GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, although modern pharmacology and synthetic medicines enjoy uncontested status, herbal medicines are still important for human health and welfare. On the other hand, it must not be imagined that natural substances cannot be a great danger to health when they are abused or prepared without care. Finding just the right sort of balance is a challenge for us, and I am convinced that my colleague Mr Nisticò, to his credit, has done so in his report. Stringent quality and safety standards should be set for herbal medicinal products and clear labelling and instructions are required. The instructions must contain information on the potential toxicity of the substances and their interaction with food, drink or other medicinal products. In addition, for herbal medicines to be authorised for sale on the market the same practices have to apply, where possible, as with synthetic medicines. This is not meant as an attack on traditional medical remedies: on the contrary, the goal is to ensure there is a safe framework within which the herbal medicine industry can thrive in the Europe-wide market. Entrepreneurs in the sector will profit as the market grows and reputations are protected, and consumers will gain in terms of safety and price. The rapporteur raises some problems that have been encountered with irresponsible manufacturers, especially in third countries. Toxic vegetable substances or poisons such as arsenic and mercury, or other medicinal substances such as hormones, have been found in medicinal products. When there is such indifference combined with good faith on the part of the consumer, human lives are in danger. People associate herbal medicines with something natural, good and safe, and they do not imagine that if the dose is wrong or if there is any other form of abuse this can cause serious harm and even death, or that there may be serious problems of quality with the product. The European Parliament is now promoting a worthy human tradition: herbal remedies. Mr Nisticò’s report lays down for this safe and clear limits within which the industry can flourish and succeed.

Political group: PPE-DE
The aim of this Directive, which dates back to 1996, is to eliminate obstacles and uncertainties concerning the posting of workers, within the framework of the provision of services, by improving legal certainty and making it possible to identify working conditions that apply to workers temporarily working in a Member State other than the State whose legislation governs the employment relationship. The Commission feels that while the implementation of the Directive has been satisfactory, some States have yet to transpose it in full and some companies still argue that difficulties continue to arise in its application. Consequently, workers continue to suffer discrimination. A group of experts has been set up by the Commission, made up of officials from the Member States, with the aim of finding solutions to problems that have arisen. Proposals must now be put forward to implement methods of monitoring non-compliance, along with monitoring systems and measures to combat corruption in Member States. A European public register must be created at company level, containing information on companies that have been fined or subject to other financial penalties within the framework of this Directive. The principle of mutual recognition must also be applied to financial sanctions in place, with the aim of making these easier to enforce across national borders. These are amendments that we endorse and we are extremely disappointed that they were not adopted. This explains our abstention in the final vote.

Political group: GUE-NGL
chairman of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. – Mr President, I look forward with great interest to the Commissioner’s reply to this debate. The first question one wants to ask is: is The Financial Times accurate this morning in forecasting that the Commissioner is about to answer our questions by saying that only part of the noise regulation will come into force, the part relating to the European Union, on 4 May. We believe that what the Commissioner is going to say is that the part relating to third countries, which should come into force from 2002, will not come into force and will in fact be suspended. The Environment Committee is the committee responsible within the European Parliament for the original regulation on aircraft noise and we have watched with some dismay the reluctance of the United States to accept that the European Union is within its rights to insist on bringing the regulation into force by the due date. The background to this is from our point of view continued prevarication on the part of the United States’ administration whose attitude has, in the past, given us insufficient guarantees that they are willing to negotiate seriously through ICAO to find a way out of our difficulties. The Environment Committee insists that we have every right, given the proximity of very many European airports to centres of population, to try to get lower noise levels from planes landing in Europe, no matter where they come from and who operates them. Europeans should surely be able to legislate as they wish to protect the population of Europe, and give them the highest standards possible of noise protection. To put it at its crudest, how will we explain the situation to the people of Europe if, after 2002, they still hear noisy old planes from third countries, fitted with the hushkits we judge inadequate, clattering round our skies? This is, of course, a difficult issue to discuss sensibly in a United States election year. We can understand that American politicians have little room for manoeuvre. I think, however, that the Commissioner may be about to announce to us that light is dawning and that we can see a way forward that will enable both sides to be satisfied and to allow sensible negotiations to continue for a global solution. The first compromise put forward a little time ago seemed to many in the Parliament to be much too shaky. In effect the European Union would have suspended the whole regulation, and then the United States would have suspended its complaint to ICAO and negotiations would have gone forward. Or would they? The danger, it seemed to us, was that the European Union would have been left with absolutely nothing. We look forward to what the Commissioner has to say, and I have to underline that it is very important that she should satisfy the Environment Committee and the Parliament, not least because if she is asking us to suspend the application of any part of the regulation, it will have to come through this Parliament by codecision.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mobility inside the European Union is one of the essential conditions for enabling European citizens to feel that they are full members of this Europe we are gradually building. This is more than a symbol; it is a reason, a driving force, for belonging to the European culture and model we are proclaiming. That is why I shall vote for this report. It lays down conditions to enable people travelling inside the Union to do so free from restrictions on their rights, their social security, or other benefits. This report is all the more important because it comes at a critical time for the European Union, a time of enlargement. Mobility for all, including nationals of third countries legally resident in Union territory and students and teachers acting independently – outside the Socrates and Leonardo programmes – is one of the fundamental values of the Union which we must uphold so that the candidate countries know exactly what kind of Union they will be joining.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Madam Vice-President, I would simply like to pose two questions to supplement the comments made by Mr Hatzidakis. If we call for new instruments, the question we will be asked is this: What are we doing with the existing instruments, and why are they not sufficient? That is the reason for my two supplementary questions. Firstly: Do we not already have the option of taking action against Switzerland? I believe that what Switzerland has done with regard to the restructuring of Swissair into Crossair, Swiss Airlines or whatever is clearly a subsidy case. Even if the treaty has not yet been ratified, there must be opportunities outside the treaty to proceed against Switzerland. When will you do so? Secondly: If we take action against unfair practices relating to ticket dumping outside the EU, can you tell us what you propose to do to combat internal price dumping within the European Union in the immediate future? There are increasingly frequent cases of airlines offering tickets below cost price in order to control the market. Do you intend to tackle this problem as well?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I appreciate that many questions have been posed on this issue, but they are all different. When we believe a subject is deadlocked within the European institutions we usually proceed as we are today to try and make progress. In my question I acknowledge that the United Nations plan for a fair referendum for Western Sahara is still valid. You replied that you appealed for human rights to be respected when you met with the Mediterranean countries. In particular, the latter included Morocco and the associated states. Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I think this is insufficient. If, as you said, the Saharawis have released 100 Moroccan prisoners but the Moroccans have imprisoned three Saharawis in terrible conditions, simply appealing for respect for human rights is not enough. We need to apply pressure. As we have association and trade links with Morocco, we are in a position to apply such pressure. We must insist on respect for human rights and urge both the Saharawis and the Moroccans to release their respective prisoners. We need to apply far stronger pressure.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is a report on a Commission report on the implementation of the directive concerning the protection of animals during transport. Commissioner, once more in this Parliament we are giving in to the temptation to tell the Commission exactly what it should be presenting us with, in great detail, in the next proposals for a directive they submit to us, to the extent that we are practically doing their job for them. The rapporteur, Mr Maat, has done a great piece of work. I trust that the Commission and the Council will take this into account. Animals must be transported in conditions that are reasonably good; legislation should dictate standards to ensure that this is the case, and the authorities should verify compliance with these standards. Having said this, I would like to share two thoughts with you: firstly, that conditions should be the same for both long- and short-distance transportation. We should not demonise the long-distance transportation of animals, because that would lead to distorted competition in the internal market. And secondly, transportation conditions should also be the same for all animals that are transported, in cases where animals are being taken to the abattoir as in cases where animals are transported to be reared close to, or far away from, their place of birth, or in order to take part in a competition. These issues are not raised in the report, and I, Commissioner, would personally like to see them included in the next Commission proposals. On the other hand, I would like to applaud and thank the rapporteur, who put forward an amendment on behalf of my group to delete the references made to temperatures, for it makes no sense to talk about temperatures without also referring to the corresponding relative humidity. Additionally, from Lapland to the Canary Islands, Europe is a very large continent with a very diverse climate, population density and socio-economic conditions. Finally, I would like to draw your attention to the importance of transportation in the propagation of epizootic diseases. This is never related to the length of the journey, but we should be absolutely rigid with regard to standards and compliance with them. For example, the classical swine fever we had in Spain in 1997 was caused by piglets travelling from Holland. This can and should be avoided.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, please excuse me if I have to leave before you reply, but I have a group of visitors and it is my custom to be punctual. That is not usual everywhere in Europe, but I do it. I have a very precise question. You said you wanted to carry out a feasibility study about the IT system. Now we agree that we are under pressure of time so far as the modernisation of the accounting system is concerned. When I think about it, on the grounds of plausibility it seems to me that a feasibility study can only refer to option 2, namely modernising the existing system in such a way that it also satisfies future requirements. My question is, given that we are all under pressure of time and that the system must be modernised, would it not be more sensible to save time by not asking this question and going straight for a complete integrated replacement of this system?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the reason for this urgent resolution is, of course, that we as a Parliament have produced a joint statement about the problem of bringing the export of small arms and arms in general under control. At the same time, we know that our governments really drag their feet and are uncooperative and often obstructive when it comes to taking any action. We are soon to receive a report from various governments and this motion for a resolution is extremely topical because it addresses the national governments yet again, via Parliament and the Council, on the fact that we as a Parliament – and I am very pleased that all groups have been able to reach agreement on the motion for a resolution – really do stress the importance of their taking active steps to produce a carefully considered report. Russia is supplying Eritrea with arms through Antwerp whilst we, the European Community, are in the midst of this conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia. We know that the authorities are not supervising these affairs properly. So we also know that there is a desperate need for discussion about effective supervisory mechanisms. The motion for a resolution, expressing as it does the view of our Parliament, has the following to say on that point: if we are aware that at the beginning of this century, just as many soldiers perished in wars as civilians perish in modern-day conflicts on account of these very same small arms, and if we are aware that so many arms are exported from or conveyed through our own Member States, or are actually produced there, then do we not bear an enormous common responsibility for this? I welcome the fact that this Parliament as a whole supports putting the right amount of pressure on our Member States and governments to take serious action on this point. Doubtless we will be able to discuss this further in November.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, in turn, should like to congratulate Jacques Poos on the excellent report which he has presented to the House and to thank him for the highly democratic manner in which he dealt with the proposals and observations of the other members of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, observations intended to improve the report. I should like to comment on three points in the report which I consider extremely important. The first is item 9, which refers to the Council's two areas of work, namely the legislative and the executive. I think that Mr Poos is quite right to say that a distinction must be made between the legislative Council, that is, it must be clear when the Council is acting in a legislative capacity and when it is acting in an executive capacity. This is extremely important and, I think, needs to be borne in mind. The second point concerns collaboration between the Council and the European Parliament. It would be unfair to the Council not to say that certain steps have been taken, but that does not mean that more are not needed. I should like to comment on two paragraphs in Mr Poos' proposals which I think are very important. The first is paragraph 18, which refers to the role and the relations which the High Representative for the CFSP should have with Parliament. I should like to ask the Council to bring Mr Solana to order. The High Representative needs to learn that his relations with Parliament come within a certain framework and are governed by certain rules which he would do well to understand. The second paragraph is Paragraph 19. I was delighted at the excellent example set by the Belgian presidency this morning, when the President-in-Office of the Council reported to the European Parliament in person, and I should like to congratulate Mr Verhofstadt for this morning. The third point, which I think is very important, is the huge issue of transparency. It is an issue which concerns all the institutional bodies of the European Union. It has been raised by other Members, such as Mrs Malmström, who has done an excellent job on the issue of transparency, as, of course, has Mrs Maij-Weggen, but what I want to say to the Council is that European citizens are not just interested in what the Council decides; they are far more interested in why it decides what it does.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to deal with one aspect of this debate, and that is the long-term credibility of the European Union's institutions. Mr President-in-Office, you have come here today to give your commitment – which is very warmly welcomed – to deeper democratic control and also agreed to come before this House another couple of times before the end of your presidency. Since the mid-1980s we have made great strides with Treaty revision for greater parliamentary involvement in the democratic process. However, before the next Treaty change in 2004 and the European elections that year, we need to make more progress towards reform in each of the European institutions. Commission President Mr Prodi has made great strides towards being able to promote people on merit and make changes to various rules and regulations which will come before this House in the next few months. The trouble is that very few people in this House or in the outside world know about the changes which have been made in the Commission. We would welcome a document stating what has now happened, so that we know what has been going on. Mr President-in-Office of Parliament, we have your commitment to a thorough reform of our working methods and, as you have been in office for only 24 hours, we cannot expect changes already, but you have our support, in particular as regards Parliament's 2003 budget, for major changes in the way we work. Finally, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you have indicated in your programme that: ‘Thus, the Spanish Presidency...will, in line with the conclusions of the Laeken European Council, set in motion a discussion on proposals to be submitted by the Secretary-General before the Barcelona meeting, with a view to drawing relevant operational conclusions from those proposals at the Seville European Council.’ Is it possible, in the interests of genuine democratic process, that we in Parliament could be consulted on the documents you will be putting forward to the Councils in Barcelona and Seville? In the world outside, the Council is often known as ‘Kremlin West’, one of the last places where legislation takes place behind closed doors, and we, as parliamentarians, would like to see you come into the real world. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is incumbent upon me to remind my colleague, Mr Evans, of why Wales actually achieved Objective 1 status. It was because of the discredited policies of his own Conservative Party. Let me also remind him that when his party leader, Mr Hague, was Secretary of State for Wales, he broke every rule in the book on additionality which led to a stern letter from Commissioner Wulf-Mathies regarding regulatory requirements. I can tell you that the British Government is aware of its regulatory requirements on Objective 1 additionality. I suggest Mr Evans goes back and reads the regulation. My Group has made extensive amendments to both reports up for debate today. I want to focus our minds on the essential role of the guidelines. The objective is to provide a framework and tool to support and enhance economic regeneration, to get the most effective use of resources in the widest partnership and to put these regions back on the road to recovery and sustainable development so that eventually they come off the regional life-support machine. It is important to identify the skills and potential of our regions in the hi-tech sector. It is particularly important in the light of reports in the media that Europe is rapidly losing ground to the US in the hi-tech growth industries of the future. The operation of the previous round of programmes is also very instructive in telling us what guidelines should not be about. They should not be about creating additional layers of bureaucracy and red tape. They should not be about shifting priorities and policies halfway through project development, resulting in inevitable delays and underspends, particularly in the light of the new budgetary requirement. The implementation and operation of the guidelines cannot be left to the personal interpretation of one or other desk officer, either in the Commission or in the civil service. There must be an internal coherence in the Commission directorate, while respecting the specific local and regional aspects of Commission programmes. The conclusion is that we must make the case for guidelines to be broad, indicative and flexible to assist our programme managers and fund-users and to get the maximum potential out of our new fields of regeneration. If we can inject a spirit of entrepreneurial activity into our poor and structurally weak regions we will eventually get them back onto the road of attracting substantial investor confidence, which will be the key to future success. This is how we are going to judge the success of these guidelines: whether EU regional policy with a good, solid, enabling guideline, can open up new opportunities and allow our poor and structurally weak regions to play their full part in contributing to the growth and prosperity of the EU.

Political group: PSE