GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the need for a new directive revising the conditions for the marketing on Community territory of material for the vegetative propagation of the vine has become urgent. The base legislation in force dates from 1968, a long way back, and a great deal of progress had been made in this sector since then: new materials have been tried out, often using natural methods and sometimes genetic modification. Hence the urgent need for a modern regulation which recognises these new possibilities available to European vine growers and, at the same time, protects traditional varieties of vine. It is my opinion that the Klass report should be adopted, particularly in view of the additional guarantees provided by amendments such as that tabled by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development which clarifies the reference to directive 90/220, in the form in which it is going to be amended in respect of GMOs. Another amendment, tabled by Mr Garot and myself, refers once again to the precautionary principle and provides for the protection of those traditional forms of vine which would otherwise be overtaken by new experimental varieties. I also feel that, abiding by this precautionary principle, referring to the possibility of genetic modification, means, for example, cutting down on the intensive use of phytosanitary treatments. The amendments tabled by Mrs Auroi and the Chairman of our Committee on Agriculture and Rural Developmen, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf as a further guarantee precisely of experimental varieties, are precautionary. From this point of view, I therefore consider that Mrs Klass’ report follows the right lines in a sector which is in urgent need of new legislation, a key, strategic sector for agriculture and the European wine industry.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to remind you of the composition of our food chain and how important it is for this chain to provide us with safe, healthy food which is produced, as a matter of principle, without any questionable or risky interim or end products. Over recent years, these basic principles have often been neglected in animal husbandry and in epidemiological matters because of shoddy practice or greed. The European Parliament has already taken a clear stand on BSE and I think that we should do likewise on all epidemics in animals. We should not allow food safety to be compromised because, in the final analysis, it is our health which is at stake. The Commission’s proposal encompasses both the transportation and the placing on the market of sheep and goats and a Community regulation to fight scrapie. This is even more important given that there is no clear proof that BSE and scrapie are unrelated. Animals are bought throughout Europe and transported over the entire continent. The spread of an epidemic as the result of bringing in one sick animal can have huge consequences for farmers. And I should point out that, for the first time in history, a case of scrapie was detected in Austria about four weeks ago. Scrapie is a particularly insidious disease because the pathogen can remain active in dust for years and is then ingested in food. The disease is always fatal. As there is no vaccination, farmers can only protect themselves by not buying animals from countries in which there are cases of scrapie. Even if scrapie cannot be passed on to human beings, the connection with BSE has still not been clarified, as I have already said. As a farmer myself, I am most concerned that consumer health should not be put at risk. I am in favour of preventive measures, starting with feeding which is suitable for the species, rather than measures to combat an epidemic once it has broken out. I therefore welcome the Commission’s initiative to create a new legal base for combating scrapie. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
I wish to congratulate Mr Lipietz on the excellent report he has drawn up on the Commission’s 31st Report on Competition Policy 2001, which I fully support, particularly with regard to ensuring constant and rigorous monitoring to prevent serious distortions of competition and with regard to the need to create a specialist body, at judicial level, in the field of competition and State aid, so that cases in this field can be dealt with quickly. I should like, however, to emphasise that although I broadly agree with the rapporteur’s support for the Commission’s commitment to reducing State aid in the Community, there are still European regions, specifically the outermost regions, in which State aid is a vital measure for supporting their economic and social development. This has been expressly acknowledged in Article 299(2) of the Treaty of Amsterdam. In these specific cases, we must continue to see a degree of flexibility in the granting and authorisation of aid which make a justified and effective contribution to the development of these unique territories and economies.

Political group: PPE-DE
Many people in the Netherlands have self-adhesive labels on their letter boxes against commercial printed matter. It has increasingly become the norm that ignoring this sign is rude and even unlawful. Such a regulation has meanwhile become known as an opt-out, whereby the recipients themselves must make it known that they do not wish to receive such mail. An opt-in, which requires an instruction that one does wish to receive commercial mail, would be preferable still. In the case of electronic communication, there is even more reason for having such an opt-in, for it would prevent consumers from being harassed by unwanted communications they receive and need to delete, and for which they also have to pay. Moreover, the e-mail system is also being weighed down by this deluge of advertising and is thus becoming unusable for reliable communications. The Commission is right to propose such an opt-in in Article 13. I am rather shocked by the view of the rapporteur, who appears to choose an opt-out which will only free consumers from the inconvenience after they have expressly lodged their protests. Furthermore, people have already had bad experiences with pledges from organisations which make their money through direct marketing. The protection of privacy, which the Directive is right to have as its objective, is seriously threatened by Mr Cappato’s view.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as I have said in this Chamber on previous occasions, I have the privilege of working in a very interesting Legal Affairs Committee and being one of the few non-lawyers on the committee. Diana Wallis as a distinguished international lawyer has been the ideal person to work on this very complex file. I would like to thank her for the way she has done it and the way she has so freely shared her knowledge with us. I have certainly learned a great deal from it. I want to pick up on what is a central point for me: we are, as my colleague Lord Inglewood said, trying to reflect a new world in which we want small businesses to take advantage of the most powerful, international marketing tool that they have ever been offered. There are many business that we want to use the network, the Internet, to sell to consumers all over Europe. Many of those small business will have no experience of exporting, they will not have a network of lawyers, they will be uncertain themselves about how they are going to deal with consumer complaints. The way that the committee has finally structured its approach strikes exactly the right balance. Let us be clear, that what we have proposed in these alternative jurisdiction clauses is not something for the larger businesses. Large businesses, even medium-sized businesses, will have offices all over Europe, they will have lawyers, they will be able to deal with consumers in that respect. The basis of consumers being able to go to the court of their domicile to receive justice in the event of disputes still remains intact. Listening to some of the speeches you have heard this evening, you would think that option was under threat. We have had Mrs Ahern – I am sorry she is not here – saying it will be a disastrous outcome if the committee’s report is voted through. I fundamentally disagree with that. What we have done is offer small companies the alternative of doing something else. They can offer consumers alternative jurisdiction but only under very specific conditions. A double lock is built in there, because they must agree to incorporate an alternative dispute-resolution mechanism before they can use the alternative clause and the terms must also be made very clear to the consumer concerned before he accepts them. Let us think about this on-line world, ladies and gentlemen, and those of you who have shopped on-line will know that you are offered the conditions and you must positively accept them. You press the button, you move your mouse, you make a conscious decision. How many of you, when you last had your gas or electricity bill, turned it over to look at the small print – the conditions? How many of you realised that you were accepting them? In the on-line world, we must think differently. We are thinking in the old world here – some of our colleagues are thinking in the old world. What we need to do tomorrow is to accept the committee’s report and move forward. That is our role as a grown-up legislator: to think about new ideas, encourage change and not necessarily, as Lord Inglewood said, go along with an accepted wisdom that has been with us for many years.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, unfortunately the bad press over this building has again focused attention on the question as to where the Parliament should be based, and this has been the case in the Netherlands too. Now I know that this is not the moment to start talking about this and we all know what the Treaty says. But still I would just like to seize this opportunity to remind the Presidency as well how difficult it is to explain to our voters why we are always having to move from one place to another, and also that this is something that severely tarnishes the Parliament’s “dignité”, to use a lovely French expression. I actually have a few specific questions to do with the building that my voters put to me. The first question is to what extent this building really was fully financed by France and really was a gift from the French government, for my voters want me to reassure them that the money they pay in taxes, in the Netherlands that is, has not been used for this. Secondly, I would like to know how much is paid in rent for this building. Thirdly, I have heard that there are plans afoot to buy the building because the rent amounts to rather a lot of money. I want to know what stage these plans are at and how much it all entails. Furthermore, I trust that all the complaints you have received, including those in writing, will continue to be given due attention. I do not wish to pursue this matter any further at this stage.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, my colleague, Ria Oomen-Ruijten, deserves praise for her work as rapporteur at all three stages of the reading of the directive on large combustion plants. We have before us now a revised directive that can be expected to have an important impact on reducing emissions from large combustion plants, at the same time, however, taking account of the practical realities of life. I am grateful for having been involved in tabling the amendments of compromise and that first the rapporteur and then Parliament adopted them. These amendments are still visible in this directive even after conciliation and, among other things, make possible combined heat and power production, which is essential from the point of view of sustainable development. At first there was a danger that the directive would have made CHP unprofitable. That would clearly have meant a step backwards. Mrs Oomen-Ruijten’s report, like that of my colleague Mrs Myller, are examples of how the codecision procedure can also achieve a successful end result when the subject-matter is very difficult and demanding. These two directives are obviously in this category. National limits for emissions and emissions from large energy plants are matters in which Member States have traditionally looked after their own interests and tried to prevent the setting of targets that could jeopardise the competitiveness of Member States themselves or that of the EU as a whole. The Commission had to take this into account when drafting its proposal. Parliament too, for all its idealism, had to take account of political realities. In spite of this, the result can be considered to be an ambitious one. It will be important right away as far as air quality in Europe is concerned. In addition, it indicates something important for the future: the EU is ready to work to achieve the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol within the framework of practical policy as well. We still expect the Commission to make several important proposals this autumn to combat climatic change. The two reports now to be decided on promise good results. The EU institutions are capable of producing a balanced result, from which we can expect challenging results. In the face of the facts of climatic change anything less is out of the question.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have now agreed to six amendments to the Rules of Procedure by the necessary majority; we now have to vote on a proposal for a decision, the first paragraph of which states that these amendments to the Rules of Procedure are to be adopted. This amounts to a kind of final vote, which as I see it is unnecessary in accordance with Rule 180(2) of the Rules of Procedure. I would accordingly ask you to refrain from voting on paragraph 1. This will also enable us to avoid another problem: paragraph 1 would require 314 votes for it to be adopted, whereas paragraph 2 would only need a simple majority.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, when, at the Essen Summit, the necessary extensive investments in infrastructure were decided upon, it was mainly a question of motorways and high-speed trains crossing national frontiers in a Europe where investments have traditionally been made principally in the individual countries. That is precisely why this decision was so extraordinarily important. A properly functioning internal market will never, of course, be possible without extensive investment in this area. Today’s report nonetheless raises a number of questions about how we are actually to follow up our various decisions. A few of these TEN projects have been carried out within a reasonable timeframe. Personally, I am very glad that one of these projects in particular has been carried out, namely the permanent link across the Sound between Sweden and Denmark which is to be opened on time in just a few months. I am more doubtful, however, where a number of the other projects are concerned. As quite a number of people here have said, many of these projects are being developed awfully slowly. The rapporteur who, by the way, has done a quite excellent job, has expressed his concern about this. It is, indeed, very worrying when these ventures are not taken seriously. Let me give an example of this. It concerns the Nordic triangle, designed to link the Scandinavian capitals by high-speed train and motorway. This is something which the countries concerned have undertaken to carry out, but it is a terribly slow process. Money is forever being transferred to other projects which are obviously considered more important than this major European project. This happens because there is every opportunity to transfer money in this way, there being no proper deadlines for when the projects concerned are to be carried out. Neither the road nor the railway ventures are, therefore, going to be finished within a reasonable period of time. I should therefore like, here today, to ask the Commission’s representative a number of questions. When does the Commission think that the Nordic triangle and the other TEN projects will be complete? What is the Commission actually doing to make sure that they are in fact completed? Is the Commission prepared to commit itself to establishing specific deadlines for completing the outstanding projects and, subsequently, also to ensure that these deadlines are met?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, there are two particularly important issues to be debated at the Helsinki Summit: Union enlargement and setting the IGC in motion. As we adopted the broad resolution on the IGC in the previous part-session at Strasbourg, we should have focused this time mainly on Union enlargement. Unfortunately, the joint resolution drafted by the groups only contains a few paragraphs on enlargement. The group of the European Liberal Democrats has tabled some amendments that would complement and improve the jointly prepared draft. We hope that the Commission and the Council will draft an overall strategy, in which enlargement of the Union and its future reforms might be linked to a broader pan-European scenario. In our opinion, we should consider various models of differentiated integration and try to achieve an ever-developing, concentrically conceived Union, in which there would be a federal core and a less integrated outer perimeter. We furthermore propose that the Union should use the European Council and the OSCE as forums for pan-European cooperation. We hope there will be support for our proposal.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, in France, José Bové is paying for his opposition to GMOs and for his commitment to the precautionary principle with his freedom. This penalty is completely unacceptable, particularly if we compare the threat to society that he represents and the threat to our future health posed by GMOs. We are more aware in Europe than elsewhere that this is unacceptable, because we are obliged to guarantee our fellow citizens the real choice of whether to eat or whether to refuse to eat GMOs. Let us not be intimidated by the lies and pressure piled on by President Bush, who is supported by the pro-GMO agri-food industry and who is denying his own consumers a choice. Let us take the lead, let us dare to close the loopholes in our regulations. We must very clearly refuse to allow non-authorised GMOs onto the market. With regard to the labelling of authorised GMOs, we know that the food industry can detect the presence of even 0.1% of GMOs. This is the approach that we should follow, but having said that, unless there is a guarantee that GMO and non-GMO crops can coexist with one another, the best regulations in the world will be useless if GMOs are present everywhere in nature. This is absolutely crucial if we are to give consumers freedom of choice and protect the environment, maintain GMO-free crops and guarantee that they remain GMO-free. This is the real challenge we face. Let us not be fooled: unless coexistence is guaranteed, there will no longer be any choice.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Will Parliament be heard? That is the question that we should ask ourselves today, the day before the Agriculture Summit in Luxembourg. Having achieved unanimity on agriculture, which should be welcomed, the most important question is whether the Council will be able to grasp the opportunity and incorporate Parliament’s position into its plans for the future organisation of the common agricultural policy. The Group of the regret that codecision does not apply to agriculture. If it did, European farmers and consumers would have benefited so much more from the way that mentalities have rapidly changed for the better: towards moving on from costly, wasteful agriculture that destroys the countryside, towards agriculture that respects men and women, their work, the land and the environment. In short, ecologically responsible agriculture, which the Group of the has always advocated. This reform of the CAP over 10 years is a commitment to a new type of modern agriculture, which takes into account all of the social, economic and environmental realities of the agricultural profession. That is the type of agriculture which is the aim of the agreement reached in this House and that can only be welcomed, although it is surprising how different positions were not long ago. (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the administrative budgets are rather less complicated in this respect, but here too we may need to make a technical adjustment, depending on what the House decides today. I should like to ask you also to support our making the necessary adjustments to budget line A-206, Acquisition of immovable property, depending on which amendments are adopted, so that we do not exceed our self-imposed ceiling of 20% of total administrative expenditure. I believe that this is customary in the House and I would be grateful if you could support this proposal. ***

Political group: PPE-DE
Finding practical solutions to the problems of the 420 000 cross-border commuters also means making people aware and appreciative of the single market and the freedom of movement it guarantees. This is why I warmly welcome the fact that Mrs Oomen-Ruijten's report addresses a number of these problems and their origins as well as proposing measures which will mitigate the effects of these disparities between the systems of taxation and social welfare for those who are affected by them. The discrepancies between national legal provisions and the principle of free movement are primarily due to the fact that Regulation 1408/71 is outdated and, because of the many changes that have occurred in the period since its adoption, can no longer offer employees the legal certainty they require. The direct consequence of this inadequate coordination is that frontier workers are often at a disadvantage in terms of welfare benefits, unemployment, pension provision and health care. In the last-named area, I particularly welcome the initiative of players in the health sector to offer 'exportable' services which take account of the specific circumstances of cross-border commuters. Just as numerous legal uncertainties have arisen in the domains of health and social welfare, a similar situation has occurred in the realm of tax legislation, and the various bilateral taxation agreements have not succeeded in resolving these uncertainties. This creates areas of inequality, both between cross-border commuters and between local authorities, and these can only be eliminated in the foreseeable future through coordination of all our tax systems on a European scale. For this reason, we cannot but support Mrs Oomen-Ruijten's proposal that a directive be adopted which commits the Member States to examine all legislative bills concerning tax and social welfare for their effects on cross-border commuters and to create compensatory mechanisms. Despite numerous opinions that have been delivered by the European Parliament in favour of the harmonisation of social and fiscal legislation, and despite the presentation by the Commission of concrete proposals for the updating and simplification of Regulation 1408/71, the Ministers of the Member States have been blocking this necessary reform process in the Council, thereby preventing the single market from becoming a reality for people in Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE