GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, “healthy and properly monitored from stable to table”. That is now the phrase that sums up the policy on protecting consumers and the food chain that the European Union wanted. This was absolutely vital. The dioxin crisis that struck Belgium over a year ago made a deep impression on people all over Europe. This crisis not only cost billions of euros, but also resulted in even more suspicion about what we eat. More than ever before, the public is calling on us to act and is demanding strict standards, which will guarantee healthy food. This directive is the first link in a long series of decisions to be taken on food safety. What can I say in one minute? Very briefly, we must insist on Amendment No 37, concerning dioxins. The standards that we are demanding are, admittedly, extremely high but, until more accurate scientific studies are available, we must not take any risks. PCBs and dioxins are toxic substances, even in very small quantities. Our rapporteur expressed what we should think of the principle of dilution. This would, to my mind, be an appalling message to send to consumers and producers. More than ever before, this consumer needs reassurance. This directive will contribute to food being, as I said before, healthy and of high quality from the stable to the table. This is what the public demands.

Political group: ELDR
The decision to determine the indications that are to feature on signs posted at external border crossing points was taken first in 1994, under the Schengen system. This initiative seeks to update these indications and also to set uniform minimum indications for use in signs. Mr Deprez’s excellent report warrants our full support and addresses the issue of external borders, which have been the weakest link in the system. I wish to highlight four essential points: - opting for the system of separate checkpoints, which is to be welcomed, given the differences in requirements relating to the carrying out of checks on citizens from the Community, from the European Economic Area or from Switzerland and on third-country nationals; - there must be no difference between signs for citizens of the Union and for nationals of countries have the same rights when crossing borders – these signs must be as clear and simple as possible; - the Member State authorities should put up signs written in other languages or using other characters, particularly in multilingual countries, in ones which use an alphabet with special characters or in ones which receive a large number of visitors who use languages with special characters; - this must be applied not only at airports but also at land and sea borders.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner Bolkestein, ladies and gentlemen, in this proposal, which shares the concern expressed by the Group, our Group has expressed its unease at this distortion of competition, which arises in practice and which, as has been said, to an extent leaves those fields which certain Member States have opened up to competition and in which they have liberalised their companies unprotected. We are therefore in an unbalanced situation in which companies which still have the characteristics of public companies, and therefore have a monopoly in a Member State, take advantage of the openness of the external market and indulge in unfair competition in relation to companies which have entered into what we may call the free game of the market. As Mr Galeote has said, disputes have arisen, and are arising, in Belgium, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal and the United Kingdom, and infringement procedures are under way in Denmark, Germany and Holland. This is therefore a widespread situation, which demonstrates that the principles guiding the 1997 Communication referred to earlier, are no longer valid. We therefore urge that the relevant legislation be updated, with the due participation of this Parliament, and that this should take place, on the one hand, to eliminate these positions of privilege and, on the other hand, to safeguard the actions of the Member States, which have behaved in accordance with the process of the opening up of markets, which are liberalising them and which need the relevant guarantees so that the companies which enter into this European internal market have all the safeguards resulting from being a part of it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, my contribution relates exclusively to Mr Olle Schmidt’s report. I wish to congratulate him on this work, even though I do not share his conclusions, for he has not only succeeded in responding to the Commission’s Convergence Report on Sweden, but has also taken the opportunity of making a contribution to the EMU debate in Sweden before the referendum in September. I would ask my fellow MEPs to be alert to what is stated in the report, for I find certain parts of it both erroneous and startling. Firstly, Mr Olle Schmidt writes that prices have not risen in those countries that have introduced the euro. According to both Wim Duisenberg and a report in the Swedish daily, Dagens Nyheter, prices have in fact risen following the introduction of the euro and contributed to an increase in inflation in the eurozone of 0.2 per cent. Secondly, Mr Schmidt offers a false picture of the Swedish economy. He maintains that, in terms of trade, Sweden has been slipping behind because we have not introduced the euro. He does not, however, mention that Sweden has higher growth and lower unemployment than most countries that have the euro, and without in fact having either high inflation or a budget deficit. What I find startling, not to say of serious concern, in Mr Schmidt’s report is item 6, through which he wishes to make voters feel powerless by stating right now that, sooner or later, we must at all events become members of the eurozone. To that extent, the report is a biased contribution to the EMU debate in Sweden.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I should like to address the same issue. The bad thing about the renewal of these ENFOPOL plans is that they go much further than was planned three years ago. It will no longer only be traffic data and content data – that is the header of an e-mail and the content – that are monitored, but many, many more details down to credit card details, and IP-ports, which would enable everything on the computer to be monitored. In other words, there would be no part of the communication that was not monitored. That was not even mentioned in the documents before the Council. We have no way of getting hold of the information! It appears that, because of a formal error, the actual decision has not yet been taken. It can be taken at any time, however, and no further meeting is required for the purpose. I should like to repeat the call. We need to debate this. We have just had a committee of inquiry into Echelon and we are angry that the NSA and other secret services are violating fundamental rights. What is happening is that something much worse is being planned in the EU and absolutely everything can be monitored! (Applause from the Group)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, on the issue of GMOs, what can be said in one minute, except that the precautionary principle is not, and should not be, an excuse for doing nothing? This is why we should welcome the imminent entry into force of these European rules concerning the labelling and traceability of GMOs. The exacting provisions contained in the reports by Mr Trakatellis and Mrs Scheele will enable us to ascertain the composition of foods, to follow their distribution route and to know whether or not animals have eaten GMO-based feeds. Subject to these strict conditions, the lifting of the moratorium is a welcome development. For all that, though, will consumers be reassured? The truth will only become apparent at a later date, but it can be summed up in just a few words, namely free choice for consumers as to what they put on their plates. This has already been pointed out at great length by the two rapporteurs and by the Commissioner. Yet in order to convince people, and to reassure them, we will have to get it right. Labelling errors for products that are certified as being GMO-free will not be permitted, just as there is no question of making traditional and organic farmers pick up the tab for the crop contamination that is an inevitable risk. To conclude, therefore, let me say that we should continue with research, remain rational, and convince, communicate with and inform the public even more, explaining to them that transgenic crops involve not just soya, maize or rape, but also gene therapy, the kind of treatment which, for example, has enabled children with primary immunodeficiency to live a normal life outside their ‘bubble’.

Political group: ELDR
Alright, then I will do so as a point of order, because, if I have not misunderstood you, you have just said that all Members can ask one supplementary question for each question.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, I agree with the words of chairman Poettering on this joint initiative and, if you will allow me, I would like first of all to remind you that ten years ago we achieved jointly – on that occasion we were the Christian Democratic Party, the Liberals and the Socialists – the inclusion in the Treaty of Maastricht of the article recognising the personality of the political parties. It fell to me at that time to negotiate its inclusion with President of the Council Lubbers and I would like to pay tribute to him because I believe that it was an important step. We could have chosen to pose the question in reverse, that is to say, why, when the Commission had the monopoly on initiative for ten years, did it not take any step to regulate such an important issue? However, we are taking a constructive view. We want to resolve this problem which is not just a question of a legal vacuum but a constitutional problem for the European Union. The current situation is becoming increasingly complicated. It was traditionally believed in the media that it was necessary to go ‘lobbying’ in Brussels, to behave like a pressure group. We managed to have the political parties recognised. In our countries they are a fundamental pillar of democracy. Nevertheless, in ten years, no progress has been made and we truly find ourselves in an increasingly difficult situation. We could go so far as to say that at least 75% of the Members of this House are affiliated to organisations which are not clandestine, certainly, but do not have legal status, and demands are continually being made of us, which we try to respect and comply with, by the Court of Auditors, a key institution within the European Union, but which must not be the institution which in reality establishes the legal framework. We believe that it is absolutely essential, in order to ensure that it is the democracy of the people and not the power of money, which prevails in the Union, that the Commission should exercise its power of initiative responsibly at the moment. We have made certain useful suggestions so that we may find our way out of a situation which is not only unsatisfactory but also negative for the development of democracy in Europe.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Members of this Parliament and colleagues from the candidate countries, may I extend a particularly warm welcome to our Latvian colleagues who were elected to their country’s new parliament early in October this year. I welcome them so warmly because I have felt very involved in their efforts and in their work for many years. On days like today I ask myself – and I am sure I am not the only one to do so – what has particularly impressed me about the enlargement process in the last few years. Of the very many remarkable achievements, one is very seldom acknowledged. Many reports by the Commission or Parliament contain a short sentence that is pregnant with meaning – a sentence that rarely receives comment and where the attention paid to it bears no relation to its significance. That sentence reads quite simply – and it applies to all ten candidate countries: ‘The political conditions for accession are satisfied.’ That means the first and for me the most important accession criterion formulated in Copenhagen is not an obstacle. I do not take this fundamental assessment for granted. We ought to express our appreciation to all our colleagues in the parliaments and governments of the candidate countries for having stuck fast to democratic principles even in difficult situations. The cultivation of democratic relations cannot be taken for granted in times of upheaval and reorientation, in times of enormous economic problems and radical changes in circumstances. After decades of dictatorship, the people have shown what the political priority must be: democracy and freedom take precedence; they must be cherished and safeguarded.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Committee on Budgetary Control unanimously supports the objectives of the EC Investment Partners programme. However, we do criticise the way in which it has been implemented. The first point to note is that the Commission is currently operating in a legal vacuum, because the proposal to continue the programme – which has after all already been extended twice – was only tabled at the end of January, that is, one month after the regulation had expired, and will not be able to be adopted until late autumn. We endorse the legislative proposal as a stopgap measure until the end of 2001, because we do not deny that, according to the figures published, 34 000 firms have been involved as partners, creating over 1 300 joint ventures and 42 000 jobs. Nevertheless, the Deloitte [amp] Touche appraisal report highlights a series of grave shortcomings which need to be tackled. For example, procedures have become increasingly bureaucratic and cumbersome and therefore less business- and user-friendly, which has resulted in the accumulation of a backlog of payments and increasing discontent among financial institutions and enterprises because of delays in decisions and contracts. Bad management and a lack of coordination between the ECIP Unit and the SCR also mar the Commission's reputation, as does the discrimination between financial institutions. For example, the state-owned development bank of Denmark receives 38% of funding while Spain's only receives 23%. As well as further points of criticism and three proposals for amendments, our opinion also contains questions which the Commission ought to take into account when it is deciding whether to continue operating the ECIP beyond 2001 or whether to incorporate it in a single investment facility, as Mr Dell'Alba has already mentioned.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr Voggenhuber has presented us with a serious problem, calling Jörg Heider a fascist and his party a neo-fascist party. Mr. Voggenhuber himself hopes his parliamentary immunity might be waived, as he has very persuasively shown our group that this is a matter of standing up for freedom of speech, which is something he wishes to be involved in. He therefore wants to fight verbally against this sort of fascist party and its leader, and he would not want parliamentary immunity to be a barrier to this. Consequently, I have to inform you, Mr President, that, unlike the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, my group will respect Mr Voggenhuber’s wishes, as it considers them to be totally justified, and will recommend that his parliamentary immunity be waived. This does by no means imply that we should question the principles adhered to by the Committee on Legal Affairs or the fact that it should stand to its principles, but in this case we consider that there are good reasons why Parliament can best safeguard its own independence by accepting this challenge Mr Heider has issued to Mr Voggenhuber.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, since the signature of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the European Union has had responsibility for combating racism and xenophobia. Two types of measure are required for this purpose. The first should seek the integration of people of non-European origin and the other should aim to organise immigration. With regard to the first, the Commission has sent us a series of proposals, contained in two directives and an action plan, which aim to apply the following decision taken by the Heads of State and Government in Tampere. This states that ‘The European Union must ensure fair treatment of third country nationals who reside legally on the territory of its Member States. A more vigorous integration policy should aim at granting them rights and obligations comparable to those of EU citizens’. This is totally contrary to what we have seen and found recently in El Ejido where there are irregularities, labour exploitation and indecent living conditions, which have been condemned in the past. I hope for prompt implementation of the measures to achieve integration. I also hope that the governments which produced such wonderful words in Tampere, including Spain, will work diligently to apply these. I have less hope about the development of an effective and fair European policy in accordance with the statement made by the Council on immigration. The only proposal which has been made is for the directive on family reunification. This is a key issue, as we have seen recently in the media that there are many men on their own in El Ejido. Yet we do not know whether this has been accepted by the governments. Outside the Community arena, some governments are making efforts to renew their immigration policies. This is occurring in my country, despite the government, the party in power being the only one which does not like the new law on aliens. The objective of combating racism and xenophobia, explained in the Treaties, should be the objective of all European institutions and politicians. On 28 February 1998 the European political parties, including the Spanish Popular Party, signed the Charter of European Political Parties for a Non-Racist Society. This requires coherent behaviour, yet local leaders of the Popular Party are throwing more fuel on the raging fire and boycotting the attempts of other institutions to put this out. The party to which the Mayor of El Ejido belongs should, according to the commitments signed in this Charter, act forcefully. It is only, as stated by Mr Hernández Mollar, through unity, responsibility and firmness that El Ejido, Spain and Europe will be able to overcome these events of which we are deeply ashamed.

Political group: PSE
Thank you very much, Commissioner Liikanen, for an absolutely excellent reply. Everyone who has followed this matter and has heard the demands we have made of the IT Agency perhaps has difficulty appreciating that those demands related directly to Crete. We are concerned that the Agency may be ineffective. Parliament will therefore, of course, apply pressure in this area. We are totally convinced that the Commission can also help us minimise the negative effects of locating the Agency in Crete, which I do not regard as the ideal location. The Council is unfortunately defending incomprehensible positions, for example that such decisions should be made without public scrutiny. To be honest, that is incomprehensible, given the legislation on transparency we have elsewhere. I shall conclude by putting a question, not because I cannot work out what the Commissioner thinks but because I want a clear answer, which I intend to use in the election campaign in relation to the governments. Might the IT Agency be more effective with a smaller management or perhaps with a system of rotation? How important is it that the institutions use tax revenue efficiently and thriftily, and how might we bring this about?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wish to express my concerns about recent developments in Zimbabwe, in particular the closure of the only remaining independent newspaper in the country, the Daily News, in spite of a High Court decision to the contrary. As you know, over the past two years this House has repeatedly stated in very clear terms its anxiety about the appalling situation in Zimbabwe caused by the Mugabe regime. We have called for tougher measures to be introduced by the Council and for the other countries of Southern Africa, in particular the Republic of South Africa, to play a stronger role in bringing about change for the better in Zimbabwe. While welcoming the statement by the Council presidency on 18 September 2003, words are not enough. I am disappointed not to have received replies to my letters to the Greek and Italian Foreign Ministers on this subject. I would like to ask the President to insist that Council respond to the concerns of Parliament and take seriously the need for effective action against the Mugabe regime.

Political group: PPE-DE
I have voted against paragraphs 30 and 31 of the resolution ahead of the European Council in Gothenburg. As I have stated many times before, I am against a common European defence capability and increased military expenditure. However, I share the view expressed in paragraph 32.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the rapporteur is dreaming of a uniform electoral system with transnational lists and, for that, he requires European parties. Funds from European taxpayers are deployed to accelerate and facilitate the setting up of such parties. This makes those parties particularly artificial. The raison d'être is not the common goals and activities of the associated members, but the need for a state administration at European level. My party, the Dutch Party, is quite happy to work with like-minded s in other countries, provided it can do this from the bottom up instead of from the top down. In our opinion, these arrangements are not the right way forward. In fact, our objection would be much greater if, modelled on the German system, party structures and the drafting of lists of candidates were prescribed in detail, or if a distinction were drawn between parties which support a Europe that is governed in a centralist and uniform manner and those opposed to this, between centrally organised parties of individuals and loose associations of cooperating national parties or between large and small political movements. I am pleased to note that this proposal is now confined to a financing scheme and the monitoring of inappropriate use.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The annual legislative programme is the most concrete manifestation of the European Commission's key constitutional and political power, namely the exclusive right of initiative. Such power must at all times be rigorously justified and clearly explained. Yet this year's work programme, as in all previous years, does not provide detailed justification for each of the multitude of new measures proposed. A 15-page general summary does not exactly do justice to the 500 initiatives cited in the annex. In future, the will therefore insist that there is clear justification for, and specialised parliamentary debate on, all measures announced in the work programme. In particular, we will be looking for evidence that each new proposal has been properly tested against the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and we will be looking for sector-specific debates in the European Parliament's own specialised committees. In other words, it is now high time for a comprehensive overhaul of the somewhat antiquated way in which this crucial programming document is developed and debated in future.

Political group: ELDR