GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I just wanted to tell Mr Lang that opening itself up to world markets has paid off for Chile. Living standards have gone up, Chile's growth rate is far higher than that of other Latin American countries, and I just hope that this policy catches on in them as well. What I would like to say to Commissioner Patten is that we are already engaged in active cooperation with members of Chile's parliament. We had a meeting with them here in Strasbourg as long ago as the autumn – even before the Agreement was ratified – and had, surprisingly enough, an extraordinarily lively debate with the Chilean Congress and House of Deputies. The problem we now have is not with the treaty. The treaty is excellent, and I also wish to congratulate Mr Salafranca on his superlative report. There is a treaty, but it must not be allowed to remain an empty form of words. It has to be filled out – with something real. Let me, by the way, remind you of the fact that we also have a scientific agreement with Chile. If that is not to remain a mere formality, it too has to be filled out, and that is what I want to urge us to do. Money is needed if that is to be done, but money is not the most important thing. If that is to be done, the main thing we will need is will, the will of the European institutions, but also the will of enterprises and organisations. What I hope at the end of the day is that this Agreement, whose objective is also very strongly political, will contribute to Latin America growing together, will contribute to stronger relationships between Europe and Latin America, and, above all, that cooperation with Chile will help to overcome the conflicts in certain Latin American countries, some of which conflicts – in Colombia, for example – are raging openly.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, last Tuesday we received Mr Pastrana, the President of Colombia, in this Hemicycle, and all welcomed his proposed peace plan. In Europe we also have on-going political conflicts which result from cultural differences. Two of them have also taken a violent form: Northern Ireland and the Basque Country. I wish to state here my support not only for Colombia and other countries but also for the current peace processes in these two regions, which are part of Europe. I call on the Council, the Commission and this Parliament to ensure that the mechanisms of the Culture 2000 programme, as well as the other programmes available, are also used to support these peace initiatives. We should opt for events such as the European Culture Capital and the Month of Culture taking place in Northern Ireland or the Basque Country, since this new political framework for Europe may offer valid solutions to these two conflicts. In these areas we need to promote the values of tolerance and respect for cultural diversity and the freedom of peoples to decide their future and promote co-existence, solidarity and a sense of justice and peace. This is what we should opt for.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I shall not use up all the speaking time allotted to me. The resolution we have here speaks for itself. In addition, this morning we have again spoken extensively about the situation in Kosovo, and about all the things we want to do there to ensure that the country is rebuilt as quickly as possible. Of course there are now all kinds of problems that need to be resolved as a matter of urgency and to which immediate attention must be given. The resolution goes into this as well. I am referring here to the several thousand Kosovars being held captive by the Serbian authorities. Most of them were arrested during the military operation against Kosovo, when a state of emergency was declared throughout Yugoslavia. The conflict has been over for a few months now, but the people are still in captivity. It is true that there is an agreement, on the basis of which the conflict was brought to an end, but it would appear that when this agreement was concluded, the group of people in captivity was forgotten about. No agreements were drawn up about this. We believe that all those people who were taken captive after 24 March, that is after the state of emergency was declared, must be released as soon as possible. Pressure must be brought to bear on the Serbian government as a matter of urgency in order to achieve this, and today’s debate also serves to underline how urgent this is. I hope that the Council and the Commission will do all that can be done to help secure the release of these people and their return to their homes as soon as possible, just as all the other refugees who were outside Kosovo have been able to return to their homes.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to start by congratulating Mr Newton Dunn, who guided us so expertly through this complex preparation of the report in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Security and Defence, and has done so again. By way of example and evidence, I can confirm that only one amendment was tabled for the plenary with regard to his report. Our group will, incidentally, support that amendment. The proposal to institute a rapid reaction facility by means of which financial resources can be freed up quickly, receives the unqualified support of my group. It is our express preference to deploy civil instruments first in the event of a threatening conflict situation. This is the second concrete step in that connection, after formulating the requirement of a rapidly mobilised police force. We are waiting with bated breath for a detailed proposal for a total package with so-called “headline goals” in this area. We would like to see a balance struck between the EU efforts in the fields of civil and military crisis management. The EU must be able to respond quickly in emergency situations with a wide and well-attuned range of instruments at its disposal. This is why simple procedures are being proposed for the rapid reaction facility. Comitology can be avoided by remaining within the Community framework. However, in theory this limits the number of countries where the instrument can be deployed, but we do not foresee any practical problems. Where is the European Union not active? In cases where the Commission makes a formal proposal – which is understandable – to deploy the facility so as to guarantee the implementation of EU programmes, we would like to see the term ‘EU policy’ added. This will widen the scope. In order not to hinder effectiveness, we have suggested not defining the financial boundaries beforehand, or including timeframes in the scheme. The rapid reaction facility must be flexible by nature. We would ask the Commission, especially in the beginning, to carry out many and frequent assessments, and to report on these to our Parliament. In this context, we are also very keen to find out how the facility will relate to the ECHO programme. This is a new instrument, and we can learn from its growing pains. Finally, I should like to ask whether the Commissioner would be prepared to discuss possible scenarios for commitment at some point in the future, for we are now theorising about instruments, but we must also talk about the practical implications at some stage, and for this purpose, a scenario discussion would, I believe, be very desirable.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the name of my group. Yesterday in the debate, constraints of time meant that none of us were able to speak, but this is a proposal which we have supported wholeheartedly in committee and which we supported wholeheartedly today. I was particularly glad that Amendment No 9 was defeated and that we carried the directive substantially in the form in which it left the Legal Affairs Committee under the able guidance of the rapporteur, Mr Miller. This is a long-awaited directive and it is extremely important to disabled people. Our own disability intergroup has been campaigning on it for a long time and so has the European Disability Movement. It has taken nine years to get this far. What we are accomplishing are secure, minimum safety standards for the design of buses operating in Europe and secure basic requirements to ensure access for disabled people and others with reduced mobility, including older people – Mr Fatuzzo and others no doubt – and parents with children using urban buses. This is really important. My group wishes to declare its solidarity with all those who will be assisted by this. One of the marks of enhanced civilisation in my lifetime has been the far greater attention that we pay in public places and public activities to ensuring that our fellow citizens, who have the grave misfortune to suffer from one or other kind of disability or handicap, are fully admitted to public life in our societies. We can be proud of that and glad that this directive has been passed.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I abstained in the vote on the /EFA motion for a resolution on human cloning. I think it is right to take a stand against the decision taken by the British Parliament. It has been stressed that the European Parliament is standing by its decision to ban cloning, and consequently also to withhold all funding for clone research. However, I regard paragraphs 6 and 8 in particular as very dangerous, because the medical claims being made for biotechnology are taken at face value here, although the results so far have at best been contradictory. By calling for further research into gene therapy and other forms of genetic engineering, the European Parliament is treading on very thin ice, particularly as there is not a word about the risks or about unsuccessful experiments, nor are they subjected to any kind of political assessment, all of which would cast some doubt on the unreservedly positive claims being made. This expression of the European Parliament’s views on the cloning of embryos may represent a success in the short term. However, I fear that totally uncritical calls for more medical genetic engineering could in the long term completely undermine this success and even reverse the situation completely. They could open the door wider for technology whose implications are completely unknown.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, you are quite right. We have very considerable experience of the use of traditional herbal medicinal products. In the European Union, consumers attach ever greater importance to the use of them. This is why, in my view, it is time to establish a harmonised legal framework for traditional herbal medicinal products. For far too long, trade in these traditional products within the Community has been hampered by differences in the national provisions. I think that in its current form, the directive will correct this imbalance, thanks not least to the excellent work carried out by the rapporteur, Mr Nisticò. Let me touch upon two points which are, in my view, especially important. Firstly, the establishment of a new committee on herbal medicinal products within the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products: I believe this is a necessary step, and I welcome the fact that the Commission has opted in favour of this approach. One of the committee's most important tasks will be to set up a list of herbal substances. However, I also think that the classification into various groups, as called for by the committee, is especially important. I very much hope that we can achieve this further classification. The phytopharmaceuticals with what is termed 'well-established medicinal use' should be included in the group of rational phytopharmaceuticals. Let me briefly explain the significance of this distinction: in the case of phytopharmaceuticals with well-established use, monographs containing generally available data can be presented as evidence for an application. No extract-specific data are required in this type of evidence. A different situation applies to rational phytopharmaceuticals. In this case, evidence is provided through the presentation of specific extract-related data which describe the precise effect of the individual extract. In order to avoid distortions of competition – and I think this is especially important – the manufacturer, who has invested substantial sums in researching the effects of rational phytopharmaceuticals, should be permitted to draw attention to his special efforts as part of the registration process, thus benefiting consumers through the provision of better product information.

Political group: PPE-DE
I voted in favour of this report. To adopt a strategy to protect and conserve the marine environment is to devise a real European policy in favour of marine safety. The rules and directives are in place. It is up to Member States to apply them and up to the European Commission to monitor their implementation. We must be firm on this point, because it is only too easy, when disaster strikes, to make Europe the ideal scapegoat. New marine safety requirements are also proposed in order to protect our coasts, such as the use of double-hulled vessels and possible penal sanctions for anyone committing infringements, and I am asking that these measures be accompanied by the creation of European coastguard services. This policy seeks to protect and preserve instead of attempting to repair the damage that has already been caused. In effect, environmental disasters cannot be remedied by subsidies. The regions affected are suffering, and will continue to suffer, for a long time, in terms of their biodiversity and their ecological balances, so essential to the preservation of fish stocks and the conservation of species.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first of all, I should like to congratulate Mr Fava on his report, which I believe addresses a key factor in the coherence and visibility of the European Union’s external action. I think that electoral observation and support for electoral processes are an extraordinarily important factor for bolstering the European Union’s action to protect human rights, democratic freedoms, democratic values and the rule of law. A point that Mr Fava made very well is that we must not isolate the processes of electoral observation from their overall context. Citizens are required, on certain occasions, to cast their vote, but the process of building democracy is a daily task. I therefore feel that the European Union’s action must be directed at ensuring long-term democratic stability in developing countries through the efficient funding of the corresponding programmes, in which the Commission has a crucial role to play. I should like, Mr President, to focus very briefly on the role that the European Parliament should play in these processes. I think that paragraph 9 of the motion for a resolution contained in Mr Fava’s report very rightly emphasises the fact that, ideally, these missions should be chaired by Members of the European Parliament. There are three basic reasons for this: first of all, the European Parliament can contribute highly relevant experience, knowledge and vision on this matter, since, as Members of the European Parliament, we have all been elected in open and democratic electoral processes in our Member States. Secondly, the European Parliament gives legitimacy to our project of integrating Europe and I think that Parliament is therefore extremely well-qualified to represent the European Union. I would say it is better placed to do this than the national parliaments. Thirdly, the European Parliament is ultimately one of the two branches of budgetary authority. The European Union is the world’s largest donor of development aid and I think it is therefore appropriate that the European Parliament should have a role to play in this type of process. I therefore hope, Mr President, that this report by Mr Fava on the Commission communication on EU election assistance and observation missions will contribute to improving the European Union’s external actions in an effective, visible and coherent way.

Political group: PPE-DE
At a time when we are discussing the Gothenburg European Council, a few days after the resounding ‘No’ in the Irish referendum on the Treaty of Nice, it is crucial that the European Union’s political leaders, including the governments of the various Member States, draw all the political consequences of this important decision. In a democracy, the results of a move such as this must be respected. We must, therefore, review the content of the amendments to the Treaty, which were adopted in Nice and not insist, which is what happened recently with the vote on the report co-signed by the Member, António José Seguro, on speeding up the process of the federalist integration of the European Union. This would endanger various fundamental aspects of national sovereignty and the interests of the smaller countries. It is regrettable that, in Gothenburg, the opportunity of the Summit has not been taken to reflect on the need to review the current process of integration, which is neo-liberal, federalist and militarist, including the rather undemocratic methods that have been used. We must insist on a new direction, grounded in respect for cooperation between sovereign and equal States, in promoting peace, and in responding to people’s real needs. It is, therefore, essential that in Gothenburg we see progress on support for peace in the Middle East, on respect for the rights of the Palestinian people, on protecting the environment and on sustainable development. It is equally important that we adopt a clear stance towards George Bush – against his most aggressive positions, specifically with regard to the American anti-missile defence project and the death penalty and to demand that he respect the Kyoto commitments.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, these reports deal with very important issues, and I compliment both rapporteurs. The whole debate on pharmaco-vigilance versus the compulsory five-year review, and the question of whether to centralise the registration procedure or keep the centralised, national and mutual recognition procedures is critical. With certain necessary changes, we have almost got it right. It is very important that all citizens have equal access to state-of-the-art drugs, regardless of where they live in Europe. It is either a single market or it is not. The same applies to Irish cattle. It is very important that they should have access to the same veterinary medicines as UK cattle, but at the moment they do not. We need to get the balance right with access to generic medicines and innovation and research and the needs of the pharmaceutical companies. This also applies to the Commission proposal on POM, prescription only medicines. I would ask the Commissioner to take on board the compromise suggested by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, which gets the balance right in this area, because the Commission proposal has caused major problems in many countries, particularly the UK and Ireland. The MRL regulation of 1990 came into force in 1992, and there was a derogation for many countries until 1 January 2000. This resulted in hundreds of veterinary medicine products being removed from the market and huge welfare problems in Europe for minor animal species – including horses – for many years. Industry needs to be allowed to place on the market equine veterinary products that do not have MRLs, to be used according to the cascade principle, with a record of treatment and exclusion from the food chain. Amendment No 65 is necessary, as it ties this principle, which was endorsed by the Committee on the Environment's Amendment No 10, to the passport decision 2000/68/EEC, which amends Decision 93/623/EEC. I would ask Commissioner Liikanen to look particularly at the passport decision 2000/68/EEC. We must be consistent here. As well as listening to the able people in the DG, please listen to the veterinary experts in the field and in research. No consumer wants to inflict unnecessary pain and suffering on animals for the sake of the food chain, or make criminals of our vets. We have made mistakes here before. Please be careful.

Political group: PPE-DE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. – Mr President, I would like to say how pleased we are that Mrs Ghilardotti has recovered and is with us today. This is a debate about people and our concerns for them. I would like to say, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, that we very much support what the rapporteur has said on unfair commercial practices, that is, that the principle of the vulnerable consumer must be accepted and recognised, that we must take into account disparities between national protection rules, that we must insist on a double legal basis and that the principle of optimum harmonisation should hold good for all three directives. In my remaining seconds I would just say that I am very grateful indeed to the rapporteur, Mrs Gebhardt, on the issue of enforcement for accepting that each state should be allowed to decide how the regulation should be implemented by the public authorities, but according to Amendment No 76 it will be implemented by public authorities in alliance with, but not supplanted by, other public interests and by NGOs. This is a good day for consumers and, despite the rather stunted debate we have had, we should shout that fact from the rooftops. IN THE CHAIR: MR PUERTAVice-President

Political group: PSE
In the context of achieving the aims of the Lisbon Strategy – which are intended to increase employment, economic reform and social cohesion in a knowledge-based economy – and of the open method of coordination in the field of social inclusion, a common framework must be created for the systematic production of statistics. The aim is to enable rigorous and timely comparisons to be made between the situations of Member States on income distribution, levels of poverty and social exclusion. This is an instrument of the utmost importance, which has been lacking. I therefore voted in favour of this Recommendation, which accepts the Common Position adopted by the Council on the approval of the European Parliament and Council Directive. This framework provides for the use of common indicators, flexibility in the field of data source and for integrating new sources into national statistics systems, which will enable proper monitoring of the situation and new developments in the Member States. From 2004, the Member States will transmit their data to Eurostat on an annual basis and Eurostat will undertake methodological studies to assess the impact on the comparability of national data sources and to identify the best practices to follow.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I support what the rapporteur said about the importance of losing no time in getting this package approved. At the same time, my thoughts turn to how important the forthcoming Erika 2 package will also be in warding off the single biggest environmental threat to the Bay of Finland, namely the construction in Primorsk. We are on the way to landing ourselves in an extremely difficult situation in which what are perhaps the worst tankers in Europe are to be used to transport large quantities of oil in the sensitive Baltic. In connection with the discussion of this package, I would appeal to you, Commissioner, quickly to take such measures as will ensure that we obtain the ‘black box’ Mr Watts is talking about, as well as a reporting system for the Bay of Finland. Ice classification must also be taken into account in this context. At the same time, we must note that, even though it is the accidents that attract attention, deliberate emissions are unfortunately the source of the greatest pollution. There is much to suggest that prosecutors in the European Union must begin to cooperate better within the framework of Eurojust and, in that way, dare to address this phenomenon. Unfortunately, we are sent many reports, but the prosecutors rarely set to work.

Political group: ELDR