GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, subject to a few amendments, my Group fully supports the motion for a resolution put before us and so ably drafted by the rapporteurs, Mr Tsatsos and Mr Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado. The great challenge facing us now is to get the Constitution through the IGC without it being dismantled bit by bit. That is why we welcome the fact that this motion for a resolution which we will adopt is not calling for significant changes to the draft Constitution. Of course it rightly expresses some criticisms: it highlights shortcomings in the Constitution. However, this is done to show that we too have compromised to achieve this result. The package that has been agreed in the Constitution is, nonetheless, one that takes the European Union forward in a number of ways as regards democracy, efficiency, transparency and understandability of the Union. It therefore deserves to be adopted by the IGC. There are dangers lurking. There are governments – Spain, for instance – which object to the system of double majority in the Council and want to revert to the Nice system, which is complex, not understandable and not a very sensible system. Why should we accept a retrograde move to allow one or more governments to preserve what is, frankly, an unfair system? There are governments that want to reopen the question of the composition of the Commission. I, too, have some doubts about the formula of the Commission. However, I recognise that it is part of a wider compromise that was achieved in the IGC. The key question is: what is the remedy for this? If we move to one Commissioner per Member State and one vote per Commissioner, would we not be turning the Commission into a sort of Coreper, an intergovernmental body? That is not what the role of the Commission should be. I also oppose those who wish to make a reference to religion in the Constitution. We are a Union of diverse religions, of religious pluralism. There are people in our Union who are not religious. We should not impose a particular view on religion in the Constitution. That would be a form of cultural imperialism. Finally, I turn to the issue of a referendum. It is not up to the European Union to tell its Member States what procedure they should use internally to ratify a treaty setting up a constitution. That is a matter for each Member State in accordance with its Constitution and its traditions. Therefore I oppose the position taken by Mr Evans and others that this Parliament should tell Member States what procedure they should use to ratify and we will be seeking to amend that paragraph accordingly.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I do not want to prolong the proceedings, but you will have become aware that the cry of ‘Check 16’ has become a running gag in the House. Because of an event that you will probably be able to follow up – although you are again the wrong person for me to be telling about this – I asked, during the last part-session, for the House secretariat to pay attention to the circumstances under which a vote is re-examined when one or more Members ask for this to be done. Neither then nor now have I received any notification from the secretariat. We often talk about the dignity of Parliament, but that also involves us being given an answer to this question by the secretariat. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
I cannot vote in favour of Mr Lamassoure’s report for reasons that include the following. The report is clearly supranational in character. I support intergovernmental cooperation, but not the supranationalism advocated by the rapporteur. Nor is public opinion in favour of a federation, something clearly shown by the last EU elections. I also object to the demands that the common foreign and security policy be made into a Community issue, that a special chamber be set up within the Court of Justice with responsibility for an EU constitution and that the principle of unanimity be done away with in the Council of Ministers. Nor do I accept that the regional parliaments with legislative powers should be given the opportunity to participate in the European Parliament’s committee work. Nor can I accept compulsory coordination of budget and finance policy. In presenting its views to the Convention, Parliament should instead concentrate on the changes that are required if decision-making in an enlarged EU is to be coped with successfully. - Nicholson of Winterbourne report (A5-0157/2002)

Political group: PSE
This report deals with the protection of the financial interests of the European Union. It is clear that current methods put in place to prosecute people who have committed fraud against the EU finances are inadequate. For example, only 5 Member States have ratified the convention on the protection of the financial interests of the EU despite having made a commitment to do so over five years ago. The Conservative government did not sign, but the Labour government has recently joined with Germany, Austria, Finland and Sweden in ratifying the agreement. In the week when the Commission is outlining its reform proposals, and emphasising the need to change the culture within the Commission, the EPLP recommended through its voting that officials who do transgress will be prosecuted. The current system of prosecuting officials who transgress does not work, and that is why we support the view that a European Public Prosecutor should be set up only for people who work within the EU institutions. We have clearly voted against any proposal on the European Public Prosecutor which goes beyond this, and have categorically voted against any reference to Corpus Juris. Through our voting, we have shown that the EPLP is intolerant of fraud within the EU institutions, and challenge others who have voted against this report to explain how they expect to win the fight against fraud within the EU institutions. - Van der Laan report (A5-0004/2000)

Political group: PSE
The European Commission should compile a timetable for the Member States, specifying who is going to achieve what, when and how. The European mini-summit in Berlin has once again demonstrated that everyone is agreed on the objectives but not on the actions to be taken, and so we are not making any headway. Replacing the current vague agreements with a timetable with exact objectives should help the Heads of Government find a way to invigorate the knowledge economy and make the European labour market more flexible. In addition, during the Spring Summit, the Commission should indicate what has been done about removing superfluous legislation, of which, according to the Commission’s promises to European industry, 25% is to be deleted. By reducing the burden of administration, companies will once again have the chance to be enterprising and thereby generate economic growth. A European 'super-Commissioner' for economic affairs is not the answer. Germany’s Chancellor Schröder should have known this, for the German 'superminister' for Economic Affairs and Employment, Wolfgang Clement, has not managed to prevent the German economy from still achieving one of Europe's lowest growth rates.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to thank the rapporteur for his good cooperation, as well, of course, as the other Members of this House who are present here today. I think we have ended up looking in the right direction, especially as regards the issue of air-conditioning in cars, about which something has to be done, and, for the benefit of, among others, our visitors, let me say that what was agreed in Kyoto is binding in law within the European Union. What the decisions of 2002 and of 10 March this year mean is that this is binding in the European Union whether Russia ratifies or not, so we too have to do something about this. I think the facts are there for all to see. The first fact is that more and more cars have air-conditioning; it is fitted in 80% of all new vehicles, and every year these units discharge between about 8% and 10% of the gases that damage the climate. The second fact is that alternatives of various kinds are in the process of development. I think it is perfectly clear that we have to go down the road of seeking out the safest alternatives possible with the absolute minimum of global warming potential. Thirdly, that alternative is in fact a CO2-based air conditioning unit with a global warming potential 1 300 times less than at present. Fourthly, I believe that we have to adopt the same approach to the type approval of new cars as we do to everything else, as construction, involving the energies of engineers, plays a part in that, and we have to demand, as soon as possible, new air conditioning systems. Fifthly, CO2-based air conditioning systems are European technologies and European products, which, I think, also makes it apparent that, if we move on down this road, from f-gases to CO2-based air conditioning systems, the air-conditioning system of the future will indeed no longer be a climate-killer; on the contrary, the air conditioning unit of the future can also be a hit where European jobs are concerned.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I voted for the document on the precautionary principle but I do have some reservations. I would not like the precautionary principle to lead to a repetition of what happened to a friend of mine when he went out with his wife. His wife said to him: ‘Don't cross the road or you might get run over’. ‘Okay, I'll walk.’ ‘Don't walk near blocks of flats or something might fall on your head!’ ‘I'll take the underground then.’ ‘Oh no, God forbid! You might be pushed under a train!’ ‘I'll go home then and watch TV.’ ‘Don't turn the television on: it might explode!’ ‘Well, let's go to bed and make love.’ ‘And what about Aids?’

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am sure that, like me, when you call for a debate on the Democratic Republic of Nigeria, you know we are actually talking about a corrupt military oligarchy in an African country to which we give our support. Nigeria is proof, Mr President, that the wealth and value of a nation are often measured according to the priority that it gives to human rights, and especially to women, children and workers. Nigeria is the most densely populated country in Africa, which means that it has vast human resources. It also has mineral resources and a high oil production that should protect its population from poverty. Furthermore, its huge diversity could provide real dynamism. And yet, for decades, a climate of violence towards democrats has been allowed to flourish there and Nigeria’s rulers have never truly sought to punish the extra-judicial murders and violence. By not taking any preventive action, the military powers have allowed a climate of latent ethnic conflict to evolve and one of these conflicts, in the East of the country, pitting the Tivs and the Jukuns against one another, has just led to the deaths of 200 civilians, who were massacred by soldiers. The most shocking aspect, Mr President, Commissioner, is that the State authorities are trying to play down this event by explaining that the soldiers involved in the massacre were reacting to the murder of some of their fellow militiamen. In my view, we must, as we confirmed at the ACP summit on 1 November, force countries that legitimately claim to be our partners in dialogue, that we choose as partners and that request financial support from us, to comply with commonly accepted rules and with international conventions. With regard to Nigeria, this would involve fighting the implementation of the Islamic sharia – a woman was allowed to be stoned in front of television cameras a few weeks ago and not a single country reacted. At the same time, a climate of Islamophobia is developing, with mosques being burned down, and this too is met with widespread indifference. Lastly, an independent inquiry must now be opened into the murders that took place in November 1999 and in October 2001. We should be aware that our colleagues in the Nigerian parliament have called these massacres examples of ‘ethnic cleansing’. I wish to end by saying that I have often called in this House for the debts of third world countries to be cancelled, but this debt cancellation must be conditional, Mr President, on these countries truly respecting human rights, workers’ rights and the rights of children and women. We must no longer accept these countries calling themselves democratic and signing conventions, which they then fail to observe.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Costa, for his most excellent work. I would also like to say thank you for the interesting debate on the subject with some illuminating examples. I think it is important that the issue is now being dealt with by Parliament. The main principle of the report is quite right, that users should pay for the transport infrastructure and its maintenance costs. Charges for the use of the transport infrastructure must take account of the costs to society, but also the ability-to-pay principle and the need to support remote areas. The importance of charging for the use of the transport infrastructure will increase as a means of controlling the situation in the future. The system of charges must be flexible and dynamic, so that it would offer incentives for the introduction of new technical services. As there are plans, however, for a combination of fares and taxes, we have to take care that we are not simply left with a system of taxation. There are still a lot of problems attached to a system of charges. Covering overall costs with fares will work in areas where there is a lot of transport. Conditions vary regionally, however, to a significant extent, so the same bases for charges cannot apply everywhere. Long distances, scattered populations and difficult natural conditions must be taken account of when the instruments in respect of charges are determined, just as the report states. In my opinion, it is important that we look into the possible impact of the scheme before charging becomes a reality.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, this decision leads me, as a member of the delegation to Romania, to make a request of you. In mid-September, the Romanian parliament will be discussing the agreement which their foreign minister has negotiated with the USA in this matter, without – as you will perhaps be aware – keeping them informed about it. The debate in Bucharest will therefore be a very lively one. If we are to discuss this only at the second September part-session, you should perhaps write to your opposite number to the effect that the Romanian parliament should hold fast to the EU common position and perhaps decline to support this agreement. That is what would be called for in that situation. Thank you very much. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the debate we are conducting today touches on the fundamental questions of human existence. Is there a right to life-long health? Is there a right to natural children or a right to healthy natural children or, ultimately, a right to eternal life, healthy of course? New techniques are available. We are being promised cures to many diseases. They are not proven as yet, at any rate not in the field of embryonic stem cell research. Do we really want to be blinded by the interests of self-seeking researchers? Do we want to allow ourselves to be used by industry and its commercial interests? The term ‘therapeutic clone’ is a form of misleading packaging. It can also be used reproductively. Is the production of clones or the scavenging of ‘surplus’ embryos in order to use their stem cells ethically acceptable? No, it is not acceptable. It is more like a modern form of cannibalism. But this debate is in fact already out of date, overtaken by reality. There are serious alternatives, adult stem cells, stem cells from umbilical cord blood. These techniques are already showing great success in practical use, far greater than embryonic stem cell research. There are no ethical objections to such alternatives. It is up to politics to set boundaries. Science is not able to do that, because it does not want to. We must decide. We must be courageous in the face of all challenges. No use must be made of embryonic stem cells, regardless of whether they are cloned or surplus. No human germ line intervention. No selection, no choice between life that is valued and life that is not, but support for research in the quest for alternatives. Let us be courageous and set tight limits. It is high time we did.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in this brief time I would like to make two points, both in relation to veterinary medicines. In a way, they have been the poor relation in these debates because of the immense complexity of the situation with regard to human medicinal substances. Firstly, I would like to warn against the Commission's proposals under Article 67 that all veterinary medicines intended for food-producing animals should be available on prescription only. Some Member States, including my own, have a well-established distribution system that allows medicines for which veterinary involvement is not considered necessary for safe and effective use to be obtained without a veterinary certificate. I can see why some professional organisations in some other Member States would be opposed to that, but it has worked effectively for very many years in Ireland as well as the UK. When we now look at the enlargement of the Union, all kinds of problems will arise if we allow ourselves now to move towards a centralised system which allows only by prescription use of such medicines as are currently administered by qualified persons in countries like the UK. I therefore commend Amendment No 43 to the House. My second and last point is that on the mandatory centralised procedures proposed by the Commission, the committee decided to move to a more flexible system for human medicines, but did not follow that same route in terms of animal medicines. We should rectify that and we can do so through Amendment No 171. Finally, I would make the point that it is a mistake for the Commission to propose that we remove the five-year renewal requirement for marketing authorisation. That is a safety precaution we should retain.

Political group: PSE
Colleagues will recall that we dealt with this matter in urgent procedure in October. I am pleased to be able to report that the Council has now accepted the legal base that was being proposed. However, we would contest the fact that neither of the two appendices is attached to the proposal, although we understand the reasons why. Nonetheless, we discussed this in committee last night and we recognise the urgency. We would propose an urgent procedure without report. It would then be up to the political groups to put forward amendments, which might be similar to those we adopted in October. (Parliament agreed to urgent procedure)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the WEEE directive increases producer responsibility for current and historic domestic waste, electrical and electronic equipment from mobile phones, toasters and PCs to washing machines. This waste is growing at up to 5% per year due to technological innovation and market expansion and contains a percentage of dangerous substances that are currently finding their way into municipal landfills, obviously posing clear environmental hazards. Hence, the need for the second proposed directive to reduce the risk of impact on human health and the environment of the production, use, treatment and disposal of WEEE. The directives deal with producer responsibility, separate collection, better treatment, reuse, recycling, costs, targets, labelling, alternatives to dangerous substances such as lead, mercury, PBB, etc., while allowing some exceptions. But let us be sure, with the proper application of the much-toted precautionary principle, that the alternatives are in fact safer from a toxicity and hazard point of view, in every respect including the ability to flame retard. Have we an acceptable substitute for lead solder, for example? While I endorse both directives, I have tabled an amendment to Article 15 (4) of the WEEE directive inserting a new subparagraph based on a similar clause in Article 52 of the relatively recent EC Directive 99/31 on the landfill of waste. I consider this to be as good a basis as any for taking account of the genuine and practical difficulties of certain Member States in meeting the ambitious collection and recovery targets proposed in Articles 44 and 62 respectively of the WEEE directive. Important proposals such as these have to take into balanced account the significant variations in recycling infrastructure, economies of scale, demographics and geographical circumstances in certain Member States. It is unrealistic and unfair to require Member States with acknowledged deficiencies in recycling infrastructure and reprocessing capacity – for whatever reason – and which lack reliable data on WEEE arisings to achieve the same ambitious targets within specified short time frames as other Member States which already have all or most of the requisite infrastructure in place. It should be borne in mind that the proposed targets are based on the state-of-the-art recycling pilot study conducted in Eindhoven in the Netherlands, which has the requisite infrastructure and population density. Ireland, Greece, Portugal, not to mention the accession countries, will have definite problems with the current proposals unless amended.

Political group: PPE-DE