GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I had hoped to catch your eye a bit earlier because this concerns next week's agenda, but I hope you will agree to take the point now. It concerns the proposal to have a statement from the Commission on Thursday 6 November 2003, entitled 'Ford workers laid off in Genk'. Having worked in the automobile industry for nearly 30 years, I have tremendous sympathy with the workers in Genk and many other employees including those, in my own constituency, who are involved in restructuring of this kind. But this is a very specific statement. My understanding is that the Ford Genk plant will remain open: this is a question of adjusting production by taking off a shift because Ford wants to match production to demand. If we had a debate about every instance of that across the European Union, we would be here debating those issues every day of the week. So, can I ask you – and I hope I will have colleagues' support on this – to broaden this statement so that we can all be included, particularly those like myself who have constituents involved in motor vehicle manufacturing. Could we ask the Commission to make a statement about employment prospects in the EU automobile sector? That would allow colleagues with an interest in Genk to make their points. In that case the Commission does indeed have an interest, but I would merely suggest to you that the Commission has no business or interest in how one company wishes to adjust output to demand. We would, however, like to hear about the prospects for a crucial sector. So could I ask you, Mr President, on behalf of myself and others, to request the Conference of Presidents to invite the Commission to make a statement on that basis. It would be far more satisfactory for all of us to be engaged in that debate.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is natural that we should at first ask ourselves whether it makes sense for one half of the budgetary authority to be using a parliamentary debate and a parliamentary resolution to set down its strategy for a conciliation procedure before the Council's first reading. I would fundamentally question Parliament's wisdom in doing this in view of the relative emptiness of the Council bench. What we are discussing here is not going to find its way over to the other half of the budgetary authority. I am nonetheless very grateful to Mr Färm for giving us this opportunity to consider our overall approach to the 2003 Budget year long before discussions on individual Budget lines take place. Let me just make a couple of observations. Firstly, Commissioner, my view of a supplementary Budget by which we return EUR 15 billion – that is far in excess of 15% of our Budget – to the Member States, is that it is somewhat comic. On the other hand, in order to draw up the 2003 Budget, we find ourselves having to mobilise the flexibility instrument to secure administrative expenditure – that is, in one of the areas where it does not belong. Something is wrong here. This has relatively little to do with the requirement that the Budget be true, clear and transparent, or with all the theoretical things we spend our time discussing in this House. I would also like to point out that the flexibility instrument was not introduced in Berlin in order to enable the Commission to redeploy funds in anticipation of the Budget being drawn up, but in order to facilitate up-to-date responses to current political challenges. Administrative expenditure is not a current political challenge; on the contrary, it is something that, as a matter of principle, has to be borne by the Budget. Let me also address the issue of civil crisis management. We in the group have great reservations about the creation of any new piggy bank or flexibility instrument intended to be called on for finance in such problem areas. I have little sympathy for the way the Commission is pushing this idea, even though it is well known that the Council will not take it up under any circumstances. This is where we could have done with something more intelligent. We in the PPE- group have proposed something that I hope the majority in this House will support, namely that we should allocate Budget funds to this by means of the emergency reserve and also find a road down which the Council can go all the way. Commissioner, I will conclude by saying one more thing. I am slowly getting sick of the way we have the same procedure every year for promoting town-twinning. Now you have again decreased the amount of funds allocated to that heading. The Council makes further cuts – we are used to that – and we end up having to top the funds up again. You know perfectly well what Parliament wants, so just put it into the Budget proposal. We should not have to carry on fighting each other like this.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am sorry that most of those who sought to stop this debate did not bother to stay to hear it. I compliment the rapporteur on her report and all the work she has put in. Food supplements can be a tonic or a health aid. In rare cases the nature of the supplement or the nature of an individual mean that too great a dosage could be harmful, and so, for generations, we and other countries have set safe upper limits. With these and with proper labelling the consumer can exercise a safe, free and informed choice. In Britain, Ireland and elsewhere we have not gone down the route of some of our fellow Member States, which is to take the recommended minimum daily allowance that was set by the American Government in 1943 to ensure that GIs serving in Europe did not suffer from scurvy and beri beri, and to treat that as the basis for maximum intake before classification as a pharmaceutical. We fear that route leads to higher costs to consumers or an incentive to use unregulated foreign suppliers. Our belief is that the two systems can coexist. That is the purpose of Amendment No 50, in my name and that of Mrs Doyle and others. It allows the RDA to be taken into account when it is close to the upper safety limit. I believe that the positive list, as it stands, is far too limited. We should at the very least expand it by the amendments to this effect. Labelling must allow for accurate health messages, such as for folic acid. Lastly, I support the reinstatement of the word 'physiological' alongside 'nutritional', as otherwise a significant number of items on sale and acceptable today could risk being banned. It was a word included, I believe, at the behest of the Council's working party of experts. Folic acid is an example. These are not just my views and those of my delegation. They are the views of the British Labour Government and, more importantly, the views of the new UK Food Standards Agency.

Political group: PPE-DE
draftsperson of the opinion of the Committee on Fisheries. – Mr President, Commissioner, I have a genuine admiration for the report by Mrs Sudre so what follows is in no way critical of it or of her. Nonetheless, it illustrates what I believe is a much more widespread problem about the relationship between reports and opinions, particularly those of a non-legislative kind. For example, in this report only 25 words survive of the conclusions unanimously adopted by the Committee on Fisheries. The bulk of the section dealing with fisheries actually consists of an amendment to the motion for a resolution tabled in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism. There is nothing the Committee on Fisheries would object to in the paragraph concerned. Indeed, it covers certain issues more explicitly than the opinion does. On the other hand, some significant points in the opinion do not figure in the final version of the resolution. Given the importance of fisheries to the outermost regions, I can only be saddened by this. I appreciate that differences of perspective mean that it will not always be possible to reconcile views expressed in the lead committee and other committees. My concern is rather that we do not currently have any standardised mechanism for making an attempt to do so. I am asking, therefore, whether the President of Parliament would be prepared to look at ways in which improvements could be made, for example, by consultations prior to voting or by adjusting the order in which votes are taken. Without such improvements, we risk losing the benefits of a great deal of expertise, not just to our own detriment, but also to the detriment of those we seek to serve. In the meantime, and on this particular report, I would respectfully request both the Council and the Commission to look at the conclusions that are not contained in the motion for a resolution, as well as the ones that are.

Political group: ELDR
In days gone by, the interest of the state was protected from the citizen by secrecy. These days, the impression is created that all government information is public in a democracy. Despite this, there are quite a few exceptions on the basis of military or economic interests, and the extent of public access differs from Member State to Member State in the EU. There are now two completely opposing views with regard to future public access to information in preparations for Community decision-making. The first opinion, expressed by the rapporteurs Mrs Maij-Weggen and Mr Cashman, is that we have made great progress this year which will lead to optimal public access by 2002, with which everyone should be happy. The second opinion, formulated by Messrs Martin and Bonde, and included in the amendments tabled by the , is that the EP has, in fact, created unnecessary, self-imposed restrictions by striking deals with the Commission and the Council and that we have sadly not yet seen a majority in favour of total public access in this Parliament. People may view the proposal as a step forward, but the most striking thing about it is what it is not saying. Some of the documents of the Council and the Commission are still hidden from the public and Parliament. I support the amendments which aim to further enhance public access. Carnero González report (A5-0346/2001)

Political group: GUE-NGL
I would simply like to thank all the honourable Members for providing such a clear demonstration on the subject of Friday’s vote of “whittling away”.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, first of all, I want to thank the rapporteur, Mr Evans, very much for what has been sound and constructive cooperation that has led to a good report. It has been a great pleasure to cooperate with you. The continuation of sound competition policy is the main aim of the review being undertaken by legislation in the area of competition. In Denmark this very summer, we have seen the importance of effective competition policy. In that connection, I should like to commend and thank you, Commissioner Monti, for your active contribution regarding the great SAS/Maersk aviation issue which has enlivened our summer recess and which involved the discovery of an illegal cartel and the imposition of a large fine. Without your and the Commission’s efforts, such progress would never have been made on this issue and consumers would never have received help. I am therefore satisfied with Article 3 of the Commission’s proposal, which clearly states that it is the Community’s and not the Member States’ competition law that is applied when it comes to transnational issues of competition. For the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, it is vital that there be no renationalisation of the EU’s competition policy. It is, of course, no secret that there are many of us who are concerned that the Commission’s proposal might lead to renationalisation and thus to an undermining of the internal market, something which would hit small and medium-sized companies hardest and be to the disadvantage of consumers. You must therefore promise us, Commissioner, to keep a very careful eye on the national competition authorities, and I can assure you that I shall keep an eye on you and make sure you live up to our expectations, something which you have, of course, done so far. I should therefore also like to strike a blow for the Commission’s competition authority being given more resources so that we do not run the risk of competition policy being watered down and taken over by the Member States. If, as is rumoured, the Council rejects Article 3, I would strongly urge you, Mr Monti, to withdraw your entire proposal and start afresh. Without Article 3, the proposal is unacceptable to the Group. The Council’s hesitation concerning Article 3 makes it abundantly clear how crucial it is for Parliament to be given the right of codecision making on competition policy. This is something that Parliament has demanded for many years now and, with the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference, the time must now be ripe for action.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I do not wish to repeat what has already been said either, since my group endorses what Mr Watson, Mrs Paciotti and Mr Di Lello Finuoli said. We agree that we should continue along our path, because I do not believe that Commissioner Bolkestein’s words are satisfactory and, indeed, I am also a little surprised by his lack of consideration for a vote, so unusual for Parliament, such as the one which took place at the last part-session. It is indisputable, Commissioner Bolkestein, that by not entering into a real international agreement with the United States, the Commission has chosen to bypass Parliament’s opinion. The fact that you have opted for soft law instead of a real agreement already speaks volumes about the Commission’s intentions to exclude democratic control of this agreement, and I find this particularly worrying. We do not seek a dispute with you – if, however, you are determined to force it on us then we will have no option but to fight it – but we believe that it is extremely important to seek the opinion of the Court of Justice. Your announcement, Commissioner, was not enough to prevent us doing so and we think that this stand will also be useful for the Commission so that, in the future, it will not commit these mistakes at the expense of the citizens.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, today the House is debating a very serious and important issue because this debate is about one of the most important legislative texts which we, as a Parliament, are required to examine. And it is an important legislative document because it concerns the quintessential relations between the man in the street and the institutions, these relations being no more and no less than his facility to access the institutions. The context of this debate is defined in the proposal made by the European Commission and it is this proposal, via the report by our fellow Member, Mr Cashman, whom I congratulate on his excellent work, which informs the position of the European Parliament. However, the question which begs to be answered is: what about the Council? So far, the only proposal to have come out of the Council is the absolute and, in my view, unacceptable position of Mr Solana on issues relating to the common foreign policy. I call on you to pressure the Council into changing its mind and, at the same time, I call on you to vote in favour of the Cashman report.

Political group: PPE-DE
I understand how tired the representative of the Council must be, she has been here since this morning, she has intervened on numerous issues, and I can only ascribe her disdain for the European Court of Human Rights to that. Why else would a representative of the Council of Ministers of the European Union say that we have no knowledge of the rulings by the European Court of Human Rights, especially here in Strasbourg? It is a disgrace, an absolute disgrace! Besides, the European Parliament, in its recent resolutions on Turkey, has called on Turkey, among other things, to respect the rulings and to obey the rulings of the European Court. But that is by the by. My question concerns Leyla Zanna. A Sacharov prizewinner, one of us. You are a member of the Belgian Parliament. She is a member of the Turkish national assembly. She is a woman, she is your age and she is in prison. Can we just ignore this issue in a candidate country, is this our response?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, we warmly support the draft directive for electricity from renewable energy sources. We see it as building on the work of our colleague, Mr Mombaur, in advocating a greater share of electricity and energy in the European Union from these sources. Clearly, the issues that divide the House are quite stark: the issue of the definition of renewable energy, for instance. Many of us feel that energy from waste should be included. It is a valuable resource and it certainly renews itself day-by-day, and that should qualify it to be included. It seems a pity to exclude any category which can contribute to the overall achievement of energy from waste – whether it is for small-scale projects or part of the overall calculation. The key issue, however, that divides us is the question of the binding nature of the targets. We have grave reservations about this being in conflict with the principle of subsidiarity. We think our friends on the and the are asking too much in this regard. It could scupper this directive, but we also think it is a matter of practicality. If you aim for these targets, there is a curious range of percentages between 6% and nearly 80% in different Member States. This seems a very curious way of going about it, so we think the Commission is right to aim for indicative targets. The third point in issue here is the length of support programmes. We favour a shorter period followed by a review, and I would say to my colleague, Mrs McNally, that she paints a pretty picture of windmills in the sea, but I must tell her that the engineering difficulties and the costs involved make that technology, as with electricity from the sun, rather a long way off in the future. But I warmly support this proposal.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I and my delegation of British Conservatives welcome the rejection of the Commission's proposal in the previous vote in Parliament, and we regret the current proposal to accept the Commission's proposal, which is flawed. We will be supporting a number of Mr Katiforis' amendments because they make a bad proposal rather better. However, overall, we cannot give our support to this proposal because we do not believe in the upwards harmonisation of tobacco taxes. Tax is a matter for nation-states, for domestic governments, and should remain the preserve of domestic governments, which are democratically elected and democratically accountable, tax being one of the most fundamental aspects of nationhood and statehood. In addition, we are by no means convinced by the health arguments on smoking and tax. We are increasingly concerned that ever-spiralling levels of tax on cigarettes may lead to increased smuggling. Such illegal smuggling of cigarettes from outside the European Union is now causing a great deal of concern and may lead to an increase in smoking, certainly in my constituency and much of the United Kingdom. So the health issues in favour of high tobacco taxes are not clear cut but, even more importantly, we do not believe in the upward harmonisation of excise duties or, in particular, the upward harmonisation of tobacco taxes. Hence, we will be opposing the Commission's proposal.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe we should firstly acknowledge how appropriate it was for the Committee on Fisheries to produce an own-initiative report on this subject. I believe that the European Parliament is thereby heading in the right direction in terms of unravelling an issue which is complicated but crucial to the future of fishing in the world and to fisheries resources. Secondly, I believe it was also appropriate that it should be produced by Mrs McKenna, with whom I disagree on so many fisheries issues, but not on this report, which has been unanimously approved by our committee, despite the difficulty of this issue, and furthermore with no amendments from the House. I therefore congratulate the Committee on Fisheries and our rapporteur. There is still no doubt much to do, but, in this report, the European Parliament supports the condemnation and prosecution of flags of convenience in fishing and in marketing. Certain Member States of the Union – such as my own, Spain, as the rapporteur has mentioned here and in the report – are promoting innovative legislative proposals in this field, which is no easy task, as has been said before. We in the Committee on Fisheries are going to closely monitor the objectives and proposals in this report, aimed at dealing with the serious problem of illegal fishing. By fighting it, and eventually eradicating it, we will have taken an enormous step towards sustainable worldwide fishing. Some regional fisheries organisations, such as the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), say that 50% of catches of species such as the swordfish originate from illegal fishing under flags of convenience. If this percentage of illegal fishing were to be controlled, it would lead to an unquestionable improvement in the fish stock and would therefore clearly benefit legal fishermen, who have so much need for these catches and who behave in a totally controlled, and therefore responsible, manner. The marketing of these fish and landings in European Union ports – as has been said here – are key issues in this process, as is the definition of flags of convenience and clearly identifying the countries which permit them and tolerate them. All of these issues are in the report. I would once again like to congratulate our rapporteur, Mrs McKenna, and simply point out that I believe the European Parliament has today taken a very important step towards responsible fishing in the world. Having congratulated everybody, it only remains for me to ask the Commissioner – whose presence I appreciate – for the Commission’s support for the proposals in this report, because it is a very positive step, and that he take account, of course, of the fact that it has the unanimous approval of the Committee on Fisheries, and I hope that the vote for Mrs McKenna’s report will also be unanimous this afternoon.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the long-distance transport of live animals is a barbaric practice, and it should stop. Every year, three million animals are still being transported within Europe and to third countries. If animals are to be slaughtered, this should be done as close to their place of rearing and fattening as possible. Animals are not commodities that can simply be transported; meat, on the other hand, is a product, and it can be. The transport of animals that are not intended for slaughter must meet all animal welfare rules. Although it may be necessary to provide for exemptions in sparsely populated and remote areas, the transport of slaughter animals over long distances must be banned. Subsidies for transport of this kind, which currently still amount to EUR 60 million per annum, must be abolished. Mr Maat's report is a praiseworthy attempt to regulate transport more effectively, but it fails to accommodate our principles and our expectations.

Political group: Verts-ALE