GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in our quest for openness, clarity and transparency in relation to animal feed, we are gradually edging closer to the heart of this entire matter, namely the question of which substances are ultimately permissible in animal feed and which are prohibited. Commissioner Byrne, in connection with the BSE crisis, you hit the nail on the head when you stated that animal material which is not fit for human consumption must not be authorised for use in the production of animal feed either. Anyone who is familiar with the functioning of the food chain will surely see the logic of this principle. I thank the Commission for its firm proposal dividing animal by-products into three categories. It would have been far simpler to prohibit them all without further ado. That approach has been adopted by the German Federal Government, for example. The EU, however, has taken the more prudent path, in my opinion, even if it is the more difficult path, as we are all aware. This difficulty lies in the fact that the materials in the three categories must be registered, stored, processed and marketed separately and that evidence of these operations must be kept. In our experience, such a requirement presupposes the establishment of an inspection system. The rapporteur has reintroduced the formulation from the Directive fixing the principles governing the organisation of official inspections in the field of animal nutrition in the EU, and there is a minimum standard here that we must not undercut, namely the principle that experts from the Commission may conduct on-the-spot inspections in cooperation with the authorities in the Member States. The end justifies the means, the end being that valuable nutrient sources are not simply destroyed but used for a useful purpose – this applies to kitchen waste too – while anything that has no place in the food chain is rejected and destroyed. One thing is clear: we must ensure that appropriate feed mixes are used for each species; in other words, we are opposed to cannibalism. This is also something that inspections will have to prevent. My thanks are due to Mrs Paulsen for her report, which makes the Commission proposal even more specific on several important points, and I hope that the ladies and gentlemen of the House will give it their emphatic support. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
The situation in Madagascar is getting worse, despite efforts by international organisations and the successive promises made by the two leaders. The country has now been divided and its capital is in danger of being cut off from the rest of the country, with all that implies for the people. This situation takes me back ten years, when I faced the beginnings of the drama which, for four long years, was to make the life of the people in Bosnia-Herzegovina hell, with barricades going up everywhere to mark out territories and the gradual partition of the country into zones in which warlords reigned supreme. And today we are watching as this island is caught in the grip of the same hellish spiral. That is why I call on Mr Ratsiraka and Mr Ravalomanana from this House to each agree, before it is too late, to make the concessions needed to avoid the worst. The European Community does, of course, support the efforts being made by the Organisation of African Unity and by President Wade within it. The resolution on which Parliament is shortly to vote therefore calls on the two parties to apply all the terms of the Dakar agreement of 18 April which, unfortunately, has yet to be implemented. In the same spirit, it calls on the Commission and the Council to do whatever they can to ensure that negotiations resume including, if necessary, sending a field mission of mediators and negotiators.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Turkish Constitutional Court has today proscribed HADEP, the pro-Kurd People's Democracy Party, and has, among other things, forbidden forty-six of its members to take part in any kind of political activity for the next five years. Turkey is a candidate for accession to the European Union, in which it is not acceptable for political parties to be banned in this day and age. Mr President, I ask you to intervene in this matter.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I am very much in favour. Mrs Randzio-Plath was right to correct her group’s list. We tabled Amendment No 22 so as to ensure that the trial involving reduced VAT rates for highly labour-intensive services could continue beyond 31 December of this year. That is what the reporter wants and that is what we all want. The oral amendment is purely editorial in nature. Instead of stipulating that the date of 31 December is replaced by the date referred to in Article 2 of the new directive – which concerns the date of entry into force of that new directive – we have worded it more clearly, so that 31 December 2003 is replaced by the date of entry into force of the new directive. It is therefore the same thing, but our legal experts thought that it was better to word it in this way. Consequently, all those who want to indicate that it should be possible for the reduced VAT rates to be retained, if the state so wishes, should vote in favour of our amendment, as corrected. (The President established that there were no objections to the oral amendment) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Joint motion for a resolution(1) on the preparation of the European Council (Brussels, 12-13 December 2003), including the Social Summit (Parliament adopted the joint resolution) *** Joint motion for a resolution(2) on the progress report on the Intergovernmental Conference Before the vote on Amendment No 10:

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, thank you for permitting me to rise again. I greatly regret the fact that my only opportunity to put a question to you regarding the Dell'Utri case is at the opening of Parliament during the discussion of the agenda. As a simple Member of this House, there is no other opportunity to raise this type of issue. I have been accused on several occasions in this House of only having an interest in this matter due to the Italian election campaign. The election campaign is now over, and so I would like to come back to the Dell'Utri case since it has great significance for every Member of this House. An application for the removal of immunity could be lodged tomorrow against any Member of this Parliament – against me, against Mr Poettering, against Mr Haarder, against Mrs Frahm, against any one of us – and, in order to avoid public speculation, the Member concerned must have the opportunity to make a direct statement about the accusations. For the last nine months, Mr Dell'Utri has been denied the opportunity to make a statement on the accusations made against him here. This is why it could be quite important to tell the Spanish authorities that the way in which the Spanish government deals with applications for the removal of immunity submitted to this House is also a matter of honour in its relations with the European Parliament. One further point, Madam President: in Europe, where there is a separation of powers, it is accepted that the judiciary can approach the legislature direct. There is only one Parliament where it is claimed that the executive must have a proviso in such cases, and that is this Parliament. This is an absurd situation for which I hold you, Mrs Fontaine, entirely responsible. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we find ourselves in a phase of the budget which resembles the lull before the storm. The Commission has submitted a second preliminary draft on which the agricultural sector would certainly like to comment. First of all, the European budget comes off worse compared to other major continents because there is less public funding available here compared to those other continents. Secondly, the budget has not yet reached the prescribed ceiling. I hope that the Council will make up the difference, if not, Parliament will be submitting proposals. There are also a few other issues which have struck me. We need to try to use the budget efficiently. On the one hand, there is a reshuffle of the headings, also in this budget, which begs the question as to whether the relative stability or the European Union as a whole are safeguarded. Does the budget tie in sufficiently with discussions with a social dimension within the European Union, such as those pertaining to consumer affairs, the environment and animal welfare? The European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development is open to issues of this kind, also with regard to proposals which may or may not be submitted. The same applies to the quality of policy, and in this connection, particular attention should be given to whether policy helps maintain a high-grade rural environment in Europe from a financial point of view. Can Europe’s rural environment count on adequate care and financial means? The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development’s report and the opinion show that we welcome the deferment of the discussion regarding the EUR 300 million set aside for the reconstruction of the Balkans as far as it goes. The discussion has been postponed until October, but the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has pulled no punches in this respect. The second point I would like to make in this connection is that, since every year, we have some money left in the agricultural budget, it should be possible to use this money the year after i.e. to earmark it and not to return it. Thirdly, particularly in respect of agricultural policy, resources must be used more effectively and more pressure should be exerted on the Member States or the Commission in order to speed up the submission of plans which can then be implemented adequately.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, not only for our own sake, but also for the sake of future generations, we need to have proper regard for the environment, for an undamaged environment is one of the most valuable of the goods that are entrusted to us. It is for that reason that we have before us a directive that makes a priority of caring for the environment and preventing damage to it. Achieving that objective requires that we be consistent in applying the ‘polluter pays’ principle, which states that those who cause damage to the environment or bear responsibility for it, must pay for the damage to be dealt with, and that the burden of proof lies with them. Only in this way can we put a stop to negligence and the evasion of responsibility at the expense of society as a whole. The names of two ships, the Erika and the Prestige, are synonymous with catastrophes that disproportionately burdened public funds and cost many people their jobs and livelihoods. Even minor environmental disasters can bring a community to the brink of ruin, and, although we will never be able to completely exclude the possibility of them, unremitting liability for environmental damage will deter those who might be the cause of them. My group takes the view that there is no room for exceptions to be made, and that is why we want this directive to fully cover sectors with grave consequences for the environment, such as the nuclear power industry or genetically modified organisms. Amendments to this effect are before the House. Let me conclude by adding something on the subject of mandatory insurance, which is meeting with such fierce resistance, particularly from the Group of the European People’s Party . In Germany, if you buy a house or own a flat, you have to take out insurance against fire and the forces of nature, even though, in cases of doubt, it is only you who will be out in the cold. No doubt the situation is similar elsewhere. It is, then, quite incomprehensible that the operators of environmentally hazardous plant or those who use dangerous substances should not have to insure against liability. Must it always be the taxpayer, by way of the public purse, who is asked to pay up when things get really expensive? And are we in this European Parliament really going to introduce less protection, less of the ‘polluter pays’ principle, into this area, than the Council is willing to permit?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I welcome this report and would like to thank the rapporteur for his excellent work. However, I would first of all like to highlight my concern that the current debate has consistently failed to acknowledge the failure of many Member States to implement existing Community legislation in this area. The latest Commission report, together with numerous mission reports, has highlighted that there is a serious disregard of animal welfare in some countries. The Commission must show a much greater willingness to initiate infringement proceedings against Member States which fail to enforce this directive properly. With respect to journey times, I hope the Commission will follow the recommendations of their scientific advisory committees and propose workable limits that allow businesses to function effectively, whilst maintaining a high standard of animal welfare. I will be supporting the 8-hour or 500-kilometre limit, and strongly support the view that the climate conditions of each Member State should also be taken into consideration. However, in areas where these journey times are unrealistic, a temporary dispensation to the maximum 8-hour travelling time should be granted where there are no slaughterhouses within a radius of 500 kilometres. I am thinking particularly, in the UK, of the islands of Western Scotland, and of other parts of the European Union that are affected adversely in that regard. Although putting a limit on journey times is an important step forward, the treatment of animals en route, vehicle ventilation, overcrowding, and the definition of space and temperature requirements during transport etc. are equally important issues. The recent foot-and-mouth crisis provided evidence enough that the unnecessary long-distance transport of animals was a factor in the quick spread of that disease. I look forward to the Commission's policy plan scheduled for 1 January 2003 aimed at the regionalisation of meat production chains, so as to limit the long-distance transport of live animals in future.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, Commissioner, there can be no doubt that, with the new order created by globalisation and the leaps and bounds being made in science and technology, the constant renewal of knowledge through lifelong learning is vital if we are to make the best possible use of human resources. This being so, we urgently need a European policy to give momentum to this sector and, from this point of view, I congratulate you on your initiatives, Commissioner, and I congratulate our rapporteur on her excellent report. As the draftsperson of the opinion of the Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities, I should like to point out that the only way of achieving a European policy on lifelong learning is to take serious account of the new order created by the mass, dynamic entry of women on to the job market. Women are currently the most dynamic force behind development because, as you know, two-thirds of the new jobs which it is estimated will be created over the next ten years will be filled by women. We therefore need to take serious account of the gender dimension when we take policy decisions and apply measures which will abolish direct and indirect discrimination against women, given that such discrimination always comes at the expense of the viable development and competitiveness of the economy. An active lifelong learning policy needs to be designed with women's needs in mind, which means involving women, improving their skills, widening their professional choices, removing glass ceilings, ensuring there is a balance between men and women in the sciences and new technologies and abolishing gender-based divisions of the job market. You spoke, Commissioner, of the digital divide. This digital divide applies mainly to women. We also need to give special attention to the most vulnerable groups of women, such as immigrants, women in rural areas and elderly women. Last but not least, the gender mainstreaming policy and the need to reconcile family life and work must become part of the overall policy to promote lifelong learning.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, yesterday I had the great honour of sharing a platform with the President of Parliament, Mr Cox, when we both addressed the CBI national conference in the United Kingdom. Mr Cox referred to the real concerns that exist in the UK, by saying that Parliament, the Commission and the Council are now committed to the concepts of developing subsidiarity and no disproportionate regulation. If that were so, we would have to look at these proposals within that context. Nobody challenges the need for better identification, but the truth of the matter is that the UK Government itself has calculated that the cost of introducing this system in the UK will be just short of GBP 100 million, a cost of between GBP 13 000 and GBP 16 000 per farmer. We heard from Commissioner Byrne that the EU has made its own estimate. I have more faith in the calculation of the UK Government than I have in the calculation of the EU authorities. The fact of the matter is that the committee has been unanimous in its view. The speeches that we will hear this evening will be unanimous in their view. They will be in favour of better identification but also of proceeding by way of practicality, flexibility, looking at operating different methods within Member States, and of having identification – certainly within the United Kingdom – on the basis of batch control numbers. I say to the Commissioner that there is unanimity across this Parliament, from Mr Wyn, my political opponent in Wales, to Mrs Attwooll, who is from another party in the United Kingdom and Mr Adam, from the Labour Party. We are all unanimous in this view. It is a view that the Commission should take on board. So far, I have not been terribly encouraged by the stance adopted by the Commission. Mr Adam has done a great deal to achieve unanimity, and I congratulate him on that, as other speakers have done. We have the facility of trying to persuade Mr Adam, if there is no movement on the part of the Commission, to consider having this report referred back to committee. I hope the Commissioner will be in a position to respond positively to the amendments that have been proposed by the committee. However, if the Commission simply closes the door on us, then I for one will be among those who seek to persuade Mr Adam tomorrow to ask for this report to be referred back to committee so that we can stress to the Commission that it must be a listening Commission – not just when people appear before the CBI in the United Kingdom but also with regard to the daily work we do at Parliament.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, we have all fought for freedom of movement – which is a good thing – along with all that has developed from it, in order that people might have the fullest possible enjoyment of it. Here and there, alas, this freedom of movement brings with it adverse consequences, and both reports deal with this. The first report – Mrs Angelilli's, which has to do with the compensation of victims of crime – addresses a mechanism that would help to alleviate to some extent the effects of these unwelcome emergencies, which arise from freedom of movement itself. With that in mind, the attempt is made to lay down minimum standards across Europe, so that a citizen travelling from one State to another and sustaining some detriment, shall receive appropriate compensation under the same conditions. I welcome the way that this, in view of post-11 September discussions, is not being focussed only on the victims of specific offences, but that the range is being extended and the victims in question are being granted aid to minimum standards. It is also noticeable from the second report that the increase in cross-border disputes and offences is actually a consequence of freedom of movement and of the Common Market. That is why it is so important that we should see the EU as being also a social community, one that does not deny access to the law to people who have been affected by such offences but have fewer resources at their disposal. This step can, then, only be welcomed and supported. In particular, I welcome the way in which Mr Santini has put these into more concrete terms and enlarged upon them, stating for example, that the states should bear court costs or that the application for legal aid should be submitted to national authorities designated for that purpose. Alongside these, there are a plethora of other items that effect very real help for victims and for those with a claim on aid. Both reports help us as EU citizens to have a positive experience of life in the EU, with all the principles associated with freedom of movement, which we can and must make a reality. I congratulate both rapporteurs on these excellent reports. Many thanks! (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
The OECD emphasises that 'Investment in health is an important means of economic development and substantially improved health outcomes are a prerequisite for developing countries to break out of the cycle of poverty. If the health of poor people is to improve, a ‘pro-poor’ health approach is needed. This goes beyond the health sector and includes policies in areas that disproportionately affect the health and economic security of the poor, such as education, nutrition, water and sanitation.' HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis are direct causes and consequences of poverty, which particularly expose women and children. I welcome the goodwill of the international community and I urge our governments to enhance respectful partnership, specifically in the field of health. Nevertheless, I must abstain: the means proposed to fight the 'very high and rising' number of HIV/AIDS-infected women, is to provide 'appropriate sexual and reproductive health information and services', to protect against, inter alia 'unwanted pregnancies'. Pregnancy is not an illness: children are a richness in developing countries. This reveals another agenda which interprets reproductive health to include abortion. However, this is not the position of the Council, which has clarified that 'reproductive health' does NOT include 'abortion'. Until this is clarified by the Commission, I cannot support this ambiguous terminology. Report: Bébéar (A5-0329/2003)

Political group: PPE-DE