GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Smoking kills: it causes 500 000 deaths every year in the European Union, which is 1400 a day or almost one a minute. One smoker in two will die, sooner or later, from a smoking-related disease. These figures speak for themselves and are terrifying. Surely we need no further reason to support the proposed directive in its current form, quite rightly amended by our rapporteur, Mr Maaten, whom I must congratulate on his remarkable work, the broad outlines of which I have supported. Tobacco is not just like any other product. It requires specific regulation and it is most apt, in light of recent studies, that the Commission has proposed a revision of the legislative texts in this field. Although it may seem naïve to try to eradicate smoking, I think that we can certainly reduce it considerably by providing the consumer with better information. We have just declared ourselves in favour, much to my satisfaction, of warnings that will cover 35% of the front and 45% of the back of the cigarette packet. Personally, I am sorry that most of my colleagues could not be convinced of the impact that photographs on these surfaces would have had. I supported Amendment No 75 on banning the sale of tobacco products to anyone under the age of 16. To the anti-prohibitionists, who feel that this ban would, on the contrary, make cigarettes more attractive to young people, I would answer with an ethical argument. Our society has the duty, in certain areas, to set strict moral limits. It is the whole issue of human behaviour that is at stake here. This also raises the whole issue of education and of health education in particular. Such education must be started at the earliest possible age, and I think that adolescence is an appropriate stage to instil in young people the limits that they must not transgress. On the basis of ethical considerations, too, I feel it is reasonable to ban exports of products that we consider to be harmful to our own citizens to countries outside the Union. I voted in the strongest possible terms against Amendment No 54. Europe has other assets and other creative ways of finding export markets. During yesterday’s debate, some Members raised the point that smoking kills more people than tuberculosis, Aids or other infectious diseases. This factor alone is sufficient reason for us to grasp this problem with both hands. Mr Maaten’s report is a step in the right direction, but is only one step, because the fight for life, for health, is an ongoing struggle that should engage us all.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I think the report in question is a quite good one, above all because Parliament’s first positions, especially in Amendment No 5, are being maintained. For certain professional groups, establishing working hours is not only a question of doing the obvious and protecting the individuals concerned but also, and to a large degree, a question of our own general safety. The roads are not going to become safer and better if those who drive heavy goods vehicles are not alert and wide awake but tired and irritated. This is a matter which concerns all of us. Young junior doctors’ working hours must also be reviewed directly from a public health point of view. Firstly, to demand from these young junior doctors an average of up to 60 hours’ work per week during a four-month period is ruthless exploitation of young people, because they have to do these shifts in order to pass their exams. Secondly, it is the rest of us who are going to meet these young junior doctors out in health centres and casualty departments. In those circumstances, one can only hope that they are fully rested and wide awake and can at any rate judge whether a particular case is one they can deal with themselves or one for which they need recourse to a colleague on duty. Once again, I want, as a minimum, to support Parliament’s first position.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, reinvigorating the Barcelona Process and giving it direction means not just concerning ourselves with the free market and economic and trade concerns but, in effect, relaunching a policy of cooperation and development and defence of human rights throughout the area. It means bringing about the necessary social reforms, focusing on employment, the need to revitalise the economy in the southern countries and the reduction and cancellation of debt as central issues. It means promoting economic, cultural and political exchange between the southern countries themselves as well as with the northern countries. It means ensuring that civil society plays a greater role. However, we must not ignore the fact that the Barcelona Process has entered a critical stage, caused not only by lack of impetus or a slow down in the European undertaking in respect of the events in the Balkans or enlargement, but also by the conditions of tragic open conflict in the Mediterranean which are holding back reinvigoration. The Palestinian question has once again become central. Commissioner Patten has said that we must not be hostages to the Palestine-Israel situation. That is true, but we cannot avoid it. If we do not tackle very soon the issue of the recognition of a Palestinian State, a State which can coexist with Israel, if military occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip does not cease, the issue cannot be resolved. It must be resolved, first and foremost, of course, in order to put an end to the suffering of the Palestinian people, but also in order to bring more stability to the region. I hope that when the Conference of Ministers of the Union meets in Marseilles, it will be able to adopt a position on this matter which is coherent with what is always pompously stressed, that human rights must not be violated. It is essential to reinvigorate the Process and we must do so, but we must do so in the knowledge that we cannot escape the central issue of the Mediterranean.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I do not feel that I will need the full five minutes, hopefully this will allow you to speed up proceedings tonight. I would firstly like to congratulate Mrs Peijs as rapporteur on this report which, as Mrs Villiers has already outlined, has been extremely complicated. The issue has long been problematic, mainly because of the national differences at governmental level, rather than the issues directly originating from Parliament, but compromises produced in Parliament have been both efficient and expedient in terms of their approach and are very welcome. In an effort to provide for equal treatment across the EU, the principles of unity and universality are the central pillars, of course, of this report, and coherence and consistency are therefore attained. Similarly the rights of creditors in Member States other than their own are safeguarded by the assurances of cooperation between the relevant authorities in the Member States, but let us be clear, in case some of you have not read the document, this is not about harmonisation, it is about mutual recognition of Member States' reorganisation measures and winding up procedures. Parliament's success in introducing substantial changes in the original proposal is important. There are many in Parliament who feel the issues here are of real concern since they all concern the safeguarding of European citizens' interests and rights; indeed this report helps clarify many of the elements, such as the deposit guarantee scheme. But, of course, many of the changes in the common position which finally came back to us have to be welcomed, as they reflect many of Parliament's concerns, although some work has still to be done. It is therefore sensible for Parliament, whilst accepting the improved document's intentions, to reimpose our priorities from the first readings but to organise and also clarify the suggestions emanating from this text. Amendments Nos 1 and 2 bring the text into line with the insolvency regulation and the insurance winding-up proposals which had already been agreed last summer: this confirms Parliament's desire, therefore, to see a degree of coherence in this matter. I also see great strength for creditors in Amendments Nos 3, 5 and 6 while recognising that other national delegations, especially in my group, may have other concerns in this area. But I personally offer my support to the idea of bringing this directive in line with the insolvency regulation and the insurance winding-up proposals. It seems to me that, finally, in the remaining amendments, following in the tradition of tidying up texts for the purpose of clarification, Parliament's rapporteur has maintained the type of quality we have come to expect from experienced Members. Whilst issues such as netting seem to have been slotted in as an extra series of amendments, what we have here is a workable document nonetheless, capable of securing support in the House and provoking serious discussion within the Council.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the United Nations Human Rights Convention meets in Geneva every year, and every year the Chinese leadership puts pressure on its trading partners in order to prevent Peking's human rights violations getting on the agenda. A lot has changed this year. The USA was not re-elected to membership of the Human Rights Convention and now has only observer status. The EU can no longer, then, hide behind the Americans. The misery of the Tibetans, the stifling of their religious and cultural life, the merciless persecutions and arrests that have gone on for decades are not forgotten. Because these people refrain from every kind of terrorism, they are not permanently on the front pages of newspapers, and yet they are very much present with us. As long as one and a half years ago, Parliament called for the Tibetan government-in-exile to be recognised in the event of the UN-sponsored Sino-Tibetan negotiations not leading to Tibet's autonomy. An EU Special Envoy for Tibet was able to assume important coordination roles. In his great October speech to this House, the Dalai Lama again expounded his concept of the middle way and urged Peking to take part in direct negotiations without preconditions. It is, then, high time that the European Union itself got involved in Geneva, in order to bring in a resolution and win the support of responsible members of the Convention. The Chinese must not deceive themselves. We welcome their membership of the WTO and their contributions to the international coalition against terrorism. Nothing, though, can justify the brutal treatment they mete out to religious and ethnic minorities in Tibet as well as in Inner Mongolia and in Eastern Turkestan. Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office, the Europeans' time has come! Let us at last give substance and life to our commitment to uphold human rights absolutely. (Applause) IN THE CHAIR: MR COLOM I NAVALVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I think, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, that the applause from my group just now on the presentation of the programme of the Belgian Presidency has shown you that you can count on the full support of my group and, for that matter, I should also particularly like to emphasise the complete support of the Belgian Socialists in this group. I was especially glad that you began with Europe’s crisis of identity, because it is definitely not just in Ireland but everywhere in the European Union, even in Belgium, that there is a sense of there being a gulf between ourselves and ordinary citizens. It will therefore not be ‘business as usual’ for the Belgian Presidency, certainly not with a historic task such as enlargement in prospect. In that context, I should therefore like to bring to your attention three points that strike us as being especially important. Firstly: it is clear that the future of Europe can no longer be worked out in exclusive groups either of diplomats or of technicians. Europe must again become a political project, and that means, for example, that the debate on the future must really become a large-scale, albeit difficult, exercise in European democracy. It must therefore be carried out in dialogue with civil society and be more than a virtual debate on a website being instead a kind of parliamentary assembly of civil society. The second point concerns your Laeken Declaration. As you yourself quite rightly say, the discussion must centre on where we are heading with the enlarged Union and cover how we are to proceed, with what institutions and with what finance. I should like to ask you, please, to remember to include a healthy environment and the quality of life in this vision of the future of Europe. I believe it is a wise decision that you wish to prepare for this debate with the help of the advisors of the Laeken group. But allow me, with the greatest respect for the mainly grey-haired wise men, to say that it will surely not be prepared for without the presence of a single woman. I truly hope that you will correct this blemish, because the future of Europe concerns the future of men and women alike. A final point. I am convinced that people’s confidence in European institutions can also grow through the practical issues. And I believe that your programme guarantees a social, sustainable and politically stronger Europe. I should like to come back to one specific matter, namely that concerning the taxation of speculative capital flows. This may seem a detail in your list of priorities, a symbolic matter, but for everyone, MEPs and NGOs, throughout Europe who are convinced that globalisation has produced distortions, this is a very important issue. The Belgian Presidency could show, in connection with this matter, that there really is a difference between the thousands of peaceful demonstrators who stood in the street of Gothenburg and have a political message and those who know only the language of violence. I wish you every success with the Presidency, and you can rely on our support.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to say to Mr Duff that I am one of those conservative people, although I belong to neither the Group of the nor the Group of the European People’s Party . My group was quick to express great doubts about the need for revision of the Rules of Procedure which goes beyond the reforms necessary after Nice, and we raised sincere objections to the method which has changed this report from a report introducing minor changes to a report based on Mr Corbett’s creativity more than a genuine need. Indeed, I would remind you by way of context that very many of the reforms which he himself, moreoever, has introduced in past years have not been implemented, notably the legislation on the Commission’s powers. Mindful of this, we have worked quickly to avoid any of his main proposals subsequently being adopted by the House. We will see what happens tomorrow. Indeed, I defy anybody, Mr President, to predict what will happen during the vote tomorrow as things stand, for these reforms are, as I said, extremely wide-ranging and incoherent. I would like to raise two very brief points if I may, Mr President. First of all, we objected strongly to the idea of a quantitative rather than a qualitative approach, deciding what to deal with in plenary and what to refer back to committee purely on the basis of the number of amendments or the number of votes cast for and against. The truth of the matter, as things stand in Parliament, is that all those lengthy, tedious voting sessions are essentially the result of poor preparation in committee. The committees that do their work properly are those which are able, under the current system, to keep voting time to a minimum and to put just a few genuinely important points to the vote in plenary; those which do not succeed in doing this are precisely those committees which cause us to waste time. Furthermore, we are extremely sceptical as regards the option of referring reports back to committee, of letting the committees make the decisions in the cases stipulated by the Corbett report. We are concerned for the simple reason that Parliamentary committees do not always reflect the views of the majority of Parliament, and we would be in very great danger of ending up with conflicting resolutions with conflicting content. I would like to have said a lot more but my time is running out. I would, in any case, like to thank Mr Corbett for his work – despite the fact that he has not listened to most of my speech!

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the running aground of the oil tanker Erika triggered a large number of activities on the part of the Commission, which were truly welcome. However, I stand by my earlier reflection that it is better to act before an accident occurs than to react after it. Both the rapporteur and the Conciliation Committee have done an excellent job with regard to the Commission’s proposal to further improve various measures, and Parliament has improved the proposal even further. We have now pushed through our view with regard to conflicts of interest. We have, moreover, succeeded in getting the lower limit for classification societies’ liability for damages to the level at which we always wanted it. This must be seen as clear progress. The report on port State control also looks significantly better now. In conciliation, Parliament managed to push through the requirement for black boxes, which I believe is a particularly positive move. The solution regarding the third issue of introducing double hulls or such like for single-hull oil tankers has also been considerably more positive than it long appeared would be the case. In this case too, Parliament has had almost all its amendments included in the Council’s common position. In summary, I would like to say that, on these issues, Parliament has clearly shown its capacity to act. Each of the proposals alone would not have sufficed, but together they constitute a significant step in the right direction. In a tangible way, we have taken developments in the right direction towards safer and better seafaring and a better marine environment. Hopefully, this will ensure that accidents such as those involving the Erika or the Levoli Sun will not occur in the future.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, first of all, I am delighted that the Council and the Commission have delivered a clear opinion today regarding the Echelon problem. In the past, a great many parliamentary questions have been simply ignored. The present statement is therefore a step in the right direction, albeit only the first of what need to be quite a few such steps. We must now calmly consider what measures are to be taken in order to protect the European economy effectively. Less helpful in this regard are the hasty proposals tabled by the four smaller groups in this House. When I read in the proposal put forward by the Technical Group of Independent Members about fears of a “Super Echelon” which will apparently use surveillance techniques to gain control of the whole of the information society, then this shows with how little understanding of the facts the present state of affairs is being approached. What we have here is not Huxley’s “brave new world” taking shape, but merely industrial espionage. With its proposal to establish a committee of inquiry, an alliance of and of Members from the and Right of the political spectrum clearly want, however, to use Parliament as an arena for James Bond-style games. Who, I wonder, would call for a committee of inquiry? The American President or the head of the British secret service, who is not even known in Britain? What is this committee supposed to find out? The fact that Echelon exists and is also used for industrial espionage is something which we have known at least since the interview with former CIA Director Mr Woolsey on 7 March of this year. No, the time for investigations and debate is past. Now, we must act. In addition to frank words with our American and British friends, we need a European encryption system, independent of the United States, with which to protect our data. We must put this subject on the agenda of the next session of the World Trade Conference. We must develop a code of conduct which guarantees compensation in the event of espionage systems’ being misused, and we must make it clearer to our businesses than we have done so far that they themselves are called upon to safeguard their own data through encryption. In contrast to a committee of inquiry, which in this case would serve no purpose, this would be a constructive initiative. Madam President, I have issued this statement on behalf of Mr von Boetticher who, because of a bereavement, had to travel back to Germany yesterday.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in its opinion on the country reports the Committee on Constitutional Affairs has confined itself to only a few points which are significant for all of the accession countries without exception and which are, as you would expect, included in the introductory report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. Our committee calls for a more developed schema governing the future representation of the candidate countries in the European Parliament than is provided for in the Treaty of Nice. We call for the discrimination against Hungary and the Czech Republic to be rectified and we think it is necessary for provision also to be made for the period after the 2004 European elections for any candidates acceding then. Other important concerns of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs relate to the candidate countries' participating as soon as possible in the so-called post-Nice process. A constitutional reform in Europe without the participation of the future members is politically indefensible. Of course the candidates will not be able to have an equal say in the decisions for as long as they are still candidates, but they will be affected and we should therefore also attach importance to their opinions. Our committee continues to be in favour of actively involving civil society in the Member States and the candidate countries in the process of reforming our future institutions. A prerequisite for this will be high-quality, comprehensive and above all not only one-sided information. A further concern has obviously already reached the ears of the Commission. Commissioner Verheugen already mentioned in this morning's debate that the application of Community law will be a priority in the ongoing assessment of the candidates' readiness to join the European Union. We can only fully agree with him. I have mixed feelings about another comment which Commissioner Verheugen made this morning. Commissioner, you said that the border regions would spearhead the EU enlargement process. In the light of the great restraint being exercised by the Commission where support for border regions is concerned, I fear that some border regions may see themselves as spearheads in a different sense, in the sense that they are being speared. Perhaps here too it will be possible to find a solution by working together constructively.

Political group: PPE-DE