GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I am sorry that, on a subject which is so important for the future of European citizens, we have to be content with a resolution procedure. A Commissioner should only speak on behalf of the European Union after having negotiated their mandate with the elected representatives. The Constitution should take account of this democratic deficit if it is to succeed in bringing Europe closer to its citizens. As the amendments proposing a new political direction for the text have been rejected, I am voting against the resolution. Public services should not be part of negotiations. A moratorium suspending any new agreement would allow for a genuine impact assessment with regard to the other market services. Some claim that the developing countries have asked for these agreements. They have no choice but to privatise their public services, as the level of their debt prevents them from receiving any loans intended for the development of public services, in particular, water. The WTO should no longer be the Trojan horse of a form of liberalism that has proved its limitations and its inability to improve the quality of life of the majority of the world’s citizens. Trade at international level is essential, but it must be conditional on adoption of and compliance with environmental and social rules.

Political group: PSE
May I congratulate my Socialist colleague Margot Kessler on her report which extends the existing European judicial network in criminal matters to civil and commercial law. I fully support this common-sense strategy which broadens the system of cooperation between national authorities. This will not only simplify judicial cooperation between the Member States, but it will also facilitate cross-border legal procedures. Increased judicial cooperation is an important step forward for my constituents in the North-West who are sometimes desperate for help with a case in another EU country. For example, a young parent whose children have been abducted by the other parent from the UK to France, will certainly be assisted by greater understanding between the British and French legal services. So would the elderly couple who have exchanged their hard-earned cash for a holiday home in the south of Spain and have faced legal battles with the purchase. It is significant that this network becomes part of the existing trans-European network for the electronic exchange of data. In light of enlargement, the applicant countries should also be allowed to participate in the contact meetings. Data will therefore be exchanged on the European judicial network from England to Estonia, making life remarkably easier for the authorities. Madam President, I very much welcome increased judicial cooperation which will be of tremendous benefit to all our citizens seeking legal advice or bringing forward cases across the European Union. – Jové Peres Report (A5-0098/2001) – Auroi Report (A5-0117/2001)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, can I ask the Commissioner specifically: are bones for soup stock other than the vertebrae and skull perfectly safe and all right to use? Is osso buco, which I think is made from the shank of cattle, all right to eat and is oxtail, which is actually I suppose an extension of the vertebrae, all right to eat?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on behalf of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, I would firstly like to express our admiration for Mr Blak’s outstanding and remarkable work and particularly because he has duly taken into account the work of the rapporteurs of the specialist committees. In the justice and home affairs sector, Mr Blak’s report quite rightly focuses on three issues, as we ourselves have done in our opinion. Firstly, the obvious poor management of some of the budget lines, where the rate of implementation of appropriations is below 50%. Secondly, the need for the European Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia to update its techniques and to enforce stricter management. Thirdly, the need to understand what really is happening with the European Union Migrants’ Forum – is it just downright negligence, is it basically poor management or is it fraud, pure and simple? These three issues must be closely followed up by our committee and by Parliament. We shall ensure that this happens.

Political group: PPE-DE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport. – Mr President, it is a particular pleasure to participate in a late-night debate, and the issue of media concentration is serious and certainly merits debate. One only has to read the British press today and speculations on why Tony Blair has made his U-turn on an EU referendum to see that is the case. However, I regret the focus in this report on the attacks made on the Italian Government. That has detracted from the quality of the report. The Committee on Culture, for which I am speaking, has taken the issue very seriously and has repeatedly underlined that pluralism in the media is fundamental for safeguarding democracy and cultural diversity in Europe. In our report on the television without frontiers directive, we asked for a Green Paper from the Commission and a special study on this subject. We are still waiting for that Green Paper. We recognise that the Member States have primary responsibility. However, in today's rapidly shrinking world, the European Union cannot ignore its responsibilities and its special position free from the power of one or two powerful press magnates. It is a pity this report has confused these aims with naked political attacks on the Italian Government. The issue deserved better.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the issue of genetically modified crops and food can be viewed from several different angles. For our group, the important factors are biodiversity, the environment, health and food safety. It is also a question of consumers’ fundamental right to be able to choose what they buy and what they eat. In addition, the issue can be viewed in terms of power. The power over our food and crops lies to a large extent with multinational companies which sometimes sell genetically modified seeds which are directly dependent on their own pesticides. All these reasons may explain why consumers wish to choose something other than GM products. There is no scientific agreement on the benefits of GM technology in the area of food. The technology is controversial and our knowledge of the field is growing rapidly. In particular, there is uncertainty regarding the impact on biodiversity and possible effects for people with allergies. Therefore, the precautionary principle must be applied, and we support Member States’ right to impose a moratorium on the commercial growing of GM crops. When the Commission has acted to modernise the European Union’s policy in this area, regulations for traceability, labelling and corporate responsibility have formed the basis for the policy. We believe that, in line with this and as a minimum requirement, no commercial growing of GM crops should be allowed before these changes have been made and introduced into national legislation. In terms of labelling and traceability, the starting point must be the creation of a comprehensive system which provides consumers with the right to choose. This means that goods produced with the help of GM products, such as meat produced with GM feed, must also be labelled. The addition of remains from proscribed GM products must naturally also not be allowed. With regard to the unintentional addition of remains from GM crops, the threshold should be as low as possible. We believe that the proposal of 0.5 percent is far too high, but it may be a starting point for future reductions. It is remarkable that those who usually defend consumers’ freedom of choice in the market now do not wish to provide consumers with this freedom through the effective labelling of GM food. Could it be the case that people realise that most consumers would exercise their freedom of choice by not choosing GM products? A labelling system for GM-free products would be a considerably worse solution than that currently proposed. Such a system is based on the assumption that genetically modified food is the rule and that GM-free food is the exception. We would like to see the reverse assumption prevailing. We know that on this issue there is strong pressure from industry and from certain national governments to vote against the line taken by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. I would appeal to Members of this House to accept their responsibility for the environment and consumers and to support the line taken on this issue by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and not to give in either to industry or to 10 Downing Street.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I wish to place on record my serious concern at the decision of the EP to seek the deletion of the Irish (including Northern Ireland and Greece) derogation from the full effects of this directive. The European Parliament's position is based on the mistaken view that it is possible to have a ‘one size fits all’ approach to Europe's railways. There are clearly circumstances relating to the island of Ireland and the isolated position of Greece as far as railways are concerned which require to be taken into account.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this report by Mrs Rühle is excellent, as it underlines the principles which the European Parliament has held as important when we have tried to improve our administration. The reports by Mrs Rühle and Mr Seppänen both concern the same issue: guarantees against loans granted to the European Investment Bank. In itself, the European Investment Bank is an excellent instrument for financing specific projects. As the EIB has a high degree of creditworthiness, it can acquire cheap capital from the markets and target it at those areas the EU considers necessary. In this way the direct need for financial aid diminishes. There is a budget guarantee for those loans for which the EIB is responsible on behalf of the EU, which amounts to 70%. Now the matter being raised is the reduction of this figure. The Commission is proposing 60%, but the Council has decided on a provisional rate of 65%. For that reason, Parliament must first determine its position on what the correct rate should be. In determining the percentage figure our starting point is that the EU should bear the principal political risk relating to the financing of projects. This means that if the political situation in a country in which a project is to be carried out continues as predicted, there is only a financial risk attached to lending. That is normally the responsibility of the party granting the loan. In fact, the EU guarantee has also borne part of the financial risk, as these two different factors cannot be clearly distinguished from one another. The percentage rate obviously has a bearing on how many loans can be guaranteed by a sum that is contained in the financial perspectives and which is at present EUR 200 million. In practice, changing the rate may not have an effect except as a means of regulating the overall amount of loans, as the guarantees do not often have to be paid. Mr President, with these remarks I would like to express my support for the reports by Mrs Rühle and Mr Seppänen.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, since time is short, I should like to focus on just one issue which has been mentioned several times already today, namely the presidential decrees. In this context, the Czech Parliament's declaration of 24 April 2002 is helpful, since it states that the presidential decrees cannot be the basis for any new legal relations today. However, there is one issue which concerns us, and that is whether discriminatory elements still exist in current Czech law, such as an act dating from 1992 on the restitution of property confiscated from its owners under Communism, which makes the restitution of property contingent on continuous Czech citizenship. We must establish whether this provision conforms with European law. The same applies to what is known as the 1946 Criminal Indemnity Act. In addition to clarifying these and other issues, a number of other problems will arise even after Czech accession to the EU. I am convinced that a clear signal from those who were expelled in 1945 and from their descendants would be helpful. This signal should make it clear that the property relations which emerged after the Second World War are inviolable, and should not be violated. If this signal were sent out, Czech fears could be assuaged, and people who are currently consumed by these fears could use their energies productively to prepare the Czech Republic for EU accession in 2004.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today we are debating the Gahrton report on the South Caucasus. The report is very good; it proposes a policy framework and contains specific, very interesting proposals for this important and sensitive area. Allow me to take this opportunity to make certain comments of a general nature. There have been catalytic developments over recent months in the area, in Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. The new president of Georgia is currently in the USA for talks with President Bush. There is an acute presence and mobility in the area on the part of Powell, on the part of Ivanof, on the part of the USA and on the part of Russia. And what are we doing? Our representative is in the area, but is that enough? Sometimes the Union, irrespective of individual initiatives by its Member States, appears as an observer, albeit an active observer, but that is not enough. The South Caucasus is our neighbour, with historic, cultural and political ties with Europe which go back hundreds, if not thousands of years. The Commissioner, who is an intellectual as well as a politician, knows about Prometheus Bound, the expedition of the Argonaut and the Golden Fleece, about Jason, who was linked with the area of the Caucasus. It is an area of particular interest to Europe and to its new supplies of hydrocarbons. We must not overlook the fact that you can reach the heart of Europe via the Black Sea and the Danube. The Union's priorities are often defined by the historic and economic relations between its Member States and Africa, Latin America and South-East Asia and we overlook the new state of affairs. We need to support democratic developments, peace and development in the area. There is a need for a more acute presence in the area, by improving our relations as regards regional cooperation with all the countries on the Black Sea at economic, political and cultural level. We need to understand that the area, in essence, is a part of Europe, culturally, politically and historically, and we need to address it as such.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I am delighted to at least have the opportunity of contributing to this debate on behalf of the , and firstly to congratulate Mr Berenguer Fuster for the work that he has done in relation to this report. I recognise that his report is quite brief, but that belies the amount of work that has had to be undertaken because the issue that we are considering is a complex one as he made clear in the course of his remarks. We are dealing in essence with the compromise between access to confidential information, information which comes into the hands of a whole range of regulatory authorities, and the use that is subsequently made of that information. We know that the information is in general gathered as a result of the obligations that rest with companies from the whole of the inspection regime. We have a range of regulators now, across the whole of the European Union, but we very often have a whole range of regulators within Member States themselves, and the dilemma of how information is in fact used is one that is not just a dilemma for the Community and its exchange of information with regulators beyond the Community itself. We often have that dilemma within Member States. I certainly have had first-hand experience of government in the United Kingdom where I can remember very many instances where the government has been on the point of granting a contract to a particular company only to find out that another branch of government is actually engaged in starting legal proceedings for one reason or another against that very company. This is often described as the left arm of government not knowing what the right arm is doing, but what it is really about is the willingness on the part of the regulatory authorities within Member States, but also within the European Union and beyond, to exchange information whilst at the same time respecting confidentiality. That brings me to the second brief point that I wish to make this evening which is about the need for the consolidation of regulatory authorities themselves. That is a process that has been undertaken within the United Kingdom. Recently, Howard Davies, who heads the new Financial Services Authority in the UK, was speaking to our Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee and outlining what that experience has been. It has not been a wholly easy experience, but I think that people are broadly of the view that the consolidation of regulatory authorities within the United Kingdom has been a success. It is something that could be commended to other authorities within the European Union, not least because it would lead to a common approach to the use of the information that is made available by this process, to the advantage of investors throughout the whole of the European Union itself.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, yesterday in this House the chairperson of my delegation, Rosa Díez, reported another leak of a written answer from the Commission to a question in Question Time, before Parliament officially received the answer from the Commission. It was the answer to Question No 91 from Mrs García-Orcoyen about the national water plan. Having received the press release that the Group of the European People’s Party in the European Parliament distributed yesterday to the Spanish media in Strasbourg, dated 13 March, half an hour before Question Time finished, I would like to inform the President of the European Parliament that as well as the answer to Mrs García-Orcoyen’s question, the joint answer to Questions No 92 from Mr Agag Longo and No 94 from Mrs Avilés Perea was also leaked. Therefore, on behalf of my delegation, I once again ask the President to investigate what happened and to take every step to ensure that this situation does not reoccur.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the discussion of this report on the organisation of official inspections in the field of animal nutrition is much like the end of one stage in some cycle race or other. Ladies and gentlemen, I believe that approval of the joint draft text will guarantee us a win tomorrow. But that does not mean, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, that the yellow jersey is safe or final victory is in sight. As I already explained during second reading, there is a crisis underlying this directive amendment. After all, a number of years ago, it became clear that citrus pulp from Brazil, which was contaminated with dioxin, had ended up in animal feed in the Netherlands, Belgium and in Germany. It then also transpired that the Commission did not have the right tools to tackle the problem adequately. That, ladies and gentlemen, is about to change. I noticed during the trialogue how Member State governments put their own interests above the general interest. Discussions with the French Presidency were courteous, yet tough. I made every effort to ensure that the European Commission can act independently in emergencies and certainly in cases where public and animal health are under threat, so without having to consult the Member States. The measures issued by the Commission apply with immediate effect and these must also be submitted to the Standing Committee on Animal Nutrition within ten days. The negotiations also meant that – and I view this as a personal victory for this Parliament – the safeguard measures issued by the Commission remain in force as long as they are not replaced by another legislative decision. A second problem was that the Member States rather disliked our requirement to provide for the possibility of unannounced inspections. During the trialogue, it became clear that the Council did not intend to shift from this position. As a result, I received from the French Presidency a very clear signal, a very clear message indeed, which was ‘no pasarán’ (they will not get through). Member States clearly view unannounced inspections as a violation of their sovereignty, but they did seem prepared to provide the experts of the Commission with all the assistance required to fulfil their inspection task. Furthermore, the results of the inspections will be imparted to the European Parliament. Ladies and gentlemen, I believe that I salvaged as much as I could. In my opinion, our Parliament is tightening up on the Council’s common position considerably and I recommend approval of the common draft text. But as I already mentioned a moment ago, we are about to finish a stage in a cycle race as it were. There is another stage scheduled for tomorrow, when Mrs Marit Paulsen from the will be at the helm and she will be given the chance to further tighten the present directive. She deserves all our support in this. I wish her every success, and she knows she can count on me.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, through the active commitment of Mr Chirac, the French Presidency of the Union has drawn Europe's attention to a series of issues which are of major importance for our future. This is why the work awaiting the protagonists of the Nice Summit will be challenging and high level, commensurate with the ambitious nature of the projects. President Prodi, it will not be easy for you, just as it will not be easy for the Heads of State and Government together with whom you will have to find a solution to the many issues under debate, including the vital enlargement, the reform of the institutions and the replacement of outdated mechanisms, and the proclamation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is the first real step towards the European Constitution in which we believe. With regard to freedoms, individual rights and scientific research, the peoples and their representatives who are present in this and the national parliaments must have the final say. That, Mr President, is why we are launching an appeal in this House to prevent Brussels and Strasbourg being reduced to forums for national party political issues. We are here to build the Europe of the future which will completely reform outdated mechanisms and to establish a social market economy which will create employment and generate development. We cannot do this without the involvement and firm support of the peoples, who must see the European institution as the defender of their rights and the guarantor of their future, not as the seat of the bureaucracy and petty feuds of a limited, primitive political system. Let us all endeavour to ensure that Nice is not the end of the line but the launching pad for a major project. In short, we must all aim high, and, in order to do this, we must believe implicitly in what we are doing. Mr President, we Members of Forza Italia and the believe in this project and we will be protagonists alongside you in the construction of a Europe of the citizens.

Political group: PPE-DE