GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the death penalty is in fact a repugnant relic of a vanished age. It is founded upon an Old Testament “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” mindset which is not worthy of humanity now that we are approaching a new millennium. The Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party has played a forceful role in the fight against the death penalty. In one after another of the applicant States, it is either in the process of being, or already has been, abolished, which is a very positive development. In spite of that, the death penalty is still applied in all too many States. Only last year, 1,625 prisoners in 37 different countries were executed, and there are thousands on death row. In the United States alone, several thousand people are waiting to be executed. Some of the prisoners condemned to death throughout the world have committed odious crimes, but that does not justify their being executed. All too often, the death penalty is used for political purposes, and there can be legal confusion and innocent people can be executed. That alone is an argument against this barbaric form of punishment. Nor does the death penalty have any proven deterrent effect. The resolution we are debating is really quite remarkable. It names three citizens who, over the next few days, are to be executed in the United States. Obviously, we are urging the American government not to carry out these death sentences. But what the resolution really ought to be concerned with – a subject which my colleagues too have taken up – is the memorandum concerning the death penalty throughout the world. The Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party wholeheartedly supports this memorandum, which the UN has initiated. We would encourage the Commission and the Council to pursue this issue vigorously and to unite the European Union in unanimously condemning the death penalty in every forum so as to give rise to a worldwide moratorium on its use. The abolition of the death penalty would be a fantastic step forward in the fight for human rights and also a big step forward for the recognition of human dignity.

Political group: ELDR
I should like to congratulate Mrs Jöns on her excellent report on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Proposal for a joint report on ‘Health care and care for the elderly: Supporting national strategies for ensuring a high level of social protection’, which has my wholehearted support. I particularly endorse the need to put forward measures intended to accomplish the three aims proposed by the EU in this area: access, quality and financial sustainability. The ageing of the population is one of the greatest long-term challenges facing the EU. All Member States must therefore cooperate more closely and in a more structured manner, including those acceding in May, in order to define best practice in the sector.

Political group: PPE-DE
The proposal before us today aims to amend Directive 95/53/EC in order to provide a legal instrument more appropriate to the requirements of inspections in the field of animal nutrition. Following the dioxin crisis in May 1999, it was apparent that it was necessary to adapt this legislation. At that time the Commission announced a legislative programme with a view to improving food safety regulations. The programme was adopted by the Council and by the European Parliament, and included a revision of Directive 95/53/EC. At the time, several problems had been identified. Mismanagement of the crisis, particularly the poor coordination between the various authorities involved, became apparent and was noted in the course of the Commission inspection. There were delays in transmitting the information on dioxin contamination to the Commission, and measures taken at national level were inadequate. In order to offset these omissions, the proposal aims to stipulate that Commission and Member State experts should have the possibility of carrying out inspections not only within the Community but also in third countries, particularly following the emergence of a phenomenon likely to have an adverse effect on the fitness for consumption of animal feeding stuffs marketed within the Community; that a safeguard procedure should be set up and that the Commission should have the opportunity, if necessary, to assign Community experts to the site in order to check whether Community regulations are being observed and to take any appropriate measures necessary; that the Commission should be responsible for adopting specific coordinated inspection programmes, in addition to the general programmes already stipulated by Directive 95/53/EC, in the event of unexpected contamination which may represent an imminent and serious risk to human and animal health. The common position did not adopt the European Commission’s right to take safeguard measures appropriate to the context of animal nutrition in the event of an emergency. Obviously, this is extremely reprehensible and even irresponsible! This is why the rapporteur proposes reintroducing this clause, and I am pleased to see it because without this clause there is no guarantee of consumer protection in food crisis situations. - Lannoye report (A5-0072/2000):

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, limiting the number of bulls for which premiums are payable to ninety per farm, one of the points in the Commission’s seven-point plan, is unlikely to prove effective in matching beef production to demand in the European Union. It is universally accepted that, in view of the fall in beef consumption, cattle farming cannot be sustained at the accustomed level. But let me say, Commissioner, that the burden of this reduction must not be distributed unfairly to the detriment of particular regions. If we want to speak about a new regime of premium entitlements, we cannot base such a regime on an absolute ceiling, as the Commission proposes, but on a solution that is reasonable for all farms, a point that Mr Sturdy has already made. Such a solution can only be based on the amount of available grassland or, perhaps better still, on the input of working hours, in other words on the number of farmhands employed in accordance with the laws and regulations – and let me stress that last proviso. Incidentally, if you remember, we have held this discussion already. We held it when we were discussing the organisation of the market in beef and veal in the context of the debate on Agenda 2000. But when you write, Commissioner Fischler, in your reply to a letter from the Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development that there is only one derogation from the 90-head rule in the new Länder of the Federal Republic of Germany and that the reduction there ought now to result in structural change, you are missing the point that the number of persons employed in agriculture in those regions has fallen in the last ten years from 800 000 to 150 000. May I say to the Commission that this is quite enough structural change! Or, if I may resort to sarcasm, do you perhaps want to solve the beef problem at the expense of these new Länder in eastern Germany, thereby ensuring that the farms there will be forced to shut down? Why, in fact, can we not contemplate a tighter squeeze on premium payments on the basis of stocking density per hectare of forage area? You have provided for a reduction from 2 to 1.8 livestock units. But I should like to see a different system, one which would render the 90-head premium limit superfluous. Just imagine it were left to the farmer’s discretion to decide how drastically he cut down the number of his cattle below the density threshold at which premiums became payable. For this, however, the farmer would have to receive an additional compensatory payment corresponding to the extent of the voluntary reduction. This could be called beef set-aside, by analogy with fruit and vegetable production, because we spend considerable amounts on set-aside premiums for non-production in those domains too. If this system were to result in a lower level of beef production, it would be right and proper for us to reward those farmers who trim the size of their herds in such a natural way instead of producing surpluses which cannot be marketed and may even have to be destroyed. Perhaps, Commissioner, you could take to this idea. Your conversion need not be immediate!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, several times in the debate we have been reminded of the Erika disaster and other catastrophes; each of us could add to this list. Our past and recent history has been dotted with calamities, and that might also seem quite natural, though upsetting, if we did not remember that 75% of them have been caused by human hand. So it is important to state the political and cultural bottom line: it is time to get rid of the emergency culture, and it is time to affirm the prevention culture. The reports that have been presented are a move in this direction. It is significant that the Commission, through the Commissioner, Mrs Wallström, has this morning confirmed its priority commitment to a modern maritime safety policy, and the declaration made by the Council is also important, but this declaration is binding in respect of the effort that must be made to bring this matter to a definitive close by the end of December. This has been a good start, but we must also move on to other stages. Some have been announced this morning by the Commissioner, and I shall mention four of them: legislative and organisational harmonisation by the candidate countries for enlargement; training of human resources and recognition of the rights of those working in the sector; the setting-up of a European maritime agency, with the full involvement not only of the Member States, but also of local and regional authorities; and affirmation of the principle of liability, and hence redress, for environmental damage and not just social and economic damage. Ladies and gentlemen, let us ensure that the “polluter pays” slogan does not remain just a slogan!

Political group: PSE
We all appreciate, Mr President, how difficult it is to exercise your discretion on these occasions. But I have to say, on a day when we have had only one hour for questions, it was a bit hard that you allowed all the supplementaries to over-run. It becomes a farce if our efforts to hold the Commission to account result in a shortened Question Time and only five questions being asked and answered.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I should like to ask you to protest vehemently on behalf of all of us at the savage and brutal public execution on Tuesday of a mother of seven children by the Taliban regime in Kabul. I will say no more, but I am disgusted – we must all be disgusted – at this savagery. Please protest on behalf of all of us. (Loud applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first of all, I should like to warmly congratulate Mrs Boogerd-Quaak on her excellent and clear political analyses and on her perseverance. That perseverance will yet come in useful. I will repeat myself yet again: it is necessary to fight terrorism, but not all means are justified. The agreement we are discussing today is one such means, which overshoots the mark when it comes to fighting terrorism. Although the Commission, in its adequacy finding, has concluded that the United States offers a suitable level of protection for the passenger details that are transferred, I am not all that convinced. The present agreement offers EU citizens insufficient guarantees. There are no satisfactory legal means for citizens who get into difficulties, as has been demonstrated in the examples that a number of Members have given. Moreover, it is explicitly stipulated that the details can also be used for other purposes, such as the domestic fight against crime in the United States. In that respect, the third party to which the details are passed on is not specified, and it is very difficult to monitor what happens to them. The Article 29 working party has come to the unanimous conclusion that this agreement contravenes European legislation. In fact, the Council, too, carefully mooted the idea in February that the American measures might be in conflict with European national legislation and this doubt, as Mr Watson has already remarked in relation to the most recent European Council, has not been taken away – quite the opposite. It therefore looks as if the Commission is the only institution still holding to its conclusions concerning the suitable level of protection. Maybe the time has come for the Commission to acknowledge the error of its ways and admit that it has gone beyond its remit. The present proposal is inadequate and that is why the Commission has to submit a fresh proposal, one containing sufficient protection mechanisms for the European public. For nearly a year now, European legislation has been broken under the pretext of fighting terrorism. If the Commission is so convinced that this agreement meets European legislation and does not contravene the Treaty, it is really beyond me why it is not prepared to apply the procedure of Article 300 of the EC Treaty and have the Court of Justice carry out a few verifications. I am therefore pleased that this option is still open in the resolution before us. Indeed, the fight is not over by a long way.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this House has always welcomed the accession of the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe; we always spoke up for the people in these states who wanted their ticket to enter the European Union. This fact would make it illogical to call for the suspension of Romania’s accession negotiations; it would send completely the wrong message. The opposite is true: what is needed is not for the negotiations to be broken off, but for them to be stepped up. We have to make it clear that we will now work even harder with all our Romanian partners to conclude the outstanding chapters and to resolve the country’s problems. That is the message that we must send to Romania today and when we vote on the report tomorrow: we will help you, but you must do the work in your own country yourselves; it is you who must fulfil the Copenhagen criteria. It is indeed the case that Romania has a lot of time to make up; for almost ten years in the 1990s, the reform process made no headway at all. It has to be acknowledged, though, that some chapters have been driven forward at a faster pace in recent years, and that is something that has to be supported. We think it wrong that the report should state, in item 1, that Romania’s ‘becoming a member in 2007 is impossible’. This has to be expressed in more positive terms: it is still possible that Romania will become a Member State in 2007, provided that the problems with which we are familiar can be dealt with, provided that there is an independent justice system, that corruption is combated, that the administration is efficient and that minorities are integrated. We have to be careful not to set the country up as too much of a scapegoat. I see that, in items, 17, 18 and 19, we call for teaching to be provided in minority languages; I would be a happy man if people in other countries, including Member States of the EU, were able to use their own languages in schools, libraries and theatres in the way in which Germans and Hungarians can in Romania. The reference to child marriages in item 19 has to be qualified. The practice of children being forced into marriage is not universal in Romania, but it does occur in some Roma families. It will be important for my group to see whether our amendments will be adopted tomorrow; if they are, we will be able to vote in favour of the report. If they are not, we will have problems with it.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, we are dealing with two proposals: a proposal for a Council Decision and a proposal for a Council Regulation on the trade, export and import of dangerous chemicals. The proposal for a Decision requests ratification as soon as possible of the Rotterdam Convention, whose main objective is to regulate the international trade in hazardous chemicals, but also, and this is what we believe in Parliament, to protect human health and the environment, and it is important that this be done now. We have therefore asked that the legal basis be changed from Article 133 of the EC Treaty, which regulates commercial trade, to Article 175, in accordance with codecision. The proposal for a Regulation, which is exhaustive and very strict, lays down very strict rules for intra-Community trade in pesticides. What we are asking for is a degree of flexibility. As Mr Blokland has already said, we have reached an important agreement after many discussions amongst all the political groups, so that, after the change in the legal basis, this package of amendments can be ratified and accepted both by the Commission and by the Council, and so that Parliament’s position can end at first reading and we can reach a conclusion which we all agree on. Not all regulations – as Mr Blokland also said – relating to pesticides are equivalent in all countries, and the Commissioner is perfectly aware that they will be unified, but not before the minimum time limit of between 5 and 10 years. The regulation on pesticides and the analyses for approval are very delayed, since of the over eight hundred active areas to be regulated, not even one hundred have been analysed. We can therefore assume that this issue will be delayed. The Regulation we are going to approve, on the prior informed consent procedure, is important because it gives the receiver prior information on what the sender is going to send. This is not only valid for the Member States of the European Union but also for non-Member countries, to which we must apply the same requirements. I would ask the Members of Parliament to support the report as it stands, with the voting list proposed by Mr Blokland, whom I warmly congratulate, since he has done great work on an issue which is very controversial and difficult and highly scientific.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is very little ‘prestige’ here, quite the contrary. What has happened off the Galician coasts with this peculiar oil tanker, originating from a tax haven, with a flag of convenience and furthermore, in unfair competition and trading oil in a very strange way, cannot and must not happen again in any of the seas of the planet. It is clear that we must be increasingly demanding in terms of safety in transport, especially in the transport of dangerous goods and at sea. In our case, we must adopt appropriate measures so that there is no repetition of disasters such as the one that has taken place with this dreadful oil slick, the significant ecological impact of which should oblige us Members of this Parliament to reflect. It begs the question, how many more oil tankers do we have to endure? Has account been taken of the negative impact of this ecological disaster on fishing, on nature, on tourism, on the society in this Galicia Finisterre? Until when? It depends on us, but we must speed up and review the measures adopted in the Erika case – as the Commissioner has just rightly pointed out. Finally, I would like once again to express our solidarity with the Galicians and I hope the European Union demonstrates that same solidarity through its actions.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Parliament cannot raise any objection to these agreements, and that is quite simply because they are two proposals entirely devoid of content. They are two agreements which I could define as heaven: a lot of good combined with no bad whatsoever. We are all in favour of cooperation, of exchanges, of the development of democracy etc., but there is nothing tangible in these agreements. There is no financial obligation, no commercial obligation and no institutional obligation. This is happening, furthermore, at a time when Latin America, despite its difficulties, is experiencing a period of stability, that is to say, there is some lack of stability but, despite the poverty – which Mr van den Berg referred to – Latin America today is generally speaking a peaceful and calm subcontinent. There are no international conflicts, there are internal conflicts, but they are on a very small scale compared to those during the eighties, and I have the impression that this is the time for us to effectively help the good people of Latin America to move forward. In order to do this, however, we firstly need a specific policy with regard to the region. I do not know whether this policy has to be strictly one of free trade or increasing exchanges with them, but one which at least helps them to form a differentiated entity. Because what characterises Latin America at the moment is that it is a region which is very different from the other regions of the planet. In this regard, the Commission's failure to adopt a specific financial regulation for Latin America seems to me to be an enormous error. I believe that the important thing from now on, rather than offering formulae or recommendations, is to listen to these Latin American countries and to work together to help them to develop and, perhaps, if that continent continues to develop, we may find in Latin America the necessary counterbalance which we are currently lacking in other parts of the world.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I warmly congratulate the three rapporteurs, among whom I would like to single out Mrs Klaß, whose report demonstrates some very good ways of approaching this issue. I know from my own personal experience the different preconceptions that have to be taken into account when considering issues of labelling. I would particularly like to highlight the rules on labelling for products that trigger allergic reactions. In the European Union, 8% of children and 3% of adults suffer an allergic reaction to food ingredients to such an extent that it markedly affects their general state of health, and that is an alarming statistic. When it comes to keeping consumers informed, labelling is the only option in view of the large number of compound foodstuffs, the composition of which changes frequently. Unlike the previous speakers, I am in favour of the continued addition of ingredients that, it simply has to be said, improve the quality of the meal. That products should be listed only if there is scientific evidence that they trigger allergies goes without saying; we should also ensure that the list can be amended quickly when new findings come to light. It should always be borne in mind that the plethora of information on a label has to communicate the essentials. In this perspective, I look forward with keen anticipation to learning what the Commission thinks about the inclusion on labels of, for example, unproven assertions. This is where there could well be a reduction in the amount of information provided. May I just make one additional observation? In 1998, as a rapporteur, I tried to bring in rules on the labelling of alcoholic drinks; the sole issue then was the labelling of sulphur. What was, at that time, seen as revolutionary is now no longer an issue; proof that Parliament has, in recent years, come round much more to the consumers’ way of thinking. Furthermore, I welcome the proposal for labelling where the proportion of an ingredient is in excess of 2%. Although this was, years ago, regarded as impossible, and may well not be necessary, we are now taking account of the tendency to use many ingredients in small quantities in the production process, and we are discharging our obligation to inform the consumer. Businesses with whom I have had discussions have told me that most labels now include ingredients the proportion of which is under 2%. I would just like to make a brief comment on the Olsson report; I welcome Mr Olsson’s accommodating approach and see it as a good thing, but I am also aware that oestradiol 17β is already being replaced by other substances in many countries in the European Union. That is something that we should be encouraging and promoting.

Political group: PPE-DE