GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, the beef industry has signed a contract with public opinion, based on the transparency claimed and, I might even say, demanded by the citizen. Today, this transparency is applicable, within the beef industry, to two different but indissociable areas: BSE and labelling. France is stepping up its precautionary measures for specified at-risk materials and is implementing an extensive protocol to evaluate ESB tests on bovine animals. Tomorrow, the European Union is preparing to outline a test programme for all Member States. In this context, consumers would not understand the delays in the matter of labelling. I am therefore particularly concerned to ensure that the operators in this industry are not confronted with a legal vacuum which would lead public opinion, quite legitimately, to wonder whether there is a real desire for greater transparency. How else is it possible to explain the fact that at European level we have managed to obtain an agreement on chocolate but that we are unable to meet the deadlines we set ourselves in an area as sensitive and important as beef. Let us make no mistake as to what is at issue here. I am convinced that the subject of beef labelling is no mere technical issue. I should like to point out that if labelling is of such great importance to consumers it is because it is their guarantee that product traceability has been tightened up, that the operators in the industry and also the European and national public authorities have become more accountable, and that control systems have been improved. Finally, what our fellow citizens are demanding is the right to information. This right to be informed is the natural counterpart to the development of trade and the proper exercise of competition. By virtue of the transparency it conveys, labelling makes it possible to improve the freedom of movement of beef, providing assurances to consumers and guaranteeing their freedom to make an informed choice. In the beef sector, improving consumer information through labelling represents a strong message from Europe to its trading partners: it demonstrates its intention, over and above product health safety, to safeguard the consumer’s freedom of choice.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the European Parliament's Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the outcome of the negotiations with the ten candidate countries. Whilst it is gratifying that this round of enlargement will enable us to help overcome the grim legacy of conflict and division in Europe, we must also emphasise that the process has not yet been completed. Above all, we must not take public approval of enlargement for granted, either in the acceding countries or in the Member States. In this context, we believe that a great deal of information is needed, and we should beware of engaging in propaganda. Persuasion is the order of the day, and it is important, especially in border areas, that the efforts to persuade people are organised in such a way that they are well received by the general public. There are a few specific details to be added to these general remarks, particularly as regards the choice of 1 May 2004 as the accession date. In connection with this decision, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs welcomes the fact that, by that date, observers from the acceding countries will already be attending our Parliamentary sittings. We welcome the fact that we shall also have new Commissioners and new members of the Commission in general on the first of May. We consider it right and proper that the new Commission is to take up its duties quite soon afterwards, in November 2004. We deeply regret, however, that all of these decisions have been taken without Parliament having been consulted at all. We call on the Council, as a matter of urgency, to provide Parliament with early information on developments in the accession process and to involve us in good time. In general terms, we expect that many of the solutions which we have not really managed to find so far on the basis of the Treaty of Nice will be made possible by the work of the European Convention. We are pleased to note that the representatives of the acceding countries are also fully involved in this work. They will contribute to our consensus, to a consensus that will carry us forward in Europe. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
The reaction of the large private monopolies or of the large countries when their interests are put at risk, in this case in the vitally important energy sector, is most revealing. As the rapporteur says, ‘a market can be 100% open, as in Germany, but still be virtually impenetrable to foreign companies, because domestic companies in effect have a monopoly over the infrastructure’ ... ‘There was also unwillingness in France for legal unbundling of both electricity and gas markets.’ The aim of the major powers and their large corporations is to liberalise the energy market, provided that they retain control in their countries and gain control of the market in other countries. This is the case in France, where the market will only be liberalised when conditions are met for French big business to be in control. Parliament, accordingly, seeks to enforce ‘equal’ rules for all, when what is actually required is to remove the strategic control of a country’s energy supply from big business – with its mindset of profit and domination – and to promote a sector and a public policy that ensures fair and universal access and a country’s sustained and balanced development.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the rapporteur for his resolute approach to the work he has done, which is so typical of him, on this report, which is a broad portrayal of human life in growing forest stock country. One third of our land area is covered in forest, and if you include our neighbours to the east in the picture, there is still more forest. Forest-based industry actually employs two and a half million people, which is no insignificant matter, and, as we know, accounts for a tenth of industrial output. When we calculate the amount of carbon that is sequestered in forests I think we also have to take into account the stands of forest stock that were grown and tended prior to 1990. Otherwise, this work of many decades will not be taken into account when the effect of greenhouse gases is calculated. And so it is that we are rewarding just those who have destroyed their forests and are now hurriedly trying to do some planting, while they have first and foremost been destroying them for centuries. They who have tended their forests properly for decades, lived off forestry and know this delicate balance, would be penalised, because there are Member States in which people no longer have anywhere to plant a tree, unless they start planting them on their own roofs. For this reason, paragraph 17 in this report is very important. Forests and seas are among the most important carbon sinks and stores, and it has also been seen that the ability of forest soil in the north to absorb carbon is even greater than that of trees. But, ladies and gentlemen, the situation is such that we cannot grow seas: of the two we can only grow forests. Forests create peace. That is becoming an ever greater factor when it comes to contentment – I think it is fine for Nintendo – and it creates ecological balance. A dead tree is sympathetic, and you can lean against it, whether it is warm or cold; you can only lean against a rock when it is warm. The use of wood is thus cause for diversification, and especially now, when we are at the stage where communication is moving further away from paper, which is wood-based. I would propose that the Commission should annex to some appropriate document a set of ideas for the multipurpose use of wood, as we are now on the crest of a wave with regard to wood-based production. Now the basis of the activity is changing and the focus is on new approaches.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to start by expressing my deepest political solidarity with our neighbours and friends in Galicia, for the suffering that this tragedy is causing them now and will cause in future. The European Union and its Member States must therefore spare no effort to help to minimise the scale of the effects of the disaster and compensate the main victims as far as possible for the damage caused. We must take the opportunity of the Prestige oil tanker disaster to make a few observations. The first is that this accident must be subject to a rigorous inquiry, not only with regard to the EU’s safety rules covering this type of transport but also into the reason for the course taken by the ship, which having moved away to the west, suddenly headed southwards, and sank only thirty miles outside Portuguese waters. My second observation is that we must understand that this disaster could also seriously affect the northern coast of Portugal, if not now, then later, and the European Union also needs to consider aid for Portugal to improve its resources for mobilisation, monitoring and prevention. The fisheries sector, as a matter of fact, has already begun to be affected. Lastly, despite the fact that the tragedy’s effects will clearly be felt in many sectors of the economy, there is no doubt that the most badly affected sector is that of fisheries and aquiculture. I therefore feel it is crucial that, in the framework of the aid that is to be mobilised, thought is given to the need for a specific emergency plan for these sectors. I do not think that the EUR 117.7 million Commissioner Fischler announced for Spain and the EUR 15 million for Portugal will resolve the problems, not only because of the overall amount, which is limited, but also because, where Portugal is concerned, the option must be left open for this amount to be increased if the situation on its coasts grows worse. Furthermore, we will have to bear in mind that compensation for the prolonged suspension of fishing alone will not suffice. What is needed, perhaps, is to think about another, more fundamental type of measure to provide alternative employment for these fishermen, for example, fishing in other waters in the medium term.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, once again Parliament is led to, and strongly obliged to condemn the appalling situation of a woman named Amina Lawal, who has been sentenced to death by stoning in Nigeria for having exercised her freedom. What can I say, what can I add to all that has just been said by my fellow Members, except to reiterate my condemnation of the appalling situation of a woman which justifies as still necessary the fighting that takes place on international women’s days. This intolerable situation forces us to restate our radical opposition to the death penalty and forces us to remember that a court of justice, whether in Nigeria or in any State in the world, cannot be based on religious principles and deny all the principles relating to absolute respect for human rights and respect for human dignity. This, I am sad to say, echoes the obscurantism of the Middle Ages that our countries also experienced. We must condemn again and again this intolerable situation of a woman, confirming the importance we attach to the principle of secularity as the principle of major organisation in modern, democratic States. Madam President, Commissioner, the Nigerian Government should declare that the application of the Sharia by a regional court of justice is counter to the Constitution of its country. In this regard, we would remind it, in particular, that respect for human rights is a fundamental element of the agreements concluded with third countries. Apart from the situation of Amina Lawal in Nigeria, all those men and women in the world whose fundamental rights are denied expect the European Union to turn the resolutions that we adopt, sitting after sitting, in this House, into action. I also fully agree with the questions raised by Mrs Karamanou. Apart from adopting resolutions, Commissioner – although this is also addressed to the representatives of the Council – what are we actually doing?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am glad to be able to follow someone who has so vigorously supported the Labour Government, as Mr Bowis just did. I would also like to congratulate the rapporteur after the sometimes stormy passage of her report and the mini-ambush which she almost suffered tonight. In the UK we are the largest manufacturer – and indeed consumer – of health supplements of one kind or another, vitamin and mineral supplements to the diet. We have been stringent in ensuring that false claims are never made for them, and that is why in the UK they have never been marketed as medicines. But they do bring benefits to millions who would accept that they are a supplement to, but not a substitute for, a balanced diet. We believe that the upper safe levels are sufficient to make the difference between foods and medicines even clearer. Obviously the situation is different in some other Member States, and any attempt to regularise the position makes sense in the general context of emergent food law. I support the rapporteur's view that all substances which have been validly in use in the Member States, according to the laws of those countries, should continue until such time as they can be tested and perhaps found wanting. I rather doubt if many will be, and I do not think that the annexes themselves contain anything like the number of exceptions that we should see. With every day that passes, we hear of other substances which are causing concern because they may be excluded. That is why the word physiological – and I would beg the rapporteur to think again even at this late hour – is important in terms of people who are genuine sufferers and who derive great benefit from these products. We ought to hear from the Commissioner tonight that there will be measured progress towards effective analysis by the requisite deadline, be that 2004 or later. Effective labelling, so that the consumers can choose both the context and the regularity of what they are getting, is the best way forward. That will help many consumers and worry none.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, allow me firstly to say that the report is constructive and provides a correct description of the work in the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly. The work has acquired a better structure with the three committees, something that has improved the preparatory work prior to the plenary. Question time has also improved. It may of course be further improved if the answers to the questions reach MEPs in good time, so that the Commission does not merely read out the answers but provides scope for debate. I personally should like to emphasise the constructive cooperation between the ACP-EU Assembly and the UN when it comes both to child soldiers and children’s vulnerability in war and to the debate concerning the International Criminal Court. These are two major and important political issues of precisely the kind that our Assembly should engage with, for they are about finding sound forms of cooperation in which both sides learn from each other and support the policy we consider to be important in the international arena. The United States has removed its financial support from those countries that do not back the US’s demands that all Americans in general must be exempted from being brought before the International Criminal Court for serious war crimes. This measure can and must be supported both politically and financially by the ACP-EU, especially by the EU. It is gratifying to note that, of the Latin American and West Indian countries, it is only Belize that has given in to the US’s action and, of the African countries, only Nigeria, whose President ratified an agreement with the United States that was contrary to the Nigerian constitution and in defiance of the Nigerian Parliament. It is gratifying that most other countries have resisted the pressure from the United States. The ACP-EU Assembly plays an important political and economic role in major, crucial issues in the international arena.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, at this hour brevity is a duty and not a virtue. Although I was not a member of the committee which produced this report, I want to speak because my colleague, Mrs McCarthy, who was a member, is detained by the grave events now under discussion at our party conference in Brighton. I am speaking as someone concerned with consumer affairs. Like Mrs Thors, I was for a time the Chair of the Consumer Protection Intergroup. Parliament's Rules do not allow us to express these opinions in the way we once did. The substantial majority which Mr Mayer rallied in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market was, of course, for a response which, as my colleague has said, was less than he would have wished. It is also less than I would have wished and it should be less than this Parliament would have wished. The principal recommendation here is for a further study of the consequences of a transition to the use of the principle of international exhaustion. Fine, but how long is that going to take when a parallel importer can be prevented from giving the consumer a quality product at a price which benefits them both? This is not like counterfeit products, as another speaker tried to suggest. It is not competitive selling at a loss to weaken rival products, nor is it driving down the quality of those products. It is a straightforward blockage of trade, which will not diminish the so-called grey markets but will make them more confused and complex. We need this to be a study which tells us of the shady side of what proclaims itself to be a respectable trade. I do not really expect more from the Commissioner tonight than I have heard from him privately. However, the matter cannot rest here. The Silhouette case was not the last word on all this and nor, as he would acknowledge, is Mr Mayer's report. Nevertheless I salute him.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I too should like to begin by congratulating Mrs Carlotti on her report. This is a fine piece of work, and it is also excellent that the work has been completed before the next meeting of the ACP-EU Joint Assembly takes place, which is as early as next week of course. It is an important report, and Mrs Carlotti has also put forward a number of theoretical observations. I shall examine a couple of them more closely but, before I do so, I should just like to emphasise that it does not of course help a great deal to stand here and talk about the Cotonou Agreement if we cannot get it ratified, and we must once again call upon the Member States to make such ratification possible. I believe that, in the course of the last few months, only one additional country has come on board. And even if there are many countries that have planned to ratify the agreement, we have still to see the final signatures. The situation is a little better where the ACP countries are concerned, but the overall number of signatories is, of course, still by no means large enough. The second thing that can be said is that such an agreement is not really, of course, worth very much if we do not arrange for proper aid. Here, too, there are, no doubt, difficulties, and I hope that the Commissioner – or whoever he now has to help him – will succeed in getting a process under way before tomorrow’s formal meeting of foreign ministers. The target I should like to have seen, namely one of 0.7%, will certainly not be adopted, but I have to acknowledge that this target is impossible to achieve at the present time. Simply getting a binding process under way will, however, be of absolutely crucial importance. I should like now to address two points in Mrs Carlotti’s report. The first is the issue of our own working methods. On that issue, I definitely do not think that we have made enough progress. I think we have too many resolutions and too little debate. The second point is the composition of the ACP-EU delegation, which is not of course particularly appropriate. The fact that the delegation includes only one person from the ACP countries introduces a distortion, democratically speaking, and I therefore also think that we should look again at the composition. Should we, for example, have twice as many delegates from both sides and then only meet once a year in order to obtain greater representation? Or can we come up with some other solution?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I do not think anything impressively new can come out of this debate on regional policy quite simply, in my personal opinion, because the time is not right, it is not newsworthy, if you like. In all events, given that many of the Members are interested in this particular subject and given that regional policy accounts yet again for 35% of the budget, this confirms, I think, just how important it is to the European Union and, in this sense, there is perhaps some point to the debate. The second point I wish to make is that perhaps it would be a good idea at some point – and this is certainly the intention of the Committee on Regional Policy – to discuss the state of progress of projects and programmes under the Community Support Framework in individual countries, because I personally am not at all convinced that everything is going swimmingly in every country, not through any fault of the Commission's, but through the fault of certain Member States. I do not wish to speak of dramatic delays but I am sure that certain countries are having problems. As far as the future of cohesion policy is concerned, a debate was started following the second cohesion report by the European Commission and I think that certain conclusions are already obvious, that is, that far more regions will need to be covered, that in regions in the Member States which are already covered there will appear to be an artificial increase in GNP, which does not mean that they will automatically become rich, as the Commissioner has said, and that it goes without saying that more appropriations are needed but that it does not go without saying that it will be easy to find these appropriations. As far as I can see, the conclusions are more or less obvious. First, we must not leave things in the lap of the Gods, we must not take decisions at the eleventh hour, because we could bring the European Union to what may well be an explosive situation. Secondly, we need to concentrate from 2006 onwards on those in real need. Thirdly, we must not create shock waves in regions which stop being covered, because that will give rise to euro-scepticism in these regions. Having said which, I have two unpleasant things to say, one of which is unpleasant for the poorer countries and the other of which is unpleasant for the richer countries. For the poorer countries, I think that we need to find ways of making the most of appropriations by introducing suitable mechanisms, incentives and, if necessary, sanctions so that the money actually goes somewhere. And for the richer countries, we need to rethink the overall logic of the Community budget so as to find a way of increasing appropriations, because there will be a huge increase in requirements and regional policy will, as the Commissioner has said, have no credibility whatsoever if we fall below a certain point.

Political group: PPE-DE