GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am particularly grateful to Mr Perry for his report because, in emphatically demanding the revision of the television directive, he has done so with the objective of maintaining and promoting cultural diversity in Europe in an era of technological convergence. The fact is that content is no longer dependent only on the medium of television, but, in the same way, on many other technological media, and if we want to maintain diversity, we have to find ways whereby we can achieve common rules in this area, which do justice to the various demands, albeit in a slightly different procedure. There are two issues I would like to address, and the first is media pluralism. This Parliament has very emphatically spoken out, most recently on 10 November 2002, in favour of greater support for, and underpinning of, media diversity in Europe and against unhindered media concentration. I would press upon the Commission the urgent need to do what this vote by Parliament demands of it and put before us the pieces of work that we have asked for. The Group of the European People’s Party cannot, however, endorse Amendment No 10, which was tabled today, as it refers exclusively to one instrument, the directive, and because we will achieve a result in this area only if we balance, in an appropriate and proper way, the competences of the Member States and those of the European Union. Considerations of media pluralism therefore demand the solution that we called for in our resolution in November. The second point I want to address is the protection of young people. New technologies require that children and young people be protected in the same way as is provided for in the television directive. Let us therefore work together towards a new system and new ways of self-regulation with minimum standards accepted by all. I wish the Commission much success as it travels down this road.

Political group: PPE-DE
Our vote against this report is not a vote against research into agriculture or against the scientists who carry out research in this area. However, the results of this research are inevitably used by agri-foodstuffs corporations as the results strengthen their dominant role in the agriculture industry, because farmers must increasingly go through these corporations to buy seed etc. We have absolutely no trust in the agri-foodstuffs corporations, who are motivated solely by research and optimising profits, even at the expense of consumers’ health and the environment. Yet, there is nothing in the proposal for a directive which convinces us that releasing GMOs and, more importantly, placing GMOs on the market, will be subject to strict monitoring, leading to an outright ban if this were shown to be in the interests of society, even if this means a clash with the interests of the agricultural food corporations. The fact that these agricultural food corporations continued to sell bonemeal, despite having been proven to be harmful, and the lax attitude, even complicity, of Member States and European institutions towards this issue are already sending out warning signals and we will certainly pay a high price for this in the future. We therefore voted against this report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr Whitehead spoke of the Additives Survivors' Network. Sitting here on an evening like this, I think we all belong to Parliament's survivors' network. The trouble with sweeteners in the additives category is that they excite fundamentalist reactions of exactly the same type as genetically modified organisms. Basically, that reaction leads to the position of Mr Lannoye, which really is that he does not want any sweeteners authorised at all at any level and would like them all taken off the market. It is as well to bear that in mind as a background to what he has just said. I would like to comment on two amendments and would like to hear the Commission's view on them. Amendment 4 has been mentioned as requiring a new investigation into aspartame. That illustrates the point about fundamentalism, because this would take place less than a year after the publication of the Scientific Committee for Food's opinion on aspartame. Can the rapporteur tell us – because she did not say this in her speech – why we should doubt the FDA assessment? Does the rapporteur have evidence of the FDA's inadequacy and the inadequacy of its own assessment? If so, she should share the evidence with us, because there is no point in tabling an amendment like this without giving us that information. Another point on Amendment 4: why is the rapporteur against a sweetener which is known apparently as stevia? There is no mention of this in the justification. The amendment seems to be against stevia and wants another investigation of that. What does the rapporteur know that we do not? Can Mr Byrne help us? Secondly, in relation to Amendment 8 – which has been mentioned by more than one Member – it worries me more for the process by which it was agreed than for the substance that it contains. When it was moved in the committee by the rapporteur, the Commission indicated willingness to accept a change from the level of 350 mg/l to 250 mg/l. The Commission gave no substantive reason for this. It almost seemed to us, as Mr Bowis has said, that it was picking a figure out of a hat. As Mr Coleman of DG SANCO stated in a letter he wrote shortly after that: 'A clear majority of experts from the Member States have expressed the position in both the Commission and the Council working parties that the reduction to 350 mg/l is not sufficient, and wish to go further.' That information was not given to the committee. No information was given to the committee! We were certainly not told that Member States' experts thought that 350 mg/l was too high or why they did. Can the Commissioner now take this opportunity to say why the Commission changed its mind – on the basis of which scientific studies? And, indeed, when did it do so, given the fact that it presumably consulted the self-same national experts who were happy with 350 mg/l when it drew up the directive not very long ago?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, unfortunately Mr Murphy cannot be here with us this evening and I therefore have the honour of representing him here today. However, I am at a disadvantage. I was not involved in the work of the conciliation committee, although I have studied the documents. So please forgive me if I am not quite as well informed as the members who helped in the conciliation procedure. I should like to thank those members because, even as someone who was not involved, I can say that this is an important directive. It is important to SMEs, it is important to the public sector, it is probably a far more important instrument for promoting employment than many of the resolutions passed here in this House. I can still remember the earlier debates: late payments are a breach of contract and this directive stipulates that the purchaser must pay the vendor the full sum owed within 30 days of receipt of the goods. Otherwise, he must pay a penalty in the form of interest etc. Discussions with the Council gave rise to a whole series of problems which we have now managed to settle, several sittings later. One of the main problems was the question of retention of title, whereby the vendor retains ownership of the goods pending full payment. It was also agreed that freedom of contract cannot be invoked in order to limit the effects of the so-called anti-abuse clause. We have agreed on a clear regulation here which ensures that the debtor cannot procure additional liquidity or additional advantages at the creditor’s expense. In addition – and this was an important point – the principle of equal treatment between the public and private sectors has been acknowledged. As far as interest is concerned, we have compromised between the 6% proposed by Council and the 8% proposed by Parliament, agreeing in the conciliation procedure on 7%. All in all, it is a reasonable result and, I repeat, it is a result which will mainly help SMEs in the Union. I personally was most surprised to read that late payments were one of the main reasons for bankruptcies in Europe. Apparently some 450,000 jobs are lost in the EU every year as a result. We often spend a great deal of money on very few jobs. Here we are achieving the desired effect cost-free, as it were, and I think that Parliament should make it clear to the outside world that it has done job security a huge service. Allow me to close with one more comment regarding the Commission. Late payments are a breach of contract even when it is the Commission which is late paying. This does not figure in the directive but, in my experience as an MEP, we often hear complaints when we visit SMEs and large companies alike, that the Commission is often far too late honouring the payment commitments which it has entered into in research promotion or other areas. I hope that the Commission will be guided by the spirit of this directive and make its own payments on time, because here too, I repeat, this is breach of contract. My warmest thanks once again to everyone involved and I hope that Parliament will vote in favour of this compromise tomorrow.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I wanted to point out an important matter of principle. I personally believe that it is nothing short of scandalous that we hear Members of this Parliament attacking the demonstration rather than looking at the solution to the problem, which is fair conditions, fair pay and fair hours. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to congratulate Mrs De Sarnez on her excellent report and thank her for her good and constructive cooperation. The Erasmus Welt programme, which is so important to the future of the European Union, shows how important and sensible it is that Parliament's committees should cooperate well with the Commission. The Commission proposal is supplemented by the amendments tabled to it, which also put it on a broader foundation, especially in financial terms, with EUR 300 million instead of the proposed EUR 200 million. New programmes, especially in the fields of education, culture and youth, which represent important investments in our future, raise again and again the key issue of where we are meant to get the money from if there is none under the heading provided for that purpose. Where is the money supposed to come from if we are disinclined to cut back other similar programmes under the same heading? This question has to be put and answered in this plenary more than once, and I can see the same problem arising with Mr Mauro's report on eLearning. Our Parliament has the traditional policy of defending existing programmes. In its legislative capacity, the Council can indeed see how important these programmes are, but as a budgetary authority, it is unwilling to allocate more funds to Heading 3. The current Financial Perspective, which still has until the end of 2006 to run, leaves an extremely small amount of foreseeable room for manoeuvre. That will, in any case, affect the first three years of the Erasmus World programme. The Lisbon strategy, though, which we are pursuing, might well make this a good opportunity for us to show our colours. What priorities do we want to set for the distribution of the funds available, if we want to achieve the transformation into a competitive, dynamic and knowledge-based society, as was reaffirmed, yet again, by everyone at the Brussels Summit just over two weeks ago? With this in mind, we should be putting the case for this important new programme to receive appropriate funding, to the tune of EUR 300 million. Let me then repeat my urgent appeal to the Council to join with us in looking forward and going ahead with this. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, I have to reiterate that the present situation will very probably result in a redeployment of the funds under Heading 3 in order to guarantee compliance with the financial upper limit. It might make sense, in the first instance, to reallocate funds from those action programmes for which no financial framework has yet been laid down in the Financial Perspective, or for which such a framework is to be decided on by way of codecision after 2007.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, you cited a Rule that I did not know existed when you made your ruling on the points of order by Mr Wieland and Mr Van Orden. Rule 138(3) mentions that points of order concerning the validity of a vote may be raised after the President has declared it closed. Thus Mr Wieland had the right to do what he did. Rule 138(4) provides that 'after the result of a vote by show of hands has been announced, a Member may request that this result be checked using the electronic voting system'. You did not do that Mr President. I know the final decision on all this is yours, but it was a legitimate call by a host of Members of this House. You said at the very beginning of this voting session that your eyes were playing you up. I would humbly ask that you take a check on Amendment No 16. (Applause from the right)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as Mr Schmidt also pointed out, the initiative leading to Parliament’s resolution on the European Investment Bank’s annual report was taken by the Group of the , with Mr Lipietz as the original rapporteur. I think it necessary for the European Parliament to express an opinion about the EIB’s activities because the EIB is not only a Bank but also an EU institution that finances large projects and uses Community funds to steer development. The EIB has been criticised for neglecting environmental issues, as well as the issues of openness and transparency. Mr Schmidt also mentioned that positive changes to the EIB’s policy have taken place recently in response to the criticism. I hope that the EIB will continue in the same spirit. I want to congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent report that addresses important issues. It proposes, for example, that loans to the candidate countries should be increased and that evaluations should be made more easily accessible to the general public. A further proposal is that dialogue between the two sides of industry, politicians and non-governmental organisations etc. should be strengthened as aspects of openness and transparency. The report could, however, have been more vigorous when it comes to environmental issues. The Group of the has tabled six amendments that specifically address environmental issues and matters of transparency. A prerequisite for expressing our support for an increase in the EIB’s capital should be that the projects lead to sustainable development. Performance indicators must also be established so that the EIB’s activities can be measured and evaluated properly. I am delighted that the rapporteur expressed his support for most of our amendments. In accordance with Mr Schmidt’s wishes, I also accept Amendment No 5 as a supplement to Paragraph 30. It would, however, be unfortunate if Amendment No 2 were not to be adopted. If civil society is to be able to keep track of an issue, the documents must obviously be available in the national language. I call upon MEPs to vote in favour of this amendment.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I also welcome the statements from both the Council and the Commission. I welcome all the statements concerning this issue of the protection of animals and animal welfare. I would like to thank the Swedish Presidency which, for the first time ever, has succeeded in bringing about a public debate on animal ethics in the Council of Ministers. This is therefore progress. Animal ethics is about much more than mere rules. It is about attitudes and knowledge of animals and about how animals must feel well. Nonetheless, it is very important that the legislation and rules of both the EU and, especially, the Member States are followed. On 8 March, the held a conference on animal welfare here in Parliament, at which, I am pleased to say, Margareta Winberg was also present. At this conference, it emerged that there is no overall supervision whatsoever of the EU’s animal transport directives, nor any checks on whether they are being observed. Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, animals are being transported the length and breadth of Europe under terrible conditions without anyone intervening. The provisions that exist on the transport of live animals are well known, for example, the limits on time in transport and requirements of veterinary certificates. However, there is no functioning supervisory apparatus. Now we have been given an answer from the Commission to the question that I put. The Council too has also stated that the transport of live animals must cease... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Commissioner, the speech that you have just made has left me somewhat confused, and I shall tell you why: you began by saying that a review of livestock farming is needed. You then present yourself to this Parliament as the master of an agriculture that is focused on intensive production and exports. In other words, you are saying ‘I cannot vaccinate livestock because if I did, I would harm exports’. This illogical approach is intolerable. You have to make a choice, Commissioner: either you are genuinely interested in protecting producers, in which case you have to opt for vaccination in areas with the highest numbers of affected animals, or you want to protect the export industry, in which case you would be sacrificing producers to exports. What you cannot do is address both issues in the same way. I would ask you, whose side are you actually on? Are you on the side of the export industry or of saving livestock farmers? My second question to you concerns another incongruity: the Netherlands has discovered a dozen cases, and the United Kingdom 900. The United Kingdom has slaughtered hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of animals and the Netherlands has slaughtered a few thousand. The latter is using vaccination but with regard to the UK, on which everyone is focussing, and which has major problems, you come here, Commissioner, and sit on the fence. This is unacceptable. You must tell us what you think about vaccination. I should also like to ask you why animals are being slaughtered once they have been vaccinated. You must explain to us what the technical or scientific basis is for having animals slaughtered when they have already been vaccinated. I have one final question: your Veterinary Committee knows the type of vaccination needed and can guarantee its safety. Why then are you always confusing the situation and leading people to believe that from a technical and scientific point of view, we cannot control this disaster through vaccination?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I too would like to begin by thanking Mr Cunha for producing such a worthwhile report and by wishing him well in his new role. Our debate takes place in a context where, first, some stocks in certain northern waters are in crisis and others are endangered. Second, many more are being over-exploited on a global basis. In addition, a report published last week by the International Food Policy Research Institute indicates that, if China is included, developing countries now account for more than 70% of the production of fish for food including both wild fisheries and aquaculture. The consequences are that the EU is dependent on imports of fish and that many EU fishers pursue their activities in other waters. The accepts, therefore, that there is merit in negotiating fisheries partnership agreements with third countries, rather than leaving matters to bilateral arrangements which may lack consistency both between each other and in supporting the requirements of sustainable development. We do, however, have very strong views about the nature of any agreements made by the EU. First, the agreements reached should be genuine partnership ones and of mutual benefit. We believe that our amendment to paragraph 7 gives fuller expression to this idea than the original paragraph. Second, the agreement should be both responsible and transparent in budgetary terms, so we have amendments calling for renewal of agreements to be dependent on evidence that past monies have been spent as intended. We also call for an equitable - that is just to say a fair or just - sharing of payments by the EU vessel owners involved. On paragraph 11, whilst it may be right to forecast an increase in the number of agreements reached, we cannot be certain of this and would prefer by oral amendment to replace the words 'the increase' with 'any increase'. Third, the agreement should promote sustainability. We are pleased with the extent to which the report makes reference to the principles involved and hope to see these built on where the details of any future agreement are concerned, notably by introducing specific provisions for protecting the environment. I would urge the House to support both this report and their amendments to it. As Mr Stevenson has already said, we must ensure that we do not try to solve our domestic problems by exporting them to developing countries. Experience already tells us just how counterproductive such an approach would be. Indeed, wherever we come from in the EU we have a very strong interest in ensuring the sustainability of fisheries not only in our own waters but beyond.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, on a point of order, I should like to ask you to write to President Bush and the Governor of Texas to protest against the execution by lethal injection of the British citizen, Jackie Elliott, last week, despite mounting evidence that he was innocent of the crime for which he had been convicted and was on death row for 16 years. There were numerous protests from the United Kingdom and people in prominent positions, and there was new evidence from police reports that pointed to other more likely suspects for the 1986 murder of which he was convicted, as well as urgent requests for crucial DNA testing. The Texas authorities pressed ahead with the scheduled execution, despite the fact that a number of key legal appeals had still to be heard by the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals. His local Member of Parliament - a senior cabinet minister - led the protests. This signals to the world a curious sort of respect by the American justice system for the rule of law and human rights. Let us at least ensure that such injustices do not go unnoticed.

Political group: ELDR
Yes to a more active role for the EU within the UN, as recommended by the report. ‘Multilateralism (which) remains the best way to achieve global peace and security’, is indeed one way of guaranteeing that we avoid the supremacy of one superpower. But the objectives that are set out disregard reality and current dangers. Declarations of intent are no longer enough: poverty eradication, human development, conflict prevention and peacekeeping all require a degree of financial and political investment that is equal to these challenges. Following the armed intervention and occupation of Iraq by the United States and the suppression – to the point of extinction? – of the Palestinian people, the spirit that prevailed when the United Nations was created and the principles underlying the Charter are more than ever being ridden over roughshod and even trampled underfoot by certain countries. Now more than ever we need to defend international law and champion the right of nations to self-determination with renewed vigour and that means taking action. The United Nations peace plan for Western Sahara, for example, including holding a referendum on self-determination, must be implemented, regardless of any further shilly-shallying by the Moroccan Government. Proper sanctions must also be applied in cases where human rights are violated or the environment is damaged.

Political group: GUE-NGL