GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs voted to reject the Austrian initiative on a regulation establishing criteria for determining the states which qualify as safe third states for the purpose of taking the responsibility for examining an application for asylum lodged by a third-country national. That vote clearly reflects a broad consensus, at least a procedural one, to the effect that this instrument is not a useful one, and that seeing the initiative through to its conclusion would be a wasted effort. This consensus exists in spite of this initiative’s good intentions with regard to the fundamental issue. Mr Schmidt has clearly understood that Parliament does not want to turn its attention away from really important matters, and that it is not prepared to take short-cuts which do not actually lead anywhere. That is why I, and my political group, support the rapporteur’s position. In brief, if I may assess the initiative on its own merits and, to an extent, repeat what has already been said here, its overall scope seems extremely limited, both because 10 of the 15 countries classed as safe third countries on the proposed list have already agreed to implement Dublin II and the whole Schengen acquis, and because, as we all know, it is unclear when Bulgaria and Romania will be in a position to be covered by any Community regulation. That would make the regulation meaningless, since once Norway and Iceland have incorporated the Schengen acquis into their national legislation, only Switzerland would remain on the list presented by Austria. Besides, and here also I am reiterating points which seem uncontroversial, it is hoped that the Directive on minimum standards on procedures for granting and withdrawing refugee status will be approved rapidly by the Council, as Parliament demanded in the Watson report and as was promised, furthermore, in Seville. If that happens by the end of the year, as we hope, it would quickly render the Austrian initiative obsolete, since this Directive will resolve the fundamental issue of safe third countries. When all is said and done, then, Mr President, that is why today’s debate took place. The fact is that even after Parliament had made a statement on the matter, we were not subsequently consulted about the revised Commission initiative, amended on 18 June 2002. The message we want to send today, therefore, is that we wish to make our point of view known through this debate on asylum procedures. In the final analysis, that is the crux of the matter, and Parliament cannot accept that a joint solution should be postponed and sacrificed in order to accommodate national prejudices or demands. Rather, we must set aside superfluities and hindrances, devoting ourselves without further ado to the task in hand. Precisely in order to avoid any further ado, therefore, I will thank Commissioner Vitorino, who has today shed some light on the matter and made our short debate entirely worthwhile.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I must not be especially critical, but try to look ahead to a future White Paper rather than discuss the rather odd draft Green Paper. Within the safe food sector, where most of my work is done, a ‘farm to fork’ principle, which is very effective when attempts are made to legislate and to try to see the connections, has now finally been arrived at following a host of scandals and disasters. I should like the White Paper to be based on approximately the same principle so that each product can be traced and seen in its context: finite or renewable raw materials, the supply of energy, what form of energy is used, chemicals, the flow chart for the product, logistics etc. This is especially important for very large volumes of products, consisting in actual fact of food, water and household chemicals. These account for more than half of the consignments transported on our roads and consume an incredible amount in terms of resources, despite our perhaps not even thinking of them as products. I am therefore looking for a strategy in which everything is traceable and in which we can track a product’s history, and for principles that are valid whether we are talking about a car or a packet of sausages for lunch.

Political group: ELDR
Despite its considerable shortcomings, we voted for the joint resolution simply to make it clear that we support whatever can be done to fight for democracy in Turkey, for the recognition of the rights of the Kurdish people, specifically their language, and to prevent further attacks on political parties and defenceless communities. The resolution should go further, however, as the statement by our group does, a statement with which I fully agree. The reason why I have not carried over my support to the joint resolution is its enormous limitations. In fact, it does not even mention the need for a general amnesty for all political prisoners, although it calls for the release of students, and removes the option of sending a delegation to Turkey on 1 March 2002 with the aim of obtaining objective information on the trial of the HADEP. Nor does it insist on the need for the release of Leyla Zana and the former Members of Parliament of Kurdish origin who were sentenced to 15 years in prison, despite the request from the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, himself, for a new trial for these prisoners and despite the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights to this effect.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, it is just as well that this is the second reading, when we should have just been fine-tuning a few positions! It would seem, however, that we are faced with almost a complete overturning of what was agreed at first reading: there has been a major reshuffling of the cards which has enabled the different groups to review the positions they had taken before, to alter them and to propose compromises which are frankly quite perplexing. We must draw a veil over the matter, so to speak, in any case, and remember what it is we are actually discussing. We are discussing a proposal for a directive which seeks to amend the previous European Parliament and Council directive – Directive 97/66 of 15 December 1997, to be exact – which laid down provisions on the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector, and bring it into line with technological innovations which have taken place which were actually quite foreseeable. I would reiterate my reservations, which I have already voiced at first reading, about the usefulness and effectiveness of rules which are so specific, too specific in their regulation of the telecommunications sector and therefore too invasive of citizens’ privacy. I still feel that it is possible to apply the standards which are currently in existence and endorsed at European level to achieve the same end while avoiding the risk of overregulation, of excessive regulation, that is. We need to avoid this alleged respect for privacy leading to the establishment of two systems or a system with two different sets of rules, which would mean, first and foremost, excessive protection of the citizens’ privacy and laying down excessively restrictive rules in the private sector, while leaving the Member States, on the other hand, absolutely free to intervene for their own purposes in the lives of the citizens themselves, for example requiring electronic communication service providers to perform tasks which almost amount to police work. Lastly, I trust that I will not upset anyone if I say that I agree with the rapporteur when he says, in Amendment No 4, that cookies are ultimately acceptable, almost legitimate tools, for they make it easier to understand how to surf the Internet, providing clear, exhaustive information; in other words, they make the surfer more alert. What I mean to say is I do not believe that surfers are victims of cookies. Another issue is spamming, against which we are completely defenceless: those who indulge in this practice do what they want to when they want to and, most importantly, in the quantities and with the quality they want to. At this point, I do not believe it will be easy to produce a directive which everyone can support. We have tried. If it were possible – and I know the Rules of Procedure do not permit it – we should resort to a third reading: it may be only then that we would find that point of convergence and consensus which, at this point, at this moment in time, we are realising that we have failed to reach with two readings.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I wish to add my voice to those of the speakers who raised the issue of the tragedy that took place in Portugal last weekend. In order to gain some insight into what happened, we need only bear the following in mind: last winter was the driest of the century and last December and January were the wettest in living memory. These factors meant that all of the country’s actions to control the floods failed. Furthermore, everything happened so quickly that unexpected deaths and floods occurred as a result. We therefore need to make a much greater effort than might be considered necessary, because the situation has been truly exceptional. ***

Political group: PSE
Mr President, my fellow MEPs have presented a great deal of justified criticism concerning the procedures in relation to today’s programme. Allow me, however, to welcome the fact that a kind of evaluation from the year gone by is included and that there is more strategic thinking when it comes to the Commission’s intended way of working. Now let us talk about the future, however. President Prodi outlined, of course, how it will be possible in future to deal with the issue of the annual programme. As Parliament’s rapporteur, I have had the opportunity to monitor this matter for quite a long time. I hope we can conclude it soon and begin work on the programme for 2003. As the co-decision procedure has developed, Parliament and the Council, too, must also play a larger role in devising the annual programme. That does not mean that the Commission’s right of initiative is being questioned, but that all three institutions should be more in step in encouraging both openness and efficiency in our joint work. Moreover, it would then be easier for national parliaments and citizens to follow the process. Where the timetable is concerned, it looks as if we can now perhaps agree. There is an introductory presentation of the general priorities, followed by thorough discussions between the Commission and the committees concerned with a view to establishing the details. It is important for the parliamentary committees to be involved at an early stage because it is the committees which will then deal with the proposal. We can then present the definitive proposal by no later than the beginning of November. When it comes to the content of the programme, last year’s criticism does not mean that we do not want any legislative proposals. On the contrary, our common framework agreement states that what we are concerned with here is the annual legislative programme. Parliament has demanded clear proposals in order of precedence, explanatory statements with timetables, budget references, legal bases and information about who is responsible. Follow-up and evaluation must also be improved. As we have seen, a very great many proposals are being re-introduced, at the same time as other proposals are disappearing. It should be possible to set up a joint database to monitor the decision-making process for each topic. A process which is clear, open and predictable should benefit all the institutions and also the citizens we are here to serve. It is our joint responsibility to ensure that this happens.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I too have had the unique experience of visiting Afghanistan and seeing the situation with my own eyes. The first thing that needs to be said is that our staff are doing an excellent job, as you yourself said, Commissioner, and the European Union has a high profile there. However, a year after Bonn, I think coordination is a serious problem, both in the provision and distribution of aid and, more to the point, the policy being applied. By which I mean that the European Union is following one political tack and supporting a strong central administration in Afghanistan, while the United States are taking a different approach and sticking to their favourite tactic of divide and rule from the days of the Taliban and the Mujahedin by backing the warlords, who they seem to think have taken their side. Mr Morillon and Mr Sakellariou said likewise. Unfortunately, the upshot of this divisive western policy is that entire areas are beyond the control of the central administration and this is precisely what caused the recent surge in the production of opium, which accounted for 70% of world production in 2002. Women, of course, are still in a dire situation in all sectors. Blue ghosts continue to waft round the streets of Kabul, with few women daring to risk their lives by taking off their burka. The Taliban may have lost power, but their spirit still haunts Afghanistan. In my opinion, there can be no economic or social progress as long as a culture of violence, religious fanaticism and misogyny reigns in Afghanistan. 98% of women are illiterate and economically dependent and 99% give birth without medical assistance. This sort of soil provides an ideal breeding ground for extremist movements such as the Taliban. I think the Greek Presidency, Mr President-in-Office, could do a great deal to help by proposing that a European fund be set up and a line included in the 2004 budget especially for women in Afghanistan. This fund could be used to finance new infrastructures to integrate women into public life. I also suggest, Commissioner, that we should invite President Karzai to Strasbourg to speak before a plenary session of the European Parliament.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, the consumption of vitamins and other food supplements by our society is a genuine trend rather than a fashion. The market that this generates is huge. The considerable lobbying that has been carried out on this issue is proof of this, if it were needed. Let us turn directly to the main question which is niggling a number of my fellow Members who oppose this directive and that is should we legislate? I have no hesitation in saying ‘no’ and I have at least three reasons for this. First of all, the proposal for a directive provides a specific response to a reality, namely the lack of an internal market, which has damaging repercussions both for the economic actors in this sector and for consumers. By way of example, it is currently virtually impossible for a vitamin manufacturer based in the UK to export and place his products on the market in Belgium or in France, for instance. Secondly, it is useful, even so, to recall the two major battles waged at first reading regarding the inclusion of substances with psychological effects – fibres and plant extracts, in particular – and the essential labelling standards to enable consumers to make an informed choice. Parliament made its view heard. I would add, and this is my third point, that no high-quality food supplement, regardless of its ingredients, will be banned under this directive. I stress the point that we must stop brandishing the prospect of bans and of a Europe that castrates. Manufacturers will have three and a half years, depending on our vote, to submit their dossier and prove that their products which are not currently listed in the Annex are safe, and if a ban has to be imposed eventually, it would therefore be placed on doubtful substances. Anyhow this is the least of our problems, as far as I am concerned. Since I am speaking of the purely health-related aspect of this matter, I would also like us to stop saying that vitamin abuse poses no danger. This is wrong, simply wrong! We must say that excessive consumption of all fat-soluble vitamins such as A, K, E and D are problematic, and, to give another example, excess vitamin A has known harmful teratogenic effects and can result in foetus malformation. We can allow political opposition to this directive therefore, but in no case can we allow scientific falsehoods to go unchallenged. To sum up, and for all the aforementioned reasons, we are dealing with flexible and balanced legislation which takes into account the interests of consumers, manufacturers and distributors and which lays a basis for the harmonisation that is necessary in this sector. The majority of my colleagues in the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party will vote in favour of this very good report by Mrs Müller and I too would like to congratulate her. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
The Commission proposal promotes the legalisation of the unacceptable and dangerous deterioration in maritime training, satisfying the decision by big shipping business to increase its profits at the expense of the safety of the very lives of seafarers, shipping and the environment. This deterioration has also been identified by experts in international organisations, who consider the basic cause to be the agreements drawn up on the instructions of shipowners, which form the basis for the proposed directive. Separating diplomas from work permits in a bid to exploit cheap and basically unskilled labour is just one of the typical elements of the deliberate demotion of maritime education to simple training. We consider that training for seafarers needs to be upgraded so that their knowledge reflects current requirements. However, this requires a total break with big shipping business, a break that the EU cannot and does not want. Seafarers themselves and other workers need to fight for a different policy of radical change, not only to the system and to the safeguarding of free state education, but also to international agreements and conventions, so that they lay down minimum education levels, introduce strict provisions for determining ships’ crews and fully safeguard the employment and insurance rights of seafarers. Thus, in conjunction with the renewal of ships, we shall have safe shipping.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, during the process of integration that has lasted half a century, we have learnt that cooperation based on the Community method within the context of the EU is more effective than mere intergovernmental action based on loose ad hoc agreements. Only fringe movements, estranged from reality, believe in the ability of the individual state to resolve the challenges of modern society alone. The age of eloquent diplomacy is over for good. The Community, whose basic intentions were by nature political in the views of its founding fathers, started by using economic measures. In recent years, however, we have seen that economic integration cannot be separated from political integration. For example, it is not possible to create a fully functional internal market without strengthening the political Union. The notion of a list of competences has been proposed in order to improve the system of competences. Like many of my colleagues, I fear that such a catalogue of competences would prove too rigid a system in a world where change is the only permanent factor. Community decision-making must be able to retain its natural flexibility. In most cases the power of decision is still divided between the Union and the Member States. It is thus clear that we are also going to see conflicts of competences. For that reason we should focus on mechanisms with which we can resolve such conflicts. We have to create a process that will make sufficient flexibility possible, but, at the same time, offer democratically elected representatives a political way out of stalemate. Political control to prevent the concentration of power must not, however, be confused with judicial scrutiny on the part of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, as, ultimately, the Court still determines the legal basis with reference to the Treaties. In the debate on competence some are looking for a way to transfer competence back to the Member States, which would be a step backwards for integration. This is the sort of sentiment, often expressed in the spirit of the principle of subsidiarity, that we must not be taken in by. In the debate on competence we have to concentrate on the citizens’ perceptions, so that they know who makes the decisions, where they are made, and, above all, why what is done is done.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to inform the House of an extremely serious incident which took place last Friday in Italy, in the town of Verona to be precise. Thirty or so members of a neo-nazi organisation burst into a local television studio where a debate was being held and brutally attacked a representative of an Islamic community. The fact that this person was expressing very dubious, extremely provocative views did not, of course, prevent all the democratic groupings from condemning this very disturbing incident. The most worrying thing of all, however, Mr President, is that a Member of this House, Mr Borghezio, a member of the Lega Nord, not only justified the act but said that he was in favour of this kind of behaviour. You will understand, Mr President, that, henceforth, it will be extremely difficult for me to stay in this House if Mr Borghezio takes the floor.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, for the sake of clarifying the proceedings, let me say that our group is very committed on the issue of Chechnya, and if, today, we support the motion to remove the topic from the agenda for this week's part-session, that does not mean that we are not going to continue to be committed on the issue. We want first to await the visit of a parliamentary delegation to Moscow and then return to this topic in an in-depth debate in May at the latest. I would like to make that explicit today. We remain committed on this issue and our attention is entirely focused on Chechnya. If, then, we are in favour of removing this topic from the agenda for this sitting, that does not mean that our commitment to the issue is any the less.

Political group: PPE-DE