GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, I wish to congratulate all our rapporteurs on their excellent work and to offer my sincere thanks to the Commission for its cooperation. I should like to emphasise the constructive and genuinely European attitude demonstrated by our fellow Member, Mr McCartin, and the support given by the staff of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Agriculture. The McCartin report is an important part of the process of reforming the common policy. I hope that the remaining European institutions take due account of this, preparing the necessary measures for the phasing out of refunds for farm exports and ensuring that these refunds are used instead for the purpose laid down by the Treaty, which is to ensure a reasonable standard of living for the rural population. I should like to say, however, that where fraud in the food industry is concerned, we need to go considerably further. Speaking of dairy products – a sector that is quite crucial to the Azores – I cannot accept a situation in which farmers live in a state of constant fear of being fined for overproduction while European criminal organisations are falsifying tens of thousands of tons of butter with the complicity of the major European dairy product groups and while the dairy industry is receiving subsidies for powdered milk, which is basically whey, while major dairy produce companies are selling the equivalent of hundreds of millions of litres of what purport to be dairy products, but are, in fact, counterfeit products that are not made from milk. Nor can I accept that the Commission has had very little or nothing to say on this issue! In addition, if we look at other fields, such as oil, wine, or even meat, the picture is not very different. Fraud in the food industry, which is often perpetrated in order to obtain export or disposal refunds, is now one of the greatest problems facing the budgetary control of agriculture. We therefore urge the Commission to rapidly establish an initiative in this field that will enable this state of affairs to be brought to an end.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the World Assembly on Ageing is obviously very important in that it is expected to provide policy guidelines to guarantee the rights of the elderly and their quality of life and, most importantly, the fight against discrimination. As Commissioner Anna Diamantopoulou said in Madrid on Monday, with people living longer and enjoying better health, we have room for a new life model, a new society which pro-actively reflects technological and scientific achievement. However, that is not the case today. On the contrary, every day Cassandras everywhere are peddling doom and gloom, with prophesies of a planet drowning under the weight of 6 billion people, of wealth-creating resources being exhausted, of the natural environment being destroyed, of poor nations increasing and multiplying while we in the developed world grow old and die out and our insurance systems crumble. The solution offered by Malthusianists is to reduce the birth rate in third world countries and increase our own birth rates. Such are the ethics of the developed world. My own view is that there is a direct correlation between the uneven distribution of people on the planet and the demographic problem on the one hand and the development and distribution of the planet's resources and the question of social justice, education, equality of the sexes, human rights and development standards, on the other. The future of the planet is clearly not under threat from the starving children of the Third World or the ageing population; it is under threat from consumer standards and the way of life of the third of the earth's population who live in the developed world. That is where we need to intervene and that is where we need a new demographic policy. However, until such time as we have the integrated policy of sustainable development which the Commissioner referred to, we should follow the sound advice of those who propose that we abandon our restrictive immigration policy and give immigrants full social and political rights. The population and workforce in Sweden and Germany would have been seriously depleted without their policy of integrating immigrants and fully recognising the right of women to work. Strengthening these two policies could resolve the problems in the short term. However, they will only be resolved in the long term under a fair – and very different – system of economic and social development.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this is an important report and the work of a professional. It is, however, very general in nature, and I would like to touch on something fairly concrete in this issue. I thus thought I would speak about gas, and a little about Russia. The share of renewable energy in the European Union will have doubled in ten years’ time from 6% to 12%, and in reducing carbon dioxide emissions an important and really decisive factor is held to be the development of combined electricity and heat plants using coal and natural gas as fuels. In my own country, wood chip energy production from waste wood is now becoming very competitive and important. Investigations show that the use of gas is growing in the Union, but at the same time the Union will have run out of this resource in 10 – 20 years’ time. Russia is our biggest importer, and it is there that the world’s largest deposits of gas are to be found, many of which are located relatively nearby, in northern Russia, Siberia and the Barents Sea region. It is predicted that the additional need for gas will be approximately 150 billion cubic metres in 2020, twenty years from now. Russia’s gas production will also start declining in a few years’ time. Production will therefore decline in both the EU and Russia, but our requirements will grow. To meet the gas consumption requirement for this region we will perhaps need four or five pipelines of additional gas. This is precisely the problem. With Russia we have a partnership and cooperation agreement, which cannot be implemented without concrete objectives. At the same time, the situation in Russia is confused, though, hopefully, after the elections it will have recovered to some extent. We would have a common target for investment here: gas, which we badly need and whose new production and satellite regions in the north are quite near us. In fact it might be said that Russia must turn to its resources in the north as in the south there appears to be an on-going period of fighting and wars. In other words, Russia will turn to a region where these problems do not exist. The European Union is also offering a cooperative hand in the light of the northern dimension. I therefore propose that the Commission take forceful measures in this issue, and, at this stage, I would ask what the Commission has done to resolve the gas issue via Russia.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Group of the Europe People’s Party is of the opinion that Mrs Morgan’s approach, introducing last-minute changes, is not the best way to deal with such an important report. The Council has undertaken to provide a reply on Friday. Given the importance of this report, it would therefore be wisest to refer it back to the committee. This would allow for further reflection, taking account of the Council’s response, with a view to reaching the best possible solution. I urge Mrs Morgan to request that the report be referred back to the committee. I have already tried to convince her of the need for this. The Group will not give way on this point. It is opposed to the oral amendment.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, France’s ban on animal meal in feedingstuffs came far too late. In this situation, the only way to break the cycle of BSE infection is to place a complete ban on the use of animal meal as feed. As long as it cannot be guaranteed that meal from deceased animals is not being mixed with animal meal that is free from infection, then all animal meal must be banned for use as feed. One must not be wise after the event, but I find it extremely difficult in this debate not to think back to the beginning of the Nineties when, as the Swedish person responsible for the agricultural negotiations, I was forced to negotiate an opt-out because we in Sweden had a ban on the use of meal from deceased animals. We only just managed to obtain such an opt-out, but we managed it, even if we were laughed at to some extent and told that there was, of course, no danger. Now, no one is laughing any more. That was, in actual fact, how it was, Mr President-in-Office of the Council. You mentioned, of course, that a faulty production method was to blame and that it is for this reason that animal meal has been banned in France. That was why we, back home in Sweden, banned it a long time ago. It appeared that faulty is precisely what these production methods are, and they must be opposed from the beginning. I want to emphasise a further couple of points. In the resolution that I hope will be voted through tomorrow, there are some very important points. The first is that it must be possible to trace every raw material in every type of food back through the chain. In a situation such as that which has now arisen in France, and also earlier on in many other countries, it is important to be able to tell consumers where the products they buy come from and how their origins can be traced. This is an extremely important requirement, especially where the specific issue of BSE is concerned. Secondly, it is important to emphasise – and this is not some new idea – that anyone who consciously allows an animal that is sick, or that is suspected of being sick, to enter the food or feed chain is committing a criminal offence. Every food producer must be aware of this fact. Clearly, many people suffer, of course, in this situation, especially many farmers. In certain circumstances, it is necessary to slaughter the entire stock of animals, which must come as a real blow. It is also important to remember that the national systems for eradicating this terrible infection must include measures which properly compensate farmers for the financial losses they suffer in this connection. On this subject, I want to point out that those of us in the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party have tabled an amendment I hope will be voted through. In conclusion, I just want to thank Commissioner Byrne, who I think is doing a good job on this issue.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, as the Group of the , we have tabled a compromise resolution together with the other groups of the , the and the as we wanted to highlight and condemn the more striking, negative aspects of the behaviour of the companies discussed in the resolution, ABB-Alsthom and Goodyear Dunlop. The Goodyear case is not localised and limited to the industry in question: it concerns a thousand families who have lost their jobs overnight, and are without income or prospects for the future. The cases we are discussing today, like many others we have discussed here – and I fear they will not be the last – as you, Commissioner, reminded us, provide us with the opportunity to discuss the imperative need to supplement European legislation. An example is the directive on the information and consultation of workers which you mentioned, that has been awaiting a solution for years and upon which the European Parliament gave its opinion very clearly in April last year. I am also referring to the importance of reinforcing European legislation across the board by revising existing directives. I believe that the European Union and the Commission must ask the Council and the Member States to consider the procedures for implementing these directives in the different States as well. Italy is no exception – it is not one of the most advanced states when it comes to implementing directives – but there are many countries where the directives, which, in any case, only lay down minimum rights, are hardly implemented at all. This makes it possible for companies to relocate, even within the European Union, from one country to another where directives are less strictly applied, companies have greater benefits and workers are less well protected. And the result of this is social dumping. Therefore, we must keep tabs on the application of these directives and reinforce European coordination. All this confirms our conviction that something like sanctions, which we reiterated were very important when we gave our opinion on the information and consultation directive last year, can on no account be abandoned. Otherwise, I believe that the cases we are discussing today will multiply constantly, and that, one day, the European Union will have no control over them, particularly with regard to competition and change-inducing technologies, and this will contribute to higher unemployment and weaken social cohesion.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I have not heard such unanimity across the Chamber on an issue in quite some time. It seems that it is the French and German Governments that are the main supporters of lifting the arms embargo on China, as well as the controls on exports of dual-use nuclear technology. Given their track record over the past year, there are grounds for suspicion of any foreign policy initiatives that originate from these governments. I find it very worrying that in certain areas France and Germany seem to prefer the idea of a strategic partnership with countries such as China, rather than the United States. I am thinking of proposals relating to the Galileo project which have military implications. Why is it that the European Council has decided at this time that there is any reason to re-examine the EU's arms embargo against China? What particular positive developments in China have prompted this action? Of course we all want to see improved relations with China, but not at the expense of our own security. China still has a long way to go in introducing democracy and respect for human rights and convincing us that it wishes to be a peaceable partner in the international community. It is premature to consider any wholesale lifting of the arms embargo.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to offer Mr Ruffolo my warmest thanks for taking the initiative because, without such an effort on his part, we would have no own initiative report and we would not be able to talk about it today or ask for funds from the budget. So my warmest thanks. The report was adopted with a broad consensus, it has come at the right time and it represents a political challenge for everyone involved in it. And I hope that means a lot of people at all levels. Setting up an observatory for cultural cooperation and the proposed three-year cultural cooperation plan will, in the final analysis, be a gauge of just how seriously politicians at all levels are trying to maintain and develop a European area of culture. I am also delighted that two points have been included which I addressed in my report on the status of artists in 1992, Mrs Echerer. I called at that time for greater support for patrons, including through greater tax incentives. I called then – as I do now – for a long overdue study to be drafted on the approximation of taxes on works of art and the work of artists. Because we have social cohesion and are citizens of Europe, we need a European cultural policy and our amazing diversity must be highlighted time and time again. Project Europe shed its economic and technical orientation a long time ago. We desperately need to draft a common cultural policy and common education policy if we are to rekindle the soul of Europe, which has been choked by economic expediency and covered in a thick layer of bureaucratic dust at all levels, regional, local, national and even European, for far too long. Our citizens today simply want more beautiful things. More beautiful things will reawaken their enthusiasm for Europe and more culture costs a bit more. So please let us add something to the budget now. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the events that led up to the withdrawal of the motion on the moratorium are described and evaluated, in the resolution we are preparing to vote on, in a fairly neutral and rather polite way. I am afraid that the reasons behind the withdrawal of this resolution are, at the very least, suspect, and have more to do with a kind of boycott than the defence of principles. I truly hope that Parliament will be attentive to this subject, because it is clear that the attitude of some of the Member States has been ambiguous, to say the least, and it is therefore logical that Parliament – which from this point of view has always been quite consistent – must continue to be vigilant. As the Group of the , we have taken note of these events, as well as the somewhat half-hearted wording of this resolution, which, however, we consider it important to adopt, at least in order to indicate that there is a problem that we must continue to be active on. Nevertheless, I would stress once again that, from this point of view, the European Union’s ambiguity is apparent to everyone, and I therefore think that we should express ourselves in a much clearer way than we have in the resolution.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Commissioner, Mr President, just as certain small-scale conflicts receive poor media coverage, so certain categories of what are known as light weapons could be said to receive poor legislative and financial coverage. I mean that the legislation regulating them is insufficient and that they are cheap to buy. Why are we surprised, then, when it is this type of arms which keep these forgotten conflicts alive? Yet the number of victims alone should concern us, if it were not concealed by the effects of poverty. However, evidence that the world does have a conscience has emerged in the shape of the United Nations Programme of Action aimed at containing and controlling the transfers, or rather the trafficking of these light weapons which are responsible for extensive loss of human life. In the light of the current international situation, with the armed alliance in Afghanistan and the international fight against terrorism, there is even greater need for the Union to join and support this resolute, pioneering UN measure. The European Union’s military policy must be more than just defence measures controlled by senior military staff. It must, in essence, be based on the prevention and control of the arms trade by an arsenal of binding laws covering all areas of this industry. Our legislation must target arms brokering and export and detention licences, as well as extradition and police cooperation procedures, and national legislation governing these issues must be harmonised. Instead of attempting to intervene in blazing conflicts, would it not be better to defuse them before they ignite? The Union’s legislative structure would allow us to do this at the stage when we are still preparing for military action. Europe must seize the opportunity afforded here.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the principle of equality runs through all of the Union’s policies as a main theme and scientific activity must not be an exception. Therefore, we must welcome Mrs McNally’s report, as well as the corresponding Commission communication, and we hope that it will receive the full support of this House. I would like to highlight three points which seem to me to be important. The first relates to the fact that, as the report and communication point out, it is precisely in the countries of the South – Italy, Portugal and Spain – where the presence of women in the scientific field is most balanced, which shows us that, in science, it is important, as it is in life in general, not to trust in clichés. The second point refers to quotas. It is impossible to avoid quantitative elements in evaluating a policy, but quotas must be understood in a global way and in terms of trends, that is to say, as an objective in the medium or long term, as something to apply in general terms, but not as a rigid number to be imposed automatically in each consultative group, in each assessment and review group. Incentives, stimulus, promotion, the removal of obstacles and the elimination of prejudice must be pursued relentlessly. However, what we can never do is put the cart before the horse. It is the old problem of means and ends. The means must be adequate and proportionate and, above all, they must not endanger the most important thing, which is the quality, rigour and achievement of scientific activity. Lastly, the third point is that scientific method has no sex. Madame Curie thought in the same way as Lord Rutherford and Madame Kowaleska thought in the same way as Elie Cartán. We must do everything possible to balance the presence of women in the scientific field, but let us not seek short cuts which will cause us to lose our way. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Commission’s proposals are not in the interests of farming and could have serious consequences for family-based farming and for small and medium-sized farmers, unless some of their basic assumptions are revised. Instead of correcting the present imbalances in the distribution of aid amongst countries, areas of production and producers and instead of paying particular attention to the specific characteristics of countries such as Portugal, the intention is basically to ensure that the Community budget under the enlargement process is frozen and to take a step further towards liberalising the farm sector at world level, with a view to the forthcoming negotiations at the World Trade Organisation. One of the policy’s fundamental principles is to establish aid on the basis of historical reference criteria from recent years and to ensure its decoupling from production, which primarily benefits the large producers and the countries with the most advanced forms of farming and condemns the producers that lag behind, the small-scale and family farmers, to their current situation. Consequently, in addition to speeding up the process of concentrating production and land, this will set in stone the current inequalities in aid distribution in which Portugal suffers greatly, and encourage absentee land ownership and speculation on the market in farmland. It will promote unfair competition between the forms of productions entitled to aid and those that are not and create further hurdles to entering the sector, particularly for young farmers. We cannot accept this being converted from a policy of support for production to a policy of social handouts. The CAP reform that we want to see is quite different and we regret the fact that the opportunity provided by this mid-term review to establish such a reform has not been taken. Some of the amendments adopted by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development are to be welcomed but most of them are not. One of the most worrying is the report by Arlindo Cunha, which is dangerously similar to Commissioner Franz Fischler’s proposal. In fact, it not only fails to put forward a genuine proposal for modulation, it also accepts decoupling aid from production for some payments for arable crops and bovines. What is required is for instruments to regulate the market to be promoted, guaranteeing the maintenance of a price that is fair and that compensates for farm production, for the principle of Community preference to be guaranteed in order to protect the internal market, and for consumer safety and food sovereignty to be promoted, taking account of Portugal’s conditions and specific characteristics. We shall continue to fight to achieve these aims.

Political group: GUE-NGL