GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I fully support the Commission’s endeavours to simplify the legislative framework from 17 directives to a single regulation. However, Commissioner, precisely because this is a regulation, you know better than I do that prudence must be exercised, for the regulation will be implemented immediately and, by its nature, harmonises, or rather, I would say, as good as standardises all the procedures throughout the vast area of the Union in the food and gastronomy sector, which, we must never forget, is a major part of the culture and civilisation of our continent. I therefore agree that there is a need for harmonisation, but we must remember to exercise caution. I would like to focus on three points, in particular. The first, which has been fully addressed in the report and by the rapporteur, is the question of traditional products, products which have a history not just as products but in terms of their production processes too. Restricting these products to geographical areas or local markets is not enough: they are genuine products which need to be dealt with separately. Secondly, the question of the primary sector, which is certainly not fully covered by the regulation but which is regulated to some extent. The situation is different for the primary sector, particularly where small and medium-sized businesses are concerned. I have tabled an amendment which I urge you to support, which seeks, at least, to reduce the bureaucratic, administrative impact as regards keeping documents – it makes no sense for records relating to vegetables to have to be kept for five years. Thirdly – apart from the question of game, which I will mention briefly in passing, with regard to which a balanced solution appears to have been found – there is training. It is right to ensure that our food chain operators are always trained. With regard to this aspect too, we must avoid enlarging the scope of the debate to include quality, which is a separate issue: there must be training on hygiene and hygiene alone.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner Verheugen said this afternoon that there would be no social or environmental dumping as a result of enlargement. I believe this is an important goal and all those involved must do their bit to ensure that we achieve this goal. The points raised by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy in the Brok report are the steps we need to take to this end, and it is essential that we take them if we are to counteract any slowing of the pace on the European environmental policy front. My group therefore supports the proposal to limit the transitional periods in the environmental sphere to a maximum of five years. Our political demand is for the problem areas of water, air and waste to be made a priority. If transitional periods are to be granted, then it would be both necessary and helpful to include realistic interim goals in the accession treaty, and to regard failure to attain these interim goals as a violation of the treaty. Parliament must be given the information it needs to be able to assess the situation in the candidate countries. Annual reports from the Commission allow us to follow the implementation process. The issue of nuclear safety is one of the major challenges facing the enlargement process. The efforts that have already been made in this sphere demonstrate that this is another area where the enlargement process represents a golden opportunity to achieve greater security in the candidate countries, and indeed in the whole of Europe. This translates into greater security for the people in the candidate countries and greater security for all the people of Europe. Nuclear power stations of first generation Soviet construction are a particular danger as far as Europe is concerned. We call upon the candidate countries to shut down those of their nuclear power stations that they cannot refit, by the date of accession at the very latest. I have three particular nuclear power stations in mind, and they are Bohunice, Ignalina and Kosloduj.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would firstly like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Kuckelkorn, for an excellent report. Next year’s budget is very rigorous in terms of the administrative budget, as the rapporteur stated. The fact that this year we shall have ten new Member States and the same number of new official languages makes it all the more rigorous. The issue of Parliament’s multilingualism is an enormous challenge. It calls for a new kind of flexibility in the areas of translation and interpreting. Nowhere else in the world is there a body that functions so multilingually as the EU institutions. This nevertheless requires special action and care; otherwise, the multicultural principle could become chaos. That is why the administration should make a special effort to ensure that the posts are filled and the translation work flows smoothly right from the moment of accession. In the new environment there will be an increase in retour interpreting. This could lead to a situation where all of Parliament is dependent on one interpreter who is translating from a less common official language into a more common one. To ensure the quality of translation work it will be necessary to translate from more than one interpretation booth. This in practice means making special demands on the ‘bigger’ language groups, such as English, French and German, making it necessary for them to be able to translate from more source languages than the other interpreter groups. A major political issue in recent years has been the adoption of the Members’ Statute. It was hugely disappointing that it should have become the subject of internal disagreements in the Council. The European Parliament, and its current President, Patrick Cox, in particular, had worked very hard dealing with this matter, and, consequently, it was too bad that it was torpedoed. It is important that the Members’ Statute is adopted speedily, so that it could come into effect preferably by the start of the next parliamentary term. This year’s budget at long last saw the implementation of activity-based budgeting as far as the Commission is concerned. It allows us to see directly how much each activity costs. The same activity-based budgeting approach should also gradually be applied to the administrative budget, to the European Parliament, for example. This way we would also be in a better position to monitor developments in administrative costs and expenditure in different administrative branches. I would like to wish the rapporteur every success in his work.

Political group: ELDR
Throughout Europe, the restructuring and relocation of companies, particularly multinationals, has resulted in several thousand employees being laid off, a situation that is unacceptable and that is to be condemned for the serious economic and social consequences it has on the workers, on the region and on the country affected. Cases such as that of Michelin in France, of Renault, Grundig, Siemens and Texas Instruments, amongst others, in Portugal, have made it clear that it is crucial to strengthen European legislation and legislation in the Member States in order to protect workers’ rights, particularly their jobs, and to prevent multinationals from continuing to act in an arbitrary way, in order to achieve greater profits. It is particularly important that special attention is paid to the granting of any kind of subsidy to these companies, which should always be conditional on jobs being maintained, and weighty penalties must be provided for as well as the return of subsidies received if this does not happen. It is equally vital that the necessary measures are taken to give more rights and more scope for intervention to the European Works Councils established in the 94/95 directive, particularly in terms of the right to suspend licences.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the Commissioner has said that the Commission has no scientific proof of the correlation between bee mortality and the use of new generation pesticides. I would like to tell the Commissioner that I have at his disposal the report of the Scientific and Technical Committee on the Multifactorial Study of Disorders of Bees, to which I referred in my introduction and which demonstrates that correlation. This report is at your disposal, Commissioner, and we shall meet again on 9 October, when we will be discussing the draft resolution on which the Committee on Agriculture will be voting next week in conclusion of this debate. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Given the extremely poor living conditions of millions and millions of migrants and victims of trafficking in human beings throughout the world and in Europe, who are forced to endure situations of unacceptable exploitation and humiliation, without any rights, I welcome the Council’s conclusion of the agreement on the UN Convention against organised transnational crime and the protocols thereto against the trafficking of persons and the smuggling of migrants. This is an instrument of international law that will contribute to closer cooperation between countries in the fight against organised crime, in particular by harmonising the definition of offences (involvement in an organised criminal network, money laundering, obstruction of justice and corruption), through measures including mutual legal assistance and joint investigations. The protocols, for their part, are designed to enable measures to be developed to combat trafficking in human beings in particular women and children thereby protecting such people against slavery, sexual exploitation and illegal employment. These measures include providing victims with assistance and support. These are measures that need to be implemented urgently and effectively, and absolutely must be complemented by other policies to combat the deep-rooted societal causes of today’s organised economic crime, from financial crime to the exploitation of men, women and children.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner Byrne did not answer my question about when the contract about research into better vaccines - marker vaccines, etc. - against contagious animal diseases would be concluded. Fortunately, he said that the insurance study is almost completed. However, the study on market vaccines has not yet started. When will it start?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, just before I begin on the Flemming report I want to speak about the Katiforis report, which we rejected. I feel very strongly that by rejecting that report we have done nothing today in this House to promote public health. We should never forget that tobacco is the biggest cause of preventable illness across the EU and that each year half a million EU citizens die needlessly due to tobacco. The Commission's proposal would have helped people to stop smoking and it is very sad that we did not support this. However, on to the matter at hand – the Flemming report. Although the report was rejected, I should like to explain why I and my two colleagues from Scotland supported some of the amendments. Firstly, we believe that, in line with Amendment No 3, no country may be obliged to hand over water against its will and free of charge. The amendment speaks for itself, and that it is why we supported it. Amendment No 5 was concerned with the more technical matter of water basins. We agree that water basin areas are not suitable bases for water pricing policies in all regions. Much of our water in Scotland is in inter-basin management and, therefore, we had to support it. Thirdly, the rejection of the Flemming report probably was ensuring that no one report could be hijacked by such a national interest. I hope we will continue the discussion on water, as so many of our citizens are very concerned with this issue.

Political group: PSE
The British Conservatives believe that this is an ill-timed report which tries to move the discussion forward beyond what the representatives and the people themselves want. We believe that it should come about as a result of one's citizenship of a Member State, and not of Europe. We are all, of course, 'Europeans' but most people would not recognise an actual citizenship of Europe as being superior to the citizenship of their own country. We want to make people more caring and interested in the communities in their own nation states rather than create an artificial right, as the rapporteur seems to be suggesting. The British Conservatives are opposed to the principles of the report for the reasons outlined above.

Political group: PPE-DE
I sincerely hope that the Tampere Summit marked a step away from Fortress Europe, as claimed by the EU Presidency. The confirmation of the Geneva Refugee Convention “in its full and wide interpretation” is an important victory for the and many non-governmental organisations. I regret, however, that for most asylum-seekers, the only way to get into the Union is still an illegal one. The new approach towards combating illegal immigration in the countries of origin bears a risk, since the cooperation could lead to a sort of repression. The Union must tackle the problem at its roots to truly improve human rights and economic conditions of people living in those countries. Our Group welcomes the increased efforts to fight money-laundering and trafficking of human beings. But we insist that increased powers for Europol must be accompanied by equally increased democratic safeguards at Union level to ensure respect for civil rights. This includes control by the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice. The think that the status of third-country nationals needs to be further improved beyond the Tampere proposals. Fair treatment includes not just the right of access to social services or education, but also the right to vote and free movement in the EU. The Charter of Fundamental Rights must include new and binding rights for EU citizens if it is not to become a mere political declaration.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, my group asked that this debate be set up in order to provide Parliament with an opportunity to express its solidarity with the people directly affected by this ecological disaster, affected both in terms of their economic activities and in terms of their attachment to their natural environment. Let me, in this connection, welcome the presence in the visitors’ gallery of Mrs Javette-Le Besque, spokesperson for the oil slick action group “Marée noire”, made up of men and women from the French department of Morbihan. Many volunteers from France and other European countries have expressed their solidarity by lending a hand to the victims in the field. As the European Parliament, we can express our solidarity primarily by taking action in order to ensure the immediate release of emergency aid to the families affected by the oil slick and, at the same time, demanding tightening up of the quality criteria, on the European and international scale, of the regulations and standards governing the safety of sea transport, stipulating much more frequent inspection and sanctions that are a far greater deterrent to offenders. Our proposals are particularly concerned with the age of oil tankers. Among those inspected and found to be in contravention of regulations last year, 15 were at least 20 years old and some were 30 and more. This is no longer tolerable. Next, we have flags of convenience. According to the International Transport Federation, over 40% of the ships wrecked in 1998 were sailing under flags of convenience, the symbol of profit and the exploitation of human beings at the expense of safety. This is no longer tolerable. Finally, there is the lack of transparency. Everything is done to make the lines of responsibility, the identity of the owners and real decision-makers as impenetrable as possible. This is no longer tolerable. In all these respects we must ensure real, significant change, including setting a time limit for the switch to new standards, including the mandatory double hull, on pain of being banned from the ports or the territorial waters of Member States. We must also ensure increased strictness both in issuing sea-worthiness certificates and in monitoring the condition and the maintenance of vessels. Finally we must ensure that all the parties responsible for disasters contribute to repairing the damage caused. I am thinking specifically of Total-Fina in the present instance. This is an approach, Mr President, which the European Union can develop with regard to the International Maritime Organisation. In so doing, it will have proved its usefulness to public opinion which, in this instance, is awaiting clear, tangible action.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I voted against the proposal to expand the liberalisation of rail transport in Europe. Although the effects of directive 2001/12 on access rights to the Trans-European rail freight network could not be evaluated, because it is still being transposed in the Member States, the European Commission and Mr Jarzembowski propose to speed up the complete liberalisation of rail transport. It is simplistic to claim that the fall in rail’s competitiveness is due to its failure to open up. Passenger rail transport did not need to be opened up for competitive and safe rail lines to be built. Cooperation between operators works – at least where the Thalys is concerned. What Europe lacks is an industrial policy, closer cooperation between public service operators and the development of Member States’ and the Union’s budgets for investment in the trans-European networks. Despite the improvements that have been made to it, Mr Sterckx’s report confirms what the Council of Ministers has already accepted: subordinating safety to profit. I support the Savary report on creating a European Railway Agency, whose administrative board would include representatives from employees’ organisations and which would take account of the environmental, social and safety aspects in line with the proposals tabled by Mrs Ainardi.

Political group: PSE
Whilst I am delighted at the political unification of Europe decided on in principle in Copenhagen, I regret the fact that this is to be undertaken with excessively limited financial resources. The European Council has not even exhausted the envelope set in Berlin for the period 2003-2006. At the time, this was supposed to fund the accession of six new States. With less money, we are now supposed to cater for ten new members. Of the less than EUR 41 billion earmarked over three years, almost EUR 14 billion actually come from contributions from the new States themselves, which reduces the ‘joint’ effort of the 15 to some EUR 27 billion over three years, in other words, an annual transfer of less than 0.1 % of current Community GDP to the acceding countries. This is shamefully little, given the structural problems of almost all these countries. Under the Marshall plan, for five years after World War II, the USA transferred 1% of its GDP at the time to Europe. The FRG has for more than ten years transferred between three and four per cent of its GDP to the new ‘Länder’, totalling some EUR 75 billion per year. Since commitment appropriations are not the same as payments, it is to be feared that some of the earmarked funds will not reach the countries for which they are intended. As the Court of Auditors has just observed, of the EUR 520 million earmarked in 2001 under the Sapard programme, only EUR one million has actually reached the candidate countries. (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule (137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: PSE
I am very pleased that, against the advice of the rapporteur, Mr Liese, the European Parliament has today opened the door to the funding of research into embryonic stem cells. Through this vote, the European Parliament is delivering a genuine message of hope to all patients (diabetics, those suffering from Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases and people with chronic heart failure and other diseases). It gives researchers the means of finding, and perhaps soon, remedies for incurable diseases. There are three reasons why I voted as I did. Firstly, my vote was perfectly consistent with the position adopted by the Strasbourg plenary on 15 May 2002 on the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Development. The creation of embryos from gametes donated for the purpose of obtaining stem cells is therefore prohibited. Secondly, the five Member States opposed to any funding of embryonic stem cell research will not be able to prevent Europe from advancing, since such funding is in the interests of Europeans awaiting treatment. Thirdly, the opponents of this form of regenerative medicine find their position to be self-contradictory. They are people who consider that the embryo is an entirely independent living being from the first day but who are in favour, however, of the destruction of supernumerary embryos cultivated for the purposes of in vitro fertilisation. (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Article 137 (1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: ELDR
I am disappointed with the answer given by the Council, because Mrs Hjelm-Wallen, the Swedish Deputy Prime Minister, said publicly in Stockholm on 23 March 2001 that she was in favour of a Tobin tax, in spite of the usual objections. I believe that the reasons given by Mrs Boudjenah are very well-founded. How can we refuse to look into a tax which could be very low and which would thus not affect goods trade and investments, since it would represent 0.1%, but which, on the other hand, would enable resources of an estimated USD 50 to 250 billion to be generated, which would considerably assist developing countries to deal with their problems. You are aware that at the Conference on LDCs which was held recently at the European Parliament in Brussels, it was shown that 43% of people in these countries do not have access to drinking water, 50% of the population is illiterate, one child in six will not live beyond five years old, and that since 1990, the debt of the LDCs has risen from USD 121 billion to USD 150 billion, despite the Cologne initiative. I believe, therefore, that the Council should investigate the possibility of introducing this tax, particularly in preparation for the United Nations’ Conference on development funding which will be held in Mexico in March 2002.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, would it not be possible to do so before the vote tomorrow lunchtime?

Political group: PSE
The President-in-Office's reply, I am sorry to say, is far from satisfactory. It smacks of formal, departmental despatches rather than political initiative. The Caucasus needs a more extensive plan and more extensive initiatives if it is to be stabilised. And a European Union which – from what I have read in the newspapers – recently changed its strategy on its energy problems and is now looking more towards the former Soviet Union – with all the implications which that has for the region in general – obviously cannot remain passive and fail to react to developments. So from this point of view, and because, of course, the question was not asked in order to elicit an expression of satisfaction that everything is just fine but in order to express a concern, I think that it could be used as the starting point for an integrated policy, such as that which we have been debating recently for the Balkans; in other words, a new stability agreement for the Caucasus, at the political initiative of the European Union and with political objectives and priorities concerning development, autonomy and democracy in this region.

Political group: PSE