GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. – Mr President, we on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy this year can generally welcome the progress that has been made so far in formulating the budget for next year. Looking back historically, we are doing a better job every year and this is certainly due partly to the work done by the rapporteurs. Things are going along much more smoothly than they were, despite the fact that we are considerably squeezed for money because of external demands upon our budget. Nevertheless, I am pleased to see that the Committee on Budgets has supported the view of Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy in restoring some of the budget lines which we are particularly concerned with, at least to the level of the PDB. Also, it is worth mentioning that we look with approval upon the work that was done in terms of the amendments tabled by the Committee on Budgets with regard to the tobacco subsidies. They urge the Council to take a good look at this. We urge the Commission to take a good look at this. We know something must be done. I am pleased that the Committee on Budgets acknowledges this. Its proposals for a gradual reduction over a period of time of that subsidy make sense, and it is time the Council and the Commission started talking about this issue. One particular success is on the issue of the budget line associated with the approval of orphan drugs by the medicines agency. I am very pleased the Committee on Budgets has accepted our point of view and I hope the Commission does as well. This has been a very successful budget line since created last year together with the SAB procedure. We were concerned about what the Council wanted to do in terms of the massive cut it demanded in that line, which was completely unjustified. We are pleased about the restoration to an appropriate level of that budget line and we hope the Commission will also defend that point of view to the Council. This is a budget line which does genuinely good work for the people of Europe and brings real and genuine benefits and it must be protected. Finally, I would say that we have some concerns about the way in which the agencies have been handled. I can fully understand why money must go into the reserve and I can fully understand why there is increasing concern about the way the agencies operate, but we need to give them the appropriate resources to do their job and that particularly applies in the case of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, so much has now been said and written about the tragedy, the crime of 11 September. I will, therefore, confine myself to three issues: terrorism, Europe and the world. Yes, we must resolutely declare war on all forms of terrorism, from wherever it comes, the IRA, ETA, the assassins of Claude Erignac, Prefect of Corsica, Osama Bin Laden and his clique and all the others, but without making the stupid and suicidal mistake of lumping them all together. Our capacity to take in terrorists is now beyond the limit; it is probable that the insane attacks of 11 September were prepared in Europe. So, let us spring to action and pool our resources, our activities, our objectives in the field of intelligence, justice, security and defence and let us be implacable towards the terrorists, their networks, their support structures, their dirty money. Yes, the Commissioner was quite right to refer to the obligation to get results! Solidarity with our friends, our American allies, does not imply mindless alignment. With its tried and tested experience of the world, Europe can and must play a specific role here. Others place hope in us, await us, call on us, alas, too often without response. Let us not disappoint them any longer. In the Middle East, a constant source of tension, the issue has to be resolved by the establishment of two sovereign states – Israel and Palestine – with absolute security guarantees for both. Even the Americans are, for the first time, considering this obvious arrangement. It is up to us to initiate the process of opening the doors. Let us finally realise that the post-Yalta organisation of the world needs to be rethought to take account of the incredible developments since the last war: the emergence of nuclear powers, whether official or not, the fall of the Berlin wall, more than a billion Muslims around the world desperately seeking recognition and respect, new giants like India, limitless technological developments in every field, developments that are accessible only to the few, the ever-widening gap between rich and poor. Let us finally take account of these positive or disturbing trends and organise a world in which each individual is recognised, respected rather than despised, involved rather than ignored. There is a burning need to fulfil that obligation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Parliament has been dealing with the situation in and around Chechnya for some time. We have followed with concern developments in the fundamentalist Islamic forces’ attempts to split Chechnya away from the Russian Federation. We are categorically opposed to any form of terrorism and we support the fight against terrorism in every country in the world. I believe that the territorial integrity and sovereignty of every country is an inviolable and fundamental principle. However, for several months a war has been raging in Chechnya which none of these arguments can justify. I spent over six years of my life in Russia and have very close ties with that country. So I feel it all the more that Russia is totally overreacting in its use of military force in the Chechen conflict. I find it totally unacceptable that we are witnessing violations of international humanitarian law by the Russian army. It is a matter of deep regret and profound concern to me that militaristic thinking has now again taken hold in Russia. It has long been recognised that military might never permanently resolves any conflict, and this needs to be remembered now. It is high time that this war ended and that a political solution to this conflict was found, no matter how difficult and complicated that might be. Furthermore, an enormous effort is required to restore this devastated region for the people who have lost all their possessions in the war and to make it habitable once again. In the long term, this is the only way to remove this focus of conflict. My Group supports this motion for a resolution, and we consider it essential that this Parliament, in conjunction with the members of the Russian Duma, should seek means of restoring peace in Chechnya without delay.

Political group: GUE-NGL
This report is a typical example of the type of debate which precludes political consensus. This is an eminently political subject where one can see the conservative right flirting with lack of job security and the forces of the left seeking to establish social convergence, stressing the link between employment, job quality and social protection. For the first time the advances of Amsterdam give us the opportunity to be involved in the discussion of the guidelines in the form of Mr Menrad’s report. This is why we must insist on objectives which are expressed in definite figures, with a definite timetable. Hence the importance of the amendments resubmitted by my group, with the following requirements: 1)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I do not want right now to join in the weeping and wailing over the fiasco in Bali, and I also propose to leave out the points that have already been addressed. I would like to draw attention to the core areas which, notably with the Cotonou Agreement, we have resolved to do something about, first among them being the war on poverty. That means seeing to basic services and health care, providing clean water for all, giving all children basic education, and, if possible, facilitating the participation of adults in educational programmes. Now that is not an end in itself, but rather something without which, in the final analysis, it is impossible to gain an understanding of the problems that affect every society and everyone's quality of life. Those for whom every day is a struggle for survival are not readily going to be won over by lofty objectives. It is our responsibility to liberate them from the need to spend every day in search of food. It should be noted in this context that women have a key role to play in all development, and that there must be forceful demands made in Johannesburg for us to help put women in a position to take an active part in the process of development and actively contribute to the improvement of living conditions. All over the world, it is women who support development processes that lead to changes in civil society. I would also like to mention the need to facilitate access to global communications in order to make social benefits possible. In conclusion, I will not conceal my concern at the conduct of the Spanish Presidency, which is evidently aiming to abolish the Development Council. That would send all the wrong signals to Johannesburg. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
I should like to thank Commissioner Patten for that clear answer. I have had the privilege – in another, more informal Nordic context – of addressing this serious problem with the Commissioner. It is my understanding that the Commission has had assurances at the highest Russian level that no deployment has taken place. In spite of that, I should like to ask two follow-up questions: how has this information come to be accorded so much credibility by the media; and was this a subject that was discussed at all with President Putin at the European Council in Stockholm?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Schnellhardt has presented two expert and in-depth reports which clearly improve the Commission's proposals on food hygiene. In future, food producers and processors will have to document all steps in the production and processing chain. This obligation also extends to the feedstuffs used and the state of health of animals. This means that in future consumers in the EU will be able to trace food and food ingredients from the shop counter back to the producer. A transparent production chain will thus be guaranteed both for major companies and for SMEs. At this point I would like to make a particular point about SMEs in the meat processing business. In the European Union, there are around 150 000 small-scale butchery workshops with a total of over 1 million employees and an annual turnover of around EUR 60 billion. It is these small workshops that ensure local supplies and maintain a variety of products in rural areas. They use their special skills to produce local specialities and make an important contribution to Europe's delicatessens. The close contact between them and the consumer creates confidence in the quality and safety of their products. That is why we need to pay special attention to the needs of small businesses and to come up with suitable and practical legal arrangements for these companies, which offer people in Europe so many jobs and training opportunities. I have tabled an amendment jointly with the rapporteur which relates specially to single-place slaughter in butcher's workshops because in addition to rules governing slaughter lines in large slaughterhouses we also need to take account of the conditions that prevail in small-scale slaughter operations. If sufficient care and expertise is applied, single-place slaughter can be carried out in perfectly hygienic conditions. That is why I urge you to support Amendment No 133.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I congratulate Mr Katiforis and Commissioner Solbes, both of whom have displayed a broader than usual understanding of what is necessary for a successful economy. We must take advantage of the fact that we are in the European Union to do things collectively. I wish to concentrate on research and development. I regret that the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy did not draw up an opinion on Mr Katiforis’s report – it should have done. Compared to the US and Japan, we are woefully lacking in a proper research strategy in almost all Member States except Finland, Sweden and the Republic of Ireland – countries shown in the Commission paper to have had unusual success. We need scientists in order to have research and development. Let us stop young people choosing to do other things. Let us encourage women. Let us ensure that competence in widely-used languages is increased. Above all, let us look at the salaries paid to scientists and technologists. That is what makes them choose other careers. Of course, we need infrastructure in science facilities and communications. We need a strategy. Jacques Delors spelt it out in his White Paper, so we do not need to reinvent his thoughts. However, the big difference between us and the successful economies of the world – the US in particular – is that they spend far more money on investment in science, and it pays off. Commissioner Busquin’s communication on the European research area is very good. However, what is important is the next stage: transferring that knowledge into goods and products and processes which can be sold. Let us be innovative in the European Union. Let us start by bringing the innovation unit back from Luxembourg to Brussels, where it can use its skills working with other departments of the Commission. That would be a not very revolutionary but a sensible thing to do.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, divisions have emerged within the Council over the choices made this week but, if we care about having a Europe which is politically influential, we have to look to the future and work for the Europe of the future. Europe has to have a single foreign policy and a single defence policy, to take a leading role on the international stage and to be able to guarantee peace outside its borders. We will have to achieve this objective during the second half of this year and, in this connection, I must reply to the disagreeable words spoken by Mr Watson, who clearly knows little about and has difficulty recognising what it means to be pro-European. Clearly, as far as he is concerned, being pro-European means always saying yes, but if we sometimes say no, we might build a better Europe. It would be an extremely grave political error not to heal the present divisions. The Italian Government’s statements which move in this direction certainly give us hope, and I believe President Prodi will be in agreement with the Italian Prime Minister when he meets with him in Rome on Friday. The strong, influential political Europe of the future cannot, however, be created with an anti-American stance. It is appropriate to point this out in this Chamber for there are still those in Europe who place the greatest western democracy and Saddam Hussein’s despotic, criminal regime on the same level. The killer’s name is Saddam Hussein; we cannot and must not adhere to the slogan: ‘Neither Bush nor Saddam’. When Europe has rediscovered the reasons for its strong unity, it will have to participate directly, under the aegis of the United Nations, in the construction of the new Iraqi democracy, once it has assisted with the humanitarian needs, the result of a conflict which Saddam Hussein could have avoided by accepting his proposed exile, mentioned several times by Mr Pannella. It must be a Europe which has relations with the moderate Arab countries, which strives for the security of Israel and for the construction of a new Palestinian state: in short, a Europe which guarantees peace in the Mediterranean and in the Middle East.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, we have all known for a long time that the Intergovernmental Conference on its own is no longer an effective instrument for bringing about a proper treaty amendment. It is encouraging to hear that a different working method has been opted for at the Laeken Summit. The Convention has been launched, and its agenda is far wider than the four points imposed at Nice. That is an achievement on the part of the Belgian Presidency, on which I would warmly congratulate it. The quality of the triumvirate which will be heading the Convention and its praesidium is also promising. Nobody will reproach me for the fact that my trust in this leadership is mainly based on the presence in this trio of former Prime Minister and party colleague, Mr Dehaene. The Laeken Declaration contains more than sixty non-rhetorical questions. Although everyone involved in Europe since Amsterdam, and Ioanina in fact, knows what the questions are, nobody had expected adequate and complete answers yet. However, many of us were looking forward to receiving some indicators, and I actually miss them a little in this Laeken Declaration. There has not been the slightest hint of reaching political agreement between Heads of State and Government about the direction which we need to take with Europe. In fact, wearing my Belgian hat, I could also say that Mr Verhofstadt asks the questions, and Mr Dehaene should make sure the answers are found. I am left with three questions for the Council Presidency, to which I should like to receive answers. First of all, do you believe, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, that you can deepen the European Union even further through this Declaration and with the Convention, to coincide at the latest with the imminent round of enlargement? Secondly, do you expect that the national parliaments that have made their ratification of the deeply disappointing Nice Treaty dependent on the contents of the Laeken Declaration will now soon embark upon the ratification process for Nice? Thirdly, I warmly welcome the idea of publishing the Laeken Declaration in dozens of European newspapers, but are you not concerned that people will also want the questions answered and will want to see concrete policy steps taken before they will well and truly feel at home in the ever-expanding Europe? I should like to finish off by saying that, at the start of the Belgian Presidency, I had asked you to convene an NGO summit, preferably a few weeks before Laeken. I did not receive a response during that sitting, but you did organise the summit. This was therefore a matter of actions speaking louder than words. We had not been used to this for a while in Belgium, and it was a nice surprise when it did happen. Thank you for this. IN THE CHAIR: MR IMBENIVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I have listened very carefully to the debate so far and I was very interested in what Mr Stercks and Mr Lannoye said. To understand properly much of what they have said, one must consider the history. For many years, there was no sign at all of ICAO taking any action to deal with the problem of growing aircraft noise so we in this Parliament took action. We introduced the hushkits regulation which suspended the use of aircraft not retrospectively fitted with noise suppressors – the hushkits starting in April 2002. Then suddenly, there was action. The Americans threatened legal action and sanctions and ICAO seemed to wake up. ICAO proposed new and better noise standards and guidance on sensible operating restrictions around airports. We are now asked though to rescind our regulation and to accept this new directive, which is quite clearly much watered-down, and to expect ICAO to agree on some new international standards as soon as possible. I will probably go along with this at the vote tomorrow because I agree that something is better than nothing, but we can only expect only some small improvements, and only potential improvement at that. I have to say that I am not convinced that there will be any real improvement at international level unless it is very slow as is the custom with ICAO. Therefore, if the Commission does finally get around to sending us a report in five years' time, we might just get a chance to see what this muddled arrangement has produced. I look forward to the report. I look forward to returning to the debate and I hope Mr Jarzembowski is happy with himself because I am not sure that I am.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, many women are discriminated against today in their workplaces. We know that many lose their jobs when they become pregnant. This is completely unacceptable! The Damião report contains many good proposals, but we in the Swedish Liberal Party still have fundamental objections to the report. I would like to say to my predecessor, who spoke just a moment ago, that, in this Parliament, we ought more often to ask ourselves the question: What should the European Parliament actually be doing? How much detail should we go into? We believe in the subsidiarity principle, i.e. that decisions should be taken as close as possible to the people they affect. Social policy is an area where the EU ought to have limited jurisdiction, except when it is a question of free movement for citizens within the Union. Every Member State should have full responsibility and the right to make its own decisions regarding its social security systems. Maternity/paternity leave and maternity/paternity benefit are examples of issues that are not directly transnational. We do not believe in detailed common European social legislation. This does not, however, prevent Member States from cooperating and sharing ideas concerning social issues. The Damião report contains an amalgam of legitimate demands for proper security for women workers throughout Europe, demands for greater freedom of movement and a better functioning single market and demands for the national right of decision on the details of the socio-political system. In this connection, the report contains an imbalance. My final question is: Why should the European Parliament decide that every woman in the whole of Europe must have eight weeks off work when she has had a child? I know several women who have gone back to work earlier – there must be freedom of choice!

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would also like to express my sincere thanks to the two rapporteurs for their tenacity and commitment. I have no doubt that these were essential qualities during the negotiations with the Council, especially in the discussions about large combustion plants. This House was determined to ensure that old plants were included in this directive as well, and finally achieved this goal. This is a key area in which we have been successful. However, we have not been entirely successful. We have had to accept a great many derogations, extensions and lower limit values, not because no other option was technically feasible – for otherwise we would frequently have been accused of trying to achieve the impossible. In this instance, it is quite obvious that upgrading existing plants to meet the standards in modern installations presents no problems from a technical point of view. Indeed, in many sectors, this is already a reality. No, the resistance focussed solely on microeconomic factors relating to specific large combustion plants. This is a short-sighted view. We must think macroeconomically and take account of the public health costs of pollution and harmful emissions. In this respect, I simply cannot understand the Council's negotiating position on this issue. However, as the directive now includes old plants, I shall vote for the compromise as well.

Political group: PSE