GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, our foodstuffs – and this also applies to entirely fresh produce, for example the peeled carrots we heard mentioned today – are nowadays doctored in all kinds of ways with colouring agents, sweeteners, flavour enhancers and preservatives, in fact with every possible type of substance. And all in order to disguise the products’ natural characteristics. It is, of course, not just a few substances we are talking about. Nowadays, we use several thousands of additives and, where the majority of these are concerned, the fact is that we are not even aware of their consequences for health. To top it all, we are in fact aware that a large number of them are harmful, and yet we still allow them to be used. I think that Community policy in relation to the use of additives has developed in a quite irresponsible way. I should therefore like to support Mr Lannoye’s report. I think a splendid piece of work has been carried out. New additives ought to be refused and any increase in the quantity of accepted and permitted substances should be rejected. Instead, I think the Commission needs seriously to rationalise the number of additives. In the general remarks in his report, Mr Lannoye points to many substances which ought to be investigated, including antibiotics added directly to foodstuffs. I should like to point out a further problem. It is a problem which Mr Lannoye also mentioned in his intervention, namely the question of adding nitrates and nitrites to meat products. In my opinion, the quantities of these compounds that are permitted are way too excessive. A major investigation by five consumer organisations in Europe has recently shown that a large proportion of meat products contains quite large quantities of nitrosamines. Nitrosamine is a carcinogenic substance which is derived from, and produced by, nitrates and nitrites. I think the situation is unacceptable in this area, but I do not see the investigation having made any impression upon the Commission. I think that the quantity of nitrates and nitrites added to meat products ought to be considerably reduced and that there should be compulsory monitoring of the quantity of nitrosamine which, as I said, is of course a powerfully carcinogenic substance, the presence of which in our foodstuffs is not presently measured at all. I hope that Commissioner Byrne, who has assumed responsibility for this area, will examine the question of added amounts of nitrates and nitrites. I think we have a serious problem in this regard and I hope he will confirm that this will be done. Finally, I would say that, in my view, we need quite a thorough rationalisation of the quantity of additives in our foodstuffs.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I wish to begin by saying that I welcome the report. A European Union-wide identification system for cattle is long overdue. The system is certainly very necessary, if nothing else than to achieve a level playing field within the European Union and to ensure that all countries reach the same standards. I want to sound a note of caution. I come from an area in Northern Ireland that has a standard of identification and traceability which is as good as any ever will be. No system is a hundred per cent perfect, so do not think you can bring that about. There will always be people out to abuse the system. That has been the case for centuries – and will continue. You can only try to develop the best possible system of traceability. I have a number of concerns. The first is: who pays? The problem to date has been, in my experience in Northern Ireland, that the consumer has borne the brunt of the cost of the extra traceability, and this has been substantial. It has not been borne by the retailer. The consumer will perhaps ultimately pay – but he or she may not. From that point of view it is expensive for those people. I have one further question of the Commission. Is it wise to renationalise the beef market? Or even to regionalise it within countries. I seriously question that point. We have fought for years within the European Union to achieve a single market and now we are renationalising that market. I challenge the Commission tonight to answer that question. Is this a wise move? Let us not look to the short term, let us look to the long term, because the long term is the challenge – not five years but ten, fifteen years from now. What is going to be the situation on the beef market? As I said, in Northern Ireland we have full traceability and our measures go beyond the regulations. I have to say to the Commission, and to producers in other Member States, that my producers have to date not seen any financial benefit from that which they have suffered.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, the regulation proposed by the Commission simplifies matters remarkably, compared with the previous rules. Exceptions to aid rules are important, in fact they are absolutely indispensable because, first, additional assistance is needed in order to develop, operate, maintain and/or complete transport infrastructures and, secondly, freight sent by rail, internal waterway or combined transport should receive compensation for the unpaid costs of competing road transport, so that specific requirements, such as environmental friendliness and regional potential, can be incorporated into transport policy. An approach which only aims to prevent potential distortions of competition and fails to include environmental, social or regional aspects is unacceptable. The rapporteur, who deserves our thanks for his excellent work, and the Committee have set more far-reaching, important premises, which my group supports, such as including aid for short sea shipping, including combined transport operations at sea ports, granting aid irrespective of whether the company is a public or private company, minimising administrative costs by introducing thresholds below which no checking by or notification to the Commission is required, extending the period of aid and providing the possibility of extending the aid regulation. Once this regulation has been implemented, there will be further opportunity to shift more traffic to more environmentally-friendly carriers.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, when we debate this issue, anyone can see that, as long as we remain at a theoretical level, we do not have very many disagreements. We all agree that efficient trans-European networks linking eastern and western Europe and northern and southern Europe need to be created, we all agree that the issue of traffic congestion needs to be addressed, we all agree that emphasis needs to be given to the environment and to more friendly means of transport and we all agree that greater emphasis needs to be given to the railways. The problem is when we start to address specific issues. That is where we see that there is a difficulty reaching decisions. For example, Minister, we have been talking about railways for a great many years, but the Council is not distinguished, at least not as a whole I think, by its intention to liberalise rail transport. Because, without liberalisation and without interoperability in the network, it is obvious that the railways, which are the most environmentally-friendly, will never be able to acquire the required momentum. The same applies to priority works. We had the Essen Council. You know that 14 top priority trans-European networks were approved and, a few years later, we see that half of them have not progressed. Consequently, on numerous occasions you see that we make plans on paper. And this becomes even more remarkable if you think that certain of these works concern what we are talking about now, namely respect for the environment and the need to address traffic congestion in certain sensitive areas of our continent. Consequently, what is urgently needed is for proclamations and all these plans on paper to find some response in reality. And here we have to look at the question of funding. In a few days' time, no doubt, the European Commission will come along and tell us that it is proposing a new plan reforming the trans-European network guidelines. So we shall jointly adopt a number of priority works. But if we do not fund these works efficiently, it is certain that, as the volume of transport increases, in a short time things will be much worse and the entire European network will be even more overloaded. In this way development too is undermined. Consequently, we need to see how the Member States can assume their responsibilities and how the Union budget will fund the European networks more substantially and what role the European Investment Bank can play in this direction. I hope the Italian Presidency, which appears to be particularly sensitive to this specific issue, will manage to take efficient steps in this direction because, believe me Minister, debates such as this have been held on other occasions in this Parliament, but the results were not particularly impressive. I trust that you will take the European Union down a different road.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Commissioner has been on the receiving end of much criticism, so please allow me, outside my speaking time, to hasten to her aid and thank her for putting two proposals before us, enabling us, for the first time in this Parliament, to discuss nuclear safety. That is something quite tremendous and quite new, for which, Commissioner, many heartfelt thanks; Mr Linkohr knows what he is talking about when he says that the Commissioner has put her head a long way over the parapet. On the subject of the Breyer report, let me say, as the Committee on the Environment’s rapporteur and also with real conviction, that we cannot imagine this House approving these proposals in their present form. The granting of Euratom loans for new nuclear power stations cannot be accepted under any circumstances. We all know that Euratom loans support the nuclear industry in a way that distorts competition; with their more favourable interest rates and their high political risks covered, nowhere in the whole of the energy sector is any other form of investment even comparable. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has made it abundantly clear that, of the European Union’s fifteen Member States, six have never taken up the production of nuclear energy, and six have decided to abandon it, which leaves just three Member States. That is something that must be borne in mind. We have also made it very clear that the issue of the final storage of nuclear waste remains unresolved until it is resolved worldwide. We may well know where we would like depositories to be, but we will not have them for another twenty years, so the building of new nuclear power stations is simply not acceptable. Funding should be given solely to projects to improve nuclear safety and to decommission installations, and not, as the Commission proposal envisages, to plant already in use. That is not acceptable. We do, though, want to have research projects, into pilot installations for safe final storage and into nuclear plant, and we want to see these supported. The introduction of uniform and binding safety standards throughout the EU is unreservedly to be welcomed, and for that thanks are due to the Commissioner. This standard is to reflect the state of the art. I believe that we are doing much as people did in the Middle Ages, when they dumped their ordure on the streets and wondered why they got ill. In that we have no final depositories, but merrily go on producing waste, we are still in the Middle Ages. I believe in human intelligence; we should do our research, look for solutions, and only when we have them should we produce.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, permit me to say quite publicly to Mrs Stenzel, who is a member of the ÖVP executive, that many MEPs are horrified that you have entered into a coalition with Haider, and that we wish to denounce you for doing so! (Applause from the left. Heckling from the right)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, Mr Prodi, I am very pleased that we have another opportunity today to discuss the White Paper together, because European governance is indeed a pivotal theme and I would like to make it very clear that I believe that the whole future viability of the European Union depends to a large extent on this issue. I am bound to agree with Mr Voggenhuber on this point: as far as I am concerned, the issue at the centre of the whole debate around governance is the question of democracy – strengthening democracy and above all strengthening the public's rights, especially under the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I say that because one thing is clear: the very best policy will achieve nothing if it does not impact on the public or if the present state of affairs continues, in which the public believes that what happens in Brussels is far removed from them and their day-to-day concerns. I believe, Mr Prodi, that the public quite rightly expects two things: the first is transparency in decision making and the second is clarity as regards political responsibility for decisions. I believe that this has to be the focal point from which our joint deliberations start, both for the Commission and of course also for the other institutions. I would like to talk about transparency for a moment. The White Paper talks about a cumbersome system of almost 700 consultative bodies supporting the Commission. If I remember correctly, you yourself picked up this point in the White Paper on the reform of the Commission, and announced back in June that a list of these consultative bodies would be published. In the White Paper before us, you promise that details of these bodies will be published by the end of the year. I am very much in favour of that. This is a question of transparency, and it could help to remove some of the prejudice against the work of the Commission and the other institutions. However, publishing details of consultative bodies is one thing, and, as I see it, accepting political responsibility for decisions is quite another. A second point in the White Paper that I would like to mention is the ‘culture of consultation and dialogue’. I certainly regard that as a very good proposal. I think that the Commission on the one hand and the Council and Parliament on the other would be well advised to jointly consider how a new culture of consultation and dialogue can be achieved in terms of greater involvement for civil society. I think it would be better if the Commission did not propose a code of conduct on minimum standards for consultation for itself, but rather if we could jointly consider whether there is not some scope for all three institutions to make a joint commitment under an Interinstitutional Agreement. You spoke earlier about a dialogue of this kind, about the possibility of setting up a working party, and I am keen to accept that suggestion.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the World Trade Organisation has a future. It is true that in the coming years the 144 Member States will resume negotiations on the further liberalisation of world trade, but more than ever before, the rich man’s club has learnt that survival of the fittest no longer applies. Indeed, the developing countries have made huge progress and have made their mark during the negotiations. However, the European Union also has reason to be satisfied. Thanks to the commitment and perseverance of the European negotiators, both our Commissioners who are present today, an agreement has ultimately been reached on a broad-based negotiation round. For example, in the new round, there will be scope for negotiations about public spending, competition, investments, and the link between international environmental agreements and the WHO rules. These trade discussions are held at a significant time, because after the acts of terrorism in the United States, they send out the message that the Member States are prepared to join forces at international level and that terrorists cannot undermine international trade. Furthermore, it is important to continue the liberal trade policy because it can give the failing world economy a shot in the arm. Finally, I should like to point out that the WTO’s challenge is to continue to develop the multi-lateral trade system in such a way as to ensure that globalisation yields the best possible benefits for as many people and countries as possible. We must continue to strive as we have for over fifty years.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, the general lines along which this Directive is discussed are of little concern to me. I am no lawyer and am not in a position to judge. What is true is that insufficient account has so far been taken of environmental interests. Just in the last three days, the car and tyre industries have indicated in this Chamber that their options may well be open when it comes specifically to car tyres. My group is not at present overly concerned about whether the figure is to be 1, 3 or 4 decibels, but we should like to make it clear that we want positively to force the tyre industry to act and do more of what is required of them in this area. The motor oil, car and recycling industries have made a lot of things possible where road use by individuals is concerned. In contrast, the tyre industry has largely refrained from taking action. It is in this area that we want them to do some catching up. We shall doubtless at some stage also have to talk about alternative road surfaces in Europe. I believe that this is a positive way of forcing the tyre industry to act. I should therefore like straight away to forestall some of my fellow MEPs who now and again stand up jokingly and say that Mr wants a reduction of two decibels where possible but is accepting a 10 metres longer braking distance in return. Obviously, we want to maintain standards. We expect innovation. We expect the tyre industry to employ young engineers of both sexes and finally to go some way towards meeting people’s justified demands to be exposed to less noise in their homes. That is a task we have set ourselves, and I hope that the Commission will be prepared to cooperate. It is possible, as we shall see in one or two years’ time, that the industry will be able to achieve these objectives of ours by the year 2005. If that were not possible, I am the very first to concede that we need to broaden our field of operations somewhat. But the industry must be forced to act, and that is what we shall be campaigning for at the present time.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, when I returned from the mission I was assigned by the United Nations in Bosnia-Herzegovina, I remember visiting Manfred Werner – who was then NATO Secretary-General – in Brussels in the autumn of 1993. I strongly asserted that the alliance should prepare itself to intervene in the Balkans or otherwise it would, eventually, cease to exist. Today, I can easily outline the argument that I put forward at that time. In the period following the end of the Cold War, the alliance had to be capable of intervening in the major crisis which was unfolding at the heart of Europe, otherwise European citizens would wonder what purpose it could still serve, and whether it was worthwhile continuing to invest a proportion of their taxes in it. It took two long years and the tragic fall of Srebrenica for this message to be understood. On 31 August 1995, however, by supporting the action of the UN reaction force deployed on the Igman mountain to put a stop to the Serbian batteries which had resumed their indiscriminate bombing of the city of Sarajevo, the UN played an essential part in resolving the crisis, enabling the signature of the Dayton Accords and the introduction of a lasting cease-fire. Since then, UN forces have been successfully deployed in Kosovo and more recently still in Macedonia, helping to restore calm to the area, although it has not resolved all the political problems. Today, the same debate has started on the role that the Atlantic alliance could possibly play in the fight against international terrorism. The alliance is in crisis, illustrated by the fact that the Americans did not believe they should call upon its support in the war in Afghanistan. Does this unilateralism spell the demise of the alliance? I cannot believe so, since the Americans themselves would have pointed this out and expressed this desire. The vocation of the alliance to this day is to intervene in European territory and neighbouring countries, wherever there is a potential threat against its values that Pacheco Pereira has just reiterated. International terrorism is one of these threats, and it is a major threat. To this end, the only way of reforming NATO and ensuring its survival is to construct, at long last, a Europe of defence. The choice is simple, either the European Union continues to leave the Americans to deal with military problems on its continent by being happy to play some minor role in resolving problems that threaten peace, much like the Athenians in ancient Rome, or it finally becomes their equal and shares the burden of defending itself against all the threats, which is what they have been asking us to do since the Atlantic Alliance was formed.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to know whether you share my concern at the mawkish exhibition held in Parliament's building in Brussels last week entitled 'We on death row'. This exhibition set out to glamorise convicted felons who have committed heinous crimes. Surely our constituents would prefer us to save our sympathy for the victims of these crimes and for the families of the victims who are condemned to a life sentence of grief? Colleagues may also like to recall that public opinion in a number of Member States is still resolutely supportive of the death penalty. Can we please avoid such distasteful displays in the future, or at least see that the interests of victims and their families are given due respect?

Political group: PPE-DE