GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, since I made a critical remark about the statements made by Prime Minister José María Aznar, I should like to thank the President-in-Office of the Council, who is represented here, for having explained – at least to me – that it is incumbent upon Parliament to send our political representatives to the interinstitutional working party. That has clarified the matter, and I wanted to pass on this explanation to the House. (Applause) IN THE CHAIR: MR COXPresident President. – That concludes the debate.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the sheer number of food scandals and the debate about using genetic engineering in food production have undermined the present food safety system. Optimum food safety standards and falling consumer protection standards cannot be reconciled. So something else is needed here, and I believe that too. But I am in favour of most responsibility remaining with the Member States. The Community is the world's largest importer and exporter of food. This sector has an annual turnover of EUR 600 billion and employs 10 million people. I support everyone involved, be it in a political, administrative or other capacity, who is working on a 'food for all' strategy. The developed industrialised nations are also best placed to make the greatest contribution here, through sustainable and varied food production. The White Paper is a political paper for those in positions of responsibility in food production. A zero-risk policy is not really practical. That is why the preventive measures in the White Paper constitute the real action plans. What is more, there is no European flavour here. National peculiarities should not only be respected, but actually encouraged. This is where the only weak points in the White Paper on food safety lie. Certain questions remain unanswered, such as: what will the relationship be between the Food Safety Agency and consumers? How is it to be financed and how will it cooperate with the Member States? What about liability? Up to now, of course, it has been the innocent parties who have paid. The Commission will have to provide more concrete answers to these questions in its continued work.

Political group: GUE-NGL
We are very keen that the directive on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States come into force as soon as possible. We therefore support the decision reached in the Council.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the opening last week in Rome of the Intergovernmental Conference, which has the task of producing the definitive text of the European Constitution, was marked by the President-in-Office of the Council’s call for goodwill and by the willing optimism of several Member States including France and Germany. The Italian President-in-Office of the Council stressed that this Conference is the Conference of European will, of Europe’s will to be Europe and political will is going to be the keyword of this Intergovernmental Conference. The groundwork has been done by the European Convention, chaired by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and it is now up to Ministers to demonstrate that they have this will with, of course, the additional possibility of improving the draft Constitution that we now have. Some Member States of the Union are openly threatening to oppose any outcome that would call into question what they call the ‘Nice acquis’. I deplore this attitude, because stability must not be confused with stasis. Was it not, after all, the Laeken European Council that fervently wanted the Treaties to be revised to ensure more democracy, more simplicity and more transparency? Besides, following the unanimously acknowledged success of the Community method, so brilliantly illustrated by the European conventions on the Charter of Fundamental Rights and on the Constitution, our partners cannot act as if the Union were simply an intergovernmental organisation. We must lead the way in order to ensure that enlargement is a success. The forthcoming European Council must also apply itself to revitalising the economy, as several speakers have said. On this subject, I am pleased at the growing awareness of the fact that the stability chapter of the European economy should not be able to relegate the chapter dealing with growth, business start-ups and employment into second place. Our citizens expect their leaders to create conditions that will enable Europe to be dynamic, prosperous and more cooperative. Only by freeing our economies of the burden of excessive taxation and excessive bureaucracy will we be able to create lasting wealth and enable the majority of society to benefit from this wealth. This once again requires the political will to undertake reforms that are far-reaching and sometimes relatively unpopular in the short term. Some countries in the Union, including France, are boldly setting about this task and I hope that these efforts are not only acknowledged but also receive encouragement from Europe. Lastly, in the field of external relations, I wish to tell the Presidency of the Union how important we consider the Rule of Law together with protecting human dignity to be in managing the external borders of an enlarged Europe, as well as respect for the international legitimacy of the UN in combating international terrorism. Whether in the European Union or elsewhere in the world, now is the time for multilateralism and for joint action and not for going it alone.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wish to thank our fellow MEP, Mrs Redondo Jiménez, for the sterling work she has done. Firstly, I want to say that I have nothing against those parts relating to forest fires and air pollution, for these are phenomena that are not confined within boundaries and that affect all countries in the same way. We cannot, however, support the third part relating to common monitoring of biodiversity. Why? Well, because this is an issue only affecting the Member States in as much as it is not possible to compare biodiversity in northern Scandinavia with that in southern Spain, or biodiversity in the Greek archipelago with that on the west coast of Ireland. What is more, no one can now say what is meant by biodiversity in a European perspective. If the Commission is asked what there is by way of a common forestry policy in Europe, the answer is that no such policy exists. If the Commission then repeatedly introduces new monitoring tools into this area, a policy is created in secrecy, and that is unacceptable. This is also an issue of ownership. Were it to be deemed under the policy that the biodiversity on a particular piece of land or in a particular area was so important that it needed to be conserved for the future – certain islands were mentioned just recently in this context – who would then compensate whoever was forfeiting his or her asset? The issue of compensation is at present an issue for each Member State. Where is the logic in this whole decision?

Political group: PPE-DE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. – Mr President, it is particularly pleasing for me to make my first speech in the European Parliament on what is regarded as the most important issue within that part of the United Kingdom that I represent in this Parliament, namely Wales. A major part of Wales, as you know, has been granted Objective 1 status under the Structural Funds programme. It is quite clear that many people within Wales are looking to the European Structural Funds programme to alleviate some of the great difficulties that we undoubtedly face. We have seen poverty growing in Wales; and growing still further since 1997. We have seen the gap between rich and poor widen. We are looking, therefore, within the Structural Funds programme not just to see industrial restructuring but also to see a wider improvement in the whole of the economic base within the Principality. What is, however, deeply damaging for us is the belief that in some way the granting of Structural Funds assistance is something that has been, in a sense, a success of the government. It is sadly only a recognition of the very great difficulties that Wales faces. That is why I want to highlight some of the issues that I believe the Commission must have at the forefront. We look to the Commission to deal with points in relation to additionality. We are dissatisfied with the fact that those figures seem to have been in some way hidden within UK figures. We look to the Commission also to ensure that there is matched funding for projects. We look to it to challenge the UK Government, to ensure that the private sector, which surely must be providing the major impetus for Structural Funds expenditure, is involved in the planning stage. Finally, we ask that the Commission ensures that Structural Fund monies are spent in a way which is transparent. Too much of what takes place within this Parliament is not transparent. This is one area in which I believe the Commission can be a very great friend to Wales.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am glad to hear that the Commissioner is pressing for eight Members of this House to attend COP6, but I want to emphasise that we want to play a constructive role in EU strategy making. We do not want to be squeezed out as Members were who attended the World Health Organisation conference recently. We see ourselves working together at a set of European institutions fighting to improve the situation and ensure that the Kyoto Protocol is ratified. Compare, after all, our common agreement with the experience we had just recently at that tele-conferencing session with members of the US Congress, which frankly was a very depressing experience. The chairman of the Health Science Committee spelt out, from the American point of view, that this was an economic issue, not an environmental one. That really spells out the differences between the approach of the United States representatives and those of this Parliament. There was no recognition of the need to make sacrifices or to accept that we have historic responsibilities on both sides of the Atlantic as the largest emitters of greenhouse gases. For all our good intentions, however, it looks as though in the European Union far from cutting CO2 emissions by the end of this decade we shall end up increasing them. So the prospects for COP6 look poor, but the prospects of our meeting our goals even with Kyoto do not look that good either. That is not helped by governments across the European Union responding to calls to cut fuel prices. If we are serious about the environment, these must be resisted. We should not be cutting fuel tax. I say 'yes' to emissions trading – let us get on with it. Let us also hurry up with the measures we need to take in each Member State cutting traffic emissions, increasing energy efficiency, promoting renewables and CHP. The sad truth is we will not succeed in preventing climate change anyway, but if we do not start taking action now, the problems will become all the worse.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I should like to thank Mr Radwan for a splendid report. Pages 60 and 61 of the ECB’s annual report contain a discussion of the situation in Denmark in 1999. It is pointed out that, in 1999, the Danish krone was stable and marginally stronger than the central rate in ERM 2. This situation has, unfortunately, changed because there has been pressure on the Danish krone in recent months. Speculation against the Danish krone is occurring primarily because Danish opinion polls suggest that there may be a ‘no’ vote in the forthcoming referendum on 28 September. If there is, in fact, a ‘no’ vote in this referendum – and I very much disagree with my French colleague who has just spoken and who, if I understood him correctly, is hoping for just such a vote – then speculation against the krone may be expected to increase, in which case Denmark will have need of that ECB support in defence of the krone which is provided for in the ERM 2 agreement. I would therefore ask you, Mr Duisenberg, to clarify what the limits will be for the Danish ERM 2 agreement and to answer the following questions. Firstly, what conditions must Denmark fulfil before the ECB will intervene in support of the krone? Secondly, how much in the way of foreign reserves will the ECB, in practice, spend on buying up kroner in order to support and defend the Danish currency? Thirdly, for how long a period will the ECB be prepared to support the krone? And fourthly and finally, can you tell us whether the ERM 2 agreement is to be in force for an unlimited period of time?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I need a technician. I first thought it was a remarkably intelligent achievement on my part, but it was done by the machine. Although I voted against, it showed the green light.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this report constitutes an important phase in the legislative process which is to provide an answer to the many crises which consumers have had to brave over the past few decades. Mr Whitehead has managed, in a balanced report, to expertly combine the many opinions which are around in our Parliament on the establishment of a food authority. I should like to thank him for this. I would thank him for his willingness to listen and his positive attitude. The report is based on a whole set of keywords. First of all, there is safety. The title has been made more specific: the European Food Authority is now the European Food Safety Authority. This immediately clarifies the key function of this new institution. Secondly, quality. The emphasis is placed on food production of higher quality. Not quantity, but quality must from now on be of primary concern. Thirdly, maintaining the cultural diversity of food within the European Union. Local and traditional production should not fall victim to European legislation. Fourthly, traceability, transparency of products and increasing producer liability. Fifthly, independence. That means that the European authority may only be financed by means of Community funding. Sixthly, the precautionary principle must apply to any discernible risk. The European Food Safety Authority will not become an unwieldy giant but will hopefully soon provide us with sound and reliable scientific advice. With regard to the Management Board, my group insists, however, that a minor increase from 12 to 16 members be permitted. Indeed, we are of the opinion that primary producers, farmers and fishermen, should be better represented on the Management Board. Finally, my group also supports the view that the ultimate responsibility of a rapid alert system should be with the Commission. After all, political responsibilities can never be shirked, as has unfortunately happened all too often in recent years, both within the EU and in the Member States.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I am grateful to the Commissioner for his reply although I have to say that five months is a long time to wait for minutes. What I say now is no reflection at all on the Commissioner himself, but I hope that he would accept with me that science must inform our decisions on risk and how to manage it. In this case the science was less than adequate. It was not validated by peer review and so on. So when it came to the Science Committee and the chairman's views it was significant that his advice – in his words – did not justify a banning action. The resulting ban on other phthalates had nothing whatsoever to do with children's toys or teething rings. This exercise brought into some disrepute the precautionary principle. That principle only holds good if the decisions are scientifically irreproachable. It was not a happy experience and I hope the Commission would agree that both the Commission and Parliament have a lot to learn from this experience.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this evening I should simply like to welcome the initiative aimed at simplifying and clarifying the directives relating to the recognition of diplomas and professional qualifications. I would therefore like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Weiland, and point out that I agree with what Evelyne Gebhardt said before me. As an MEP from a border region I am frequently questioned by students that have come up against a system that was implemented in 1989 and 1992, and I am not exaggerating when I say that urgent changes are needed as current mechanisms are far from transparent. Too many students come up against brick walls in their attempt to have their qualifications validated by the authorities in the various Member States. All too often they are unjustly denied recognition, which places them in an intolerable position. As far as principles are concerned, this is a violation of the right to the freedom of movement and, from a more human point of view, it creates an often devastating situation for students who have sought to better their qualifications but then cannot find a relevant job at the end of it. The cost of the validation process also warrants discussion. I am personally therefore very pleased to see that measures are finally being taken to apply the principles of free movement in practical terms. More specifically, the proposal for a directive contains some interesting provisions with regard to clarification. It provides that the host Member State must take account of all of the experience a person has gained since completing the qualification and can no longer demand countervailing measures. We clearly could have taken things a stage further, as will undoubtedly be inevitable for other jobs, and I hope that progress can be achieved with the assistance of a Council that is far less cautious in future. We shall no doubt discuss this issue again, but I hope that this evening’s debate will be welcomed as a step forward in the issue.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, yesterday we debated and voted on a report from the Committee on Petitions. This year that Committee has dealt with a thousand complaints from citizens. Forty percent of those one thousand complaints are associated with violations of Community environmental law. Given these complaints we can appreciate the need for the proposal that we are examining, a Council proposal at the request of the Kingdom of Denmark, and also the need to approve the reports by Mr Di Lello Finuoli and by Mrs Schörling, from the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. I believe that this report covers three important aspects. Firstly, the request that the Council of Europe Convention on the Environment should not only be signed, but also that it should be ratified. No state has ratified the convention so far, but that is not contradictory with adopting this report here today. The report gives a quite correct definition of the parameters that are useful for defining the crime: repeated violations of Community law, the seriousness of the damage and, in some cases, putting profits before any other consideration. We believe that the crimes are often clearly premeditated. Of course they are, Mr President, even in the case of some environmental crimes that appear to be accidental. I well remember the case of Doñana in Spain or of the Danube. It was obvious that a reservoir containing such a large quantity of dangerous products near to a natural park such as Doñana could cause an accident at any time. Secondly, Mr President, I feel that penalties are essential. I am in no doubt about this. Some of the Members here today shed doubt on the need for penalties. I do not. I think that even the ‘polluter pays’ principle is a partial one. Sometimes there are those who prefer to pollute and pay a small amount, which is much less than the profits that they will gain from committing the crime. Penalties are therefore essential, and they need to be designed to act as a deterrent and to be proportional to the damage to citizens’ quality of life. Thirdly, the natural environment should be regenerated. Mr President, is it not acceptable that, in the case of Doñana, public money should be being used to regenerate the area, while the company that caused the major damage has only contributed a small proportion? It is therefore essential to regenerate the damaged environment, and also for legal persons to be liable. Only in the United Kingdom, Finland, and Denmark are there rules that enable legal persons to be held liable. To conclude, Mr President, I would like to mention cooperation between states, which is essential. In the Committee on Petitions, we are aware of the terrible frustration felt by those citizens who take the trouble to report environmental crimes and see that, in Europe, we are incapable of coming to their aid in order to improve the natural environment in which they live and to prevent these crimes.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Commissioner, we support the draft regulation and also this continuing project of the Commission, which appears to be working on a sort of general initiative, of which this could be the fourth part. You might wonder, since I support the regulation, why I am speaking at all, but I have taken the floor because we are confused about one fundamental matter. This is my question: why is it that, in a regulation which seeks to reduce bureaucracy through a series of measures – and we have already mentioned the specific sectors – was it decided to exclude the transport sector? I am taking as an example – most exceptionally – the domestic situation in Italy, where decisions have been taken over the years which have had debatable consequences, although it is also true that Italy is a country whose environmental conditions are very different from the rest of Europe. In a regulation which regulates employment measures in sectors which already have a great many problems and which need to diversify and to retrain their workforces, singling out the transport sector for absolute exclusion from the measure would appear to be something that the Commission might want to reconsider.

Political group: PPE-DE
Like the rapporteur, I come from a country where we do not eat horses – people ride them but they do not eat them, the same as in the UK – and therefore I find it difficult to comprehend. But I suppose there are other traditions in Europe, like eating foie gras, which is distasteful, because you also have to consider how the animal is reared, in humane conditions or not, how is the animal transported etc. With foie gras it is a much more cruel exercise and much more distasteful than eating horses because, at least in most cases, the horses have a better life than the unfortunate geese. But it is clear that in some European countries horses are produced for human consumption – in the Benelux countries, France and Italy, there is quite a large consumption of horsemeat – and we have to take this into account. As far as I can see, no distinction has been made, either by the Member States, or by the EU legislator, between horses raised for the purpose of meat production and horses raised for recreational purposes. In relation to the access to medical and veterinary products for horses, we also have to take into account the whole issue of animal welfare problems. When we look at horses that have been used for recreational purposes that end up going into the human food chain, it is essential that a precautionary approach is taken to ensure that public health and consumer protection take priority. Even though horses are not initially reared for human consumption, they do end up in the human food chain. It is extremely important we have viable and traceable means to ensure that farmers observe any preslaughter waiting-time periods, in particular concerning recreational horses entering the chain for human consumption. It is an extremely important issue because although it will not affect people in Ireland and the UK – because we do not eat horses – it will in other countries. It is important that there is a balance between animal welfare and the need for consumer protection.

Political group: Verts-ALE