GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector shows that reasonable results can also be achieved with administrative resources. I remember our debate here on the common organisation of the market in pig meat. Mr Mayer, you know that at that time I said that at some point I would remind you of the vehement opposition to this from your ranks and the calls for a free market. At the time I said that I would come back to this when we discussed the organisation of the market in sugar but of course you were also in two minds. If I remember correctly, Mrs Schierhuber in fact voted for the arrangements then in force for pigs, but now we are debating sugar and I do not think that the organisation of the market in sugar should be completely abandoned; a number of aspects simply need to be amended. Production must be adjusted strictly in line with consumption in the European Union. This also implies that the sugar which we take in addition to this from other countries – for example, the ACPs – is not re-exported. It is also quite reasonable for us to accept sugar from the least developed, poorest countries. I am in favour of the quantities being laid down so that we do not have cyclical trade here, however. This means that we need to repatriate our quotas. There must be no more C sugar and no more exports of sugar at farmers' expense! Because even if the money is forthcoming it is, after all, still dumping. The practice of the European Union providing public money to help out with storage costs must also stop. I am in favour of the sugar market being self-supporting. Then it should be sustained in this way. One final thought: in my view there is much more that could be done in the sugar sector from an ecological point of view. Nitrogen use has fallen out of necessity because it caused sugar yields to fall, but, quite apart from this, more can be done in terms of sugar cultivation, and we can make it compulsory for the sugar factories to accept a particular proportion of eco-friendly sugar.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece will not be voting for the report because it maintains that the 'Road Map' is the ultimate and only solution for de-escalation in the Middle East. However, Israel, emboldened by the undivided support of the USA and the collusion of the ΕU, is violating every agreement, is stepping up the criminal policy of genocide against the Palestinian people, is continuing to colonise Palestinian territories and erect the Fascist-inspired wall to divide Palestine and turn it into a ghetto. If the erection of this wall is ultimately completed, it will annex 58% of the land on the West Bank, trapping 600 000 Palestinians and the most fertile land. In other words, it will objectively destroy every possibility of founding an independent Palestinian state. This ambition on the part of Israel is absolutely in keeping with plans of US imperialism in the Middle East, of which Israel is the long arm. On the pretext of the anti-terrorism campaign, the EU is also signing up to support for Israel, despite any intra-imperialist antagonisms. The report being debated, despite any good proposals by the rapporteur, who is trying to appear 'objective', basically sits squarely on the fence. In an endeavour to appease the invader, it objectively emboldens it. We absolutely stand by the Palestinian people fighting for an independent state and, at the same time, by the forces of Israel opposing Sharon's criminal policy, understanding that, without a Palestinian state, there can be no Israeli state.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I did not see the incident with regard to the handicapped or disabled people going into the stadium yesterday, or the supposed fracas with the Italian journalists. However, I was in Rotterdam all day yesterday, from early morning until late last night and I was at the final. I pass on my praise to the French, Italian, Dutch and many other fans who travelled from all over Europe to watch that final. I also pass on my praise to the Dutch police for the way they conducted themselves, and to the people of Rotterdam. It was an excellent day out in Rotterdam. It was one of the best football matches I have ever attended. The atmosphere was anything but hostile. It was one of the best atmospheres I have experienced at a cup final. On the point that Mr Helmer raised, can he join with me in congratulating Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on supporting the euro?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, combating poverty in the developing countries is the priority of the European Union’s current policy. HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis are poverty-related diseases which are rampant in the developing countries. It beggars belief that in some developing countries, for example, there is a shortage of teachers because half of the teaching workforce has AIDS. It is high time that the European Union pays special attention to this problem, and so I join the previous speakers in welcoming the Commission’s initiative to invoke Article 169 of the Treaty in order that the Sixth Framework Programme for Research can be used to develop new clinical interventions to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. By establishing networks and coordinating national and regional research programmes, the EU can make a sizeable contribution towards a more efficient policy on research into the development of methods for combating the three above-mentioned diseases. Involving the developing countries themselves, through the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership, enables the work to be much more purposeful and means that the research is brought closer to the people concerned. I think that that last point, in particular, is extremely important. In his excellent report, the rapporteur also dotted a few more i’s and crossed a few more t’s. I welcome that, but I should like to make a couple of short comments. The research programmes should not just focus on the development of new drugs, but also on the question as to the simplest way to administer those drugs. How often does one hear the complaint that, although patients in remote areas of developing countries can find their way to a health centre, when they get the drugs home, they stop taking the medication as soon as they feel better. This results in the development of resistant forms of the disease, as has happened with malaria. This is clearly counter-productive. The second point to which I should like to draw attention is the synergy with other European programmes. A large amount of money and high-quality research is required. The Commission’s proposal to set up the Erasmus Mundus programme will shortly be given the support of our Parliament. Students from all over the world will then be invited to come and study in Europe. I should like to ask that students from developing countries, in particular, be given a special chance to take part in this, because the developing countries need highly qualified researchers. EUR 600 million has been allocated for the present proposal, and another 200 million should be coming from the private sector. By helping the researchers, industry, too, can and must make its own considerable contribution.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the majority of the Group of the has voted in favour of this resolution. In the debate in the Chamber yesterday on cloning, I heard a number of people more or less clearly defending cloning for the purposes of medical treatment, on the grounds that this would be quite different from cloning for reproductive purposes. Unfortunately, there is a tendency now to engage in a new semantic debate or strategy of this kind which would lead to a watering down of the moral implications of cloning human beings. Those who do not wish to permit any form of cloning would be viewed as immoral in the sense that we would be allowing people to suffer from diseases such as Parkinson’s which would be curable if only the ban on gene technology were lifted. This is a completely absurd assertion which I think ought to be withdrawn. Researchers throughout the world have said that Parkinson’s disease and other serious illnesses can perfectly well be cured by other methods. We also heard Emma Bonino say that politicians must take risks, but we in the Group of the believe that it is our absolute duty as elected representatives to identify the risks and to be careful. In this connection, I should also like to ask the Group of the why they have not called on Tony Blair to withdraw the whole proposal, but are content to request that a committee on biotechnology be set up. We must observe the precautionary principle, in this case more so than ever. We must ask ourselves the most important question of all. For what purpose should we clone human beings? I believe we must realise that there is a race going on in the field of genetic technology, which means that there is a great risk of overstepping the limits in a quite horrifying way. The technology is developing incredibly fast now. We cannot just content ourselves with this debate. Rather, we must push the debate further and speed it up, whilst also observing the precautionary principle.

Political group: Verts-ALE
It is crucial that the regulation of the Trans-European Energy Networks is subject not only to criteria of the security of energy supply and for the non-distortion of competition, but also to criteria of environmental sustainability. I therefore propose that the issue must hinge on the production of energy from renewable sources, because this is the sector that requires the fewest environmental externalities. It is also important to focus on research in the field of new energies in order to ensure that their production costs come down and on decentralised sources.

Political group: PPE-DE
Thank you for your explanation, Commissioner. There was one thing I did not understand. You spoke about Amendment No 11 and Amendment No 13, both of which you consider acceptable. If I have understood correctly, Amendment No 11 and Amendment No 13 exactly contradict each other. One makes it possible to include diluents under the definition of solvents, and Amendment No 11 excludes just that. Could you clarify this for me once more? It is rather a technical question, but it is ultimately important as regards our voting list.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it was difficult to follow the previous speaker, who speaks from the heart. So do I, for I applaud the fact that the Commission has been so quick in getting this proposal on the table and implementing Article 13. I would also congratulate the rapporteur on a splendid piece of work. I am, of course, very much in favour of our arranging for the present directive to be implemented in the Member States as quickly as possible. I would especially emphasise four factors which I think are particularly interesting about this directive. Firstly, we have obtained a broad scope of application and, secondly, the directive covers both direct and indirect discrimination, including malice. At the same time, a shared burden of proof has been proposed. We have seen how this is an enormous advantage in connection with sex discrimination, and it is therefore good that it is now being introduced in this area. Finally, it is also an advantage that this is a minimum directive, so that the Member States have the opportunity to go still further if they consider it right to do so. However, the proposal also suffers, unfortunately, from a fundamental flaw in as much as it relates only to discrimination arising on the grounds of race and ethnic origin and does not cover the other grounds for discrimination listed in Article 13. In this way, the Commission is going to create a hierarchy of grounds for discrimination, a way of proceeding which I think is totally at odds with the wording, meaning and spirit of Article 13. It would be interesting if the Commission could explain to us what the motives were for creating this hierarchy of discrimination.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the suspects that the government of Israel is applying the origin rules of the Association Agreement in a way that derives from its settlement policies. No other explanation can justify the proofs of origin being issued to both manufactured and agricultural products – produced in settlements – which we consider illegal and therefore not covered by the agreement. These include chives, non-woven textiles, wine, snack foods and so on. Although they are given customs access by the EU, they are actually produced in West Bank settlements such as Barkan, the Golan Heights settlement of Katzrin and the Gaza Strip settlement of Gush Katif. This is not a new issue. We know that the Member States are unable to reliably distinguish which consignments are eligible and which are not. We know that the Commission has compiled a list of settlement products and exporters, and is trying to expand the list. We know the list is incomplete and that Member States have not found it possible to identify, when shipments are presented for clearance, what products they contain. The situation cannot continue for two reasons. Firstly, Liberals attach great importance to rules; here we are seeing a consistent, persistent breaking of the rules. We recognise there are difficulties. The Commission and the Member States bear separate and full responsibility for this, since they both have obligations to act to solve the problem. It may be that those in the Commission who want to discharge their guardianship responsibility have insufficient political support within the Commission. The Member States that want to help have insufficient support in the Council. That is why this Parliament and the Member State parliaments need to act. Above all, it is the duty of the government of Israel not to play tricks with a signed agreement. Israel should understand that this is not the time to do that. Unless they respect the clauses of the Association Agreement, the Israelis will have difficulty in convincing the rest of the world that they are acting in good faith in issues such as the peace process as a whole.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, we have just been informed by Reuters that the Laos Government is prepared to pardon the two journalists and the American interpreter who were arrested on 4 June and sentenced, on 30 June, to fifteen years in prison for unproven acts, which caused widespread indignation. I have here the communiqué, dated 1.30.p.m: ‘the Laotian Minister for Foreign Affaires awaits a request from the governments of the countries from which the three men come: Belgium, France and the United States, for their pardon’ – which will of course be granted if this has not already been done. We can only welcome the effective role played by our Ministers for Foreign Affairs and by the diplomats in the area, a role which, without a shadow of a doubt, has led to the prisoners’ imminent release. Although we rejoice in the outcome of these actions, we remain extremely concerned at the fate of the four Laotians who were accompanying Thierry Falise and Vincent Reynaud and who, we are told, could face a sentence of twenty years in prison. We also appeal to the clemency of the Laotian Government. Too many journalists have paid with their lives or have been given stiff prison sentences for having done their job, which is to inform people. We recall that freedom of expression is a fundamental right. We expect the Commission and the Council to support the actions of our diplomats and we hope that our European office in the region will intervene to ensure that the four Laotian citizens are also released. We wish to state, Mr President, before this House, all our solidarity with the journalists and with their families, who have been through such a hard time and assure them that the European Parliament, the guardian of freedom, will relentlessly defend the right to a free press, the right to free information and, more than ever, human rights, whatever regime is in power.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioners, every businessman agrees that, if we are to have a real single market, we need to remove all the remaining obstacles, which is why the initiative for this proposal for a Commission regulation is welcome, but the text of it is not, at least not in its entirety. One of the few points I wish to comment on is the plan to allow below cost selling. What is the point of this clause? Who does it benefit, except a handful of large retail outlets which you can count on the fingers of one hand? Absolutely no-one! But for over 20 million small and medium-sized enterprises, it spells mortal danger from unfair trading by large retailers who, by selling below cost, could wipe out thousands of small and medium-sized enterprises and minimise any possible competition. For tens of millions of workers, unemployment will be the result. And more unemployment is the last thing the European economy needs in its present parlous state. Nor will it benefit consumers, because short-term bargains will rapidly be replaced by massive price increases once a few companies have cornered the market. That is why, if we want to say that we represent the millions of workers and businesses in the European Union, if we want to maintain that small and medium-sized enterprises are the backbone of the European economy and society, if we want to carry on claiming that we are in touch with reality, then we need to vote against below cost selling in tomorrow's vote.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to explain my vote on the issue of the use of the official languages of the European Union in the European Patent Office. I defend unequivocally the right of all the official languages of the Community to be used in all circumstances, particularly since in the near future there might be a tendency to renounce this principle, in light of the increase from 11 to 22 or more official languages when enlargement to include further states takes place. I also believe that if a European Union language is to be considered the most appropriate as a working language, its universal dimension should not be forgotten. By this token, I should like to remind you that the Portuguese language – including Brazilian and Galician Portuguese – is the third universal language of the European Union, following only English and Spanish. This must be taken into account where patents and indeed any other issues are concerned.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The Council common position, adopted on 12 February 2001, accepted 21 of the 30 amendments tabled by the European Parliament. Nevertheless, it left out important issues which the rapporteur has referred back to the European Parliament for second reading, and for which we have voted. First and foremost, the introduction of the precautionary principle in the marketing of products and in measures to be taken in risk management. This is a general principle, used by public authorities and must be referred to explicitly with regard to the powers and obligations of Member States. Furthermore, the Council common position abandons the idea of a total ban on exporting products that present serious risks, despite clarifying the concept of partial bans or no bans whatsoever, without presenting any criteria for choosing which ban to apply. We should, therefore, reinstate the European Commission’s original proposal. Lastly, another important issue is safety in the field of services. As the rapporteur says, the Commission must present rapid proposals for the safety of services. The Commission must identify the needs and priorities for Community action in this field, and the responsibilities of service providers, taking account of the clarifications of the common position on the scope of application of the present directive.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I am sorry to have to make yet another complaint about Air France. On this occasion it concerns embarkation. We used to leave through terminal 2D, where there are plenty of security machines and things ran smoothly, but for the last two months we have been leaving from terminal 2B, where there is one small security machine. Today it took an average of 40 to 45 minutes to get through. I am really speaking on behalf of some very stressed-out passengers from the Interpretation Service and for staff who were in tears at the thought they might not get on the plane. Members who went to the lounge and were called at the appropriate moment in fact found they had to queue for 40 minutes. The plane was then very late in leaving. Could you perhaps ask that these facilities be improved?

Political group: PPE-DE
I wish to congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent report. I think we must ensure everyone has the most efficient postal service possible; to do otherwise would not be in the best interest of our constituents. It is not good enough to call for liberalisation without realising the effects of our decisions. Rural areas do require the benefit of postal service. It is a most important and necessary requirement to ensure and stabilise the rural economy. I feel we have achieved the necessary balance and we can allow the service to develop at an acceptable pace that will give everyone what they need and require.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I agree that the most important difficulty with this directive is the diversity of criteria with regard to the establishment of target levels and time-scales for the reduction of the ozone concentrations in the atmosphere: the famous items 2 and 3 of annex 1. We in the Group of the European People’s Party consider it necessary to support the main lines set in the Commission’s proposal, especially with regard to target levels, which coincide with the guidelines of the World Health Organisation on air quality and which establish the permissible concentrations of ozone at 120 μg/m3. Nevertheless, it seems to us to be inadvisable to accept the amendments which make 2010 the time limit, the only one in the short term, and set 2020 as the time limit for long term objectives. In this respect, we think it is essential to allow for greater flexibility with regard to the periods of adaptation to the said target levels, given the real difficulty of controlling ozone concentrations when setting figures purely on the basis of the existence of previous data, as is constantly seen in certain climatic conditions, especially, as has just been mentioned, in the Mediterranean countries. Our Group therefore vigorously defends Amendments Nos 26 and 28, which establish a progressive and realistic achievement of the proposed objectives, by means of a progressive scale according to the number of days in a year the target levels can be exceeded. However, we consider very positive the amendments on the countries which are candidates for accession to the European Union, so that they may participate as soon as possible in the achievement of the Union’s objectives – and we congratulate Mrs Davies on this initiative – and it also seems important to us that the action plans are of a local nature and that the possibilities for reducing ozone concentrations are studied on a case by case basis. I believe that a vote in favour of the amendments proposed by the European People’s Party is a vote for progress in the control and monitoring of one of the most serious pollutants to date, initiating, in a decisive and homogenous way, in all the Member States, actions for its elimination as a threat to the health of persons and ecosystems, without deluding ourselves as to the real possibilities of completely eradicating it in the short term.

Political group: PPE-DE