GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the fact that only 19 amendments have been tabled in this Chamber on a subject as complex as this one, which very quickly stirs up feelings and leads to heated emotions, is a sign that excellent preparatory work has been done with the rapporteur on a basis of trust, and also involving all the other groups in the committee. I wish to thank the rapporteur for that. The White Paper is by no means an answer to any of the crises. It was high time that the Commission produced the White Paper to follow the Green Paper published many years ago now. It should also be said, as some of the previous speakers have done, and in particular Mr Whitehead and Mrs Gebhardt, that the White Paper is more than just another set of EU rules and regulations. For example, the White Paper must ensure that conditions are created in which safe food is possible at all. If we do not manage to modernise the early warning system and make it work, then there is little point in worrying about much else. If we cannot manage to get the early warning system to emphasise the Member States' responsibility, then we will have a problem. We need to apply stricter legislation, stricter guidelines and stricter criteria to animal feed. Hygiene regulations governing animal feed production, and also regarding checks, need to be much tougher. Without a new framework directive we will be helpless in many areas of food safety. With this in mind, the Commission has presented some 80 proposals – either totally new or proposals for amendments – a very ambitious programme indeed. I can see that in some areas the Commission is already active. I believe that this programme is a step in the right direction. Of course we are all talking mainly about this new Food Safety Agency. We agreed in committee what this new authority can and cannot do, but I would also like to remind you that food safety is important. We already have scientific bodies in the EU which look after this. However, if we cannot succeed in getting the Member States to actually carry out checks on the spot on the basis of the legislation, if we cannot manage to oblige them to provide information on who checks what, when and how often, then even if we created 20 new authorities in the European Union, not a jot would change as regards food safety. We should not lose sight of that, because in that case, a new authority, whatever it was called, would just be a smokescreen and a token gesture. Some country somewhere would then be happy to provide a home for this new authority, but otherwise nothing would happen. The expressions that then come to mind are 'everyone turns a blind eye' or 'the dog barks, but the caravan moves on'. Hygiene regulations and on-the-spot checks should be the slogan of the hour. And the ones who need to do something about this are not so much the Commission and ourselves, but rather the Member States, who so far have not done their homework. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we from the Liberal group will deeply miss Mr Schulz’s pure and crystal-clear democratic input in this area of policy. It is unfortunate, but we wish you all the best in your new job. This was the fun part of what I wanted to say. What shape is the European asylum policy in? That is hard to say, as there is not really a European asylum policy to speak of. We in this Parliament, the delegates as well as their predecessors, have for years been pushing in the right direction. So far, the European Commission, that is to say the present Commissioner’s predecessor, failed to come up with the goods but, prior to the Treaty of Amsterdam, had little say in the matter anyway. The previous European Commission may have had the will, but did not have any power. The bottleneck, as we quite often noticed, was located within the Council of Ministers. Most governments showed willing too, but they were subject to the rule of unanimity. Then there was the Tampere Summit. Dozens of proposals were submitted there, also in this area of policy. Things were looking up, according to many journalists. They had, however, overlooked the fact that the crippling policy of decision-making on the basis of unanimity still applied. It is unlikely that a scoreboard will be able to unlock this paralysis within policy. All it will do is make it clear to the outside world which body and country are responsible for the paralysis within policy. What needs to happen now? All sorts of things need to happen. As far as we, the Liberal group, are concerned, both the European Commission’s working document and Mr Schmitt’s report, which we are discussing today, are a useful leg-up to the next phase and, in our opinion, and I would echo the opinions of previous speakers, Mr Schmitt has adopted a level-headed approach in his report. We will be voting in favour of the tenor of the report and we are backing it.

Political group: ELDR
To drastically reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases in the rich countries is a duty of solidarity towards future generations, but also towards the peoples of the developing countries who will suffer more and more from natural disasters caused by global warming. The Kyoto protocol sets targets in this respect which are still very limited. Only radical public interventions will allow the environment to be protected. In each country, action must be taken without waiting for hypothetical international agreements. The question of road transport offers an example of this. It also demonstrates the need not to limit this issue to a national level and to develop a battle strategy on a European scale.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The implementation of careful supervision rules in the European Union will protect saving and give people confidence in investments in stocks and shares. The globalisation of risks should further encourage the European authorities to develop supervision rules at international level. In this context, the invitation made by Parliament to the Commission and the European Supervisory Committees to organise, jointly with the American Federal Reserve and the Security and Exchange Commission, a transatlantic financial forum, is going in the right direction. Other, broader initiatives, should not, however, be ruled out.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I just wanted to follow up the previous point of order and ask when are we going to be able to debate the proposals in Mr Corbett's report – which I understand are stuck in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs – so that this ludicrous procedure, with six pages of plenary amendments on one report, can be reformed. We will be a laughing stock if we do not reform and get our House in order. (Applause) *** Report (A5-0323/2001) by Mrs Corbey, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on implementation of Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste 2000/2319(INI) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0336/2001) by Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, on a global partnership and a common strategy for relations between the European Union and Latin America [2000/2249(INI)] – Before the vote

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, this is a very special day for me in the European Parliament. I have heard speeches from Mr Cohn-Bendit and Mr Le Pen which I consider to be indistinguishable. (Mixed reactions) Since we last debated the Iraq crisis the stakes have increased. The clear issue remains that Saddam is still playing for time. The United Nations call for disarmament, as set out very clearly and unanimously by Resolution 1441, today continues to be unfulfilled. That is the truth of the situation we face. We recognise that this situation is dangerous and volatile, but let us be clear that it remains dangerous and volatile thanks to the continuing evasion of the Iraqi regime and, sadly, also the gamesmanship of some European governments. These governments appear to have lost sight of the fundamental issue that is at stake here, which is the very real threat that the regime in Baghdad poses to the peace and security of the Middle East and indeed to the wider world. Even at this late stage let us not forget that Saddam refuses to explain what has happened to the stockpile of chemical weapons, biological weapons and nerve agents that were detected by the UN inspectors in 1998. Unless the democracies of the world are prepared to speak out with a united voice on the need for immediate and unconditional disarmament, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein will continue on his current road of playing cat and mouse with the United Nations on an indefinite basis. I must say that the events of recent months have also demonstrated two important truths for us here in the European Parliament and for Europe more generally. Firstly, we undermine the unity of NATO at our peril. Some anti-American voices in Europe have been playing out their contempt for all things American, and we may hear more of that in this debate. We have also seen some politicians in Europe who are prepared to weaken NATO and the transatlantic alliance in their aim of developing Europe as some sort of antagonist or counter-weight, rather than as an ally of the United States. Let me make it clear beyond any doubt, on behalf of the British Conservatives, that we stand resolutely behind NATO as the bedrock of our security and defence. I make no apology for repeating our belief in NATO and the value that we attach to our partnership with the United States. I believe that the actions of France, Germany and Belgium in fomenting division within the Alliance over the crucial issue of Turkey's security are nothing short of deplorable. The coming days will be a test of the will of the international community and of the credibility of the United Nations. But let there be no doubt about this: the responsibility for avoiding war remains squarely with Saddam Hussein and it is up to him to choose peace. (Applause from the right)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to say one word to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. All I can say to your speech is: finally! Like many here, I have waited a long time for this clear statement. Mr Moscovici, from the outset the European Parliament has called for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated in the Treaties, for it to be made legally binding and – when it is infringed – for people to be given recourse to the European Court of Justice. This demand is not a political position of any kind. It results necessarily from the nature of the matter, from the essence of fundamental rights, and it corresponds to the expectations and requirements of the people. Can you even proclaim rights in earnest without enshrining them in law? Can you proclaim rights in earnest, but at the same time refuse to declare them part of your own law? Can you recognise fundamental rights but deny people the instruments and means to defend them? Each article of this Charter is already enshrined in international conventions, in the constitutions of the Member States, in international law or in EU treaties and protocols. None of them contain anything new. They represent the sum total of a 200-year tradition of fundamental rights in Europe. The only question which needs to be resolved is whether the European Union and its institutions are – like the Member States – going to submit to this European tradition of fundamental rights. Can it, Mr Moscovici, be true that governments are afraid of making long attested rights into internal European law which is actually in force and can be upheld by the courts? If so, would the European Council and the governments of the Member States not be admitting to the whole world that all these international conventions have for decades been regarded as political confessional literature without any legal weight? Would that not then arouse the suspicion amongst the people that the European Council and the governments of the Member States were trying to omit the section on governmental cooperation from the Charter on Fundamental Rights and protect their own power and their own absolute power from principles of the rule of law, judicial supervision and rules on fundamental rights? That is the suspicion which persists! Minister Moscovici, surely it is a little comical for the Heads of State and Government to wish to proclaim rights of defence against the State. It is a matter for parliaments to proclaim fundamental rights and to enshrine them in law. But I believe that in this situation the governments and the European Council would be well advised to regard Parliament's vote in favour of legal validity and incorporation into the Treaties as an extremely weighty argument and to accede to this demand. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, as a result of a number of bottlenecks in the trans-European transport network, the movement of persons and goods gets snarled up at the crossing with the Alps, the Pyrenees and a few sea straits. Not only the hauliers, but also the people living in mountains, valleys and coastal resorts complain about a huge traffic burden. Nobody took it upon themselves to build tunnels and bridges in order to remove those bottlenecks. Furthermore, for years, rail traffic did not keep up with demand for fast connections between the big cities in different countries. That is why we desperately need to work on maintaining, improving and extending the transport network in Europe, and in this the primary option should be for transport by rail and at sea, which are the least environmentally threatening forms of transport. It would be narrow-minded to measure our prosperity, well-being and progress according to the rise in transport, or the surface area of asphalt and concrete for motorways and airports. On the contrary, preventing unnecessary transport contributes to a better environment and to the well-being of people and animals. According to my group, a sufficient level of government spending is indispensable in the provision of public services, social security and the environment. Wasting government funds and megalomania, however, do not solve anything. We are opposed to the idea of endless investments of Community funds in asphalt being the best way of creating and maintaining jobs or of helping new Member States along. Neither are we taken with the intention of giving businesses overcapacity, thus enabling them to decide on every occasion which infrastructure, funded with Community support, can be used by them at the time in the most cost-effective manner. When it was presented at the end of June last year, the Van Miert plan was immediately hailed by the Italian Transport Minister as transport's answer to the euro. Does he see transport as an unmanageable natural phenomenon which makes people reliant on it? We see transport as taking second place to people and the environment. That is why we consider the Van Miert plan too unwieldy, too threatening to the environment and far too expensive. A more selective plan, focusing on more direct and quicker rail transport is preferable. That will be our guiding principle when we amend this proposal.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the reports under discussion concern extending agricultural reform to olive, cotton and tobacco production. The key issue is the same as with the other reforms: the de-coupling of support and production. The de-coupling of support and production will probably appeal in particular to those opposed to tobacco cultivation. Under the single payment scheme, over EUR 6 000 per hectare would be paid; in other words, the aid would be received even if no tobacco were produced at all. In this way the EU would be vigorously supporting the abandonment of its cultivation and a switch to some other form of production or set-aside measures. This is part of the agricultural reform. It is the biggest of its kind in the history of the EU. As the reform is to begin next year, it is important that its implementation does not jeopardise the levels of income of private farmers. The reform will be very difficult to apply in practice as farms vary in different parts of the EU, as do the conditions of their management. If the period 2000-2002 is to be regarded as the reference period, five years will see changes in ownership, as well as the area farms cover, lines of production and investment. That is why there is the danger that there will be drastic and unjust changes in aid to farms. Commissioner Fischler, it was not for nothing that you pointed this out in your letters to the Ministers for Agriculture. The other problem is the approval of society. Agricultural subsidies have long been seen as compensation for farmers producing at less than the costs of production. Will the taxpayer agree to aid being paid even if nothing is produced?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, like others in this Chamber, I am one of the fortunate group of people who has visited Bangladesh, not several times like the Commissioner but in such a way as to be able to form some modest impression, and it is against that background that I wish to emphasise how important it is for cooperation between the EU and Bangladesh to be continued and developed further. There are a number of conditions present in Bangladesh that are not present in a number of other developing countries, in as much as Bangladesh – and this, I think, is very important – has only one language and one religion and consists of only one ethnic group, which means that the ethnic conflicts we see, for example, in Africa do not exist there. Nor do religious wars. However, it also means that it would be still worse if we were to let down just such a country, precisely because Bangladesh does not have a number of the problems we see in other countries, and we should be failing the country if we were not to commit a good deal in terms of aid, including development aid. Bangladesh can only hold its own if we are willing to help the country, and that means both the EU, as the Commissioner mentioned, and also the Member States, among which I can call attention to my own country, Denmark, which is one of the largest providers of aid in the area. There are three points I should like to emphasise in addition to the general need for aid and development. There is the need for good governance and support for democracy. Others have touched upon these, so I shall not comment further upon them. There is the need to continue helping to promote women’s independence, for example by continuing and developing further our support for microcredits. Women suffer a good deal of oppression in Bangladesh and, as a number of speakers have already pointed this out I shall not go into any more detail on this subject either. In this connection, I should like to say that women were precisely those who left me feeling most encouraged following my visit. However, I should like to emphasise our need to make further progress now. We cannot be satisfied with microcredits. We must move on to the next phase of development, whether it be concerned with textiles or something else. I come, then, to my third point, which the Commissioner perhaps takes a rather different view of. I believe that, in this context, we can perhaps make use of information and communications technology, precisely in order to support women too – since they are now a mainstay of society – and so as to give a boost to their cause and, all in all, to strengthen the country’s further development.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I welcome what Mr Watson has just said and point out that you can make an early contribution to securing a reform of our procedures by placing my report on the agenda of the March part-session. Then some progress might be made on some of the points that have been raised by Mr Watson. Even if I have no miracle solution we could take some steps forward. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, I have three brief comments to make. First, the initial stage should involve both public debate – I agree with the comments made on this by Mr Swoboda and Mr Brok – and it should involve the planned Laeken declaration. I have a very straightforward question to put to you: are you – the Commission – ready and will we manage this year, in 2001, to present a common Commission and Parliament proposal for Laeken on the subsequent structure of the post-Nice process? That is my first question, which concerns the method. As regards my second point, I was delighted to hear you say that we must set up a committee to involve governments, the Commission, the European Parliament and the national parliaments. We want a convention to move the post-Nice process forward, a convention which is the centre of gravity for public debate, i.e. which sends and receives proposals and, at the same time, presents a clear proposal for the Intergovernmental Conference and for the issues which will need to be negotiated in 2004. My third point relates to the subjects. Four subjects are planned, which is both fine and feasible; but we all know that it is not just these subjects which need to be clarified and that much more is and must be at stake for 2004. I would advise each and everyone of us to get away from this strange ‘post-Nice’ concept. Post-Nice is not what it is about. Nice is not only the end of a method, Nice is also the end of an era , the era of the European unification process of the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s and the 1980s. Now what we have to do is to prepare the ground for a new European Union, a European Union of the twenty-first century. It is not about the post-Nice process, it is about standing on the verge of a renewed European unification process and we must make this clear. If we want to convince public opinion, public debate, the people and the citizens of the merits of our objective of European unification, then starting a post-Nice process is not enough; on the contrary, we must ensure that the people understand that we are talking about a new European Union in a new Europe, a Europe which has changed since 1990. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
From the sea, Mr President, we go up to the sky; from maritime safety we move on to air safety. I applaud the aeroplane pilots, the aviation technicians, all the crews, the air traffic controllers and so on, who have made flying by far the safest of all means of transport. I find this really reassuring because, ever since I have been a Member of the European Parliament, I have been constantly up in the sky in aeroplanes. The aim of the directive which is the subject of the Collins report is to improve this safety even further, so let us have it! A thank you to the Commission for having made this proposal and to us Members for having approved it!

Political group: PPE-DE