GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think we should focus on what the report actually says, for I think that substantial parts of it still show the hand of Mrs Isler Béguin. I welcome that, and I would also like to thank the Committee Chairman who finished the work. No one would dispute that nuclear energy and the transport of nuclear waste fall within the competencies of the Member States. Of course, if agreements have been concluded, they must also be adhered to, especially as far as transport is concerned. Transporting radioactive material is not a risk-free business, as the report points out. So I think that what the report says is important: firstly, the safety of people and the environment must have absolute priority; secondly, full information must be provided to the local authorities and community. Many people in Germany, in particular, are worried at present; they are upset about what lies ahead. Being able to voice their opinion and take part in demonstrations is part of that. We are united in our condemnation of violence against people and property, because it is counterproductive. For our part, let me say this: the proposal put forward in Germany by a politician by the name of Möllemann to carry out the Castor transports by airship must also be rejected. It would certainly be impossible to comply with safety requirements and would merely make the transport of radioactive waste even more hazardous. Mrs Isler Béguin, you and I would probably phase out nuclear energy tomorrow, but we do not make up the majority in the world, or in this society. So we should concentrate on this communication so that in the immediate future, the transport of radioactive waste is as safe as possible. If we have then achieved what the German Government has set out to do, namely to agree on and complete the phasing-out of nuclear energy, the two of us might have attained our goal in a few years' time.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as rapporteur for this year’s budget, I have a number of matters to address in that connection. First of all, I am really not as critical as Mrs Roth-Behrendt. I think it is important for us now to acquire an annual policy strategy which also constitutes the Commission’s guideline for next year’s budget. At present, all the institutions issue their guidelines in the spring, and the hope now exists that the Commission will also base its draft budget on ideas from the Council and Parliament. If so, that would be a clear improvement. Secondly, quite a few MEPs have pointed out that we need to strengthen the link between the Commission’s legislative programme and the issues concerning the budget. Up until now, we have all too often ended up in a position in which we have obtained draft laws and proposals for new programs and expenditure and for setting up new institutions and so on, with no account being taken of the budgetary process and the financial consequences. It is especially in the sphere of foreign policy that a variety of promises are given. There is still a fair amount to be done in this area, but this year’s process is nonetheless a step in the right direction. Thirdly, we can at least be pleased about the section on interinstitutional cooperation. If it is going to be possible to create an EU that operates well, such cooperation and confidence are crucial. It is therefore a source of deep concern to us to learn now that discussions of the new budget regulation, designed to reduce Parliament’s influence, are being held within the Council. The Council’s budget committee is discussing reducing our opportunities to place sums in the reserve and to influence supplementary and amending budgets and so forth. If the Council continues along those lines, it will call the institutional balance into question in a way that Parliament will never accept voluntarily. Fourthly, I want to address a factual matter. It is gratifying that all the institutions are now highlighting enlargement, which is of course the most important task for our time. I hope that, by no later than the budget conciliation in July, we shall be able to agree upon how we are to handle next year’s administrative expenditure in such a way as to facilitate the preparations, partly by providing aid to construction, working on the language issues, deciding what staff need to be appointed and determining what regulations need to be drawn up if we are to be able to accept observers in our political groups. If all the institutions contribute by regarding these matters as important, we shall in actual fact have a chance of reaching such an agreement by no later than July. That would be an enormous boost. Finally, I hope that, before the negotiations are completed, the Council and the Commission will also institute an exhaustive discussion with Parliament concerning the long-term economic consequences of enlargement. I really do believe in enlargement, but we must not conceal from the taxpayers the fact that there is a price to pay. That is a matter which must be taken seriously.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I shall just speak very briefly to tell Mr De Keyser that he must have been wrongly informed. There is no resistance from Parliament. Parliament voted for a common position, which did not even amend the common position decreed by the Council, with regard to ethical problems. Parliament accepted a compromise integrating all the amendments voted for by Parliament on a whole series of issues, and we learned quite by chance in July that the Council was going back on its word. It is the Council’s bad faith that Parliament is condemning. That is why the rapporteur, the chairman of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and the shadow rapporteurs meet regularly in order to represent Parliament to the Council, ask to be involved in negotiations and ensure that the Council’s word and the word of the Spanish Presidency are respected by the Danish Presidency. It is very simple: there is no threat from anyone at all in this area. Parliament is extremely responsible and, during the codecision procedure, did not want to go as far as conciliation and so accepted a compromise. It is this compromise that is disputed by the Council and we must all be unanimous, whatever our opinions on ethical problems, in denouncing this kind of behaviour.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I too would like to thank Mrs Lienemann, the rapporteur, very much indeed, as we can all see how committed she was to this work. In addition, Parliament got its own point of view across quite well, especially with regard to the important issue that, at last, we have the prospect of attaining a situation in which hazardous substances can no longer get into groundwater supplies. In my opinion, it should be as clear as day that when we know a substance is dangerous, in no case should it be able to get into groundwater, as water, apart from anything else, is a very important resource for people in terms of health. Obviously it is just regrettable that the deadlines for implementation are an unreasonably long way off. All in all it has to be said that in certain fields of industry in the European Union we have made progress. In many areas, for example, the community and industry have played their part relatively well. Agriculture and forestry, however, are still problems, with their diffuse discharges. More needs to be done about this. Regarding consumers it is naturally important how consumption is controlled, and here charges and taxation are of prime importance. For that reason, it is a bit hard for me to understand how people can even begin to think that water could be a commodity paid for out of general taxes, as it is only through charges that consumption can be controlled really sensibly.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank my colleague, Mr Schnellhardt, who has drawn upon his professional background to produce a very technically sound report. Adequate food controls are important in order to guarantee the greatest possible protection of consumers. They ensure the safety, for example, of raw meat, game, molluscs, milk and dairy products. In future, therefore, food producers and processors will have to reveal all the different steps involved in their work. Details will have to be noted about the feedingstuffs used and the state of health of the animals. It will then be possible to trace food and its component parts back to the place of origin, in accordance with the transparent production chain. This is the only way for food authorities to react faster when there is a problem or to detect shortcomings in quality as soon as possible and to remove them. In the Commission’s proposal, it is emphasised that small- and medium-sized enterprises are most affected, and, for them, the new hygiene rules represent a huge burden. The increase in expenditure will, however, result in a significant increase in food safety for the consumer, provided that the demands on businesses are bearable and affordable. Against this background, the rapporteur and I have jointly tabled some amendments, which take into consideration the flexibility that is essential for artisanal small businesses without, however, reducing the hygiene requirements. I think it is important that these artisanal small businesses should be recognised in the definition of the Regulation. We do have large slaughterhouses in Europe, but we also have a host of small butcher’s shops. That is why there has to be some flexibility to adapt official controls to the size of the business. Inspecting a large slaughterhouse, in which thousands of animals are slaughtered and processed on a daily basis, is in nature and intensity different to inspecting an artisanal small business, in which fewer animals are processed. There also has to be flexibility with regard to the frequency of controls on smaller businesses. We need a rule stipulating when a business is to be inspected and by whom. An inspection plan from the competent authorities, which has been preceded by a risk analysis, should be sufficient. Health-based requirements should only be involved if they are actually relevant for people’s health. What I expect from this Regulation is greater individual responsibility for producers and processors. European consumers will benefit directly from this. However, I am also very concerned that we, as legislators, should give consideration to the traditional small-business structure in Europe, in order to guarantee that both the production and supply of food is sustainable, adequate and safe, even in the less-populated areas of Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, I reiterate that European legislation does exist on this matter and it must be respected, that the specifications of the new tunnel are practically the same as those of the previous tunnel, that 97% of the community of Chamonix have declared that they are against the reopening of the tunnel – which will inevitably damage all the private businesses, polluting all the typical, customary economic activities of these communities now and in future – and that the Italian government is preparing to reduce the night-time toll, thus increasing the pollution. What guarantees does the European legislation protecting the environment offer these communities?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, this is a truly distressing affair. Possibly the most important founding principle of the European Union was peace and those who seek to join the Union must try to conduct their domestic and their foreign affairs in as peaceable a fashion as possible. Turkey, as we appreciate, suffers from an extremely vulnerable border and it is a particular problem for it to establish the requisite stability and peaceful circumstances that its integration to Europe properly requires. As a part of the pre-accession phase of Turkey's candidacy, we should try to establish a functional forum where military as well as civilian and economic issues should be shared between us. Turkey's membership of NATO presents many of our Member States with a special responsibility in this respect. The development of a common European Security and Defence Policy should be seen as a pretext, and also as a bridge, for us to reach common positions on ways to combat terrorism while respecting fundamental rights. If we are able to succeed in creating such a practical forum, we should be able to expect that this sort of sad critical incident will be put firmly in the past.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I think Mrs Quisthoudt-Rowohl and my colleague Mrs McNally have both done a very good job of explaining their divergent positions. Whenever there is a situation of problematic political conflict – and it goes without saying that Israel is one – this House finds it difficult to come to a decision. I do believe, though, that it is a good thing to clarify what is involved, what we want to achieve, and what message this House is sending out by endorsing the position taken by the Commission and the Council. This has to do with the continuation of cooperation and dialogue that are already going on in scientific and technological circles, and that benefit both sides. Contrary to what has been said by some Members, this is not just about the eventual benefit to Israel; we too will benefit. Not only will this benefit scientists, university departments and research institutes; humanity itself will benefit from cooperation and exchange between scientists, in which politicians too will have their part to play, and, as a fellow Member pointed out, society as a whole will benefit. We are investing in a future in which – or so we hope – Europe will be able to do its bit in resolving a situation that is, in political and human terms, extremely difficult. So I am both proud and glad that Mrs McNally, as my group’s coordinator, has, in the group’s discussions, always emphasised that we would endorse this report. On just one small point, I would like to point out to the Members in the Group of the , who have difficulties with the ‘dual use’ aspect, that the European Union does not support any military research, nor does our research programme cover it, so any cooperation in that area is automatically ruled out.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am reassured by the fact that the first three speakers in this debate are intimate with this situation given our African origin. I must firstly congratulate the groups in this House on the high degree of consensus achieved in the motion for a resolution. I am aware of the efforts made by Members to avoid using an issue such as this for electoral purposes. Secondly, I must also assert my total conviction that neither Spain nor Andalusia is xenophobic or racist. Of course this does not mean that I do not totally condemn the violence used by individuals or groups who deserve to be prosecuted firmly and rigorously by the law, and by the law alone. We should be tackling the issue of immigration in a comprehensive and rigorous manner. These events, which are unfortunately overshadowing the political decisions in this area, confirm without doubt that the development of the Tampere Agreements and Title IV of the EC Treaty must be an urgent priority. Today’s problems cannot be solved in five years. They will take a long time, as we are finding out. The legislation of the Member States must be brought into line with the agreements of the governments in Tampere, as paragraph 7 of the motion states. Legal immigrants must be integrated socially without any excuses or delays. Furthermore, the labour market must be organised realistically so that jobs held by third country nationals are subject to labour legislation on wages, social security and social protection in terms of equality. This will eradicate the labour exploitation and markets in marginalised people, which are resulting in the events condemned by the motion, and which are the real basis of the current social problem. Solidarity, dialogue and agreements between local, regional, national and European institutions and employers, unions and the immigrant communities themselves, whose countries of origin must also undoubtedly assume some responsibility, are essential. Collaboration with the countries of origin on this issue is vital. In this respect, the action plans approved by the High Level Group and the Tampere European Council must be allocated a budget. Specifically, I must stress in this debate the plan for Morocco. This is a country with which the European Union has an effective relationship and common interests and which should take particular priority in mutual cooperation and collaboration. Finally, this House must tackle the phenomenon of immigration with sufficient calm to avoid increasing tension in a debate which must go much further than the appropriate words and condemnations prompted by such behaviour. This is a very important social debate in the creation of a European area in which the right to freedom, security and justice will be recognised in the future Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Political group: PPE-DE
President of the Commission, thank you for your contribution to the work of the Convention. We are also looking forward to the end of this never-ending task because I believe that, with everyone adopting a position, with everyone drafting their own Constitution, it is fortunate that some members of the Commission are concerning themselves with this common task and are making their contribution. Thank you too for your proposals regarding the appointment of your successors and of the Commission’s three-stage appointment procedure. We feel it is worthwhile and relevant. I have a question to ask, however. I understand that you are in a negotiating position, but it seems to me that, when we speak of preserving the Community method, and this is obviously what the Commission desires, this method is based on the role of the three points of a triangle, with a necessary balance. From that point of view, I must admit that your proposal to satisfy the desire of the Heads of State and Government and their ministers to strengthen and go beyond the rotating Council presidency will be badly handled and will be viewed as a weak point of your contribution. Consequently, the positions that you adopt regarding the Secretary of the Union will be regarded enthusiastically and be reproduced in other sectors. From this point of view, the idea that the Secretary of the Union would not chair the Council responsible for these issues seems to me to be a weak point. You say that the president of the Council could not seek compromise at the same time as making proposals. We all know many assemblies where these two roles are carried out by the same person. I therefore believe that this is a point that we should examine in greater depth and I think that, in the area of external representation of the euro zone, these proposals could be reproduced. Mr President, I thank you for calling our fellow Members to order. What you need is a loud speaker so as to be able to broadcast this message to those outside the Chamber, as it is those who are coming back in who are disturbing our work. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
I would urge you not to let a reunified Europe become divided over Atlantic unity. Commissioner Patten is right. The most pressing world problems cannot, and should not, be solved by the United States alone. Whether these problems concern weapons of mass destruction, human rights, poverty, religious conflicts or lack of democracy, it is vitally important for America and Europe to join forces. Europeans must join Bush in showing the West's neo-progressive face to the world. The European Union can be Washington's fully-fledged partner only if it acts like one. If the French-German axis turns away from Washington, while the British-Polish axis moves towards Bush, we will end up not making any headway at all. We must put the trauma of Iraq to one side and, as the European Union, draft a joint global strategy with the United States. Two strategies are too many, and there is no room for either inflated national egos or conservative ideological agendas. Let us now reunite Europe and America using a pragmatic approach, in other words the D'66 approach.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, I have read and re-read the Commission’s document setting out the strategic objectives for its term in office. I am delighted that it is being discussed in Parliament, but I also note the compromises and the omissions in it. The Commission makes only a passing reference to economic and social cohesion, to solidarity between Member States and to the European Union’s regional policy. And this is true even when it addresses the issue of enlargement. Are reducing the disparities between levels of development and the consequent promotion of real convergence objectives that we have already achieved? Certainly not! At the same time, it was rightly pointed out that Europe must evaluate its role as a joint partner with developing countries, and strengthen its activities designed for fighting poverty. This document leaves out issues which clearly should have been included. I think the fact that the Commission does not address the issue of cohesion is extremely serious. It plays down one of the Treaties’ principles – that of economic and social cohesion – which must inform all of the European institutions’ policies and measures. It seems to ignore the fact that various European regions are still considerably less advanced than others. It also forgets that enlargement means that we must get regional policy right. Unless we achieve real convergence, the cohesion of the European Union itself will be at risk. We should take into consideration the sixth periodic report on the situation of the regions in the European Union, for which the Commission is responsible. This report confirms that whereas an average level of development is given a rating of 100, the ten so-called “strongest” regions reached an average of 158, and the ten so-called “weakest” regions reached a figure of around 50. You may draw your own conclusions. 50 is exactly the level of development of my own region, the Azores, one of the regions defined in the Treaties as ultra-peripheral. I am waiting for the Commission’s report on the ultra-peripheral regions, which the Council decided should be drawn up by December 1999. I shall finish by restating my conviction that without economic and social cohesion, there will be no cohesion at all, only disunity.

Political group: PPE-DE
We had a problem when we had to prepare the voting list, which was that we could not find the amendment tabled by the , the Group of the European People’s Party , the Group of the and the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party for point 5. I do not know whether it is possible to have it read out so that we have the chance to adopt a position on it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Given the risk that chemicals present to people’s health and to the environment, we Swedish believe it to be obvious that, in accordance with the principle of ‘no data, no marketing’, chemicals which have not undergone certain tests should not be allowed to be marketed, either. Furthermore, we support the substitution principle which has long been a well-established principle of Swedish chemicals policy. In the same way, we believe that a reversed burden of proof should apply to substances that give cause for concern, which means that it is the industry, not the authorities, which has to demonstrate that a subject can be used in an acceptable way. Because chemicals can involve significant risks in smaller quantities too, we believe that chemicals in quantities of less than a tonne which are imported to, or produced within, the EU should also be covered by the new system. In that way, we shall in quite a few respects be departing from the position adopted by the Group of the European People’s Party and . - Corbey report (A5-0323/2001)

Political group: PPE-DE