GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, I also wish to welcome the Commissioner at this late hour. I cannot help but wonder if it is always the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy that meets on Tuesday night during the part-session in Strasbourg or whether we are regarded as some kind of suspect fundamentalist sect that is always placed lowest down on the agenda. That would be pretty odd, given that we are responsible for one of the most important issues in Parliament, namely that of the environment. I should like to ask both the President and the Commissioner to look into whether it would be possible to change this, that is to say whether it would be possible at least sometimes to raise the status of environmental issues by debating them in the daytime and not always after nightfall. I had really intended to begin by parodying a well-known Conservative politician in Sweden who once said that he was not only a Hallander but also a European. I should like to say, today, that I am not only a proud Gothenburger but also a proud European. I am proud to be able to say that Parliament has now concluded its debate on the Kyoto Protocol, and I look forward to the Council’s also being able to ratify it in March. I am particularly proud, however, of having been able to participate in the little delegation that visited the United States last week. We were given the opportunity of discussing the climate issue with both Congress and the House of Representatives. I have the sense that there is not only a physical ocean separating the continents but also a mental ocean, given the way in which the United States regards the climate issue and believes it should be handled. Certainly, the climate issue has now been recognised as a problem in the United States because their own researchers have stated that it is a problem. However, it is still believed that the solution to this problem is to be found in the United States. It is this view that most divides us. The United States regards a global environmental threat as a domestic problem that only concerns Americans, while the European attitude is that the issue should be dealt with jointly. I therefore wish to thank the Commissioner for having taken such an active role and also thank the rapporteur of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, Mr Moreira Da Silva, who has kept us together and ensured that we have held a common view and position beyond the frontiers of Europe. We need, in the future, to stick together not only in theory but also in practice. That cohesion will be put to the test following ratification, as it will also be when, a little later on in the spring, we debate the European Climate Change Programme and emissions trading. It is just unfortunate that certain members of the Council will feel the need to make a fuss about the way in which the burden is distributed. It is pretty pathetic that it is Members from a Scandinavian country who will be doing this. However, there are black sheep everywhere. Whatever the case, I am pleased that we are able to conclude the debate on the Kyoto Protocol today.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this hygiene package consists of a number of elements, all of which are very important: a proposal on general food hygiene, a proposal on food and animal origin and a proposal on official controls mainly concerning slaughterhouses. The Council's common position has taken on board the majority of Parliament's amendments from first reading, but there remain differences mainly concerning the following points. How far can hazard analysis and critical control points – HACCP – be implemented in primary production on farms? What flexibility is going to be granted to Member States? Will it be a general clause for comitology, or a more specific rule which allows comitology only within a set of fixed aims, as it would appear the rapporteur prefers? Will we see the self-control of the meat industry by employees working as meat inspectors? Would the flexibility foreseen for small artisanal slaughterhouses be defined by marketing only regionally as a result of requiring the presence of official veterinarians during every slaughter process? The key issues for my Group at the first reading were basically the direct marketing of food on the farm or at local retailers and flexibility for the processing of traditional products. These are mainly covered by the Council's common position which we very much welcome, because we feel it is important that there be some flexibility for the processing of traditional products and also in relation to artisanal production. The problem for my Group with the compromise package now proposed by the Council is where the latter insists on extending controls by slaughterhouse employees to include pigs and calves. My Group – and as far as I know the rapporteur – strongly objects to this self-control. It would allow self-policing and it could end up with a blind eye being turned in certain circumstances, depending on how productive some of the slaughterhouses are: so this is not a good idea. It is not in the interests of what we are trying to achieve. We do not want this point accepted. That is the key issue for us as regards this report. We are pleased that the issues of artisanal and local production of traditional products have been taken into account in the common position.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I think that we have reached an extremely important juncture. The report on cogeneration that we have here is enormously important in terms of a sustainable energy policy in Europe. I should first of all like to join my fellow Members in thanking the rapporteur, Mr Glante, for his extremely amiable, pleasant, very constructive cooperation. I should like to call upon him to continue this cooperation until the end, to ensure that we achieve a good result tomorrow. It has been rightly pointed out that the emphasis has come to be placed much more on the conservation of energy. The important thing, of course, is seeing to it that we arrive at a situation in which we in Europe are able to achieve our CO2 targets. Cogeneration plays a very important role in this. What is also particularly important, however, is of course that we aspire to have high-quality installations in Europe, that we do not become lazy about cogeneration, but instead set our sights as high as possible in order to achieve the maximum possible savings. I think that that is the message that should also be sent out by the Commission, Parliament and the Council. I actually liked the picture painted by Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca very much. It is almost complete, but something still remains to be done: we need to add further – but minor – refinements to Annexes II and III. The subdivision of fuel consumption not related to cogeneration is now, therefore, being moved to Annex III, so we have to tidy up Annex II a little, simplifying it slightly, more in the direction of Annex III. That, Mr Glante, is also the reason why we tabled both Amendment No 175 and Amendment No 176. This has turned out to be a very technical report, but it ultimately revolves around the fact that we are in need of a common, precise calculation method and harmonisation of the support schemes applied by the European Union. Amendment No 42 is essential. It is essential that this harmonised reference value for determining primary energy savings by cogeneration is brought in as soon as possible, namely within two years. It is also essential that the calculation method be precise and harmonised throughout the EU. The report now contains that whole package, and for this reason I think that it deserves our support. I hope, therefore, that Mr Glante will also be able to secure the support of the Group of the European People’s Party for his proposal tomorrow. Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca has already indicated how essential Amendments Nos 75, 76 and 81 are to us. It all depends on him, therefore – on his support for our amendments – whether the Group is able to follow him. I hope that it can.

Political group: PPE-DE
I have voted against the Bullmann report because it one-sidedly advocates liberalisation and welcomes the Stability and Growth Pact and the result of the Doha Summit. Most seriously of all, however, it does not recognise the need for a balance between the environment-related economic and social indicators and the fact that the Council meeting in Gothenburg established a strategy for sustainable development by adding an environmental dimension to the existing Lisbon process. Particularly in view of the worryingly few pronouncements made by the Spanish Presidency on the environmental dimension, for example prior to the annual assessment of sustainable economic development and social cohesion, I regret the fact that the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has not produced an opinion on the report and that the views expressed by the Committee at the Barcelona Summit have therefore been framed in the form of a separate resolution. The head of the EU’s environment agency (EEA), Domingo Jiménez-Beltran, thinks that the Commission's report to the Barcelona Summit contains no environmental survey and that interesting facts and analyses concerning the state of the environment in the EU are not accessible to the decision-makers. - Report Karas (A5-0031/2002)

Political group: Verts-ALE
In the debate in this chamber today, regarding the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights, the Commission representative stated that this Charter was a first step toward a legally binding document. Speaker after speaker, with a few exceptions, referred to the need for a Europe with constitutional rights. These statements confirm the concerns expressed within my country that this Charter is intended to be the preamble to a European Constitution. Recently our Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, clearly stated that the European Charter of Fundamental Human Rights should remain a political, not a legal document. Members of the Irish government have recently raised questions regarding whether Brussels threatens Irish identity and Mr Ahern, whilst affirming Ireland's EU membership as fundamental to its prosperity and economic success, firmly resisted any rapid movement to a more federal – centralised – Europe, as it would go well beyond what most Europeans currently wish for or are prepared to accept. In the light of Ireland's national position and in tune with the wishes of my constituents, I must vote against this Charter of Fundamental Human Rights which, despite being a simple political statement at this time is, by all evidence, intended to be the preamble to a European Constitution which will take precedence over the constitution of my country and the will of the Irish people.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, over the last ten years, since the Gulf War, the United States has been developing a ‘mother of all bombs’. Europe in that time has been putting patience and diplomacy to use in an attempt to enlarge the Union. That is a symbolic and clear difference. If Parliament and the Commission were to accept ultimate responsibility, the EU could act with authority for the benefit of world peace and an international legal order. That is unfortunately not the case. It is not only the values of democracy and human rights that unite the EU, but also the will to guarantee peace and to establish an international order through cooperation. Has the war against Iraq already started, or not? Or has the war against Iraq never really stopped since the first Gulf War and the struggle for hegemony in the Middle East simply entered a new phase? History will be the judge. Following the military defeat of Saddam by the international coalition the regime remained in place, but it was kept in check by a merciless embargo that left the population starving, but the power of the regime over them intact. The weapons inspectors of the first four years were not effective in disarming Iraq, but acted as an intelligence service for those states that sent and paid their experts and spies. The United States and Great Britain were subsequently able to bomb in Iraq with greater success. The new weapons inspections under the direction of Hans Blix and the United Nations, and accompanied by military threats, have however been successful. We must therefore pursue this path and we must unite the European countries around this position. Thank you.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I did not vote in favour of the Community patent. As a fervent supporter of Europe, I had wanted to be able to vote in favour but I was prevented from doing so by the linguistic discrimination included in this draft text. Respect for cultural and linguistic diversity is now one of the fundamental principles of Community law. In law and in fact, this principle is not respected in this text or in the institutions of the Union in general. This principle presupposes the equality in law of all languages. I have no doubt that we need to make the technical adjustment to this equality, but this adjustment must not contradict the principle. As a Catalan, I cannot accept the fact that my language does not enjoy the same rights as those that are currently the official EU languages.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, esteemed ladies and gentlemen, the number of people per year applying for asylum in the European Union has already reached 500 000. They want refugee status. The individual Member States have the most diverse procedures, which, as a rule, take a very long time. We are faced with multiple applications and the associated misuse of social security benefits as well. At the end of the day, 90% of these applications are rejected, and only 10% of the applicants are actually recognised as refugees in accordance with the Geneva Convention. This means that we need European minimum standards for reception procedures, which need to be speedy and safe in order that the 10% recognised as refugees may exercise their rights and get the help they need. We need measures to combat misuse. What we do not want is for the right of asylum to be eroded, nor do we want covert immigration by way of asylum. We therefore support proposals by the Commission and above all by our rapporteur, Mr Hernández Mollar, which take these objectives into consideration, but decisively reject all the unacceptable and bankrupt proposals by the Liberals, the Social Democrats and the . We reject the idea of extending the grounds for recognition far beyond the scope of the Geneva Convention. We reject the idea of immediate access to the labour market for applicants for asylum and all their accompanying family members, which goes hand in hand with total freedom of movement right across the European Union. We reject the proposal for immediate access to vocational training, and, above all, we repudiate their desire to do away with sanctions when the Member States' security is threatened, when applicants for asylum ‘go underground’, claim social security benefits to which they are not entitled or indulge in violent behaviour. With these demands of yours, ladies and gentlemen on the , you will not help refugees to exercise their rights and get help without delay, but rather, you will be inviting immigration without it being managed or controlled and by way of asylum, which is unacceptable. In Europe, governments of that sort generally get voted out of office. That would not be such a bad thing, but what is, is that very often populist extremists from the Right are then voted in. That we do not want! That is not the policy that we support. We reject what your side is coming up with. We do not want more Le Pens in Europe. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I do not blame other European governments for ignoring the decision of the Irish people. The Irish Government themselves have ignored the mandate that they clearly got from the people. As Mrs Dybkjær has just said, what they have done is to tell the other EU governments to carry on as usual; they will then go back to the Irish people and get them to vote again until they get it right. They are going to ask the Irish people to vote again on the same Treaty with declarations attached which are not legally binding. That is completely unacceptable to the democratic process and our government is guilty of treachery in its approach to the Irish vote. Enlargement can go ahead, but we want it to be fair and equitable. We would like to see the new Member States come in under the same conditions as those offered to Ireland. Instead, the doors have been tightly closed to keep those countries out until the rules are changed to suit the big and wealthy countries in Europe. That is not acceptable. The eastern European countries are being misled by those EU leaders who maintain that the 'no' vote in Ireland was a 'no' to enlargement. That is not so. As Mr Cox has said, we campaigned for enlargement but against the Nice Treaty, because it is not in the interests of the countries coming in, nor is it in the interests of the existing Member States. It merely serves the interests of the more powerful, and that is not a Europe that we want to see emerge in the future.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Eurostat affair is now a matter of public knowledge; it is a scandal and we cannot erase it. What we can do, however, is learn lessons from it. Firstly, this means that in future, the Commission must listen to Parliament, the directly elected assembly representing Europe’s citizens, instead of disregarding Parliament’s reports out of a strange mixture of ignorance and arrogance. Had the Commission listened, the matter would not have assumed such proportions. Secondly, we have an obligation towards our citizens to rectify the things that have occurred during this period, that is, during our, and your, term in office. We have put forward a number of proposals in this context. The report will be tabled in this House shortly. It has already been adopted by the Committee on Budgetary Control. Among other things, it raises the issue of the financial regulation, which you have not touched on at all so far. For example, it addresses the fact that it is apparently still possible for firms to enter into contracts with the European Commission without being required to disclose details of their financial circumstances. There are firms that have their company headquarters in the Bahamas and it is rumoured that some European Commission officials are behind them. That must change. Directorates-General can currently exist outside the scrutiny of auditors. That must change too. Eurostat is a case in point. This is not good, and we must change this situation. Thirdly, we propose that the financial regulation or the internal rules be amended so that internal audit capacities are subordinate to the Head of Internal Audit. Had this been the case, the Eurostat issue would not have occurred on this scale. We want a solution, Mr Prodi, and we want it now, not in one or two years’ time. We must act now. The things that have happened must be rectified, and then we can restore voters’ confidence.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on a point of order. As more and more Members come into the Chamber, I would like to announce a welcome innovation. We have today opened a smoking zone behind the Hemicycle, a lovely sunny place with lots of good views. I hope that all colleagues who continue to ruin their health by smoking, will find themselves comfortably installed outside the Chamber and will stop smoking in the non-smoking zones. I hope everybody has heard that. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I had the honour of initiating both the police academy and the border police and the House adopted my report on them almost unanimously back in 1998, which is why I am delighted to see that things are now beginning to move four years later. However, I have two specific supplementary questions. First, the headquarters of the police academy: when do you think the location will finally be decided and which Member States have applied for it? My second question concerns the border police. Will the feasibility study be submitted to the European Parliament in June so that we too can debate it?

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, now that enlargement is approaching, a lot of people are getting cold feet, and concern is growing in both the present EU and in the candidate countries. What we have all dreamed about and fought for over so many years – a unified Europe – is on the verge of being achieved, and there is nothing odd about the fact that the questions are accumulating. In the candidate countries where referendums are to be held, a lot of people are probably wondering what they are getting themselves into. Many questions are being raised within the EU about costs and about how the EU is going to be able to function. Extremist parties are exploiting enlargement in their policies and playing upon people’s fear of the unknown. Political leadership is therefore required more than ever. The leaders of the candidate countries must resolutely continue with the required reforms before the negotiations can be concluded. They have done an impressive job, and a number of questions still remain. It is a question of never giving up and of being honest. A number of domestic problems will still remain following membership, for there is a life after the accession date too. Those of us within the EU also have a big responsibility: to tell people about the huge importance of enlargement and about what is at stake. Who believed that enlargement would be cost-free? Clearly, enlargement has its price, but in the long term we are all winners. We must also prepare a reserve plan to cover the contingency of there being a ‘no’ vote in Ireland. I believe the European Parliament has accepted its responsibility. We have stubbornly pushed ahead with the enlargement process, set a definite date for this and carefully reviewed progress. In the report we are now adopting, it is crystal-clear that we support enlargement, at the same time as highlighting a number of problems. We too have a responsibility to convince people of this historic task. It is an historic opportunity to unite the whole continent. Together, we can solve common problems relating to environmental damage, crime, growth, security and the safeguarding of democracy and human values. A short time remains, and I am convinced that the Copenhagen Summit in December will be an historic occasion and lead to the EU’s biggest and most important enlargement so far. Enlargement is irrevocable and absolutely necessary. The alternative is chaos, uncertainty and a fatal division of Europe.

Political group: ELDR