GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would also like to concentrate on this issue of category of animal labelling. The original proposal called for labelling as steer, heifer or young bull, which would be sexual discrimination. But recently I was staggered when the Commission – just as Mrs Doyle has said – reported it had not finally decided on the precise terminology! This effectively means they are asking Parliament to give them a blank cheque to determine what category of animal means after we have voted on whether or not to include it. This is very sloppy, very amateur and unacceptable as a way to treat this House. It is not even a food safety issue. It is extra bureaucracy and red tape – which is probably why my own government in the UK has supported it. But it is not in the interests of consumers, nor of the industry and, specifically, it is not in the interest of small abattoirs which would have the greatest difficulty in dealing with it. I therefore ask the House to support the deletion of category of animal as a compulsory labelling requirement, just as it did on the first reading. If countries wish to include it voluntarily that is a matter for them. Assuming we vote for deletion, I would ask the Commission to take note that we shall not be moved on this issue. So they know what they have to do. Finally I ask the Commission and the Council to take note that we welcome the principle of labelling beef by country of origin and that we call on the French presidency to set an example by making an immediate commitment to accept all beef so labelled from all EU countries and let the consumer decide.

Political group: PPE-DE
Where the Italian Presidency failed to lay down the European Constitution, the Irish appear to be succeeding. We now have, unexpectedly, a unique opportunity of involving all Europeans in this process. We must give the voters clarity before they cast their votes between 10 and 13 May. The Council will therefore need to issue the text ahead of time in May, which is quite feasible. How decisive, however, is the Council? How strong, for example, is the will to actually get an effective grip on terrorism? Although the new terrorism coordinator, Mr de Vries, is undoubtedly the right man for the job, he has an impossible task if national security services decline to cooperate. We also wanted definite decisions from the Council about giving the European economy a shot in the arm by stimulating innovation, making the labour market more flexible and abolishing unnecessary rules. We received another clear decision: a committee is being set up. When will the Council at last take responsibility? I doubt as yet whether the report by the Kok committee for economic growth can make a difference. In the final analysis, it is the countries themselves that have to carry out structural reforms. IN THE CHAIR: MR PODESTÀVice-President

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we will not be able to say that we did not know about the tragedy unfolding in Chechnya. We are receiving cursory reports from the second war waged by Russian federal forces in Chechnya, based on the terrified accounts given by refugees and reports by the last journalists who were on the ground, that systematic violence and heightened and vengeful acts of barbarism are being committed. Once again, we will not be able to say that we could not help. Russia is no longer an autarchic state, conducting its affairs behind closed doors and determining which Russians have a right to live or die. Russia is linked to the European Union and, consequently, to other parts of the world, through moral and political undertakings, on which its credibility and reputation on the European and international stage depend. One of these undertakings is the European Union’s common strategy on Russia and the cooperation and partnership agreement compelling Russia to respect human rights. Russia is supported in its difficult transition towards achieving Western economic standards by means of programmes, partnerships and funding, in which the Union plays a key role. The enlargement of the Union will mean that Russia will soon find itself in a new geo-political situation which will force it to completely renegotiate its status and relations with its new European neighbours. This time, we must condemn this state of lawlessness and send observers and representatives from the foreign media to find out what is really happening in this tragic, barbaric situation, or impose genuine retaliatory measures if attempts to do this are blocked. We must demand that medical and humanitarian assistance be sent, as a matter of extreme urgency and, above all, we must stop using statements to hide our lack of action and stop soothing our conscience by claiming that we are preserving fragile democracy in Russia. We must avoid any simplistic equation between the fight against terrorism and deliberate genocide. As long as we remain indifferent, the barbaric situation in Chechnya can only deteriorate further.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I would firstly like to apologise for having arrived late for this debate: I was in another meeting and that is why I am speaking last, despite the fact that I have had the honour of taking responsibility for this issue on behalf of the . Mr President, my first words are words of thanks, and I can also add my thanks as Chair of the committee, for the work carried out by the rapporteur. I say this sincerely. I believe that it would be hard to find a more complex issue, on which pressure has been unleashed from all the interest groups, which have legitimately fought to have their positions adopted by the various political groups. There are few issues on which we have received so many, if not tonnes then at least metres of faxes and e-mails as we have on this one. The rapporteur has been masterly in his navigation of these turbulent waters; he has always remembered that a rapporteur is rapporteur for a committee, not for any group or any position: he is rapporteur for a committee and he is duty-bound to reflect the majority position of that committee. I am pleased to say that the amendments put forward by the rapporteur were supported by a huge majority in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. Mr President, please allow me now to make some comments which are going to reiterate what has already been said, because at this point in the debate everything has really been said already. This is a much-criticised directive, and it is worthy of criticism; but this is a case, as is so often the case in European integration, in which what is best and what is feasible are not the same thing. As has already been said, we are starting from a situation in which there is complete divergence between the laws of the various Member States, where in reality the concept of copyright, the whole gamut of obligations and rights which this concept is represented by in our different laws, is not even similar. It is not simply that are not the same, but that they are not even similar. To try to harmonise them is an heroic quest. This directive is a first step, but Parliament accepted this gamble on first reading and therefore it has to be consistent and continue in this vein on second reading. At first reading we could have adopted disruptive positions; that was not Parliament's approach, and we accepted a directive full of exceptions. At the moment, the amendments of the Committee on Legal Affairs, added to certain other notable amendments which deserve to be supported, improve this directive on certain substantial points, such as private copying. I refer to what has already been said. And in summary they improve the directive by making it a first step in a system of harmonisation which will have to be carried out over time, a first step which furthermore will enable us to fulfil our international commitments, since until this directive sees the light of day, the two WIPO Treaties will not be able to enter into force. That is also an important responsibility at a time when we talk so much about globalisation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I think that Mrs Roth-Behrendt has expressed Parliament’s concerns in her main point. Parliament does not think it is a bad idea for the Commission to set up all the consultative bodies it wants, that it should meet with all the non-governmental organisations it wishes, that it should consult everyone through the Internet, or that it should talk to all citizens on a personal level. This seems like a good idea to us and we should probably do the same thing. What worries us is the second part of the White Paper; or to be more precise, the proposals to improve Community regulations. The Treaties of the European Union – as Mrs Roth-Behrendt pointed out – are based upon the principle of the division of powers. Article 6 of the Treaty makes reference to national constitutional principles. All national legislations are based upon the principle of the division of powers, by which legislative prerogatives are under the control of bodies elected by the people. In the case of the European institutions there are two such bodies: the Parliament, directly elected, and the Council, comprised of Ministers responsible to their own national Parliaments. The role of the Commission of the European Communities is to be the Community executive, and the role of Parliament is to support and strengthen the claims of the Commission to be an authentic Community executive. However, if the Commission enters into the regulatory framework and endeavours to take on competences or powers that have been conferred or that should be conferred on the European Parliament by the Treaties, in these areas – as Mr Swoboda and Mrs Roth-Behrendt have stated – the Commission must remain in close contact with Parliament. To be precise, Mr Prodi’s suggestion that the Commission could present the Laeken European Council with proposals on improving Community regulations, without waiting for Parliament to deliver its opinion, seems to me to be a dangerous thing. I hope that the Commission, before putting forward any proposal to the Laeken European Council on improving Community regulations, enters into close contact with Parliament with the aim of listening to our point of view and in this way conveying to the Laeken European Council the Parliament’s concerns and interests in this matter.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I just wanted to ask one question. I did not notice Mrs Buitenweg this morning and I would like to apologise to her for that. I just wanted to ask whether Mrs van der Laan is here or have I missed her as well?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the abandonment of the path of dialogue and negotiations has brought terrible consequences all round. Violence does not bring justice, it does not put wrongs right, it does not address the root causes of a problem. There are appalling violations of international law and human rights constantly taking place in the Palestinian territories at the moment, and the international community must stop this, as it must stop the madness of terrorism which is leading young people to sacrifice their young lives for a cause which, far from benefiting their own people, makes more innocent people victims and gives the leader of the Israeli Government the excuse to declare unilaterally outright war on the Palestinian Authority, its structure and members, starting with President Arafat. One important development is that we have succeeded in organising a meeting, to take place tomorrow in Madrid, in which the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations will, at last, be able to focus their efforts in the direction – it is to be hoped – of immediately sending an international peacekeeping force to the region which will be able to enforce the ceasefire and put an end to all the violations of rights. In order to bring about compliance with the series of resolutions adopted by the UN Security Council, to bring about the immediate, total withdrawal of the Israeli army from the occupied territories and the release of President Arafat, we must put all possible pressure on the Israeli Government, not least placing a question mark over the EU-Israel Association Agreement. The establishment of a sovereign Palestinian State, together with an international effort guaranteeing Israel’s security in line with the progressive position recently adopted by the Arab League, must remain our objective. To this end, we will continue to support those who are fighting, even at this tragic time, for peace, for mutual respect, to bring about the peaceful coexistence of the two communities in both Palestine and Europe. Moreover, we must reiterate, with greater vehemence, our condemnation of all acts of violence and intolerance committed against symbols and members of the Jewish community.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, the difficulties specific to the outermost regions are well known: distance, fragmentation and small markets, all of which raise costs, especially transport costs, and hinder their development. Now, based on Article 299(2) of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which recognises the specific character of these regions and the need to adopt appropriate Community measures, it is possible to take measures aimed at encouraging sustainable development and enhancing the productive sectors that generate employment. It is therefore important to use this legal base, regardless of any reference to articles of the CAP, the Structural Funds or other Community policies. This is the context in which we must analyse the Commission’s proposals, which may be positive but fall far short of the needs of these outermost regions, as I have been able to confirm directly with bodies in Madeira and the Azores. Hence the importance of the work done by the rapporteur, Mr Martínez Martínez, whom I congratulate on the report he has drawn up. In general, the report responds to the questions that the Commission has not addressed sufficiently but which are important for those regions. With regard to the first package of proposals, which aims at revision in the sense of increasing the rates of assistance under the Structural Funds, it is important to make a greater effort by slightly increasing the Community co-funding percentages, particularly as regards agri-environmental measures and public aid to the productive sector, given that these regions are among the poorest in the European Union and their production, processing and marketing structures need to be strengthened. In relation to the second package of proposals, which aims at reviewing the machinery for aid to agricultural production in these regions, so that support for agriculture may have a positive effect on farmers’ incomes and on lower prices for the consumer, the almost one hundred proposals contained in the report are important. Those that deserve special mention, for their importance to the Portuguese outermost regions of the Azores and Madeira, are the need to strengthen the specific support for the restructuring of vineyards and vine growing, potato production and marketing, the livestock sector, not forgetting the matter of milk quotas, and the measures for ensuring the viability of sugar refining in the Azores, as well as increased support for tea, in addition to specific changes for Madeira wines and support for wicker production. I therefore hope that the Commission and the Council will accept the proposals contained in the reports being debated jointly, also including the area of fisheries.

Political group: GUE-NGL
We Swedish Social Democrats believe that nuclear power is not an ecologically sustainable source of energy. We cannot therefore support the financing of new nuclear plant, as provided for in paragraph 26. However, we support increased safety for existing nuclear plant.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, please permit me to start by making an observation. We have here another example of how lawmaking in this House is normally dealt with just before midnight, whilst we have during the day been largely occupied with more or less pointless resolutions on one summit or another, which are generally fruitless. I see it as desirable that we should in future deal with important legislative matters at a more appropriate time in the course of the part-session. Apart from that, I would also like to thank the rapporteur on behalf of the Legal Affairs Committee for his very balanced report, which one can also call a proposal by the Commission and a consequence of the directive on settlement finality that was adopted in 1998. At that time, I was on the Legal Affairs Committee – which then had principal responsibility for the report – and was rapporteur for this directive. I can only say that the problems we faced, and which this report goes a long way towards solving, were the same as those we are dealing with today. We must simply take care that there is a reasonable balance between the interest in having such credit security systems and keeping them stable, and the other interests that of course exist – those, perhaps, of creditors in insolvency cases – to which consideration must also be given, and that these interests are reconciled fairly. For there can be no doubt that what is at issue here is not just the protection of these financial systems; there must also be guarantees that others affected by this regulation should not be put at an undue disadvantage. I think that we have found a just reconciliation of the two, and it is this point that is decisive. The rapporteur has also mentioned a second angle of significance to us in the Legal Affairs Committee, namely the fact that the boundaries as regards preferential creditors have – I would say – been drawn relatively generously. We took the view that this category should either in fact be extended to include medium-sized enterprises, or, on the other hand, actually be restricted to banks and direct participants in financial markets. I believe that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has achieved a good result, and, in view of the lateness of the hour, I would also like to come to a conclusion. I can say on behalf of the Legal Affairs Committee that we are in agreement with what the rapporteur has presented, and we will also, for our part, support it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, projections based on the ‘current rate’ of decline in the number of people suffering from malnutrition suggest that it will take a century to overcome hunger in the world. Is this hard fact not enough to justify a radical rethink of the policies that are currently being pursued? The subsidies that the governments of industrialised countries pay to their own farmers are forty-eight times higher than the amount paid to support agriculture in poor countries. Direct competition between agricultural products from countries with very unequal productive systems, as well as the practices of exporting countries in the developed world, coupled with the risk of dependence facing the countries of the South if they specialise in the export of one or two primary products – these are the long-term threats to the future food security of the people who inhabit three quarters of our planet. The effects of these practices, which are totally consistent with the enshrined provisions of the WTO Agreements, are verifiable and have been verified. These practices kill. The Johannesburg summit could be an opportunity to make other choices, to focus on other avenues as yet unexplored, such as guaranteeing the right of developing countries to protect their rural economies with a view to defending their food security against multinational corporations and to supporting local food-processing businesses. Why not make hard and fast provisions for the creation of a specific fund designed to guarantee the effective achievement of all these objectives? The Director-General of the FAO has estimated that an additional amount of 24 billion dollars would be needed to achieve the aforementioned aims. The disaffection of the Heads of State at the FAO summit, however, provided confirmation that the developed countries’ would not be committing any more resources, which cannot fail to give cause for concern. The only effective remedy would be a response to the needs of the poor countries; at the Forum of the Peoples that has just been held in Sibi, Mali, for example, these countries called for the immediate and unconditional cancellation of Africa’s foreign debt and for fair payment for agricultural products and other raw materials. This is the price that has to be paid to rid the world of hunger.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I thank the rapporteur in his absence and Mrs Langenhagen for her speech. Mrs Langenhagen has painted a very bleak picture of the state of cod in the Irish Sea. The Irish Sea, as Mrs Langenhagen has said, is an example to us all of how a stock, if not managed correctly, can be decimated. In just six years the amount of cod caught in the Irish Sea has halved. In 1993, 11 000 tonnes of cod was caught and in 1999, 5 500 tonnes were caught. This regulation for 2001 is necessary, however painful, if there is to be a cod fisheries at all in the Irish Sea. It is an example to other areas as well. A similar situation has arisen in the North Sea. The cod stocks have declined so much that there has been a reduction of half in the total allowable catch and a new cod recovery programme introduced. Vast stretches of the North Sea have been protected whilst the spawning season gets under way. However, another consequence of the ban in cod fisheries over the next few months has been that the other areas where there is no ban are beginning to worry. For example, in the Western Isles fishermen are concerned that because of the cod ban in the North Sea – and to some extent in the Irish Sea – cod stocks off the Butt of Lewis and south of Barra will be adversely effected. After years of sustainable fisheries in these waters people fear that the adverse effect of these protective measures will be a decimation of their own stocks. These fears can only be compounded when just last week in Mallaig, with the opening of the scallop beds, a dramatic increase in boats could be witnessed, which would otherwise have been fishing for the banned species. We have to think about the adverse effects on other fisheries when protective measures are introduced. It is somewhat ironic that in protecting fish stocks in one area we are inadvertently destroying stocks in another area. In conclusion, the reform of the common fisheries policy and the launch of the Green Paper in March are critical to stock preservation and to the fishing industry. We have to get the balance right between sustainability and a successful industry on the other hand. The reform of the common fisheries policy, I believe, is an opportunity. We must make sure that we get the reforms right. I thank the rapporteur in his absence.

Political group: PSE