GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I start by pointing out once again that there is a connection between the 1 January 2002, when notes and coins will make the euro a tangible reality for all our citizens, the Maastricht criteria and the Stability and Growth Pact. That we now have a stable euro for the whole of the euro zone is due both to the steady hand of the European Central Bank and the fact that the Stability and Growth Pact was the right pact. For me, reducing debt means taking responsibility for the future. For me, reducing debt and reducing the deficit each year mean a radical change of policy, because for years now we have sold the future down the river in our economic and budgetary policies, using the young generation in each country as packhorses, rather than lifting the burden from their shoulders and opening up future prospects through balanced budgets and surpluses. The Stability and Growth Pact is therefore a question of responsibility for the future. On the other hand – if we are to be perfectly honest – it is a really successful binding framework to guard against covetousness and opportunism in day-to-day politics. It is also an important framework to guard against political misconduct in day-to-day politics and it is also an important framework for a proactive financial, budgetary and economic policy debate in our Member States. Since the euro, since the Stability and Growth Pact, budgetary policy is talked about far more openly, the deficit is talked about far more openly, the connection between budgetary, financial, economic and structural policy is talked about far more openly and the necessary reforms are being implemented proactively in order to achieve a different objective. One group is not being played off against another, which is why I am delighted – and I trust that I shall not be misunderstood now that several growth figures are back for discussion because they are being revised – that we are also debating the Stability and Growth Pact and the convergence criteria in the Chamber at the moment, because it shows our people and the public – including politicians – that changes to growth figures do not mean change to the stability and convergence criteria. The Stability and Growth Pact is not a day-to-day short-term political football and it cannot be changed as and when it becomes difficult to implement and take the next step. Nor is there any place for lassitude in making adjustments. I should like to call on everyone to put an end to the lassitude which has set in. More structural reforms are urgently needed because we need to move from one-off effects to sustainability. We need to reduce taxes, but not at the expense of the Stability and Growth Pact. We also need to ensure that lip service – and this comment is addressed to the Council – to more radical reforms in pensions and extending the three pillar model at European level is at last followed by deeds so that we can continue on this path to success.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I would like to take up some points made by Mr Dell'Alba and also say something about Wednesday’s sitting. Not only is Wednesday’s agenda completely overbooked, but important reports – such as the Sjöstedt report on natural habitats, as well as others – are being handled without debate, which is wrong to my mind. This can be put down to the disastrous decision to cancel Friday sittings, which I would like to take this opportunity to highlight. ***

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this is not a formal request, it is an unavoidable comment about the way this House deals with important matters. We can only vote here on things that have really been worked through in committee. It really is unacceptable to work like this in this Chamber! (Applause)

Political group: PSE
This report should call for testing to be imposed, in order to end the tragedy of the around 2 000 deaths and the more than 18 000 serious injuries that occur in road traffic accidents across the EU every year. After more than twenty years of debates, the Commission considers itself to be satisfied with a voluntary agreement with the European motor vehicle industry – and is reluctant to submit a legislative proposal – which we feel is unacceptable. The consequences of this inaction are proving to be serious. The phase A reduction from four tests to two, unlike the proposal by the European Enhanced Safety Vehicle Committee, will mean a 75% decrease in lives saved, added to the fact that in only 10 years, the objectives proposed by this body will be achieved. Only a framework directive can guarantee the effective protection of pedestrians in the EU and this is why we are abstaining on the report that has now been approved and which insists on this voluntary agreement.

Political group: GUE-NGL
This report makes a critical analysis of the proposal for a recommendation on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council recommendation concerning the implementation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Europe and tables various amendments which, for the most part, deserve our support. They deserve our support for highlighting the importance of our coastal areas, the causes of degradation and destruction that we are now seeing in various areas and the new dangers resulting from global warming and climate change, which pose perhaps the greatest threat to Europe’s coastal areas. Nevertheless, it must also be emphasised that the decline in fishing and in related industries, which are fundamental factors for socio-economic cohesion in many of these areas that depend on fishing, are making them highly vulnerable. Therefore, although the report is, as the rapporteur states, a first, crucial step in protecting Europe’s coastal areas, the Member States must also be committed to achieving this and to ensuring a degree of coordination between the various instruments to be used. Nevertheless, we have some reservations about the measures described by the rapporteur, specifically those concerning a binding common strategy, since the Member States’ role and capacity for action in this entire process are far from clear.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am sorry to have arrived late, but that is because we currently have not only mining waste to deal with, but also – basically, indeed, anticipating the next parliamentary term – and again, with our REACH system, in other words with chemicals policy. I have just been spending the evening with BASF, a major chemicals business, and have had to leave them in a rush in order to get here. The Group of the is very happy with the legislation we now have on waste from the mineral-extracting industry. What we in Europe need is unified standards for the management of this waste, which will not only lead to greater similarity between the conditions under which companies compete in the Member States, but will also, at the same time, improve the public’s living conditions and their environment. The Committee’s deliberations generally focussed on the definition of what is meant by waste and on the financial guarantees to be provided by the industry, but a broad majority backed what we agreed on, and there was general agreement on it; we hope that the plenary will tomorrow follow us in that agreement. We want every company to be obliged to ensure that it is able to repair any damage to the environment for which it is responsible. We do not insist that only one form of financial surety should be possible. Although we have left a great deal of leeway and many options, the Member States and the Commission must guarantee to us that this will work. When it came to defining mining waste, we took on board everything from everyone who engaged in the discussion process – the industry, the environmental NGOs, the Court of Justice, and, not least, the Commission. There is no question of us in the Committee having voted to reinvent existing legislation; quite the contrary, that is precisely what we have avoided. We have made a number of improvements to the Commission proposal with environmental considerations in mind. We have made the connection between ecology and economy, something that Social Democrats have always been keen to do. The fact that the plenary has only 20 amendments from the groups to vote on testifies to the good work we have done in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. I found working on this dossier with my fellow Members of the Committee a very pleasant experience; the Commission, too, was very helpful on many occasions, and so let me now express my warm thanks for that.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, first of all, I want to emphasise that I am not speaking on behalf of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party. There are a good few of our members who have genuinely attended to this issue, who are on the way here to our debate today but who will not perhaps be in time for the vote. I personally believe that we shall be adopting too many amendments. If we examine research programmes and research issues, there is scarcely any research programme in the whole of Europe that is so driven by politicians. That is in total contrast to, for example, the assessment made by Manuel Castells – yes, it is legitimate to call him a sociologist – together with the Finnish philosopher Pekka Himanen as to why Finland is successful as an information society. In their perhaps otherwise rather vague book, they observe that our technology and innovation policy are successful because we have a complete and autonomous centre for technical development. That is something which I think invites reflection. In other contexts, it is usual to applaud Finnish innovation policy. I think that a certain lesson can be drawn from this. In addition, I want to emphasise an aspect of this proposal that particularly bothers me, namely that the social research proposed would certainly be allocated to the wrong place, under the Information Society DG. Social research does not belong in that context. I do not properly understand how this has happened. We are also aware that interest in research issues has, to a very large extent, revolved around stem cell research. Today, we can adopt a position on the Caudron proposal in peace and quiet. I personally view the committee’s proposal as being well balanced. The committee’s proposal also shows the modesty and respect that is required when we debate research issues. I think that those who say that we should now concentrate first and foremost upon stem cells from adults are not showing the required modesty faced with this new area. In the course of the work in the Temporary Committee on Human Genetics, I learned that we know extremely little. We must adhere to the old principles and proceed further within the various frameworks. Furthermore, I learned that the research projects for both forms of stem cells are dependent upon each other. It must therefore be possible for them to be given the same priority. That, I believe, is extremely important if we are to be able to move ahead as a successful society. I hope that these comments are not too alarming, but that they lead to reflection on the part of all who are interested in our researchers’ really being able to carry out good research.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, my favourite Commissioner, when I bought new tyres for my car six months ago I decided to buy tyres with a 71 decibel noise rating. That is 3 decibels less than we are to adopt for the year 2005 tomorrow. Mr Commissioner, I am at a loss to explain to anyone why there are already tyres on the market that are 3 decibels below the standard we are to adopt for 2005. Some say the tyre may be quiet, but it is unsafe and also uses more fuel. That is not true! The tyre I bought has a rolling resistance far below the average and it also has grip values and aquaplaning values that are much better than the average. It is therefore a quiet, low consumption and, at the same time, safe tyre. It is also advertised on the tyre itself – I think rightly so: reducing CO2. So more can be done than proposed. To that extent I find the compromise just about acceptable. You and the Commission really ought to go and look at what is available on the market. Then you should put forward as soon as possible a fresh proposal for a further reduction in noise – while maintaining the standard of safety – and I think Parliament will then happily go that way with you.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr Cohn-Bendit raises a very important point because this is an issue on which decisions may well be made before our September II part-session. We know that Member States are under great pressure at present and the matter needs to be dealt with. At the same time, it was the view of the Conference of Presidents last week – and I believe it would be the view of this House – that we need to have a full debate on the current situation regarding a possible armed attack on Iraq. I would ask you, Mr President, either to take up Mr Barón Crespo's suggestion or to try to find a way of scheduling such a debate on the International Criminal Court this week without eating into the time foreseen for the debate on Iraq. (Parliament rejected the proposal) President. – Although that has been rejected, I understand from the explanations that were given earlier that there is a consensus that the issue should be dealt with. We can raise it, as suggested, in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. It can look into the matter and we can return to this at the second September part-session.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we now know that the use of certain substances in livestock can have very dangerous effects on the human organism. Moreover, the statement made by the Commission on the state of progress in the fight against BSE clearly demonstrates that, where prevention is possible, it is always far more effective than intervention after the event; as the saying goes, prevention is better than cure. So we must be particularly vigilant with regard to the substances that are administered to livestock. This vigilance must be practised across the board, from veterinary treatment to husbandry practices. Recent studies have shown that oestradiol 17β is carcinogenic. It is therefore imperative that the use of this substance should be strictly prohibited in any livestock intended for human consumption and that all imports of meat from non-EU countries should be monitored. Long before the BSE crisis we are now experiencing, I vigorously upheld two principles in this House: the first was the precautionary principle, as the best means of protecting consumers and preventing panic, which, as we have seen, has disastrous effects on human behaviour and on the farming sector, and the principle of supporting scientific research in order to acquire within the shortest possible time the most accurate data on which to base our decisions. The report that the honourable Member, Mr Olsson, has presented to us focuses on these two principles, and I find that gratifying. There are indeed doubts about five other hormones, and it is important that the scientific research in this field should be undertaken without delay. However, in the absence of definitive findings, it is absolutely essential that the temporary ban on the use of these substances for the treatment of livestock should be renewed and that the utmost care be taken with any derogations.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the subject of the proposal for a directive, as we all know, was scientific research. It comprised numerous obligations and, worse still, numerous prohibitions. The field of science, however, by its very nature, does not lend itself to regulation, because it is generally unpredictable. That is why I have voted against several articles and against the proposal as a whole, because it is dangerous to vote for rules which give the impression that they can be applied, when they cannot. That disrupts the legal system.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, I wanted to put a question supplementary to Mr Ebner’s, one concerning development aid, which is your core responsibility. To what extent does water policy, relating not only to drinking water but also to water for agriculture, play a pivotal role in two especially important war zones that we have to deal with at present, namely the area around the Euphrates and the Tigris – which also involves Turkey – and the Palestinian problem as a whole? I wanted to ask you whether you are conducting separate negotiations in these areas, where water both has an important part to play in peacemaking and could also trigger armed conflicts.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, four years after the ‘Lisbon Strategy’, which was approved during the Portuguese presidency and which raised so many hopes, the socio-economic situation in the Community, particularly in Portugal, has deteriorated significantly, and not one single objective has been implemented. The only decisions that have been approved are liberalisations and privatisations, measures that have reduced job security and increased attacks on public services. In other words, this is the neo-liberal agenda of Europe’s employers, the agenda of the Union of Industrial and Employer’s Confederations in Europe, the agenda of the captains of industry, which has become the be-all and end-all of the EU’s economic and social policy. Another Spring Summit will soon be upon us, yet, from what we see in the Commission’s report, the economic recipe will be ‘more of the same’. Support will continue for the process of liberalisation and privatisation in numerous sectors, from transport to energy, from postal services to telecommunications. Blatant bias is shown against the public sector; the struggle of the workers and of others affected by these anti-social policies is ignored; social issues are deemed of secondary importance; and employment policy is based on making work more flexible, on unstable work and on wage restraints. Unemployment has risen and the jobs that have been created are scarce. The number of workers on short-term contracts has risen by four million and of those working part time by two million. Multinationals continue their relocations, which exacerbate unemployment and hamper development in many regions, as is currently happening in my country. The hardest hit are women and young people. Hence our insistence that the Lisbon Strategy must be revised and that a moratorium be placed on liberalisations, in order that economies can be revived and demand can be sustained. This is also why we have insisted on pressing for the Stability Pact to be suspended, and replaced by a social progress and employment pact, in line with the objectives of full employment, sustained economic development and economic and social cohesion. This is the only way in which we will see more training, more education, more innovation and more research, which are the prerequisites for sustained development in the EU.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The President-in-Office of the Council is very receptive to the points we are making but her colleagues in the Council, generally, have very little to say about subsidiarity in a way that pleases us. This is the kind of thing that makes an increasing part of the population of Scotland recognise that being a Member State is a much better idea than being a constitutional region. However, things standing as they do, I would ask the President-in-Office if she would be prepared to discuss with colleagues the oddity of the structure of the Committee of the Regions which, instead of representing the regions in some proportion to their size, represents the states according to digressive proportionality. Denmark, which is already a Member State, has twice as many Members in the Committee of the Regions as Scotland has. Even Luxembourg has more! I do not know the difference between the regions of Luxembourg intimately, but I dare say they are less than the difference between the regions of Scotland.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, bad farming practice was the root cause of the foot and mouth outbreak. Pigs were fed improperly treated swill, which was bad farming practice. Diseased pigs were not reported – bad farming practice. Neighbouring sheep became infected. Bad farming practice was compounded by stupidity when pigs which no longer showed physical symptoms but could still transmit the disease were sent to an abattoir. Other animals became infected and this delayed the identification of the source of the outbreak. The outbreak farm was so severely infected that it was six months before it was safe to disinfect it. Bad farming practice led to a situation where the disease was spreadeagled over 57 farms in 16 counties by the time its presence was confirmed. The result was the worst foot and mouth outbreak ever recorded, well beyond the contingency planning of any Member State. The report does not shirk the horrendous consequences to farmers and to rural businesses, the heartache, the trauma and the financial losses. Nor does the report shirk the operational problems faced by government. No one pretends that there were not mistakes of policy and failures in implementation, but the lessons-to-be-learned inquiry clearly shows that decisions made were justified by the available evidence at the time. The report is particularly good – indeed it is its main strength – on the measures needed to combat any future outbreak. Of special importance is the need for effective monitoring of animal movements and traceability. That said, regrettably the report contains errors of fact. These relate to the legality and effectiveness of the contiguous cull. They also relate to allegations of animal welfare abuses and to biosecurity lapses allowing further spread of the disease. Eight amendments have been tabled to correct these errors. As the Chair said so revealingly during the committee vote, we are not dealing with reality. Hearsay and hindsight have been the chief witnesses. The reality is that the contiguous cull was legal. It was legal under UK law; it was legal under European law. The cull was an essential weapon in bringing the disease under control. Vaccination would not have worked in the UK situation. The reality is that the heroic efforts of government officials, veterinarians, farmers, police, the military and many others brought the disease under control more quickly than the smaller outbreak in the UK which occurred in 1966-68. That was the reality.

Political group: PSE