GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, putting the principles of sustainability into practice is a difficult task and I think the words of the President-in-Office of the Council are encouraging, but can I ask him to come back to the question I asked? Will the documents that will be produced in time for the Gothenburg Council have clear and specific indicators within them by which the future performance of the presidency and indeed of the European Union can be judged, together with a clear and specific timetable for the delivery of certain goals, or are we going to see another set of waffle words which meet the goals of good intentions but cannot actually be measured against practical delivery? We have a Swedish environment commissioner: we now have a Swedish Presidency which has a firm commitment to the environment. We expect great things of you which is why we ask a lot.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, I believe that the events in Peru are evidence of the world of difference that there can be between the formal meaning of words and their tangible weight. The term in question is the word 'democracy'. Peru has a parliament which has been elected by universal suffrage and a president who has used the powers of persuasion of the army to violate all constitutional precepts. I feel that this resolution marks a key point in Parliament's political initiative. I would like to focus briefly on one of the subjects covered by the report: the call for Parliament to send a delegation. The European Union has got to do something and do it quickly. The process of democracy needs to be consolidated, but consolidated with political instruments and human resources. We must ensure that, when Peru reaches its goal, it has candidates who are capable of rising to the challenge and responding to the Peruvian people's demand for political renewal and genuine democracy. Mr President, Commissioner, this is why I strongly support the call for Parliament to send a delegation, not just to act as a witness should something go badly wrong, but, for once in its history, to support a country which is seeking a democratic way forward.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I fully subscribe to and take as read what has been said so far in relation to the identification and traceability of beef and all beef products. Yesterday the Committee on the Environment voted by 37 votes to 13 for the five amendments before us today – a clear, decisive vote right across this House from colleagues in all different groups. I would particularly like to mention the category issue here which I suppose effectively means getting back to the first reading position on this. I was incensed when, as late as yesterday, the Commission could not advise us as to exactly what would be involved in 'category'. We are effectively being asked to buy the bovine equivalent of a pig in a poke. This is not acceptable. I would say to the Commissioner, please accept our amendments in relation to this area. There is no need to confuse and mislead the consumers of Europe on a compulsory basis, because the voluntary labelling system which will be driven by competition, pride in product and consumer demand will add anything that a compulsory category label might otherwise require. I am still confused about the situation in relation to mince. If we are now going to insist on country of origin for mince, why cannot we have country of origin for the larger pieces of beef from 1 September, or whenever? I am not quite sure where we stand on that but we will be advised. The French situation is amazing. Only yesterday the services of the French Prime Minister wrote to every French MEP in this House – all 87 of them across the House – telling them to vote against all the amendments. What does that tell us about political interference from the top in France? What is that saying about French beef production and protectionism? What is it saying about the Anglo-French beef issue? If the French want to label beef they can do so voluntarily. At the moment they only label 50% of their beef, yet they want to insist on compulsory labelling under category for all of us. I do not understand the political interference and the real message from France, and we should get to the bottom of it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, allow me to begin by congratulating the rapporteur, Mr van Dam, on an excellent report and also expressing my gratitude to the Commission for having made a genuinely serious attempt to get to grips with this important issue. In recent years, the Commission has tabled a number of proposals for increasing maritime safety in various ways, and this as a result of a number of accidents affecting both people and the environment. The complaint may be made, as it has by myself in various connections, that the EU often reacts after the event instead of taking vigorous action beforehand, but it is good, nonetheless, that a real effort is now being made. Erika I has been succeeded by Erika II, and there is presumably more to come. During the next few months of the session, Parliament will have a number of reports on which to adopt positions in this area. In this report, we are dealing with safety in connection with the loading and unloading of bulk carriers. There is no doubt that bulk carriers in particular have been especially badly affected by accidents, at least during the last decade. There are a great many reports and a good deal of statistical information to indicate this – a fact which the rapporteur in particular has pointed out. A good half of the vessels that have foundered have done so as a result of accidents involving the hull. Lack of maintenance is a cause of accidents of this type, but many accidents also occur in connection with loading and unloading. Over the last decade, this has been observed by the UN’s maritime body, the IMO. A special report has called upon Member States, classification societies and shipping companies to be alert to errors in loading and unloading. A number of interim measures have been proposed, for example. It is important to take an overall view of this problem. There is an explosive growth in the number of shipments. More and more of the traffic comes from Eastern and Central Europe or from third countries. This means that the way in which loads are secured is going to become one of the most important issues of all for us. We are concerned here not only with bulk carriers but also with other forms of shipping and other forms of transport. The fact that loads are not always adequately secured is now a growing problem for shipping and for road and rail transport. The Commission ought therefore to come back with proposals as to how these problems might be solved. Since this is not only, or even mainly, a problem for the EU but is a global issue, it is also important for the Commission to pursue issues of this kind further within the IMO or in other international contexts. I should be grateful if the Commissioner could say something about the initiatives the Commission intends to go on taking on this important matter.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to say a few brief words about Mr Schulz's speech. That was not a question; it was a campaign speech! (Applause) I can only conclude that the opinion polls have obviously made him very nervous, and this was also an opportunity like no other! I should like to ask a question, Mr President-in-Office, about the division of competences during your presidency. Defence policy will be the responsibility not of Denmark but of Greece even during your presidency. We are, however, facing some very important decisions, particularly in the Balkans, for example concerning the American involvement there and the transfer of responsibility to the European Union. This raises the following question: how are you going to ensure optimal coordination between the civilian and military aspects of the operation, which are of course by their very nature inextricably linked? What role will the presidency play, and what part will be assigned to the Commission?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I only have to look up to see that we are surrounded by numerous ballasts. I think that this chamber is a model of how neon tubes and ballasts can work together. I am sure that we have the economical bulbs because it has also been proven that electronic ballasts pay for themselves within one to two years. We therefore have a very good return on investment, which is why all modern building constructors and planners are already changing over to these electronic ballasts. At the moment, the market cannot produce enough ballasts to meet requirements. The main problem is that the technology is so modern and attractive that, in truth, the industry cannot manufacture the quantities required in the immediate future. This, of course, presents a problem because we must ensure that the ballasts are available at the right time when we pass our regulation, otherwise there will be a certain shortage. If it is no longer possible to manufacture the magnetic ballasts and there are not enough electronic ballasts available, then the market may encounter difficulties. Nonetheless, I am in favour of a legislative regulation, despite the fact that I have considered long and hard as to whether a European directive for ballasts does, in fact, make sense. I am in favour, however, because I believe that we should invest more research in this technology in the future. We should make an effort to ensure that future investments are channelled into electronic ballasts. This is already self-evident from the market itself, but I think that this directive could act as an incentive to invest more funds more quickly and achieve a solid return.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, you have presided over 358 separate votes just now. I hope colleagues will agree that this underlines the need to reform our Rules of Procedure.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, our debate has come at an opportune time – as a number of us have said – as it coincides with the Hague Conference on Climate Change. Everybody is now well aware that the risk to humanity is not just an issue for future generations. We are already feeling the negative impact of the greenhouse effect, climatic upheavals, global warming, in short, a whole series of difficulties that are already on our doorstep and call for the adoption of urgent, stringent and firm measures. The good proposal that you have put forward, Commissioner De Palacio – and I should like to pay tribute to your realism as regards energy – and the excellent report by Mrs Rothe are a step in the right direction by promoting renewable energies. Looking at this issue we see only interests, whether they be in the field of securing supplies, protecting the environment, combating the greenhouse effect or creating jobs. Of course, we must agree to finance environmental protection, and that is also where we see the limitations of the market. Free competition does not solve all the problems and, more especially, it does not settle the fight against the greenhouse effect or against waste. Member States must now accept the proposals that are being put forward. We must vote overwhelmingly in favour of the proposals from Mrs Rothe. I would like to conclude simply by mentioning three problems which have come up time and time again throughout this debate. The first problem is that of peat, which is an important energy source: in my view, it is not a renewable energy. The second problem is that of household waste: strictly speaking it is not a renewable energy, but one must guard against sending a negative signal as regards the incineration of household waste. Finally, as far as the degree of constraint is concerned, I will simply say – because I do not have any more time – that an objective in itself is never constraining: it is an objective and everything must be done to achieve it. This is what we must do at a European level.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the development of Estonia and Latvia has been rapid and I congratulate those nations on such an achievement. Freedom and independence incite nations into action. This should also be the case with people, and the control of individuals over their own lives needs, of course, to improve. This is not a project for some élite, and this point must now become clear in these applicant countries. Europe's boom phase of economic growth has now ended. In the opinion of many we are on the way to a downturn, even a recession. This economic standstill will affect those applicant countries even more than our economies, since the former are considerably more frail. The popularity of the Union has, however, declined in many applicant countries such as Estonia to less than half of what it was, even before this economic standstill which has now taken place in Europe. The fact that a severe budgetary discipline has been followed is, in these Member States, seen as one reason for this. A downturn would reduce further the popularity enjoyed by the Union. For this reason then I ask, and urge as a priority, that we energetically seize the challenge of narrowing social differences and the social and economic gulf, since this is the base upon which we will be able to get the large majority of people in these countries to support membership. This also means that unemployment within the Union itself must not grow, otherwise it will erode the very base and the broad support for enlargement which exist here within the Union. In other words, the worsening economic situation may pose a threat to enlargement within the agreed or envisaged timetable. Therefore, let us get to grips with social inequality before this entire matter is pushed too far into the future.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to join in congratulating our rapporteur, Mr Gallagher, on the sensitivity and speed with which he has produced his report. I would also like to take advantage of the presence of the Commissioner to congratulate the Commission on the fact that, in the interim, we have been able to extend this agreement until the end of the year, which has allowed European fleets to continue fishing. I would like to take this opportunity to say to Mr Fischler that I am naturally concerned about the repercussions of this agreement for the fleets which, after the failure of the negotiations with Morocco, are in a truly delicate situation. All of this has its place within the framework of the debate we have held today on development cooperation and respect for the resources of third countries, certainly, but also in the knowledge that there are fishing opportunities which have not yet been utilised. The agreement that has been reached with Mauritania – on which we must also congratulate the Commission, and on which our rapporteur, Mr Gallagher is also working hard – has broken the curse that was stopping us from signing agreements and, therefore, the agreement with Senegal must come to fruition. I know that the Commission is working seriously and has meetings arranged for 20 and 23 November. I urge it to work as quickly as possible and I also urge this Parliament to deal with it with the urgency it deserves, because it is of great importance in terms of the situation of the European fishing fleet.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, food safety and public health are rarely out of the headlines and are key political priorities for all of us in Europe. Today's proposal aims to clarify the EU-wide general principles of food law and I would like to compliment the rapporteur, Mr Whitehead, both on his excellent report and on the consensual style with which he has carried out his duties in the Committee on the Environment. I also welcome Commissioner Byrne. The integrity of a European food authority will be based on independence and strong scientific leadership in the field of food safety. We must be able to trust those who set out to advise us: Farmers, fishermen, food manufacturers, processors, retailers, government, consumer advisory groups, scientists and ultimately the food safety authority. We must be able to trust them. It is essential that we have a body of science as a reference point, whether we are consumers, policy-makers or even contributors to the food chain, and that we know what is an acceptable balance between risk prevention and informed consumer choice. It is all about balance. I would like briefly to refer to some of amendments that I have tabled to this Commission proposal and I hope they will be accepted here. When we talk about the requirements for food safety it is imperative that we also talk about the responsibility of food producers for this food chain. The Commission has omitted from the legislative text the key first link in the food chain: the farmer or the fisherman. I have tabled Amendment No 72 to Article 40 which deals with responsibility of farmers for food safety and adds a force majeure defence for phenomena over which farmers have no personal control, for example natural disasters and major environmental pollution. This is not, however, to diminish the primary role of farmers in ensuring the safety of their produce. I also firmly believe that for the FA to have the confidence and backing of the people of Europe it is imperative that it operates and communicates in a wholly transparent and independent manner. Risk communication will be a key element of the FA. One only has to look at the BSE inquiry in the UK and the Lord Phillips report which stated that breakdown in risk communication was a major factor in exacerbating the crisis there. I have tabled Amendments Nos 147 and 148 to Article 39 in an effort to ensure that the authority explains its scientific risk assessments to this House, to consumers, to businesses and the academic community. The authority should also meet regularly with the Commission and the Council in order to explain the risk assessments to these bodies and help them make more informed risk management decisions. In conclusion, in relation to risk management, the measured and proportionate use of the precautionary principle is a key principle when Europe deals with food scares. I welcome the Commission's balanced proposals on this issue.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I was very pleased to be able to vote for the report on the current status of Poland's application for membership of the European Union. I would like to take this opportunity to extend a greeting to the pensioners and elderly people of Poland, some of which belong to a Pensioners' Party which is similar to the Pensioners' Party which I represent in the European Union. I must emphasise the importance of Mr Gawronski's report. I feel that, out of all the States which have applied to join the Union, Poland is the one which most deserves our support and our commitment for, without Poland's crucial initiatives, Communism would not have ended and we would not be discussing this issue today.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I support the request made by Mr Hughes. It is very important that we vote on it today. There is no real problem concerning this report, so we can vote on it today.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, normal practice would have been that I should have led the debate last night, but unfortunately due to a scheduling problem that was not possible. I would like to commend this result of the conciliation to the House. It was probably the most difficult conciliation and overall framework directive that this House has had to handle. The way in which Mrs Lienemann conducted the whole matter of taking all the political groups the whole way through was really something to be admired. I congratulate her most comprehensively for the way she did it. (Applause) We now have before us a legally binding directive which Parliament can be fully proud of. That was not the position with the original directive. We now have a legally enforceable directive which means that the environment of the Community over the next twenty years really has the opportunity of improving. My only complaint, and this is why I took the floor, was that during the conciliation process non-governmental organisations were trying to influence Parliament beyond the stage that Parliament had agreed in its second reading. Documents were very often available to those organisations before they were available to members of the Conciliation Committee. This is not tolerable. In conciliation, where we need to build trust between the Council of Ministers and Parliament, we need confidentiality. This is something that we have to address seriously in the future. I congratulate the Portuguese Presidency for the way they conducted the conciliation, but I hope that Parliament will be able to improve this situation internally for the future. (Applause) (Parliament approved the joint text) *** Report (A5-0212/2000) by Mr Florenz, on behalf of the European Parliament Delegation to the Conciliation Committee, on the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee for a European Parliament and Council directive on end-of-life vehicles (C5-0258/2000 – 1997/0194(COD)) (Parliament approved the joint text) *** Recommendation for second reading (A5-0218/00) by Mr de Roo, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the common position adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a European Parliament and Council directive amending Council Directive 92/23/EEC relating to tyres for motor vehicles and their trailers and to their fitting (5347/2/00 – C5-0220/2000 – 1997/0348(COD))

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we are absolutely obliged to take steps to propose to Parliament that a clear and effective mechanism be set up to monitor greenhouse gas emissions. I therefore fully support the compromise proposal to be brought forward tomorrow because it is important that we act with some urgency on this issue. It is a sad reality that, since we signed the Kyoto Protocol, gas emission levels in Europe have gone up instead of down. It is high time that we assumed our responsibilities. These responsibilities lie primarily with the Member States and it is time, as I said, that we assumed our responsibility not only for the health of our population today, but for the protection of our environment for tomorrow's generations as well. Last week's report indicated that three countries – Ireland, Spain and Italy – accounted for almost half of the five hundred infringements of environmental laws in the European Union over the last five years. This is an example of how Member States, having approved directives and transposed them, are failing to ensure that they are implemented.

Political group: PSE
I am pleased to support this report and also welcome the Commission communication on a New Impetus for European Youth. It is vitally important that young people are included in our political dialogue to the greatest possible extent. Indeed without their involvement that dialogue is destined to be very short-lived. I particularly support the call for attention to be paid to the Commission's information networks and in this respect commend the Commission on the decision it took in November last to reverse its proposed cutbacks in funding for its Euro information centres. I had communicated with the Commission last October when it announced abruptly that roughly 270 such centres were to see their funding cease and urge them to reverse their decision. These centres perform a very useful function at regional and local level in disseminating information about Europe. This function is even more important in the context of EU enlargement and forthcoming EP elections.

Political group: PSE