GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, we are at the end of the mandate of the Commission and Parliament and therefore, on this occasion, I would like to congratulate Commissioner Monti on the excellent work he has done throughout the mandate of this Commission. Competition policy, as has been pointed out, is one of the fundamental policies which the Commission is responsible for. Its implementation and application is very difficult and subject to many pressures, I would therefore like once again to congratulate Commissioner Monti on his success in implementing this policy. Nevertheless, there are certain aspects which worry us and which other Members have pointed out. The first, naturally, is that we must not lower our guard. The pressure from economic and political interests to sidestep market rules is logical, and we must always balance, for the benefit of citizens and consumers, the free exercise of market mechanisms in order to ensure an efficient market with a correct allocation of resources. It is therefore obvious that we must counteract these pressures, since it is logical, and we economists know it, that the tendency of any company is to control the market, if it can be done in an oligopolistic way, all very well, but if it can be monopolistic, even better, and in certain sectors there are still very significant distortions, as has been mentioned here. The second point that I would obviously like to point out is the ’s traditional position that there should be a section in the Court of Justice to deal with these issues. The third and final point would be to ensure, both in the Commission and in the other institutions of the European Union, that the operation of the courts responsible for competition, at all levels within the Union, is correct. If it is rigorous in certain areas but not in others, we are obviously giving comparative assistance which distorts the situation of the markets, and even more so, as has been pointed out, in view of the enlargement which will take place in a few months’ time. Having made these observations, which I would like to leave as suggestions for application in the future, I would like to repeat that we in the are in agreement with the positions expressed by the rapporteur, Mr Della Vedova, and we congratulate Commissioner Monti on his wonderful work.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, it was stated in a previous speech that consumers and the public do not trust producers. For our part, we must all swiftly rectify this basic error: this is not so much a matter which concerns producers: these crises are crises of the food production industry and the feedingstuffs industry, for which the producer then winds up involuntarily looking like the responsible party. I would like to raise one issue which has not yet been mentioned, and that is the matter of heavy metals in sewage sludge. Sewage sludge contains heavy metals, including considerable quantities of cadmium and because of this, in my own home country, and in the Nordic countries generally, this sludge may not be spread on the fields at all, because cadmium gets into the food chain and thereby enters the human body. It is inconceivable that it has been possible to use sewage sludge for years in the preparation of feed and in fertiliser, although this was banned in the EU ten years ago. Our European agriculture model has received a heavy blow and, because of this, we must swiftly take up these issues. President Prodi said that he would also deal with economic matters. For this reason, the factories using prohibited substances must be closed immediately. Then we would be acting on a sensitive issue, intervening in aspects of the economy, and that would have a very speedy effect. Such action, which adds to monitoring and bureaucracy, must be totally transparent, however, so that everyone knows what is actually going on. Sewage sludge and waste cannot be permitted to be used in animal feed.

Political group: ELDR
co-rapporteur. – Mr President, I wish to thank the Conference of Presidents for creating and sustaining this unique part-session. I should also like to thank our former colleague, Mr Haarder, and his team because they are creating an historic Danish Presidency. I pay particular tribute to the Commissioner himself and to his team. The Commissioner's powerful leadership has accepted no obstacle that would delay enlargement and he and his team have successfully tackled and overcome immense and daunting problems and have brought us to the happy position we enjoy today. I welcome most particularly in that context the Romanian parliamentary team. Romania, in common with other candidate countries in this two-part but single enlargement, has made substantial progress and her progress has been particularly marked since December 1999 when the new government took office, after the Helsinki Conference. If Romania follows faithfully the Commission's new and excellent roadmap and has the support of the Commission, the Council of Ministers and Parliament, Romania can most definitely reach her target date for EU entry of 1 January 2007 and reach that date not by right but by her own achievement. I therefore wish profoundly to retain that target date in Parliament's report. I am confident that by the end of this week Romania will become a member of Nato. By 1 January 2007, with hard work, consistency, application and our support, she could be here. I commend Romania's progress to this House.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this Commission Communication is a first step towards the thematic strategy which includes both the prevention and the recycling of waste. This is recognised in the opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, presented by Mr Langen, and I welcome him. Our position in this regard is clear. We must adopt a flexible approach which takes account of the diversity of geographical, social and economic situations in the various Member States. We recognise that it is necessary to reduce the quantity of waste produced and achieve the highest possible levels of reuse of materials, and that all possibilities for dealing with waste are valid, provided that they are sustainable. Recycling 100% of waste is highly desirable, but impossible. Imposing obligatory objectives, particularly in the case of prevention, and charges and taxes may have effects that are counter-productive for the management of waste. There are markets in waste which already function perfectly and which handle great quantities in an efficient manner. Therefore, establishing obligatory rules and taxes on waste may have distorting effects, in the opinion of the Committee on Industry. Furthermore, industrial waste is often easier to recycle and, therefore, we call on the Commission to take this factor into account and to include in its proposal the separate collection of recyclable material originating from industry. We also urge the Commission to produce an evaluation of the consultation procedure carried out on the definition of ‘waste’, publishing its results and presenting a response on the definition of this concept and other parallel concepts, such as waste recycling. Commissioner, we impatiently await the thematic strategy on waste and we will always draft our proposals for improvements in accordance with what is best for the environment and for the general public.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities, I should like to comment on the issues which relate to women's rights in Turkey, to which the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy has paid too little attention. Allow me, therefore, to point out that very little progress has been made with women's rights in Turkey, rights which we, the Committee, consider to be a sine qua non to the integration of Turkey into the European Union, because women's rights are human rights. I understand that the Turkish National Assembly started a debate today on the reform of the Civil Code, numerous articles of which infringe the United Nations convention on abolishing all forms of discrimination against women, despite Turkey's having ratified the convention. I trust parliament will pass this bill, as adopted by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs in June. However, the crucial question which arises is whether the law will also apply to existing families because, unfortunately, the Justice Committee submitted an amendment exempting existing families at the last minute. It is quite unacceptable to introduce changes to the Civil Code that only apply to future generations and I know that women's organisations in Turkey have expressed their total opposition to this. The national programme for integration into the European Union talks of revising the constitution so as to guarantee sexual equality; however, there are no plans, whatsoever, to adopt positive measures which, as the women's organisations have pointed out, would allow all the laws which institutionalise discrimination against women to be amended. As far as women's right to work is concerned, I should like to highlight both the high rate of unemployment among women – 39.6% and even higher in agricultural areas – and the limited number of women who benefit from national insurance. I should like to call on Turkey to abolish all forms of discrimination against women and I should, of course, like to call on Europe to provide the economic and technical assistance needed to put this into practice.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, especial thanks are due to Mr Gahrton for his report and also for the close cooperation with our delegation to the South Caucasus, of which he has been constantly supportive, being always present at its meetings and always willing to give it his advice. It is very difficult for the states that formerly belonged to the Soviet Union to stand on their own feet, and all of them have similar problems in establishing democracy. The European Union’s policy objective is to encourage a willingness to live as a neighbourhood in the South Caucasus and to manage conflict. Moscow’s objectives are precisely the opposite. As we have just heard the report on Russia, let me state my view that we have to get to grips with these things as a matter of urgent necessity. Now that fourteen years have passed since the Soviet Union collapsed, it is quite bizarre that Soviet passports should still be treated as valid, and, most of all, that they should be offered to people in secessionist regions – in Georgia, for example, but also in others. That it should be possible to issue them with such passports, give them visas and make them practically independent of their own states is a very regrettable state of affairs. Many Members have already made reference to energy policy. I regret that it has not yet been possible to find a date on which to hold an energy congress here in Brussels, which this House offered to organise jointly with the Commission. I would like again to ask Commissioner Patten to do everything possible to make it, at the very least, possible for a congress of this kind to be held this year, for these states need the hope that the EU gives if they are to be able to turn away from corruption and build up truly stable democracies.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the word ‘transparency’ already has a noteworthy career behind it. If, today, you go into modern search engines, you find 223 000 examples of its German equivalent in less than ten minutes. No one would confuse the words ‘transparent’ and ‘perspirant’. ‘Transparent’ is what your shirt may be, while ‘perspiration’ is what is sometimes seen under the arms. If you search for ‘transparency’ and ‘European Parliament’ you find just 908 examples and, if you ask people out and about what they associate with ‘transparency’, they say it is what we still do not want to make transparent. Moral: transparency which does not also bring the right people out in a sweat is worthless. If this report now talks in terms of a milestone’s having been reached on the road to more transparency in the European Union, that is something I would contest. It is more than just nothing, but it is not much more than a pebble. What we really need is transparency that is actually experienced. A European transparency initiative – of the kind I have talked about on a number of occasions in Parliament – is in the process of being developed. It goes beyond the self-congratulation syndrome of the European institutions and is aimed at making, if at all possible, all documents – even those in which people are really interested – publicly accessible. On the basis of Regulation 201/204, we urgently need this examination that has already been talked about. If we are concerned to be credible rather than hypocritical, I think our aim must be to do everything we can to copy the freedom of information act in what will hopefully be a future United States of Europe. We can also learn more from Sweden in this area. We all of us know that there is no democracy without transparency.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I should like to know if there will be a clear message going out from Parliament this week about our discontent over today's decision refusing to renew the arms embargo on Indonesia, considering that the vast majority in this Parliament have endorsed the arms embargo in Indonesia in the past? Today's decision not to renew the embargo is extremely dangerous considering the situation there. So Parliament should send a message, since that is the wish of the vast majority. It is irresponsible of EU Member States to refuse to renew the embargo. As people have said, the situation there is extremely volatile. There is, in fact, a risk of a military coup in the future. We do not know what is happening. So why should EU arms producers profit at the expense of innocent people? (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, it appears that today, at the request of the Cuban Government, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights is going to vote for a draft resolution on the situation of the prisoners in Guantánamo. I would ask the following question: with what authority can the Castro Government demand explanations of the situation of these prisoners and demand measures to guarantee that their rights are respected, when Cuba still has 74 citizens imprisoned in inhuman conditions, hundreds of kilometres from their homes, for the sole crime of wishing to exercise their inalienable right to freedom of expression and thought? We also roundly condemn what is happening in Guantánamo. However, precisely because we are demonstrating the consistency that the Castro Government so cynically demands from the European Union in Geneva – a consistency that Fidel Castro himself is incapable of showing – we also once again condemn the arbitrary detention of the Cuban dissidents. It is true that Julio Antonio Valdés has been freed, and we are delighted about that. But what we do not want is to allow ourselves to be deceived and forget that the other dissidents are still in prison and that this imprisonment and the conditions involved, which contravene all international conventions in the field, are a flagrant violation of fundamental rights. Neither do we wish to forget that the Varela Project has not yet gone ahead and that Osvaldo Payá, whom Parliament awarded the Sakharov Prize, is still unable to leave Cuba. Hence the timeliness of the Resolution we are discussing, which is perhaps a repetition, according to the Socialist Group – and this is the reason why it has not wished to sign up to this resolution – but nevertheless necessary, because events in Cuba are, regrettably, repeating themselves and the situation not only remains unchanged, but as the months have passed has actually deteriorated. We do not want either Parliament or the Commission to abandon people who fight peacefully to defend freedom to their fate, and nor do we want to remain silent about their suffering or about that of their families. We want to tell them from this House once again that we are still standing by them and that, despite the isolation in which they have been confined, we are not forgetting them and we are still with them in their fight, in the hope that one day Cuba can begin to move toward democracy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this is a political chamber and I believe that as a political chamber the first question we should consider, as should the Commission, is why this proposal has caused so much commotion and so much reaction. It is not fair to discredit any person not agreeing with it and to say that there has been aggressive opposition on the part of lobby groups. Because, at least on the part of those who have been in contact with me, university teachers of information technology, experts in patents and industrial property and also representatives of small businesses, what I have heard, rather than aggression, has been concern; concern at the way things are progressing and the danger being faced in terms of the possibilities for inventions. The people who advocate this initiative tell us that the only intention is to unify practice on the part of the national patent offices, in a field in which there have recently been contradictory resolutions. And that is true; what is not true, or at least what is not certain, and please allow us to accept this intellectual doubt at least, Commissioner, is that this proposal for a Directive is going to resolve the problems which the intention is apparently to resolve. Because it is very easy to do so, the practice of the European Patent Office, in a break with what was the traditional approach of European law, has tended towards a practice very similar to that in United States law. All the honourable Members know, all the experts know, that European law demands that an invention must be of an industrial nature if it is to be patentable, which means that not only must the method be industrial, but also the result of the product must be industrial, while in US law it is sufficient for it to have a useful application. This has allowed certain innovations and certain patents of software programs. We therefore insist on this point. It makes no sense to say that with the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market and the Commission's proposal these problems are resolved, because they are resolved by means of the amendments approved in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport and in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. Therefore, if the amendments such as those proposed by the Committee on Industry and the Committee on Culture are not approved, it will be very difficult for us to support this proposal.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the subject of the budget. The Council has ‘only’ cut the European Commission’s original proposals for Heading 4, External action, which contained a 3.9% increase on the previous year, by 0.3%. As we all know, the European Union will be taking on more and more new commitments. These relate to the fight against terrorism and organised crime, the reconstruction of Iraq, badly governed countries such as Afghanistan and Congo, the enlarged Europe, conflict prevention in the Middle East, and so on. These are important matters and it is also clear that the people are in favour of a more assertive external policy: 67% of Europeans state that they support more European Union in the world. On the other hand, it is crystal clear that the financial limits of the possible commitments will have been reached unless more money is made available. In a few weeks’ time the European Union will be participating in the international donor conference on the reconstruction of Iraq. Mr Patten is suggesting a possible EU contribution of about EUR 200 million in 2003-2004. Others are suggesting an amount of EUR 500 million. Either way, our Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy does not want this to be at the expense of other geographical zones or commitments, such as Afghanistan, or non-geographical budget lines such as the rapid response concept and landmines. If the European Union wants to assume its share of responsibility for peace and security in the world, it must also be prepared to earmark the necessary financial resources. If not, Europe is at risk of becoming a political dwarf on the international stage.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate, however briefly. I also welcome the fact that so many colleagues are pouring into the House at this moment, clearly to hear what I have to say. I wanted to contribute because, as colleagues on the other side of the House know, there are differences between groups on the important issue of corporate social responsibility. Mr Howitt made a very important observation when, at the start of this debate, he said that he had been working in parallel with Mrs Gillig on this report. 'Parallel' is a very good choice of word because parallel lines are separate lines and do not meet. It is important that CSR, as a subject, should not be seen as a catch-all for everything that everyone wants businesses to do better. Also it is important that the core labour standards – these ILO standards – are given the dedication and focus needed for their implementation, as indeed the rapporteur so eloquently pointed out. Clearly there is much work, collectively, that we need to do on this. I thank the rapporteur for accepting two of my amendments in particular. One was that globalisation can be positive, creating opportunities for real growth and development. I say to Mrs Jensen that this is still very much in the body of the report. The other was that a major driver of social cohesion is full employment. All of us need to be much more positive and proactive in this regard. Finally, I would observe that the rapporteur has accepted the Commissioner's conclusions. We, across the House, will be supporting the rapporteur's conclusions. There is a real danger of consensus breaking out all over the place. I congratulate the rapporteur on her work in making this possible.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as I stated during the debate on first reading, I believe that the regulation before us represents progress, especially for producers, consumers and in terms of environmental protection. We are indeed moving towards the welcome modernisation of the legal framework concerning monitoring the biodegradability of detergents, which dates back to the early 1970s. Please allow me, however, to register my disappointment as regards two points that I consider to be especially relevant and sensitive. My first point is about the need to harmonise legislation on additional labelling, especially the banning of images likely to increase the risk of detergents being ingested, such as images of fruit or other food products. These images are particularly dangerous for children, because their eye-catching nature increases the risk of children ingesting them. The system currently in force only bans dangerous substances and preparations, which is clearly inadequate. I therefore suggest that we go further to protect consumers, especially the most vulnerable. Furthermore, I should like to express my incomprehension at the imposition in the regulation of national, non-harmonised testing methods, without any timetable for their publication being built into the regulation. I feel that in all of these aspects the solutions we have found are far from ideal.

Political group: PPE-DE