GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I believe that the objective of achieving greater protection for the consumer in relation to tobacco consumption is absolutely shared by all of us. To this end, it also seems to me to be fair and beyond all doubt that the tobacco industry will have to adapt to stricter conditions of manufacture, presentation and sale, such as those proposed by this directive. In this respect, I congratulate Mr Maaten on his work. Nevertheless, we cannot put the cart before the horse if we want this work to succeed. The reality is that Europe produces and exports tobacco and, furthermore, its cultivation is subject to significant subsidies. As has been pointed out, this does not just involve the interests of the large multinationals. It involves the legitimate and fair way of life of hundreds of modest families. If we wish to prohibit these subsidies, let us prohibit them, but not without truly seeking alternatives which are proven to be viable. With regard to exports, it seems logical that the European Union should apply the same levels of content for cigarettes for consumption within the internal market as for those intended for exports. In this respect, a proposal of time limits may seem logical. However, we cannot deny or forget the authority of each state to manage the risks within its own society. If we believe that we can and must teach someone something, we must do so firstly – and this has been said here – through education and increasing awareness and not through an imposition which has dubious results as an instrument for reducing the consumption of tobacco.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I would be interested to know whether these treaties were concluded at International Atomic Energy Agency level. In Europe, we do have the problem that it is the Member States alone that decide on safety standards for nuclear power stations. Parliament has come to an arrangement with the Commission, specifically with Commissioner de Palacio, that safety standards for atomic power stations are to be submitted before the new Member States join. Your fellow Member of the Council emphasised to the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy that this would be one of your Presidency's priorities. So I would not only like to know what the current position is on the agreement with Russia, but also what we ourselves think about nuclear safety and about how nuclear power stations are to be made safe.

Political group: PPE-DE
The increasing divide between North and South must become our new frontier, our new challenge. We got rid of a wall in Europe. We cannot accept another wall which cuts the world in two”. These were the engaging words of Romano Prodi in Johannesburg on 2 September, when he had no hesitation in mentioning the need for ‘concrete measures’ and ‘binding timetables’! Unfortunately, you know what then happened, as I do. While we should not play down the advantages of the ratification of the Kyoto Process and the initiative to reduce by half, between now and 2015, the number of people without quality drinking water and adequate sanitary conditions, the Earth Summit has not been able, whatever Mr Prodi thinks, to “restore hope to the poorest”! “Let us ensure that the twenty-first century does not become, for future generations, a crime of humanity against life”...the task of the World Summit in Johannesburg was no more and no less than that! Unfortunately, the person who uttered these words, the French President, like many other Heads of State of the world’s biggest powers, has taken little account of the challenge set: the survival of the Earth and of human existence. (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, this proposed regulation and derogation of Regulation (EC) No 820/97 has a first heading, which nobody is talking about, which provides for a system of identification and registration for beef based on earmarks, passports and computerised support which guarantee its traceability. The second heading establishes an obligatory system of labelling of meat and two stages for its implementation. In the voluntary period for application of Regulation (EC) No 820/97, 36 specifications have been approved in Spain in order to put it into practice, and I can assure you that this has given the consumer confidence and contributed to the recuperation of consumption, which dropped considerably as a result of mad cow disease. I am therefore pleased that this Regulation has been adopted. However, with regard to the content of the labelling – which let us not forget is directed at the consumer – it must be said that it is frankly excessive and that indications are proposed which provide little in the way of food safety and traceability, since this is guaranteed by the measures proposed in the first heading and, of course, is not what most matters to the consumer. The indication of categories is not necessary at all. Furthermore, this indication of categories may lead to confusion and problems, with regard to the age of slaughter of animals and the protected geographical indications, registered in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2081/92, because in this case it is obligatory to introduce categories, and the definitions do not coincide with those which are proposed now. Unless an agreement is reached – a consensus – in the management committee on the 14th. What matters most to consumers, particularly in the light of the recent food crises, is to know where the animal was born and where and how it has been fed throughout its life. Naturally, the registration number of the slaughterhouse offers them little or nothing in terms of the information they require. Furthermore, this Regulation lays down obligatory minimum requirements and there is always the possibility of voluntary optional labelling.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am ashamed to say so but I could not stop myself dozing off a couple of times during the votes which have just taken place and only managed to wake up and cast my vote at the last minute. This is because Parliament’s work is not being organised properly. I voted for the calendar but I would like to make it clear – as Mr Speroni has just said – that we waste a great deal of time in fruitless activities. Voting on the amendments to the recitals of all the legislation, even those which merely lay down guidelines, when all is said done, makes it impossible for us to carry out our mandate. Directives and regulations should be produced and voted upon in Parliament, but Parliament must not waste time in other sorts of debates which could be dealt with by the committees.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, the answer is, of course, very satisfactory but I wondered if you were aware Commissioner that the strategic policy planning and early warning units in the Commission has 20 staff, 11 of whom are responsible for the Balkans and only one responsible for Africa which is your responsibility. I wonder if you would look at that issue and try to ensure that we have more staff on the ground in these units. Also, are you aware that they depend on annual funding which means that they cannot make long-term planning of the kind that you suggested now, so it is important that the Commission looks at these issues. Secondly, Commissioner, the whole matter of decentralisation to the delegations: will you be ensuring that in the delegations you have members of staff with expertise to deal with conflict prevention and peace building?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, there has been a qualitative change in the form of the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam. This shows me, though, how necessary it actually is to have secondary legislation on a basis that accords with the Treaties. I just want to ask whether the Commission is now, at last, declaring itself willing to grant the competent committee in Parliament, the Committee for Economic and Monetary Affairs, observer status on the Securities Committee and invite it to the meetings on a regular basis.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, first of all, a word of thanks to Mr Moreira da Silva. He has gone about his business with energy and tenacity. An energetic step to achieve the Kyoto targets is now of major importance. Uncertainty about Russian participation in Kyoto must not lead to paralysis. Climate change has major economic and social consequences. We must therefore take the steps to turn the tide now. Pollution must now acquire a price and that is an important tool for the preservation of industry. The Group is in complete agreement with Mr Moreira da Silva’s desire to reach an agreement in the second reading and appreciates all the efforts that have been made to this end. Unfortunately, we have to say that it has also been at the expense of our democratic procedures. Not all of the amendments have received an equal amount of attention in the negotiations with the Council. It is particularly disappointing for the Group that the amendment on closures for instance failed to reach the finish line. There was very broad support for this amendment in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. We saw in this amendment an important safeguard against improper closures. Kyoto must not be allowed to be a reason for closing businesses or moving them to a different part of the world and then selling the emission rights. This amendment was important for the employees in energy-intensive sectors. We cannot skate over it too lightly. Public support for a dynamic climate policy is sorely needed, because quite an effort is still going to be needed to achieve the Kyoto targets. I call on the Council and the Commission in any event to take account of closures in the allocation plans. In the event of closures the emission rights must be returned. The Group is entirely satisfied on other points. We have always stressed that the system must also be fair and be experienced as fair. This is why we do not want any ceiling that prejudices Member States that have expanded their industry in recent years. We do however want a ceiling that slowly but surely brings Member States to reduce the emission of CO2. Nor do we want Member States that made an early start on innovation to be disadvantaged. That too is an important point for us. And finally, we do not want any superfluous bureaucracy. The allocation of emission rights is already complicated enough. We must not make it even more complicated by adding an auction for 5% on top. No one is served by an auction for 5% and in this way we would also tend to stimulate overallocation. In short, we are very satisfied with the outcome across the board and on this we congratulate Mr Moreira da Silva once more. We call for attention for the social implications of this directive and the Group calls on the Member States to take this into account in the allocation plans.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I have long been among the sceptics. Parts of the Charter are to be welcomed, but others are a source of misgivings on the grounds of principle. What, for me, was the deciding factor was an appeal from Europe’s fastest growing progressive democratic movement, the French Attaque, which characterises the Charter as an instrument de régression sociale or tool of social regression. Attaque notes that the Charter involves a step backwards in relation to the Member States’, the UN’s, the Council of Europe’s and the ILO’s rules already in force. Attaque also notes that it ignores trade union rights and that, in actual fact, it is about establishing the free movement of capital. When Europe’s fastest growing progressive democratic movement, which has its roots in France, home to the first democratic revolution, and which cannot be suspected of anything resembling Scandinavian-style Euroscepticism, is so adamant about rejecting the draft Charter, it is impossible for me to vote in favour of it.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, allow me, without mentioning this proposal – of which I am in favour – to make just one small remark: I am campaigning somewhat for the respect of the large groups. It is the responsibility of the first vice-chairman to represent a committee chairman, not of a member of his group. I would ask Mr Corbett to show the office of vice-chairman in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs this minimum respect in future. (Applause) (Parliament rejected the request) President. – The reports will not be placed on the agenda. They will of course be dealt with at one of the forthcoming part-sessions, Mr Corbett. Relating to Tuesday: I have some information to share with you. I have no requests for amendment, but I would like to tell you that, unfortunately, Mr Michel, the Foreign Minister and also joint chair of the Conference Against Racism, is still in Durban and he will be unable to attend the sitting tomorrow, Tuesday 4 September. This is as much a disappointment to me as it is to you. Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck, joint minister at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs will represent the Council at the debate. I have a second piece of information, which is that the Commission communication regarding the White Paper on European Governance shall be followed by consultation with the political groups, on the understanding that the main debate will take place at the next part-session or at the October 1 part-session at the latest. Relating to Wednesday: I have three requests for amendment to Wednesday’s agenda. First of all, the Group of the would like to re-organise the day’s proceedings, which are scheduled as follows: the Council and Commission statement on the conclusions of the meeting at Genoa, followed by the Watson report. The Socialist Group proposes that we begin at 9 a.m. with Gerhard Schmid’s report on Echelon, followed by the report by Mr Watson on the fight against terrorism. The Council and Commission statement on the Genoa conclusions would be postponed until the afternoon to be dealt with between 3 p.m. and 5 p.m. The rest of the agenda remains unchanged. I shall now give the floor to Mr Barón Crespo who will speak in favour of the request by his group.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, firstly I want to make it absolutely clear that I have every sympathy with what our rapporteur wishes to achieve in taking forward this proposal. As we have often noted before, motor vehicle accidents unfortunately touch the lives of far too many of our citizens as mobility across Europe grows. The Fourth Directive made great strides in dealing with these problems. However, I want to concentrate on the fact that the proposal 'requires' Member States to implement in their national law the provisions relating to an improved compensation procedure. In essence, we have created a preferential system for European motor accident claims and therefore, logically, it makes sense to give those who experience an accident in a purely national context the same advantages. Logically, yes, but does this way forward respect subsidiarity? I am afraid not and this is an important point. I have therefore retabled an amendment to make this merely a recommendation to Member States. The point is that the issues raised here are a matter for national private civil law. It would involve substantial changes in tort law in England and Wales, for example. We would be putting motor vehicle accident victims in a class apart. What about the victims of medical negligence, industrial injury or any other type of claim against insurers? At present our committee is looking carefully at the harmonisation of civil law. In that respect we have been rightly critical of a piecemeal approach, improperly researched. I merely wish to make the point today that this proposal does, and must, involve a much bigger debate with tremendous implications for our respective systems of civil law. It deserves proper and transparent treatment.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, this is a serious and rigorous report. And Mr Graça Moura deserves the congratulations of the Socialist Group, which I pass on to him with pleasure. Culture 2000, for the reasons which have just been expressed, is an extraordinarily important programme. The joint position of the Council has not yet accepted the Parliament’s criteria and the rapporteur, reasonably, has retained in this second reading the ones which he considers to be essential. Firstly I must highlight funding. We do not understand, given the margin within the Financial Perspective, why a third of the resources which we considered minimums have been cut. On the other hand, we agree with the Council on the need for the activities of Culture 2000 to be visible to the public, but the best way to achieve this is through small and medium scale events, in diverse locations and close to the citizens, rather than events on a grand scale. The Council confuses public reaction with media reaction and forgets that in the latter case the reaction is almost always ephemeral. The Council, or rather, a small part of it, has ignored the spirit and the letter of the Treaties and specifically Article 151. It is still afraid of expressions such as “European Policy” and “European Cultural Area” etc. and prefers to carry on speaking of “partnership”. Legislating and taking action in the field of culture and education directly shapes the European soul which has so often been elusive. The system of knowledge, the human emotions which only the Arts and Letters can produce, in other words, our culture, are deeply based on what the Europeans have in common and therefore form the basis of European citizenship. I hope that the steadfastness of this Parliament, on the one hand, and the help of the new Commissioner on the other, together finally with the understanding of the Council, will all come to act together to this end.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in 1995 at the fourth World Conference of Women in Beijing, organised by the UN, 189 countries adopted a platform for action and a declaration in which the participating governments committed themselves to improving the situation of women. If we examine the results after almost five years and with a view to the June meeting in New York, we should ask ourselves: What progress have we made? What has improved and what has got even worse? We are witnessing many armed conflicts, violence against women and extreme poverty in many cases. On the borders of the European Union, we have endured the wars in Bosnia and in Kosovo, which have still not returned to an acceptable state of normality. There are currently conflicts in Chechnya, in other regions of the Caucasus, in Afghanistan, especially the Panjshir Valley, in Africa and other regions. Violence and terrorism have been present in Algeria and still no solution has been found to normalise life and allow progress in all areas. In many parts of the world, women are victims of violence and traditional practices which do not take account of their personal dignity or their human rights. They are barred from professional life and even access to health care. The trade in human beings particularly affects women, who are victims of organised mafias and prostitution. This particularly affects younger women and, unfortunately, does not only happen in the less developed countries, but also in the wealthy countries. Women are reacting, however. They are reacting more and more and they are rebelling against those situations which degrade them and marginalise them. They want to participate in professional life, in political life, in the education of their children and in the training of young women. Numerous laws have been implemented to protect women and allow them to fight inequality, as well as allowing them to participate in political activity. Women are reacting: they make use of the laws in their favour, they organise themselves into cooperatives and manage to bring about a form of development which allows them to improve their quality of life. They want to participate more and more in technological innovations; they have discovered the opportunities offered by organising themselves and establishing associations in their places of residence, in their work-places and in their regions. They are getting better and better at fighting the old problems and achieving better lives. However, despite the progress made, we have to continue working so that many women may have more dignified and fair lives. The meeting in New York, following on from the conference in Beijing, will be a good opportunity to continue working along this line. I therefore ask for more participation by the Parliament and support from the European institutions so that our presence there may be effective.

Political group: PPE-DE
The report by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development is a move in the right direction. More funds are needed to set young farmers up and reverse the exodus towards the towns. Young farmers may be the key to reviving abandoned areas, small islands and traditional communities from which the life force is draining. What we need is to use new technologies, such as the Internet, to create a new pleasant, cultural, technically advanced environment with a human dimension for them to work in. One important point not contained in the Agricultural Committee report is that young farmers need to be given a basis on which to develop alternative, organic, family holdings, given that over-intensive farming leads nowhere except to mad cows.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, I have a question on the prohibited substances. It is the case that, in future, certain substances will be banned in the European Union, as they have been in the past. How will the Commission guarantee in future that these substances will be tested for in the Member States? How are products containing these substances to be prevented from getting onto the market, as products containing nitrofen are at present managing to do in Germany? They have been banned for some considerable time, during which nitrofen has not once been tested for. When it was discovered, it was done so fortuitously.

Political group: PSE