GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, on behalf of the Group I too would like to start by warmly thanking chairman Graefe zu Baringdorf and our consultative committee, which carried out very valuable work and demonstrated in an exemplary fashion that when one believes in what one does and makes strong efforts on its behalf, one will reach one's goals. Here, Parliament achieved what it wanted. This is a very important matter from the point of view of the farmers; these are the people who in their everyday work have to deal with these matters, and this information is very important to them. As Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf stated, in Germany open declaration was eliminated in 1979, while here in Finland it was eliminated in 1995. Now it is being reinstated. The only matter which generated debate and which deserves a moment's consideration is this list of permitted substances, and, in particular, the fact that the various ingredients change all the time. These include the byproducts of the food industry which Mr Kinderman mentioned; new feedingstuffs arrive all the time, while others disappear. For this reason, some sound common sense will be called for here. We must take thought and find out what is right and what is good, and only after that, on the basis of experience, must we go about implementing matters. Once again my warm thanks go to the consultative committee, which carried out splendid work from the viewpoint of Parliament and, particularly, from that of the farmers.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I too should like to thank you for your statement in connection with the attack on and murder of the British military attaché. The Socialist Group happened to be in session when the murder took place and I immediately took the opportunity, from the Socialist Party tribune, of expressing the condemnation of PASOK and of the Greek nation as a whole, which, of course, abhors such acts of terrorism, acts which are directed not only at the victims but at the security and political and economic welfare of Greece. We cannot deny that a terrorist phenomenon has been a thorn in Greece’s side for many years. We are taking and we shall continue to take all the measures needed to crush this organisation, but its greatest defeat, Madam President, is the fact that it is completely isolated within the Greek people, it does not strike the slightest political chord and these murders are simply tragic, abominable, monstrous deeds perpetrated by a group of fanatics which the Greek nation as a whole abhors and rejects.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, terrorism is unacceptable. We are all agreed on that. It is our opinions on methods for combating terrorism which perhaps differ. The approach taken by the EU in developing its strategy for the fight against terrorism is extremely important. The rule of law and human rights must not be undermined in the process of carrying out this important fight. The resolution that the two committees are tabling jointly here is, therefore, an important one. The Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy has made its contribution by delineating the main instruments which the EU has at its disposal for the prevention of conflicts, for example the development of democracy, and also trade and diplomacy. It is of course crucial to get at the fundamental causes of terrorism, such as poverty, violations of human rights and oppression. Under the shadow of 11 September, there is a risk of fundamental human rights being neglected in the fight against terrorism. There is also a risk of the only superpower we have today taking unilateral liberties outside the United Nations system. It is extremely important, therefore, that Parliament upholds the United Nations Charter, and that the right of a state under attack to defend itself is only legitimate if confirmation is given or a decision taken by the UN Security Council. To start deliberating on the desirability of UN resolutions would directly undermine the United Nations. I note with satisfaction that we are unanimous in our view that a strategy based on pre-emptive strikes, which the US government wishes to avail itself of, is not an effective way of combating terrorism, and in emphasising that a settlement of the Middle East conflict in accordance with UN resolutions constitutes a very important element of the fight against terrorism. International law is a crucial element if we are to have a society based on the rule of law. This applies to smaller states in particular. Undermining the UN can only end in disaster. For this reason, it is crucial that the EU stands up for the UN and its charters, even in difficult times, and does not undermine the central role of the United Nations as the world’s peacekeeper.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I only wish to move amendments to recitals D and F. In D and again in paragraph 7, it should be political figures rather than opposition members, since three of the five assassination victims belonged to a governing party. And then the date in recital F should be 7 January instead of 4 February. These are technical rather than substantive amendments.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like thank Mrs Grossetête and Mrs Müller for their very full reports. Tomorrow we will be voting on the most important revision package to date as regards legislation on medicinal products in the European Union. The key objectives here are as follows: first, achieving a high level of health protection and giving patients rapid access to innovative products; second, the quality, safety and effectiveness of medicinal products in Europe; and, third, further dismantling existing barriers to trade within the internal market. Medicinal products need to be used appropriately and correctly. That is why it is vital for the law to make a clear distinction between information and advertising. All product information should be scientifically checked before it is published. Provisions relating to medicinal products should only apply to products that have a therapeutic benefit and are used therapeutically. Any overlap with food law should be avoided in order to obviate legal uncertainty. For this reason a clear definition of medicinal products and food is urgently needed, as provided for in Amendments Nos 11 and 18. The achievements of industrial research as regards innovative therapeutic uses should be recognised by means of appropriate data exclusivity for what are termed ‘original products’. I am, however, also supporting Amendment No 40, which grants existing medicinal products an additional three years' data exclusivity in the event of a new indication. Generic drugs, which must of course meet all requirements as regards quality, safety and effectiveness, should also be established in the European market and it should be possible to market them as soon as the period of protection for the original drug has expired. The authorisation procedure is to retain the option of choice between the centralised and decentralised procedures, which has existed since 1995. It has resulted in a marked increase in the efficiency of the authorisation procedures and has not led to the polarisation that some feared. It is essential that mutual recognition should continue for the sake of Europe's small and medium-sized enterprises. We need to create a system that promotes innovation in the interests of all patients. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I will restrict my brief comments to fisheries. I would like to point out that the second reading, in which we are going to approve the international fisheries agreements which have not caused any great problems, is a mere formality. Nevertheless, the main battle we have fought has been to fulfil the commitment acquired last year to alleviate the effects on the Community fishing fleet which fished in Moroccan waters, in view of the failure to reach an agreement with that country to renew the fishing agreement. It is well known that the Council, despite having acquired this commitment in its draft budget for 2003, removed the EUR 27 million laid down by the Commission in the preliminary draft budget. Nevertheless, the European Parliament – above all by means of its Socialist rapporteur on the financial perspectives, Mr Colom i Naval – with the support of the Parliamentary Group of the European Socialist Party, managed to find a solution on this issue, finally adopting EUR 15 million in transfers at the close of 2002 and EUR 12 million by means of the mobilisation of the flexibility instrument for 2003. Of course, my group is going to support this agreement at second reading. It will vote in favour of this agreement which it fought for and promoted and I hope that the role of the Socialist MEPs is made sufficiently clear, both during the negotiations and in its conclusion. The reason I am insisting on this issue is to prevent, Mr President, any repetition of the unfounded accusations of continuous boycott made by the President of the Spanish Government, Mr Aznar, against the Parliamentary Group of the European Socialist Party, in the most unscrupulous manner, in an attempt, as always, to confuse the public.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, as a pro-federalist party, the Group of the has no objection in principle to the European Union holding an opinion on the national policies of the various Member States. That said, we have in the past shared and we still share the concerns that smaller countries have regarding the abuses that could result from excessive arrogance on the part of higher authorities or larger countries. From this point of view, we consider the decision by the Commission, exercising for the first time its right to reprimand with regard to the specific situation in Ireland, as totally unjustified and, at any rate, as a remarkable blunder given the number of Eurosceptics criticising European integration. We believe that it is totally unjustified, first of all, because the admittedly high level of inflation in Ireland may also be related to the specific nature of the Irish economy, which imports not just its oil but also most of its spare parts from two countries, namely the United States and the United Kingdom, who, over the last few years, have significantly revalued their currencies in relation to the euro. The second reason is that there is no evidence at all that the 2001 budget is “pro-cyclical”; quite the opposite, the American air pocket and American slump risk making it an extremely counter-cyclical budget. The third reason is that although tax reductions by the Irish Government are, admittedly, too high, this issue should have been tackled at the time when, for years, Ireland carried out fiscal dumping by lowering company taxes, thus attracting companies from the continent. It is absolutely incredible that this criticism should be made when the reduction in tax affects citizens rather than companies. In more general terms, as soon as a country has accepted... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I welcome the statement. I am sorry that the discussion about one Member has taken so long that once again the discussion about the poorest countries of the world and how we can more effectively aid them has been relegated and diminished. I have personally been involved in Europe's support for UNHCR for UN aids. It is the best quality support. I totally support what Mr Nielson has said about the financial regulation and given that Members of other committees than the Development Committee are here and are part of the process for agreeing such legislation perhaps he could elaborate on that more. My questions to him are as follows: first, how will the communication actually change matters on the ground in countries so that in emergency situations better coordination takes place. Secondly, how will the communication ensure that together we better meet the UN goals on development, for example, halving world poverty by 2015. Finally, reflecting on his point about United Commissions or United Nations, how far will the Member States go along with this. Too often in the past they have wanted to keep the European Union and its institutions away from the UN rather than ensuring effective collaboration. Can he count on their support in achieving this communication?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I wish to begin by saying that although I have been allocated four minutes, I should like to do my bit for the simplification and streamlining of bureaucracy by speaking for less than half that time. I congratulate the rapporteur on highlighting such a very important issue and also highlighting the failures of the Commission to get to grips with it thus far. I hope that the Commissioner will say what more is to be done to give added urgency to what is such a very important programme. However, rather than criticise the Commission more than the rapporteur has already done, rather even than refer just to the four committees involved in this particular issue, I should like to highlight one issue the rapporteur also raised, which is that it is really entirely up to us, as Members of this House, to ensure that legislation is better in the first place. He wondered to what extent legislation should delve into details and gave an example involving people holding ladders. That particular subject came up in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. It must be said that this particular committee has contributed very significantly to the extra bureaucracy that we are now passing the buck to the Commission to try and reduce. How much better it would be if that committee, and indeed all other committees, had left such legislation alone in its simpler and purer form in the first place. My final suggestion is that for us the acronym SLIM – 'Simpler Legislation for the Internal Market' – should represent 'Substantially Less Interference by Members'.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking Mr Khanbhai for his excellent report. Despite the moderate tone of the report, he makes some criticism of the European Union and the CAP, which I feel is, in some cases, unfair. Firstly, the report does not acknowledge the fact that the EU is today the largest market in the world for agri-food products from the poorest countries. We need only remember that the EU is the world’s largest importer of agricultural products and that imports from developing countries stand at more than EUR 27 billion per year, in other words, more than all imports from these countries bought by the United States, Japan, New Zealand, Canada and Australia put together. Secondly, the EU and its Member States are by far the largest supporters of these countries, providing, for example, around USD 28 billion of development aid, compared to the USD 11 billion provided by Japan or the USD 9 billion from the United States. Thirdly, we should remember that, in negotiations at the World Trade Organisation, it is the European Union that has pushed hardest for positive discrimination in favour of developing countries and that it is the EU that is responsible for the most important initiative for the world’s 50 poorest countries: the ‘Everything but arms’ initiative, which proposes allowing the main products of these countries onto the Community market free of any tariff and without these countries having to accept any reciprocal measures in this area. Lastly, I should like to point out that, fundamentally, farming in the EU complements farming in developing countries, since these are major importers of products from temperate zones, whereas the European Union is a major importer of tropical products. The conflict is often seen more from the point of view of the interests of certain companies operating in these countries than from the point of view of the interests of local communities.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on behalf of the European Parliamentary Labour Party, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur for the fair, open-minded and assiduous way in which he has carried out his task. This report, when he looks ahead, is an excellent report and provides useful guidelines for future action. Unfortunately, the committee and the plenary have chosen to amend the text in relation to what happened in the past, in such a way that my delegation found it impossible to support it and indeed voted against it. We strongly reject the questions about the legality of the culls because the courts in the United Kingdom upheld their legality. We strongly reject the idea of breaches of animal welfare legislation because there have been no prosecutions as a result of investigations of those claims. We strongly reject the claims concerning breaches of environmental legislation because the Environmental Agency has conducted its assessment and come to the conclusion that there was no environmental harm. We reject the claim of biosecurity lapses because there was no evidence of the spread of infection from carcasses being moved or by official personnel. We reject the figure of 10 million animals slaughtered because farmers have only claimed for 6.5 million and this is a fantasy figure being used for political gain.

Political group: PSE
I have voted in favour of the report. It is with great satisfaction that I note that Amendment No 12 was rejected. The result of the vote was 391 against, 96 in favour and 15 abstentions. It was aimed at removing the clear and insistent exhortation in paragraph 15, in which the European Parliament ‘reiterates in this respect the position in its resolution of 18 June 1987 recognising the genocide upon Armenians in 1915 and calls upon Turkey to create a basis for reconciliation’. From having been a core Armenian area up until 1915, the north-eastern part of Turkey has now been almost emptied of all its Armenian population. In the interests of its own future, there is no other way for Turkey to proceed than to acknowledge the genocide and to seek reconciliation with, and provide compensation to, the Armenian population and those in the vicinity of Armenia. Only in that way can Turkey as a country and the Turks as a people avoid being haunted by their own history. The politicians and people of Turkey have a lot to learn from the way in which Germany and the German people acted following the extermination of the Jews in the Holocaust of the Second World War. I would like to believe that the Turks are prepared to embark upon that path. It is definitely in Turkey’s own interests to endeavour to become a European state based on human rights with full respect for religious freedom and the rights of minorities. Report Lucas (A5-0014/2002)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is a fact that in the European Union, across all sectors of the economy, and also in the world of the private consumer, there is great potential for boosting energy efficiency levels. It is therefore essential that an effective strategy be developed. It is the task of the European Commission to formulate proposals to improve building regulations, to promote the energy efficiency of electrical appliances, for which, among other things, standards must be laid down with regard to the standby function, and, last but not least, proposals for measures to adopt a Community policy for a sustainable transport system. In my opinion, the European Parliament also has to act as a model. Why, for example, can we not install solar panels in the European Parliament buildings, both here and in Brussels? After all, the energy generated would supply sufficient energy to operate the hundreds of computers in the European Parliament. Energy efficiency is not just about installing more efficient technology. It is, above all, a matter of behaviour patterns. Where the Member States are concerned, instead of getting bogged down with levy increases or the introduction of a CO2 levy, they should just focus on creating incentives for investments in energy efficiency, for example by reducing VAT rates on energy-saving appliances and services, or by reducing property tax for buildings which meet high energy-efficiency standards, and on granting special tax benefits for cogeneration, in particular. Such measures constitute a considerable encouragement to promote energy efficiency, and I believe that we must urge everyone to actually make this happen.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, as co-rapporteur on the report on access to documents, I should like to echo Mrs Maij-Weggen's words. We have a modest beginning but we are sending the signal that transparency and accountability are the only ways in which to connect the citizen to the European project. I should like to compliment the staff who have worked tirelessly to do this. It is a reminder to this House that without the commitment of the staff and the services we would achieve nothing.

Political group: PSE
I do not quite understand what the Commissioner said. The mudflat at Stregrennan, which was made a special protection area at the request of the Commission, has been completely destroyed at this stage. It is clear that the activities that have taken place there are in clear breach of EU directives. You say there will be no further funding. I would like to know whether you are going to stop completely the funding at this stage until there is a proper investigation. If not, why not? If you are, when exactly are you going to do it? Is it correct and proper that the department which owns the company is also the authority which issues the licence, and also the authority which basically takes the money from the EU and gives it to a company that it owns 100%? Is this right and proper? What is your opinion on that? Any EU funding for the project must be stopped because it is in clear breach of EU directives. Even the area designated by the Commissioners as a special protection area has been destroyed. Compensation afterwards is not going to make up for the damage that was done.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I too welcome the decision to introduce a European health insurance form card and congratulate the rapporteur for her clarity and perseverance. This is indeed a breakthrough for our citizens and a concrete example to them of the way that the European Union can be of direct benefit. For example, instead of having to collect an E111 form before travelling, and then having to go through various bureaucratic procedures before receiving care, they will, through the card, have immediate access to the care they need. Member States have the responsibility for health, and there is, of course, a great diversity of approaches in this area. Nevertheless, it has at last been possible to reach agreement in Council. I congratulate all concerned for reaching that agreement so that the card can be in active use by 1 June 2004. The rapporteur is correct, however, in pointing out that the European Parliament must be consulted again if an extension of the card to include personal medical data is proposed – indeed, this has already been suggested – as the proper protection of personal information – particularly of a medical nature – is a major concern.

Political group: Verts-ALE