GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I welcome the adoption by the European Parliament of the report by German Socialist MEP Dagmar Roth-Berendt, which calls for a ban on the testing of animals and the introduction of proper labelling so that consumers can make an informed choice. At a time when people are demanding higher standards from the food industry, the cosmetics industry continues to market products which contain potentially harmful ingredients. Today's debate on a report on the use of animal testing and ingredients in cosmetics and toiletries raises concerns about the use of allergy-causing ingredients, as well as substances used in cosmetics which have been linked with cancer and hormonal problems. While EU legislation provides for strict limits on the use of certain chemicals in cosmetics, this does not guarantee the user will be unaffected by their use. The time has come to re-examine entirely the use of chemicals that are known or suspected to be harmful. In Sweden and Japan the use of formaldehyde is completely banned because it is claimed to be carcinogenic. However, in the EU it is commonly used as a preservative in 'family' hair shampoos. Not only is it not banned in the rest of Europe, but we are not even told it is present in the products we buy. In addition to banning certain ingredients, there should be better labelling of cosmetics and toiletries so that the consumer can make an informed choice.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I want to thank Mr van Hulten for his report and to say that I voted for it. So I refer to the things I do not agree with. I do not agree with the paragraphs in relation to Parliament. This report is about the Commission. Parliament is a separate subject. There is no need for us to bring Parliament into the discussion on the Commission. In addition to that, there is the question of duty-free. That was a stick used to beat the Commission by the duty-free lobbies who resented the fact that the Commission abolished duty-free in airports. It is not worthy of being brought into this report either. Most of the report is about financial control. That is reasonable because it comes from the Budgetary Control Committee. But we should not create the impression that vast amounts of European resources are being put at risk by carelessness in the European Commission. After all, it is only 1% of GDP, by comparison with national spending. We have had all that before but some people in this Parliament are young and do not seem to understand how small the financial resources of the European Union are and that 80% of these resources are spent by the Member States. So carelessness within the Commission in the spending of money is not likely to put at risk vast quantities of money. We should get it into perspective. It is important to remember that. The business of the European Commission is very little about spending money. They have very little of it. They have a much wider responsibility. That wider responsibility concerns the management of the environment, food safety, foreign trade, the internal market and so many other responsibilities we have given them without the resources to deal with them. I am not one of the people who agrees that there is a vast lack of trust. If there is, we have generated it in this House in the past year. I have been here for 20 years and found absolute trust between the Council, the Commission and Parliament. We have had our problems and we recognised difficulties but there was not a situation where this bureaucratic Commission was mistrusted, doubted and feared by the citizens of the European Union because they were mismanaging our affairs. That is a gross exaggeration of what the difficulties were. This Commission should not have to live forever in the shadow of the mistakes that caused the resignation of the Commission that went before it. While there were problems – and we have to resolve them in view of enlargement, for instance – we sometimes take the negative side too far.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mr Oostlander. This is a splendid report, which lists all the critical points without offending Turkey. It is fair and open, and I believe that anyone applying for accession has the right to be treated fairly and openly. Second, I would like to contradict both of the previous speakers. It is not – as is written in the minority opinion – about precepts of an almost parareligious nature; clause 3 states specifically that fundamental European values, although based on the Judeo-Christian legacy, but also encompassing the values of the Enlightenment, do not stand in the way of the accession of a Muslim state in principle. In view of what you, Mr Nordmann and Mrs Maes, have just said with regard to secularism in Turkey, I can only call upon you to inform yourselves! There is no freedom of religion, and there is no secularism along French lines. Secularism in Turkey means 130 000 state employees monitoring and harassing the non-Muslim minority. There are no rights for Christian religions in Turkey. Separation of state and religion is one thing, but guaranteeing freedom of religion is another. It is an inalienable part of the European system of values that every individual should be allowed to live according to his or her religion and practise it. In Turkey, this is not guaranteed. Until 1954, it was a punishable offence to provide religious instruction. I therefore really entreat you to inform yourselves on this issue. The other points mentioned were the role of the army, minority rights for the Kurds, the right to vote, in other words the fact that the 10% hurdle is still in place, the imprisonment of persons motivated by political or moral conviction such as Leyla Zana, who will soon have spent ten years in prison for speaking freely, or the issue of the heritage of the Armenians and Syrians, which is not protected at present in Turkey. It is a long list, and one that Turkey must work through. That is its obligation. I especially welcome the point made in clause 52 of the report that, in the light of the Copenhagen decision, this is not the start of negotiations. For this to happen, the conditions must be met. This will be reviewed at the end of 2004. I also agree with the fact that the review is not to take place now, but at the end of 2004. Furthermore, as an interim report, this report can in no way signify that Parliament has committed itself one way or another with regard to a later decision to approve or reject Turkey’s application for accession.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the European defence industry is important, but at least as important is world peace. Mr Titley’s report provides a balanced response to this recurring theme. It argues in favour of better and stricter controls in the arms trade and greater transparency. It is, for example, necessary to develop better marking and tracing techniques for arms, by analogy with car coding. This must be done in a harmonised manner and at international level. Only in this way can obscure and illegal practices be traced and penalised more easily because – and this appears to me to be the key problem – the discrepancy between the legal and illegal arms trade is becoming increasingly smaller. The globalisation of world trade makes arms cheaper, more readily available and more difficult to trace. According to Oxfam, fifty-five percent of the total trade in light weapons is illegal. Needless to say, a stricter code of conduct only makes sense if the Member States assume their own share of the responsibility. In certain air- and seaports, arms control leaves a great deal to be desired. In addition, cooperation with candidate countries must be stepped up in this area. They may subscribe to the code, but in certain cases act as the hub of the illegal arms trade. Some will claim that the code of conduct is not ambitious enough, but it is better to have a code of conduct which is flawed than not to have one at all. In any event, future annual reports should contain more complete and transparent information, and the code of conduct should become legally binding in due course. This code of conduct is a first step in the direction of greater coherence, but I share the rapporteur’s hope that we will not leave it at that.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in the United Kingdom we have unity of purpose at this tragic time. We are reassured by the solidarity with the United States expressed by political leaders right across Europe. Previously, the enthusiasm of so many European politicians for European integration has been fuelled by anti-Americanism. There must be no more of this. Seldom has the need for Euro/Atlantic unity been more vital. I trust that European Union leaders will make sure that there is no backsliding by any European governments when the going starts to get rough. In previous crises, the resolve of some has quickly crumbled. It would be singularly inappropriate to use this crisis to promote and accelerate the integrationist agenda of the Union, in particular the essentially separatist elements of European defence policy. Our motive must be serious action against terrorism, not just seizing an opportunity to extend EU competencies. On the internal front, I hope that the proposed European Union common definition of terrorist crime and associated legislation will be sufficiently robust to allow effective action at last to be taken against large numbers of terrorist front organisations throughout Europe. I have to say, I doubt it. The problem is that too many terrorists have their apologists and masquerade in other guises. Ways need to be found to prevent terrorist support groups from carrying out what are still regarded as legal acts in our countries, such as recruiting, indoctrinating, broadcasting and fund-raising in order to sustain illegal acts elsewhere. Specifically, it is time for the seven European Union countries which have not yet done so, including the Belgian Presidency, to ratify and implement the UN Convention for the suppression of terrorist financing, so that the black money networks which sustain terrorist organisations can be closed down. Democratic society needs to protect itself and be able to deal with real dangers. In recent years, it has been progressively disarmed.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first of all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur for bringing forward a report that not only looks at the problem but puts forward new ideas for the future. In many countries and areas – such as where I come from in Northern Ireland – young children might not have had the opportunity to have that nourishment and that nutritional support supplied by milk if it had not been for the milk provided to them in schools. I also hope and trust that they will begin to appreciate and to continue to drink milk. One thing which amazes me, especially when the agricultural community and dairy farmers are going through such difficult times, is that people are prepared to buy many other products and pay substantial amounts of money for them, but they are not prepared to pay the same amount of money for milk, either for themselves, or for their children. Milk provides a very healthy and balanced diet, something we should all support. The European Union should take that on board. It is good value for money. We do not always achieve that. We are in a situation in Europe at the moment where we are pouring millions of euros into the agricultural industry, yet the farmers have never been worse off in their lives. We have to go back to the drawing board and ask ourselves what our priorities are. I want to thank Mr Maat. He has challenged us to look to the future, not just in relation to milk itself, but also to milk products and ways in which we can encourage children to drink milk.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wish to express my thanks to my colleague, Mr Dirk Sterckx, for the thorough work he has done. The Prestige accident that happened 10 months ago brought about an ecological and economic disaster of exceptional proportions. This is just the sort of approach we need to ensure that something like this never happens again. It is vitally important to analyse the causes of the accident and draw the relevant political conclusions. It has to be said, actually, that most of the necessary legislation to promote safety at sea already exists. The measures laid down in the two Erika packages could have prevented the Prestige disaster. Safety at sea can be improved if existing international rules are complied with. The first requirement is for Member States to make the Erika legislation that has been adopted part of national law as quickly as possible and monitor its application strictly. Monitoring for compliance with international legislation will also be of primary importance. The Commission should propose an amendment to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, for which Parliament would have much to propose. According to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, a coastal state has no authority over vessels transiting along its coastline flying the flag of another state and outside its territorial waters. The Convention does not reflect present maritime reality. The Commission must, as a matter of urgency, obtain a negotiating mandate from the Council. A coastal state is in the best position to monitor ships off its coast and should be given certain powers to take action in exceptional cases. Only in that way can we include third countries and ships not registered in any country in the same objective. We likewise have to develop our assessment of cross-border environmental impact. That will be an important tool, particularly in the protection of the seas. Every accident involving petroleum products is a catastrophe we cannot afford. It also has to be said that the European Union has certain particularly vulnerable sea areas, such as the Baltic, where, if an accident were to occur, it would be an utter calamity. I myself have proposed that the EU should join the Arctic Council. EU membership of the Arctic Council would strengthen Euro-Atlantic understanding in the area of the environment and the EU would have an important forum in which to address issues such as the protection of sea wildlife in the north.

Political group: PPE-DE
I would thank the Council of Ministers for its answer. I think it is extremely positive that an attempt is being made to reach a compromise. I intended to ask the Council of Ministers whether the compromise is based not upon absolute limit values but upon applying dietary recommendations in connection with the consumption of fish from the Baltic. Is it a compromise along those lines that is being considered? I also want to emphasise that the opportunity to eat herring from the Baltic, including the variety indigenous to the Baltic, is not only an economic issue but also an important cultural issue. Prohibiting fish from the Baltic would be rather like prohibiting mussels and pommes frites in Belgium, something I imagine would be unthinkable.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this is an important issue, and it is important that we observe Community competence. I am pleased that we have come to conclusions, having looked at ways to make implants safer. My group supports these proposals. At the same time, we would strongly defend the principle of subsidiarity and what is to be dealt with by Member States. However, the proposal does not respect the prevailing principle of subsidiarity on all points, e.g. point 3 on the design of care. I would also like to give a warning about systems of patient registers. If I may take the country which I know best as an example, I can say that we have recently had a discussion because a large number of patients have been surprised at the fact that sensitive medical information has been recorded and then used in an unacceptable way. Therefore, we cannot support what has been said about an EU-wide register, either. This is something which each Member State must consider very, very carefully. With regard to the age limit, we should perhaps avoid making this matter into something of a forbidden fruit. By setting an age limit, I believe we are making it even more attractive. It is a matter which we must take measures against in some other way. I believe that many of us feel it is rather ridiculous and dangerous to have implants, but we should not decide about this at European level. It has been extremely interesting to read the reports ordered by Parliament and the Commission. I can only say that it is very difficult in practice to apply the precautionary principle. I believe the reports on the entire issue have shown us this. It can be seen, for example, that we have been on rather shaky ground when trying to introduce a total ban.

Political group: ELDR
The conclusions of the European Council of 16-17 October 2003 reveal that the Heads of State or Government are persisting with the same neoliberal policy, showing complete indifference to socio-economic problems. It is unacceptable to continue giving priority to enhancing the competitiveness of businesses on the basis of further liberalisation and privatisation, further pay cuts and flexibility, instead of solving the problems of unemployment, poverty and social exclusion. Even the so-called ‘European Initiative for Growth’ will fail as long as the limitations imposed by monetary policy remain in place. Those limitations also bring the risk that funding for large projects will come to depend on the whim of the financial markets. The Stability Pact needs revising more than ever, in such a way as to take into account employment, education, training and sustainable development. As for the Intergovernmental Conference, what was revealed there is worrying, especially the unacceptable financial blackmail practised by some Member States, who are threatening to block the Community budget so as to obtain an agreement based on the so-called European Constitution. It is equally regrettable that the Council has not put in place the measures needed to bring an end to the occupation of Iraq, so as to ensure that the Iraqi people will be able to claim their inalienable right to determine their own future and exploit their rich resources.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, although I am not from the same group as Mr Whitehead, I share his thoughts on Mrs Roth-Behrendt, and if she has to have an operation tomorrow we wish her a speedy recovery because in a way she is the driving force behind the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. In any event, she has only tabled two amendments, because the Commission accepted the majority of the amendments tabled at first reading. These two amendments, as has already been said by other Members, concern the additional guarantees that some Member States can stipulate in order for animals to enter, and also with the possibility of conducting tests on animals of less than 30 months. However, as I come from a small region with small farms that have huge problems, and where there have been some, but very few, cases of BSE, I would like to highlight three issues that I think are fundamental. One of them features in Article 6 and refers to the need to train and educate staff working for the competent authorities, staff that work in laboratories, people who rear animals and those who sell them. In practice, I have seen that all of these people are faced with a problem that they do not understand and that they do not know how to deal with. This training programme is therefore essential, in my opinion, and should be implemented as soon as possible, because it would be a method of prevention. With respect to the banning of feed containing animal proteins, as established in Article 9, my opinion is that this ban should now be total. Cows should eat grass and this is the best way of preventing what is occurring now. There should also be immediate 100% compensation for the animals slaughtered on these farms. I have seen how some of the farmers in the region where I live, who had 25 or 30 cows, have very little money left on which to live. If all the animals are slaughtered they are left without their livelihood. It is therefore essential that the compensation that they have not yet received be paid out immediately. I think, Mr President – and I will finish here because my time has run out – that if we wish to regain credibility among consumers, measures like these and others must be implemented immediately and clearly. People need to see that measures are being taken in Europe, otherwise it will be impossible to regain that credibility.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioners, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, the failure that was Cancún imposes a duty on us, a duty to think clearly. I believe that, despite the differences of opinion that exist in this House on who was responsible, and I must confess that I do not agree with those who blame the NGOs or the southern countries, we must clearly state that the structure is no longer the same as it was at Marrakech. The players involved are no longer the same. At the time, there were two blocs, which to some extent imposed their own timetables, set their own game rules and in any event were the dominant players. We now have several players and Commissioner Lamy is right to say that there is no longer a North and a South. There were two southern blocs at Cancún. On the one side there was the group of the 21 and the group of the ACP and least developed countries and on the other, the United States and Europe: that already makes four major players and perhaps next time there will be even more. We have clearly, therefore, moved beyond the time when two players dominated the game. We must be aware of this fact and bear it in mind. The second observation I wish to make is that, as several speakers have already said, the WTO is an institution that does not live up to our expectations of a multilateral trade body. We do need multilateralism and I do not believe that anyone here is calling this concept into question, but it must be organised equitably, which cannot be said of the WTO. We need a new framework and I believe that a UN-style framework would be more appropriate. We need new ground rules, which are more democratic, more transparent and, above all, fairer. Genuinely equitable trade rules must be implemented, in which trade is put at the service of human rights, social rights and environmental protection and not the other way around. World trade rules must stop hampering States’ action to achieve sustainable development, which last year’s Johannesburg Summit considered to be the absolute number one priority. Instead, the WTO’s action should help States achieve this aim.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to join my colleagues in giving a warm welcome to Professor MacCormick’s very realistic report. In considering the whole issue of product liability we have to say that the current directive appears to have functioned well. There is not a great deal of evidence that consumers are at the moment being seriously disadvantaged. I would argue quite strongly that we have achieved a very fair and reasonable balance of interests. I want to pick up the point made by my colleague Mr Wuermeling that we must take particular care about development risks in the environment within which we now find ourselves. It was a crucial issue at the Lisbon Summit and new product innovation is one of the key competitive aspects of European business. If our regulations on product liability stifle competitiveness and innovation, I suggest that consumers will be at a major disadvantage as well. Consumers will be the ones to lose out, if a flow of competitive and innovative products is stifled. So let me echo Mr MacCormick: there is a need for much more clearly-based factual evidence before we make changes to this legislation.

Political group: PPE-DE