GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to start by thanking our rapporteur, Mr Kreissl-Dörfler, for his collegial cooperation in the temporary committee. I am equally grateful to Mrs Redondo, who guided the committee very constructively and with great diplomacy and calmness. I would also like to thank all my colleagues. Our discussions with officials, experts and victims, as well as our visits to affected sites, helped us to engage in depth with the crisis caused by the outbreak of foot and mouth disease and, in general, with diseases and the means whereby they are dealt with and controlled, as well as with their prevention and with vaccination policy in Europe. I am also most grateful to the Commission for always having been there with us and for doing its bit. What makes foot and mouth disease especially problematic is that it is highly infectious and is therefore easily passed from one animal to another. It is therefore absolutely vital for appropriate measures to be taken to combat the disease as soon as there is an outbreak, so that we never again have to see the sort of images that quite rightly prompted society's displeasure. At this point, I would like to say, on a rather critical note, that the report could have made it clearer that a crisis of this sort could have been prevented if appropriate control measures had been taken and if the existing EU regulations had been adhered to or, in certain cases, transposed in the first place. The important point here is that outbreaks of diseases such as this one can only be avoided if there are sufficient numbers of well-trained inspectors and if everyone concerned observes minimum standards and safety measures. Furthermore, I would like to point out that it is the Member States that are responsible for extending the inspections carried out under their veterinary systems and for relevant research. We should stress this again and again. I therefore see it as self-evident that bureaucratic procedures and an inadequate information policy must no longer be allowed to be the causes of the spread of a disease. Nevertheless, it must be clear to all of us that unfortunately epizootics can break out again in future, whatever is done to prevent them.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, liberalisation must bring benefits. I was pleased to see that the rapporteurs identified this as a key point. In our view, it is important that the benefits are not offset by new taxes and that we create a system which guarantees a sustainable and secure energy supply, in terms of both the environment and business management. Just as I will decide this lunchtime whether to eat a schnitzel or a salad, thus determining the energy supply for my personal energy balance, in the future I also want to take advantage of the free movement of goods to be able to decide whether to have solar power or hydroelectric power. But perhaps it will not only be a choice between one or the other; it would be nice if I could say, in the future I want to be able to use 50% solar power and 50% hydroelectric power in my private house or in my company. Here I attach the utmost importance to there being no cross-subsidisation. In particular, for instance, we do not want the final disposal of nuclear waste to be cross-subsidised from other sectors. We also want a universal service and compliance with public service and environmental obligations; this will of course be achieved through public calls for tender, so that good service is guaranteed and efficiency is central. An external certified body should be responsible for assessing quality in the electricity sector. In the future, you see, we also want renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy-saving measures to be focal points. In the future, there must not be any discrimination in the network price on the basis of quantity of electricity or method of generation. Nor should cross-subsidisation of any kind be admissible.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should first of all like to express my appreciation for Mrs Roth-Behrendt, for her sound work and for her perseverance in this debate. As Mr van den Bos said a moment ago, forty thousand animal tests annually are forty thousand too many. Twenty-five years ago, the Body Shop launched cosmetics that were not tested on animals. It has proved for 25 years that it is possible. This Body Shop policy should now become standard European policy. At the earliest opportunity. It is beyond me why the Christian-Democrats want to wait for another ten years. If we really want this, we simply have to say: as soon as possible. Even if this results in a trade conflict with America or any other partners in the WTO. A reduction in animal suffering is the express wish of the European people, and we as MEPs must comply with this.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Thank you, Mr President. Commissioner, Mr Chichester, ladies and gentlemen, I was my group’s shadow rapporteur during the first reading of this Measuring Instruments Directive, and have followed the inception, development and progress of this directive throughout the two readings. The rapporteur has been kind enough to express his thanks to me, and I would like to take this opportunity to reciprocate. He has shown a masterly grasp of this highly complex and technical subject matter and settled into the work very quickly during the second reading. We worked well together. I think it is important to say this, for although our political views diverge in a number of respects, we were able to collaborate very closely and productively on this project. There is no point in seeking confrontation needlessly. I would therefore like to reciprocate his thanks. It was a great pleasure working with him. As has already been mentioned, this new directive replaces ten existing directives. It may thus be a small contribution to dismantling bureaucracy, which is something we are always calling for in a range of areas. It remains a complex but also a very important directive. On the issues of optionality and the distinction between manufacturers and traders – Amendment No 32 and Commissioner Liikanen’s statement play a key role here – there was vigorous debate about whether the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy would be willing, yet again, to conclude the matter through an informal trialogue during the second reading. I would like to reiterate – especially since I myself will have an opportunity to make a statement on my own report tomorrow – that the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is showing good will and is happy to adopt this approach. This must not, however, become the rule. We are making these exceptions in order to speed up the procedure. The compromises which have been found are acceptable. The Commission’s opinion and statement are good too. Naturally, I very much hope, as do the rapporteurs and my fellow Committee members, that the Council will write this letter and submit this declaration accordingly so that we can actually conclude the matter and do not wind up in a conciliation procedure after all, on the basis of the compromise which has now been achieved. Otherwise, I am very happy with the outcome. I hope that European industry, users and manufacturers will be satisfied with it. Perhaps you will permit me, at the end of our pre-Christmas session and almost at the end of the year, to express my hope that our British colleagues and above all the hospitality industry in Great Britain will be satisfied with the rules on measures for beer glasses. I understand that this is a particular problem. However, I think we have found a good solution here as well. Thank you very much for the collaboration and particular thanks to the interpreters for providing their services at such a late hour in the evening.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Prestige disaster in November 2002 had devastating consequences, which are still being felt in the north of Portugal. We know, however, that maritime pollution, from spillage of oil or other noxious substances, continues even when accidents do not occur. Illegal dumping and emptying of tanks, either on the high seas or close to shore, must be subject to sanction. We also know that the fight against dumping will not only require more legislation, but also, more importantly, greater effective enforcement. In this way, Member States will have at their disposal the appropriate resources and equipment to ensure compliance with existing rules. What is needed is the abolition of flags of convenience, the maintenance of accurate and well-structured logs of a ship’s history, its movements and cargo, the establishment of shipping lanes further from coastlines, the adequate inspection of ships in port and better working and on-board safety conditions. We know that the MARPOL Convention is ignored on a daily basis by a large number of ships sailing in EU waters, since the principal objective of certain shipowners and oil companies is to obtain maximum profit at minimum cost. However, the fight against pollution discharges requires not only effective measures at EU level and greater cooperation between Member States, but also more effective enforcement at world level. Creating an EU coastguard will not solve this problem, and nor will it solve the problem of the lack of adequate resources for ship-sourced waste or the requirement for ships to use such resources. What is needed is for directives and other legislation in place to be enforced, including the system of information and monitoring – already set out in another directive – specifically as regards the installation of data recording devices for journeys on certain ships, without which it is difficult to prove the guilt or innocence of a ship’s crew, who must be considered innocent until proven guilty. It is also essential that crews be adequately trained and employees’ rights guaranteed. Ships must also be built more robustly. Member States and their governments must also assume full responsibility for abiding by the various conventions and directives in force.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we have long been calling for an increase in funds for AIDS given the appalling situation. The European Parliament has made its stance on this issue clear in voting for the Khanbhai report. We were naturally very encouraged by the decision to release a further EUR 120 million. However, the proposal put before us today, after some prevarication, only amounts to EUR 60 million. Furthermore, this will come from the existing budget. This is not extra money. These funds are not ongoing. We also wish to question the allocation of this money to a single international fund. What is the aim of this fund? Is it only for prevention? Or will it also provide access to treatment for people living in the countries of the South? Will it provide health care infrastructures and medicines? These are the questions we must ask. How will this fund be managed? How will those that need this money, namely the countries of the South, be involved in these decisions? It is not simply up to the donor countries. I think that we must ask ourselves all these questions because people are dying everyday, but we have money and it is up to us to help them.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I have been a Member of this Parliament now for sixteen years. I believe I am accurate in saying that literally in every one of those sixteen years the concerns of the Irish Government and the Irish people about the nuclear processing plant in Sellafield have been raised in this Parliament. I am always conscious, as I look around, that probably every light bulb in this Chamber is lit by nuclear energy, which explains the reluctance among many of the major European nuclear powers to address seriously the concern we have in Ireland. Our concerns have been expressed by successive governments to the British Government. They have largely been treated – I regret to say – with indifference and indeed, very often with contempt. There now exists in Ireland a total absence of any trust in relation to reassurances about the safety of the nuclear plant in Sellafield. The recent information about the falsification of documents just added to the deep sense of unease that is shared by people throughout our island. We are a country with all risk and no benefit from this plant. We are aware that the Germans and the Japanese are sending their nuclear waste for processing to Sellafield because it is politically too uncomfortable for them to do it in their own countries because of concerns about this. I ask the Commissioner to reconsider her point. I also ask her another question: are any of the non-nuclear countries on the nuclear safety committee you mentioned? It is time that we realised that we must count the cost of processing the waste from these nuclear facilities as an intrinsic part of the cost. It is, generally speaking, more comfortable to leave that out, but this is a matter of extreme concern to the Irish Government, the Irish people and happily, also to the Danish Government. We are joined in our concerns by them as well.

Political group: PPE-DE
I would thank the Commissioner for his answer. I think that overheating in the Irish economy demonstrates the problems of having one currency and one economic policy in countries with very different economic conditions. I now have a follow-up question for the Commissioner. Do you think it would be to the advantage of the Irish economy to have higher interest rates and a stronger, more highly valued currency? Do you think that would be an advantage to the Irish economy in the current situation?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the monitor is still giving the wrong information. My name is Elisabeth Schroedter, and I am the rapporteur for the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, as already stated, in the context of the procedure of enhanced cooperation with the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism for this important dossier. I will take this opportunity to thank the rapporteur for his constructive collaboration. It is all the more disappointing that – as already mentioned – the Committee of the Regions has thrown out the Committee on Social Affairs’ main improvements, which had to do with the tolerance of excesses. The committee, that is to say, has proposed that excesses of up to 20% should be tolerated. What does that mean in concrete terms? It means quite specifically that the 56-hour driving times that are already permitted per week can be increased by a further 20%, in other words, that a further 11 hours can be added. In my opinion, this is physical irresponsibility with regard to the drivers, and, secondly, it puts every road user at enormous risk. So I think that this matter will really be improved only if we agree, here in the plenary, to reduce this tolerance.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I too, on behalf of my group, wish to thank Mr Hatzidakis for his commendable report. I also want to thank the Commission for having drafted its proposal along the lines Parliament requested earlier on. Our group supports the committee’s line, that there should be adequate funding for cohesion policy and reviews made of state aid policies, that there should not be any renationalisation of regional policy and that areas with permanent difficulties, islands, sparsely populated and mountainous regions, and regions subject to the statistical effect should receive special treatment. An effective regional policy, however, means that other policies have to support its aims alongside aid policies. A certain freedom is also required in regional development, for example in state subsidies, without competition necessarily becoming endangered or distorted. I am pleased that progress is being made in the simplification of administration. Let us make the Member States responsible for functioning effectively. It is especially important to maintain the good practices we have learned from the Leader, URBAN and EQUAL Community initiatives. To justify the work of the EU there is an urgent need for a certain regional approach to issues and an understanding of the user’s point of view.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I do not think I need to go over the ground already covered by Mrs Pack. I am here to illustrate an oral question tabled by Mr Rocard on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, who is unable to be here this evening to illustrate it himself. The oral question refers to points which have already been illustrated by both Mrs Iivari and Mrs Pack, in other words the fact that we in the Committee on Culture have often realised that many of the measures debated subsequently by the Council are developed according to a coordination method from which we are excluded. We have been faced with measures which have already been adopted, on which we were only able to express an opinion after the event, despite the coordination method, which it would be extremely useful actually to apply to Parliament too. With this question, we are asking the Commission, firstly, whether it can provide any guarantee that the measures the Council adopts in future using the coordination method will be notified to Parliament and the Parliamentary committees in good time for them to be able to examine them and express opinions, and secondly, to specify – despite the fact that, in this situation, everything seems to depend on the Convention now – whether it has any proposals to make regarding the wider application of the open coordination method with a view to avoiding Parliament being excluded. The Members who have spoken before me have already covered all these points fully. We would now like to raise them once again in this oral question as specific questions to which we await a response from the Commission.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it is a real pleasure to hear Mrs Winberg and the Commissioner speaking with one voice on an issue which should concern us all. This seems to me to mark a turning point in how this Parliament debates these matters, because it sets out here a coherent, ethical framework by which we should all subsequently be judged. Animals are not merely products, nor are they simply commodities. One of the most appalling things I heard in my own country came from a trader concerning the spread of foot-and-mouth disease: 'They are commodities. I take them around. I trade them here, I trade them there.' They are not stocks and shares. They are not speculative metals. They are sentient creatures. Because of that I believe, with the Commissioner, that the way in which animals are kept reflects on us morally, but also practically, in that bad conditions for animals affect the health and safety of humans as well. The Food Safety Authority will need to address this matter. The Commissioner is right to say that consumers would be prepared to pay more for ‘ethical food’. Another thing they want – but do not always get – is follow-through in the area where animal welfare is promised, but not always delivered. Like everyone else in this House, I hope and expect that the sow stalls proposal will go through on Thursday. It will certainly have our support. I would like to feel that at the same time we are looking at other issues which, because they are cherished in some Member State or in some particular group or community within the European Union, are shrugged aside. I have seen recently that the Italians have tackled the issue of how foie gras is produced. Others have begun to raise the issue of the cruelties involved in the breeding of animals for the fur trade. Now we are coming to the point where, in the testing of chemicals, perhaps we ought to have an absolute assurance (and I know Commissioner Byrne has gone some way towards this already) that we will minimise – and I use that word advisedly – the number of animals sacrificed in the validation of chemical testing. Those things seem to me to be enormously important. Against such a backdrop we can begin to persuade the WTO that these issues are humanitarian, not protectionist. Then, perhaps, we will able to fashion the means of arriving at a food system in which people matter, but animals matter too.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Mauro report does indeed contain proposals for making this programme even more effective. It was already very good the way the Commission had proposed it, but the proposals Mr Mauro has made improve it still further. Above all, I believe that the apportionment of funds – as he envisages it – enables this programme better to meet the demands that we make of it. I cannot see how these paltry resources are meant to enable us to bridge what is called the digital divide, which is for real and consists in the fact that, in some countries, many schools are equipped with computers, while, in others, very few have them. That is why we have tried something for which I also thank Mr Mauro, namely to make you more aware of this. Our amendment is among the twenty-four that aim to get schools communicating with each other and more money spent on equipping them with computers. The other question, as to how we can close this digital divide between one nation and another, cannot be answered on this occasion. This is a gap that can perhaps be filled by using money from the Cohesion Fund or from the Social and Regional Fund. This approach to the eLearning Programme must, as you said, be increasingly directed towards the creation of synergies between existing programmes and the eLearning Programme. If we attach particular importance to schools being linked up to each other through a network, that is something that can be firmly tied into the 'COMENIUS' programme, and which actually has been hitherto, probably without any support. I have seen this in many schools that I have visited in connection with the COMENIUS programme. I believe, then, that this is where we have to forge a new partnership, one that promotes eLearning as an aid to language learning, as well as intercultural dialogue, above all in schools. When we talk in terms of a virtual campus, that of course relates to what we were discussing earlier in connection with the De Sarnez Report. There must be a close connection with Erasmus and Erasmus World. If we are to achieve the best results, we have to combine virtual mobility and physical mobility. I would like, moreover, to underline what Mr Mauro said earlier. There is a massive shortage of teachers, and the attempt must be made, with the help of this programme, to compensate for it. Teachers should not lag behind their pupils, but really should be a bit further ahead, so that they can inject greater stimulus into this area. The eLearning Programme – as at present envisaged – is an important addition to all the educational programmes currently in existence. Again, sincere thanks for all the work you have done. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, in my opinion it is enormously important that we include the Court of Auditors’ annual report in the agenda. This yearly best-seller is once more making its appearance, and it would be wrong if Parliament did not organise a plenary session debate on the subject, as the press already know about it. Any leak of information is extremely unfortunate, but it has happened before. I believe we must discuss this at a plenary session, and not leave it to the lobbying process, as we will be debating it in any case. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE