GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, European agriculture is in a state of crisis as a result of BSE and foot-and-mouth disease. That we need measures to overcome this crisis as quickly as possible is nothing new. Opinion is divided only on the question of which measures to take. The starting point is the ban on meat and bone meal in feedingstuffs. This ban is necessary as we have a crisis of confidence on our hands. Mind you, we are not only dealing with a systemic crisis in the sector but with the need for confidence-building measures in favour of consumers. The ban on meat and bone meal in feedingstuffs is a measure which will restore consumer confidence. There must also be a European protein plan to wean Europe off imports from third countries because these imports contain genetically modified soya. We must find a model which enables European farmers to react to these new requirements. I also feel this complex problem is connected with the WTO. The Commission proposal, however, to allow organic farmers only to plant legumes does not go anywhere near far enough. I therefore support the line taken by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development that planting can also be permitted on set-aside land of farmers who adopt environmental measures on the basis of Regulation (EEC) No 1257/00. If we talk of confidence-building measures, then we must stand up for an open declaration and for a positive list of permissible feed materials for feedingstuffs. I believe that being honest with consumers can get us out of this crisis and take account of the dramatic situation of farmers and the threat to very many livelihoods. I am also hoping for support from the feedingstuffs industry to make an open declaration of feed materials. If such a statement truly reflects what is in feed materials, surely this cannot be a problem for the industry.

Political group: PPE-DE
At first reading, Parliament presented a series of amendments aimed at quite rightly recognising pure plant oil (PPO) as a biofuel. These various amendments have not been taken up in the common position adopted by the Council, and this is why I am voting in favour of Amendment No 7 tabled by the competent committee. In fact, there is good reason to recognise pure plant oil as a biofuel given its many environmental advantages, but also because the decentralised production of oil in farms would allow the farmers in question to gain added value from their production. The main criticism made in relation to the use of PPO relates to the need to adapt diesel engines. However, this need could work in favour of PPO, since an entire economic sector could thereby be established, with all the economic and social benefits that would bring. Furthermore, adaptations of engines are also necessary for other alternative fuels which do benefit from tax exemption: hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, electricity, etc.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the Lisbon strategy was a success. I also wish to state that the previous summit – the Spring Summit in Stockholm – was a success. However, I am not too sure that the Barcelona Summit will be so. That will depend upon the balance between the various issues, for most of the talk I have heard so far has been about liberalising various markets. I myself come from a country, Sweden, which has a Social Democratic government and which has done more than many other countries to liberalise the markets. I therefore have nothing against liberalisation as such, but it must be balanced against a vigorous employment strategy, quality of employment, the fight against poverty and, in particular, efforts towards sustainable development. These aspects do not appear to weigh so heavily in the arguments deployed prior to the Barcelona Summit. In his report, Mr Bullmann has succeeded in achieving a balance between, on the one hand, liberalisation and, on the other hand, sustainable development, employment strategy and quality of employment. I hope that this balance will be achieved at the Barcelona Summit because that summit will be judged by outsiders on the basis of how successful it is in that respect. It must not just be about liberalisation. The other aspects of the Lisbon strategy must also be dealt with if the Barcelona Summit is to be a success.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too would first like to thank the rapporteur, because I believe that he has succeeded in a remarkable way in reconciling the various interests in this House so as to formulate a position on behalf of Parliament. Commissioner, I have been following the debate on climate change in this House since 1995. What I have observed since then is that Parliament has made certain concessions here, but always against the tactical background that we want the country with the highest CO2 emissions to come on board as regards Kyoto. So we have gone along with this and said that we accept emissions trading. We are in favour of it in principle and we have made many more concessions. At some point the hurdle will be so low that I can honestly say that I cannot lower it any further. It will not be possible to make any more concessions. That is why I believe that in future negotiations we should really concentrate on the idea that if the USA cannot initiate the ratification process, then we ourselves should enter into agreements with other countries, as ultimately ratification without the USA is not impossible if we are at long last to make some progress here. We cannot keep making concessions until there are no more to be made if we are not certain that Congress will eventually give its approval. Commissioner, I of course heard your speech about the European Climate Change Programme, the ECCP. It was a rather bland speech about what we could all do and how marvellous that would be. I seem to have heard a lot of bland speeches like that over the last few years! In the end, I would far rather do battle alongside you for highly specific measures such as a switch to renewables. There is a proposal to that effect on the table, but I wonder just what the Commission's policy really is when I see the Directorate-General for Competition frustrating this proposal to promote renewables using funds from environmental aid scheme, perhaps to the point of destroying it. I would also like to fight alongside you to achieve a standard for low-energy housing. And I would like to battle alongside you to achieve a tax regime to promote cars with low fuel consumption. So how about finally forgetting those bland speeches, rolling up our sleeves and really getting something done!

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to congratulate Mr Lamassoure on his report. It is a very good report. Some people think that it is too soft. I do not believe that it is too soft; it simply uses a language which leaves the way open for a dialogue with Turkey and we want to enter into this dialogue. There are a number of hard points, however, which we need to discuss with Turkey, and certainly there is still a need to discuss the issue of human rights, in particular. It has been mentioned that people are in prison who should not be, first and foremost Leyla Zana. Turkey could and should, particularly in the light of rulings made by the European courts, ensure that they are released without delay. On the issue of Kurdish rights too, much remains to be done. It is obvious that the language, which, thanks to constitutional amendments, can now be used, should also be employed in the official media as soon as possible. The state of emergency could then be lifted relatively quickly in the provinces in which it is still in force. The constitutional amendments which Turkey has made are positive steps. We definitely wish to take note of them. However, now it is a question, firstly, of removing the constraints still connected to them, for example the death penalty, and, of course, of ensuring that the constitutional amendments are also implemented. A major task for Turkey is to do this in the very near future. On the subject of time, I should like to come back to an idea which I put forward when I had the honour of drawing up a report for this Parliament comprising a road map or timetable, and that is why tomorrow we will also be proposing that Turkey, itself, should table a timetable next year showing how it intends to meet the political Copenhagen criterion. Satisfaction of this political criterion is the precondition for our also being able to negotiate with Turkey. After all, this is the aim of the whole exercise, of which this report is also a part. I should also, however, like to address two points, which continue to be crucial for relations between the European Union and Turkey. The first point is Turkey's assistance in shaping an active and efficient external security policy. We know that at the end of the day this also presupposes that we are able to use NATO resources and this is still a stumbling block for Turkey. Turkey needs to know that this is damaging its prospects. The final problem is Cyprus. Here, too, I should like to say quite clearly that it is important to resolve the Cyprus problem, firstly, for the Turkish population of Cyprus and secondly, and undoubtedly, for the Greek population of Cyprus, the whole of Europe and Turkey itself. Turkey simply has not realised this. I would stress something which I have said repeatedly in the past: Turkey's path to the European Union is via Cyprus. Its assistance with resolving the Cyprus issue is not a precondition for our accepting Cyprus into the European Union, but it would be a basis on which we could enter into serious discussions about Turkey's membership of the European Union.

Political group: PSE
I would first of all like to remind you of the background to this report. To begin with it was allocated to the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, like other reports on the telecoms package. At that time I was appointed rapporteur. Then the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market declared that it was the responsible committee and the report was handed over to Malcolm Harbour, a British Member of the Group of the European People’s Party . I remained the draftsman of the opinion, but the opinion I expressed had little influence in the discussions! This is a terrible shame, especially when the issue is the protection of universal service in such an important sector which is undergoing such important changes. The report adopted by the Committee on Legal Affairs last November makes astonishing reading. The measures relating to universal service have been reduced to a disappointing level and the report focuses mainly on consumer protection. As I said in my report of the opinion, if universal service includes, within the definition of its component services, the same kind of criteria that are usually used to assess services provided for consumers (affordable prices, availability, delivery timetables and quality), its raison d’être has different types of objectives if we look at the issue for the point of view of regional policy, social policy (preventing the poorest people from being excluded) or public safety policy. I would like to stress the importance for democracy of the ability to access new communication networks. New technologies make it possible for people to speak out, to participate in democratic debate and to influence decisions. Technology can also be used to bring government closer to the people. Local democracy can benefit greatly from the interactive aspect of online local public services. Public services can be given a new lease of life through these new technologies, if the means are made available to them, and of course if they have the will to do so. Lastly, Internet access is essential to the creation of a knowledge-based information society. The committee’s proposal needs to be improved in order to meet these challenges. This is what I attempted to do in my amendments, all which were rejected by Mr Harbour. Today we have voted on a report that proposes some interesting changes concerning the protection of consumers, particularly disabled consumers, and the ‘must carry’ principle, but which, regrettably, cannot claim to provide universal service in this sector! - Niebler report (A5-0432/2001)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on behalf of my group I would like to welcome the compromise resolution which we have just passed. A strong and united voice calling unequivocally for a moratorium on the use of depleted uranium weapons is a positive step forward, even if it does not go as far as we would have liked. The and EFA were calling for a complete ban on the production, export and use of depleted uranium weapons and we believe that we have a legal as well as a moral basis for doing so. The UN Convention of October 1980 banned the use of certain indiscriminate weapons; the 1996 resolution of the Sub-Commission on Human Rights also explicitly condemned depleted uranium weapons because of their non-discriminatory character. The use of these weapons has already, therefore, been condemned in international law. We would also have been more reassured if the resolution had included our concerns about the methodology which is being used to assess the risks of depleted uranium. A growing number of scientists are now challenging the conventional methodology, which is based on doses of external radioactive rays rather than internally ingested or inhaled particles. Research shows that deaths from leukaemia resulting from the Chernobyl explosion have been one hundred times more than predicted by the relevant radiological protection boards, which have based their predictions on external rays. The enormity of this error conceals the fact that even very low doses of radiation, like that from depleted uranium, can in fact have devastating health impacts. It is therefore essential that we get this methodology right or else all the tests and screening in the world will be simply worthless. Finally, I would like to refer to the report on the front page of last week's European Voice, which proclaims that the new EU rapid reaction force is apparently planning to use depleted uranium weapons. Now remember this is a humanitarian force, which is planning to use a weapon that will leave an enormous legacy of cancers among the very civilians it is supposed to be there to protect. This is nothing short of scandalous and must be overturned.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The report indicates the need for financial transparency between Member States and undertakings. However, it is only interested in transparency with regard to public undertakings and only in terms of finding out whether state aid distorts competition between public and private undertakings. The fact of an undertaking deciding to lay off some of its staff, leading to further unemployment, when a small part of its profits could be used to keep these jobs, is of absolutely no interest to the European Commission. It is also not interested in the damage to the environment and to the safety and working conditions of employees caused by the race for maximum profits. More generally, the Commission is totally unconcerned about the complete lack of transparency which surrounds the fundamental decisions of all undertakings, such as the way in which they make their profits and the way they use these, even if to the detriment of society. We will vote against this draft directive and reaffirm that, in the interests of society, we must have total transparency in the operation and accounts of all undertakings, both public and private, and the abolition of secrecy in business. The first step in this area should be to repeal all laws which threaten to punish the employees of an undertaking who tell the public and users everything they know about the workings of this undertaking.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Advocates of the further development and use of biotechnology expect all kinds of benefits. However, they cannot prove that there are no major drawbacks attached. Nor can opponents of a rapid deployment of biotechnology prove that the drawbacks are such that no deployment should ever take place. The truth will only emerge in the long term, perhaps in 30 or 50 years’ time. In the meantime, patience and research are called for. It is precisely that kind of patience that is lacking in Mr Purvis’s proposal. On the contrary, following on from what was discussed here last month in relation to the Bowe report, he wants to make it difficult for Member States to maintain the moratorium independently. His aim is to give scope for rapid commercial use wherever possible. It is remarkable that the parties grouped in the , which call themselves Christian, are here throwing the door wide open to something, while they are still completely unsure as to whether they will have to explain it in retrospect as an improvement on God’s creation or as a further contribution to its progressive destruction. Instead of focusing all criticism on therapeutic cloning and voluntary euthanasia, it would have been more natural for these parties to be more critical on this of all points. I reject the Purvis report even more emphatically than I previously did the Bowe report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to express my joy at being able to address you now as a full Member of this House from Hungary. Even 20 years ago, the representatives of the Hungarian National Party regarded the achievement of close union with the countries of the western half of Europe as their main objective. During the last fifteen years, however, we have been able to learn quite a lot. The not yet completely finalised political, economic and social changes are quite interesting. We must work towards the objective that more and more people in Hungary – and in the accession countries – think that joining the European Union is not just a necessary solution, but something that really helps to ensure that people have a secure future. We have to create an economy where no elements can surface that would distort competition, but which at the same time allows the accession countries, including Hungary, to catch up. It is imperative that smaller villages, even the most disadvantaged rural areas, should be able to retain their population. Not only the difficulties associated with the closure of industrial production but also the disadvantages associated with changes in agricultural production, and even in tourism, must be taken into consideration. In Hungary, for example, Lake Balaton and its surrounding area require development, financial support is needed, because in addition to the main European roads the remainder of the road network should also be further developed, by establishing a north-south axis route in the western and central parts of Hungary. We can say that we are ready to join the European Union, but further major economic and social changes are required. The other political party in Hungary talks about modernisation. I do not think it is fashionable any more to advertise modern socialism, here in the institutions of the European Union, fortunately, nobody talks about it any more. We agree on the development of a knowledge-based economy and IT access possibilities. Emphasis must be placed, however, on managing the disadvantages of globalisation, increasing the number of jobs, and enabling the accession countries to catch up, with retention of the main elements of the social model. Accession will only be successful if the countries catch up with the existing members. Our wish is to be part of this.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, some confusion has arisen over the current dramatic situation in Colombia. It might be useful to recall that just a few days after his election victory – which incidentally was the greatest and most significant victory by a Colombian President in recent years – President Pastrana met with the top leadership of the FARC, the largest and most long-standing guerrilla group in the Americas. It was the first time in thirty years of conflict that a President-elect came face to face with the leaders of a guerrilla movement on Colombian soil. Three weeks after his investiture, the leadership of the ELN, the second largest guerrilla group in the country and representatives of civil society reached an agreement in the German town of Mainz. Negotiating tables were set up, and a demilitarised zone the size of Switzerland was established under guerrilla control. Unfortunately however, this whole period has been characterised by a conspicuous absence of peace. Furthermore, violence, murders, extortion, kidnaps and sabotage by left and right-wing armed groups have become more widespread than ever. Combined with the widespread climate of violence the country is enduring this situation has given rise to considerable scepticism regarding resolution of the conflict. What can the European Union do, faced with such a situation? As stated by the Commission and the Council, the only possible way forward is to support a specific European Union response aimed at promoting the strengthening of institutions, respect for human rights, alternative development, humanitarian aid and social development. Commissioner, Representative of the Council, let me put it to you: do you really believe that at this critical juncture Colombia can allow itself the luxury of foregoing the aid and resources being assembled thanks to international solidarity? An effort is clearly called for. It is also clear, Mr President, that moderation becomes reprehensible when it shies away from commitment. The European Union cannot and must not enter into any commitment other than a firm commitment to offer strong support for peace. For peace to be possible, three conditions must be met: cessation of criminal violence, a return to the negotiating table on the part of the guerrillas – President Pastrana has issued an appeal for them to do so and we hope it will be heeded-, and a firm commitment by the government to ensure that all the players in the peace process – every single one of them – reap the benefits of peace, along with civil society. Mr President, I am convinced that generosity, realism, and bold and imaginative proposals are the way forward. Above all, good will is the key to a solution to the Colombian problem which the European Union is able to endorse, as the Council and Commission representatives have stated here today.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on a point of order. I do not wish to delay matters. What Mr Dell'Alba has said is absolutely right. We have proved that 99.9% of Members of the European Parliament are capable of keeping up with the technological skills of their children. It would be quite absurd now not to proceed with the concluding votes on the Quaestors. As to the last point made by my colleague on the other side of the House about secrecy, I have not a single clue as to how my colleagues on this side of the House voted, because I did not choose to peer over their shoulders.

Political group: PPE-DE