GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the operation of the internal market is only guaranteed if, in an area without internal borders, appropriate and sensible measures are put in place and consumer safety is safeguarded. We need uniform safety standards, not a range of different standards. The proposal before us is intended to create these uniform standards. In recent years, consumer confidence has been badly dented, firstly by various acts of fraud against consumers, and secondly by the very welcome research in this area. This has repeatedly revealed that some consumer goods on the market no longer complied with current safety criteria. It is therefore even more important and necessary that this report is before us today. Our thanks are due to the rapporteur, whose efforts have made this possible. It is very important that this general product safety directive should apply irrespective of the type of marketing undertaken, and that a decision is taken which reflects developments in the market place and therefore also includes distance marketing and electronic commerce. As regards the issue of consumer safety, the task is not only to protect children and older persons as the weaker groups in our societies, which is always emphasised; safety standards must apply to everyone. It is therefore only right and proper that we should seek to ensure that goods which no longer meet our safety standards and have to be withdrawn from sale do not end up by circuitous routes in third countries where they could pose a risk to health. I think that one of the most important points arising in this context is the involvement of the trade. Ensuring compliance with these current safety criteria cannot take place solely via the public authorities; the dealers themselves must play their part in ensuring that this relationship of trust between dealer and consumer is enhanced and improved in future. However, this will still require appropriate controls, and the directive is only as good as its regulation. Monitoring measures will therefore be very important. This network of regulatory bodies in the Member States is essential, and we hope that it will come into operation as quickly as possible. Let me add one final point, namely the speed of response by the European Parliament and the European institutions to this type of emergency and the consumer protection which had become necessary in the wake of the BSE crisis, foot and mouth disease, and other types of consumer fraud. We have been discussing this issue for nearly a year now, and I think we should consider how we can respond to emergencies more quickly and introduce urgently-needed measures, and perhaps also how we can improve and, above all, speed up our internal processes and inter-institutional processes in this context. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Tourism is an important engine for the development of economic activity in many parts of Europe. Naturally, we support the promotion of cooperation within the tourist sector so that this can be developed both economically and socially throughout Europe. Subsidiarity is nonetheless something we safeguard and, for that reason, we are abstaining from voting on this report. The introduction of a legal basis and a common framework for tourism would encroach too far upon the subsidiarity principle.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I too want to join the chorus of people offering congratulations but perhaps also extend the congratulations to our own shadow rapporteur, Mrs Van Brempt, who has done some truly excellent and demanding work. I think we have arrived at quite a good conclusion, even though there are naturally certain points regarding which further requirements could be made. What is most important, however, is that we establish producer responsibility, something I perhaps see as the biggest environmental gain from this work. I also see it as a success for all the progressive and environmentally aware companies which are, in fact, already working in this way at present. They are being given the opportunity to continue to develop their ecodesigns and to manufacture their products in ways that are more in accordance with environmental considerations than the ways used by many other companies. Both Mr de Roo and Mr Sjöstedt have spoken about hazardous substances, but I nonetheless wanted to mention brominated flame retardants. It is rather annoying that we have not succeeded in making further progress on that issue. It is scientifically proven that these substances are dangerous, and there is scientific evidence of the health aspects. Flame retardants and their residues can be found in mother’s milk in places as far away as Greenland, among the Inuit, where the levels are more often than not much higher than those recommended by the WHO. It is odd that we are so hesitant and so afraid of doing anything about the problem that we confine ourselves to dealing with just two flame retardants. We know that the substances are hazardous. We know that they affect children’s concentration. We also know that people can experience other types of disorder, such as weight loss, as a result of ingesting these substances and in spite of never having asked to have them in their bodies. The directive on hazardous substances is based on Article 95, and the directive on waste consisting wholly or partly of electrical or electronic products is based on Article 175. That is something I cannot understand. When we discussed a similar directive on end-of-life vehicles, most people saw that directive as a model for future work on the subject, but memories are clearly quite short. I think that this fits in extremely badly with what we are to be discussing this afternoon, that is to say sustainable development. In this area, it is again the internal market which is setting the framework for what we are to achieve in the environmental sphere, and countries are punished for taking the lead. I think that that is wrong.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I would first like to both congratulate and commiserate with the rapporteur, Mr Seppänen. This report on the forest-based and related industries covers just about every important area imaginable, and very much of what it says is correct. However, I would still like to comment on a couple of points. First, I think what is missing here is a reference to the dramatic developments in this sector as regards mergers and acquisitions. This particularly applies to the paper industry at present, where more and more companies are merging because they believe this is essential if they are to remain competitive. My fear is that Europe, which I hope will itself be growing together, will increasingly be faced with circumstances comparable with those in Canada and other countries, where the pressure which companies are coming under is simply passed on to their forests, which are being exploited in the most brutal way. I therefore hope that the Commission will bring forward appropriate and clear proposals, if at all possible in the form of directives. As regards the environment, we should not fool ourselves. Nine years after Rio we are still a long way from being able to meaningfully implement what was agreed there in terms of sustainability. In the long run, we will probably have to prepare for our northern forests to absorb what the tropical forests of the Third World cannot, for whatever reasons. So in future forests will above all be very greatly involved in environmental protection, which brings me to my third point, that is to say the Internet. I personally very much hope that the idea of the paperless office and perhaps even of a paperless Parliament, by virtue of the Internet, will not just give rise to quiet smiles but actually become a reality. Although this would have a corresponding impact on jobs in the industry, it would make sense environmentally speaking. That is my last point. To sum up, this report creates a negative impression. It relates too much to existing industries, and it rather gives the impression of trying to protect something that really can no longer be protected. We only have to remember what happened to the steel industry. I do not think it makes sense to subsidise this sector. But the idea of supporting small and medium-sized enterprises which is contained in Amendment No 3 is very positive. It is also extremely important for us to consider the issue of cartels, given the most recent trends in this sector.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I believe we should revisit vaccination policy. Mrs Roth-Behrendt is right. We should do this today, and not tomorrow. I have read reports from virologists and vets who claim that, in this day and age, adopting a non-vaccination policy is much like sitting on a time bomb. Apparently, there are a number of diseases which we still do not have under control, such as swine fever, and now also foot-and-mouth disease, by all accounts. This is why we need to reconsider all the factors involved, including the human dimension. Surely you cannot tell farmers every couple of years: look, you have worked really hard, but there is now a threat of a disease and we will have to eradicate your businesses. Then there is the aspect of animal welfare. It appears that the scientific arguments are still not fully concluded. All economic arguments have to be looked at, for internal consumption takes a real nosedive each time we hit a crisis. Just add up all the costs of these crises combined. We only need to look at the internal market: pigs are now being sold in the Netherlands at BEF 50/kg, and at BEF 80/kg in Belgium. It is only a matter of time before the first reports on smuggling will start to roll in. All these aspects should therefore be considered. After all, people, especially in my country, are increasingly mystified by your policy. You will therefore need to carefully explain what it is all about. You claim that no single country is asking for vaccination, but no single minister dares ask at this moment when a true European discussion will be held on this subject. The positions are shifting. When will we be able to hold a debate on this subject at the highest level?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, we all recognise the need to cut greenhouse gases and we all want to see policies on cleaner fuels. The question is how we can achieve these objectives. In my opinion, the Commission's proposals on promoting the use of biofuels for transport are not necessarily the best way of achieving those objectives. Firstly, by restricting the scope of the directive to biofuels, we could hinder rather than help achieve our overall environmental objectives. We need a broader-based strategy to cover all renewable and carbon-beneficial fuels. We need to cut carbon emissions quickly and as cheaply as possible. Secondly, mandatory targets in the first instance are too restrictive. Member States need to be encouraged to negotiate targets in line with their own particular circumstances and the environmental performance of fuels suitable to their geographical areas. We should also bear in mind that many high-energy biofuels may be better used in heat and power production rather than transport – another reason for allowing Member States to develop their own biofuel strategy. In any case, if we do get agreement on reduced rates of fuel duty for biofuels, that would make mandatory targets less necessary. So I agree with the compromise position which has been outlined this evening, which calls for indicative targets with the Commission able, at a later date, to introduce mandatory targets if we feel progress is not being made. I would warn colleagues about some of the remarks that have been made about security of supply. I endorse what Mr Linkohr has just said. We may well end up needing to import many of these biofuels. Brazil and the United States have competitive advantages – lower land values and certainly a better climate. Therefore, we could end up being protective of our biofuel industry and replacing one form of agricultural policy with another one. That is the last thing we want to achieve because, in many areas, I suspect this is an agricultural policy not an industrial policy, and, of course, we must not underestimate the importance of genetic modification in meeting the biofuels targets that we require.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the current weakness and volatility of the euro is a cause of concern both within and outside the euro-zone. Does the Commissioner feel that the current stability pact and the powers of the European Central Bank are sufficient to force the Euro-land states to make the difficult and fundamental adjustments in their economic and labour markets, which are essential if the euro is going to be taken seriously by the global financial markets?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I support the call for urgent procedure. Yesterday the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy gave almost unanimous approval to a request for this procedure. There are good reasons to approve such macro-financial aid as a matter of urgency. This is a separate issue from the ongoing debate on the legal basis. As the House will be aware, the situation has changed considerably since the murder of the then Prime Minister Mr Zoran Dzindzic in March of last year. The present economic situation calls for urgent action by the European Union.

Political group: PSE
Our debate today is on the future of Europe and I might take that as a point of departure. President Prodi has talked about the indispensable necessity of the institutional triangle: the Commission, Parliament and Council. It is indispensable and each part of it has a core, indispensable role and responsibility and benefits by the very fact of the three parts working well together. Personally, I am getting increasingly fed up with so-called analyses in newspapers and commentaries on issues of personality which miss the points of substance. The point of substance about the role of the Commission is that it is at the heart and core of the European project – and it is indispensably so – and that is the structure of truth which we must promote, defend and constantly revisit. With regard to a sense of Europe as Hans-Gert Poettering mentioned earlier, I believe it has been diminished at the highest level through Members of the European Council. Every State has a right to bilaterals and multilaterals but there is a time and a place for every one of those initiatives. It is not the time and place to conduct such an initiative immediately preceding and in the same place as a Council meeting that is meant to discuss the same issues, as at Ghent. When we reduce the European Security and Defence Policy to the somewhat farcical theatre of presence or absence at the dining policy at Downing Street, we diminish the idea of Europe itself and we need, from the top down, at the level of the European Council, a commitment to an internally consistent and coherent sense of Europe. The Commission President and Enrique Barón Crespo have both referred to this question of the interinstitutional dialogue and balance and President Prodi has talked about the very sensitive issue of call-back procedure. The one plea I would make, and we have already asked Parliament's Constitutional Affairs Committee to deal with this question with some urgency, is that before us now is the responsibility, among other things, to begin to implement one major part of the structural economic reform programme of Lisbon, namely to create a single European market for financial services. If we cannot work out the levels of commitment and lay down rules with proper conditions between Parliament, Commission and Council, we run the risk of failing to meet the target and the necessity for reform. There is therefore a general urgency and, in some parts, even a specific one. I hope all candidate countries will participate in the Convention, under the principles of Helsinki, namely equal treatment. That is all and there are 13 candidate countries. Secondly, I hope there will be a minimum period between the Convention and the IGC. I agree with all those who said that this business of reform must be finished before the next European election because then there will be a new Parliament, a new Europe after enlargement and a new Commission. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Beysen, very much for his thorough work and for his attention to all the issues which, as the previous speaker, Mr Lehne, pointed out too, have been the subject of a great deal of debate in the Commission. I believe that it was a good idea to present the proposal in the form of a regulation, for I feel that a regulation is genuinely the most suitable vehicle for laying down uniform rules on specific, clearly-defined issues, for guaranteeing price transparency and for increasing legal certainty, and that it is the best way to meet the need for uniform rules now the euro has been introduced. Above all, the regulatory approach makes it possible to create a legal framework on the basis of which the consumer and other market actors can obtain sufficient information to be able to make informed decisions. The text before us, which we are to vote on tomorrow, is, in any case, the result of thorough analysis in committee and in the committees responsible for drawing up opinions. It amends and improves many important aspects of the original proposal relating to the provision of protection and guarantees for consumers, minors, small and medium-sized enterprises and healthy competition, and the introduction of the subsidiarity mechanism. Indeed, an amendment introduces the principle of subsidiarity, on the basis of which the Member States can partially limit trade communications on grounds of consumer protection, safeguarding competition or the protection of providers. I feel that the provision adopted in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market – increasing protection for minors, particularly as regards personal data and potentially dangerous free samples and premiums – is especially important. In addition, the consumer is also safeguarded as regards the court or out-of-court settlement of claims. All in all, I feel this is a well-balanced proposal which takes into account both the need to make the international market fully functional and the need to protect the consumer.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Secretary of State, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in order for the European construction process to maintain its vitality, which is a prerequisite for its survival, each point of arrival must also form a point of departure. Having achieved economic and monetary union, other plans are now being drawn up. We cannot take 50 years to implement these, however. This is the case with the establishment of an effective common European security and defence policy. The Member States must address this issue from a European perspective which can be fully reconciled with NATO commitments. Although this was clearly not our desire, the fall of the Berlin wall has obviously not helped with security and defence in Europe. We are therefore now faced with the complex situation in the Balkans, which throws up new problems on a daily basis. The lessons of Kosovo show us how not to act and the challenges in the Mediterranean basin are keeping us alert. After decades of a bipolar world, the situation of unipolarity must be transitory and in this the European Union’s contribution will be decisive. Peace must continue to be the grand plan of European construction but this will not happen by itself. We must therefore have effective mechanisms for managing crises using non-military means, for developing and ensuring the compatibility of the military capabilities of the Member States, for mobilising adequate financial resources in the national and Community budgets and for establishing effective decision-making structures. The choices seem clear, the objective is challenging and its achievement will be decisive. Reforms must be implemented, major financial resources and means must be identified, made compatible and mobilised. The commitment of the Member States is essential. The current challenges cannot be deferred or hesitated over. The Feira European Council must be more than an occasion to reaffirm our desires. It must be a turning point characterised by the identification of the necessary financial resources and by the inclusion on the agenda of the Intergovernmental Conference of the institutional aspects of the Common European Security and Defence Policy. I congratulate Mrs Lalumière on her work.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what actually are biofuels? Biofuels are fuels capable of replacing conventional fuels or of being mixed with them, and which are derived from the processing or fermentation of various non-fossil biological materials. The reason I say this is that we should always explain what we are talking about. Bioethanol and biodiesel are the biofuels most in use at present. Whilst the two of them are virtually equally profitable, they cannot compete with fuels derived from oil. The profitability of biofuels is manifestly dependent, on the one hand, on producing the maximum quantity from the best-quality production process and, on the other, on its price. While I am on the subject of biodiesel, I would like to mention that it is derived from plant oils – rapeseed, sunflower, soya and palm for example – which are mainly grown in regions of the EU and can also be used as animal feedingstuffs. Being a convinced advocate of the environmentally-responsible market economy, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome the possibility of Member States levying duties at less than the stipulated minimum rates on products composed of biofuels. As the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee has already done, though, I do also insist that this concession must also include complete exemption from duty for pure biofuels over a specific period of time. Why do we demand this? We demand it because we have to guarantee that biofuels will be able to compete against petroleum. Its additional costs are at present around EUR 0.30 per litre. Another reason is that biofuels are CO2-neutral and therefore contribute substantially to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and to achieving the Kyoto commitments. Thirdly, they help us achieve the objective we have set ourselves, of Europe becoming self-sufficient in energy; not only are we currently excessively dependent on petroleum imports, but it is calculated that we will be 85% dependent on them by 2020. Fourthly, biofuels are an indigenous energy resource for the EU in the same way as are the other renewable energy sources and coal. We know ourselves today to be taking a step in the direction of a strengthened environmentally responsible market economy.

Political group: PPE-DE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. – Specialist committees are very dependent upon the rapporteur to do their business for them. I am happy to say that Mr Bourlanges this year has been a reliable colleague and negotiated well on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. He has pursued his own ideas and those of the Committee on Budgets at the same time, in particular his wish for administrative expenditure to be clearly identified so that monitoring can be carried out. We are happy to support him in that. We are pleased with the compromise on the fifth framework programme which allows us to monitor effectively but does not mean that managing the programmes becomes impossible for the Commission. As far as energy is concerned, we are disappointed with the relatively small sums allocated for renewable energy and energy efficiency. We shall be back with suggestions next year. On the whole we are satisfied. We will monitor very carefully the money that we shall be voting for on Thursday.

Political group: PSE