GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I apologise to Mrs Keppelhoff-Wiechert for having missed her remarks. A mass meeting of the railway workers who have recently been dismissed is taking place outside, and that was where I was. I am sorry that we were unable to reach a full compromise agreement on the central issue here – the only one which I have time to address. Like Mr Parish, I have listened to, and paid reasonable attention to, the fears that we have not really made a market or tested out a market in terms of the provision of insurance. Nevertheless, I believe that at the last meeting of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, with reasonable compromises on both sides, we arrived at a position where a 12-month study could lead – and I believe will lead – to a proper assessment of how insurance provision is made. I know that pushes the Commission further than in an ideal world it would like to go. However, given that the vast majority of Member States and the Council take this view or a stronger one in terms of the proposals, if we are to achieve any kind of agreement at first reading here there has to be an indication – perhaps there already has been – that we will follow that line. I am not personally in favour of a system that shifts to one of voluntarism on an ad hoc basis state by state, nor is my Group. We know all our lessons from the history of food problems. The provision of food and feed over the years since we first began to introduce a general food and feed law suggests that we need to have measures that apply right across the Community. It is no good saying that anyone can opt out of those measures. I hope the rapporteur will see that after a proper study and a reasonable length of time – and to me that means 12 months – we will arrive at that position. I hope, for its part, the Commission can also accept that.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I welcome the publication of the Commission Green Paper on European space policy in conjunction with the European Space Agency (ESA). In my view, this Green Paper demonstrates an awareness of the importance for Europe of developing the space sector in industrial, strategic and also political terms. Last May, we held a debate on the future of this sector, in light of a serious crisis related to fierce world competition and to funding problems. The Green Paper, the Bodrato report and the newly announced White Paper contain practical proposals that could ultimately help us to overcome this crisis and finally add some real ambition to an independent European space policy. To this end, I welcome the outcome of the Galileo programme and I share the stated desire to develop Community integration. I do hope, however, that this integration will not call into question the independent competences of the space agency in its role as programme coordinator and leader. I should like to address two issues. The report insists on the need to create synergies between civilian and military activities – I heard Mr Bodrato’s words quite clearly – whilst advocating the use of space for peaceful purposes, which I support. He hopes that the satellite systems will benefit not only transport and the environment, but also security, so that Europe has its own strategy, management body and its own resources. All well and good, but I am convinced that priority should be given to the use of space for peaceful purposes: the needs are enormous, whether we are talking about the environment or about risk management. Europe must not fall in line with the US model, which gives priority to research and development in the military sphere above any potential civilian applications. Lastly, one crucial aspect of an ambitious European space policy concerns funding. The report emphasises that the provision of public funds is crucial to the development of space programmes. There is a major contradiction between the Union’s stated aims and reality. There has been no increase in the budgets allocated to Europe’s space agencies, whereas the US dedicates six times more public funds to space than do all the European countries put together. The Union must, as a matter of urgency, release funding that matches the ambitions it has stated. This is also a requirement for Community integration and, as I see it, only public funds can guarantee long-term investment, which is crucial in the space industry, as is maintaining high-level skills. This is a prerequisite for an independent, dynamic European space policy that uses cutting-edge technology and which creates high-quality jobs.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Within the EU, government aid is a dirty word these days. There is no room for it in the pursuit of unlimited international competition and tax reduction. However, a great deal of government aid is channelled to companies in a disguised form. In some cases, there is an over-capacity on offer for the transport of freight, as new motorways, goods railways and canals are being built. Consequently, companies are free to choose which part of this infrastructure they can utilise while keeping their transport costs to a minimum. Many companies only managed to start up or survive thanks to government aid, and this is not likely to change a great deal in future. This applies all the more if services of general interest, public services in other words, are considered as part of the economy. Although those services are vital to the well-being of people and the conservation of our environment, they are, in many cases, running at a constant loss. Only nepotism, the giving of government funding to business connections, should be prevented. My colleague, Mr Herzog, as rapporteur, has stated all of this in a slightly less emphatic way, but has tabled sound proposals in order at least to bring the figures more on a par, to increase the ceiling for amounts that have to be declared to EUR 200 000, to adopt an active, regional policy in areas of the Czech Republic and Poland with a strong steel industry, to abolish the inspection of aid to services of general interest and to give Parliament more control over policy. The right-wing elements in this House will do everything in their power to obstruct this process.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I first wish to join with the other Members in condemning the terrible terrorist atrocity in Riyadh and offering sympathy to the bereaved and injured. Now that the war in Iraq has ended, the emphasis shifts to rebuilding and reconstruction. As well as the physical and political reconstruction of Iraq, we also have to rebuild relationships within the EU itself and our credibility in the field of common foreign and security policy, we have to repair the damage that has been inflicted on the UN and, last but not least, we have to rebuild the transatlantic relationship. The attitude of the US in the post-war situation will provide the key as to whether or not we can achieve any or all of these. I value the transatlantic relationship. It is in the interest of both the EU and the United States that the present rift in our relationship be healed. However, it has to be said that it must be a genuine partnership of equals and not simply one in which the EU role is that of a junior partner and in which we are automatically expected to support US foreign policy without question and, if we disagree with aspects of it, are accused of being disloyal and anti-American. What has been totally unacceptable is the reported anti-French hysteria, in particular that attributed to the Washington Government establishment. There needs to be a change in the attitude of the current US Administration if the transatlantic relationship is indeed to be restored. Giving the United Nations the lead role in post-war Iraq, as EU leaders have requested, would be the clearest demonstration on the part of the United States that it values the transatlantic relationship and it genuinely wants to rebuild it. It should not be forgotten that the United Nations fulfilled a similar role in East Timor in 1999. This experience should now be put to good use in the interests of the people of Iraq.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I should like to move that the amendment be altered so that it begins with the words 'urges, in this respect, the Council and the Commission'. The words 'and the Commission' would be inserted, and the last clause, 'urges once again the Commission to open a representation office in Taipei' would be deleted. If the author of the amendment agrees, we could proceed in that way.

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the energy sector is not like other sectors, and that is why the discussion cannot be restricted to the question of opening up to competition and the associated timetable. Security of supply, territorial cohesion, network and interconnection development, plant renovation and public service obligations are all essential aspects that involve long-term investment without immediate profitability but which must be guaranteed, if we are to avoid replicating the California crisis. This sector must therefore be closely monitored and a balance maintained between market mechanisms and other imperatives and factors in market organisation. Some Members here advocate opening up to competition. However, when we look at the situation in the various countries, we see that the legislative framework is one thing and the reality of opening is another. Germany, for example, is in theory 100% open, but less than 3% of its electricity is imported. Perhaps it would be better to allow for opening to take place more slowly in order to be able to fulfil our commitments. From this perspective, the date of 1 January 2003 put forward by the Commission for opening with regard to all non-domestic customers is unrealistic and does not even allow time for countries to adopt transposing legislation, where necessary. That is why the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has suggested a period of 24 months after adoption of the directive. In addition to this, along the lines of Amendment No 177 which Mr Herzog has already mentioned, we have asked that the other factors in the organisation of the sector, public service obligation, security of supply, promotion of renewable energy sources, safety of installations and environmental protection be guaranteed operational at the time of opening. Lastly, with regard to domestic customers, households, we must take account of the fact that in some countries, equal tariffs are a key element of public services. Whether the customer lives in the country, in an isolated valley or in a town, they are charged the same price per kW/hour. This is considered part of equal access to public services. That is why we propose that those Member States who so wish be allowed to retain a sector which is not open to competition so that equal tariffs remain possible and equal access to public energy services continues to be a reality in our countries. I hope that the Council will take this into consideration.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, brominated flame retardants constitute a serious threat to public health and the environment. After decades of industrial use, we find them everywhere, including in fish, birds’ eggs, polar bears, agricultural products and mother's milk. It might be imagined that this information had been taken from a paper written by fundamentalist environmental organisations, but that is not the case. One of the signatories of the paper is the Director-General of the Swedish emergency services authority, comprised of experts on, for example, fire protection, and that authority too is prepared to say that flame retardants have had their day. I think that this view should be listened to, for the major argument in the debate against a ban on oktaBDE and dekaBDE is that we cannot expose people to the danger involved in not using adequate flame retardants in buildings, furniture etc. At the same time, we know, however, that there are substitutes, that there is the possibility of using other materials and that there is the ability to produce in different ways than we do today. In a way, it is almost absurd that we are compelled to use chemicals to combat those chemicals we use in our buildings today. The reason our products burn as well as they do is that we already use chemicals in them. The Commission should have a proper think and try, for all that, to make a serious effort also to ban oktaBDE and dekaBDE. The issue is one of how long we have to wait, following the assessment, before a ban or a restriction on the use of oktaBDE and dekaBDE is introduced. The Commission has nonetheless said that it is prepared to act quickly. So how quickly is it prepared to act?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, during a previous debate on economic policy, Jacques Delors said in this House that these days, 70% of the economic framework conditions that are enacted in the form of laws are European directives. I would not wish to commit myself to a percentage in this respect, but we should all be aware that some of the economic framework conditions are established by the European Union and others are established by the Member States. This state of affairs will only prove successful in the long term if it is accomplished on the basis of common principles. The principle enshrined in the Treaty is that of the market economy – the majority in this House would say the social market economy – and there are two key aspects to this. Firstly, there is competition. The European Union is very good at creating conditions for competition. I welcome with open arms the initiatives produced by the Commission aimed at gradually decentralising competition policy and this desire to foster competition and to allow the individual Member States and the regions to play their part in the process. This is a very important development. The second important cornerstone of the social market economy is the stability of the currency. Firstly, we have the European Central Bank, a strong European institution. Secondly, we have the social partners, who are responsible for currency stability, and thirdly, there are the national governments and parliaments, which draft their budgets. I feel I should point out that not only is currency stability one of the cornerstones of economic policy, it is also one of the cornerstones of any social policy, because currency stability is the starting point for social policy, and inflation does not affect those with huge assets at their disposal, but those who have to manage on a small income. That is why currency stability is such an important cornerstone of our policy. And one of the crucial cornerstones we have created is the Stability and Growth Pact. I am delighted that this report is now calling for the Stability and Growth Pact to be rigorously applied, for what we want for the European Union is growth based on currency stability.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am not now asking for an extra minute in the name of equality, however; I shall try to keep to two minutes. I will join that group of people who just said that real progress was made on many issues at the New York Conference. Women’s human rights, the trade in women, violence against women, women’s economic rights, the status of civil society: we may be pleased about the progress that has been made in all these issues. It is the very determined work of the European Union we have to thank for that. We were there as observers, but it is to be hoped that we were also able to influence the way the talks went – at least in some respect. It was especially gratifying for me that all the Member States and almost all the candidate countries were talking together under Portugal’s leadership. This is a promising sign that we will also be able to strengthen legislation on equality within the context of the European Union. I myself do not remember seeing such single-mindedness, and for that thanks go to the chairman and, obviously, the Commission as well. The only exception among the candidate countries was Poland, which was not at all interested in supporting the strengthening of women’s rights in the same way as the Member States of the European Union and the other candidate countries. I would appeal to Commissioner Patten that when enlargement negotiations are being conducted, serious attention be paid to Poland’s compliance with EU legislation on equality and its recognition of women’s rights. I also think that greater attention must be paid to women’s rights in connection with the cooperation that is going on with Mediterranean countries, as it is there that glaring violations of human rights, particularly in respect of women, take place. I believe this conference has given hope to all those millions of women who are without fundamental human rights; and we need a further follow-up conference in five years’ time. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, we have all seen the pictures from the base at Guantanamo Bay of the prisoners with their orange-coloured overalls. The issue of how they are being treated has given rise to international concern. We have protested in the European Parliament, and we are not alone in having protested. Most countries – except, for once, Cuba where the base is situated – have in actual fact protested. The fact that there have been no protests in Cuba may possibly be due to the fact that the Cubans are pleased that the focus has been shifted from the way in which they themselves treat their prisoners there, but that is not perhaps a subject for discussion right now. There is some confusion about the legal status of the prisoners at the base at Guantanamo Bay, and this issue needs to be clarified by a competent court. Such a court could be set up by a UN Security Council resolution. Irrespective of what crimes and evil acts the prisoners at Camp X-Ray may have committed – and which we would vigorously condemn – the prisoners must be treated in accordance with international and humanitarian standards and principles. Until such time as their legal status has been established, they must be regarded as prisoners of war. The chairman of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, Graham Watson, said yesterday in the House that we are actually in favour of a review of the Geneva Convention. It would be good if newer and more modern rules could be established that could be applied to prisoners and to acts of terrorism in situations in which, as Mr Napolitano said, there has been no declaration of war. It would be good if the whole Parliament could support this. This Parliament supports the United States and the international fight against terrorism. We have shown this very clearly through our vote earlier today. When democracies engage in such a fight, they must however show respect for human rights and legal principles. I therefore share the concern expressed by my fellow MEPs where the military courts are concerned. It is unacceptable that just one Taliban – an American Taliban, John Walker – should be brought to trial before a civil court when others are to be tried before military courts. We require that there be common rules and that everyone be treated in the same way and be given ordinary legal rights and legal protection in civil courts. It should nonetheless have been possible to avoid a large part of this debate if the United States had ratified the protocol concerning the International Criminal Court so that there had been a permanent court in which people who had committed acts of this kind could also be brought to trial in accordance with international rules. I would really urge the United States to ratify that protocol. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to thank the rapporteur for his thorough work but, in my opinion, the preparatory work has been carried out far too meticulously, with too much weight given to the precautionary principle. I would like to draw your attention to some of the issues that have been raised in this opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. The Committee found that the proposal for a directive does not follow the procedure specified for the basic directive on additives. The amendments in the Commission’s proposal are based on the needs expressed by a Member State, and the Scientific Committee for Food has delivered a favourable opinion on the amendments in question. Now we are talking about allowing the use of a few new additives. The rapporteur and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy have, however, treated the proposal heavy-handedly and are proposing that the use of most of the new additives mentioned in the Commission’s proposal be rejected. This raises a few questions. The Scientific Committee for Food has delivered a favourable report on proposals by Member States concerning additives. Has it not shown itself capable of the task in question or has the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy indeed gone too far in its interpretation of the precautionary principle? To what extent has the point of view of industry been taken into account in the report? Should not the question of innovations and the use of better additives, as well as competitiveness of the European food industry, be given greater consideration? We might also ask how Parliament in future will manage its enormous task if it tackles issues so meticulously. Should Parliament not decide on goals and procedures whereby matters such as the safe introduction of new additives can be assured? If the report is adopted in the form in which it has been presented, could not the adoption procedure regarding new additives be reformed once and for all and the whole additives list revised? I would ask the rapporteur in question, and the representative of the Commission also, to reply to these questions.

Political group: ELDR
Ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to express my joy at the current enlargement. I wish our Community peace, stability, prosperity and a good quality of life. God bless our joint work. I would now like to return to the subject of our debate. The EU changed its neighbours and its external borders overnight. This transformation also represents a challenge to produce a new, well thought out integration project, which will be an extension of the current project, at the end of which Europe will be reunited within its geographical and cultural borders. For our new neighbours the prospect of integration represents the same dream as we had ourselves. Our joint task is to help these countries to fulfil their dream. I know from the experience of my own country how the prospect of the European Union membership can be a driving force for carrying out necessary reforms that would otherwise require fierce political determination. The European Union is already showing an interest in extending the enlargement process, and new emphasis in the area of Common Foreign and Security Policy should reflect this. Not only are there new neighbours, but the character of the neighbourhood is also changing. Information technology, rapid transport systems and trade have given the neighbourhood a new dimension. In this respect, our common interest also concerns the countries of the developing world. We can use the extra energy that was released following the latest enlargement for a new spirit of cooperation with those countries. In order for this cooperation to be successful, we must overcome the divergence of policy tools in the area of external relations and ensure that they are simplified and harmonised. This will make the new neighbourhood complete.

Political group: PPE-DE