GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow's vote in this House will be a test of whether we want to create more consumer transparency or whether we prefer to defer to industry's interests and keep palming consumers off with genetically modified food on the quiet. To fail to adopt comprehensive labelling and, as a result, more detailed traceability, would be a declaration of consumer policy bankruptcy on the part of Parliament and subservience to the interests of genetic engineering. To allow traceability and transparency to fail would be to trample consumers' rights underfoot, which is why I call on the group in particular to relinquish its blocking stance, to take the consumers’ side at long last and to stop treating them like children. It is totally unacceptable for cold-pressed oil or tomatoes to be labelled, because the proof is there, while as soon as the same oil is heated or as soon as the same tomatoes are made into ketchup, they need no longer be labelled. We need comprehensive labelling because consumers have a right to know what they are eating. The market – i.e. consumers – should be allowed to decide. We really have to look on them as responsible adults and we must not, under any circumstances, treat them like children. We have known – since the BSE scandal at least – that consumers want to know what animals are being fed and how. Naturally we are categorically opposed to a threshold for unlicensed genetically modified food, because that would really push the Commission's objective of greater food safety ad absurdum. Only expressly licensed products should be marketed. Anything else would be totally unacceptable and would turn food legislation on its head. Even the 1% value for licensed products would appear to be much too high and far too arbitrary for our liking. It would mean that an average shipload of non-genetically engineered soya beans could still contain over 3 000 tonnes of genetically engineered beans. The Commission must submit more safety measures to prevent contamination because what we need is more labelling and more consumer safety.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, stability and growth programmes are what allow governments to trample on the weak and the poor, including pensioners and the elderly, telling them that they have no money to support them or pay their pensions because they have to respect the Stability and Growth Pact. That is not true, as we are all aware. It would be possible to respect the Stability and Growth Pact and pay and increase all the pensions, giving the poor people who have nothing the means to live, but reducing the State’s less useful outlays. I therefore call upon all the elderly citizens of Europe, instead of dividing their votes between all the right- or left-wing parties that exist in their States – thus breaking up 33% of the votes, for the elderly represent 33% of the electorate – to form a pensioners’ party, which would then receive 33% of the votes and send 208 representatives to this House, who would certainly be more effective than a single representative.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, during the discussion in this Chamber one of the suggestions made is that we, if we name sectors in which we wish to pursue a development policy, should at the same time as it were, impose conditions on colleagues in other countries in the South. I oppose that. In essence the international commitments that we made at the Poverty Summit in Copenhagen, are commitments between North and South. It is our social task to try to make them operational and primary education and health care play a large part in this. The underlying idea is that anyone who has no chance of basic education or health care in his own country, has no chance of personal development and therefore of getting a decent start. Of course, sensible interaction is required between the Member States, the European Union, the countries concerned and civil society. On that point we have set important targets, both with the six priorities and with the priorities of the European Parliament for the 2001 budget. In practice, however, that is not easy: too few well-trained people, an organisation that is not yet effective, underfunding. Still I believe that the Commission has taken an extremely important step – and the Commissioner deserves every credit for this – by putting the emphasis on the problem of poverty and coherence between it and other policy areas. Of course, the Commissioner does not have an easy job: first Commissioner Fischler wants to give the wrong food aid again, then Member States grant Mr Lamy insufficient support when he wants to give extra aid to 48 countries. But gradually you can nevertheless see that a modest step forward is being taken. I believe that in the next few months the main point will be how all those fine words will be put into practice. If these fine words can create a climate in which we can not only well formulate a broader policy together, but can also implement it, and if we support the Commission in a coherent way, we have a good chance of succeeding. The situation at this moment is definitely not a simple one. Those people involved in the changes in the various services are also very uncertain about the organisational changes. It is not easy, because the people in the delegations are not there yet and sometimes the necessary experience is missing. But we must build up this side of things; if the Commissioner really shows us that he and his Commission, with the support of the Council, are taking a first step in the direction Parliament wishes, then I believe we have the opportunity to enter a new phase together. Let us not look only at all the misery in the world, but also at the positive proofs that we can achieve something together. And if people in the developing countries have a good project of their own that deserves support, then we must take that route. I should like to see us try to convert all that misery into a positive policy on poverty and to show that with our European help – the EU is the largest donor in the world – we can really make a difference. I wish the Commissioner every success: we shall judge him by his actions, as he will us.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I think that our debate on the transatlantic dialogue has come at a very good moment. I need not remind Members how crucial this dialogue is with a view to achieving cooperation between equal partners, between the United States of America and the European Union. The dialogue allows us to deal with our differences and to settle some of our old trade disputes; here I am thinking in particular of bananas, an issue we finally resolved a few weeks ago. I want to emphasise the importance of the question of European defence, an issue I regard as extremely important, in particular now that we are dealing with a new American Administration that has already openly advertised its defence projects. It is quite clear that President Bush's Administration is far more distrustful of the ESDP than President Clinton's was, but that does not surprise me. It took the Union several years to explain its objectives, define its means and convince its American ally that a European defence system could be developed alongside NATO. Today we must at all costs protect this achievement of the transatlantic dialogue. The concept of an ally must not be a one-way road. I believe that the Union has shown itself to be entirely transparent in the way it has presented the CESP, followed by the ESDP, to the United States and I think it should make it just as clear that the United States must consult its allies on all major projects, of which the anti-missile shield project is one. Regarding European defence policy as such, we must continue to state firmly what we want, as we always have done, and not systematically look at every European defence question in terms of NATO's reaction. The Union has always emphasised the importance of complementarity between European action and Alliance action, especially in relation to the Petersberg tasks. The issue here is neither competition nor disengagement, but simply a united approach.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to congratulate rapporteur Färm on his initial ideas. However, as the ’s shadow rapporteur for fisheries, I do regret that the Group of the has not decided to issue a report on the fisheries budget at this stage. I should still like to highlight a few salient points which will prove important in future discussions. The year 2002 was marked by the failure of the fisheries agreements with Morocco. As a result, less than EUR 200 million were set aside for the regions in Spain and Portugal. On that basis, it was decided to take 243 vessels out of circulation. For the 2003 budget, it is important to find out whether this is actually being done, whether this is being monitored and how the Commission reports to Parliament on that score. Why? Because the 2003 fisheries budget will be based on this year’s Green Paper and because the discussion about future fisheries policy will be concluded this year. It is very likely that the Green Paper will be a painful document, considering the situation of cod fishing in Scotland and the far-reaching implications of that. Some form of restructuring will be needed there. It is also important to find out how the programme in Spain and Portugal will be implemented in 2003. As a second point we also have, when we consider biodiversity, the problems in aquaculture. Here too, it will be necessary to examine the budget very closely and to assess to what extent it can be used for this purpose. This is also in anticipation of the discussion on the Green Paper and the implementation of existing programmes. On that basis, it is important for the Commission to take elements of this kind into consideration, to link the 2003 budget to the Green Paper and particularly to make political choices in that area, also with regard to the budget. This will be the ’s main issue and line of thought.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I understand the frustration of my colleagues. It arises from the fact that we are legally obliged to meet in Strasbourg 12 times a year. The only way to change that is by a new unanimous decision of the Heads of Government. We have perhaps an opportunity with the forthcoming IGC to do that. There are a number of written declarations in the register on this subject, which are available for colleagues to sign. They are not contradictory. I suggest that colleagues who feel strongly about this sign all of them. I would draw particular attention to my own one, which envisages compensation for Strasbourg, because we are not going to get Parliament's sittings to Brussels without compensating Strasbourg. I think it should be the Heads of Government and the European Council who should travel to Strasbourg four times a year and have their meetings here. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I very much welcome the Lamfalussy report and the opportunity to comment on it, but I would like to start by putting on record my personal thanks to Mr Bolkestein for coming along at this late hour despite the interruption. I know it is appreciated by all my colleagues. We are all aware of the benefits of the single market in financial services but I will re-state them because they are so important: cheaper products for consumers, better returns for savers and easier and cheaper finance for business. Sadly, this remains an aspiration rather than a reality. One of the main reasons we are failing to achieve such a single market is poor implementation and inconsistent interpretation. Both of these will be helped by Mr Lamfalussy's proposals, which are sensible and pragmatic. We need further assurances and guarantees on transparency and market consultation and on democratic oversight, but I hope we and the other two European Union institutions can find a way to make these proposals work. This is an important political opportunity which should not be wasted and I am glad to hear that the Commission is taking a pragmatic view on its right of initiative. As Mr Bolkestein stated in his introduction, he does not have concerns about the role of the regulators’ committee. We need to see that kind of flexibility from the Council as well and if it is true that the Council is trying to roll back the European Parliament's limited role in the comitology process under present rules, that is unhelpful and regrettable. All three institutions will need to show goodwill and make sacrifices and compromises if this arrangement is to work, but it is a prize well worth fighting for because the single market in securities will yield many benefits for the people we are elected to represent.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, although our views on the NLA might differ slightly, I endorse Mr Haarder's comments that the task now is to preserve peace. Peace is still a precarious commodity in Macedonia, perhaps because faith in a shared solution, a shared state and a shared society is not yet fully established. This is not surprising, for something like this takes longer than sitting at a negotiating table and engaging in negotiations. However, if we look at the Framework Agreement, I think it is very important that renouncing violence is the first priority. This is a democracy; it does not need violence to bring about change. In a democracy, it must be possible to talk about change, conduct negotiations and then bring forth legislation to achieve change. The second point is the country's integrity. We do not need new borders or new states painstakingly drawn along some sort of ethnic lines, but which can never be drawn precisely. We only need to look at the capital Skopje to see how impossible this is. I have never understood why both sides – even if only briefly – have actually talked about the option of dividing the country. Thirdly, this is a multiethnic state. Many countries are multicultural, but this is a multiethnic state with a significant Albanian minority which cannot treated in the same way as a five or six percent minority. Its status must be enhanced. Its status has been enhanced, and we think it is right that these minority rights are being expanded beyond the usual extent. I believe that overall, a good compromise has been found. We will be in Skopje in the next few days. We will stress the need for the remaining necessary measures to be put in place. For our point of view, this continual prevarication and threat that there will be no agreement and coordination after all, or that there may be recourse to violence once more, are incomprehensible and unacceptable. I hope that just as we are able to discuss Macedonia with a greater sense of satisfaction today, this prevarication will give way to a genuine feeling of satisfaction and acceptance within the next month or so.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I intervene to support the report by Mrs Sanders-ten Holte. We enjoyed a highly fruitful collaboration within our parliamentary committee. The amendments presented to the House were approved unanimously and incorporated suggestions from other Groups, and right from the beginning I could see that when Mrs Sanders-ten Holte was faced with a Member arguing about legal uncertainties it was clear to her that we should press on and avoid delaying tactics, because above all we had to consider passengers’ interests. Parliament has pressed on without delays, and we are attempting to give shape to our part in the Montreal Convention, which generates a number of positive features for passengers and therefore deserves the support of the European Union. We must highlight the greater number of participating countries and the new possibilities on offer, the increase in the compensation payable in the various situations considered in the Convention, the significant introduction of matters relating to baggage and delays and the provision of information for passengers. We think that providing passengers with information is fundamental. It is fundamental, and perhaps it is not covered in Mrs Sanders-ten Holte’s report in as much depth as we would like, because we would like companies to reply specifically and immediately to consumers’ complaints, but it is undoubtedly a step in the right direction and it will have our support. The recommendation it makes on the amendments will also gain our acceptance on all points, and in this way our collaboration will go right to the end. We will support all the amendments Mrs Sanders-ten Holte has proposed and we will oppose Amendments Nos 19 and 20. We therefore consider that this work is a parliamentary job well done which will result in benefits for the citizens. If, one day, citizens are compensated by airlines for their delays, we will have gained a lot of credibility.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, first of all I should like to add my voice to the congratulations addressed to our rapporteurs, particularly Mrs Roth-Behrendt. Her approach and hence her report is one we can wholeheartedly support. This regulation is not a major revolution, but it does attempt nonetheless to afford a higher level of protection, based, moreover, on the most stringent practices adopted in specific European Union countries, such as in France. I should, however, like to draw your attention to a number of specific points and, firstly, the existence of a third transmission route which is now practically certain. I think it essential in this case to define suspect animals quite apart from the age criterion. The age criterion ceases to be justified as soon as we are practically assured that this third transmission route does in fact exist. The important thing, then, is to have systematic recourse to testing whenever an animal dies of unknown causes. Systematic testing precludes fraud and makes it possible to offer better guarantees. The issue of slaughtering herds has been discussed at length. In both France and Germany the whole herd is slaughtered if a single animal is found to be diseased. We know that this is not the practice in Great Britain, and that this is a solution which is vigorously opposed by our fellow Members from the United Kingdom. But is it possible to put the argument of the costs of destroying a herd when a public health issue is involved? I think this is not a tenable position. It is important for the regulations of the various countries of the European Union to be harmonised. I should, finally, like to talk about at-risk materials, these notorious substances which may present risks. Once again, in France, a number of measures have been implemented, which have been more or less understood, but I am convinced that it is essential to be extremely vigilant and to apply the precautionary principle. So this regulation is a good one. It represents some progress, but it is capable of being perfected rather than perfect as it stands. It does not raise any questions concerning the incineration of animal-based meal. In some of our countries, we have stockpiles of such meal which we do not yet know how best to destroy, or which has not been destroyed sufficiently, and also animal-based meal used for swine and poultry. I think, Commissioner, that these are questions we also have to ask.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Socialist Group, I join with Roy Perry in saying that we should not let this occasion pass without expressing our gratitude for the work of Jacob Söderman, the first Ombudsman of the European Union, and for the success with which it has been rewarded. I would also like to say that we can congratulate ourselves on having had the courage, in 1995, to entrust this great task to – if I may say so – a rather unknown representative of a new Member State. I would like to congratulate Jacob Söderman on having focused our attention on the essential matters, namely the total reform of the European institutions, in which secretive dealings of one sort or another gave way to the principle of openness and transparency. Above all, I also thank our Ombudsman for the very quiet, calm, but determined way in which he did his work. We know the examples, and that we could not take an easier way, but we see from the successes chalked up by the administrations in the EU's northern countries – Finland, Sweden and Denmark, which score lowest on the index of corruption – that there is no such alternative. I share the disappointment expressed earlier at the spectacle, over and over again, of the hesitancy manifested by the so-called Brussels bureaucracy. This is an area in which we need to press on. It was not least this opacity, this inability to identify what was going on, that brought down the European Union's last Commission. By touching on sore points, Mr Söderman has done the right thing. Let us recall the delayed payments. The Commission is one of the worst bodies in Europe when it comes to paying up, yet see the self-assurance with which it lays down rules for all economic actors, while itself being in fact incapable of making payments in a proper manner! In the most simple terms, this is about bringing administration closer to the citizen. It is the experience of all of us, again and again, that the people back home talk about how big our bureaucracy is in Brussels. We know that it is a very small one, but it acts big. I have to say, as rapporteur for the Budget, that I am a little ashamed – although I am aware that it is mainly the fault of the Finance Ministers of the fifteen Member States – of our manifest inability to equip the European Ombudsman's office with the staff its importance warrants. We in Parliament are doing our best, and we will find a solution, but the finance ministers obviously think that enlargement is not actually in the offing and that the Ombudsman will not need extra staff. This really saddens me, and it is something I have to say in the hearing of many members of the public. Emphasis has been laid on the good cooperation between the Ombudsman and the Committee on Petitions. It is Jacob Söderman's leadership that has given us the modern institution of a European Ombudsman. Now, perhaps, it is our responsibility, and that of the Committee on Petitions and of Parliament as a whole, to bring our activities up to a comparable standard.

Political group: PSE