GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Animal welfare is part of our basic ethical understanding. However, we must not forget that high animal protection standards result in higher production costs in the EU, which is why we must ensure that our pig breeders are not exposed to competition from imports which do not have to comply with the same animal protection standards and are therefore able to charge lower prices. We therefore need to prevent imports of pigmeat from third countries which do not have the same laws on animal protection and animal health standards, which is why the whole question of animal welfare needs to be dealt with during the forthcoming World Trade Organisation negotiations. We should also consider that arrangements for animals change when new animal protection standards are introduced. Pig breeders who only recently built pens which comply with current standards must be given a reasonable transitional period to amortise their previous investment and make changes when current rules are changed or rather tightened. The new regulations will contain specific details on how pigs are to be kept, that is, pen sizes, the design of pens and arrangements for pregnant animals. We must bear in mind when endeavouring to bring about changes in agricultural policy that anyone who wants better and better standards of animal protection must also bear the consequences as a consumer, that is, they must be prepared to pay more for pigmeat produced under better conditions of animal welfare. We have a quality mark for such pigmeat in Luxembourg, for which there is a growing demand, proving that consumers understand perfectly well that they need to dig deeper into their pockets for quality agricultural products.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office and Mr President, I am very pleased that the Taoiseach and his ministers are here today and that they hold the presidency of Europe at this particularly crucial time. Because of the failure to establish agreement on the new European Constitution during the previous presidency, their first main task is to reach that agreement. I hope they will, because there is a clear need for a long-term constitutional framework for the new Europe of 25 countries, which may well become even larger during this decade. The principles of the European Union have served us very well and must be preserved in the new Constitution: full representation of each Member State in all the institutions – institutions which respect our different identities, and where we can work together in our common interest. I am confident that the Irish presidency will work hard to secure an agreement capable of winning the support of all the peoples of the European Union, in which all citizens and all Member States have equal rights, there is no second-class membership and we all make progress together. A two-speed or a two-tier Europe will not succeed in meeting the aspirations of our peoples. Mr President-in-Office, the work you and your government have done, and are still doing, for peace in Northern Ireland is outstanding. The European Union is the best example in the history of the world of conflict resolution: the first half of the last century was the worst in the history of the world – 50 million dead. Who, then, could have dreamt that, in the second half of that century, those same peoples would unite? The principles at the heart of the European Union can therefore solve conflict anywhere in the world because those three principles are also at the heart of our agreement in Northern Ireland. Accordingly, given our history of success in conflict resolution in Europe, would it not be a very good thing if, during the Irish presidency, you were to persuade the Commission to set up a special department of peace and reconciliation so that, instead of sending armies to areas of conflict, a team of people equipped with the European Union's philosophy and principles is dispatched to those areas, since today we are in a stronger position to shape the world? Technology, telecommunications and transport have made the world a much smaller place. The European Union could therefore play a major role in ensuring there will be no conflict or war in the world. The way to do that is to transport the philosophy of the European Union to areas of conflict: dialogue developed there will enable agreement to be reached accordingly.

Political group: PSE
We are extremely concerned to witness this upsurge in the forces of the far right in Europe, especially in Austria, Germany, France, Belgium and Italy. It is crucial that we should discuss the underlying causes of this and that we should adopt measures to combat them. An increase in social inequality, unemployment and the problems of poverty and social exclusion creates suspicion amongst the general public and conditions which favour far-right populism. In view of this, it is vital that the European institutions should adopt the measures necessary to prevent the rise of racist and xenophobic ideologies. This requires a sea change in the socio-economic policies of neo-liberal capitalism and that priority be given to creating quality jobs which give rights to employees. This also requires policies which strengthen participatory democracy and which educate the general public, particularly about the values of democracy and solidarity. Just as we condemn and repudiate the ideas and actions of the far right, we also wish to express our solidarity with the Austrian people. We support all forces fighting for greater democracy and against racism and xenophobia.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the programme which the French President has just presented is both ambitious and realistic. I was, however, hoping for a clearer commitment regarding the fundamental rights included in the Union’s agenda, for two reasons. In the first place, these rights must be enshrined in the forthcoming Charter of Fundamental Rights. In his speech, however, the President did not cite the examination of this charter as one of the main points of the European Council in Biarritz. In his response to the first speakers, he suggested that there could be some discussion of a proposal for a charter in Biarritz, but with a content that, he is well aware, would make it almost impossible to incorporate into the Treaties at the European Council in Nice. Is France, the homeland of human rights for two centuries, not going to set a more ambitious objective? This would be a great disappointment. In the second place, since Amsterdam, fundamental rights have formed the foundations of our Union and should represent the constant reference for any Member State action. The creation of an area of freedom, justice and security is the most difficult undertaking before us, especially given that unanimity is still the rule. This is a good subject of investigation for the intensified cooperation to which the President recently referred once again. The President was the first to refer to the terms of Article 6 of the Treaty in connection with the Haider case. In adopting such a stance, he set a very high standard, not just for the Austrian Government but, indirectly, for all the others too. The measures the French Presidency has already announced in the areas of justice and home affairs appear to live up to this challenge. They are, however, merely plans at this stage. Let me therefore address the French Presidency with the words the Greeks used to address the most promising athlete in ancient times: hic rhodus, hic salta [here is your Colossus, now jump!].

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to start by thanking Karin Jöns for her work in this area. Karin recently visited Scotland to talk to the Eastwood constituency Labour party's cancer care group. They became interested in cancer care issues when one of their members died from cancer. They saw at first hand what cancer can do to someone they know and care for, but, most importantly, they decided to take action to improve the care cancer patients receive in their local community. Everyone knows somebody, either directly or indirectly, who has been or is being affected by cancer. One in four Europeans will die of cancer. Among men, lung and stomach cancer are the most common cancers worldwide, and for women the most common cancers are breast and cervical cancers. If we are going to tackle one of the biggest causes of death in the EU and the world, cancer screening is a critical tool in our battle against the disease. According to the World Health Organisation, we know enough about the causes of cancer to prevent at least one third of all cancers, cancers that are largely preventable by stopping smoking, eating healthy food and avoiding exposure to carcinogens. For those who are affected, detection is critical and screening is essential. The earlier cancer is detected, the better the survival rate. The proposal to have mammography screening for breast cancer for women aged 50 to 69, faecal occult blood screening for colorectal cancer in men and women aged 50 to 74 and pap smear tests for cervical abnormalities between the ages of 20 and 30 are steps in the right direction in securing the health of Europeans and they should be welcomed. As Amendment 33 suggests, we need to look at the promising new screening tests currently under evaluation, especially the HPV test and a test for prostate cancer, as well as considering mammography screening for women aged 40 to 49. We must rely on clinical evidence and evaluation to back up recommendations for the acceptance of new tests. Sadly, although I am supportive of HPV tests, I cannot support Amendment 34. As soon as the tests are complete, I look forward to us recommending the full inclusion of this process in screening tests. However, screening cannot be seen in isolation. Cancer networks and cancer registries are also vital in monitoring the impact of screening the population and changes in incidence and survival and mortality. Public education and information are essential. If you look on the Internet and type the word cancer, you will get 18 600 000 hits. E-health and communication are essential in the world that we live in. In conclusion, the recommendation before us today will help us in the battle against cancer. Too many people in Scotland, Britain, the EU and the world, die from this disease. We must do all we can to detect, treat and care for people with cancer.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have to tell Mrs Wenzel-Perillo that Mrs Kauppi’s report, in the resolution of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on page 9, has this to say: ‘We call on the Commission to submit a new proposal as a matter of urgency.’ That is precisely what this is about. We have not rejected the proposal or said that the whole thing is preposterous. There are very many approaches, and they are all right, but, if we are thinking in terms of the whole picture, there are still very many questions left to be resolved. I think that the harmonisation of fuel excise duties makes sense, but does that achieve its purpose if we retain differences in taxation, tolls, road pricing and vehicle taxes? If we are in favour of an internal market, we also have to think about the effects on the environment. Does it really make ecological sense for us, in this directive, to favour heavy goods vehicles by separating the diesel and excise duty rates for the commercial and private sectors? Are diesel cars not urgently needed to bring about a reduction in CO2 emissions? We therefore cannot see any justification for aligning the excise duty rates for diesel and petrol. Are there not circumstances under which this uncontrolled abundance of divergent diesel tax rates might result in abuses, and lead to an abuse of the trust of all those who took on board higher acquisition costs when they changed over to diesel? Let me conclude, then, by saying that something remains to be done about tax in relation to the internal market, but many issues still have to be resolved before we can describe the cost-benefit equation as balanced. I am, therefore, rather surprised that, on page 24 of tomorrow’s communication by the Commission to the European Parliament, it is stated in the working programme for 2004 that this directive is already to be transposed, even though we are today discussing the need for the Commission to submit a new proposal. Only if the new Commission proposal is quick in coming will we be able to achieve the working programme’s objective.

Political group: PPE-DE
I should like to congratulate Mr Morillon on having stated clearly that the aim of these two reports is not to discuss Turkey’s eligibility. It is indeed a matter of preparing this country, which is an official applicant State, by means of measures that aim to reinforce, on the one hand, the EC Customs Union with Turkey (EUR 15 million over 3 years) and, on the other, Turkey’s economic and social development (EUR 135 million over 3 years). These proposals for regulations presented by the Commission in October 1998, following a request from the General Affairs Council, aim to release financial assistance from the European Union to Turkey. If the proposal for a regulation associated with Customs Union, based on Article 235 of the Treaty, requires unanimous adoption by the Council, the second regulation can be adopted by codecision and therefore allows for a majority decision. The splitting of the regulations is justified by the desire to get out of a “blocked” situation in the Council. It is not before time! It is our duty to encourage Turkey to continue the reforms undertaken to improve its economy, to restructure and increase the efficiency of its public service, modernise its economic and social infrastructure, develop its production sector and increase the economic and social cohesion of the country. What I appreciate in these regulations is the fact that it is intended that cooperation projects and operations, the local and regional authorities, the public bodies and especially society, associations, NGOs etc., will benefit. I consider it essential to involve the Turkish people with the change that is taking place in their country. At the same time, it will be necessary to monitor the progress of these cooperation projects and operations and, of course, to involve the European Parliament in this monitoring. There is provision, and I am pleased about this, for the Council to decide to suspend all cooperation if obstacles stand in the way of the implementation of the projects and operations (more particularly in the field of democracy, human rights and the protection of minorities). In this case it will be necessary to take a qualified majority decision on a proposal by the Commission or the European Parliament. Turkey should indeed be pushed in the direction of greater respect for human rights. It is not easy, as can be seen from the fact that Öçalan has been condemned to death, even despite European and international protests. We should persevere, however, and I would hope that giving Turkey the prospect of membership of the European Union will encourage the Turkish authorities to respect human rights better, to promote democratic practices and to liberate the occupied part of Cyprus. As the Helsinki Summit approaches, where the status of Turkey will be discussed, our Parliament owes it to itself to send a strong political signal, despite the understandable reservations of certain people.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the joint appearance here of both Javier Solana and Chris Patten is symbolic since they will enjoy joint success or, if they do not work together, joint failure. It is in our common interest that they succeed as this will also be our success and in this we must support them. It is also an indication that the new troika is finally starting to work. If I have understood things correctly, the Finnish Council Presidency has again sent the old troika to Russia. The new troika to which you both belong should also, in future, take on representation abroad. Since 1990 and the collapse of bloc confrontation, it has once again become possible to carry out conventional wars at regional level in Europe, which in turn facilitate the old classic struggle between ethnic groups, border disputes and the like, the old circle of violence. We Europeans have not yet found an answer to this, as the former Yugoslavia shows. The efforts which are now being made in the common security and defence initiative are an attempt to find the European answer, specifically in terms of prevention. However, prevention, Mr Sakellariou, only works if it is backed by a credible military force. For this reason, the two must be tied together. Only then can prevention be genuinely implemented and I hope that it will work accordingly. I think that, through joint efforts, it will be possible to achieve synergetic effects in gathering troops to combat crises with the aim of bringing about a common armaments agency. We all know about the meagreness of the budgets and I think that with these synergetic effects the aim can be achieved. We should not do this with independent expensive structures but, as far as possible, in accordance with the NATO Resolution adopted at Berlin in 1996, in tandem with NATO and with the NATO structures. This seems to me to be an important route because it strengthens transatlantic ties whilst at the same time creating our own European capability where it is needed. In my estimation, this would also mean that we will be able to carry out our duties jointly or separately, but not against our traditional partners. The European Union, with its common currency, common internal market and common legal system, has a common interest in also implementing a credible common security and defence policy. However, we must also realise that this picture cannot exist indefinitely in areas where there are varying degrees of security. For this reason, at the Intergovernmental Conference, we should seek to make article 5 of the WEU Treaty a protocol of the EU Treaty to which each state can accede and, specifically, on the basis of an independent sovereign resolution. This means that none of the neutral or non-allied states would be compelled to accede. However, everything would then fall under the umbrella of credibility and common interests and we could further develop matters on this basis such that the appointment of Mr Solana as Secretary-General of the West European Union and the involvement of that Union could be fully effected without us needing to make allowance for article 5.

Political group: PPE-DE
British Conservative MEPs do not believe that mutual recognition is necessary in this field. Disqualifications should remain a matter for intergovernmental cooperation. As such the British Conservative Delegation supports the rejection of this Council proposal.

Political group: PPE-DE
We feel that at present the central issues about convening an Intergovernmental Conference to amend the Treaties are far more important than the controversy taking place here about the size of the agenda. They are also more important than the controversy over the appropriateness or otherwise of formulating proposals for new issues to be covered, and more important than the controversy over the extent of Parliament’s participation in it. We feel that these issues result from the IGC’s appropriateness and its objectives, as well as from the matters which will inevitably be discussed there. We have doubts concerning the appropriateness of the IGC because we fear that the objectives actually being addressed may be far removed from the changes required to allow for the enlargement envisaged. This relates in particular to the intended agenda, particularly as regards the Amsterdam leftovers, which suggests that unacceptable inner cabinets will be created in the future. This also identifies areas relating to the second and third pillars, which tend to be reflected in an undesirable militarisation of the European Union. These are some of the basic reasons why we do not agree with the aims of the motion for a resolution now before us.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the directive at present under discussion aims to adapt the existing 1976 directive to the social and economic developments of recent years. I congratulate the Commission on its initiative in adapting the legislation in this area to these developments at European level and also in giving new impetus. The directive must be seen in combination with the recommendation on child care, the directive on parental leave and the directive that lays down minimum conditions for the improvement of the safety and health of pregnant women at work, and with the directive that we discussed last year on the basis of Article 13 and on which we approved a report. Mr President, in many countries and situations women are still disadvantaged and discriminated against. The combination of work and care still presents problems in many cases, not only for women but also for men wishing to combine work and care. As yet few men, by the way, take parental leave: according to the most recent data in Denmark, for example, the figure is seven men to one hundred women, in France one to one hundred, and in Germany two to a hundred. I therefore welcome the amendments focusing on these measures to protect pregnancy and motherhood to be supplemented with measures relating to fatherhood. Mrs Van der Laan, my sentiments are shared by many other women in the Christian-Democrat group. Another problem, Mr President, is sexual harassment. This occurs more frequently than we would like in work situations. The report makes proposals on combating and preventing such intimidation. Last year I was draftsperson of my committee’s opinion on the directive on Article 13. This has close points of contact with the directive at present before us. I pointed out at that time the important role of confidants. That need not be a person specially assigned for the purpose – anyway, that is infeasible in smaller organisations – but someone in the organisation who enjoys wide trust and acts as a someone to whom staff can talk. I also argued for an independent body to deal with complaints. I support the amendments that would facilitate this. The report also has an inescapable impact for employers, for example report writing and returning to the same job. I believe that we can provide a good impetus and at the same time make acceptable demands on employers.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, there is talk in this Chamber of who the winners in this conciliation are. In my view, it is the citizens of Europe who are the winners. Once we have successfully implemented this conciliation, we shall also have opportunities to create a better environment in Europe, and in that way we are serving all citizens. I see the environment as one important reason why we must get to grips with the issues relating to railways. We know, of course, that road transport is increasing at the expense of rail transport and that it has been doing so for a long time. We must reverse that trend. It is also important that we should create opportunities for combining forms of transport so that it is possible, over long distances for example, to use both road and rail transport. Another problem, of course, has been the high rail charges which have presented obstacles to more efficient railway traffic. The railways’ organisational structure is also at fault. I think we have achieved a good conciliation we can rightly congratulate ourselves on, even if we might sometimes wish it could have gone further. Where the marginal cost charges are concerned, I also think this is a good conciliation. In this way, it will be possible even for long-distance operators to compete. This is important in Europe, where distances are long. The regulator, who is to be appointed under the terms of the conciliation and who is to oversee the system, is also an important factor because it is important to create confidence in the railways and in the solution we have now arrived at. I think, then, that we have a good result and I want to thank everyone involved. Finally, I hope that we can all make sure that it is turned into a reality.

Political group: PSE