GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Maat for a good report and good cooperation, namely in his raising the issue of public health. Until now the basis for pricing has favoured fattier products. There was strong unanimity in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on the need to change the basis for pricing so that less fatty products might benefit more from this aid. It has been an excellent signal from the EU to the heart of the people for decades now, and we have been able to get it across via children, school pupils, schools and homes. In that respect it has to continue, and, as Mr Maat said, be brought up to date and this issue, which is in the common good, should be promoted. Amendments Nos 9 and 10 specifically move the proposal towards a direction where less fatty products would be treated along the same lines as fattier products.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, in the proposals which he has formulated in the report under discussion, our rapporteur, Mr Evans, is calling for the Commission to relax the competition rules for horizontal cooperation agreements between companies operating at the same market level. It would therefore appear that the Commission has a keener sense of fair trading than the European Parliament, despite the fact that, logically-speaking, the opposite should apply. It is the European Parliament which should be more sensitive to the social impact of competition policy. Especially as, even though we have the most stringent fair trading legislation, the real world in which we live is a world in which large monopolies abuse dominant market positions, in which mergers, take-overs and acquisitions by corporate behemoths are a daily occurrence, giving rise to monopolies of global proportions which almost always lay off thousands of workers and have a huge impact on employment and which then monopolise wealth-producing resources, markets and consumers. It is precisely because the real world is thus that we should be more careful and stricter when it comes to ensuring that horizontal cooperation agreements are treated and controlled in the same manner as mergers and vertical restraints. This being so, we are unable to vote in favour of the proposals calling for policy restrictions to be relaxed, as proposed by the Commission.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I must firstly congratulate the rapporteur on the quality of his work. The broad guidelines of European economic policy developed in this report seem to be heading in the right direction. Full employment and the transition to a knowledge-based economy form our common aim for the first decade of the 21st century. Whether or not the pessimists like this, all the economic lights are on green. We must therefore be bold in order to continue the growth now being witnessed at European level. The prospects for the years 2000 and 2001 are encouraging, with growth forecasts of over 3%. This will reinforce social links, increase solidarity and equal opportunities and, in particular, eliminate the inevitability of the mass unemployment which we have been enduring for too long. This last point clearly poses the main problem. Although unemployment has already gradually reduced, it is still at an unacceptable level throughout the Community, given the forecasts for 2001 of 8% unemployment among the working population. This is particularly true at the outer edges of the Community, in other words in the most remote regions. As I have said many times before, the fruits of growth must be shared equally by all European citizens, both mainlanders and islanders. This is the price of constructing a 21st century Europe with a human face in whose collective development everyone is involved. In this way we will all be able to make progress in our own individual areas, but still be heading in the same general direction. I voted in favour of the report by Mr Katiforis because I believe in this Europe.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Europe needs a new strategy for dealing with the issues surrounding chemicals. We are concerned here with the health of all of us, as well as with that of future generations. The Commission’s White Paper is a good point of departure for continued work on the strategy. Mrs Schörling’s report creates good conditions for bringing about necessary changes. It is exceptionally important that Parliament adopt the report in such a form that it have the same thrust given to it by the rapporteur. In the debate that took place while the report was coming to fruition, many objections expressed the fear that stricter regulations would put jobs and economic development at risk. That is an anxiety which must, of course, be taken entirely seriously but, at the same time, it is necessary to raise one’s sights and look beyond jobs and the economy. Economic growth and access to jobs can never be invoked to prevent necessary requirements concerning the use of chemicals, work on achieving sustainable development and a high level of protection of public health and of employees. What is the use of jobs and a sound economy if we poison our countryside and destroy what is essential for future generations? We have only one earth and we must take care of it. We often say that we have the earth on loan from our children. If we are to be able to hand it over in good condition, it is high time that we modified our way of life. It is in a number of capacities that, as human beings, we are affected by the ways in which chemicals are used. We are affected as employees and as consumers, and we are affected by persistent and bioaccumulative substances which can give rise to hypersensitivity, hormone changes, cancer etc. The regulations which now have to be devised must, in the first place, be aimed at protecting individual people and not, as now, companies’ interest in making profits. A society characterised by sustainable development also provides lasting employment, a sustainable living environment and people able to have faith in the future. In that way, a better world can be created.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am happy to take the floor in the debate on this report and I congratulate Mrs Theato. I believe that this is a report for which cooperation between committees has worked very well, and the result, which we have received today, is moderate and thoughtful in a very delicate area. This moderation and thoughtfulness is particularly necessary in the implementation of Article 280(4). If we had to give a prize for the article which was most difficult to understand, least clear and most confused – however you like to put it – the competition would be very hard fought. The Treaty is a collection of complex articles. However, this one would undoubtedly be one of the firm favourites to win such a prize. At the same time, it is an especially delicate issue because it deals with the protection of the Community’s financial interests, as Mrs Theato has explained very well. We are all aware – and this Parliament has been the steadfast champion in this respect – of the need to protect the financial interests of the Community. But be careful. As the French say, 'ne jettons pas le bébé avec l'eau du bain' [let us not throw the baby out with the bath water], that is to say, in the protection of the Community’s financial interests, we must respect, on the one hand – as Mrs Theato has said – the competences of the Member States, but also other matters which affect the citizens, which affect the essential guarantees. The conclusions of the Theato report safeguard them perfectly. Therefore, in my capacity as president of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, and, of course, as an MEP, I hope that a large majority of this House will support this report and that it will be well implemented by the Commission.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Members of the Commission, I should first of all like to welcome the Commissioners who are with us today and to remind the Commission, as represented here, that what has happened in the fruit and vegetable sector is totally unacceptable. Today, in Europe, we basically have two types of agriculture: the first is heavily subsidised and depends on support from the CAP. The second depends on the market and on the risks that farmers are forced to run in this market. Unfortunately, the fruit and vegetable sector, and particularly the nut sector, fall within this second group of products, a type of poor stepson of the CAP, which has to make a living from the market and which has to run risks in the market, with all the uncertainties agriculture is facing. The common agricultural policy has not provided an adequate response to this problem. Nuts, as the Commissioner knows, are a crop grown in parts of southern Europe, in arid and semiarid areas, where there are often few alternatives to dry farming. One cannot even use the argument that this is an intensive form of farming that damages the environment. Quite the opposite is true. We have seen this sector being all but abandoned over the last few years and we now run the risk of entering a legal vacuum, because the Commission, for reasons unknown to us, has decided not to submit any proposals. It is truly deplorable that this should be the case, and so this motion for a resolution that we are tabling in Parliament today is designed to make the Commission aware of this omission, this vacuum, and to make it submit adequate proposals for the fruit and vegetable sector. In this context, there are three situations that I think we must consider. The first is the need to provide a response, to legislate on the operational funds for producers’ organisations. It is also clearly crucial, as Mrs Ayuso González and other Members have said, for cofinancing to be raised to 70%. Support for the workings of the operational funds must be effective. Secondly, we must be aware that establishing the operational funds as the main agricultural policy instrument for the sector is not enough, because there are many regions, such as Spain and Portugal, where producers’ organisations are almost non-existent, and where less than 10% of production passes through such organisations. We must come up with measures that respond to the needs of producers in these areas and, until producers’ organisations are in place there, it would be unfair and unacceptable to marginalise them. Thirdly, Commissioner, it is high time that we adopted permanent support measures for nut producers. Why not consider direct aid? If almost all sectors are given such aid, why should this sector, which is so poor and so marginalised within Europe, not be given support? I hope that the Commission will rapidly submit the proposals that we are calling for.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mrs Redondo Jiménez has drawn up an excellent and comprehensive report on the monitoring of forests and environmental interactions, for which I thank her sincerely. The Commission proposal combines two former regulations, one of which concerns the protection of the forests from air pollution and the other forest fire prevention. The Committee on Budgets has delivered an opinion on this matter. In its first opinion it said that the financial statement of the Commission proposal is compatible with the ceiling of heading 3 of the financial perspective and that it will not restrict other action in the period 2003-2006. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, however, raised this financial framework of EUR 52 million to EUR 67 million. This being the case, the Committee on Budgets stated that the framework was compatible with the ceiling of heading 3, if necessary through a reduction of other policies or through recourse to the provisions of the interinstitutional agreement. In practice the Committee on Budgets is warning that reductions in other areas of policy will have to be made or increases in the financial perspective will have to be resorted to, which will be politically very difficult. The opinion of the Committee on Budgets is based on the new Rule 63a in Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, which obliges a committee to adopt a position on the compatibility of proposed legislation with the financial perspective. This is meant as a guiding principle for the plenary debate, which of course is free to take its own decision. This week Rule 63a is being applied not only to this report but also to that by Ulla Sandbæk, for example. It should be noted that if the committee responsible increases the financial framework in question it must once again request an opinion from the Committee on Budgets. Verification of compatibility does on no account constitute a position on whether the proposal by the committee responsible regarding a larger financial framework is appropriate or reasonable. This procedure will hopefully become automatic and natural. The plenary session must have knowledge regarding the compatibility of the financial framework with the financial perspective so that it can take its decision. The procedure increases the responsibility of the committees responsible for the legislative proposal being debated at the time. Activity-based budgeting, which is already established, also has the same objective. Verification of financial compatibility under Rule 63a thus serves, above all, the interests of the committee responsible.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the protection and collective management of intellectual property rights are important factors in the promotion of cultural creativity and the aim of making it possible for artists to work. Both financial and moral rights must be taken into consideration, the latter meaning authors’ rights to have control over any modification of their works. The Community must be able to strengthen artists’ confidence that their works are properly protected. On the other hand, it is important to ensure that works are disseminated as widely as possible, because there is no art without an audience. The Community has been active in this area, and, besides national and international laws, there are already several Community directives. One drawback, however, is still the fact that the rules that apply to societies responsible for the collective management of intellectual property rights vary from one EU Member State to another. Often these collective management societies enjoy virtual monopoly status, which might well be justified for functional reasons but at the same time leads to the risk of abuse or defeats its own purpose with a decline in the efficiency of the society or increased costs. At any rate a justified monopoly structure does not need to be prevented through legislation, but people should be aware of the associated risks. These risks must be countered by means of clear rules to apply throughout the Community. Such rules must be based essentially on an insistence on full transparency. The necessary statutory changes to Community legislation set out in the report will also have the effect of massively enhancing economic growth. The report estimates that between 5% and 7% of EU Gross Domestic Product is earned by goods and services protected by copyright and related rights. That is by no means a minor proportion of the European economy and it is surely also still capable of growing. Technical advance in particular offers enormous opportunities for the development of new forms of work. At the same time the management of copyright in respect of these new kinds of works will be more challenging than ever.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Schnellhardt, who has negotiated tenaciously for many years. I believe that with the results before us today we have taken a step towards greater food safety in Europe. It is also important, when food comes over the border, that we should be able to tell the citizens they can rely on that food being safe and that there are no health risks. We have, however, also managed – at any rate better than in the Commission’s original proposal – to make the proposals practicable. I would like to draw attention to one particular point in the first Schnellhardt report on general food hygiene. The HACCP plan is a very good plan for large businesses. Large businesses that employ a large number of people, possibly in several Member States, have to keep accurate records of who has handled a product when. From the outset, I found it difficult to transfer this concept to very small businesses, because if a restaurant or confectioner’s employs only two or three people, we do not need any written documentation to know who has handled the product and where harm may have occurred. In such cases, verbal information is enough and that is why, in the negotiations, we pressed very hard for the documentation requirement for small businesses to be toned down in line with the risk associated with this type of production. We do not think documentation is necessary at all for very small businesses. It would be practicable then. It would not be detrimental to consumer protection, but we would ensure that small businesses in particular are able to apply the rules appropriately. The outcome is not exactly what we would have wanted. We have, however, reached compromises on many points, especially in the first report, and we are therefore able to back the reports with a clear conscience.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, if we want dangerous goods and materials to be transported primarily by rail, then it would seem necessary, as a matter of urgency, to establish requirements for the conditions for this. The fact is that the general population and the personnel working in this sector are being subjected to ever greater risk, and this is due to a number of reasons. Firstly, the privatisation of rail networks, particularly in all matters to do with their maintenance, presents serious problems for safety, with an increasing number of accidents occasionally causing real disasters in human terms, such as we have just seen in Great Britain. The need to make profits and competitivity are enshrined in European standards. They demand drastic reductions in costs, always to the detriment of the employees who nonetheless play an essential part in the field of maintenance and safety. This is done without any supervision. Neither officials, nor users, nor citizens are called upon to give their opinion. The diversity of the legislation within each State further complicates safety matters and increases the risk factor. As far as we are concerned, it is important for the principle of precaution and of maximum safety to have priority. This is true, particularly for the transportation of radioactive waste, which is dealt with in France with intolerable insouciance, particularly in the case at The Hague, with little respect for the health of railway workers and the general public. Today, then, it is a matter of urgency to put an end to privatisation, to increase staff levels, and to give these people proper training, to enforce compulsory budgets reserved for the maintenance and supervision thereof, to set up user/professional committees to supervise traffic, to enforce an official right of veto with regard to goods transfers when real risks are involved. This would make it possible to take preventative action rather than waiting for accidents to happen, as they will, more and more, if no action is taken involving the authorities and the general public.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Our abstention on this report on the situation in Iraq is basically the result of the contradictions that remain in it. Two main reasons stand out: The first concerns certain positive aspects of the report, namely support for the decision to lift the sanctions on Iraq, except for the arms embargo, but in a mitigated manner. The terrible conditions of life there, however, mean that every effort must be made to put an end to the economic and trade sanctions, for humanitarian reasons. The second has to do with the negative aspects, revealing the European Union’s difficulty in freeing itself from its dependent position vis-à-vis American interests, an example of which is the House’s rejection of the amendments we tabled, namely the proposal to hold an international enquiry into the health and environmental consequences of American and British bombing in 1991, due, specifically, to the use of depleted uranium weapons. A further negative point is the clear lack of condemnation of the bombing raids that Iraq still suffers periodically.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I cannot support the draft directive in its present form. Article 3 lays down the concentration ceilings. Since these ceilings are supposed to apply to all cigarettes manufactured in the EU, the products destined for export will also become subject to these ceilings on or before 1 January 2007. This directive is engaging in overkill. The Union should not regulate the manufacture of products for export to countries outside the EU to such an extent. In the federal state of Rhineland-Palatinate alone, the tobacco industry achieves an annual turnover of some M 1.5 million. In the largest city in my region 1 250 people are directly employed by a tobacco company. Its suppliers in the region, such as printers and packaging manufacturers, are all small and medium-sized businesses. Were the directive to enter into force and the ceilings also to apply to cigarettes intended for export, thousands of jobs would be lost in that structurally fragile region alone. Whilst cigarette manufacturers are certainly required to inform and warn consumers, it must nevertheless remain possible to go on exporting products with higher concentrations to countries where higher ceilings apply. The serious restriction of export activity that results from this new directive will be severely detrimental to the European economy.

Political group: PPE-DE