GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like first of all to thank my colleague, Mrs Zrihen, for the excellent work she has done and, at the same time, to welcome the willingness of both the Council and the Commission to again consider industrial policy as one of the European Union’s major concerns. We should not forget that we are back here with the very foundations of European integration. It was the integration of the key industrial sectors of the time, coal and steel, that sealed our destiny as a Community. Since then, our industrial policy ambitions have, however, fallen short because only the commercial approach, that of competition and free trade, has prevailed, and I concede that this has brought benefits. One of the results, in the context of the far-reaching and inevitable industrial changes we are experiencing, has, however, been a complete failure to anticipate their effects, especially in terms of employment, and the waves of collective redundancies we are seeing everywhere in the Europe of the Fifteen bear witness to that, as has just been underlined. Tomorrow, it will affect the countries joining the European Union if we do not respond. Our declared ambitions for growth, more and better jobs and social cohesion, to quote the Lisbon objectives, need us to define a new industrial policy for the Union. That is crucial both for employment and for the Union’s social and territorial cohesion. Both sides of industry are willing to participate in defining those objectives as part of a genuine action plan, as the report recommends. I would like to stress two points on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, first of all the question of industrial competitiveness. This is central and cannot be reduced to cost cutting alone, as some seem to think. It is a composite idea that must take full account of the principles on which the European social model is based, namely all the social factors mentioned by Mrs Zrihen just now, and I am not going to repeat them. Those factors are quite different from objective costs. They are productive factors in their own right and must be given the same attention as the development of research and the application of new technologies. The second point is the need to promote an integrated industrial policy: major European projects, the promotion of technology platforms, etc. must go hand in hand with territorial approaches in terms of territorial balance and consistency with employment policies, whether it be in the framework of the open coordination method or of more binding procedures, as Mr Langen seems to want. Finally, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say that the lack of an industrial policy and therefore of the benefits that might be expected from it, is one of the reasons why many of our European fellow citizens are increasingly losing confidence in our institutions, including this one, since we are supposed to represent them in their most legitimate interests, the first of which is employment.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would firstly like to express my gratitude for the fact that this debate has been scheduled in order to analyse the problems relating to the heat wave we have suffered this summer. This heat wave has furthermore led to a series of disasters, some of which are now recurrent, such as forest fires. I would ask that we separate, on the one hand, the effects of this year’s heat wave from, on the other, a problem which is endemic in the south of Europe, in the Mediterranean countries: the problem of forest fires. These forest fires may have become more frequent as a result of climate change, but also as a result of change in the circumstances of the forests and the rural environment. The depopulation of rural areas is a reality. The non-use of wood produced in the Mediterranean forest, which is no longer economically viable, is a reality. Therefore, the forest ceases to have an economic function and takes on an environmental role, which is also very important. But the circumstances are different: depopulation takes away farmers, who – let us not forget – are the main protectors of the forest and of nature. The farmer is the first person to confront a forest fire. Since we are talking about an endemic affliction it is important to adopt emergency measures: they would serve as antibiotics. But what we really need for this type of affliction is ‘vaccines’. In this case, the vaccines would take the form of preventative measures and any resources which can act quickly in the event of forest fires. Commissioner, this year we have seen the devastating effects of forest fires. You have spoken of updating the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Funds, in part, in order to deal with these effects. I would ask you also to think of the Community Initiative for Rural Development (Leader), and how this initiative – which is applied in certain regions in particular – could also be applied to areas which have been devastated by forest fires. I also believe that the measures adopted in this regard within the framework of the common agricultural policy have been positive, in relation to the areas which have had the greatest drought problems. I would also like to acknowledge the work of the fire-fighters, forest guards and volunteers, who have contributed to tackling the problem of forest fires. Just as we ask that in any project there be an environmental impact study, this environmental impact should be extended to the possible impact of forest fires which – I repeat – are an endemic evil in the countries of the south of Europe, the Mediterranean countries.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, as a citizen of the Spanish state, I wish to tell this Parliament that the views of the majority of my fellow citizens are by no means represented by the positions that the Spanish Prime Minister, José Maria Aznar, is trying to impose. These call for the implementation of the voting system set out in Nice – precisely the opposite of the one approved by the Commission, which involves a double majority of States and citizens. In his attempt to keep this arbitrary power of veto, which was won at serious cost to the Spanish representation in this Parliament, Mr Aznar will be representing himself alone and will be confirming his status as the most unhelpful and intransigent political leader in Europe. José Maria Aznar is trying fraudulently to hijack the draft European Constitution to block the progress of the national governments of Galicia, the Basque Country and Catalonia in the context of a multinational State, attempting to have things included in the draft that, if accepted, would prevent the future reunification of Ireland, because it would change the borders of the United Kingdom and of Ireland and would also prevent Gibraltar being handed back to the Spanish State. I will conclude by recalling that yesterday fifteen more immigrants perished off the coasts of the Spanish State and I believe that we should bear this fact in mind in order to implement the political measures necessary to prevent any repetition of such events.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, food safety will, without a doubt, be high on the agenda in the coming years. If we consider the recent scandals, the big question is whether the Commission would have been able to prevent them. The Food and Veterinary Office in Dublin has been in existence for a number of years. What kind of inspections does it carry out precisely? How often are they carried out? Is there room for improvement? Would the Commission be able to comment on this? The imports of food, of meat from other countries, have already been mentioned. Does the Food and Veterinary Office in Dublin have sufficient staff to inspect them? I should also like to raise the issue of the Food Safety Authority. Once this is fully up and running, it will need to analyse all the production processes and see whether they can be improved. This Authority will also need to issue recommendations to the Food and Veterinary Office in Dublin about the way in which the inspection procedures can be improved still further. In fact, cooperation with the Member States will also be required. However, the most important thing is for the Office to perform its task of implementing existing legislation well. In the light of increasing liberalisation, we will obviously be facing ever growing imports and, in my view, ever greater risks as a result. Another issue is production in Europe itself. The idea that the entire production chain is to be monitored is increasingly taking root in different countries. This is referred to as ‘integrated production’. Why does the Commission not prescribe any standards in this respect? What exactly is integrated production in a European context? How can we monitor every link in the production chain? There is legislation in Europe governing organic production in which this is laid down. In a slightly different area, there is legislation in Europe which defines precisely what regional products are. Why, therefore, do we not have legislation which identifies what integrated production is by means of a quality mark? Then we would be able to trace everything promptly. Moreover, the European consumer would be able to express a preference for European products from European farmers.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I certainly welcome this report and I gave it a lot of support in the Environment Committee. I creates a proper framework in which we can work in the long term to reduce emissions. The vast majority of the amendments I can support. There are one or two that went through that I have some doubts about, particularly Amendment No 7, which I cannot see as being environmental at all, or as contributing to the overall attempt to reduce the amount of ozone-depleting substances at ground level anywhere in the Union. I want to come to the issue which Mr Davies has addressed, namely, where we should start from. With what targets are we to start? Mr President, a series of quite practical and well-argued and debated figures were arrived at just before Christmas at Gothenburg under the UN/ECE protocol, and it seems to me that is the logical place to start. It would not to my mind be the right place to finish, but it certainly would be the right place to start and it is the reason why I was convinced when I was there in the debate in the Industry Committee, as none of my colleagues from the Environment Committee were, that it was the right place to start. It seems to me that the Commission figures are aspirational. Yes, we could go there – we should be trying to go there, but I do not think we should be starting there. We should be starting with the UN/ECE figures, with the Gothenburg protocol and revising them as is proposed by Mrs Myller in her report.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the report by Mrs Miguélez Ramos outlines a complete, lucid and intelligent framework for EU fishing in international waters. It leads us, with irrefutable logic, to the conclusion that the European Union must have an increasingly active fisheries policy in this field, to the contrary of what many critics or sceptics have said. This policy must even be brought to bear on the European Union’s diplomatic efforts, particularly where its trade policy is concerned. The European Union cannot do without international fishing grounds and the agreements negotiated with third countries, in the exclusive economic zones of these same countries. Those who are sceptical and critical of this policy seem to be ignoring the evidence provided by the report. This evidence states that fishing on the high seas by the European Union fleet provides work for 40 650 workers and that the catches total 2.7 million tonnes per year. The financial effort from the budget of the European Union is, nevertheless, modest, since it only came to EUR 276.1 million in 2001. If EU vessels stop fishing in international waters, others would definitely take their place, without the ecological or social concerns that boats from the European Union have. It is nevertheless crucial that, in exploiting international waters and the exclusive economic zones of other countries, European Union boats meet high ecological and social criteria and conditions, not least with regard to conserving fish resources. The European Union must set an example in complying with international agreements and must give a decisive boost to the regulation of international fishing. Secondly and lastly, the European Union must concentrate its efforts on research and on monitoring international waters, because unless the European Union or the international bodies in which it participates do not do so, illegal fishing will always take place in these waters place and they will always contain a no man's land, or in this case, no man's waters.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I could not agree more with the observations made by Mr Wiebenga. The least we can do is to carefully examine once more how we have filled Fridays. But I would add – also because a number of misconceptions have made their way into the media – that I am not one of those people who would like to solve the ‘Strasbourg’ discussion via the back door, but that I do belong to the group of people who want to examine, via a vote, whether we can hold a proper sitting in Strasbourg on a Friday, which also involves our French delegates. I wanted to highlight these two aspects. But that also means – and I must get this off my chest – that all those Members who criticised me last time because I had levelled criticism at them, must have left the Chamber before 12.00. (The last vote was held after 12.00.) That was very hurtful because, unfortunately, the activists, comprising pro-Europeans from my own country and a large number of anti-Europeans, had left by the time the roll-call vote was held. Reference can be made to the last roll-call vote for this. Let us examine in a fair manner and through sound discussion how we can fill this part-session.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, on behalf of the French MEPs, I should like, in my turn, to offer our condolences to the Spanish Government, to our fellow MEPs and to yourself, Commissioner. I turn now to the document submitted to us. Allow me first of all to congratulate the rapporteur who, on a sensitive subject, has succeeded in preparing a document that is balanced and, I think, satisfactory to employed persons, self-employed persons and members of their families. This document will enable the current system to be updated in a very positive way and, as the rapporteur said, will put an end to the differing interpretations at national level, while making it easier for our fellow citizens to move about. Moreover, it is based upon the decisions of the Court of Justice, defining the non-exportable character of certain benefits. The latter have three characteristics: their specificity, their non-contributory character and the fact that they are in line with each country’s level of income. I understand the position of our Dutch fellow MEPs where a number of the benefits are concerned. It has to be understood, however, that, in a system of social benefits, there are, on the one hand, what are termed legal benefits, having to do with retirement and sickness and, on the other hand, benefits of another type, termed non-contributory and referred to in France as optional benefits. All countries have benefits of this type. When I was responsible for social matters in France, I created what was termed a parental presence benefit. For families suddenly finding themselves with a disabled child, we created, in Paris, a benefit in the region of EUR 500 per month for 12 months. This benefit is now non-contributory and does not meet the criteria of exportability, meaning that, if a family with a disabled child goes tomorrow to Belgium or Spain where they are not granted a benefit of the same type, they will be hit very badly. That is why we must support Mrs Gillig’s report. In a certain number of cases not exclusively concerning our Dutch friends, we must also come up with bilateral solutions, for this issue has to do not only with freedom of movement and, therefore, greater intelligibility but also with social justice. That is why we must support the rapporteur’s amendment and why, Commissioner, we must also be able to benefit from your support. Indeed, you will appreciate that, for our fellow citizens, it is social justice that is at stake today.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the European Union is finally realising that there are serious social problems underlying the tragic situation in Columbia, specifically the need for the fair redistribution of wealth and land between the few who have everything and the many who have nothing. Clinton and Pastrana's ‘Plan Columbia’, which reinforces military structures for combating drug trafficking, has the effect of preserving this social imbalance, just as the paramilitaries, loyal allies of the Pastrana army and drug traffickers, preserve it. It is no coincidence that Carlos Castaño is friendly with the government and is head of the drug traffickers and paramilitaries. It is no coincidence, while the paramilitaries are murdering peasant farmers and political and democratic representatives, that, under the pretence of fighting drug trafficking, American spray planes are destroying the harvests with fumigation and forcing peasant farmers to leave their villages. If the European Union genuinely believes in the provisions of its Treaties and its recent Charter on justice and human rights, it must support the social claims of the Colombian people and oppose ‘Plan Columbia’, for it is a plan for war, not for peace. Ladies and gentlemen of the European Union, if no genuine redistribution of land is carried out in Columbia, even European Union aid will end up lining the pockets of the drug traffickers, of the large land owners and multinationals. This tragedy is about the redistribution of land and fair social justice.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the Lisbon process was important because it made a significant breakthrough by deciding to take an integrated approach to the economic employment and social policy dimensions to ensure that each was given an equal standing in terms of policy development. It is important that Barcelona does not backtrack on that commitment. It is important that Barcelona realises that if there is going be social cohesion, if we are going to reform and develop our European social model then the equilateral triangular approach to the development of Europe has to be maintained and developed. Specifically, I refer to paragraph 22 of the Bullmann report which deals with the question of services of general interest. It is extremely important in my view that this House gives strong support to that paragraph. This an area of the European economy which accounts for something like 16% of investment and close to 9% of employment. Of course it has to be reformed, but at the same time we have to ensure that the services which general interest deliver are delivered in an equitable, fair and a universal way. That cannot be done in an ad hoc way. It cannot be done by each Commissioner or each Council taking its own ad hoc approach. We need to take on board a proposal of this Parliament that we put in place a directive, not a one-fit-for-all directive, but a directive which would provide a framework for services of general interest, which would establish the principles on which they are to be provided and which would put on an institutional basis an evaluation of how those services are delivered.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should to express my thanks to the President of the Council for the precision with which he answered my question. I should like to ask the supplementary question of whether you consider that the violation of the human rights of women that the Saudi government systematically carries out deserves to be condemned.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, if human rights form the core of European values, this annual report on human rights represents one of the most important dates of the year within this European Parliament. I congratulate Mr van den Bos on his work, struggling as he was with the large number of competing priorities and demands. It remains a problem for Parliament on how far individual countries should be named in this report. Why should, for example, freedom of religion be criticised in Laos, Vietnam and Pakistan, but not in Turkmenistan or Saudi Arabia? The resolution identifies some structural changes at EU level which could genuinely improve enforcement of human rights, including better operation of the human rights clause between the EU and third countries, inclusion of the European Parliament in discussion of the operational programme on human rights, and the introduction of benchmarks which enable EU action short of the two often blunt instruments of sanctions policies or suspension of aid. I hope the Commission will consider these in detail. Finally, just as Parliament voted earlier today in favour of a UN Convention on disability, it is right that the abuse of the human rights of people with disabilities are represented within this comprehensive resolution. This is not just about economic and social rights, but about people all over the world who have lost their lives or who have been subject to abuse simply because they are disabled. For example, abuse occurs in residential institutions where people are deprived of basic human dignity, including the use of caged beds in psychiatric institutions in countries which will next year become full members of the European Union. On this and all the issues identified in this report, human rights are indivisible within Europe as well as elsewhere in the world.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, the Stability Pact is dead. It could be regretted that it was destroyed by the European Council, in relation to the specific difficulties of two large countries, thus violating the credibility of the institutions based on a system of rules accepted by all. However, as far as its form is concerned, this Pact has always been the subject of an intergovernmental agreement rather than control by our Parliament, the only representative of the sovereignty of the people of Europe. What ‘intergovernmentality’ has done, Mr Karas, is ruin it. Federalists and will not lament the death of this Pact – a Pact that President Prodi himself yesterday described as stupid – particularly as since the Amsterdam summit we had criticised its content. It was indeed stupid, doubly so in fact. In the current situation, it aggravates the recessions by penalising the countries that are seeking to support the actual demand on the Union’s internal market, especially in the large countries with a particular responsibility from this point of view. Instead, it would be better to penalise the countries that have deficits in periods of growth. From a structural point of view, a genuine Stability Pact should shelter future investments and in particular the enormous investments required to respect the Kyoto criteria. There is no time to dither now. A new, intelligent pact must be adopted. Only a pact of this nature will merit inclusion in the third part of the Constitution. Indeed, only an intelligent Constitution will merit the approval and respect of the citizens of Europe. The pact must be contra-cyclic and, at the same time, must not hinder the countries in difficulty. On the contrary, it must penalise the countries that abuse their facilities and in this way, through a sort of climatic golden rule, shelter future investments from the current situation.

Political group: Verts-ALE