GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I am liberal but not ultra-liberal. Questions relating to energy and the environment must be seen in context, and methods of obtaining energy must be framed in a balanced and well-judged way. Because almost all energy production and use has a negative effect on the environment, energy policy must also be seen as an important part of environmental policy. Good access to energy sources is a prerequisite of our well-being and of jobs and development. The way in which we adapt our methods of obtaining energy must therefore take account of Europe’s need for growth and increased employment. It is quite clear that if nuclear power and access to nuclear energy are handled in an irresponsible way, this will seriously damage both Europe’s opportunities for growth and its ability to deal successfully with what is, in my view, the most serious threat to the environment, namely climate changes due to increasing carbon dioxide emissions. Let us therefore stop burying our heads in the sand in the belief that the problems involved in adapting our methods of obtaining energy will disappear. The rapid phasing-out of nuclear power, the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, a better environment, continued well-being and economic power – these are not all of a piece. Mr Chichester’s report is mainly characterised by a holistic vision which I am convinced must be present in policy concerning energy and the environment. One additional point, however: a common environmental tax for the whole of Europe must become a reality. This will be required. Finally, the unsafe and, in certain cases, downright dangerous nuclear power stations in Central and Eastern Europe must be closed down very quickly. It is unusually bad policy to close down properly operating nuclear power stations in the Member States, necessitating a replacement source of power involving increasing carbon dioxide emissions, at the same time as retaining a form of nuclear power which constitutes a serious environmental threat to the whole of our continent.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I believe that the administrative cooperation programmes within the immigration policies and connected areas are of great importance. Today we are debating the ARGO programme, the ultimate aim of which is to provide a guarantee of homogenous treatment for third-country nationals. I would like to point out that, in the fields fully or partially covered by this programme, there are very many directives, regulations and other instruments in force, and that this Community acquis must be applied consistently, guaranteeing equal rights to third-country nationals. There are some extremely important aspects which the programme should take into account: it is essential that we implement actions to prevent illegal immigration, actions against the counterfeiting of documents and essential actions in the field of consular cooperation. The objective of establishing a common policy in this area is a great challenge and its success largely depends on the Union becoming an area of security and freedom. In a few years, my country has gone from a country of emigration to a country receiving a large number of immigrants and at the same time is experiencing problems resulting from its status as an external border of the Union. Although it is not an innovation – since it continues the previous Odysseus programme, with certain new approaches – the ARGO programme is a key element. An increase in appropriations is a sign that we are taking a serious approach to the effort we must make to ensure that the national administrations act homogeneously, applying best practices. I agree with the approach of the rapporteur, Mr Oostlander, and I congratulate him, because his report contains proposals which improve the text and make it very clear that the Commission and Parliament must play a leading role in the implementation of the programme. Mr President, much has been achieved in this field under Commissioner Vitorino, but there is still a very long way to go. It is therefore right and proper that the objectives of the current Presidency include making progress with the Tampere and Laeken commitments on asylum, immigration and border control policies. This requirement does not only stem from the present reality of immigration in the Union, but also from the citizens’ desire for a genuine political Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, thank you very much for your statement. I strongly welcome this rapid reaction facility. It responds to long-held concerns which many of us have had. You are to be congratulated on the work that you have done. I should like to elaborate on the point which my colleague Nirj Deva mentioned. We are not just talking about urgency, we are not just talking about effectiveness of action. The question of coherence is very important. You have the overall responsibility for external relations from the Commission's point of view. I am thinking again of the role of ECHO. Do you not foresee an opportunity here to bring ECHO under your policy-making umbrella so that we have a more cohesive approach to emergencies when they arise; so that we do not have this problem of different instruments; so that we are addressing the problem with one mind and can then deliver with urgency and efficiency?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the proposed Charter of Fundamental Rights does not mean that citizens’ rights are to be reinforced. It adds nothing over and above what is at present implied in the EU’s, the Member States’ and the Council of Europe’s policy in this area. This is also clear from Article 50 of the Treaty. Seen from a perspective, there is a lot missing from the text of the Charter. The Charter can therefore only be seen as an attempt to transfer responsibility for citizens’ rights from the institutions in which they at present reside to the European Union. It is a development which we reject. It is aimed only at driving the EU towards a federal constitution. We believe there are better alternatives, namely for the EU to sign and, in that way, be subject to the Council of Europe’s convention in this area. This would also reinforce pan-European cooperation in this sphere instead of weakening it, as there is a danger of the EU Charter doing.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I thank the President-in-Office for his reply but, to be perfectly honest, there were points in it which I failed to understand. Is the United States claiming a separate role in the world and do we acknowledge that role, yes or no? This is the umpteenth time they have done so since the Kyoto agreements and on numerous other issues. You said that you did this so as not to rattle trans-Atlantic relations. To be honest, I do not understand that either. Just as I fail to understand that the guilty parties will, you say, be tried before national courts. Not, Mr President-in-Office, by the courts in the United States. No way. The question is: will this apply to other countries at a later date? To the Russians and who knows who else on peacekeeping missions? How can you say that this does not undermine the Court? In all events, when it comes to Romania, which was what I specifically asked about, the question is this: that you hope the agreement signed by Romania will not be ratified is of no interest to me. What does interest me is, do you intend to say to Romania, within the hearing of other candidate countries, that their integration depends on their respecting the European Union's common position on the International Criminal Court?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Unlike the Commission, the European Parliament pronounces itself in favour of compensation based upon each accident rather than upon each injured person. As a result, the level of compensation per person would only be half as high in the case of an accident in which two people were injured. It would be as if there had only been one injured person. I find that odd, in fact downright absurd. For that reason, I have voted against the European Parliament’s position and, instead, supported the Commission’s line. - Hermange report (A5-0319/2003)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, we have heard a great deal of praise for the Socrates programme and I have no wish to go over it all again. I should just like to point out that around 40% of the 376 million people living in the European Union are under 30 years old, making them one of the biggest target groups of the Socrates programme, as well as Grundtvig, Minerva, Media Plus and other such programmes. So the programme has the chance to make its mark over coming years by promoting mobility, intercultural education and educational diversity. It is on the right track for improvement, as we can see from the second stage and as we have just heard. But the weaknesses in the system also need to be pointed out. They include delays in preparing contracts between the Commission and the national agencies, which keep addressing the problems and which keep being hampered during implementation by delays. The same applies to delays in paying out assistance, because when only small sums are involved, the beneficiaries need to receive them as quickly as possible and the pre-financing stage needs to be shortened because, in addition to doing the work, they generally have to pre-finance the projects as well. Mrs Pack is also quite right to call for a so-called fast-track procedure to speed up the programme and do away with cumbersome applications and cumbersome formalities for amounts under EUR 20 000. We should also consider if we really need the extra burden of cofinancing when only small amounts are involved. We must force cooperation with other Community programmes because we want programmes to run in parallel rather than in series, so that we can make use of available resources. The Commission's follow-up reports should also take account of the participants' follow-up reports. Because what is important to us is the outcome of these programmes. What impact do they have, for example, on teacher training? What positive experiences do pupils or students take away with them? All this is important if we are to be able to pursue or refine the programme. I think we have the right to expect results. As for the financing, we fought hard to set it on its feet. I agree with Mrs Pack; if we enlarge in 2004, we must increase the funding, otherwise this programme will be doomed to failure. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would also like to thank Mrs Paulsen for having conducted this conciliation – which was not easy – with such panache, and for thus enabling us to reach a good compromise today. As Commissioner Vitorino said, the challenge is still how to protect ourselves against BSE. It is as if we have almost forgotten that this was the main problem and that this is what was behind all the directives that we have been adopting recently in the field of food safety. We are prohibiting the recycling of animal carcasses and condemned animal by-products into the food chain, we are banning animal ‘cannibalism’, this is a positive step. Food traceability has been improved. Lastly, we are preventing cross-contamination. This is all well and good but there is, unfortunately, a down side, because although we have certainly made progress in eliminating food waste, I think that the obligation imposed on Member States is being partly deferred. A transitional period has been proposed which, as previous speakers have said, is too long. Two years was certainly long enough for us to resolve these problems. For example, oils can produce biomass for biofuels etc. Yet, some States will be virtuous and take the necessary measures as soon as possible, whilst others will wait until the very last minute, until 2006, by using the comitology procedure. This is a very unpleasant reminder of what happened at the peak of the BSE crisis, when some States claimed not to have any cases of mad cow disease because they were not doing any tests. When they started to carry out the tests, they detected cases of mad cow disease. Yet, these same States today are not, in my view, being particularly reasonable. We must speed up the process.

Political group: Verts-ALE
This matter includes a number of important points concerning the need for media pluralism, the value of protecting consumers through transparency in advertising, and the right of reply. Moreover, criticism was directed against the ownership structure and the concentration of power within the Swedish media. The basic problem, however, is that, through a dubious issue of procedure, Parliament was not given the opportunity to vote on the amendments that had been tabled and that were aimed at improving the report. No less than 338 amendments had been submitted to plenary, and not a single one of them was debated. Most of these amendments came from the Group of the European People’s Party and, as a result of the proposals never having been put to the vote, the Group chose not to take part in the vote. I agree with the Group’s criticism to the effect that the amendments should have been debated in plenary, but I nonetheless think that it is the duty of each elected Member to take part in the vote. I therefore chose to participate by consistently abstaining in all the votes, including the final vote.

Political group: PPE-DE
I just wanted to make it clear – as it has been translated differently here – that we always use the official name FYROM.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, I too remember the European Union introducing a regulation in 1993 on the organisation of the market in bananas, so as to ensure protection of outlets and income for Community producers and to guarantee the exports of the ACP countries to the Community market. Although they do not produce a single kilo of bananas, the United States has complained to the WTO about the Community banana import regime. Their one aim was to defend the interests of their great banana companies which are effectively ravaging Latin America and which already dominate over 70% of the world market. In 1999, the WTO panel, orchestrated by the United States, condemned the Community’s import licences system. The Commission has submitted to that verdict by amending the market conditions to end up with a ‘tariff only’ system in 2006. The implementation of this new regulation, which actually goes beyond the WTO ruling, would call into question the distribution of Community and ACP products and would aggravate an already fragile social situation, especially in the French Overseas Territories where the selling price of bananas had already fallen below 3 francs in 1998 and was less than 2 francs in 1999. I am glad the Committee on Agriculture has rejected not only the amendments championed by the intermediaries of the American multinationals, but also the Commission’s proposals. I entirely approve of the Dary report which opposes the automatic move to a ‘tariff only’ system and which defends the principles which presided over the establishment of the common organisation of markets, especially Community preference. By adopting the Dary report, we will be sending the Council and the Commission the clear signal that our Parliament is determined to defend the interests of Community and ACP producers, to make the WTO recognise that the preferential agreements constitute development aid instruments. Our vote will also express our rejection of any compromise with the United States that would sacrifice the Community and ACP producers to the profit of the dollar banana.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I was about to welcome my parents to the Chamber but as I was told I had to come back at 9 p.m., I do not know if they have made it back in yet. If they did not know much about GMOs before 3.45 p.m. they certainly know much more about them now. This year the issue of GMs is hotly topical and controversial. It has been a key issue in the Scottish Parliament. In the Welsh Assembly there is talk about a GM-free Wales. Crop trials are presently being conducted in Scotland. One is presently under way in a small village in Munlochy, in the Black Isle, where the local community has even kept vigil at the site of an extensive trial. There is no getting away from this issue. Food scares over the past decade have meant that consumers want to be sure that what they are eating is safe. Currently, fears about GM foods run high. Although the evidence suggests that GM foods are safe, people are unsure about the environmental impact and the obvious unknown. How do we reassure people over this issue? How do we make the waves – as Mrs Scheele said – on issues like these? Labels and traceability are one answer. The only way to gain the confidence of consumers is to offer a totally traceable, transparent and reliable information system. Traceability puts the burden of proof on the producer. Whether the threshold is 1% or 0.5%, if practicable, these are a step forward. On the subject of labelling, people want as much information as is possible. This has to rest on quality information. The jury is out. A GM-free label has been talked about. There is a lot of potential there, but it can also mislead consumers because of accidental contamination. Rules for GM-free labelling exist in Germany, Austria and the Netherlands, but food producers cannot guarantee that products are completely GM free. These products should not become a costly niche market. Mrs Scheele's comment on the subject is welcome. This debate will continue. We cannot afford to let this opportunity to have proper, practical traceability and labelling of GMs pass us by. As an article in today's Guardian says, we are at a crossroads. The vote tomorrow will determine the future of genetically modified food in Europe.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, of course I can agree with you, Mrs Müller, that we need to subject PVC to an integrated and comprehensive life-cycle analysis. This will show that PVC windows and window frames, for example, or PVC water pipes are products which we want to use because of their characteristics. The same is true of blood bags, for example. Although this is a non-durable PVC product, it is the most suitable because of the product's properties. However, contrary to you, I do think that, because of the dangerous characteristics of PVC, we really should ensure that we do all we can to prevent it from being disposed of in an uncontrolled manner. In this respect we need to step up our efforts to introduce recycling – both mechanical recycling and melting for reuse – for all PVC products. It is certainly possible to find a sensible recycling solution. Here we need to show, however, much more determination and exert much more pressure so that true closed cycles develop. To achieve this, Mrs Müller, we also need labelling, not so that the products are marked ‘Danger PVC!’, but so that they can be collected separately and be properly recycled. At the end of the day, alongside attempting to carry out a lifecycle analysis, this is about guaranteeing that people can use PVC. That is why we need differentiated collection and distinctive labelling of PVC. When making any decisions about the future of PVC we also need to guarantee that employees' representatives are involved. We need to improve this aspect of the Green Paper a little more and ensure that the PVC strategy is also implemented in the applicant countries as soon as possible. When Mr Sacconi was appointed rapporteur I knew that he would do an excellent job, and I was right.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we voted for the compromise reached between the Council, Parliament and the Commission, because today is a good day for consumer protection. We have finally managed to achieve comprehensive labelling, so that consumers can no longer be hoodwinked, with products being required to bear accurate information about any genetically manipulated ingredients they may contain. I think this will give industry pause for thought before it uses GMOs, because the majority of consumers do not want these products. It does, however, mean that we will have to carry on working to ensure that suitable arrangements are put in place for seed. I was very disturbed yesterday by the Commission's failure to answer my question about how this is to be regulated in future. We need this labelling. It is a good proposal and it will mean that consumers will no longer be treated like children who have nothing to say for themselves, and will instead at last be given the chance to freely choose whether to opt for these products or not. Then we will really see whether these products are accepted, because the markets will decide. So it is not the EU approval process that is the great problem, as the industry would have us believe. No, the problem for industry will be the market, because the market will decide, and the market is made up of individual consumers.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, in the 60s and 70s, asbestos was considered a universal remedy in construction, in industry and as a subsurface for roads. Meanwhile, many victims who have inhaled asbestos dust have died from it. Long after it was known how destructive asbestos is in people, this relatively cheap material was still used in different countries. Even now that its use will end in 2005 at the latest, we will still be contending with its harmful legacy for a long time. In the next 30 years, half a million people will become disabled and die prematurely in western Europe alone, because the illness often does not become apparent until long after infection. The demand for damages, other forms of compensation, disability pension and widows’ and orphans’ pensions is only right and proper. Asbestos is used in buildings, appliances and vehicles in numerous locations, and it must be disposed of expertly. In the Eastern states that wish to join the European Union, the problem is even greater, partly because, in the countryside, houses there are built using roofs and facades that are entirely made of asbestos sheets of Russian origin. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has, in 15 additional amendments, mainly attempted to draw attention to people who have never worked with asbestos themselves, but who can become infected, such as family members, residents of dwellings that contain asbestos or people in the vicinity of asbestos-removal activities. We must assume that every building from the asbestos era contains asbestos unless, on the basis of independent evidence, it is proven otherwise beyond any doubt. The proposals which I support are also aimed at making registers for all Member States and candidate countries compulsory, together with inspections of authorised scrapyards and a restriction on the transport of disposed asbestos to a distance of 500 km. In addition, the European Commission is invited to make proposals before the end of 2003 for the compensation and protection of victims who are not exposed to asbestos through their work, also in those cases in which the source of contamination is unknown or the company responsible no longer exists.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, on a point of order. Questions to the Council are no longer being answered in the time stipulated. Despite being warned on two occasions, the Council has not answered European Parliament questions. Would you please ensure that the Council fulfils its obligations in this area as well?

Political group: PPE-DE