GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, Commissioner, I wish to congratulate the Commission on this initiative, which I believe to be extremely important. I would, however, like the Commissioner to explain how we can take such an initiative against the background of the common agricultural policy, which runs totally counter to promoting food safety and quality? As the common agricultural policy basically pays for production, and is based solely on quantitative criteria, namely production levels, and as farmers receive money according to the amount they produce, how can we accept a directive like this unless we first make our agricultural policy a policy based on quality, a policy based on food safety? Or is this simply a way of dealing with public opinion, as the public is increasingly suspicious of the food chain? We cannot change public opinion overnight on the basis of this agricultural policy. Why not start by changing our agricultural policy so that it inspires complete confidence in consumers?

Political group: PSE
In August 1967, the Commission consulted the European Parliament for its opinion on the first proposal on a regulation to establish a common organisation of the market in the tobacco sector. I was appointed rapporteur by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, which examined the proposal over the course of nine meetings, adopted my report in April 1969 and debated it in Strasbourg in May 1969. Why am I recalling this? Because, at that time, we proposed a new type of market organisation based on a contract system, providing, within the framework of the Community preference, a fair income for producers, as well as social measures and assistance for changing activity. I would like to make it clear that I do not believe that, on the pretext of combating nicotine addiction, we must phase out raw tobacco cultivation in the Community. There are regions where tobacco growing is a major source of income for small farmers and where changing activity, either to undertake growing other crops or to carry out other economic activities, is extremely difficult, if not impossible. In 1969, we had already written that social measures and assistance for changing activity could be justified much more easily than financing excess production of varieties which do not find a buyer on the market. We pointed out that measures for changing activity as well as those aimed at enhancing tobacco growing in a quantitative and qualitative manner should be integrated in the regional policy and the policy for improving agricultural structures. We even warned that selling surpluses on the global market could only harm associated countries and the interests of the Community’s external trade policy. As it is never too late to make amends, it is justified that we support our rapporteur today in order to restrict ourselves to changing the Commission’s proposals solely from a technical perspective and to postpone the in-depth political debate on the future regime on raw tobacco until 2003. (Speech shortened pursuant to Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I do not have time to philosophise in just one minute. The important thing, then, is to thank the Commission, and our rapporteur, Mr Staes, for having finally made sense of the White Paper presented by Romano Prodi, which included a chapter on the food chain and animal feedingstuffs. Animals are just the first link in the chain which leads ultimately to human beings. But our impression is that the Council does not see this. The Council does not appear to see that, after the dioxin crisis, every day since the start of the year there have been cases of mad cows just about everywhere in Europe. The Council does not therefore see what we have seen, which is that as a follow-up to European legislation it is necessary to have structures to monitor and take fast action in the event of a problem. In the context of the forthcoming establishment of the European health authority, it would therefore be advisable to allocate this body real resources in order to enable fast detection and thus prevent contagion. It would also be advisable that all animal feed industry operators should sign proper specifications with the competent health authorities that aim to reduce accidents as much as possible and that accept certain thresholds, making it possible to take any additive raw material or animal feedingstuff components out of circulation, and thus helping to restore consumer confidence.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the report by Mrs Theorin includes many bizarre and curious elements, and I have to say we should avoid the notion that armies are some sort of social service and that their guiding motive should be political correctness. I want to focus briefly on just one paragraph of the report – Paragraph 3 – which condemns the use of so-called child soldiers. Unfortunately terms are not defined and distinctions are not made. We all condemn unreservedly the brutal abduction of children, some not even in their teens, particularly in certain African countries such as Sierra Leone or Uganda, and their corruption into murderous habits and involvement in barbaric practices such as mutilation and maiming. These are not soldiers and they should be distinguished from young people in our own armed forces. The trouble is that when we talk of child soldiers, then some interest groups use this as an opportunity to criticise distinguished institutions such as the British Army and this has happened recently. As a guiding principle, we try to avoid sending young people into operational areas, but sometimes it happens and they serve with pride in well-disciplined units. We should really avoid any possibility of confusing such honourable activity – which should be encouraged – with the sort of barbarism which I am sure the author of this report has in mind.

Political group: PPE-DE
The report dealing with the proposal for a regulation on sales promotions in the internal market, voted on by majority in the European Parliament, improves the European Commission proposal, although it contains some contradictions and incorrect points, which we voted against. We voted in favour, however, of the proposals that are intended to provide greater protection for consumers and micro-undertakings and small and medium-sized enterprises, by combating the habitual and repeated dumping practiced by certain economic groups, which use a predatory price strategy, in the de facto aim of ruining weaker competitors and of forcing them out of the market. We also support the proposals that are intended to uphold the most progressive national legislation, to protect subsidiarity and the sovereignty of every Member State, specifically in laws designed to protect consumers and minors and to support micro-undertakings and small and medium-sized enterprises, as has happened in Portugal, specifically with a ban on below cost selling outside sales seasons.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I strongly support the EP's decision to take positive action against anti-personnel landmines. There is a an obligation on the part of the EU to take a stance against weapons which are aimed at non-combatants, the victims of which are largely non-combatants. Also, the blanketing of large areas of territory makes it impossible for the growing of food many years after conflict has ended.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, with war looming, the European Union is displaying discord that is viewed with disbelief and bewilderment by our citizens. The most important question, of course, is: is war inevitable? Anyone who has observed Saddam Hussein at all over the past 15 years cannot escape the conclusion that what we are dealing with here is one of the most dangerous heads of government in the world. This is a man who, out of self-interest, has attacked a peaceful neighbouring country. This is a man who has used poison gas on rebel Kurdish villages, thereby killing thousands of men, women and children. This is a man who permanently terrorises the south of his country, with its Shi-ite population. This is a man who, in spite of the poverty of his country, Commissioner Nielson, has built up an enormous and very costly arsenal of not only conventional, but also chemical and biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons, with which to permanently threaten and blackmail other countries, and to endanger world peace. Anyone who reads today’s article in The Wall Street Journal by Khidhir Hamza, a former head of Iraq’s nuclear programme, need have no doubt about the presence of those weapons and about what Saddam Hussein intends to do with them. This is a man who has amassed enormous wealth at the expense of his people and is also still proud of having personally carried out executions. To my mind, it is naive to go looking for weapons in that large country with 200 inspectors. Do you know that, in recent years, 6 000 inspectors have gone looking for weapons? Is it not very easy, given that the country has so many inaccessible mountainous regions, to hide weapons of this kind in caves? I am in favour of a second Security Council resolution provided that the solution to the problem is not delayed further. But the position of France, Germany and Belgium in this as dissidents in the European camp is terribly worrying. Why have you not made the greatest efforts to agree on a single line? Sit yourselves down together, as the Ministers for Agriculture did earlier, until the white smoke comes out. I think that it is an excellent idea to actually get together on Monday; I sincerely hope that the European leaders can then iron out their differences and that they do not embarrass the European population and us again. I do not have so much need to find fault with the United States: we should be clear about who the real instigator is of all the trouble, that is, Saddam Hussein, and not George Bush.

Political group: PPE-DE
The aim of this proposal is to continue the eContent programme on digital content. The aim of the new eContentplus programme is to make digital content in the European Union more accessible, useable and exploitable, in order to facilitate the creation and diffusion of information and knowledge in areas of public interest at Community level. The programme will have EUR 163 million available for the period 2005-2008, and a specific aspect of the programme will be to improve the quality of digital content. I have no objection to the promotion of tools, processes and services associated with the design, development, access and distribution of digital content or to the emphasis on the multilingual aspects of cultural, educational and scientific content. I do have reservations, however, when it comes to exploitation, particularly at the level of the reuse of public-sector information or the promotion of cross-border services – a pan-European market for digital content, which must not take place to the detriment of universal access to public information or limit the benefits of development in the sector, either to consumers or to the main operators. It must ensure that dynamism and innovation in the digital content sector are maintained. Despite this, the programme deserves our support, principally for its objective of promoting linguistic and cultural diversity. Parliament’s amendments neither improve nor help to clarify the Commission’s proposal. - Report: Brok (A5-0275/2004)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I do not want to repeat all the things that my fellow Members who spoke before me have already expressed very well. On many occasions, the Commission has said that this is the best agreement that it could extract from the United States Government, but it must be said that, the more debates we have, the worse the situation gets for European citizens. Indeed, today we know that this agreement not only implies a violation of the Treaties, but even the possibility that these data will be transferred to a third country and will be processed by them, which thus made it more difficult to get the debate on the first part of the agreement under way. As has already been said, this Parliament has often said that it is against this agreement. Of course, it has not specifically voted on resorting to the Court of Justice but this, in my opinion, is a necessary consequence. We are therefore calling for Parliament to be able to take the opinion of a third, much respected and authoritative authority, such as the Court of Justice, and thus be able to freely decide whether to say yes or no to this agreement.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, I too congratulate Mrs Breyer on her excellent work. We hope that this will be taken up by the Commission so that ambitious measures for fighting pollution can be quickly established. We know that benzene causes leukaemia and that the incidence of leukaemia among children is increasing. We also know that road transport causes considerable air pollution and, in particular, that this type of transport is unfortunately on the increase rather than on the decline. This directive has therefore been long-awaited and must be a priority. Although we support this report, we have sponsored some amendments, two of which I must defend more particularly. The first is Amendment No 17 in which we ask for the removal of the derogation which, in our opinion, deprives the text of its substance and which can only delay the application of the directive. This is the main weakness of this directive. Also, in Amendment No 20, we suggest that the Commission lowers the benzene emission limit from five micrograms per cubic metre, as proposed by the Commission, to four micrograms per cubic metre. This threshold must be lowered in consideration of the toxicity of benzene. We are, of course, still a long way, perhaps a very long way, from the precautionary principle which should be guiding our policies, but I accept that this is progress and it is a start.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I only wanted to report my presence for the Minutes. I will not be signing the attendance register as I am leaving in one hour, but I wanted everyone to know that I am here.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mrs Van Lancker, who has supplemented the Commission's already excellent report with amendments tabled by myself. Naturally, I am very pleased about this: it is just a pity that the amendments which are most important in my opinion have not been included. I listened with pleasure to Mrs Péry’s brief summary of the Council’s social policy, which I firmly support. I am very familiar with the project and support all the work carried out by Commissioner Anna Diamantopoulou to date. She will remember that I asked her, one day, whether her attitude to pensioners’ issues was that of a fairy godmother or a wicked stepmother. Up until now, I feel I can say that she has been a fairy godmother: two weeks ago, she announced that the Commission had programmed a special undertaking to resolve the problems of pensioners by extending the directive on pension funds and via the proposal to regulate these European pension funds in such a way that they are used to benefit workers who have hitherto paid a large part of their salary to the State, to the different States, and who would have liked – and this is what I propose – their funds to be properly managed, just as, I am sure, Mrs Diamantopoulou manages the finances of her own family and as every bank, every British bank, in particular – and on this point I agree with Mr Bushill-Matthews – has done thus far.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Parliament wanted this Convention, and now we have got it. We share in this success, and have you to thank for it having been possible. The Convention's flaws have been alluded to here several times, but we can and will take care that these blemishes are insignificant and will be forgotten by the time the work is done. My second remark follows on from what Mr Nassauer said: the Convention puts Parliament, too, in a new position of responsibility. The reform of the institutions is, for the first time, in our hands too. We bear responsibility no longer only for the demands and visions that we develop here, but also for the compromises and results. That is something new and we will have to get used to it. (Applause) My third point is that the Convention has been given the broad mandate we wanted it to have. That is an opportunity and a danger in equal measure. The Convention must not turn itself into an expanded Intergovernmental Conference, but likewise it must not reduce itself to the level of being just a forum for discussion. It must work towards broad consensus and must concentrate its attention on those strategic proposals for reform that point the way ahead to future developments and open up the road that leads to them. Fourthly, the word ‘constitution’ is now to be found for the first time in an official Council document, which is quite something. It is not certain whether a draft constitution will be the final result, but what we can be sure of is that the Convention must direct all its efforts at what we – borrowing the expression of that great European, the German philosopher Immanuel Kant – might call the Convention's categorical imperative, that every one of its proposals must also be capable of becoming a basic component of a European constitution. It is towards that goal that it must work. Fifthly, Europe is becoming ever more important, yet of decreasing interest to its own citizens. They are, admittedly, not yet opposed to the European Union, but they are no longer so sure why they are meant to be in favour of it. We want Europe's citizens to regain the knowledge of why we are uniting Europe. The European Union must stand for a European model of society and for a European world vision. What we are about is Europe's self-assertion – economic, political and, not least, cultural – and the preservation of a European way of life! This has acquired an added dimension since 11 September. The EU could be sunk by this new challenge, but it could grow through it – indeed, I am quite sure that it will. (Applause) IN THE CHAIR: MRS FONTAINEPresident

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as is his wont, Mr Fatuzzo has given an explanation of vote, because we have already addressed his cause for concern by rejecting the proposed amendment.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Portuguese Presidency was a pro-active presidency. As a Parliament, we had a particularly attentive and considerate opponent, which pleases us greatly. But the Council is, and remains, an opponent as far as we are concerned. As MEPs we are still far from satisfied. The Council appears to be the least willing of all the European institutions to hear the call for democracy and transparency. The Council swears by the Member States through thick and thin, although it is such a struggle to get them to cooperate. Mr Patten and some fellow honourable Members have already made reference to the undignified end met by 58 Chinese immigrants. The decisions reached in Tampere as to what needs to be done on the asylum seekers, displaced persons and immigrants front, have come so hopelessly late. And if anything does come of this, it may fall well short of the mark. The agreements on the common foreign and security policy bear witness to Parliament’s total exclusion. We are slipping into a more intergovernmental and less federal Europe and this must be checked as a matter of urgency. Cooperation between Member States cannot provide the solution to problems when these very States and their borders are part of the problem. This will be brought home to us with all the more force when it comes to enlargement. Then, the only solution will be democratic federalism which also recognises peoples and regions and minorities. I would love to talk to Portugal about what has really been going on behind the screens because I cannot imagine that as a small country you are happy with all of this.

Political group: Verts-ALE
First of all, unlike many other speakers, I am not happy with the decision taken on Monday and, Mr Solana, as a former pacifist turned militarist, I would actually feel that your role within the WEU is a further compromising of neutral states. Now there are a significant number in my group from neutral and non-neutral countries alike who are actually very much against the whole idea of the creation of a European defence identity, and the debate within the neutral countries is being conducted in an extremely dishonest fashion. You yourself said that Monday was a historic occasion and that is true. It was a historic occasion. It was the first time that there was a formal meeting of defence ministers, and the decisions that were taken were historic. However, within the neutral states, the public is being misled. In fact, it is being brushed over as a non-event. For example, our Foreign Minister said that he was quite happy with the decisions taken: he said that the interests of neutral countries were taken on board and that they were met within the opinion which was submitted by the EU Political Committee. In that opinion, it states that your role will be confined to what is set out in the Treaty on the European Union and also on the decisions taken at the European Council meeting in Cologne. That actually is quite a broad perspective and anything can happen within that. Within the Western European Union the issue of the mutual defence guarantee is even stronger than within NATO; within the neutral countries the general opinion at the moment is that the mutual defence commitment does not apply. But, I believe and many people within the neutral countries believe that when further decisions are taken, eventually the mutual defence commitment will be applied. I also believe that, as Commissioner Patten mentioned, this involves basically the whole issue of a European arms industry. His statement gives credence to our fears about the creation of a European arms industry. The St Malo Summit concluded that the EU needed, and I quote, ‘strengthened armed forces that can react rapidly to the new risks and which are supported by a strong and competitive European defence industry and technology’. There are many Member States within the European Union which are not involved in the arms industry and do not want to be involved in the arms industry. These decisions and discussions are not taking place at an honest level within the Member States, and especially within the neutral countries: the public is being misled. Here, in this Parliament today, it was quite clear and most people were quite honest about it: they want a European defence identity, they want a competitive European arms industry and they want a European army; but the public in the Member States has not actually been consulted.

Political group: Verts-ALE