GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, it is the duty of this Parliament and this Commission to protect the health of all citizens of the European Union. That is what we are trying to do in this report, on which I congratulate Mrs Paulsen. Certainly the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy was the correct committee to bring these proposals forward in view of what we have heard. We have had to learn lessons from the dioxin scandal. The Commission has now proposed deleting the derogation for compound foodstuffs and having the option of fixing action thresholds below the maximum permitted limits in cases of real emergency. Like the rapporteur, I believe that there is a case for doing all these things and for looking at the substances she referred to when they are not in themselves toxic but show increases in the aggregated levels. Animal feed, which has proven to be unsafe, should certainly be removed from the food chain. That is not just a precaution, it is common sense. I want to sound one note of caution. Common sense has two sides. If we are going to propose that, for example, there should be a tenfold reduction in the materials which are permitted to enter the European Union for blending down by approved food manufacturers, we ought to be certain that there is a sound scientific basis for that proposal. The Commissioner will know that in my country the Independent Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs was worried that such a ban may actually drive out blending-down procedures into the world outside the EU where they are less likely to be correctly monitored and controlled for any future entry into the Union. The committee agreed that there needed to be upper limits for undesirable ingredients, above which the materials would have to be destroyed. By the second reading we need to have the Commission's view on how the risk assessment will be carried out. That is a very simple request which is not connected with any specific amendment proposed this first reading. It may well determine, however, how we can vote at that stage. I suspect it will also determine how we are able to make the case which the Commission quite properly wants to make for clean food in Europe, outside the European Union, to those third country exporters who will be affected by the new levels and to the WTO, if any challenges to what we are doing are mounted there. We look forward to hearing from the Commission how it will demonstrate that its response here is not only precautionary – which it clearly is – but also proportionate.

Political group: PSE
I cannot support the resolution because I do not support the demands for common defence or for a common tax policy. - Torres Marques report (A5-0076/1999)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we have just voted on texts referring, for example, to ‘India’ rather than ‘the Republic of India’ or anything else of the sort, and so this text reads ‘Macedonia’. If somebody wants to change this for reasons that are recognisably political, that is an oral amendment, and has to be dealt with under the relevant procedure. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
What British farmers, and in particular farmers in the English West Midlands region that I represent, are looking for is a speedy resolution to this particular problem. The scientific committee has clearly demonstrated its belief that British beef is as safe as any other beef anywhere in the European Union and under those circumstances I am sure that the Commissioner would agree with me that a delay of perhaps another few days only is better than two or three years going through courts which ultimately frustrates everybody, satisfies nobody and in particular does not satisfy British farmers who have followed the rule of law, have done what has been asked of them and are now in a position to sell an excellent product throughout the whole of the European Union. What I would like the Commissioner to go through just one more time again here now for total clarity is his belief that this delay will only be a few days and that at the very latest he envisages this process being completed by the Tuesday of the Strasbourg session, and preferably before.

Political group: PSE
Whatever nationalists of all hues might think, it makes more sense to establish energy reserves at the level of the entire Union than at the level of each small- and medium-sized Member State that comprises it. So why do we need to build up stocks? According to the authors of the report themselves, it is not to protect against any type of natural disaster that would cut off supply routes but ‘more importantly, the economic risks due to market instability’. The Union must, therefore, protect itself against the consequences of the economic system on which its very existence is founded. We will consequently take no part in this debate which is for those who worship the market economy. We do not worship at that altar.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my own position and that of the have been discussed at length in other forums, and it is not possible, in two and a half minutes to present a detailed argument. I shall, therefore, limit myself to asking the Commissioner a few questions. First of all, it is important that this debate should be based on figures that are as precise as possible. Even at an early stage of the debate, it was clear that the various scenarios available to the Commission are not really ‘bottom up’ scenarios, for energy efficiency, for renewables, or for cogeneration. Furthermore, another problem is that, often, European scenarios do not correspond to the detailed scenarios drawn up by Member States. In this context, I should like to know whether the Commission has begun working on this type of scenario with a view to the Barcelona Summit. Secondly, energy efficiency is everyone’s birthright and everyone is insisting on this point. What is the Commission’s view today, in concrete terms, on the important actions to be taken in the field of energy efficiency? Parliament has put forward a number of alternatives, both in its Energy Intelligent Europe initiative, and in the action plan. Nevertheless, since October, I have not seen the Commission making a genuine, sustained effort on this matter. Thirdly, and this is a fundamental point, at the beginning of your presentation of the Green Paper, you promised us a real democratic debate. Today, however, I see that the national round tables have not been entirely transparent and that, at European level, we are still waiting for an open and transparent debate to be held, something that you announced at the beginning as being a key element. This is why I am asking you today, Commissioner, when will the round tables take place in civil society, amongst experts at European level? We have been hearing about them for the last six months, and we have yet to see one take place. I fail to see how the Commission can ensure that the Green Paper is followed up without organising these round tables.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, this Commission proposal has arisen following the problems resulting from the liberalisation agreements it agreed to negotiate within the OECD while at the same time it limited State aid to the shipbuilding industry, promoted the concentration of shipyards and later removed operating aid. Now that there are serious problems in the industry, which is of strategic importance to the European Union, particularly to ensure the security of supply on appropriate terms and to prevent excessive dependence on external sources, it has become necessary to support the European shipbuilding industry against unfair practices by Korea. Although the Commission proposal is important for the moment, it is only temporary and partial, and in the end, is on the same level as Korean unfair practices. In any event, it is important that the proposals that the rapporteur has made should at least be taken into account, including the extension of the expiry date of this 6% operating aid, in special cases up to a limit of 14%, and also the enlargement of its scope to other vessels. We therefore back this report in order to prevent the short-term aggravation of the economic and social problems that already exist in this area.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I voted for the motion and I congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Jackson, who worked so hard to ensure that this recommendation on the practical organisation of environmental inspections becomes a directive. There is no point in Parliament adopting hundreds and hundreds of extremely important and useful directives and regulations if adequate, effective, practical monitoring is not then carried out in order to ensure that they are genuinely implemented and are of benefit to all the citizens of the European Union, particularly – as I said a moment ago – when it is a matter of environmental health, as it is in this case, and when failure to observe the rules causes harm, above all, to pensioners and the elderly.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in my view, the main aim of the initiative for new neighbours in the Wider Europe is not to put those neighbours who are waiting for their turn to join the Union to come one day on hold, Commissioner Verheugen. They are already aware of our requirements, which will continue to be based on the Copenhagen criteria, although they will no doubt be better clarified by the constitution proposals we are awaiting from the Convention. I highlighted the importance of this during this morning’s debate, but I would like to relay to you the moving account of one of these countries, which, in its own words, is currently waiting in the kindergarten of the Council of Europe until it is one day allowed into the older children’s playground of the European Parliament. This was in Mostar, where, as you know, the rivalry and fear between Catholic Croats and Muslim Bosnians are still far too intense, in spite of the efforts of the European Community. In Mostar, the Croatian mayor of the town told me that the only thing that Catholic Croats and Muslim Bosnians have in common is the sentiment and the belief that they must be Europeans together. So that is the situation of those who are waiting. However, although I am paying all due attention to the reflections of our rapporteur, Mrs Napoletano, I am not the only person to ask if we can use this report to send a very strong signal to all those who have neither the desire nor the intention to seek their accession, and I am thinking in particular of our neighbours in the southern Mediterranean. There are many in that region who fear that the efforts made with regard to Central and Eastern Europe may result in a slackening of the links with their own countries that are already too little institutionalised. In the emotion following the 11 September attacks, we decided quite unanimously, for example, to give fresh impetus to the Barcelona process and, to this end, decided to create a Euro-Mediterranean Forum, which, I am sad to say, is not functioning today due to the war in Iraq. Is it not time, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to reinvigorate this initiative without delay?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the appointment of the new President of the European Central Bank and the opinion of the European Parliament on this appointment are acts that exercise the sovereignty of the European peoples and must be addressed with all due seriousness. One would hope that the appointment would one day be made solely by Parliament. Then it would have greater validity and greater weight. Today the House has the affirmative proposal of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and there is no doubt as to the professional qualifications of the candidate. On the contrary, his impressive career to date is a full guarantee of his personal qualifications. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the economic philosophy which the candidate President of the European Central Bank defended before the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs with such obstinacy. I am still having trouble understanding how an economist with Mr Trichet's immense experience could maintain that, in times of protracted economic stagnation, increasing public spending may damage the recovery of the economy. He took recourse to various theoretical sophisms, while it has been known since at least 1910 that the classic antidote to depression and unemployment are public works. I imagine that even Mr Trichet would agree that, without investment, the economic machine cannot restart and I imagine that he himself will note the delay in private investment and the need for us to give impetus to public investment, as Mr Chirac and Mr Schröder have finally understood, albeit belatedly. If, however, persistence with this philosophy was reason enough to vote against Mr Trichet last week, I greatly fear that it is no longer reason enough, because in the meantime the Swedish people have rejected the euro, forcing all of us to rally round the symbols of the stability of the single currency, which is why I feel it is my obligation – and I believe that I speak at least for my Greek colleagues with similar visions – to support and vote in favour of Mr Trichet. Nonetheless, I hope that he will be forced by events to take a different attitude and stance because the central bankers cannot use their stance to say, as Mr Lipietz said, ‘après moi le déluge’, [after me the deluge] nor can they say ‘avant moi le déluge, pendant moi le déluge, et après moi Dieu nous sauve’ [before me the deluge, for the duration of my reign the deluge and after me, may God help us].

Political group: PSE
Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank Mr Brok for the high quality of the work he has carried out enabling us to vote today on a decisive text in our history. I fully support the general approach taken by this report and the encouragement it contains. In my own report, however, I have taken the liberty of dwelling at greater length on certain factors which are fundamental to the creation of the internal market. First of all, I have discussed the need for the judicial and administrative systems in the candidate countries to be truly independent. Much remains to be done in terms of selection, training and evaluation procedures for judges. Furthermore, coherent reform of the public administrations must be a priority objective. Impartiality is essential in these areas. Secondly, the free movement of persons, which is a cornerstone of the internal market, is all too often blocked, in particular by the lack of recognition of occupational qualifications. Lastly, I would encourage our future Member States to step up their efforts to combat counterfeit and pirated goods, for that is the key to achieving compliance with intellectual and industrial property rights. The factors that I have just mentioned are all elements with regard to which the European Parliament is committed to remaining vigilant. This vigilance is possible thanks to the measures established at the appropriate times by the European Commission over previous periods and following accession. Safeguard clauses specifically linked to the internal market may be implemented in the event of failure to comply with the obligations arising from accession and invoked as a warning prior to accession. It should be made clear that these clauses create an additional safety net. I would also invite the Commission to update us on progress in these matters in its final report, due to be presented in November 2003. Lastly, I would like to emphasise the importance of this time and of 16 April next. Sadly, the past few days have been coloured by the conflict in Iraq, by the positions taken by governments in Central and Eastern Europe, and, lastly, by the problem of funding enlargement. Failure to give our assent, however, would send an extremely unfortunate signal to the candidate countries, where referendums are underway. The timetable must be observed. We must make room for our common future. IN THE CHAIR: MR DIMITRAKOPOULOSVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in March 2002 the European Parliament adopted a resolution on guidelines for the 2003 Budget. A series of issues were mentioned that are of the utmost significance for the future viability of our policies on agriculture and rural development. These include the mid-term review of Agenda 2000, consumer protection and enlargement. I hope that the Commission is sufficiently courageous and competent also to take account of these long-term objectives when it is implementing the budget and that it will not be distracted by more immediate political concerns. I hope that sources of conflict, such as shortcomings in accounting procedures, fiddling and cooking of the books, are eliminated and that instead transparency and strict discipline are the order of the day when the budget is implemented. Both nationally and internationally, interested members of the public are presented with a confused and contradictory picture of agricultural policy. As they currently stand, Commissioner Fischler's proposals have not met with the approval of a majority. More work therefore needs to be done on them. Despite the fact that the applicant countries have made huge economic and social adjustments, the Berlin decisions provide that the funds to be transferred to the accession countries, in the form of pre-accession aid, and expenditure on enlargement are to be maintained as laid down and made public. Several discussions in which I have participated have reinforced my view, in favour of the applicant countries, that the 25% rule for direct payments is politically unacceptable; in addition the applicant countries fear high losses and are demanding an accession rebate and a change in their quotas. This will have a major impact on the funding of the agricultural policy and the current financial perspective will have to be revised. How much will enlargement cost? That is the question. How we are to respond to this in the 2003 Budget remains unknown. A vital question for the agricultural sector is 1.05% + X and for as long as it remains unanswered the implementation of the 2003 Budget will remain a dangerous business as far as agriculture is concerned. IN THE CHAIR: MRS CERSCHIÖLDVice-President

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you have already been praised several times during the course of this debate, and rightly so, for your understanding and your sincere appeal for a proper new start in a common Europe. “The future is at stake” is the way you put the objective of the work of the Swedish Presidency into perspective. Unfortunately, you went no further than perspectives in your reference to the objectives of Annex 4 to Nice, in calling for us to be closer to our citizens and in your more than cryptic comment that you see both advantages and disadvantages in the convention method. With all due respect, that does not amount to much. In fact it amounts to far too little if you consider that the Swedish Presidency is already approaching the half-way mark. I would have welcomed at least a few specifics on the crucial core issues addressed by Michel Barnier. Do we want a more or a less political Europe? How exactly do we envisage fundamental reform of the institutions? How should we be organising the process of writing a forward-looking European constitution? I would have listened gladly to at least some sort of attempt to reply to one or other of these questions. Perhaps you will yet do so in your closing address. May I add another question to those already put to you by my fellow Members? What does being closer to our citizens mean from an institutional point of view, i.e. once we get past websites and discussions at the European School? Does it mean depriving the European Parliament of power by setting up a second chamber of national parliaments, over which the Council believes it can exert more influence than it can over the European Parliament? Some answers please. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a government that has presided over the execution of over 250 people since January 2002, including 27 since 30 September alone – the day on which negotiations were held between the EU and Iran; one which, secondly, includes a woman such as the advisor to President Khatami, a woman who has said that stoning is a legitimate and defensible method of protecting family values; thirdly, one that sentences human rights activists such as Nasser Zarafshan to years in prison – such a government deserves the label 'inhumane regime' and must be condemned in the strongest terms. I do of course endorse the material need for dialogue between the European Union and Iran. However, I simply cannot understand why negotiations on a cooperation and trade agreement between the European Union and Iran should begin on 29 October. Parliament has called on numerous occasions for cooperation agreements or financial aid to be suspended or frozen when human rights are being violated. So why are we applying this double standard? The Council decided on 22 October, just two days ago, not to table a human rights resolution on Iran at the next sitting of the UN Commission on Human Rights. I find that totally unacceptable. I cannot but wonder if the reason for not wanting to expose the Iranian Government now is that it does not square with the policy on Iraq? We in the Confederal Group of the United European support the joint motion, although it does represent a shift from the real resolution on human rights to a composite resolution on human rights plus cooperation between the European Union and Iraq, but we think that parts of items 4 and 5 are wrong for the reasons I have mentioned and we have therefore applied for a split vote. I really would be delighted if the hope reflected by this common motion were to be fulfilled, by which I mean if an end to human rights violations in Iran were to give us cause for optimism. However, present circumstances alone give me no cause whatsoever for any such belief, which is why we must raise our voices, at any rate here in Parliament. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL