the Geneva Convention must be respected to the full, including its principle of not returning asylum seekers to their country of origin. The role of the European Parliament must be strengthened and, in cases of temporary protection, it is essential that it be consulted. We must all prevent visa restrictions, which were imposed in the case of Kosovo, for example, which brought shame on every one of us. I believe that on this occasion Parliament has done its job. The Commission has also demonstrated its will and done its job. We just have to hope now that the Council does its duty.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, since the vote in committee we have attempted to reach a compromise with the Council on the contentious points. We all wanted to avoid a conciliation procedure, but not – let me make this quite clear now – at any price! Mrs Paciotti made things very simple from the outset and specifically stated that she would support all the points that the Council accepted. That really is a strange position for a Member of Parliament to adopt! Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi then tabled certain proposals for compromise with the Council on behalf of our group, and we have negotiated on that package in countless meetings and discussions also involving the Presidency. The Council has of course, as always, now very cleverly unpicked our package for tactical reasons and negotiated all the proposals for compromise individually with the various interested parties. That means that for the time being we have accepted a compromise on data retention under which there can be standard legal deviations from the general European legislation at national level, rather than having decisions made on a case-by-case basis. We have also abandoned the idea of a time limit and have therefore almost totally accepted the Council's position. In the case of e-mail advertising, despite having major reservations we have agreed to the general opt-in. However, I regarded it as being a condition that the area of application should be broad if there is already contact between interested parties and companies. But instead we now have a very limited wording: companies can only advertise similar products and products already inquired about by customers. The area of application we suggested has also had the word 'cooperations' taken out. I could have accepted all these restrictions as a compromise, and could also accept this if the Council had made some concessions to us on the final issue and had really accepted the opt-out position for directories of subscribers. However, in this case the Council was only willing to agree on a variant in which the decision is left to the Member States. However, that means that the Council would not even have remotely accepted any of Parliament's key points. I scarcely regard that as acceptable, and that is why I repeat that I wish to avoid the reconciliation procedure, but not at any cost! If the Council wants to play poker on this, we can play that game too, and for us that means remaining resolute and supporting Mr Cappato's Amendment No 14. Otherwise we will essentially only have lost ground during the unofficial negotiations, and not gained anything at all.

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, I would like to thank you for your response to the Member’s first question and the supplementary question. However, I still have some contacts in Kosovo who have informed me that food packages which are distributed by ECHO, among others, are often of inferior quality. In some cases, there have been incidents of food containing insects and such like. Are you aware of this? Are you prepared to act upon it? This is my first additional question. My second question pertains to the reconstruction of the hospital in Mitrovica. You are perhaps aware that this hospital is located in the Northern part of the city and that, given the tense situation, Albanian Kosovars do not have any access to this section at all. What does the Commission intend to do in order to ensure that Albanian Kosovars too can get to hospital?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I raise to table a point of order about the Minutes. I am now receiving the Minutes later than I did previously and I have still not received the Minutes from Wednesday. I have, on the other hand, received the Minutes from Tuesday, on which my name does not appear in the attendance register. I should like this to be corrected because I was indeed present.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, this week, Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca has reaped the benefits of the dialogue, as have we. I hope that he will promote this dialogue at every given opportunity. In any event, I would like to thank him for his report. We are talking about the management of the nuclear legacy, Commissioner, but legacy usually implies a gain and you can refuse it if you so wish. This legacy, however, cannot be refused. We are lumbered with it and will have to deal with it in some way or another. As one of the old opponents of nuclear energy, precisely because of those unresolved issues, I am not speaking with a sense of satisfaction but more with a sense of: “You see, we told you so all along”. We are lumbered with this legacy and it is not fair, really, to saddle future generations with problems. I would, however, like to make one comment regarding the report. If Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca says that possible lasting solutions have not yet been implemented, I cannot agree with him, because I do not consider the storage of this waste a solution. From this point of view, I also beg to differ with Mr Chichester. I think that a genuine solution has not been found or cannot be found. As far as the Euratom Treaty is concerned, I would go along with what you are saying, Mr Desama, but I would press for a critical overhaul of the Euratom Treaty, maybe on the Commissioner’s initiative. In that way, we could see how an incorporated treaty would have to be reviewed, as I find your proposal highly interesting from this point of view. I would also argue for a programme for decommissioning which is not modelled on too narrow-minded views and for our, as from now, taking into consideration the problems of our future partner countries, as we will have to deal with their legacies from the past too. Finally, I would like to expressly ask the Commissioner whether he would be prepared to publish the internal audit report of 28 April 1998, because, at the end of the day, there is little precise information available. I would, therefore, also ask whether the NIRAS [Belgian Institute for Radioactive Waste and Fissionable Materials] report on cost development could be published, for example. In my opinion, it is absolutely vital to achieve this transparency which our fellow delegates are pressing for, so that, in future, we can have nuclear energy pay for its legacy.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, it was inevitable that the Gallagher and Poignant reports would not only comment on the past but would focus in detail on the CFP review, and I consider it entirely appropriate that the MEPs should seek to influence the review process in advance of any formal consultation with Parliament. I contend that the principal objective of the CFP, namely the conservation of fish stocks, has not been realised and as a result we have had to face dramatic year-on-year fluctuations in quotas, as exemplified by the current cod crisis. In addition, we must re-examine the process by which, and the level at which, decisions are made. Various amendments tabled with my name attached seek to establish certain important principles for the CFP review, including that relative stability should remain since the good reasons for its inclusion as a founding principle remain valid. That in the light of experience with areas like the Shetland Box, specially protected areas based on scientific advice should continue in the future. And a system of zonal management should be established based on the ICES areas and with representation from fishing, science and conservation interests able to participate meaningfully, not to renationalise the CFP, not to take away power from the Council or the Commission but to allow each Member State with quotas in a particular zone to assist in devising and recommending controls which are relevant, appropriate to these areas and, therefore, more likely to succeed. Recent events have led to even greater lack of faith within Scotland in the decision-making processes and in the structure of the CFP itself. How can, for example, the Commission justify continuing levels of industrial fishery and even increases in white fish by-catch while on the other hand reducing quotas of fish for human consumption? Let us use the opportunities arising from the review of the CFP to achieve a solution which works. I challenge the Commission and the Council to look seriously at zonal management within a framework of Community-wide objectives, of course, but so that interested parties can participate more fully and so that the new CFP, once agreed, can actually achieve its purpose, namely the long-term sustainability of European fisheries.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I truly regret your reply. I believe that the problem relating to the trafficking in diamonds, which has cost, and is costing, many lives, deserves much more decisive and firm attention from the Council. I clearly cannot blame you for this, since you have just taken over the Presidency, but I would ask you to adopt much more energetic and forceful decisions. The European Union is committed to promoting peace and stability, not only in Europe, but throughout the world. If diamonds are not controlled it is clear that peace and stability in Africa cannot be promoted. In the case of Sierra Leone, Great Britain had supported the embargo, and France as well, to a certain extent. The Council could promote a generalised embargo of all diamonds originating in Africa and, above all, the control of certificates. We know these measures would be difficult to implement but, in any event, any advance in this respect would save human lives and contribute to the pacification of truly dramatic conflicts in Africa.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to clarify just two things. The first is that, while chairing the sitting, I heard applause, but was not sure that it came from the gallery. Secondly, when the honourable gentleman spoke up, I told him that he was in the right and also pointed out that I could do nothing about the gallery after the event, but it was made clear that applause is not permitted. That is what has to be done under the Rules of Procedure.

Political group: PSE