GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I should like to say to the Commissioner that, at a time of violent clashes in Genoa and concern over globalisation, the outcome of the Bonn Summit should have renewed peoples' faith in the political process. I hope so – it certainly did mine. Together with Mr Pronk and the Belgian Presidency, you have achieved a great deal. You provided an immense service to the environment and strengthened European influence. I would like to congratulate and thank you. I was pleased with aspects of the deal, the compromise over nuclear power for example was as good as we could get. But overall the agreement is weak. What matters, however, is the process that has now been established. I know that Mr de Roo has instructed me in the past about how the process and the importance of it cannot be overestimated, pointing for example at the way in which the Montreal Protocol has been developed into a really effective instrument from a rather poor beginning over the past decade. But the Kyoto process is going to be very much harder. The priorities are to have it ratified, to get our own Member States to implement effective action plans, and not only to launch emissions trading but to prove that it can work, which is the hardest task of all. And if we can make it work, then I hope that American business will be attracted and the whole political climate across the globe will change. You have still a lot to do. The vast majority in this House will strongly support you in your continuing efforts. I thank you again.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, France is, as everyone knows, a secular state. Secularism is an essential value for French people and it is an intrinsic part of our culture. The Islamic headscarf is a sign of oppression of women, a sign of male superiority. This is unacceptable for French people, but also for every man and woman that advocates humanism. In this House we campaign for equality between men and women. The issue of the Islamic headscarf is a complex one and we hope that some of our fellow Members will not compound this complexity with their certitudes. If they possess the truth, then good for them. As for us, we are searching for the truth, and we will make every effort to promote the secularism that is the only hope for peace between all religions. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, rapporteur Bowe concluded that the conciliation procedure concerning the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms had a satisfactory outcome overall. The would agree with this, although naturally there is still room for improvement, for example regarding the protection of biodiversity, but these are matters to be revisited at a later date. The primary objective of the new directive is the safety of the environment and public health. It follows logically from this that although it may be acceptable to use GMOs, there must always be systematic, independent and in-depth research prior to the release, into the potential risks to the environment and to public health. What is important in this respect is that the directive introduces mandatory monitoring after the placing on the market of GMO products and a mandatory time limitation of maximum ten years for first-time consent. This will enable us to encourage research into and use of GMOs on the one hand, whilst still being able to monitor the situation. Comprehensive information promotes the consumer’s freedom of choice. The consumer must be able to have absolute certainty as to whether a particular product does or does not contain GMOs. The only way to do this is through labelling which is the very model of clarity. So we are pleased to hear that the Commission is planning to produce proposals along these lines in the very near future. Lastly, I am delighted that the Commission has pledged to bring forward proposals for supplementary liability provisions for the various types of environmental damage in all areas of the European Union, before the end of this year. It is still extremely important to keep a close eye on all the risks of damage to the environment and public health, and to restrict them using all possible means.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, the Commission was correct to make food safety one of its top priorities. The recent dioxin scare in Belgium, prior to that the BSE crisis in Britain, and the continuing controversy over the safety of genetically-modified foods, have all contributed to undermining consumer confidence in the safety of the food they eat. If the Commission can indeed restore confidence in the food production chain it will simultaneously restore confidence in the European Union institutions themselves and demonstrate their ability to protect the rights of EU citizens. I therefore welcome the fact that the issue of food safety, public health and consumer confidence features prominently in the Commission's work programme for 2000. However, I was disappointed with the nature of the proposal for the establishment of a European food authority in the recent White Paper. In its present form, what is being proposed is more like an advisory agency to the Commission rather than an independent body that would have decision– and law-making powers more similar to those of the US Food and Drug Administration, which has already established credibility in this particular field. Furthermore, future legislation must address the modus operandi of the relationship between the European food authority and the authorities of national Member States, for example the food safety authority in Ireland. This body, for example, alongside the recently established cross-border body in Ireland for food safety, is already doing good work. It would be a tragedy if their efforts were to be undermined by deficiencies in EU legislation. My fear is that such deficiencies in EU legislation could lead to turf wars between national and EU bodies, who should be working together rather than against one another. That is something we must guard against.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, any positive measures proposed by the Council and in this report to tighten up the European Union's policy by strengthening measures to prosecute racism and xenophobia pale into insignificance beside the decisions taken on immigration in Seville, which came up with a policy to systematically prosecute and terrorise immigrants in keeping with the philosophy of the far right, which blames all the evils of capitalism on immigrants. Immigrants who, at the end of the day, mostly come from countries which are the wretched victims of exploitation, including by countries in the European Union. At the same time, many countries, such as Greece, which perhaps has the highest percentage of immigrants, apply practices which are crude, barbaric infringements of immigrants' fundamental human rights. It was recently revealed that 2 700 immigrants were being held in such appalling conditions that they took to the streets in protest. Against this nightmarish backdrop, the Council's proposal and the Ceyhun report, combined with current legislation on the European arrest warrant, are little more than measures to expand and conceal the racist and xenophobic policy of the European Union.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I certainly do not require the two minutes allocated to me because, after the explanation from Mr MacCormick and the additional explanation by Mr Zappalà, from the point of view of the Group of the of the European Parliament, there is no doubt that Mr Pacheco Pereira’s immunity should not be waived. I would say that this is a really trivial issue, a few comments by a politician on a television programme, which have resulted in a criminal action that has no grounds, and which are covered by the Portuguese constitution and by application of Community rules on the waiver of parliamentary immunity. In short, here we have all the ingredients for Mr Pacheco Pereira’s parliamentary immunity not to be waived and, therefore, the Group of the agrees with Mr MacCormick’s proposal that Mr Pacheco Pereira’s parliamentary immunity should not be suspended. IN THE CHAIR: GERHARD SCHMIDVice-President President. – The debate is closed.The vote will take place tomorrow at 12.30 p.m.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, some time ago I met my brother. I have a brother called Edgardo Fatuzzo, who lives in Novara, but unfortunately we do not see each other very often. When we last saw each other and he heard I was an MEP for the Pensioners’ Party, elected to Brussels by pensioners, and that I am the national secretary of this party in Italy, he said to me, “As you are in politics, do you know that when we work and are over fifty they make it quite clear to us that they cannot wait for us to give up our jobs, and they make us feel we are a burden? This is because there are too many young people and they get lower wages; we, however, are slow to understand progress and earn more.” Well, I should like it to be considered harassment when older people are harassed for the sole reason that they have grown old in their jobs, a point which unfortunately is not mentioned in this document.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I do not wish to re-open the debate, but a number of delegates have explicitly raised some questions regarding structural investments using more TACIS funding, also in the light of the special democratisation process which is unfolding in Mongolia. The Commissioner has not commented on this at all. I believe that justice would be done to Parliament if he were to devote a few words to this topic.

Political group: PPE-DE
With our vote today, we are trying to give people the right to make a genuine choice about GM products. We have listened to the concerns of people calling for the right to make an informed choice about GM food and we are trying to put in place a labelling and information scheme which makes that choice a reality. But we have to work within the boundaries of what is scientifically provable and in practical terms possible to implement. We live in an imperfect world and the use of thresholds reflects that reality. In all labelling regimes there is a cut-off point born of the practical and scientific reality that it's the best we can do with the science we've got. Organic regulations allow for the presence of up to 5% non-organic ingredients. Whilst we don't label very low levels of residues of pesticides or chemical contaminates in foodstuffs, we know they are present. We welcome co-existence rules, which, by allowing GM crops to be grown alongside conventional crops, are another step towards making real consumer choice a reality.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, when we review the Greek Presidency we can say with complete justification that it is hard to see how a permanent Council President could have done better. After this presidency we will clearly have to explain to the public what additional benefit Europe is supposed to derive from the creation of a new post such as that of Council President, a president appointed from the ranks of the Council. Obviously the Convention, which has already been mentioned here several times, has resulted in a compromise and the Intergovernmental Conference, too, will ultimately result in a compromise. Nevertheless, the Convention's weak points should not be overlooked, even if the worst has been avoided. There is however still the issue – which the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, mentioned – of the dual presidency of the European Union. Even if the Council President has no legislative competence, that person will still represent the European Union to the outside world and it will be their personality that will determine what they make of the office. This may give rise to conflicts within the EU. On the arduous path to a Common Foreign and Security Policy, a post of common foreign minister has now also been created, which is supposed to combine the two functions carried out by the previous agents. This undoubtedly constitutes progress, but creating a post does not yet mean that a common policy has been created. The foreign minister – who is yet to be appointed – will embody the schizophrenia of the European Union. Above all, however, subdividing the Commissioners into those with voting rights and those without is a real structural defect, particularly where the Commission remains a collective body. I can certainly understand that, when faced with an EU of 25 or more Member States, some may long for the times when there was a Community of six. But artificially scaling down the European Union by dividing it into a core Europe and the rest undermines the European Union's cohesion and also public trust in the European institutions. This weakness should therefore be remedied. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the word ‘federalism’ risks staying devoid of meaning if we do not make a basic choice. Yes, we do have to draft a European constitution to avoid ending up with a simple free exchange area after enlargement. To do that, however, we really must understand subsidiarity, which remains the most important principle of federalism. I will give an example. Under the Italian constitution we have a special regime of autonomy. On the way towards a necessary European constitution is it not important to involve the regional political level in some way, especially when it represents a linguistic minority? I ask this question knowing full well that the answer is not easy, but it is nevertheless vital for the democratic future of Europe.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, perhaps we shall succeed in saving Europe, and that would, at least, be something. It is true that, after a year of uncertainty, of contradiction and of conflict, there are positive signs. The disarmament of Iraq is underway. The voice of the people is making itself heard on the streets and it is doing so, as I would remind Mr Titley, along with not only the Pope and the universities, but also with millions of other people. We have seen, in effect, that even with massive propaganda, neither sarcasm, nor threats, nor portfolio policy have succeeded in stopping the protests. Moreover, remarkable and intense diplomatic efforts are being made within the UN, and there is also, thank goodness, the work of the Greek Presidency. The paradox, however, is that war has never been so close, and that, if disarmament is the objective of this war, disarmament is, in fact, taking place. If the objective is democracy in Iraq, there are ways, other than war, of creating it. Let us talk about removing the embargo, the International Criminal Court, the civil society which exists in Iraq and which deserves encouragement, but let us not talk about war. Then again, if the problem is geopolitical and economic, if it is power versus law, then no, no, and no again, and we must oppose it. Tzvetan Todorov, who studied the totalitarian systems of the twentieth century, had an excellent way of describing this. He said that democracy is not immunised against the temptation of the good, which may lead it to the worst, in other words the dropping of humanitarian bombs. Let us not, tomorrow, drop humanitarian bombs on Iraq, on an Iraq which we shall have succeeded in disarming, but not succeeded in protecting.

Political group: PSE
As Member for a tobacco-producing region, I would like to express my reservations about the proposal for a ‘tobacco’ directive. Nobody questions the validity of its aims: smoking kills 500 000 people per year in the European Union alone. We must therefore fight vigorously against smoking, just as we must fight unremittingly against drug addiction, alcoholism and all dangerous addictions, whether they are of natural or chemical origin. In this respect, we can only share this report’s proposals, which seek more effectively to warn, make aware and inform consumers of the risks to which they are exposing themselves through excessive tobacco consumption. Let us even go beyond labelling or limiting toxic substances by making better use than we currently do of the special fund established under the common organisation of the market for tobacco and to which producers pay contributions in order to fund the research and development of less harmful varieties. On the other hand, however, let us be careful not to destabilise too suddenly, without allowing time to convert, a farming sector that involves 135 000 producers and employs 400 000 seasonal workers, in often very vulnerable agricultural regions. In this case, there are a few basic principles which I feel must guide our action: we must act fairly against all factors likely to cause addiction, such as advertising and excessive consumption of dangerous pharmacological substances – funded, moreover, from the social security system –and we must ensure that restrictions on tobacco production within the Union are accompanied by the monitoring and restriction of imports so that their effects on consumption are not cancelled out. We must give tobacco growers an adequate timescale in which to adapt their production to the new standards for tar content and we must reject any restriction on subsidies for tobacco production unless we replace them with aid as an incentive for conversion. In other words, we must ensure that it is not only European Union producers – who supply only 25% of the raw tobacco consumed in Europe – who, without compensation or an adequate timescale, bear the costs of a regulation which is undeniably praiseworthy, but which is too sketchy in the form that has been proposed to us.

Political group: PSE
Only after the mad cow scandal did we realise the need to improve the traceability and labelling of foodstuffs. Europe was very slow to react and was left far behind in terms of beef. Today, on the basis of a unanimous agreement within the Council, we finally have the opportunity to show a little determination. Indeed, the common position submitted to us includes a large number of the amendments adopted by this House at first reading. Concerning the mandatory statements, indication of origin, implementation dates, minced meat and the optional system, I believe that Parliament should be satisfied: the Council has listened to us. This is why I wholeheartedly supported this common position as it stood and did not vote for any amendments. The debate has focused on a few specific points and in particular on the indication of the category of animal on the label. Certain fellow Members have explained, in good faith, that this statement does nothing to contribute to tracing beef. They are correct. However, after the series of food scandals, which this House has always vigorously denounced, how could we today omit to take account of the colossal role played by the consumer? Specifically mentioning the category is a response to a demand. It contributes to restoring consumer confidence. Two types of information must be distinguished: - information making it possible to improve traceability, but that is not directly intended to inform the end consumer. As it is too specific, it can really only be read by professionals. It fulfils a health function. It is on the basis of these statements that controls can be carried out. We are therefore talking about setting up identification and traceability systems; - the second type of information is directly intended for citizens like you and me, who buy their meat every day. What do they want to know? They want to be sure that the product they are to consume is safe: the traceability and identification system will make it possible to guarantee the safety and quality of beef. But the citizen would also like to know what type of meat it is. This type of indication on the label is addressed directly to the end consumer and gives him intelligible information. It is a mistake to say that this is pointless. On the contrary, this labelling is just as important as establishing health guarantees. Europe must give consumers back their confidence, as they have been avoiding beef since the mad cow scandal. The implications are significant for the agro-food sector overall, which has been struck squarely by this crisis. These two types of information are not in competition; they are complementary and contribute, each at their own level, to restoring the confidence of European consumers. The confidence of our consumers cannot be decreed, it must be won. - Garcia-Orcoyen Tormo report (A5-0165/2000)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first of all, I want to thank the rapporteur. He has prepared a splendid report, and I am, of course, also glad that he has accepted my action plan in its entirety. I am, in general, very much in favour of the Commission’s plans to provide its delegations with more resources, more employees and more powers but, all too often, we have seen examples of ‘champagne delegations’ which have spent more time in diplomatic clubs than on their real work. In their defence, it may be said that they have had neither powers nor resources under the old system. Many problems with aid projects are due to the fact that the projects are administered centrally from Brussels. In the future, the work is therefore to be done out in the field. The new system is still not in place, but 24 delegations have, for the time being, been given direct financial responsibility. I hope that, as soon as possible, we can see the valuable experience gained in, for example, Bosnia transferred to the remainder of the delegations. The idea of giving the delegations more duties and more responsibility does in fact operate in practice, but we have recently seen examples of fraud and irregularities in the delegations in the applicant countries. I am thinking especially of Slovakia and the Czech Republic in this context. The Commission must issue Parliament with supervisory reports on the delegations, but I am not asking to see the reports themselves because I appreciate that they contain sensitive personal information. What I would like to see, however, are reports on the financial aspects. The Commission has already promised me these in connection with the 1999 discharge, and I now hope that the Commission will go on to deliver the goods.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, if I have understood correctly, the has moved that the point concerning the non-proliferation treaty be replaced by Iraq. For goodness sake, let’s vote on it! If you want to cancel that and put Iraq in place of the world forum on training, then you must move that and we will then vote on it under item IV when it’s the world forum’s turn.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, I wish to put a short supplementary question. I was not entirely satisfied with the reply. Above all, I am concerned about what we are doing now. Are we to wait for technological innovations, for example the fuel cell, to at least partially solve some of the problems we have with traffic across the Alps or should we not now use the truth about the cost as an instrument to force heavy traffic, in the Alps at least, off some of the roads and onto the railways?

Political group: Verts-ALE