GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the Commission's proposal emphasises the introduction of two new types of packaging in contact with food: what is known as 'active' packaging, which releases preservatives into the food, and what is known as 'intelligent' packaging, which warns consumers when the food has gone off or has some undesirable characteristic. Even though the rapporteur has attempted to improve the labelling rules, the decision-making procedures, including the procedure for authorisation by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), and access to public documents, the report, as it stands, is still unacceptable to the . Whereas Community legislation on food additives is regulated in great detail, the Commission's proposal simply introduces a general procedural framework, putting great emphasis on comitology. The door is wide open for the introduction of active packaging, without providing a strict framework for specific substances. We have been fighting for a very long time against the ever-increasing exposure of consumers to a whole host of additives and we refuse to let these become more widespread, which would be damaging to health. The therefore request that authorisation should be withheld from active packaging whose effects are not known, that it should be ensured that there are no toxic products in active packaging, and that Community legislation on food additives should be applied strictly if new food packaging is authorised. If our proposals are rejected, we will be obliged to vote against this report, which does not adequately consider the possible consequences for consumer health. How long will it be before we see urgent recalls of certain future types of packaging?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I can be very brief because this is not the first discussion we have held on the issue. In this context I would therefore also like to thank the rapporteur for her persistence in entering this item on the agenda again and again, for her persistence in repeatedly calling for a European financial Public Prosecutor. I think precisely that should be the end result, of Nice too. We must continue to work towards it with perseverance. We can see that there are major deadlocks in the Council, that some Member States have made no progress since 1995, that there are still deadlocks. However, we also see, and that is something I really welcome, that the current Commission has taken up this issue and endeavoured to draft a document for Nice, and that it is working on this issue together with Parliament. I believe that is an opportunity for us in this situation, because Parliament and the Commission can achieve something jointly. And the only way to break the Member States' resistance is by working jointly. Above all, we must seek to create openness. We held a hearing a short while ago. I believe we should continue with this. We also have to convince the members of the national parliaments, because that is the only way we can go on working and make progress. We urgently need a step in this direction, in order to persuade our electors, and especially our taxpayers, that the fight against fraud really is taken seriously at European level too and that we shall seek to ensure that the same criteria apply at European as at national level.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the report by Mr Piétrasanta concerns control of the tuna fishery. Today, therefore, I must speak on behalf of the young tuna. This is a serious statement because, according to the report, 55% of the tuna caught in European Union regulated fisheries between 1996 and 1999 were very young, baby tuna, weighing less than 3.2 kilograms, whereas they should have been tuna weighing 30-35 kilograms. I shall have to give up spaghetti with tuna, which I used to like very much, but I call on myself and the pensioners who listen to me not to eat any more tuna for a while, until such time as the technical means is found to avoid catching juvenile baby tuna along with adult tuna, because they too have a right to life. - Gallagher report (A5-0044/2001)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on behalf of my group, I would like to ask the Group and the Group to withdraw Amendment No 1 to this resolution. This amendment seeks to extend the list of terrorist organisations to a number of organisations. At the present time when the European Union is involved in a series of negotiations, most importantly with Columbia, and when a number of people – including a candidate from our political family as well as other candidates – are in the hands of terrorists, we feel that it would not be advisable for Parliament to extend lists which will not have any positive effect and which, on the contrary, will impact negatively on the negotiations. We therefore call upon the two majority groups to withdraw this amendment. (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0148/2002) by James Elles, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, on the Commission Communication to the Council on Reinforcing the Transatlantic Relationship: Focusing on Strategy and Delivering Results (COM(2001) 154 – C5-0339/2001 – 2001/2139(COS)) Amendment No 40:

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I want to thank the rapporteur for a typically sound report. This is an historic day in Parliament. Enlargement is the largest issue we have to work on within the European Union. Europe will in that way become more secure for future generations, and democracy will be stronger in our part of the world. In certain quarters, a number of people are, however, sceptical about this cooperation, which has been accused of being only for the richer countries in our part of the world. Now, we are opening up that cooperation to all the countries in our part of the world and showing that it is an option for the whole of Europe. I share the view expressed by quite a few other speakers that we can all become winners in this situation. Clearly, enlargement will entail short-term costs, but I am completely convinced that we shall see financial gains. I myself come from the Baltic region. I can envisage the economy growing in our part of Europe, thanks to enlargement. In the area of environmental policy, the major gains will be made through our taking measures in those countries that are now becoming members of the EU. It will be of benefit to them, and it will be of benefit to ourselves. The same applies in the area of the labour market where there is a risk of jobs’ moving as a result of poorer conditions. That situation will be improved through our all obtaining common minimum conditions. The other day, I was at a seminar on the subject of cross-border crime. Through close cooperation, we shall resolve this issue too. We all of us have the opportunities to become winners, both the existing EU countries and the candidate countries. It depends upon ourselves, however, and upon how we deal with the challenge now facing us. What we are concerned with here is a more diverse Europe that is richer economically, socially and culturally.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this Convention will only be successful if, in time, it becomes redundant. Needless to say, structural food aid will continue to be necessary as long as we have so many seriously undernourished people. The aim of this prevention exercise is to secure the developing countries’ own foodstocks and to phase out dependence on donor aid. In other words, the intention is not to help Europe get rid of its agricultural surpluses or to promote rich countries’ exports by means of soft loans. Excess production within European agriculture must be drastically reformed in order to re-adjust the market, the world’s poorest regions should not be used as a dumping ground for products of stubborn European mismanagement, and our efforts to stimulate exports should not be aimed at the poorest and most vulnerable countries in the world. The Fiori amendment is preoccupied with Europe’s own interests and is therefore wide of the mark. In fact, it promotes exactly the opposite of what is really needed, namely a strategy which leads to self-sufficiency. This means that the focus should be on stimulating local production. If this does not happen, our aid will have the opposite effect. The local producers will then be pushed out of the way from the outset by free or cheap products and the affected countries will remain dependent on the ‘oh so generous’ donors. Another implication of a correct strategy is that soft loans would not be linked to compulsory purchases in the donor country. Moreover, the permitted 20% credit is not really of any benefit because it can lead to unfair competition. Despite what has been agreed, food aid must remain restricted to financial aid and a range of real food. As such, vitamin tablets from Canada do not form part of this. Mr President, does the Commission share my view that European food aid itself should be streamlined and should be stripped of time-consuming red tape? Does the Commission think that this is feasible and could aid not be allocated via one development budget line? Mr President, the food problem can, in principle, be solved, even in Africa, provided we have a cohesive development policy intended to reduce poverty there instead of increasing wealth over here. Our aim should not be to fill the purses of a few but to fill the mouths of many. Only when we manage to achieve this will aid no longer be necessary.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, thank you, Commissioner, for that information. Of course I would have liked you to be more like Santa Claus and tell me now how much extra money we will have to produce in future for the minorities and for promoting minority languages. Naturally, I am aware of the legal framework. I want to look at the issue as a whole and ask, in that context, whether in future we might not be able to draw on the Structural Funds. A few weeks ago, the Braunmüller Verlag published a book by Dr. Christoph Pan entitled “Volksgruppen in Europa – Ein Handbuch” [Nations in Europe – a Handbook], which listed some 60 minority groups in the European Union, 300 in the continent of Europe. Out of a total of 750 million inhabitants, 100 million belong to minority groups. If the Central and Eastern European countries were members of the European Union, we would have another 50 or so minority groups on top of the existing 60 in the European Union of Fifteen. Dismantling the internal borders is certainly a substantial step forward, but we must be able to prepare these minorities. Would it be possible to fund that through the pre-accession programmes and the Structural Funds?

Political group: PPE-DE
In view of the potential risk that GMOs can constitute for the environment in general and biological diversity in particular, we Swedish have chosen to support a restrictive policy. With reference to the precautionary principle, we believe that the country of import’s rules must be respected by the exporter. We also believe it to be very important for common rules governing liability for damage to be drawn up at international level. It should, moreover, go without saying that we must not export GMOs that we do not ourselves permit within the European Union. The provisions of the regulation should be applied, irrespective of when the Cartagena Protocol comes into force. - Report Casaca (A5-0275/2002)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, how much longer can we continue our cooperation with Angola? Human rights are being violated consistently and have been for a long period of time, not only by UNITA, but also by the government itself. The legal proceedings against the journalists fly in the face of every legal principle. The Angolan Government must immediately authorise a substantial UN presence which can mediate and can report on human rights. Additionally, European observers will need to be admitted to the trials against the journalists. Europe, as a major donor, has so far remained too passive with regard to Angola. If the Angolan Government continues to refuse to cooperate, measures will need to be taken. Without national reconciliation, reconciliation with Europe is not possible. This being the case, Angola will unfortunately remain a very rough diamond.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, there are three things I want to point out. First of all, Mrs Lalumière’s report contains a whole programme setting out how the EU is to become a military superpower within the fairly near future. It is perhaps hard to see why, bearing in mind that Europe has no enemies and is not threatened by any military power. Secondly, the report is mainly concerned with military offensives outside the EU’s own territory. As a superpower, the EU is to be able to intervene anywhere in the world where the EU’s interests or values are threatened. In this way, the EU is to be an equivalent of the United States in the area of military intervention, too. I am convinced that this policy would be greeted with distrust by the people of Europe if they only knew about it. Thirdly, the very comprehensive report does not say a word about the non-aligned States or about neutrality as such. The farthest it goes in that direction is a scornful reference in paragraph 5 of the explanatory statement to ‘neutral’ countries (in inverted commas). The non-aligned countries must protest loudly and clearly against wordings of that kind and against the report as a whole.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, in the run-up to the meeting of the Foreign Ministers in Naples, pessimism about the likely outcome was evident. Credit must therefore be accorded to the Italian presidency for the significant progress that it made on very sensitive issues. In particular, I welcome the agreement that was reached on structured cooperation on defence and the positive signals emerging relating to the creation of an EU Foreign Minister and one Commissioner with full voting rights per Member State, and also the budgetary powers of Parliament. Despite this progress, much work needs to be done. To have an effective influence on the world stage, we must end our paralysis in Common Foreign and Security Policy decision-making. The presidency's proposals for the use of qualified majority voting, and acting on the proposal for an EU Minister for Foreign Affairs, represent a step in the right direction. However, I would like to see progress in a number of other areas: The proposal that there should be a full-time President of the European Council has the potential to undermine both the role of both the President of the Commission and the Foreign Minister. Up to now, the only permanent presidency in existence was that of the Commission. As the President of the Council will have responsibilities in the field of CFSP, this could conflict with the role of Foreign Minister and could cause confusion as to who authoritatively speaks for the EU in this field. It would be more sensible to refer to this post as 'Chair' of the European Council and not 'President'. In congratulating the presidency on the progress made to date, I would also like to issue a warning. The draft Constitution represents a bottom line compromise. Agreement at the Intergovernmental Conference is therefore not solely a matter for Member State governments. If the outcome of the IGC is to be ratified successfully it must also secure the consent of other institutions such as the European Parliament, the European Commission and members of national parliaments. The Italian presidency would ignore this reality at its peril.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, even though we are all reeling from the terrorist act in Spain, there is a matter on which I would ask you to provide the Members of this House with full information. According to reports in the media, there have been irregularities and instances of fraud in connection with the registers. In order that this should not reflect on all the Members of this House who sign themselves in properly on a regular basis, I ask the Bureau to conduct a full investigation of this – and also of the individual cases – and to inform all Members as to what is going on. In the run-up to the elections, it would be a worst-case scenario if – as is now being asserted in the media – individual Members of this House were to be found regularly misusing the registers as a means of pocketing money to which they were not entitled. I would ask that these things be investigated fully and that we should all be given full and honest information. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
We welcome the fact that two important proposals, which we have retabled in plenary, have been adopted. - The first acknowledges that, in order to ensure maritime safety, crewmembers must be qualified, have decent working hours and conditions and a reasonable salary and that the exploitation that takes place on countless vessels must be ended. This is why the Commission is called on to adopt legislative measures to harmonise and enhance this profession at European level and to sign up to this idea under the auspices of the IMO. - The second advocates EU action to ban flags of convenience in European territorial waters. Hence our vote in favour.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Our vote against shows our opposition both to the guidelines of the economic policies based on the Stability Pact and to changes contained in the report that also point in the same direction. Unfortunately, the Community institutions, particularly the European Parliament, insist on keeping to the course of the macroeconomic policies despite all the evidence and the need for growth and employment in the European Union. We should be moving in the opposite direction, with more investment, particularly public investment given the period of economic slow-down, the risk factors persisting on an international scale and the growth in unemployment. The Trentin report calls for fulfilment of the Barcelona strategy, confirming the liberal trend of Lisbon. It calls for greater flexibility in the job market, and accepts wage moderation, despite introducing the possibility of growth based on productivity, and forgetting that the move from wages to profits did not result in more investment or more jobs. It also calls for worker flexibility and mobility and wants higher quality jobs, which is a contradiction. There will only be more jobs if there is more investment, and higher quality if the jobs are not temporary, insecure and poorly paid, which the report unfortunately does not confirm. Even certain positive aspects that it addressed were voted down in plenary. - Council reform (B5-0249/2002)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Fidel Castro is evidently afraid of nothing so much as his own people. Which is why he is scared to death of democratic reforms and is eliminating opponents. In the shadow of Iraq, Fidel now sees his opportunity to put more than 75 dissidents and independent journalists behind bars for a villainously long time. Their only crime is that they disagree with the regime, are open about it and are possibly supported by the Americans. On my visit to Cuba in December it became clear to me that Cuba wants better relations with the European Union and is keen to accede to the Cotonou Agreement. To this end the Commission office was recently opened in Havana. Four days later came the arrests. What a slap in the face of the European Union! If the political detainees are not released, the question arises as to what the point is of a political dialogue and of a European Union office. Nor do any negotiations need to be conducted with regard to the Cotonou Agreement. I would like to hear what Commissioner Bolkestein has to say on the subject. As human rights rapporteur I have spoken to many Cuban authorities, including the Vice President and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Unfortunately, I have to say now that they wrong-footed me with their evasive answers. Political processes behind closed doors are old Soviet practices for which there is no longer a place in a civilised world. The American boycott is ill-advised. Cuba is crazy about dollars. That is why a new invasion is needed. Not of soldiers but of peaceful visitors from America and Cuba. Democrats of the world unite ... in Cuba and give Castro a fright, by opening not only your wallet but also your mouth.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Mr Andersson’s report contains a lot that is of interest. Unfortunately, what is most interesting is that the report, which purports to be concerned with a combined strategy for modernising social policy, instead proposes an extension of traditional social policy and more supranationalism in the social sphere. Social policy needs to be renewed in order to reduce unemployment in the Member States. Even though the s, now that there are so many social democratic governments, talk much less about unemployment than they used to, the unemployment in question is still high, and this in spite of the trade boom. Something must be done so that unemployment does not turn the so-called European model into a parody. Social policy must facilitate employment, creating incentives for employers and employees to, respectively, provide and accept jobs. Mr Andersson’s report demands social convergence, that is to say that systems should be increasingly standardised within and throughout the EU. The EU should apparently adopt what are called real convergence criteria, which would be binding and of real effect. Mr Andersson also wants to see efficient and ambitious tax coordination, that is to say supranationalism in the fiscal sphere. The EU should also, on the basis of a uniform definition of poverty thresholds, table recommendations concerning what is called the minimum acceptable subsistence level in the Member States. The EU should devise guidelines governing the quality of the job opportunities which are to be created, whatever that may mean. It is certainly not going to be possible to reduce unemployment with all these additional regulations and forms of interference. Those structural problems which make unemployment higher in Europe than in the United States will become even greater. There is no need at all for supranationalism in this area. The Member States can devise their own systems in the social sphere, each within the framework of its economic resources and political preferences. It is most especially important not to create unnecessary problems before the enlargement of the EU. Mr Andersson thinks that the less wealthy Eastern countries should be reminded that social convergence is to apply to them too. It is obvious, however, that these countries, impoverished within a Communist economic system, cannot cope with a social policy like, for example, Sweden’s. Talk of minimum regulations and poverty thresholds is meaningless to the present Member States and unreasonable as far as less wealthy applicant States are concerned.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I move that any member should be able to use the travel office to visit groups of visitors within a radius of 25 kilometres of the European Parliament at any time. At the moment we are only allowed to travel 20 kilometres, which equates to a 15 kilometre radius. That is too short, given the hundreds of kilometres which many groups travel in order to come here. Please could you take suitable action here. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I was not recorded as present in yesterday’s Minutes. Please excuse me. Can the matter be corrected?

Political group: ELDR