GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would like to take advantage of the presence of the Commissioner, Mrs Reding, to ask her a specific question. I refer to what must certainly have been a rather embarrassing decision on the part of the Commission to abolish budget heading B3-1026 relating to the field of sport, which supported the programme entitled ‘Sport: preparatory measures for a Community policy in the field of sport’, on the basis of notice No 33 published in 2002 by the DG for Culture and Sport. This programme covered two themes: sport as a tool for educating young people and combating the scourge of doping. Without warning, the Commission said that there was no longer enough money because the funds had been absorbed by enlargement, an explanation which is decidedly inappropriate, particularly given that many projects had already been carried out and also in view of the fact that next year – as you are aware, Mr President – will be the Year of Educating Young People through Sport. This was to be a programme to prepare for the Year of Sport and it has been abolished. I would like to know why.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, the border regions adjoining the future Member States of the European Union need our undivided attention now and even more after enlargement. Everywhere, especially in my country, the border regions are marked by extremely high unemployment and dying villages and towns. Young people are leaving because they see no future there. The only way we can halt this negative trend is to support those regions, modernise the infrastructure, create transport links and make small and medium sized enterprises fit to meet the challenge. Because it is they who create the most jobs. If the EU and the Member States themselves encourage and support the border regions, which are suffering massive problems, and that help must include preventing low-wage dumping and unfair competition, then a sense of cross-border neighbourliness will grow and that will be to everyone’s advantage. The historic task of enlargement must succeed. We have no alternative.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, rapporteurs, thank you for your contributions and efforts, although I can imagine that Mr Stevenson is not altogether happy that his name has been associated with this report. There is a reason for this. With regard to the Hudghton report, I should like to say that it is crucial in future to really involve regional consultative committees in order to keep, and use, the mix of science and hands-on knowledge as closely to fishing as possible, thus giving us information and allowing the topic to be approached from a more European point of view. I should like to make a few comments with regard to the Fava report. These are tough times, of course. There must be severe cut-backs, as the Fisheries Council decided in December 2002. There is a plan to cushion the negative social and economic impact of restructuring, which is necessary and unavoidable. It is particularly unfortunate and regrettable for people who are hit by it. I set great store by implementing the plan as effectively as possible, and this should be backed up by the necessary resources. It is important, in my view, for the sector itself to be involved in the plans that are required to offer these people new opportunities. Money on its own cannot offer a structural, long-term solution. In recent years, subsidies have been granted continuously to the small-scale sector that was facing difficult times, but this money has not led to a smoothly-running small-scale fishing industry. Therefore, if resources are deployed, it should be with the intention that the sector can ultimately help itself and take its future into its own hands. I have already tabled amendments to this effect in the past. Structural change, offering alternatives, is what is crucial. The Member States also have an important role to play, not only by handing out subsidies but also by changing policy, setting up new tasks and creating new opportunities for the sector in society. I think that we should indeed learn from this experience, and I hope that we can maintain a balanced policy.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, Commissioner, I think this is a very wide ranging and difficult subject. I have listened very carefully to what you have said and I come now to a topic that I would have liked to have put before you earlier But I believe that a joint effort may perhaps still elicit an answer from you. Nitrofurans is a generic term. One very important product it covers is Nifursol. Nifursol is the last histomonostat still to be permitted in the EU for use as an additive in poultry feed to prevent blackhead disease. I admit I am not a scientist. According to my information, however, experts say that this product was banned for good in Regulation 2377/90. The Scientific Committee for Animal Nutrition (SCAN) was asked by the Commission to make a risk assessment of Nifursol. Investigations that will give a definite answer have yet to be carried out. Because I also have the feed additives report, I have now heard the alarm bells ringing, because many who are concerned with this matter fear there will be a treatment crisis in a few months’ time. As a logical consequence of the ban on nitrofurans in Regulation 2377/90, Regulation 1756/2002 was issued on 23 September 2002, banning Nifursol from 31 March 2003. When this ban comes into force on 31 March, there will, for example, be a crisis in the treatments used to combat blackhead disease in turkeys. No alternative remedy is available legally in the EU, either as a feed additive or as a veterinary medicine. The consequences of the ban will hit both fatteners and consumers. The consequences are a treatment emergency, a painful end for large stocks of birds, jeopardy for turkey farms, the development of an uncontrollable black market, and an increase in imports of poultry from third countries, where many substances that are banned in the EU are used with few or any controls. Only last week antibiotics of the nitrofuran group that are banned in the EU were found again in cheap imports of meat from third countries. Logically, mixed feed manufacturers will now have to stop using Nifursol by January 2003 at the latest if there is to be no more such feed in the silos by the beginning of March. My question to you this evening, although I do not know whether you can answer it, is: what solutions do we now have available? Personally I find it hard to understand how the Commission can on the one hand, in the report in my possession, on the Commission’s draft of which we worked very hard – approve the use of histomonostats,–– while on the other hand, in another regulation, banning the only product in existence on this market. I therefore have a few questions. What are we to say to the fatteners? What are they to do? What forms of treatment are available to them? And secondly, is the Commission aware that European production is continuing to decline, is disappearing from the market in the European Union and that we are being increasingly exposed to third country imports of turkey meat, although we still do not know what quality standards those imports come up to?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to inform the House that at the end of the debate yesterday afternoon, Mr Napolitano, in response to statements made during the debate by myself and others, made the following offer: he suggested that we ought to withdraw Amendments Nos 18 and 12 in order that he might, through the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, propose the bringing forward of a specific report on the issue of constitutional regions in the architecture of Europe. Many of us believe that is a very important question. Those who think it is important are divided at the moment between those who would wish to include it in this report and those who would wish to deal with it in another context. The best course – and my group agrees with this as I believe the Liberals do as well – will be for us to accept Mr Napolitano's generous proposition that this should be raised as a separate topic in its own right through the Constitutional Affairs Committee and that we should withdraw these amendments. I therefore propose that be done. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, education is assuming an ever more important role in the European strategy. The conclusions of the Lisbon Summit emphasised the importance of education both in improving competitiveness and preventing exclusion. It is only natural that the quality of school education should receive attention also at Union level, although the organisation of education itself is the responsibility of the Member States. We need Europe-wide cooperation and encouragement in all areas of education. Systematic quality evaluation in education is still in its infancy in many EU countries. In Finland, for example, there were legal provisions introduced on it as part of national educational legislation just two years ago. A report on the subject prepared in Helsinki last week shows that evaluation is not yet adequately systematic in nature, although it has got off to a brisk start. The report points out, for example, that comprehensive and high school education has not paid adequate attention to cooperation between pupils, their parents and the organisers of education. The importance of including pupils and their home background in decision making is certainly worth bearing in mind. Education cannot just be looked at from the limited point of view of competitiveness. There must be room for different sorts of talent, but, at the same time, we have to ensure that the others remain included. Education has a major part to play in building an equal and integrated society. Well-organised education means that national resources are being put to the best possible use. In my opinion, schools must be developed in such a way that all children starting their compulsory education can achieve success. That is why the evaluation of quality cannot just focus on results, which give a narrow picture of the situation. Education is not just about information and skills gathering, but also personal development, in the shape, for example, of a healthy sense of self-worth. It is a positive sign that a common position on the quality evaluation of school education is ready to be approved so quickly. Mrs Sanders-ten Holte, Commissioner Reding and the Council all deserve the credit for this. We are making good progress with this important issue.

Political group: PSE
The final version of the new directive on genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) certainly has some good points, such as improved controls, public registers, the gradual elimination of antibiotic-resistant gene markers etc. Nevertheless, it allows for consent to be granted for mass cultures and, in my view, does not apply the precautionary principle in full. The debate illustrated the considerable risks from GMOs without throwing up any definitive or persuasive arguments to the contrary. We refer to the risks to public health (allergies, increased resistance to antibiotics, possible toxicity), and, in more general terms, to the ecosystems in which GMOs are released (threat to biodiversity etc.). Add to this the fact that current knowledge on GMOs is still – and generally admitted to be – inadequate, in that there is no systematic or confirmed information on how the overall genetic material introduced into the gene acts and develops. ‘Accidents’ or ‘surprises’ have already been recorded in specific cases of this sort of genetic manipulation in the USA, Australia and elsewhere. Even the Council's common position was adopted despite the fact that Member States such as France, Italy and Denmark stated that they felt that a new five-year moratorium was needed. All this reinforces our reservations and our belief that, quite apart from the need to strengthen controls and monitoring, the time has not yet come to legalise the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment. Furthermore, we are by no means convinced that GMOs can contribute to agricultural productivity and development; we are barely even convinced that they can help reduce certain pesticides, as is already being stated in American studies on a large number of areas cultivated with GMOs. Clearly, one of the main reasons for insisting on the dissemination of GMOs is that it gives certain companies the opportunity to register patents and exclusive rights to varieties containing GMOs, as the Italian Minister of Agricultural Policy recently remarked in the Italian press. It is for these reasons that we are unable to vote in favour of the common position on the new directive on GMOs. - García-Orcoyen Tormo report (A5-0033/2001)

Political group: GUE-NGL
The completion of the internal market in rail transport is certainly every bit as desirable as it is essential. However, I believe that this objective can be achieved after a reasonable transitional period, in accordance with the principle of gradual liberalisation, without it necessarily requiring a statutory split between the provision of transport services by train operators on the one hand and infrastructure management on the other. I cannot therefore support the recommendation for second reading as presented by a majority of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism. In my own small country of Luxembourg, splitting up the railway company in this way would, for many good reasons, but not least safety, transport quality and railwaymen’s working conditions, be inappropriate to the point of absurdity. We find the Council's common position much more acceptable, because it does more to take into consideration the specific geopolitical and geographical circumstances of individual Member States, yet without undermining the unity of the single market. It is also impossible for me to accept the deletion here at second reading of the provision under which Luxembourg, as a Member State with a relatively small rail network, does not need to apply the requirement to award the functions determining equitable and non-discriminatory access to infrastructure to an independent body until 31 August 2004. Article 6 of the directive in fact obliges Member States to establish independent bodies performing these tasks. For the above-mentioned reasons I was unable to vote for the substantial amendments to the Council’s common position. I believe that the compromise negotiated in the Council of Ministers on 28 March 2000 is better and much more realistic.

Political group: PPE-DE
This preliminary draft budget by the Commission, which represents less than 1.06% of the Community’s GNP, is truly the lowest that has ever been drawn up and is, therefore, unacceptable, not least because it represents a reduction in spending, especially in the area of cooperation with least-developed third countries. Not even East Timor has escaped this downward trend in spending. The report’s conciliatory tone is, therefore, surprising, as is its lack of strategy and priorities. These absences are also surprising in the face of an oft-heralded enlargement, not to mention social issues, which are all but ignored. The European Parliament needs to be more audacious and should not simply accept what it is presented with, as is happening once again. As a matter of fact, the presentation of the fourth (!) amending budget in the current year is an example of the budgetary chaos in which the Community operates and also proves us right for having tabled a motion refusing to discharge the budget last year. In the meantime and if we are to believe the Haug report, the solution to all of these problems would be to create a Community tax! We consider this kind of proposal to be a red herring. Apart from issues of principle raised by such a proposal, it must be emphasised that the reduction in the Community budget is primarily a result of the restrictive guidelines laid down in the Stability Pact. This is where the appropriate answers can be found. Furthermore, it is a matter of priority to ensure that the participation of the Member States takes place according to their relative wealth – on the basis of their GNP – and that the contribution by the citizens is fair and balanced. Solidarity is a fundamental issue, which must be addressed together with the Community budgetary revenues. - Niebler report (A5-0232/2001)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I am undeservedly deputising for Mr Nisticò, the rapporteur, who is unable to be here, and I assure Commissioner Liikanen that I will pass on his thanks and compliments. For my fellow Members’ information, I will therefore very briefly describe the measure which we will be voting on tomorrow and, as Commissioner Liikanen already said, represents common ground which the Parliamentary delegation to the Conciliation Committee has supported, endorsed and which it commends to the House for a positive vote tomorrow. As Commissioner Liikanen has already said, this is an amendment to the twenty-third amendment of Directive 76/769 relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (substances classified as carcinogens, mutagens or substances toxic to reproduction). The proposal, based on Article 95 of the Treaty, has two main objectives: to safeguard the internal market by introducing harmonised provisions on the marketing and use of the above-mentioned substances and to achieve a high level of protection for human health and the environment. It is appropriate to point out that we are talking about 25 substances in particular, 14 of which are classified as category 2 carcinogens, such as some cobalt salts, cadmium, benzopyrene, azoic colouring agents and so on; three of these are classified as mutagens and eight as toxic to reproduction. For example, it has been established that cobalt causes carcinogenic effects in laboratory animals and in human beings, particularly lung cancer and myocardial tissue tumours; cadmium powders, for their part, can cause testicular cancer in addition to lung cancer. As can therefore be inferred from these brief examples, we are dealing with highly dangerous substances. During the last year and a half to two years of work, Parliament adopted at first reading, in February 2002, two amendments which the Council, in June 2003, partly accepted by adopting its common position. At its second reading in 2002, Parliament adopted an amendment to the recitals. We have therefore reached the final part of this conciliation, of these three stages and, as has already been pointed out, the problem that still needed to be settled did not concern the substances, but the products which may contain these substances. Well, the agreement on the sole point at issue during conciliation stipulates that the Commission must submit as soon as possible a legislative proposal aimed at banning the use of products – products this time – containing substances classified as carcinogens, mutagens or substances toxic to reproduction where, however – and emphasising this is very important to the rapporteur – there is scientific evidence that these substances are released by such products, thereby exposing the general public to the risks described above. This is why the delegation considers the obtained results to be satisfactory for Parliament and commends it to the House for adoption.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, under our Constitution, the Irish ratification process requires a referendum on all Treaty revisions. Today, headlines, reports and editorials in a serious daily newspaper, the Irish Times, stated that Mr Prodi believed that any state voting against the constitutional treaty now in its final stages of negotiation should logically leave the EU. He did say they might get a second chance it might not be the first time they voted against it. My appeal here, however, is that what could be perceived to be an ultimatum accept or leave the Union is most unhelpful in the run-in to a ratification process that is going to be difficult enough anyway, not just in Ireland, but in many Member States. Mr Prodi is also reported as saying that any future amendments or revisions of the Treaty should be by parliament or government rather than by popular referendum. Could I ask that Mr Prodi be given the opportunity to come and explain in more detail his views on these very sensitive issues, because interference or ill-judged comment at this stage will not be helpful if we want to get the present constitutional treaty through in the 15 Member States, let alone in the 25. Sometimes it is better to say less than more in these issues.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Court of Justice needs to be properly armed in order to be able to cope with the growing number of disputes, as well as its ever expanding authority. The Court must be able to focus on the real legal issues and legal protection of EU subjects. The Court of First Instance must be better accommodated in this framework, and both jurisdictions must be able to take more autonomous decisions regarding their own structures and procedures. Sound and timely administration of justice is a vital component of the constitutional state. In the light of this, the role of the European Parliament should be upgraded to that of a fully-fledged legislative body and that of a fully-fledged European institution. These are, in a nutshell, the motives underlying the opinion issued by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. As rapporteur, I am also delighted to note that the Committee on Constitutional Affairs is on the same wavelength for the greater part of its principal report. Unfortunately, time constraints prevent me from going into any detail. But in order to bring the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs as far as possible into line with the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, I tabled four more amendments in the plenary meeting. As some of these amendments are also to be found in the opinions of other committees, I believe that these amendments deserve – and will probably receive – the support of the entire Parliament. This is where I would like to conclude my brief report on a not unimportant contribution to what will probably be the last IGC before the largest, most historic and most risky enlargement since the inception of the present European integration process. This is why we need to seize this opportunity with both hands to prepare the European Union, with all its institutions and in all fields, to face the challenges of the 21st century successfully.

Political group: ELDR