GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would like to say that I think that this is a very important matter that we were dealing with today and that we must decide on tomorrow. I believe it can be said that there is no greater killer on the grounds of lifestyle than cigarettes. It was good that the industry did not succeed in getting Parliament and others to falter in connection with the legal basis. Now, we will actually obtain a reduced nicotine content and tar content in cigarettes, and we will also obtain some rules on the additives that the industry has used to date. These are substances that have helped to make cigarettes even more habit-forming than they would be without these substances. In actual fact, it is quite incredible that this method of production has been accepted until now. It is good that we are going to do something about it. I would also like to point out the new labelling rules – the new rules on warnings on packets. I believe that the rules that we will now have will make it difficult for consumers of cigarettes – and new potential consumers of cigarettes – not to be aware that cigarettes are actually very harmful to health. It is also good that we will obtain some rules on the specific positive designations that it has been possible to use for cigarettes, such as ‘mild’ and ‘light’. This should have happened earlier, but it is good that there will now be rules. I believe that these types of designation are very misleading and give a false impression. They create a false sense of security among consumers. Finally, I would like to mention exports. We have had a discussion concerning what I will call export hypocrisy in this matter. It cannot be right for us in the EU to sell cigarettes outside our own region that we believe are so damaging to health that they should not be used by our own citizens. There will be a transitional scheme for these exports. I do not think that this was necessary, but it was, of course, a political compromise. At any rate, we can be pleased that there is a time limit of a maximum of three years on this hypocrisy. I believe that, all in all, this is a good day for EU health policy, and one with which we can be very satisfied.

Political group: PSE
I speak on behalf of myself and my 28 colleagues from the British Labour Party. We have been pleased to vote and to support this report even though, for a variety of reasons, the United Kingdom Government has exercised its right to opt out of this initiative. As members will be aware, the UK Government was party to the conclusions of the Tampere European Council. There are, however, various practical points and issues regarding sovereignty which the UK takes very seriously and which means it is not appropriate or possible for the United Kingdom to be included at this time. However this does not lessen the commitment of our Government to the principles of the report and the underlying values inherent therein. Indeed it is the government's stated intention that the UK should not be seriously out of line with our European partners in this important area of immigration policy. Labour MEPs have therefore voted in favour of this report and remain supporters of the principles of family reunification.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has worked intensively on the research framework programme. We have submitted many proposals on sustainable development, food safety and other subjects, which were, thankfully, generally adopted by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. We focused on medical research, as we believed that it was in this area that there was the greatest need for change to the Commission's proposal. The Commission's suggestion that only biotechnology should be promoted in the health context is too narrow. Other research fields, too, promise much for health and need to be supported. I thank Mr Caudron, the rapporteur, for his commitment to this as well, and also the shadow rapporteurs, in particular Mr van Velzen, for whom this was also a matter for concern. It is regrettable that the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy could not follow us as regards the ethical boundaries of medical research. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy spoke out clearly in favour of research and for the curing of illnesses, but also in favour of clear boundaries for the sake of human dignity. In particular, our Committee demands the exclusion of exploitative research on human embryos from the research framework programme. This ban is necessary not just because human life is involved, but also because we must counteract the danger of the female body being seen as raw material for industry. Embryo research is not possible without women's egg cells being made available, and the donation of egg cells puts a woman under great strain and at medical risk. It is for this reason that many feminists, too, are opposed to exploitative embryo research. As I have said, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy could not follow us down this road, and so, together with Mr Fiori, I have tabled an amendment that follows the line taken by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, which is also taken in the United States. 'Yes' to stem cell research, but 'no' to exploitative embryo research. The Americans can be accused of many things, but not of being hostile to research. I therefore ask for support for Amendment No 332, tabled by Messrs Fiori, and others. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Thank you for remaining in the House, President-in-Office of the Council. I would first like to highlight the importance of this draft resolution, approved by the Committee on Agriculture. It is the result of the efforts made by all the political groups to reach a consensus on the common agricultural policy, in which so many different interests are involved. It is only right therefore that we congratulate the members of the Committee on Agriculture, those who coordinated the work, and especially Mr Daul, the Chairman and author of this proposal. I trust the Council and the Commission will also take these conclusions into account. Many queries could be raised regarding the proposal for a progress report. However, given the time constraints, I will concentrate on the question that concerns me most as citizen of a southern European country, namely the so-called decoupling of aid. In my country production is low and farmers have to contend with very difficult conditions. Firstly, the proposal does not envisage a genuine decoupling of aid, as it links aid to that received over the past few years, thus linking aid to past production. The only change is that farmers are not required to produce. Secondly, because farmers are not required to produce, there is the risk that they will give up farming in difficult areas where yields are low, leading to a real decline in rural areas where we are seeking to encourage development. We must not forget that the driving force behind rural development is production. Aid is welcome, but it is simply aid. Paragraph 7 has been included in the resolution to address this issue. It states that partially decoupled aid is essential. Finally, I would like to explain that farmers have been working on the assumption that the goal posts would remain in place until 2006. This reform, termed the progress report, would have the effect of moving the goal posts before 2006. I think this will create great insecurity within a sector that is already beset by a number of other threats.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I have a question for the Commissioner. Commissioner, I really do not want to provoke you, but your answer does give me real cause for concern. Amendment 18 states that, ‘In addition, research on embryo or foetal stem cells deriving from spontaneous or therapeutic abortion may be funded.’ Rumours have it that the Commission is already doing something of the kind. You see, abortion is legal – up to the third month in Austria. By then, the child’s heart is already beating. If the child is handicapped, whether mentally or physically, it can be aborted up to the ninth month. Will there be some point at which we say that we want to save life, even if the child had to die anyway? Will we also do that with a three-month old child whose heart is beating, or with a nine-month-old child whose death is inevitable? Abortion is carried out quite legally. You know, the reason why I find these arguments so horrifying is that I heard them a number of years ago when a former Nazi doctor was on trial in Vienna. During the Nazi era, he carried out experiments on children with serious mental handicaps. The argument by which he justified his actions was that these children would have to die anyway, and that he wanted to help other people. Let me say something to Mr Cappato. My dear Mr Cappato, you are such a charming chap! Even at the moment that your mother’s ovum came together with your father’s sperm, even when you were a tiny embryo, you were just as charming, just as handsome as you are now, your voice was as easy on the ear as it is today. You were already unique. Never before had you had the chance to come into the world, and never again will there be another Marco Cappato. Even as an embryo, you were already a personality. And Mrs Matikainen-Kallström, you have a little baby! This baby was an embryo, and it was your baby. Your child’s laughter, the colour of its skin and eyes, all were already present in the embryo. I do not believe that anyone would say they were prepared to sacrifice their own child, even only as an embryo, for the sake of saving someone else.

Political group: PPE-DE
In contrast to the Council and the Commission which represent the governments, the European Parliament is supposed to be the democratic expression of the entire population. The Trentin report, however, shows that although Parliament is elected by the people, it represents the interests of employers alone, instead of the interests of the working classes of the European Union. The modifications requested by Parliament’s rapporteur all have the same goal, namely to make employees’ conditions worse. The aim of the report is to achieve job flexibility. It recommends what it has the cheek to call active ageing, in other words to make people work longer and to push back the age of retirement. The only reason that social policy is mentioned is to affirm with brutal cynicism that this must be a productive factor. For example, although it promotes a policy of lifelong learning, this is so that employers will have a mobile and qualified workforce to meet their needs. Regarding what it calls restructuring processes – which, in actual fact, means collective redundancies – it limits itself to promoting preventative consultation of workers. The only social measure in this report is, therefore, that workers must be warned when they will be made redundant. We shall vote against this text which is designed for employers.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I will pass on your answer to the chairman of the Committee on Budgets. He had asked me to wait for it. On a personal note, I wish to express my heartfelt thanks to our President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Vande Lanotte, above all, who has been here with us throughout the whole of the discussions on the Budget. Things like that do not happen all the time. So, without wishing to seem presumptuous, I would again like to express my most heartfelt thanks to you, not only for showing us so much respect, but also for demonstrating your interest in working with us. Many thanks! (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the supports the rigorous and demanding report by Mr Pomés Ruiz. It lays out and highlights both the achievements and the shortcomings of the Member States in the way the stability and convergence programmes are applied, which, as I mentioned in my previous intervention on the Katiforis report, have brought satisfactory results for the whole of the European economy. However, this current satisfactory situation must not mask a series of shortcomings and must lead to the implementation of the series of recommendations which the rapporteur, Mr Pomés Ruiz, correctly makes in his report. He mentioned one of these recommendations in his speech: the need to take advantage of the current favourable situation, the healthy state of public finances – which on the other hand are disciplined by the stability and convergence programmes – in order to reduce the deficit, and possibly remove it completely, as well as to reduce debt levels, even to below the limits set in the convergence programmes. This would mean that we could make far-reaching tax reforms which would contribute to a more favourable environment for our economy, for business initiative, to freeing up resources and promoting them by fiscal means in an area which is one of our priority commitments: to be up-to-date and competitive at the most advanced levels of the information society and in the application of new technologies. I would like to conclude by arguing – and I believe this is one of the conclusions we must draw from Mr Pomés Ruiz’s report – for greater coordination between the Member States with regard to the implementation of these programmes. I would therefore like to insist once again on the need for a genuine direction for economic and monetary policy at European Union level.

Political group: ELDR
That the international exhaustion of rights conferred by trade marks has been an energetically discussed topic in recent months, is shown by this report, which has dragged on for months and has been thoroughly revised, as is clear from a comparison with the first draft report. The exhaustion of trade mark rights affects all branded products. As President of the Wine Intergroup, I would like to concentrate on the consequences for this sector. The international exhaustion of trade mark rights will be of no advantage to the consumer in the European Union as regards food and drink, as is confirmed by the study produced by National Economic Research Associates (NERA) at the Commission's request. European consumers could indeed be put at a disadvantage in the longer term by our industries’ losing the opportunity to develop new products and to offer the consumer new services. Should yields decrease decisively through parallel imports from third countries, there will also be a decline in motivation to invest in new markets. In the event of the international trade mark rights becoming exhausted, complex distribution networks will come into being and it will become more difficult to put a stop to trade mark piracy. There is no doubt that disadvantages will result for the consumer and for the manufacturer of branded goods, for example with regard to consumer health protection. I am therefore speaking out against the international exhaustion of trade mark rights. However, in view of events since the report was drafted, I will not be voting against it. - Joint resolution on racism (RC B5-0605/2001)

Political group: PPE-DE
I wholeheartedly support this report by my Socialist colleague, Michel Rocard, on the future financing of health insurance systems. At a time when the population is ageing dramatically, it is crucial that we look at improving the health care system for people across Europe. We should not undervalue the basic state provision and importance of arrangements between countries. Having been ill myself in Belgium, I have witnessed at first hand the benefits of mutual recognition of health care systems. From my own heartfelt experience, I would certainly not want to see these benefits ruined. We are asking the Commission to look at the various national health schemes and to examine ways of ensuring a fair deal for those who spend time working in another EU country. These national provisions are life-saving measures. However, if we are to have an effective system that can cope with increasing pressure on existing national services, and that makes Europe a healthier place for our citizens, then we should also recognise the importance of supplementary insurance providers. We should not discriminate against citizens applying to join private health care schemes. The health of our citizens is extremely precious. Citizens across the EU must be confident of receiving effective health care no matter which country they are in. I call on the Commission to take heed of Michel Rocard's report.

Political group: PSE
I voted in favour of the report. Transport policy is essential, both for economic development and for the preservation of the environment and of our living conditions, and this means that we have to take the long-term view. Improving the quality of transport means increasing the alternatives to road transport, in particular by giving support to rail transport and effectively implementing north-south links (Rhine-Rhone-Mediterranean via the Frankfurt/Lyons/Perpignan/Barcelona axis) and European interconnections (Lyons-Turin,...). In this field, political willingness on the part of governments is sometimes lacking. Improving the efficiency of transport also means paying special attention to trans-European navigable waterway networks. All too often these projects are prevented from being implemented. Improving transport safety also means preventing foreseeable bad weather conditions from blocking roads and airports, leaving people to fall back on their own resources owing to the lack of sufficient capacity to react to such situations, and the lack of equipment or of efficient warning systems, even when the appropriate technology exists. Finally, I am not in favour of the creation of a European road safety agency. I do not think that we can solve the problems we are currently encountering by multiplying structures of this type. (Explanation of vote abbreviated pursuant to Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the European Parliament has just adopted the Andersson report on adequate and sustainable pensions. One of the paragraphs it adopted was paragraph 16, in which the European Parliament calls for the increase in the effective retirement age to be implemented together with incentives – and not, I repeat, not – with disincentives such as drastic reductions in pension values The European Parliament is thus going in the opposite direction from the Italian Government, which presented a proposal which means that, from 2008, retirement pensions will be put back five years with disincentives – and what disincentives: pensions will be completely cancelled for five years. This will bring EUR 25 billion to the state coffers in 2013, whilst there will be 2 million fewer jobs for young people and the unemployed.

Political group: PPE-DE
Thank you, Mr President. Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it was almost a year ago exactly that this House discussed SARS. Now, as then, many Members are saying that globalisation and the European internal market, which are essentially good things, can work well only if we also take action to protect people’s health. This is where Europe needs to take joint action, for viruses and bacteria do not, after all, stop at borders. Let me pick up Mr Mulder’s example. Düsseldorf’s airport is very, very close to the Dutch border, and so it is from Düsseldorf that many Dutch people fly when they go on holiday, and a lot of people from the part of North Rhine-Westphalia around Düsseldorf fly from Schiphol. People will not understand why safety measures at Schiphol have to be quite different from those in Düsseldorf. In any case, viruses do not make a stop at the borders, which are themselves established in different ways by nation-states, and so I believe this is where we need more measures taken at European level. A year ago, I backed Commissioner Byrne when he was trying to get more competences to combat this sort of threat included in the European constitution. Admittedly, he does often overshoot the mark, and when he did, I told him so, but, in this case, he really is right, and we should be behind him. Although the Convention did not achieve what we actually wanted, progress has been made, and that is another reason to press for a European constitution, which will better enable us to combat these dangers. I would like to conclude by taking up Mrs Roth-Behrendt’s point about research. We do indeed have to do more for medical research, and when we do, we must not think only in terms of products that are capable of being used in the short term. The protection of people’s health is a research objective too, one that it is worth pushing, one on which it is worth spending money if there are no firms willing to do it in the short term. Dangers can present themselves without warning, and so we have to be prepared, even if industry has made no effort by the time the danger arises.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, with the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the European Parliament’s responsibilities increased considerably, as it assumed new powers of codecision in the area of preventing and fighting the fraud which harms the Community’s financial interests. The new Article 280 of the Treaty also gives the Court of Auditors new responsibilities by creating a legal body which will afford effective equivalent protection against fraud and any other illegal activity in the Member States. Harmonisation in the area of the application of national criminal law and of the administration of justice in the Member States presupposes, necessarily, the harmonisation of legislation on fighting fraud and any other illegal activity in the Community budget. This means that it also falls within the competence of the Court of Auditors to guarantee that the protection of the Community’s financial interests is done on the basis of a single corpus juris and is no longer done, as it has been until now on the basis of vague, disjointed and contradictory legislation, which deals with the various attacks on the Community’s financial interests according to the policy they relate to and not according to fair principles. It is therefore time to end the narrow divisions between the Common Agricultural Policy, the Structural Funds, the Community’s own resources and the Community’s internal and external policies and to guarantee that there is one weight and one measure for all of these. It is time to end the administrative and bureaucratic feuds and chapels and show that everyone has the same will to practice justice and rigour. We think that this is the way to better control and manage the Community budget in an ever more efficient, balanced and impartial way.

Political group: PSE