GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would, first, like to congratulate Mrs Sandbæk on her report, which has achieved a broad consensus on a controversial issue. Reproductive health is one of the fundamental aspects of development and principally, but not solely, affects the developing countries. In those countries, pregnancies and births are the main cause of death and illness amongst women, as has been said previously. Therefore the Group of the European Socialist Party will undoubtedly support an active European Union policy on this issue which does not involve any moral stand, but rather a universal ethical imperative, human rights and development, and we therefore support the regulation being debated today. This regulation comes at a very appropriate time for the European Union to demonstrate its determination, when other large donors, such as the United States, are pushing for a reconsideration of the commitments made in 1994 at the Cairo Conference on Population and Development. That conference represented great progress, by correcting the political view of population which traditionally focussed on demographic objectives, and since then it has focussed on women’s rights. No less than 179 countries agreed to an action plan on this new basis. However, at the 5th Conference on the population of Asia and the Pacific, held in Bangkok in December, there was a desire to remove any reference to rights in the field of reproduction and services relating to genetic health in order to conserve United States aid, which refuses to fund organisations which promote family planning, including the United Nations Population Fund. In reality, in order to reassure those people who are fundamentally opposed to rights relating to genetic health, we must make it clear that family planning, information and access to reproductive health services prevent abortion and, if it is carried out, it is better that it happens under safe and hygienic conditions in order to prevent the 78 000 deaths per year caused by unsafe abortions. This report and this regulation do not deal with abortion, but the European Union’s contribution to social development, the population’s access to information, to contraceptives, to health care during pregnancy and birth and responsible sexuality. The European Union must be generous. Therefore the Group of the European Socialist Party will do all it can within the framework of the financial perspectives and in accordance with budgetary authority to increase the funding for this regulation. We will vote tomorrow in favour of the amendments relating to funding and against any other amendment that may affect the content of this report.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, considering that Cyprus is one of the Mediterranean countries which lies in close proximity to the many Central and Eastern European States and that Italy juts out into the Mediterranean as the President of the Republic, Mr Ciampi, recently declared in a formal sitting of the Italian Parliament, I am particularly pleased to note that the report emphasises the fact that Cyprus' preparations are sufficient for it to join the European Union. I feel that this step and the entry of Cyprus into the European Union will prove extremely important in terms of bringing peace to this tortured island in our Mediterranean.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we pride ourselves on the way in which the principle of competition oils the wheels of the economic system and it must not be allowed to weaken the most vital component of democracy, by which I mean sources of information, and undermine the principle of political competition. Secondly, in this age of electronic democracy, we should all be investing in guarantees to safeguard our long tradition of democratic values and, first and foremost, the separation of media power from economic power. May I, therefore, say that this motion should be adopted unanimously and point out that passing legislative and other support measures is a top priority for the democratic future of Europe, that there has been an unwarranted delay in taking action since the Green Paper was published, that the measures required need to be incorporated into general policy on audiovisual media, that we must accept that the traditional rules of market competition are inadequate and that we need an independent competitive network with its sights set on real pluralism and that, for these purposes, restrictions on concentration are compatible with Community law.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I must draw the attention of this House to the fact that this is a major codecision text in second reading, for which we require a qualified majority to pass amendments. Given the relatively low attendance in this House on Thursdays - I make no comment about why that is - it is quite unacceptable for a major codecision text of this kind to be taken on a Thursday. I would strongly advise against taking this text. I speak as the deputy coordinator of my Group on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, which is leading on this text.

Political group: PPE-DE
I welcome the adoption of this report on the basis that it ensures the right to a higher level of public health protection and could potentially pave the way for the eventual eradication of tobacco addiction within the EU in the long term. If we take the example of the Community's approach to food safety legislation, whereby legislation is based on the principle that consumers have the right to know what they are consuming, then the same principle must apply to tobacco products: smokers should have the right to know exactly what they are smoking and what the effects are. We as legislators share the responsibility with the manufacturers of ensuring that the public is fully informed about the dangers of cigarette addiction. The recommendations regarding warnings on the front of packages are to be welcomed because they shatter the myth that those products are less damaging to a person's health.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, the European Parliament should take a very balanced view when its debate covers the responsibilities of national parliaments, so as not to give the impression of interfering in the various countries’ affairs in one way or another. On the G8 I share the opinion of the Council and Commission on the good and bad sides of it, but I also wonder why, every time an international summit is organised, from Seattle to Gothenburg to Genoa, conflicts break out that threaten public order, as if people were trying to fight an invisible tyrant. We should reflect on this paradox and initiate a dialogue with the young people, giving politics back its role. Violence is rejected without equivocation. Violence is incompatible with democracy, and extremism is often the cradle of violence. The violence in Genoa is being investigated by the Italian magistracy, in whom we should have every faith. There is, however, a political issue: there are various ways of defending institutions. We should not confuse the Black Block that was looking for violence with those who were exercising their right to demonstrate in the streets. That confusion leads to a spiral that produces more violence and sows the seeds of terrorism. In these situations it is very difficult to enforce the law without using force, but that is the responsibility of governments. To isolate the extremist movements we must start with the moral authority of national and European institutions and the ability to show every respect for the rights of the citizenry.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to return once again to the fax, which Mr Van Hulten made available to all of us before the vote, and which concerns the issue of whether sittings should continue to be held on Fridays. This is not just about participating in plenary sittings; there are other tasks which need to be dealt with in this regard as well. We will now have to deal with these matters at home. There are, however, no attendance allowances for working at home. But since we have been promised these allowances in Mr Van Hulten’s letter, in the coming year I will be claiming the lost allowances from him. (Applause) I call on all colleagues to do likewise. Mr Van Hulten had better start saving up now! (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, may I first express my appreciation of Mr Swoboda’s arguments and also of the thoroughness of the work he has done. At the same time, we are fully convinced that the set objective of the protocol in question is a good one: the environmental protection of Austria within the Alpine region. The Commission intends to maintain this objective, and we are also convinced, as the proposed regulation to the Commission suggests, that the 108% clause should be eliminated. I shall confine myself quickly to two puzzling facts. The first is a matter of logic: the clause operates on the number of transit journeys, regardless of the ecological performance of the vehicle, and therefore more ecologically friendly vehicles mean more ecopoints saved, more journeys accumulated and a greater risk of going over the 108% quota. The result is a paradox: operators are discouraged from choosing less polluting vehicles. The second puzzle is a practical one: the sampling system is unreliable, the critical threshold would seem to be exceeded by 0.6%, or 10 000 journeys, but according to a Commission study there are 92 000 vehicles that entered Austria and did not leave. We are dealing with a system that has demonstrated that it is absolutely unreliable: the 108% limit has not been proved effective; the penalties are quite excessive, with 150 rights of transit less as a result of exceeding the 108% threshold. Mr President, these are the technical and objective reasons why the Italian delegation will vote in favour of the Commission proposal.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Copenhagen has been the place of many controversial summits but none will be more so than next week when the camel of enlargement approaches the eye of the needle of European domestic politics. We know that enlargement will make us more multi-cultural and more competitive. The central question is: will it also make us more democratic? Many of the answers to that question are being teased out inside the Convention, but it is certainly up to the European Council and not the president, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, to decide just how far and how fast Member States are prepared to project the Union's experience in parliamentary democracy to the east and the south. I trust that the European Council and the Commission will be generous to Turkey in this respect. We should throw ourselves behind the process of regime change which is taking place in Turkey. There would be no stronger way of expressing support for Turkey's reformers than offering a schedule for the opening of the accession negotiations but only on the condition that the Turkish Cypriots were brought to accept the Annan proposals for a federated settlement of the problem of Cyprus. It will certainly be far more possible for them to accept a UN settlement should there be a firm prospect of membership for motherland Turkey itself. They frankly require the assurance of our settled intentions concerning our future partnership with Turkey and I know that the presidency will do all that it can to achieve this great breakthrough that is in its grasp.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in view of the BSE and foot-and-mouth crises, the present Paulsen report on the health rules governing animal by-products not intended for human consumption has its place under the broad and essential umbrella for the protection of food safety and animal health. The term ‘by-products’ as used here refers primarily to meat and bone meal. In its proposal, the Commission formulated a conditional ban, in other words a graduated ban, on the use of meat and bone meal in feeds and fertilisers. Mrs Paulsen has developed very effectively the ideas presented by the Commission. The division into three categories is to be welcomed, as is the fact that the Commission only authorises the use of Category 1 meal in animal feed if it has been sterilised for 20 minutes at a temperature of 133°C and a pressure of 3 bar. The Commission proposal, as amended in committee, is therefore consistent with the demand of the Committee of Inquiry into BSE for strict separation of animal waste products into those that are basically fit for human consumption and those that come from infected and sick animals. Healthy waste products from the abattoir are valuable providers of protein which we should not discard. Omnivores really will eat everything. We should not try to re-educate them. As far as ruminants are concerned, it goes without saying that meat and bone meals are taboo. We need responsibly applied and controlled technology for the production and processing of meat and bone meal, and we need still more research. If we proceed on the basis of this regulation and transpose it in our Member States, we shall have built firm foundations from which we can go on to guarantee the safety of our foodstuffs and to ensure that our consumers are well supplied with good food. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would firstly like to congratulate the group which has put the question and in particular Mr Mayer, since it is very timely. I also thank the Commissioner for his reply. I believe that, although the time limit stated in last year’s European Parliament resolution has not come to an end, to monitor it and stay informed, to continue the debate, is our obligation as Members of Parliament. During the debate on the Mayer Report last year, we had the opportunity to witness – as is also happening today, through the previous speakers – the difficulties involved in achieving a broad majority view on this sensitive issue, both in this house and in society. I believe that the problem is not so much with the trade marks directive but with the interpretation contained in the Silhouette judgment on Article 7 of the trade marks directive. Before that judgment, there were countries where, either through legislation – as in Sweden – or through case-law – as in Spain – the principle of the international exhaustion of trade marks was permitted, but following that judgment it was clearly prohibited. While it is true that there are many conflicting interests, it is also the case that we must attend to the interests of the consumer and it is unthinkable that European consumers, as a result of an excessive interpretation of trade mark law, which goes beyond the principle that the trade mark is restricted to designating the origin of a product, should not be able to acquire products at lower prices. The issue cannot be resolved, as some reports say, exclusively by applying the Treaty’s competition rules, for the simple reason that the abuse of a dominant position is only applied to those who have a dominant position in a certain significant market, and we all know that, with these types of products protected by a trade mark, it is very unlikely that a trade mark would warrant being classified as dominant. So far the Commission – we await these reports which it has requested – has mentioned the Nera Report, which guaranteed that the recognition of international exhaustion would not affect prices beyond 2%. I do not agree with this conclusion and, while personal experience is of little worth, I can give endless examples of how products which in other countries or in my own country, when international exhaustion was allowed, could be sold at significantly lower prices, since the Silhouette judgment can only be found on official distribution networks and at considerably higher prices. With regard to the Nera Report, the Commission is undoubtedly aware of the work done by the Swedish competition authority, which reaches radically different conclusions to those of the Nera Report and those maintained today by Mrs Fourtou. I therefore believe that the time has come to invite the Commission to present the report, as the European Parliament previously requested. When it does, I believe we will once again have the opportunity to insist on this debate.

Political group: PSE
It is true that the automobile industry is in crisis, but there will always be a need for individual transport. The set-up may be different in future: there is a market for more environmentally-friendly cars and there will be a market for hydrogen-powered cars, so there is a new market that can certainly be opened up, and this industry certainly has a future. In times of crisis, we need to handle these crisis situations intelligently, which we have not done in the past. In Belgium, we had the tragic case of Renault, the closure of the factory in Vilvoorde, now Ford Genk, and there are also other cases. However, there are also examples of a better approach: at Opel in Germany, for example, people have opted for a shorter working week of thirty hours. This is a method that we Europeans should defend and spread as an example for other factories. I think that this could also be a possible solution for a case like Genk.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I voted against the report, as some of the outcomes of the vote are incompatible with my own ethical and moral views. Furthermore, I cannot understand why only marginal approaches exist for research in agriculture and forestry even though it is vital, for the future of agriculture and forestry, to set the necessary research priorities in this area in particular.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr Roche, there is a fundamental difference between work on the Constitution in the Convention and work during the Intergovernmental Conference which, I am afraid, can only have a clear, negative impact on the result. Everything or almost everything regarding the Convention was visible, including its crises and other moments. It was the outcome of complicated work which gave us a barely adequate compromise. On the contrary, your work remains secret, and we have to rely on moles in order to find out what is happening, given that unfortunately, our representatives too and their officials love playing the diplomat and therefore do not inform us, as they should, of what is really taking place at the Intergovernmental Conference. I do not like in the slightest what is really going on, and my group likes it even less. A show of optimism, which feeds a kind of reassuring syrup to the media and public opinion, in my view in reality hides a further possible victory for those governments, old and new, who cheerily thumb their noses at the European interest. It seems that this view is also held by the Commission which, behind much ceremony and diplomacy, has revealed to us here a line which is going in a completely different direction to the one which we are about to agree to in Dublin. Today if we read the text which your officials are working on, Mr Roche, it is clear that this is an exercise for which Altiero Spinelli would have retold the story of ‘The Old Man and the Sea’ who, returning to the shore with his large fish, as you will remember, finds it has been devoured by sharks. Mr Roche said that he does not want to go into detail. That is a shame. If he did, everyone would be able to see the price we are about to pay, including to Mr Blair and his referendum: firstly, maintaining unanimity for justice and home affairs, so we can kiss goodbye to the fight against terrorism, where today there will probably be an interesting instalment on the question of assigning European citizens’ rights to the United States with respect to the agreement on passengers; secondly, reinforcing the interpretative clause of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, tabled by the United Kingdom in Thessaloniki, which makes the Charter of Fundamental Rights and its cogency practically useless; and that is not to mention the removal of the European Parliament’s power of assent for structural funds decisions or the opportunity for parliaments to veto each amendment. Today, therefore, we find ourselves in a radically different situation to that of yesterday: yesterday was the day the dream came true; naturally I would not want us today to have to start picking up the pieces of a dream already shattered. Our first duty now is to let the citizens know that the terms on which the Presidency has chosen to negotiate are the same terms which Parliament rejected in December; our second duty is to initiate a serious debate about what the consequences of a ‘no’ in a referendum should be, which in my view should be crystal clear: anyone who says ‘no’ in a referendum on the Constitution – as Spinelli said – is putting itself outside Europe.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would just like to make a brief comment regarding my question 3 concerning Ukraine: it goes without saying that this is a matter for the European Union, because the accession of Russia and Ukraine to the WTO has consequences affecting this and this will probably also be a topic for discussion at the Council in Thessaloniki. My question concerning the Thessaloniki Council, however, is this: the Council called for an impact study to be carried out on Basle II, the framework agreement on the creditworthiness of businesses. The Commission has not yet done this. At the last sitting you promised me you would takes steps to this effect. What has happened here as regards the Council’s enquiry or as regards the Council’s cooperation with the Commission? Are there plans to undertake such a study?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, with regard to yesterday’s debate on Slovakia, I should like to point out that Belgium and other countries have introduced a visa requirement for Slovakia. I regard that as discrimination.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, honourable Members, this report demonstrates yet again that the European Parliament is willing and able to identify compromises. We are concluding this matter at second reading. I would have wished that the cooperation, especially with the Council, had been as good as on trade. In these negotiations, the Council was a little less willing to compromise than in the other negotiations. Nonetheless, we have achieved a result that we can rely on and that we can accept. I would therefore ask my fellow Members to vote for the amendments in Block I, and I think that although one or two Members might feel uncomfortable about the outcome of the conciliation process, by and large, this report is acceptable. (The President declared the common position approved as amended) *** Motion for a resolution (B5-0535/2003) tabled by Jonathan Evans and others on the meeting of heads of state and/or government on the IGC (Brussels, 12 and 13 December 2003) (Parliament rejected the motion for a resolution) *** Joint motion for a resolution(1) on the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference (Parliament adopted the joint resolution) *** Report (A5-0435/2003) by Renate Sommer, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the widespread introduction and interoperability of electronic road toll systems in the Community (COM(2003) 132 – C5-0190/2003 – 2003/0081(COD)) Before the vote:

Political group: PSE