GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, members of the Commission, the European Parliament in the second reading is revising its amendment regarding the declaration of the materials in compound feedingstuffs in terms of percentage by weight, while the common position proposes a declaration within certain brackets. From the point of view of producers, Parliament’s objective is to be supported. The more precise information there is on the content of feed the better. We must remember that this practice of declaration is not in itself important for the security of feedingstuffs. It is more important that all feed materials in compound feedingstuffs should be named in the declaration and that the feed materials meet with the requirements under the legislation on animal feedingstuffs. I think we should achieve a rational result quickly, as the new legislation is necessary. We must therefore move forward flexibly in the legislative conciliation process, bearing in mind that the second stage will be monitoring the legislation. It will be expensive and in some ways impossible to start asking feedingstuffs manufacturers to ensure that each sack of feed should exactly correspond to the amount written on the declaration regarding percentages or that this should be monitored by the authorities. The most important aspect of this legislation is that we should invest in monitoring to a greater extent than is the case now. Safety will only be guaranteed if the acts are complied with. As for the idea in Amendment No 4 of a positive list, there too it has to be borne in mind that it would be a very arduous task of administration if all feed materials used in EU countries had to be compiled in one list. There is already a list of prohibited materials in EC legislation and, in addition, there are general quality requirements for feed products. In my opinion the matter should be discussed, but its benefits and drawbacks must be considered in precise detail.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, before we go on to Amendment No 5, I should like to point out that we have not quite finished voting on paragraph 17. There was a request from our Group for a split vote on the last few words. I agree those last few words have now been modified by one of the amendments we accepted, but we would still like to have a separate vote on those last few words of the paragraph.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Lisbon decisions were unique. On the one hand, they were characterised by a clearly right-wing financial policy of deregulation and privatisation and, on the other hand, by a left-wing policy of full employment, which thus, for the first time, became an official goal for the EU. There was talk of a social agenda, social cohesion, combating poverty, lifelong learning for all, etc., in other words natural elements of left-wing policy. At that time I was very surprised. I wondered how it was possible to unite – or balance, as Mrs Lindh said – right-wing and left-wing policy at the same time. Now, the picture has become clearer, and I see that disagreement on financial policy remains. Right-wing policy is clearly dominant ahead of the Stockholm Summit. The focus is on stability policy, liberalisation and deregulation of the internal market. The social profile is very weak. The Stockholm Summit was to have employment as its main issue, but there are no proposals for meaningful action to combat the major unemployment which currently affects 14 – 15 million people. One aim is to encourage women to enter the workplace. This is good. Another aim is to increase employment of the older population, raise the retirement age, etc. However, the proposals are primarily aimed at increasing the level of employment, not at lowering unemployment. These are two different things. The 15 million people who are unemployed in Europe today but already count as part of the labour force will not benefit to any great degree from new groups joining that labour force. My political group considers that this is very serious. The Swedish Government should naturally also be concerned but, unlike France and Portugal, it has chosen not to create its own profile but instead to implement what the Commission and the large Member States want as loyally as possible. When, in the past, the Swedish Government was heading the campaign for Sweden to join the EU, it said the goal was not only to retain the Swedish welfare state but also, together with other left-wing forces, to pursue a social welfare policy throughout Europe. Now, we are heading in the opposite direction. Right-wing policy is promoted in the EU, and the Swedish welfare policy is at risk. This is taking place despite the fact that the economy is sound, despite a majority of left-wing governments in the Council and despite a left-wing majority in the Swedish Parliament. Not even given optimum conditions have we in the last year approached a social Europe. What will happen if the economic situation deteriorates and the Council gains more right-wing governments? Time has run out for the Swedish Presidency. To conclude, I wonder whether there really is nothing which the Swedish Government could prioritise ahead of the coming employment summit for those who are unemployed here and now.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I am going to refer briefly to four points which were fully debated in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. We are basically in favour of the proposal of the Environment Committee and its rapporteur. With regard to the inclusion of some of the sectors in the directive, in particular the extractive industry and the defence industry, we believe that they should not be left out. Provided, of course, that the necessary precautions are taken. I would also like to stress the importance of the inclusion of the management of water resources. An ambitious government plan will be presented soon in Spain, the National Hydrological Plan, which will have a clear impact on the places where it is put into practice. We feel it is essential that these assessment studies should be carried out. Also very important to us is the role of the public, i.e. transparency. There is a directive on the right to information, No 313, which has been repeatedly ignored by the Member States and by local and regional authorities. Likewise, we must include the quality of the studies and the issue of health amongst the significant sectors affected. High environmental standards and good health are very closely related.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, with regard to the decisions taken in recent years by the Council and the European Parliament on the opening up to competition of hitherto protected sectors, in other words, monopolies, it has become clear that we must have solid legal bases in order to guarantee and develop services of general interest that are economically accessible to everyone and which therefore give substance to the status of citizens of the European Union. In our view, the current economic situation and the numerous job losses that have been announced in recent weeks, coupled with the fact that, even during a period of strong growth, we have had an average unemployment rate of 8% in recent years, highlight the absolute need to develop services of general interest. This is why our group fully supports the voluntarist guidelines drawn up, in the main, by the European Confederation of Trade Unions and by the European Liaison Committee on services of general interest. Article 16 of the Treaty of Amsterdam was a major step forward for Europe. It is now deemed to be insufficient, and that is why we are supporting the draft framework directive and the amendments tabled by the Group of the , the Confederal Group of the – and the Group of the . We expect the Laeken European Council, part of which will be dedicated to the European Union’s objectives, to clearly set forth this objective on services of general interest and the framework directive as well as a timetable. What is at stake is of crucial importance. As in the case of procedures for public procurement contracts, which the Zappala report tackled, and as in the case of a particular sector such as public transport, which the Meijer report dealt with, we are required to adopt a framework for the policy on European competition, to develop a policy on regulated competition, to enable national, regional or local public authorities, in line with the principle of subsidiarity, to determine the missions of general interest services, the management contract that is to be fulfilled by the operators and the funding of these missions. This is the purpose of Amendment Nos 52 and 55 that we have tabled. We also think that we must insist on carrying out a much more in-depth evaluation on the liberalisation of sectors, taking into consideration the interests of consumers and workers and the compatibility of market guidelines with the objectives of sustainable development – I am thinking of the water sector, for example – and not only from a technical point of view, but equally through dialogue with all the actors involved. This is the purpose of Amendment Nos 44 and 46. The fact that it was necessary to present the various amendments to the House once again obviously indicates that what I have just said about objectives, and above all, about the resources to be implemented, has not received unanimous support. Once again, in this field as in others, it is greater European integration that we need, whilst respecting the Community method and guaranteeing that public figures at all levels take the proper action to ensure the provision of general interest services.

Political group: Verts-ALE
-DE and the Groups. Have you forgotten, Mr President, that there are other Groups in this Parliament who could also have accompanied you? Why did you take only the two largest groups? I do not understand this and I would like you to give me an answer.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, before proceeding with the vote let me draw Members' attention to the following oral amendments to heading 5. Firstly, as the Council is now making a contribution to the frontloading operation, and given that Parliament will contribute almost EUR 43 million instead of EUR 40 million, which is what the Bureau and the Committee on Budgets decided on Monday evening, I propose that an amount of EUR 35 million should be taken back in 2003. Thus Parliament's net contribution will amount to EUR 8 million. Secondly, following Eurostat's new figure on salary adjustments, which is now reduced from 2.6% to 2%, the amounts entered in the different sections on staff expenditure also need to be adjusted accordingly. I therefore suggest the following adjustments to the following amendments to reflect these changes. Amendment 493, section – Parliament: a reduction of EUR 1.9 million on item 1100. Amendment 715, section – Parliament: a reduction of EUR 3.1 million on item 209. Amendment 514, concerning the Court of Justice: a reduction of EUR 500 000 on item 1100. Amendment 516, concerning the Court of Auditors: a reduction of EUR 36 000 on item 1100. Amendment 520, on the Economic and Social Committee: a reduction of EUR 236 000 on item 1100. Amendment 522, on the Committee of the Regions: a reduction of EUR 102 000 on item 1100. Finally, Amendment 523, concerning the Ombudsman: a reduction of EUR 11 000. I will have to make further remarks on the resolution. (Parliament accepted the oral amendments) Before the vote on Block 5:

Political group: PPE-DE
As in each of the past few years, I have voted against granting the Commission discharge for 2001. The Prodi Commission has once again failed to fulfil its obligation to manage the European taxpayers’ money prudently and thriftily. - For the eighth time in succession, the European Court of Auditors has refused to issue the Commission with a statement of assurance as to the reliability of its accounts. - The glaring accounting deficiencies in the Commission which first came to light in the spring of 2002 encourage fraud and carelessness. - For ten years the Commission did not conduct a single cash audit. - In Eurostat, the European Statistical Office, mismanagement and top-level conflicts of interest have been discovered, but no tangible action has been taken in response to these discoveries. A European Union with this sort of administration cannot fulfil the exacting requirements arising from enlargement and from the continuing process of integration.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, when the House discusses research issues, almost everything that previous speakers have said can be unanimously endorsed. The unanimity of our general aims, however, does not make them any easier to achieve in practice. The foundations of future research policy are, in our view, concentration of effort, in other words prioritisation, as well as flexibility and coordination. These must necessarily be accompanied by democratic decisions taken by a heterogeneous Parliament and an equally heterogeneous Council. I must be honest with you, Commissioner: if this initiative succeeds, you will deserve our warmest congratulations. We shall try to assist you in your efforts. The European Research Area is certainly a first step in the right direction and will be a component of the Sixth Framework Programme. However, as soon as it comes to putting the theory into practice, questions inevitably start to arise. The devil is not only in the detail. To put it another way, you want a concentrated effort, and indeed we all want to have priorities. So what clearly defined criteria will you be using to set these priorities, Commissioner? All I can say is ‘Have fun!’ The criteria have never been defined in the proper degree of detail, and both of us, Mr Caudron, have been using the term ‘European added value’ for the past ten years. Is that not so? Neither of us has ever defined what it means, nor have we ever been able to. Enough has already been said about flexibility, but then comes the third point, namely coordination. A European Research Area necessarily involves coordination between the Union level and national research, and here I see party-political differences rearing their heads. How much do we want to coordinate centrally, how much do we want to plan and specify centrally, and how much should be done from below in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity? It will be an absorbing debate, and the political parties are already fuelling it, but we are ready and willing to engage in that debate. Congratulations to the rapporteur – we shall continue our cooperation. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this draft regulation is very important. It has not, however, been subject to co-decision. One of the Convention’s priorities must be to subject all the important regulations to the co-decision procedure and we are counting on Mrs Berger to do this. The draft text aims to reduce the substantial price differences in the Union, but these would be much less substantial if we harmonised taxation. Regarding the other points, must we really reduce competition and step up the intensity of distribution? There are limits to consumerism. Vertical agreements enable us to guarantee consumer safety and contribute to enhancing the industry’s robustness. We must make these agreements more flexible in order to increase the independence of the local dealer whilst maintaining the chain of responsibility. The chief danger of the draft text is the withdrawal of the location clause. This would pave the way for large, specialised companies and large retailers. We have also witnessed the sacking of the CEO of Virgin; you forgot to mention him, Mrs Riis-Jørgensen. If these distributors entered the market, it would spell disaster for small- and medium-sized businesses and it could lead to considerable job losses, and a loss of proximity to the consumer, except in the most profitable territorial areas. We are particularly concerned that the consumer will be exposed to the risk of a break in the sales and after-sales service link if the distributor is able to award after-sales service contracts to authorised repairers which are not subject to a location clause. Our committee calls for an assessment to be carried out in 2005 before any final decision is made regarding the freedom of establishment of distributors. This will provide an opportunity to examine the practices of reducing price differences that are compatible with maintaining the location clause. This is a reasonable compromise. Of course, other reforms could be envisaged at a later stage. The dialogue with the Commissioner was extremely positive overall: although we are not in agreement, we had an extremely useful discussion. And the work by our committee was also very thorough and I feel that it produced some worthwhile amendments. Parliament would be well advised to take on board most of these conclusions.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, having heard all the speeches made today, we are all convinced that there is a system controlled by the American secret services which can intercept practically all forms of voice and data communications around the world. What we are not sure about is whether this system has been redirected, not at purely military and defence objectives, but at commercial, industrial and technological targets. We fear and suspect this, however. I therefore have three questions. The first is to the Council and the Commission. What does the term ‘fair trade’ mean when major American companies can gain unlawful advantages thanks to privileged information provided by this system? Secondly, what do civil liberties, a principle on everyone’s lips, mean to us when the privacy of our Heads of State, our elected representatives and our people can be violated other than for reasons of combating crime and without a court order, as required by our laws? How do the Council and the Commission think the USA would react if it knew that Europe could intercept the communications of its president, elected representatives and people? Finally, how can we defend ourselves against this threat? The Commissioner has spoken of work on cryptography, which was also mentioned in Parliament’s last recommendation. However, what specifically has been done to reinforce the cryptography system and to invest in European technology which is our best defence against this threat? What comments might the Council and the Commission have on France’s recent decision to remove commercial closed source code systems from its public computer systems, thus allowing open source code systems to be used, which is intended, as indicated by the French Defence Minister, to guarantee that no nation and no defence systems are at the mercy of a single person or a single company?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I see eye to eye with my valued fellow MEP, Mr Dupuis, on a number of counts, but completely disagree on others. I welcome the fact that two points will be addressed during this meeting, namely the development of the civil capacity to manage conflicts, and the conflicts which affect Macedonia. For what have we been witnessing in Macedonia for years now? That it is indeed a fragile state which is only held together by the wisdom of presidents and government leaders – particularly the present ones – and of a number of political leaders who have managed to establish mutual coalitions and have not set about carving up the state of Macedonia. As long as ten years ago, the Macedonian Albanians came to us with a list of the regions in which they did not have a majority. This line of thinking shows that the seed of ethnic cleansing had already been planted. We must avoid going down that road at all cost. That is why it is also important that we are doing something about this, mainly by civil means, as is currently happening under the guidance of Mr Patten. I am also extremely taken with the serious plea by President-in-Office Lindh on this matter. And we will not only be using the regular means, but really all instruments which must be deployed in a coordinated manner, but particularly those which touch the hearts of the nation, and which can bring about a change in the citizens’ mentality. For example, Paragraph 7 of our resolution is about better radio and TV reporting. This topic has been discussed many a time in this Parliament, also during the Bosnian wars, because radio and TV have a huge impact on what people think, and how they view each other. I believe that it is of utmost importance that this weapon is also being deployed as one of the civil channels, not only via the independent media which exist, but, if necessary, from an independent base in the European Union, so that we can actually influence the population in those regions and put an end to the atrocious ethnic thinking which will be the downfall of the Balkans as a whole. Mr President, I am delighted at the fact that the Commission’s actions have already been spelled out clearly. It is important that these are widely known. The actions of the Commission in the Presevo Valley are crucial and I hope that Mr Patten will take the necessary action in the other border regions too.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this is an important report on an important subject and I congratulate the rapporteur on her usual thoroughness and commitment. The title is significant: 'Health care and care for the elderly: Supporting national strategies for ensuring a high level of social protection'. We should all want to see a high level of social protection and learn from each other via the exchange of best practice at European level but, ultimately, it is national strategies that have to deliver. Certainly, in the United Kingdom, there is still much to do. Two weeks ago, Age Concern England held an important debate in London called 'Creating opportunity – is Europe working for older people?'. It was a privilege to be on the panel together with three other colleagues from this House. We agreed about many things, particularly the need to move such issues sharply up the agenda. We like to think of the United Kingdom as a rich country, but one in five pensioners are in low-income households; the incomes of those over 75 are lower still. Women pensioners are the worst off of all; fully 25% of women pensioners in the United Kingdom today live in poverty. Their healthcare needs are proportionately greater and therefore need addressing with greater urgency. As the number of elderly people grows, the requirement for good healthcare and care services grows also. I was told recently that in the United Kingdom there are some 40 000 fewer places available in care homes today than ten years ago. If this is true, it is not a statistic of which any country can be proud. It is a reminder in each of our countries that excessive regulation, which may well have been intended to provide greater social protection, can often destroy what it wishes to promote. This is a lesson for our committee on other dossiers too. Finally, may I record a brief message to Commissioner Diamantopoulou, whose successor has just been announced by the Greek Government. The role of Employment and Social Affairs Commissioner can never be easy, especially when it involves dealing with such difficult United Kingdom MEPs as Mr Hughes and myself. I believe she has left without having to declare who has been the more difficult, but I am sure that both of us, and hopefully all of us in the committee and this House, would wish her well in her new life back home. If colleagues agree, I would like to ask Commissioner Solbes to pass that message on.

Political group: PPE-DE