GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, the WTO must guarantee the purity and quality of food. For that reason, with the meeting at Seattle drawing near, the EU must not be too modest in its demands. Europe wants to practise a social and sustainable agricultural policy and, above all, produce food which is pure and of good quality. That is why the environment, people’s health and that of animals, and the question of fairness must be a proper basis for the talks. The agenda for the negotiations must be broad in scope from the outset. The European agricultural model has to be forcefully promoted in the talks. The quality and purity of food cannot be put into jeopardy as the result of a liberalised market. In future, food production must be able to comply with the principle of caution. In addition, I think it would be best for all if food could, in the future, be produced near to where it is to be consumed. Regional food chains would help us to monitor the quality of food in the best way. The EU must take an aggressive stance to defend its own sustainable course of action. Furthermore, others must take account of the protection of the environment and health in their own production processes, if trade is to be liberalised.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, it is clear from the debate here this morning and in yesterday's discussion in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs that Parliament is divided into two camps. The two camps are the optimists and the pessimists. The pessimists point out that we are in a major crisis, perhaps, I have heard it said, the biggest since the rejection of the EDC Treaty in 1954. The optimists say no, because 95% of the draft Constitution has not been challenged and has virtually been agreed though I would like to see the text of the final versions of these articles that have virtually been agreed at the IGC. There is just one key subject left to argue about and settle. It concerns the voting system within one of the institutions. We can still do this. After all, on the original timetable nobody had originally thought we would finish before Christmas, so there is nothing to panic about. It can all be resolved in due course. Which of these two views is right? I tend to be an optimist by nature, but I am a cautious optimist. We can salvage this IGC but it will need us all and the Member States in the IGC especially to be focused: focused on the remaining issues that need to be settled and attentive to solving them sooner, rather than later. If we take too long, there is a risk of reopening the debate on virtually every article in the draft Constitution. That above all must be avoided. We must focus on the points that remain. We must ask the Irish presidency to tear up its original plans and timetable for its presidency and focus first and foremost on this. It is true that business as usual can go on to a degree on the basis of the old Constitution, namely the various treaties that we have, but these treaties are not satisfactory. They need updating, they need streamlining. They need modernising. We need the new Constitution. The Irish presidency must not just carry on, business as usual. It must focus on getting a result on this as soon as possible.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, if there is one certainty about cancer it is that early diagnosis increases the chances of cure. Screening is therefore vital, in particular for people exposed to mutagenic or carcinogenic substances. Equality of access to screening programmes also needs to be guaranteed for all. To this end, awareness campaigns, which seek to inform the public, are imperative. The Mussa report recalls these basic principles, and we will definitely vote in favour of this text. The report also proposes to create cancer registers to target, in the first instance, population groups that show a high incidence due to environmental factors or those linked to dietary habits. This route is fundamental, because we need to go further. Screening, which is certainly essential, is in fact only a secondary prevention measure. We need to act beforehand, to assess the influence of factors such as nutrition, environment, and life style, and to try to reduce their importance. That is real prevention: eliminating the causes or the circumstance propitious to the disease rather than trying too late to cure them. I am extremely concerned by the latest statistics that show that lung cancer linked to smoking has spread, in particular in women, and also cancers of the breast, uterus or prostate, that are directly linked to the influence of hormones. We need to bring to the fore the determining factors in the development of these cancers: endocrinal disturbances, dietary hormones or others. In the same way, the increase in prostate cancer in certain groups of farmers is directly linked to the use of pesticides. In addition, it has been proven that pollution, electro magnetic waves or other chemical factors increase the risk of some cancers. Just remember the problem linked to asbestos and the 70 years it took to manage to ban it; only now are our hospitals seeing the full consequences of it. We need to tackle these problems at the roots and extend public health policies to other areas if we really want to fight cancer in Europe.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I have voted in favour of the amendments adopted by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, for they clearly improve the Council common position and provide powerful guarantees in the fields of traceability and labelling, aimed as they are at preserving the consumer’s freedom to choose between GMO and non-GMO products. Contrary to my political group’s decision and to that of the majority of the European Parliament, I have voted against compromise Amendments Nos 44 and 45, concluded with the Council. These leave it to the discretion of the Member States whether or not to adopt measures regarding the co-existence of GMO and non-GMO crops. Now, because of the rejection of Amendment No 40 to the Scheele report, Member States are forbidden to restrict or prohibit, valid though their reasons for doing so may be, the use of genetically modified foodstuffs presenting a risk to human or animal health or to the environment, as well as being forbidden to suspend or restrict their import. Where is the guarantee of the consumer’s freedom of choice? It turns out that the only purpose of this legislation is to enable the European moratorium on GMOs to be lifted as quickly as possible. A very large majority of the European Parliament, as well as the European Council, have just adopted some ineffectual legislation and will impose GMOs upon Europeans against their will.

Political group: PSE
Although we cannot deny that some progress has been made with regard to the rules governing air traffic control, the will, re-stated by the Commissioner responsible for this dossier, to speed up the liberalisation of air transport services entails risks which have been clearly expressed by the relevant trade unions. Unfortunately, they have not been heard sufficiently, not to mention listened to, except by a few left-wing Members. We cannot, however, believe that the effects of liberalisation are solely positive. We need only observe the sad deterioration of rail transport services in certain Member States since their liberalisation. What was initially proposed was the introduction of competition separating service providers (operators) and regulators (establishment of and compliance with rules). Under pressure, the Commission has fortunately had to review its text, which is still mediocre and dangerous. Air navigation services will, therefore, be liberalised, resulting in real safety hazards. The Commission proposes, in connection with its efforts to achieve harmonisation at Community level, the introduction of a system of authorisations for the provision of air navigation services. (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, Commissioner, today is an immensely important day for the European cosmetics industry, ushering in a completely new era for cosmetic products, one for which a very large number of women have waited for a very long time. I hope that products will come on to the market that will make beautiful young girls even more beautiful, but these are also very important to older women, who of course want to be attractive grandmothers to their grandchildren – and you try and find a grandmother who would dare tell her grandchildren that the cream she has just used, or that she uses on the children, has caused suffering to an immense number of animals. Such a grandmother would be done for! You see, celebrated and truly beautiful women have for a long time used products made without experimentation on animals. Julia Roberts is one such; she loves natural cosmetics, preferring to use a rose cream from a German firm – and, ladies and gentlemen, as she is a celebrated American actress, perhaps that is sending an important message to the American cosmetics industry. Do American actresses really have to resort to European products simply because they are not tested on animals here? That attests to the inadequacy of the American cosmetics industry. I love cosmetics. I owe my hair colour to l'Oréal, my perfume is by Dior, and my face cream comes from Great Britain – Englishwomen have such wonderful complexions. In future, though, I will use far more cosmetics, and will be proposing Mrs Roth-Behrendt for honorary membership of all animal welfare organisations. Today, though, I really would like to thank Europe's cosmetics industry most warmly for its cooperation, and I wish you a turnover of staggering dimensions. May these new products earn you masses and masses of money. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like, personally and on behalf of my group, to congratulate the rapporteur and those of my fellow Members who sit on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, who have managed to work together efficiently to table these compromise amendments with the aim of having this report adopted in one single reading. There is no doubt that the urgent procedure was appropriate faced with the dreadful scourge of greenhouse gases and their consequences in terms of disrupting the climate, not to mention their impact on ecosystems and biodiversity. Indeed we saw their deadly effects this summer during the month of August. I would also pay tribute to the Commission, which is proposing a more binding mechanism for implementing the commitments that we made in Kyoto in 1997. I might remind you that the Protocol, which was adopted the same year and ratified by the European Union in 2002, sets objectives in terms of emissions that the contracting parties must achieve by 2012: a reduction of 8%. The reference date for measuring this reduction still remains to be specified of course, without penalising those countries that made an earlier start on reducing emissions. Latest studies to date show that, unfortunately, total emissions have been on the increase since 2000 and, if we are to believe the forecasts of the European Environment Agency for 2001, overall emissions in the European Union of the six gases deemed to be responsible for climate change are up by 1% on the year 2000. This proves that we need to strengthen the legal monitoring instrument that was implemented in the European Union through a decision in 1993, and that is the purpose of the proposal being examined and debated today. It confirms that the Member States are responsible individually for the conditions under which they participate in the Kyoto mechanism. That is a good thing, provided that effective coordination and proper monitoring are guaranteed. My group obviously welcomes the new requirements for improving the quality and accuracy of the information provided on policies and measures, including on emissions and the absorption of all greenhouse gases, as well as on the aspects relating to methodology. My group also agrees with the rules stipulating how often this information needs to be provided and it also seems to me to be essential for the Commission to table a report to Parliament and the Council following its annual assessment of anticipated progress, measured on the basis of the estimated impact of policies and measures to reduce emissions. Following the rapporteur's example, my group therefore supports the request that the decision should become immediately effective. What we are actually requesting is for this exercise to be classified as a top priority. It is the future of our earth that is at stake and all of the measures taken in other existing and future texts need to comply with the framework and standards set out in Kyoto.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Commissioner, we have often discussed this matter in the past in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Listening to the debate here today, I can see that what was agreed between the Austrian and Germany book trade and the Commission has still found no place in this debate. I can see, including from the speeches this week, that there is obviously a rapprochement here, on the basis of the recognition of the national book price fixing system and a regulation based on French law, which demonstrates, Commissioner Monti, that you are prepared to weigh the cultural aspect, which has formed part of the EC Treaty since Maastricht, against Article 85 of the EC Treaty, which requires you, as Commissioner for competition, to ensure that there are equal conditions of competition, thereby helping to ensure that consumers do not lose out in this respect. The question is, how can it be done? I am convinced that we are on the right track here. We do not need to accuse the Commissioner of philistinism, because he is just doing his job as keeper of the treaties. I think that if we can find an economically reasonable solution which the publishing houses agree with, if we can find a solution which recognises cultural language areas, if we can find a solution which does not incorporate the maximum limitation on competition within the level playing field required under Article 85, then we are on the right track towards a reasonable regulation. In principle, therefore, I support the motion for a resolution as tabled here by Mr Rothley. However, reference to the Commission’s obligation to comply with competition regulations is missing. This should be added, otherwise we shall lose credibility and we shall put Mr Monti in an awkward position which he certainly does not deserve, because I have confidence in your informed judgement.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this is the last time this week that the House will be meeting in such great numbers. I would like to draw your attention and the attention of fellow Members to a very sad matter. This Parliament’s reputation with the press is excellent, because for the past twenty years, Parliament has managed to issue press releases for the written press twice a day. This previous system has now been changed. I had a brief look to see how the system worked this week. The press release to commemorate former President Pflimlin did not appear until 11.22 p.m. on Monday evening. The report on the Feira Summit was issued on Tuesday morning, the report on Tuesday morning’s discharge sitting was issued at 9.12 p.m. The report on Zimbabwe, Tuesday afternoon, was issued at 10.55 p.m. The report on the European Central Bank on Wednesday morning was issued at 8.00 p.m. the same day. This kind of reporting is not really of much use at all to the written press. At that time of the day, editorial staff have gone home and we are, in a way, generating old news. I would ask you, Mr President, to revert back to the old system and to ensure that the press releases, the daily press releases, not only appear on time, but also afford a general overview – in a decentralised manner – for each language. I would ask you to request the Bureau to think about this very carefully and reconsider their decision.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, following the tragedy in Nepal, which wiped out almost the entire royal family, this tiny kingdom in the Himalayas is now threatened with civil war. We must also remember that it is hemmed in between Tibet, which now belongs to China, and India, with tensions threatening to come to a head between these two heavily populated countries. The facts on today's Nepal. Nepal is about the same size as Switzerland and Austria put together. Twenty-two million people live there and, if you think that a large part of the country is highly mountainous, then these people do not have a great deal of space. The flat land is overgrazed, the forests have all been cut down and ecological meltdown threatens. There are hardly any schools, hardly any infrastructure and corruption is rife. Nepal is one of the poorest countries in the world and its only source of income is tourism. Then there are the Maoist groups which oppose the royal family and have already seized control of part of the country, mainly in the west, and who are even more sceptical of the new king, the late king's brother, than they were of the old royal family. What this country needs now is enlightenment. These people also need our solidarity, they need hope and suggestions. Tourism must not run dry, which is exactly what will happen if there is a civil war. I think that Europe should play the role of peacemaker here, hence my proposal to send a small EU delegation to Nepal to take preventive action before it is too late. We must bring our values of transparency, democratisation and hope to this country. We must not abandon this country, which has so many friends in Europe. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in illustrating the resolution proposed by Italian MEPs, I feel that it must be said that, for the second time in five years, we have experienced a natural disaster in the same region of our country, Italy. This has, on the one hand, allowed us to gain a deeper understanding of the issue, an understanding forced upon us by tragic events but, on the other hand, it imposes upon us certain burdens which are certainly not ours alone: they are not the burdens of one or more affected regions, they are burdens not only of the country but of the international community as well, so that solidarity is displayed and acknowledged at different levels. And it has been displayed, at least initially, at moral, political, economic and legislative levels. We expect the Commission to acknowledge the disastrous situation in certain regions in our country and to affect land rehabilitation, in collaboration with the national States, of course, but we also expect it to intervene with legislation to raise awareness at European level, so that the issue of floods and disasters, the victory of ill-omened nature over man and organised society – can in some way be changed for the better.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, a few minutes ago, over in the Robert Schuman Room, we presented Otto von Habsburg and Raymond Barre with the Franco-German Paneuropa Prize, and we recalled how, for ten years under Otto von Habsburg’s leadership, this House took debates on topical and urgent matters like this one as an opportunity to fight for Greater Europe, for freedom in Central and Eastern Europe, and for human rights behind the Iron Curtain. Even then, there were many who told us that the work we were doing had no prospect of success whatever, that it was pointless, and that what we were doing would get us nowhere. Today, there are among us observers from various countries – Mr Landsbergis was also at the ceremony earlier – who can tell us that debates like the one we are having today changed the practical conditions under which they were held as political prisoners, and that, most of all, they gave them hope in political terms. Today, too, we are on the threshold of the enlargement of the European Union. Let that give us courage when we debate Vietnam. It is a topic that we have often discussed, and, alas, the people named in the resolution – some of them important religious leaders, are still in jail; human rights activists are still being suppressed, and peoples are still enslaved. We should, however, recognise that the time is coming when the wind of freedom will blow through Vietnam. We in this European Parliament must not relent in campaigning for human rights and for the freedom of religion, even if there are those who tell us that this is unrealistic and bid us talk business instead. We are under the great obligation of living up to our tradition and our name as Europe’s Parliament. We appeal to the Commission and the Council not to fail at this hour. Vietnam is an important partner, both in political and in economic terms. As a country, it has suffered appallingly through wars, intervention by outsiders such as Europeans, Americans and the Soviet Russians. Like Germany, it was a divided country; it endured a Communist regime and suffers its effects to this day, but it will be able to become a stable partner to the European Union only when it has become, no longer merely an economic factor, but a free state under the rule of law, a democracy in which freedom of faith and conscience prevail, and we ask you, tomorrow in Brussels, to employ your energies without reserve so that it may become that! (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in principle our group agrees with the report by Mr Titley, who has done an excellent job in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. There are some aspects of the report that we do not agree with, such as that referring to the defence industry, but, generally speaking, this effort to achieve transparency and for the EU to play a crucial, I would say leading, role in the process of world disarmament and also in achieving peace is positive, and, for this reason, we think that it is a good report. However, there are various aspects that could be improved, especially following the sad events of 11 September, since when North America has been promoting the indiscriminate sale of arms to all those it considers to be potential allies in the fight against terrorism. We think that this is an appropriate moment to adopt clearly transparent behaviour that would avoid these double standards, and for this reason we, through our colleague Mr Brie, have tabled several amendments which seek specifically to prevent such problems – such as cases, for example, in which arms are indirectly sold to countries that contravene EU agreements through third countries, as is the case, for example, with Turkey, or Israel, bombing or attacking the Palestinians, or Pakistan. For this reason it would be a good idea to have more control over these sales. We also think that it is important – as stated by Mr Titley in his speech – to include terrorism as an objective. Lastly, we also think it imperative, in order to improve transparency, for the Commission itself to draw up a report that clarifies this series of measures so that the role of the EU can be much greater and more decisive in achieving a world at peace and without arms.

Political group: GUE-NGL