GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I wish to begin with a point of order. I understand that there is now to be no debate on the Malliori report. Mrs Malliori's report has been parodied and attacked in some countries, including my own, and we are owed a small debate on it. I am sorry that is not possible, and I know Mrs Malliori will want to speak about this. I salute Mr Schnellhardt for his report and diligence. I agree with almost everything he says. On the margin, there are some areas – for example the attendance of veterinarians, fallen stock, etc. – where there might be too much regulation. However, when it comes to the inspection of the premises where foodstuffs are being prepared, there must be independent examination. In my own country audits conducted by our Food Safety Authority have shown frequent evasions and omissions in terms of the way in which food is prepared, specific risk materials are dealt with and other matters are looked at. We are told that nowadays we can relate everything to safety within the plant, the employees and so on. Who would dare to question the right and power of the employees to report on devious practices within their own plant? The fact is, as has been referred to in this debate, the preparation of some foodstuffs – as shown, for example, in the Panorama programme – has been quite disgraceful. I do not believe that employees in those plants would be courageous enough and willing to report these practices to authority. Therefore, we need independent inspectors; we do not need to remove them from the meat and veal sector. If we are wise in this regard, we will stick to the principle that beyond the HACCP system there always needs to be independent inspection of last resort. The consumer demands it, public safety requires it.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on behalf of the Group, I wish to withdraw Amendments 53 and 55 relating to paragraph 17 of the report. It does indeed seem that the wording of these two amendments could give rise to conflicting interpretations, especially in certain language versions. I am against ethnic classifications, because that would stigmatise immigrants. Amendments 53 and 55 called for the term “ethnic” to be deleted. The use of the word “data” could be taken as referring to statistics on the incidence of racism and discrimination, which could be useful; but it could also be taken as referring to the introduction of files, with all the problems that implies and which we also discussed in relation to Eurodac. Those are the reasons why I decided to withdraw these two amendments.

Political group: GUE-NGL
It is essential that we create a legally binding legislative framework in the field of the safety of nuclear installations, given that there are still major discrepancies between nuclear safety measures in the various Member States. The aim is to ensure that high levels of nuclear safety are maintained in the EU, given that the system to be implemented will fall within the competencies of national safety authorities. The purpose of the Community system is to complement national systems. Community monitoring will consist of verifying the way in which national authorities are carrying out their work. The intention is not to undertake on-site safety inspections of nuclear installations. The Commission’s proposal would appear justified. Some objections, however, might be raised by Member States that feel that the Commission is interfering in matters of national sovereignty, in terms of competence to take decisions concerning conditions of securing and operating nuclear installations. This is why so much care is being taken in the wording of provisions on interaction with national safety authorities and the form that Community monitoring will take, which we believe to be the right approach. I therefore voted in favour.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I have been a Member of the European Parliament for 15 months now. Today, 5 October 2000, did not start well, but it has become the happiest day of my time at Parliament, for today Amendment No 62 to Mr Thomas Mann's report has been adopted. I strongly supported this amendment, which reads: “no discrimination as regards access to health care, welfare benefits, and economic assistance shall be permitted on the grounds of the age of a disabled person”. In my opinion, this is an extremely important result: it shows – if I may be permitted to rejoice at this, Mr President – that there is some point to my being here. I would like to thank the Members who helped and supported me – for I could not have achieved this result alone – Mr Speroni of the Lega Nord, Mr Thomas Mann, the rapporteur, from the , Mrs Lambert of the Group of the and Mr Helmer from the British Conservative Party. They have risen above party politics and shown that, when an amendment is right, they will support it, whoever the author.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to open my speech by asking a question; is there a common fisheries policy, apart from the one that is used to uphold the privileges enjoyed by some countries and fleets? According to the draft constitution now before us, which will be going to the Intergovernmental Conference, there is not. In the third part of the common policies, in the section dealing with agriculture and fisheries, fish are called agricultural products, and no reference at all is made to the CFP. In a discussion of the Union’s seas and maritime resources, this is as surprising as it is Kafkaesque. It says nothing about the CFP, nothing about ensuring equal rights for all countries and fleets whilst, of course, preserving fish stocks for our children and grandchildren. For this reason, amongst others, I support the report by Mrs Miguélez Ramos on the mid-term review of the 4th Fisheries Protocol with Greenland. I support the report precisely because it represents a step in the right direction, calling for the fishing countries, fleets and companies unfairly excluded both by the incorrect application of the principle of relative stability, and by the current protocol to be given the opportunity of fishing in Greenland’s waters. The rapporteur opens the way for the discussion which is necessary to improve the forthcoming protocols, whilst upholding, as one would expect, Greenland’s rights and its decision-making process.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, I am very glad that I have managed to get a few of my amendments accepted. I hope that the Commissioner is also satisfied. The one amendment to the Patrie Report has to do with taking into account the protection of competitors from unfair business practices, without prejudice to consumer protection, and in the interests of a uniform legal framework. Commissioner, I believe that to be of the utmost important particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. I am particularly happy to have been able to get two amendments that I regard as being quite crucial made to the Whitehead Report. One aims to guarantee optimum health and safety provisions in the current evaluation of chemical substances whilst ensuring the use of in-vitro testing procedures whenever possible. This is just a fundamental principle, but its embodiment in law will be a major step forward. In the other, we call upon you, Commissioner, to promote the use of labelling in the WTO as a means of ensuring that consumers may be informed about origins and production methods. If I may adduce a simple example, it matters to consumers whether eggs are from hens that have been tormented in battery cages or happy hens that have been free to run around, even if they have to pay a bit more for them. They get better eggs, which taste better. Knowing as I do that you, Commissioner, are a particularly kind-hearted man, I am sure that you too will be very gratified by these amendments.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, before we start the debate on Kosovo or Mitrovica, I must inform you that a nasty sense of unease has come over me. Indeed, it is not the first time that we will be debating Kosovo here. We have adopted resolutions in the past but they usually are nothing but a warning shot, as nothing is actually done with them. I very much appreciate it that the Commission always attends. I certainly appreciate the fact that Commissioner Patten is present, given his powers. But I – and many Members with me – also have to note that the Council is consistently absent from this debate. We need to cooperate with the Council too. I see that a diplomat from the Council is present who is diligently taking notes and who will then report to the Council but, for the rest, nothing will get done. I would insist on changing our procedures and on the fact that the Council should be present during the topical debate, so that we can enter into direct consultation with the Council. I think we should give this some thought. I would request you to pass this complaint on to the Bureau of Parliament. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Thank you, Commissioner, for your reply. I think that the question by my fellow Member, Mr Alavanos, was based on the following argument, which is extremely serious. If you subsidise the takeover of quotas by other producers, obviously the producers who take over this production potential need some time to amortise their investment, about 7 or 8 years. If you say that you are going to stop paying them a subsidy within three years, then there is no point in their taking over the quotas. And I should also like you to explain the following contradiction. You say, Commissioner, that you will carry out a study to see what the possibilities are for other crops. Quite right too and we have been supporting that here for some time now; however, you yourself have replied to repeated questions which honourable Members have put to you in the past, saying that this is more or less impossible. Have you perhaps any more news on this front?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, first of all I must ask why we have two reports at all. Is it just to suit two DGs which could not come up with a cooperative proposal? Can I say you have added to the confusion – as if it were needed – on this particular topic and I am disappointed because we now see two completely different approaches to the same issue, which has done nothing at all to add light and not heat to the subject before us. For many, the very expression 'genetically modified organism', is a concept lifted directly from science fiction. The scientific fact, however, of genetic engineering is that this technology has already improved the quality of life for so many, and with a balanced and practical regulatory environment, it has an exciting future in the whole pharmaceutical, medical, food and feed areas, to name but a few. We need to lift the moratorium and have a rational regulatory approach to GM technology to allow consumers to make informed choices. I must say, however, that I am extremely disappointed with the industry's lack of defence of their products and processes and, indeed, even their field trials, against unjustified scare stories. It is next to lamentable. They do not deserve any of us standing up here defending their product or their future, because they have gone to ground and covered their head from day one and have made it a very difficult catch-up job now to get a rational common-sense debate in this area. They must take it on the head for failing to defend their products. I am also concerned that to some extent the approach lacks scientific rigour in this area. I fully support my colleague Mr Trakatellis's approach. If what we do and the legislation we pass is not soundly based in scientific rigour, we bring all the EU regulatory processes into disrepute; and we are going down this road with many of the issues before us in these reports here today. Not only do we lack scientific rigour in our approach, but we are possibly going to come into conflict with the WTO. We need a precautionary approach but not a preventive one. There would be a very important central role for the new EFSA in this whole area, including the rigorous risk assessment of any GM feed prior to authorisation for use in the EU. There is no analytical method for determining if animal products originate from animals fed GM feed and insistence on such labelling will open the door for misrepresentation, fraud, distortion of competition and so on. The only way to verify will be by on-farm inspections with another army of inspectors. Please do not send us down that road again. Finally, a plea for the whisky industry: what is the transition situation? They lay down their whiskies to age for up to 12 to 20 years. If we are going to insist on retrospective labelling, how will they be able to compete? Could you put on the record the future of the whisky industry? They are particularly concerned.

Political group: PPE-DE
This is not the first time I have expressed my views on mobility for students and teachers. We were already condemning the financial difficulties facing Erasmus students during the last session. Everyone agrees that this mobility must be encouraged in the name of the free movement of persons, but also and especially because of all the benefits to the young citizens of Europe and hence the European Union. Unfortunately, in practice, the obstacles are still there. That is what the Commission proposal deplores and the Evans report confirms. According to the recommendation, based on Articles 149 and 150 of the Treaty, Member States need to be encouraged to adopt measures which will steadily remove the existing difficulties, and the citizens of the Union should be offered a platform of rights leading to real mobility. While this proposal is a step in the right direction it still contains a number of gaps which the Evans report remedies. Thus, it includes researchers within the scope of the recommendation. I think that this is crucial, given that its importance is constantly emphasised in the context of building a European research area. Mr Evans also demonstrates that people hoping to benefit from programmes in this area need to be better informed about their social security entitlements. Knowledge of foreign languages is accepted as a necessary precursor to mobility. Remember that 2001 has been designated European Year of Languages. It is therefore vital to promote the learning of at least two Community languages, to encourage linguistic and cultural preparation prior to any mobility measure. Then there are the scandalous taxes on renewal of residence permits. These must be regarded as an obstacle to be eliminated. The report also stresses the need to eliminate obstacles to mobility, be they legal, linguistic, cultural, financial or administrative. I call on the Member States to coordinate the formalities to be fulfilled for enrolling in the establishments of other Member States. I am especially thinking of deadlines. To illustrate my point, I need only refer to a case brought to my attention last Friday. A young man who had passed his Baccalaureat was refused registration in Belgium, because he had missed the deadline by three days! It is very difficult for French Baccalaureat candidates to meet a deadline of 15 July when they only receive their results in mid-July, and must then obtain recognition of their qualification – recognition which, in my opinion, costs far too much – not to mention the young people who have to re-sit and who are penalised by a year in some cases because of that. This is just one example among many. I shall end by mentioning one of my pet subjects, mutual recognition of qualifications. To avoid repeating myself, I refer you to my earlier speeches.

Political group: PSE
I just want to agree with what my colleague Mr Fitzsimons says. I have a report here by Parliament, from the STOA committee.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I want to come back to the remarks made by Mr Harbour. We want to create innovation. Would you agree with me that we will not create innovation by imposing standards on ecological or social issues? This is only the lower level. In a market economy there are factors wish push the market and factors which pull the market: the stick and the carrot. What we want, when we speak about introducing ecological criteria or fair-trade criteria, is to create a market for innovation in ecology, fair trade and social issues. Therefore we need clear criteria on this in the directive. That is the only thing we need. That is why we are pushing this so much. It has enormous leverage – 15% of the European internal product. If we are serious about sustainability we have to use this. It is not via fierce competition in the private sector that this innovation will come. It will be because the public sector takes more responsibility. Commissioner Bolkestein, why do we disagree on this point? Because your Europe is a Europe of big multinational companies where there is no ecology, no social rights and where the poor people live in their poor working conditions. My Europe is a Europe of citizens. I am proud of this. If we have to fight over this issue it is because you have a very new, liberal approach to Europe and we do not want that. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, firstly, I should like to pay respect to my colleagues Mr Watts, Mr Savary and Mrs Darras for bringing this point to the House for our consideration. It is ironic that I speak on this subject because, as a rapporteur, I helped push through this House the issue of free movement of goods at border areas where there was disruption. Primarily it was meant to attack the issue of industrial relations at borders. But this is interesting: I praise and applaud the Commission's lateral thinking about the application of these articles that have been laid before them. I knew then, as I know now, that the requirements set down in that particular set of articles were merely mechanistic, that it comes down to political goodwill. People here today will appreciate that it requires all parties to pay attention to what is happening at the Channel Tunnel and to make sure that they do not allow it to be obscured by the mere arguments, cultural or political, that exist there. There are problems. In this particular issue there are problems of slender resources – we understand that – whether of the police or of security personnel at the areas where they are involved. But we need to get freight through unfettered. Let us also recognise that this is an international problem. People have been displaced as a consequence of wars and of major disruption and there are also economic émigrés who will pay any price to get into the UK. Quite often it is a price paid to criminal gangs, there to exploit the motivation of these people. Real solutions, therefore, lie in the hands of politicians coordinating their actions at government level. Peace and development in the areas of the world facing crisis are also what we must strive for. In France we have also seen, all too unfortunately, human tragedy that has left in our minds the human aspect of all that is going on there. The attempts of the French authorities to tighten security are welcome. The highest level of vigilance must continue to be demanded, as Mr Watts has said. Attending to this question in the House confirms the international status and interest which it deserves. Not just the Channel Tunnel, but other issues as well, will be resolved by such processes. This gives us just such a platform to launch that process.

Political group: PSE
I strongly endorse this report from my colleague, Robert Evans, designed to boost mobility amongst students and others involved in training across the EU. He is right to emphasise the need for further action to overcome bureaucratic problems relating to residence rights and right to emphasise the needs of disadvantaged groups such as the disabled. I support his desire to see research workers included in the proposal and his comments about the importance of involving countries preparing to join the EU. I hope when this report comes back for second reading we are able to note that the Council has incorporated the rapporteur's sensible amendments.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, there is a yawning gap between Parliament’s position and those of the Council and the Commission. This gap is symbolic of the distance between the European Union and its citizens. Our people regard Europe as being undemocratic, a place where decisions are taken behind closed doors. The gap is also becoming a democratic deficit in Europe. At the end of the day, exchange of information is an essential foundation of modern democracy, which is nurtured by public debate, media and public control and the contribution of social organisations. Parliament’s proposals bridge this gap. I would also emphasise that the vast majority of MEPs support the proposals, and that includes delegates whose own countries may be less familiar with the tradition of openness. I regard this consensus throughout Parliament as a great achievement, enabling us to demonstrate that this has become a Europe-wide fight for European democracy. I would conclude that the Council committed a serious error in July when it categorically declared all documents about military affairs secret. This decision illustrates just how far we still have to go before Europe actually has a democratically controlled security and defence policy. That is why Parliament is calling for European security and defence policy to be embedded in the structures of the European Commission in future. Firstly, we must tackle the insupportable decision taken by the Council. Naturally Parliament recognises the need to keep certain military matters secret, but only if this is done on the basis of an assessment of the content of each individual document, and with the aid of verifiable criteria and procedures. Parliamentary control of secret documents could then take place via a parliamentary select committee. Mr President, access to documents is fundamentally important to our European democracy. The Council and the Commission must deliver the goods with interest in the negotiations due to take place in the coming weeks. Otherwise, the Social Democratic Group, along with others, will endeavour to enforce this right to information by having recourse to the law.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to thank all the rapporteurs for their hard work. I will confine myself to the nuclear question. The Euratom Atomic Energy Community was founded in 1957 and is now well past its sell-by date. It is a closed institution and is regulated solely by the Council. Codecision with Parliament is excluded. We really need to change this. Its separation from other EU norms is also highlighted by Euratom having its own framework for its research programme. This nuclear technology is the only area to have its own ringfenced budget. Moreover safety requirements, as Mr Schwaiger has pointed out, are not at all coordinated. This is more than regrettable. The nuclear fusion budget remains the largest single area – EUR 750 million – of energy research and proposes funds allocated to the development of the next generation of fusion research. Most experts anticipate that if fusion is ever to achieve commercialisation it will not be for at least another 50 years. Therefore the fusion budget is a financial black hole in pursuit of an ever-receding holy grail of fusion energy. Despite around half a century of commercial operation of nuclear reactors, the solution to the long-term management of nuclear waste remains unsolved. The framework programme for additional funds to research geological disposal of radioactive waste means that EU-funded research for what is effectively a commercial waste problem represents yet another subsidy to the nuclear industry. This is unacceptable.

Political group: Verts-ALE