GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I warmly welcome the Commission’s initiative to introduce uniform European rules on the use of animal by-products. Optimum control and traceability of animal by-products are vital prerequisites of greater consumer safety. In particular, I support the amendment which was adopted in committee on the use of kitchen waste for animal feed. The feeding of untreated kitchen and restaurant waste has often been regarded in the past as a possible source of swine fever and foot and mouth disease. For this reason it is especially important that all such untreated catering waste which is transported into our countries should be eliminated. It undoubtedly makes sense to process catering waste in accordance with strict regulations, so that the entire operation can be supervised down to the smallest detail. Our declared aim in all of this must be maximum safety for consumers. Strict processing regulations, by which I specifically mean rules governing sterilisation and the destruction of potential pathogens, and firm European regulations on traceability and control are indispensable and reduce the risk of the spread of epizootic diseases such as foot and mouth disease and classical swine fever. Consistent checks by producers, but also by farmers, must supplement the system. The vital thing is that farmers and consumers must be able to rely on the safety of feed products. This requires a system for the conditional authorisation of catering waste for use as animal feed, a system that can be closely monitored. This is why I firmly support the amendment tabled by the Environment Committee.

Political group: PPE-DE
I would like to draw this House’s attention to the fact that a military coup took place not long ago in the Republic of Guinea-Bissau. This coup was carried out against an elected president. Any coup or movement against a democratically elected political representative must always be condemned unequivocally. Admittedly, the situation in Guinea-Bissau was already abnormal, since the People’s National Assembly had been dissolved and the process of electing a new assembly was proving increasingly difficult. A transitional charter had been laid down, however, as had an undertaking to restore democracy in Guinea-Bissau, that small and almost unknown country in the Gulf of Guinea. Mr President, I would like to ask you and the Community institutions not to neglect this small country entirely, and to provide a substantial aid package in order to restore democracy and for democratic elections to be held. Guinea-Bissau needs aid in order to hold these elections, because there is a shortage of everything there, even of money to finance the electoral process. More than that, though, this small nation also needs aid for development, peace, progress, and to ensure that its people will no longer suffer from violence and uncertainty about the future.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I want to congratulate Mrs Theato on her report. I believe she has crystallised a lot of the hard work that has gone into this subject. She has proposed what I think to be a convincing case to the European Convention for inclusion of this provision in an amended treaty. In discussing this matter, we should not create the feeling – which some people have done and have been trying to do – that, in some way or another, the European Union's treasury is a more leaky vessel than those of the Member States or similar treasuries throughout the world. We are no better or no worse, but we do compare with the higher standards of accountancy and accountability. On the other hand, most of the arguments that are put forward against this idea are political, ideological arguments. The arguments sought to stir up the people who are concerned about a transfer of power and competences from national parliaments to Europe and the creation of more unnecessary bureaucracy. I do not see it this way at all. We have transferred to this Union 1% of our national taxation, which is used in the interest of Community policies. We have provided the financial control to deal with that. We have provided OLAF to further investigate suspected problems. But we do not take the final step, which is to create the means to prosecute people who we have found guilty of violating our laws. I have experienced this in my everyday life; I have seen cases in which companies and individuals have been found guilty of abusing Community funds. I have seen situations where a large number of people from a particular sector, which is well financed by the Union, seem to be able continuously to get away with violations of our rules and regulations on the spending of money. In one case, I see the public taxpayer in a Member State being forced to pay through the clearance of accounts for the crimes of individual companies. In other situations, I see the failure to pay levies whereby the national government, again, picks up the bill. If we had a European Prosecutor dealing with our own resources – we do not want to take it any further than that – I think the focus of the authorities in the Member States who actually spend this money would be sharpened. I also think that OLAF would be less frustrated when, after having proceeded and found situations serious enough to be passed on to Public Prosecutors at national level, it does not happen. If we had a European Prosecutor, we could satisfy our taxpayers that we were taking matters to the proper conclusion.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, my warmest congratulations on your election. Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this report has far more impact than would appear at first sight. Annually, thousands of contracts are awarded by public, often regional or local, governments. At the moment, public procurement is said to account for approximately 14% of the entire European GDP. However, existing legislation is too complicated and complex, as a result of which, to date, this market segment has been far too much hidden from the benefits of the internal market. The current report, therefore, cannot afford to miss its target, namely the simplification of legislation and greater opportunities for European procurement procedures. For these reasons, inter alia, I am opposed to raising the thresholds too high, as a result of which a meagre 8 to 12% of all procurements in the European Union would fall within the scope of this regulation. In addition, the introduction of social and environmental criteria must be handled with care. Too many conditions that are too wordy once again make matters much more difficult, both for our towns and municipalities and for our SMEs. We must realise that they will bear the brunt of this European legislation. We must bring them closer to Europe and get them to spread the European message. This is certainly not achieved by issuing an unhealthy number of rules and regulations.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the public alarm at the granting of this patent is, I feel, totally justified. In the first place, at this stage, it is in the general interest to avoid patents being issued on human chromosomes, in order not to close any doors to the endeavours of scientific research to find new treatment methods and to use knowledge gained about the human genome to improve health, which is an end that should be placed over and above the albeit legitimate protection of the economic interests of researchers. Secondly, there is a deficiency in the law: it is not possible for the European Patent Office not to have any links with the Commission or be part of the structure of the European Union. Thirdly and most importantly, we are considering an issue which is at the very root of our civilisation. Christianity has taught us the value of the dignity of every human being; the tradition of the left enshrines the concept that the human person, man, is not a commodity and cannot be treated as such. Well, we are now clearly running the risk of turning human beings into commodities, at least in part, and this affects the very roots of our civilisation – in terms of Christianity and also of the enlightenment and Marxism. We must be united, determined and resolute in our reaction, remembering that the embryo is a unique human being. Whatever our attitude to abortion, even those of us who consider abortion to be lawful have always agreed on one point: the right of the mother prevails over the right of the embryo, but the right of the embryo does exist. It yields solely and exclusively before the right of the mother, not before the right of a multinational to make money.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, there is a strong case for fast track when it comes to implementing the results of the Basel review on bank capital adequacy. The Americans will be able to introduce its provisions immediately without primary legislation, unlike us, and they will be able to lend more cheaply than European banks. Moreover, Parliament has had ample time to inform itself on the issues with this welcome Villiers report on capital adequacy. In effect, we are having a first reading before the proposals have been tabled. Some people in this House think that it fatally undermines Parliament's powers. We disagree. Delegating powers over technical matters is essential if regulation is to keep up with the innovations in financial markets, as long as those delegated powers are subject to proper scrutiny. We are here to use our powers in the interests of European businesses and our constituents, and we shall not be forgiven if we fail to do so. Dogmatically insisting that Parliament should get involved with every technical judgment will simply mean that regulation will be out of date before it even starts. It takes two to three years to pass EU law but only weeks to launch a new financial services product with implications for bank capital, such as credit derivatives. I appeal to all colleagues and particularly to the Socialist Group, to re-examine their views on this matter and look at what safeguards they would like to see in primary legislation to enable the delegation of powers.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, since the European Council of Lisbon in March 2000, the Member States have agreed that the open coordination method should be extended as an instrument from employment to other areas. Best practice should be disseminated, and quantitative and qualitative indicators laid down; European directives should be implemented in national and regional policy, while of course observing the principle of subsidiarity, and put into practice in national action plans. So far, so good. But if one begins to get the impression that it is about levelling down, or if it comes to setting social policy standards without a proper legal basis for doing so, or if there is perhaps an attempt to dictate to Member States and to sideline national regulations, then the OCM is not acceptable in its present form. It is certainly possible and sensible to strengthen cooperation among the Member States in policy areas where the European Union has only limited power. It must, however, be geared towards improving the exchange of information and experience. When applying the OCM, meanwhile, the competence boundaries set out in the Treaties must be taken into consideration. Many fellow Members have already voiced their criticism on a number of serious issues. This instrument can only be complementary, and by no means represents an alternative, to important legislative measures. At the same time, the European Parliament may not be ignored any more than national parliaments. On this point too, I agree with the previous speakers. We in the European Parliament often see ourselves being put under pressure of time. For example, when the European Commission consults us on the annual Guidelines on the European Employment Strategy, but sends us the reports so late – I had to go through this myself at the beginning of the year – that thorough, professional consultation suffers as a result. The OCM is formulated by national experts, who are doubtless top-notch, but they develop the content of the OCM without legitimisation by Parliament. The European Parliament is the only Community institution capable of exercising control over these political processes, including the OCM. I support the demand of Mrs Smet that national parliaments too should be given due influence, and we must not forget the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, the Committee on Regional Policy, and the social partners, who must likewise be consulted. What is more, they must be consulted from the outset. Despite all the important points made in this report, despite the planned request to the Commission to first of all draw up a study, and despite the call for a broad-ranging debate on the effectiveness of the OCM, I still have serious reservations about a method that takes this form and is based on these principles.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, depending on the outcome of this vote, I reserve the right to request the Chairman of the Committee to delete the explanatory statement in accordance with Rule 161 of our Rules of Procedure.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I think it is fair to congratulate Mrs Rothe on the excellent work she has done on this report and, above all, on the spirit of creativity and consensus she has demonstrated in producing it, trying to avoid the conciliation procedure, which would have done the sector few favours given the urgent need for a directive in as important a field as renewable energy. I believe that on all issues relating to energy, we must be aware that we must improve sources or otherwise we will make planet Earth uninhabitable within a few years. It is essential that we guarantee support for this type of source for a considerable period, thereby allowing our industry to make decisive and long-term investments in this energy alternative. Therefore, to ensure a stable framework for renewable energy, within the timescale proposed in the report – although a broader timescale would have been desirable – is a proposal which we all can and must support. With regard to the goals which we have set for ourselves, despite the fact that we should have been more ambitious, I believe that the objective of 12% of energy coming from renewable sources by 2010 is something which must be broadened but, in principle, it is a good start. Furthermore, it is essential that, in the future, when this amendment is amended and the sector is more established, we set binding objectives for each Member State and we will thereby demonstrate that the European Union also takes its commitments seriously in the environmental field. In summary, I consider it essential and urgent that we reach a pact at European level in order to support this type of energy source. Lastly, although I know it is not easy, we must state that, if we do not act immediately, in a few years time the coming generations are going to be facing a ruined planet. Therefore, for the sake of solidarity, we must leave behind a much more habitable world, and a future like that urgently requires all these renewable sources of energy.

Political group: PPE-DE
I warmly congratulate Mr Bowe on his report on the deliberate release into the environment of GMOs. This subject, which has given rise to much debate, is a very topical one, given that yesterday two European regulations entered into force which require manufacturers to label “food and food ingredients” containing more than 1% of GMOs, together with “genetically modified additives and flavourings”, although without setting out any threshold value in this case. As a consumer, I am very pleased about this compulsory labelling because it will allow us to make an informed choice, although I would have preferred stricter rules that required a very clear indication on the outside packaging! Yet this is a positive first step, since it has led several large firms to stop putting GMOs into their products. Coming back to the issue under discussion today, this is a proposal to amend Directive 90/220/EEC, which covers both the deliberate release of GMOs for experimental purposes and their deliberate release with a view to putting the products concerned on the market. In the light of the progress of scientific research in this field, it seemed vital to clarify the scope of this legislation in order to give due protection to consumer health as also to the environment. The proposals of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy set out a strict and transparent framework, thus responding fully to consumer concerns. The purpose of the three main amendments I support is as follows: - to prevent any accidental contamination of fields by cross-pollination between GMO and non-GMO crops. To that end, we must require either minimum distances between fields in which GMO crops are grown and those reserved for traditional crops, or that GMO crops are confined to special greenhouses because of the inherent risk of genetic pollution; - to prevent any risk of antibiotic resistance developing as a result of the transfer of the resistant gene from one species to another. So we must ban the release of all GMOs containing an antibiotic-resistant marker gene; - to impose a strict liability system on producers. Like the rapporteur, I am convinced that the person legally responsible for releasing a GMO into the environment must assume full civil liability for any damage to human health or the environment. This principle of responsibility, together with that of GMO traceability and, in particular, the precautionary principle, will enable us to limit the risks as far as possible! Given the uncertainties that remain in this area, we must be as prudent as we can! Let me conclude by repeating and emphasising that we must listen to what the people of Europe expect of us! Public opinion has in fact expressed its reservations about the development of ‘Frankenstein foods’ on several occasions and its desire for healthy and natural food. So we must be the spokespeople of this desire to preserve high-quality food in the European Union!

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, this is an important passage in the history of Europe, in the history of the world as well as of the Union. The drawing-up and approval of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, together with an Intergovernmental Conference which may lead to decisive changes and enlargement are historic events which may leave their mark on the start of this new century. There is, however, the possibility that the full potential of this decisive episode will not be realised if the Charter is not made legally effective, if the Intergovernmental Conference does not carry out the reforms and if, as a consequence, enlargement becomes liable to hold back political integration. The dilemma in the hearts of a great many citizens who want a political Europe, not just a great trading entity, is this: if the Intergovernmental Conference fails to produce the desired reforms, should we still proceed with enlargement? Indeed, if we were to continue along the road to enlargement whatever happens, as is to be desired, closer cooperation would be our only hope. Therefore, this last prospect should certainly not be restricted by pre-set limits but rather, while remaining within the bounds of an accepted legal and institutional framework, enable the Member States who are ready to do so to set off along the path of deeper political integration, leaving the way open for the others to join them when they consider the time is right. We must allow everyone to follow his own political project in the Union, in a harmony of differences which, after all, has already proved to be a winning solution in the history of the European Union. IN THE CHAIR: MR COLOM I NAVALVice-President

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Hermange, on her presentation of this report to the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and on her extremely detailed work. We know that Europe is one of the most prosperous continents in the world but, despite that, a substantial number of our citizens live in conditions of extreme poverty and social marginalisation. One of the parameters for measuring these conditions, in addition to income, is, without a doubt, illiteracy, for illiteracy is a cause of exclusion and prevents access to human rights, as the rapporteur rightly said in her report. Illiteracy, understood to mean either a lack of basic education or ‘returning’ illiteracy, is causing an increasing divide between those who are privileged and enjoy relative security and those who are disadvantaged and marginalised, who do not have access to work, who are in danger of isolation and do not participate in social life. Illiteracy also represents an expense, a cost both for businesses and in social terms, as well as a cause of exclusion. It is an ongoing problem in Europe, although it is not thought of as a cost, but there are no reliable data available for analysis. Combating illiteracy and social marginalisation is now essentially the responsibility of the Member States, but at the Lisbon Summit – as has already been said – the Heads of State and Government set themselves the goal of making Europe the most competitive knowledge-based economy in the world, etc, etc. Moreover, the European Social Agenda was adopted at Nice. Therefore, combating illiteracy and marginalisation must become one of the priorities of the Union and the Member States, with all the relevant policies applied in the context of a global, integrated strategy. We therefore firmly support the rapporteur’s calls for a Green Paper and an Action Plan. I will not go into their contents because they are already outlined in the report. However, we do call strongly upon the Commission to promote these texts: Parliament will support them and stand shoulder to shoulder with the Commission to ensure the Council endorses them. IN THE CHAIR: MR FRIEDRICHVice-President

Political group: PSE
I am pleased with the report by Mr Graça Moura, the rapporteur, and I am grateful to him that my amendments have been adopted. In the frame of this European Year, most of the amendments aim to establish closer cooperation with the Member States at all levels of policy, not only at national level but also at regional and even local policy level. An essential requirement for this is that the Member States earmark sufficient funds to set up activities that can then be cofinanced by the European Union. If not, the European Year of Languages is likely to remain a PR exercise, just a lot of hot air. The second aim of my amendments was by means of the activities set up in the context of this European Year to pay special attention to socially vulnerable groups, migrants and semi-skilled and unskilled workers. This is something very close to my heart: learning to have an active command of foreign languages should not become the umpteenth barrier to the integration of this target group, a privilege for the already privileged members of our society. Foreign language learning is indeed the key to integration. A third series of amendments that I have tabled concerns the availability of language courses and accessibility to them in the respective Member States. It is an open secret that this situation differs greatly from one Member State to another. Smaller Member States with a correspondingly small language area must ipso facto make much greater effort, whereas in the larger Member States and larger language areas respectively the economic incentive is not so great. The Member States are therefore inherently asymmetrical in this regard. I hope that the Council will endorse this initiative and that we shall be able to start the specific activities as soon as possible, because there is a lot to be done.

Political group: PSE