GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I would like to talk just briefly about some of the amendments tabled in the report by Mrs Smet. First of all Amendment No 5 relating to the working time of junior doctors in training. I agree absolutely with the amendment that has been tabled here reinstating the first reading position. I know certain Member States feel that a far longer transition period will be necessary. It might well be that the maintenance of this amendment will take us into conciliation. That will give us an opportunity to look at the circumstances facing certain Member States but for now I think it is absolutely right that we stick to this amendment. Mr Pronk is absolutely right. We should ask ourselves would we want to be receiving an injection from a doctor at the end of an 18-hour working day, which is not unusual. In the offshore sector, Amendment No 6 – we have looked long and hard to try to come up with a formulation that will make sure that we get a collective agreement leading to the maximum flexibility available under the directive, that is annualisation of working time. The formulation of the common position would have simply allowed the employers to walk away from attempts to reach negotiation on annualisation of working time and Member States could then have allowed annualisation. We have built in an addition here that will ask for a review after five years involving the two sides of industry at European level to see how the regime is functioning in this sector with particular reference to the health and safety of the workers involved. Amendment No 7 relates to sea fishing. The effect of this amendment will be to try to limit to one year the reference period available for the annualisation of the calculation of working time, in other words making sure that annualisation of working time is possible but no more. If we go to two, three or more years as the reference period for the calculation of working time it becomes absolutely meaningless and we feel that the maximum flexibility of one year annualisation should be sufficient. In Amendment No 8 we look at the issue of the transposition period to be allowed to the Member States. The common position proposes four years which I think is without precedent in the social area. We have looked in this amendment to return to the first reading position of two years. Perhaps again this is something that will be subject to conciliation but we will have to see if and when that is triggered following our vote tomorrow. My final point relates to urban transport, Amendment No 9. We have also built in here a review in order to try to remove an anomaly. The way things stand we would have a different regime applying to a person driving a tram to a person driving an urban bus. That needs to be reviewed. We think a five-year time period should be sufficient.

Political group: PSE
Given the absence of robust and integrated legislation on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) capable of providing guarantees for consumers and industry, marketing authorisation procedures at EU level have been suspended for the last three years. I welcome the legislation that we are approving today (on the traceability and labelling of GMOs), because it makes it possible to register and monitor the movement of GMOs on the market and of the foods for human and animal consumption made from them. This will enable consumers to make their choices and will make the process of product withdrawal easier, should this be deemed necessary. Nevertheless, we would have preferred these laws to be incorporated into a single regulation and not into two, which is what has ultimately happened at the proposal of the European Commission. What we have as a result is the unnecessary fragmentation of legislation on GMOs. Furthermore, the proposal for a Directive contains provisions which, through an excess of zeal, could open the way to fraud and deception, to the misleading of consumers and to the distortion of competition. The rules must be clear and straightforward. I therefore support the proposals for amendments tabled by the rapporteur for traceability and consistent labelling to apply to GMOs and products in which genetically modified DNA or genetically modified proteins are detected. Extending labelling to other products containing no traces of genetically modified DNA or of genetically modified proteins would be extremely confusing to consumers. Apart from anything, such a provision would run counter to the aims of the regulation and would be as onerous for businesses as it would for consumers. – Scheele report (A5-0225/2002)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, congratulations to the rapporteur, Mr Caudron, for the excellent results attained on a programme which, rhetoric apart, can truly be defined as a real challenge for civilisation so to speak, equality between the northern and southern hemispheres. Moreover, the best aspect of this work is that the Commission’s proposal is an unprecedented innovation in that, although Article 169 is an excellent formulation, it is being applied in practice for the first time, and, by taking this line, we are creating a genuine, tangible partnership to address a real problem concerning the northern and southern hemispheres. This initiative is so astute that it should be repeated in both the research sector and other key areas of the Union’s foreign relations. Since I agree with the position set out by the rapporteur, I will make three very brief remarks. Firstly, I think that it was a positive decision not to extend the programme to related diseases, not because they are less important, but because we should not disperse our resources and efforts. Moreover, the results can be used to improve the treatment of other diseases and can form the basis of new research activities, thereby contributing to resolving other health issues related to the problems experienced by developing countries. Secondly, regarding Amendment No 13 – involvement of the private sector – I believe that it is particularly important to involve the private sector in the programme because this will enable additional funds to be leveraged, encouraging businesses to invest more in diseases which affect developing countries. In this connection, a debate on tax differentiation mechanisms could be an extremely interesting incentive. The third point concerns the protection of intellectual property. Involvement of the pharmaceutical industry is essential for the success of the programme. We must have differentiated pricing for medicines sold in developing countries and, in my opinion, we need different labels as well to prevent fraud.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the problem of prisoners of war and those who have disappeared is a part of the catastrophic human rights situation and the plight of citizens in Iraq. Already back in 1992, the UN Commission on Human Rights’ special observer, Max van der Stoel, said that the seriousness of Iraq’s violations of human rights in the world context was only matched by the events of the Second World War. According to the most recent report dating from last year, the situation has only grown worse. We have to address this problem in one way or another. Prisoners of war are the first step, but the ordinary citizens are in a wretched state and, furthermore, weapons monitoring, for example, must be properly organised. This Ekeus affair – the row over it – is a good example. These matters must now be raised systematically.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, first of all, I should like to congratulate Mr Collins on his work, his serious, objective and rigorous work in drawing up this report on protecting the rights of air passengers in the European Union. I fully agree with the rapporteur when he states that it is necessary – and I would say quite urgent – that we improve the current level of protection in cases of denied boarding, flight cancellations, unjustified delays which, in many cases, lead to connections with other flights or with other means of transport being missed and a long list of similar problems, which is growing every day, not to mention the fact that we Members of this Parliament are long-suffering victims of these inconveniences. We must put a stop to this deterioration of quality before it becomes irreversible. I must thank the Commissioner for the efforts that her department is making to achieve this, but in order to achieve this, we must undertake a thorough and appropriate review of current legislation in this field and improve all aspects of it that will lead to greater and better protection of passengers’ rights. We also need to closely monitor the voluntary agreements signed by airlines, which are also designed to improve air transport conditions. Mainly, however, what is essential is a form of vigilance that ensures total compliance with current legislation, which often appears to be nothing more than a useless piece of paper and as such, cannot serve the purposes for which it was intended. This is the aspect on which immediate and effective action can and must be undertaken. To start with, we should firmly insist that a ‘Charter on Passenger Rights’ be properly marketed – as the rapporteur has already suggested. Precise, clear, intelligible and full information is necessary to ensure that passengers are aware of their rights and of how to exercise them and, of course, we cannot accept these posters being hidden away in obscure corners into which few people go in many airports. This information must be sufficiently publicised and made available to all users and not only in airports but also at points of ticket sales, in travel agencies and also, as far as possible, in the media. Unless we ensure that passengers have access to information on their rights, which in many cases means that they cannot exercise these rights, there is no point at all in embarking on a legislative process whose outcome might also end up being nothing more than a useless piece of paper.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would propose an oral amendment of one word in Amendment No 11. The words 'close ties' have a sinister undertone to some, and so I propose to change that to 'close contacts' on the understanding I have with the that it will then withdraw its amendment. (Parliament adopted the resolution) EXPLANATIONS OF VOTES - Bonino report (A5-0286/2000)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, we discussed Mr Schulz’s proposal this morning and voted on it. For good reasons there was a clear majority in favour of taking the vote today. Otherwise we would have not had Eurodac by the beginning of next year but the next debates would have been held sometime during next year and Eurodac would maybe have come a year later. That would be irresponsible and there was therefore a clear decision by the Parliament to take the vote today. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, the incorporation of women into the labour market means that at some time their working life will coincide with a pregnancy, which sometimes means that they are obliged to take additional leave so as not to endanger their own health or the health of the unborn child. Pregnancy is a natural state for women which society must respect, defend and protect. Society must care for working women in particular by ensuring that they remain in their jobs. The incorporation of women into the workplace is a reality which cannot be reversed and women cannot be put in a situation of having to chose between having children and keeping their job because of the complications which a pregnancy may entail. The ageing of the population, together with the low birth-rate in the European Union, means that this is an issue of enormous importance for all social operators. As important as the protection of pregnant women is provision for breast-feeding, which is beneficial to the health of both mother and child. The protection of maternity and breast-feeding cannot be considered as a form of unequal treatment between men and women, since maternity is exclusive to women and it is women who must be protected, independently of the fact that some parental leave can be granted to men. The Member States must deal with the possible negative effects of this directive by making it easier for companies to employ young women by exempting them from the social costs during parental leave. The directive must include a minimum leave of 20 weeks, with an obligatory period of at least eight weeks after giving birth. A minimum salary of 80% must be guaranteed, with no loss of pension rights. The ban on dismissal during pregnancy must be strictly complied with. In no circumstances must pregnancy be a cause for discrimination against women.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the major challenge of this directive – and this is what the Commission desires – is to achieve clear labelling, for both food products as well as animal feed and enzymes. We must reiterate that when we eat animals, we are eating the food that they themselves consumed. Consumers therefore want to know, and many farmers also want to know, what animals eat. Since, initially, I had been appointed draftsman on this issue as a member of the Committee on Agriculture, I felt obliged not to table this opinion on my behalf, such was the desire of my fellow Members – and Mrs Redondo, an inveterate productivist and defender of genetically manipulated organisms, pointed this out earlier – to confuse the debate. I am therefore delighted to be able to support Mrs Scheele and the Committee on the Environment, who are not only demanding clear labelling but are lowering the traceability threshold to 0.5%. Scientists are now telling us that they can detect food containing 0.01% of GMOs. If we therefore want to give consumers clear information on what they want to know, it is indeed possible. The second thing that we must not forget, above all else, is that the requirements must be the same for imported products, so that the consumer has reassurance on products which are from outside and on products which are produced within the European Union. It is on this basis, and this basis alone, that we will effectively manage to reassure and to reconcile consumers and producers.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Commissioner Reding for coming here today to inform us of the Commission’s new strategies on ageing. This subject, which I strongly urged should be included in today’s debate, must lead us all and, in general, the European Union, which I feel needs to show more determination and sensitivity in its approach, to greater reflection. In the future, our institutions are going to be called upon increasingly to respond quickly and effectively to the new challenges posed by the increase in the average life expectancy, and to provide the elderly throughout the world with an increasingly high standard of living. Indeed, the phenomenon of the ageing of society affects all countries, both the more advanced and the developing countries, although in markedly different ways, and due consideration of these differences in impact reveals the need for different approaches and initiatives. I therefore feel that the European Parliament, the institution which is the voice of the citizens of Europe, must adopt an official position at the Second United Nations World Assembly, due to close tomorrow in Madrid, and we shall do this by voting on the joint motion for a resolution today. Indeed, the protection of and respect for the dignity of this section of the population needs to be fully guaranteed, and a debate must be opened on the future of the third and fourth ages. This distinction is not based on biological age but rather on the degree of self-sufficiency of an elderly person. Indeed, it is necessary to distinguish between the elderly of the third age, who are still fully active and have the right not to be excluded from social, cultural, political and economic life, citizens who are a resource for our society rather than just a problem, and those who belong to the fourth age and, although no longer self-sufficient, still have the right to live a dignified life and enjoy full respect for their dignity. That is why, Mr President, I call upon the House to give its full support to the resolution we are to vote on today.

Political group: PPE-DE
The party attaches importance to removing obstacles to the free movement of labour. We have therefore supported this own-initiative report which proposes greater efforts to combat the problems created by differences in social and fiscal systems. However, we are not in favour of producing a directive obliging the Member States to assess the impact of new legislation on frontier workers.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I too would like to add my thanks to Mr Mulder for the way he has carried out his work as budget rapporteur this year. I will be supporting the budget proposals for 2004, but with a certain amount of reluctance, and I will certainly be supporting amendments to them. In particular, I commend the amendments proposed by the Committee on Culture and ask Parliament to think of those organisations such as the youth parliaments and the Youth Orchestra, which do wonderful work for young people but need their funds to be paid in a prompt and efficient manner, something which is not always the case. I would particularly commend the remarks by Mrs Dührkop Dührkop, and the Commission must get the legal base in order so that those funds can be paid next year promptly and on time. I think I am the last speaker from Parliament before the rapporteur and the Commission and I just want to make three fundamental points. The level of the European Union budget, at just over 1% of Europe's GDP, is about right. When I started my political life an elderly gentleman said to me 'always remember that when you put your hand up to vote for expenditure, you are actually putting it down into my pocket'. One penny in the pound is acceptable, one cent in the euro, but no more. Secondly, the Commission must get its accounts in order. All the good work done by European Union programmes is totally destroyed by these regular accounting problems. Is there not a single Commissioner prepared to accept responsibility for this and do the decent thing? All the while they do not do so, the European Union is the loser. Finally, we must have proper democratic control. Last year, for instance, the budgetary authority voted EUR 3 million for Euronews. I heard only yesterday that to this day not a single cent of that money has been given to Euronews, which is one of the best ways for citizens in the European Union to find out about European affairs. I fear that the Commission could not care less whether Euronews fails. Worse than that, it is ignoring the budgetary authority, which it should do its best to respect.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, whenever reference is made to a particular undertaking, it seems only sensible to assess the way it operates so that improvements may be made on the basis of the culture of quality and continual improvement. This is why we agree with those who assert that the European Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction has not performed satisfactorily and therefore why we, like others, are critical of it. We endorse the amendments and reforms aimed at enhancing the objectivity, reliability and comparability of the information provided, given that quality information is essential if related policies are to be improved upon. As a group, we should like to see the proposal taken a stage further in order to encompass damage-reduction programmes. Lastly, I should like to stress that, as this issue clearly has pan-European public health and socio-economic implications, it requires a strategy at European level. Whether we like it or not, Europe is not confined to the European Union, which is why we must support moves to broaden the scope of this proposal to incorporate countries that do not form part of the European Union and those who at present have the status of candidate countries. As the issue of hypocrisy is so often raised in relation to the tobacco and drugs debate, would it not be appropriate here to mention other forms of hypocrisy, such as those tax havens in which drugs money takes refuge?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, if I may crave your indulgence, I only wished to comment that the draft Treaty of Nice regrettably still makes reference to the ecu rather than the euro. I believe this is something of an anachronism! (Laughter)

Political group: PSE
Mr Solana, as the rapporteur of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, I shall limit my speech to those subjects. You have, Mr Solana, heard the force of the criticisms made by the Members of Parliament who do not accept the appalling situations in Kosovo, Chechnya and elsewhere. For my part, I do not wish to give up hope. And today, as far as you are concerned, I acknowledge your efforts to build a European security and defence policy that is worthy of the name and which has not hitherto existed. Indeed, we are still a long way from having achieved the desired objective, in any case, the objective that I wish to achieve. But I do give you credit for your intense work, the number of meetings held, your efforts to create a rapid intervention force, your specific efforts to prevent crises, to manage them or stop them through civilian means and, if necessary, by military means. I should like to take advantage of your presence here today to ask you two questions of the “what is to be done” variety. The first concerns the forthcoming European Councils in June and December, without counting the extraordinary Council meeting in Lisbon. What are the main priorities that you hope to achieve at the next summit meetings? And finally, what do you most need at these next summits? My second question is different, although it is not unconnected with the previous one. It concerns the next IGC. Do you not think that the agenda of the IGC should include the question of European security and defence policy in order to supplement the treaties, if it appeared that, as the texts of the treaties stand at the moment, they do not allow for a real defence policy to be established? I believe that the Italian President of the Council mentioned this point at your meeting on 24 February. Can you tell us your position on this subject?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this debate is taking place at an important moment for this Parliament. The excellent reports by Mrs Malmström, Mrs Ludford and Messrs Haarder and Belder offer us Europeans the opportunity for analysis and, above all, self-criticism. This year is especially significant. A year after waging war against Yugoslavia in the name of human rights, we have remained passive in the face of an even greater violation of these rights on the part of Russia in Chechnya. Two weeks ago, with the support of the United States, Spain and Great Britain allowed Pinochet to evade his responsibilities to face justice for his very grave violations of human rights. This year we have also seen a racist and xenophobic party enter government in Austria, and in Spain we have also seen an outbreak of racist violence in El Ejido. We have seen the mayor of that city receive 75% support in the elections there. This has also been the year in which the Catholic Church has issued a mea culpa on violations of human rights committed throughout history. To this end, we in the European Union could develop a more constructive attitude. I therefore propose five points, which are the contributions of the Group to the various reports. Firstly, to abandon all hypocrisy and treat all countries in the same way; secondly, to commit ourselves to defending, at all costs, human rights everywhere, including in the economic field, in factories; thirdly, to show a special concern for human rights throughout the world, in Latin America (in Mexico, in Argentina, in Peru) etc.; fourthly, to accept unreservedly the cause of human rights for women; and lastly, to recommend the ratification of the International Criminal Court.

Political group: GUE-NGL