GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I am speaking without having heard the debate because I had a prior engagement in the Bureau. Having steered the work of the committee for so long, I can say that the matter was subjected to detailed discussion and analysed in depth and underwent the procedure duly required for such an important provision, a provision that is one of the most important currently under Parliament’s scrutiny. We started with a hearing that lasted a whole day and brought to our attention problems dealt with in depth by the rapporteur and other members of the committee – Mr Zappalà, Mr Lehne and others whom I thank – and, as a result of various debates and speeches, we reached today’s conclusion. We have a major ambition: we want to lay down regulations governing the intellectual professions. I believe that we are effectively opening up Europe to the right of citizenship and cultural organisation so that Europe can be achieved by means not just of the single currency and all the measures we are advancing, but above all by making citizens aware of the interconnectedness of the intellectual professions: the possibility of carrying out professional activities at the highest level within the various Member States and within various European organisations. Mr Zappalà has pushed this directive forward by finding a balance which, it must be said, differs from that of the Commission, a balance more in keeping with the demands of the professional world and of citizens, at the heart of which lies above all the quality of information. We need to ensure that the professions are qualified to the highest standards so that, within the Member States, professional persons are accepted on the basis of the qualifications they possess. I believe that, in doing this, we are making a major contribution to Europe and providing a service for its citizens. I also believe that communications between different European countries is determined at this level: the intellectual professions have been throughout history – not just in Italy but in all countries – a major reference point in relation to a country’s standing. Finally, I believe that the professions, once they come under a single definition within Europe, are capable of making a contribution that can be surpassed only by the Constitution, once it is ratified. Nevertheless, this is an important contribution to the Constitution and to European citizenship.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the precautionary principle is gaining more ground in the international Treaties. Nevertheless, it remains a source of confusion. The message, in short, is: if in doubt, do not do it. Doubt has now been cast upon virtually everything, and that would mean that nothing is possible any more. That is why the Commission’s clarifications are welcomed and why I am very impressed with Mrs Patrie’s report. She has done sterling work and I would like to congratulate her on it. A clear distinction needs to be drawn between precaution and prudence. Precaution is applicable in situations where science cannot provide a conclusive answer. It is suspected that a certain substance presents a risk, but no proof exists. Prudence is called for in situations where the risks are known. In those situations, a safety margin is imposed as a precautionary measure. The precautionary principle is a political response to the risks within society. We must avoid unknown risks. The precautionary principle must also apply to products and substances which are already available and in use, as well as to production methods. I am in favour of the precautionary principle, but I would like to mention one area of concern. I sometimes have the feeling that reference is made to the precautionary principle all the time, whether appropriate or not. There is no such thing as absolute scientific certainty about new substances or products, nor can there ever be. The present situation is taken as a point of departure and that leads to conservatism and resistance to anything new. In this way, we are distancing ourselves from the United States and large sections of the rest of the world. That may be the case and so be it, but worse still is that the precautionary principle can produce a whole generation of political cowards, a generation which passes the buck and does not dare to take any decisions out of precaution. It leads to the scientification of a policy without ever reaching consensus, for science is unable to offer that either. The precautionary principle is therefore a valuable and important principle, but we must aim to use it more sparingly.

Political group: PSE
Both the author of this report and the authors of the proposed amendments belong to political schools which put the market economy before all else and cry excessive state intervention whenever it comes to supporting public services or giving workers some sort of social protection. But as soon as the capitalist groups whose interests they defend are in trouble on the markets, they call for governments or the European institutions to intervene, subsidise and protect the sector under threat. Alstom-Atlantique, which has just landed a contract to build a luxury liner, will collect the equivalent of 9% of the contract price in subsidies. In other words, the state is paying a large chunk, if not all of the company's profits. Meanwhile, the British company Harland and Wolff, from which Alstom pinched the contract, is blaming its government for failing to back it sufficiently. When big trusts and their political advocates call for less state interference, what they mean is that the state and its money should be solely at their disposal. For my part, I am against all forms of subsidy for private firms and in favour of governments using the money saved to create jobs directly, especially in the public services and, more to the point, without generating private profit.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I would like to use this intervention to the House to draw the Council’s attention to an extremely serious matter. In the European Union’s territory, in our territory, a whole range of completely intolerant attitudes and behaviour bordering on the fascistic is currently prevailing towards homosexuals. Europe has always been at the forefront in the protection of human rights, coexistence and tolerance, which have made this territory the most advanced in social terms, and we cannot allow ourselves to go back on these achievements of liberty, tolerance and coexistence. We must denounce the slightest hint of a divergence away from these strikingly European values. In the face of these facts, we should be concerned, and we should react in order to eradicate attacks on people, whatever their moral, religious, ideological or sexual orientation may be. Having said this, and considering that we are now at a historic moment in European construction, with the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice, with a debate on a Charter of Fundamental Rights about to take place, and considering also the powers conferred on the Council by the Treaties in order that it carries out action which guarantees these rights of European citizens, I would like to know what the Council’s attitude is on the contents of this Charter of Fundamental Rights concerning the protection of sexual freedom and sexual choice rather than sexual guidelines.

Political group: PSE
I would like to ask the Commissioner whether he is aware of the extreme impracticality of the manual tagging of individual sheep, and its maintenance for a further two years. Has he ever seen an auction market? I am sure that in his home country of Ireland the situation is the same as in Scotland, where you have thousands of sheep going through in one day and each individual sheep has to be inspected and tagged as it goes through. That will add days to sales for only for two years' worth of savings. Could he not and has he not considered doing this on a flock basis, as opposed to an individual sheep basis, for this two-year period of time?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the unanimity in committee shows that, overall, we are satisfied with the progress made since our last debate on 4 October last year. The tabled amendments refine the draft further, making it clearer and more up to date. We are still, however, far from our goal in everyday practice. We must do all we can to get the agreements translated into action and to make the freedoms which we advocate as a basic principle of the European Union an actual part of the daily lives of all people, not just young people, in Europe. Colleagues, it is true that citizens have already been enjoying greater mobility since the internal market was introduced, but there is still a long way to go. We must continue to dismantle all barriers to freedom of movement. Equal rights and benefits, recognition of periods of study abroad, promotion of multilingualism, promotion of information exchange and the dismantling of administrative and financial obstacles must be translated into reality and not just written down in the action plan. A previous speaker has pointed out that we still have not reached our goal in the matter of taxation, the recognition of health insurance, employment and social law, social security and the mutual recognition of academic qualifications. I therefore call for a greater application of the EU principle of non-discrimination in all these areas, too, because mobility also needs underpinning socially with some minimum standards so that persons who are mobile are not disadvantaged in other ways.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, with the agreement of the rapporteur, Mrs Rühle, I ask that the network of Europe Houses be included among the activities to be supported. (Applause) (Parliament gave its assent to the tabling of the oral amendment) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0371/2003) by Mrs Frahm, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the proposal for a Council decision concerning the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants [COM(2003) 331 C5-0315/2003 2003/0118(CNS)] Before the vote

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on a point of order, we would very much appreciate it if you could ask the Finnish Presidency – which is sitting over there – whether it can be present at 9 o'clock this evening in order to help us with our debate on the Papayannakis report. The Council, and only the Council, can give us the background to what happened last night in the Agriculture Council. Could you please, so as to preserve the interests of the Members of this Parliament, put that question to the Council for an answer?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am grateful for the fact that we are having this debate, but I should just like to make two points. I am in the same boat as my fellow Members, in that I was only informed of one of the meetings to which the Council presidency invited us. We were, of course, delighted to receive the invitation. But it was indeed a cocktail party on Thursday afternoon, with all the attendant difficulties. When I arrived, the door was already closed. There was something I had to discuss beforehand and could not make it for the start of the gathering. It would be very good of you, Mr Danielsson, to make a proposal next time for a better arrangement that would enable all of us to be present. As for the second meeting you mentioned, I should be grateful if you would remind us which meeting that was. I know nothing about any other meeting. Konrad Schwaiger did not refer to it, presumably because he knows nothing about it either. Would you perhaps be so kind as to tell us which meeting it was that you invited our committee to attend? There is another point on which I am at one with my fellow Members, and I know that this is not a question but a brief comment: I wish you would truly regard this Parliament as a heavyweight in the political ring and treat it accordingly. We fully understand that we do not yet have the means or the right to demand such treatment, but I believe you can regard us from a political point of view as an equal partner.

Political group: PSE
This issue is of growing concern both to the public and to this Parliament, and I think the fact that we were able to attract 60 signatures to our oral question on the subject is a clear testimony to that. As my colleague Mrs Korhola has said, there is more and more evidence that suggests that these highly intensive active sonars pose a very major threat to marine mammals and to fish. The frightening fact is that this technology exposes them to noise pollution at levels 200 billion times greater than that which we know already disturbs them, and so it is not really surprising that we are already seeing deaths from lung haemorrhages, from hearing loss and disruption of feeding, breeding and communication. But this technology also constitutes a breach of the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention which requires states to take all measures that are necessary to prevent, reduce and control pollution in the marine environment from any source. The time has come, accordingly, for NATO and its members to act, and since European Union Member States make up over half of the 19 members of NATO, the EU has a special responsibility to promote action. For the Commission to respond to a written question of mine on 29 November 2002 simply by saying this type of technology needs to be used with caution is not good enough. The fact is that this type of technology cannot be used with caution when you consider that, at a hundred miles from the ship which is the source of the noise, this noise can still cause a tearing of the tissues in the air sac, for example, behind whales' and dolphins' brains. That is why we want to see an immediate moratorium on any deployment of LFAS by navies of any NATO country and we want a comprehensive and independent impact assessment to take place. We also want the US and NATO countries to prepare and make public the studies on the potentially adverse effects of LFAS which are required by law under Article 206 of the Law of the Sea. We had hoped too that the Council might have been prepared to make a statement on LFAS here this afternoon as well and I am disappointed that it is not here, but there is a clear role for the Commission as well and I have two specific questions for it: will it agree to conduct a study on the impact of LFAS on the marine environment, and will it ensure that the subject is raised in the transatlantic dialogue? I look forward very much to your response.

Political group: Verts-ALE
It is now five years since Parliament embarked upon the negotiations concerning the Statute and, for some of my fellow MEPs, this is a significant political process that, at one and the same time, secures Parliament’s power and legitimacy, with Parliament’s right to adopt its own statute an expression of a federal, European democracy. For others, however, it is a farce of almost surrealistic dimensions. Behind the democratic principles of parliamentary self-determination, we in fact find another agenda, one as prosaic as MEPs’ personal financial interests. It is difficult to make democratic principles credible when the real agenda is MEPs’ own money. This Parliament has no impressive, democratic legitimacy to begin with. The turnout in every single election has been low. In a democracy as rich in tradition as Sweden’s, turnout at the most recent election was less than 35%, and in the UK was less than 24%. I can assure you that this shaky legitimacy would be further undermined through the adoption of the proposed Statute. At least in the Nordic countries, people find it completely baffling that the Members of this Parliament are to be paid significantly more than national parliamentarians, especially when we are also safeguarding the possibility of maintaining or reintroducing the absurd expense systems which, in the Nordic countries, have been central subjects of criticism. Certainly, the Praesidium decided last week that travel expenses would be reimbursed as per account rendered, but Article 29 states clearly that the current absurd systems can be reintroduced. I would also observe that the issue of the national taxation of remuneration has now entered its final phase. At least for the Nordic governments, that is a crucial issue. The point is, of course, that national taxation would possibly be in conflict with EU law, and so the problem has not been solved. Those of us in the Danish People’s Movement are unable to cooperate.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, if Hamas can continue to obstruct the Roadmap with violence, there will never be any peace. The terror organisation rejects the two-State concept and wants to turn Israel into an Islamic state. The spiral of violence will never stop if Israel continues to be provoked by the attacks. The unlawful killing of leaders is, of course, an empty exercise if these are simply replaced. An international military force must be set up as soon as possible, preferably after a file agreement, but if the latter does not materialise, we will have to make do without one. Hamas should then be eliminated by an international military force, if possible in conjunction with NATO, so involving both European and Americans. At the same time, all Hamas’s financial lines need to be severed. Israel and the Palestinians are thoroughly weary of the violence and misery. Finally, under international pressure, a solution is gradually manifesting itself. This is why the road must be blocked to anyone who is intent on more bloodbaths and no peace. Their Roadmap is one to hell. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, in the not too distant past, the Europeans’ greatest fear was hunger. Hunger was, along with war and the plague, one of the three apocalyptic fears that had dotted the history of Europe since the Middle Ages. Times have changed dramatically where hunger is concerned, not for the whole world, unfortunately, but certainly for the Europe of the Fifteen. An abundance of food is one of the great achievements of modern times in Europe, as is much more hygienic food than was available until relatively recently. Nevertheless, the safety and quality of food have suddenly become one of the main causes for concern, fear and uncertainty amongst the sophisticated European consumers. Appalling incurable diseases, against which medicine is helpless, such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy, are a consequence of the indiscriminate industrialisation of food production, which goes against nature. We must put an end to situations like this, mainly by making crucial and far-reaching changes to the European common agricultural policy. The legislation and the strategy that are adopted in the field of food safety are vital for the European Union and for its credibility. These must be one of its main political and legislative priorities. The proposal for a Regulation that we are now considering represents the main pillar of a legislative structure, which is designed to guarantee a high level of health protection and to restore consumer confidence. The most important aspect of this legislation consists of creating an operational European food authority with a high degree of scientific skill and considerable independence. In order to guarantee food safety, it is crucial that there are no weak links in any part of the food chain and that risks are detected in good time. It is crucial that there is rigorous monitoring, from the farm to the consumer’s table. Hence the need for a food safety authority which is prestigious and well respected. The Commission’s proposals are, admittedly, well formulated. They are positive, useful and well structured and simply require some clarification, as has already been said. We must adopt them as a matter of urgency. There is no sense in maintaining a divided approach, and nor would this do us any credit, for example, on the composition of the management board, on the appointment of the executive director or on its headquarters. Mr Whitehead’s report is balanced and sensible, which is why I shall be supporting it.

Political group: PSE
The legislative proposal of the European Parliament merely accepts the proposal by the Commission of the European Union, which confines itself to finding that “Greece fulfils the necessary conditions for the adoption of the single currency. The derogation of Greece is abrogated with effect from 1 January 2000”. On the surface, Greece does indeed meet the budgetary and monetary indicators required for EMU. To this extent, and taking account of the position of my party, Synaspismos (the Coalition of the and Progress), in favour of Greece’s accession to Economic and Monetary Union, I have voted in favour. Personally, however, I have strong objections to and reservations about the policies of EMU, which tie the Member States into rigid budgetary austerity, rising unemployment, worsening social conflict and unbridled competition, without being able to offer a strong European currency which is able to stand up to the dollar worldwide. I am also totally opposed to the way in which the Greek government has achieved our accession to EMU, pursuing nominal rather than de facto convergence, making Greece one of the countries of the Union with the highest rates of unemployment and continually selling off the state’s assets in order to cover treasury deficits. Unfortunately, these policies will not end when we accede to EMU; on the contrary, they will be institutionalised, consolidated and set in stone. The and Progressive Forces of the Member States of EMU must extend their collaboration so that they can radically reform the way in which EMU is structured and so that priority can be given to social criteria and promoting the fight against unemployment, real convergence policies and viable and fair development policies.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the European Central Bank is just a cog, albeit a highly symbolic cog, in the wheel of policy of all the Member States of the Union, a policy which promotes the profits of big business, while at the same time imposing what the report euphemistically refers to as a moderate wage policy. The Central Bank, which has set itself up as the supreme guardian of this policy, claims to be acting to prevent budgetary deficit and indebtedness in the Member States. But what it does not mention, any more than the Member States themselves, is the fact that those responsible for and those who benefit from the deficit are not those who are required to make sacrifices in order to reduce it. It is the subsidies, tax relief and various forms of aid granted to big business which empty state coffers everywhere. But it is to labour and public-sector wages that every government runs when it comes to reducing its deficit. The elected members of Lutte Ouvrière will be voting against this report. We affirm the need for a policy to put an end to all direct or indirect subsidies to employers and a consequent increase in taxes on profits, private wealth and high incomes. We affirm the need to force Member States to use the funds that are recouped in order to create jobs, which are cruelly lacking today in health, education and public transport, and to lift the public services out of their present state of disrepair. IN THE CHAIR: MR IMBENIVice-President

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I wish to protest again this year that the amendment tabled by my delegation on the 2005 calendar, which seeks to end this charade of coming to Strasbourg every month at gross expense to the European Union taxpayer, has been declared inadmissible. Mr President, I think you should refer the matter to the European Court of Justice. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE