GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
We must not imagine that the creation of a European Food Authority will provide a panacea for all the problems of food safety. What is needed is a change in the EU’s current policies affecting the safety of food, namely, the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy. Highly intensive production and the quest for greater profits have had damaging consequences on the overall safety of food, with high costs for both human and animal health, as we have seen in the cases of BSE, dioxins and, more recently, with foot-and-mouth disease. The European Food Safety Authority must not be a smokescreen for public opinion. Furthermore, an authority that guarantees risk assessment for food safety, underpinned by solid scientific opinion, must not take responsibility from or replace the Commission or the competent authorities in each Member State in managing the risks of Community food policy. The whole food chain must be involved, with the spotlight on the role of the agri-foodstuff industry in food safety. We agreed that the underlying principle of any legislation on food is to protect human health and it is this very reason that makes it crucial to apply the precautionary principle to risk management, when scientific data are insufficient or inconclusive. Food traceability, with an integrated ‘from farm to fork’ approach is the right principle, although questions have rightly been raised about its immediate implementation in Portugal with no transitional period, which would enable account to be taken of the specific characteristics of our agricultural production and of the sectors involved. The question must nevertheless be asked whether a structure that is so cumbersome from the administrative and budgetary point of view is really necessary and this also applies to appointing the members of the management board, in which the authorities of each Member State should have a greater role. Despite all of this, we consider the amendments tabled by Parliament on the need for imported produce to respect Community legislation to be crucial, as is extending the legislation’s coverage to encompass animal feedingstuffs too.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, this change to the agenda was not taken into account when you made your proposal. This change is directly related to the Council’s availability. Until now, it has always been customary to examine waivers for parliamentary immunity at the Strasbourg part-sessions. I understand perfectly well, therefore, that we placed this issue at the head of Monday’s agenda, but I do not think this was what was intended, especially after last week’s vote by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market.

Political group: PSE
People can become involved in computer hacking for very different reasons. It is not simply a question of resourceful young people exploring the possibilities technology has to offer, or of 'nerds' who enjoy wreaking havoc in other people's work; it is also about critical investigators who are looking for information that is important to many but that is kept secret unfairly. The latter group helps reduce opportunities for environmental scandals, corruption, financial fraud, warmongering and dictatorial acts. In all cases, incidents of computer hacking interfere with the smooth operation of organisations in both the private and public sector, but when these incidents are assessed, what ultimately counts is the positive or negative impact these disruptive activities have. I fully agree with the rapporteur, Mrs Cederschiöld, that this framework decision and the relevant national implementing measures should not be used to suppress freedom of expression, demonstration and association. Minor disruptions that are viewed as unimportant in the individual Member States need not be made punishable by the EU. The application of Article 12, in which contact points are set up for the mutual exchange of experiences, can also have adverse effects. I therefore support the proposal to postpone this section.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, seven years after Rio, two years after Kyoto, the issue of climate change is today at a critical juncture. It is true that the hypocrisy of the United States has greatly contributed to this situation as that country emits the most greenhouse gases and thus is least willing to ratify the Kyoto Protocol by 2002. It is also true, however, that Europe itself has done little or nothing to achieve the targets that were set. It is unacceptable that in principle, the European Union is fighting for a reduction in emissions and then, in practice, reaches the conclusion that, because the necessary policies have not been implemented, many Member States are already slipping alarmingly in relation to the limit values set in Kyoto for 2010. We can even state that two years after Kyoto, although there were more than enough good intentions and fine speeches, there was a lack of political will to act. This is exactly the time to act, and to act by coming up with new solutions; firstly by creating a European programme for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions that supports and finances actions in the area of energy efficiency and renewable energies, a programme that proves that, contrary to what many would have us believe, nuclear energy may be the easiest path to take but it is not necessarily the best. Secondly, we must establish financial instruments which will enable us to introduce CO2/energy taxes in all European countries. Thirdly, we must launch a large European public information campaign, especially for economic operators, to achieve urgent change in our daily practices and behaviour in terms of the consumption and production of energy. In order to do this, we do not have to wait for the United States of America, particularly because it is more and more likely that we will have to move ahead without that country for the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol in 2002.

Political group: PPE-DE
We Swedish Social Democrats voted in favour of the report on the Directive on the reduction of the level of pollutant emissions from two and three-wheel motor vehicles. We believe that the recommendation has intrinsic environmental value. However, in this explanation of vote, we wish to state that we do not agree with Mr Lange’s desire for a binding emission limit for 2006. We believe that the limit should be voluntary until there are improved grounds for a new limit to be set. If the limit were to be established now, there would be a risk of emissions from future motorcycles becoming higher than necessary. We believe Mr Lange’s proposal to use the test cycle for cars is inappropriate as motorcycles are not driven in the same way as cars. They accelerate in a different way and are usually driven at higher speeds. Instead, we should wait for the new test cycle currently under development for motorcycles and, until then, have voluntary emission limits. - Turchi report (A5-0439/2001)

Political group: PSE
I am pleased to see that we have finally emerged from the impasse reached in the discussions between Parliament and the Council on the Socrates II programme. This House has managed to remain very firm on its position during this long conciliation procedure. The Commission’s basic proposal on the renewal of the Socrates programme dates from May 1998! It has therefore taken over a year and many meetings of the Conciliation Committee to reach agreement on this programme. Its purpose is to encourage high-quality, general education by supporting cooperation, strengthening mobility and developing the European dimension in all spheres of education. This will supplement the actions of the Member States in this area. I do not need to remind you of the enthusiasm generated by this programme! It has developed the educational mobility of hundreds of thousands of European university students and lecturers, headmasters, schoolteachers, pupils and educational decision makers. In addition, the programme has supported hundreds of transnational projects developing the European dimension and improving the quality of school and higher education, language learning and so on. The allocation of an additional budget to renew and develop this programme is therefore justified. This is what Parliament was proposing when it suggested an overall budget of EUR 2 billion for this multiannual programme, whereas the Council was proposing EUR 1.55 billion. After long negotiations, the Council has agreed to EUR 1.85 billion over seven years. The Council has also agreed to insert a review clause on the financial consequences of the accession of new Member States. This will allow the financial effects of enlargement to be defined through the codecision procedure, with Parliament having an equal say with the Council on the matter. We have also agreed on an assessment report to analyse the specific results achieved by this programme. Furthermore, it is planned to simplify the procedures for selecting projects. This is essential as it will prevent programmes from being held up for more than two weeks in the event of an objection being made by a Member State. The original provisions did not specify any time limit which meant that projects could have been delayed for up to two months. The Conciliation Committee has also achieved a compromise on how the Socrates programme will contribute to the development of a “European dimension in education” rather than a “European educational area”, as Parliament had requested or “educational cooperation”, which was the weaker wording favoured from the start by the Council. I must say that I deplore the lack of commitment among our ministers. This is even more incomprehensible as the concept of European citizenship must be developed among our young people and the educational system has a key role to play in this!

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I do not want to be misunderstood – I sincerely hope this does not happen – and I should therefore like to start by saying that I am, of course, in favour of combating fraud and firmly support the appropriate, necessary reforms. This is not a straightforward issue and calls for a much more wide-ranging analysis, but I shall restrict myself to raising only a few points, in order to make people more aware, if possible, of what we are talking about. All the experts can provide information and news, formulate opinions and give advice, but, they have no political or elective responsibility, and rightly so. I nevertheless believe that politicians should look into what can be gleaned from an expert report and what cannot be taken en masse in a spirit which, on some occasions, I have felt in the past and still feel to be self-destructive. I believe – and I shall only pick up on a few ideas – that Parliament alone, and no one else, can exert an influence over its Members. If this were not the case, the European Parliament’s authority and representativeness would be seriously undermined in the coming years, and this institution would not move forward, as it should. It is just as important for no-one to be able to or have to refuse the European Parliament or its committees any documentation. Members of Parliament must possess the qualities of morality, discipline and discretion over delegated issues innately, and these certainly cannot be imposed on them by anyone else. I would point out that there is no European legal system, but that a different legal system exists in each Member State. We run the risk of delegating issues relating to the same offences which will then be punished in different ways. I agree that an investigation system should be introduced, but I am also absolutely convinced that we must recognise the right to equal respect for dignity and, in any case, the equal need for the right to a defence. I am opposed to European Community officials being accused of criminal acts at the drop of a hat: whistle-blowing is a method that has no place in the third millennium. In conclusion, Mr President, Parliament must introduce a principle of democracy: we must implement reforms which allow Parliament to grow and expand its powers, not go into reverse.

Political group: PPE-DE
The existence and maintenance of an army is always justified by the argument that it was necessary in order to defend the freedom of the country's own territory and to discourage potential occupying forces. Because nobody likes to be occupied, the existence of such an army is accepted by a majority of people, albeit often with doubt or reluctance. Action by armies outside their own borders, on the other hand, is always rightly regarded as a form of aggression and imperialism. In recent years, there has been an offensive to justify the action of armies outside their own territory. This happened in Iraq and in Kosovo, and it is now happening in Afghanistan. When Mr Solana took up office, I heard him say that he knows of many places outside the territory of the EU where an army could be deployed. Mr Brok wants a decision on the operational readiness of a European ‘Rapid Reaction Force’ to be reached soon. I reject this part of his proposals, although I do share his views on the struggle against money laundering and against the international drugs trade, finding a humanitarian and political solution for Chechnya, strengthening the peace-building capacity of the United Nations and making aid for Macedonia dependent on the implementation of the agreed amendment to the constitution.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would just like to address this question of better regulation. I congratulate the Commission on its proposals, particularly its recommendations on economic impact assessments. The Commission's proposals will only be effective if the other two institutions – the Council and Parliament – follow suit. Mr Chichester's amendment seeks to alter paragraph 25, which was my original amendment in committee, calling upon Parliament in essence to carry out its own economic impact assessments. I believe that we should do this at second reading, once we have received the common position from the Council and we know what Parliament's amendments were at first reading. We should have an independent unit seeking to assess exactly what the impact of the legislation is, with a rigorous cost-benefit analysis, as Mr Ford has said, albeit not to substitute for decision-making, but to ensure that all decisions taken by Parliament are informed. It may well be that even if we recognise there are costs involved, we feel the legislation is very important. But Parliament has to follow the example of the Commission on that, otherwise it will not work. Indeed, so should the Council. The Council is very good at adding amendments to legislation without actually working out how much they are going to cost. That is a vital challenge to Parliament. Finally, the Lisbon agenda will only work if we focus on the skills issue. Lifelong learning has to be meaningful, not just a slogan. We have to make sure our workforce has the proper skills to be able to develop our economy, because our competitive advantage is largely skills-based and that is where the future of the European economy lies.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of my group I wish to thank Mr Stockmann for an excellent and competently prepared report. It is vital to have careful coordination of slots to improve efficiency and safety at airports. Take-off and landing times are also of considerable economic importance for air carriers. Our group supports the rapporteur’s efforts to adopt the key elements of the Commission proposal: an independent coordinator, priority being given to new entrants, and the legal status of slots specifically as a right of use. It is important to have a system of allocation of slots that is as flexible as possible for those companies, for example, that do business abroad. The right of Member States to limit ‘grandfather rights’ to operate aircraft of a specified minimum size serves little purpose. Discriminating against small aircraft could, for example, lead to problems for a small country’s traffic heading for another Member State. Our group has tabled two amendments. The purpose of Amendment No 56 is to clarify the Commission proposal regarding the allocation of slots to new entrants. The amendment preserves the idea of priority being given them, but at the same time specifies that priority should be dependent on the number of slots requested. In my opinion, Amendment No 45 weakens the position of new entrants. I would also ask what the Commission’s view is of this proposal. The Commission has started to take action to avoid congestion at airports. The purpose of the new market mechanisms is to more effectively coordinate supply and demand regarding slots. Finding long-term solutions has nevertheless been a very slow process in recent years. Amendment No 57 represents the desire of our group to have the Commission commit to submitting a more comprehensive proposal on slots. Our group believes the present system must be radically revised. There has to be greater access to the slots market than there is at present.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Andersson, first of all, thank you for the work of both the rapporteur and the Commission. I welcome the fact that we are gradually applying the open coordination method to pensions. It is not so much a debate as a beginning. I do not know what we should do in the long term with regard to the accessibility, financability and modernisation of pensions. The proposal offers, among other things, a number of guidelines. In my view, the benefit of the Commission proposal is that it gives a good insight into what is going on and that it contains a first set of measures. However, as I have already stated, they are long-term measures. Mr Cercas may well make a comment with regard to the next generation, but that is precisely the problem that we will be facing. In the short term, we are having to deal with a labour market that is silting up in many parts of Europe and the solution of getting people to work for longer is not effective in the short term. Mrs Ainardi has already pointed out that there are a number of problems in a number of Member States, including France and Austria. In the Netherlands, 20 000 people have taken to the streets in protest against the largely Liberal Christian-Democratic government that has thought out all kinds of measures to encourage the participation of the elderly in the labour market in the long term. For example, by cutting back on early retirement, the early retirement scheme (VUT), extended unemployment benefit (WW), general unemployment benefit and similar schemes. In this connection, it has, by the way, left no scope for circumventing these measures. This means that people are currently protesting against a government in the Netherlands that is intent on taking measures of this kind. As I stated before, 20 000 demonstrators have taken to the streets in protest. Short-term policy is the missing link and, in that sense, the report by Jan Andersson is, in fact, a shallow report for problems of this type. I am stating the facts as they are. The report is not a disaster. It is a first step. In the coming period, however, something should be added. And this will bring with it all kinds of problems. I agree on increasing the effective pensionable age, but, at the moment, we should just see how things pan out, and alternatives will therefore need to be developed to ensure that short-term and long-term policy are balanced out more effectively.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, thank you for your kind words of support which I trust apply to every proposal in the report. I have ten minutes speaking time, I intend to take five now and five at the end of the debate so that I can reply to some of the points taken, as I am entitled to do under the Rules.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ever since Amsterdam the Union has been proudly proclaiming its role as a fire brigade for crises in Europe. The only problem is that it does not even possess buckets with which to draw water. With the rapid reaction facility, the Union has now acquired some buckets at least, and I do welcome that. However, I should have liked to see this fire brigade equip itself with hoses too, but Members of this House are among those who have told us that, while this fund does not meet all our needs, fire hoses are simply expensive commodities. Nevertheless, the facility is a step forward, but I must re-emphasise that it is still a lopsided mechanism, because it only funds action after the event. Far greater importance surely attaches to action before the event, to preventive measures. Police forces alone cannot prevent crises, which is why we also expect funding to be provided for the European civilian peace corps that Parliament called for in its resolution of 1999, and we ask Dr Solana to pursue these things more persistently.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, this Parliament adopts resolutions on all kinds of topical and urgent problems throughout the world, and yet when something really is urgent, namely having an opinion on the Nice Summit, we hesitate. You can make of that what you will. Our electorate will not understand it. (Applause) Many resolutions have been adopted here in the past without colleagues even reading the texts. Surely we will be in a position to hold parliamentary debates on texts which have been ready for months, whose content we are familiar with, whose consequences we know and whose historical importance we are fully aware of. I believe that it is our duty to our electorate to have an opinion on this. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am taking the floor because I should like to warn you that your good name is being misused in the Danish media. They are saying that, at the Conference of Presidents where we had a video conference with Hans Blix, you said that the latter was warning us against sending a delegation to Iraq. Now, we both know, because we were present at the relevant Conference of Presidents and both participated in the video conference, that that is not the case. I think you should have an opportunity to say so, because anyone reading the Danish newspapers would believe otherwise. Your name is, then, being used in that connection, and this is something I think you should perhaps do something about.

Political group: GUE-NGL