GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Feeding animal slaughter waste to the surviving animals within the same animal species is something that can only be dreamed up by somebody for whom financial considerations are paramount. Cows and sheep that normally only eat vegetable feed are turned into cannibals. It is not surprising that something as unnatural as that should lead to fatal diseases which were hitherto unknown. People still fail to draw the right conclusions from this. In a free market, the person who manages to produce in the cheapest manner wins the competitive battle, even if this is at the expense of jobs, the environment, animal welfare and public health. This is why there remains a great temptation to continue to use animal and bone meal in the traditional way. Some undertakings, some Member States and some Members of this Parliament are of the opinion that everything can be solved by slaughtering healthy cattle for preventive purposes in the vicinity of a source of infection. This was the case during the BSE crisis and again with infections caused by foot and mouth disease. Anyone who attempts to tackle parts of this failing livestock policy has my support. Rapporteur Olsson and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy rightly call for more monitoring of compliance with bans already introduced, stiffer penalties for infringements and the destruction of existing stocks. However, in order to take away the temptation to commit an infringement, the economic advantages also need to be systematically removed.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to mention that I have only just received the amendments in my own language – and there are 229 of them. I would therefore like to ask for more time so that I, and everyone else, can work through them, and to ask you to postpone the vote until tomorrow.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to begin by expressing my heartfelt support for the proposal put by the rapporteur, who has worked with great dedication. I can understand the compromises that have been made. Not everyone can be equally tough. We must however in any event leave those who can be tougher, but who perhaps go about things differently, as in the Netherlands for example, with its voluntary agreement, in peace because they are achieving more than the others. That is why I, just like Mr Hans Blokland, am happy with the amendment to Paragraph 31. Everyone wants to achieve the targets in their own way. That does however mean that you must not distort the market in achieving those targets. Commissioner, I have a question for you about this. It has become apparent to us – and they are finding this very difficult in the area that I come from – that because of the way in which deposit money is levied on single-use packaging in Germany – and shortly in Belgium too – it has actually become impossible at the moment to continue importing single-use packaging from other European countries into Germany. What we have therefore is a trade embargo. Do you not think, Commissioner, that this way of achieving the target, namely the reduction of waste, which I am otherwise in favour of, is distorting the market through the imposition of an ecotax or deposit money? And should that not be reason for you, perhaps in consultation with your colleague Mr Bolkestein, to take this up and in any event to give me an answer now? What is your opinion on this and what steps must be taken to bring an end to this trade distortion, which has for that matter already led to job losses?

Political group: PPE-DE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. – Mr President, we welcome the Commission's approach, the broad thrust of which we fully endorse. We also thank Mr Hatzidakis for his excellent report. We have specific concerns relating to the European Social Fund under the competitiveness objective. First, the wider approach to social inclusion appears not to be supported to any substantial extent. We fear that many valuable projects will be lost. We hope that there will still be room for such projects, provided that they support the employment strategy. Second, national planning of programmes could prove counterproductive to addressing regional and local circumstances and involving local stakeholders. We call on the Commission to ensure genuine decentralisation in the development and implementation of programmes. Third, the disappearance of the Equal programme may lead to a loss of impetus and we wish accordingly to see a requirement for gender mainstreaming at all programming stages. Similarly, we hope for continuing availability of innovative measures as currently allowed under Article 6. Finally, we look forward to structures that will allow us to address genuine areas of need wherever they may be located.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, it is the people with least resources who suffer the worst health. Illness and poverty are two sides of the same coin and therefore any strategy for combating poverty must take account of this interrelationship. Lack of health drastically reduces the opportunities for the peoples and groups suffering from it to develop. In developing countries, 28 000 children under five years old die every day as a result of illnesses which can be prevented with existing medicines. Diarrhoeal diseases alone kill more than a million and a half children per year and one in every 13 African women may die during pregnancy or childbirth, which also means that they can no longer care for the rest of their families, immediately increasing their risk of death. AIDS, as well as killing more than 2 million people in Africa, is hindering the possibilities for development in a society by removing thousands of active young people and mothers who, in turn, leave behind orphans. Women are the poorest and suffer most from illness in the developing countries. Furthermore, they are much more vulnerable to risks of illness, which is always linked to poverty, precisely as a result of their reproductive role. That is why we have wished to highlight the importance of information, but also of access to reproductive health services, which would help to prevent the spread of AIDS, illnesses caused by continual pregnancies, births and clandestine abortions. Incorporating the views of women into the fight against poverty and illness is essential to the least-favoured societies since they are responsible for the care of children and because they are an indispensable factor in the well-being of individuals, families, local collectives and nations. We believe that, thanks to this report, whose rapporteur, Mr Bowis, has been so much in favour of incorporating the gender perspective into it, the Commission’s Communication has been improved. Perhaps the same can be said for the still weak position occupied by women in the development policy of the European Union, which I believe must continue to strive to fulfil its commitments.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I wanted to warmly thank the rapporteur for his statement, which we in this House regard as a very good one, just as his criticisms are, in the final analysis, justified. This is why I am glad to note the statement by a Member State to the effect that this Agency will not supplant the national authorities, but is meant to work alongside them, supporting them and evaluating their performance of the horizontal tasks. It is quite explicitly not to have any legislative powers, and the Member States are to retain responsibility for guarding the external borders. This being so, I really am very happy that this Agency is at present unable to take responsibility for carrying out any major implementing tasks, as there is absolutely nothing to be gained from setting up an agency with such precipitate speed and without proper cooperation. We are right behind the rapporteur in making these critical observations.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to say just for the record that Mr Hans-Peter Martin, who is always excited about people signing in without being present, is himself conspicuous by his absence from this night-time session.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner Patten, Mr Da Costa, we are approaching this debate, as we approached the questions we put to the Council and the Commission, aware of the responsibility entailed in our partnership relationship with Tunisia, which we consider will be decisive for the success of the entire Euro-Mediterranean Partnership. In fact, Tunisia is the first country with which the European Union signed an Association Agreement within the context of the 1995 Barcelona Process. We attach great importance to preserving and consolidating this Agreement, and I would like to make it quite clear that, as far as we are concerned, there is no question about this. On the other hand, it is true that we are following the development of the situation in Tunisia closely and with a sense of involvement, and we appreciate the positive factors such as economic and social progress, which we do not deny, particularly in relation to the region’s situation and the role played by Tunisia in the Arab Maghreb. We do not, therefore, intend to interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign country at all, and it will be more useful if today’s debate serves to bring about renewed commitment on both sides to the values and undertakings entailed in our partnership. However, in all honesty, I must also say that we are extremely concerned about the human rights situation in this country, particularly because we are convinced that, given the socio-economic and cultural context involved, there is the possibility for substantial improvement in the degree of freedom of the press, of speech, of association and of movement, conditions in prisons and the autonomous exercising of justice, so that the country can move towards full expression of the rule of law. And this is the moment to do so. This is why we call upon the Commission and the Council to support this process by joining us in making representations to the Tunisian authorities. We must not forget that the creation of a free trade area is not the sole objective of the partnership policy, nor, moreover, that the partnership does not just consist of an exclusive relationship between the governments but has to ensure support and due respect for civil society, for the autonomous associations which uphold human rights and freedoms and for the role of women, whose lives in this country are full of sacrifices and who are often at great risk and undergo indescribable suffering. For our part, we must prove that the Euro-Mediterranean policy is a priority for the Union as a whole and that it is not based on the egotism of those of us who are motivated by the desire to conquer new markets for our goods or obtain cheap labour for our businesses. It is also based on shared values, on respect for cultural, religious and linguistic differences, and on policies capable of producing prosperity and security for the entire Mediterranean area. Today, may this debate serve to remind us and our partners of all these things.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, Erika Mann’s last words really struck a chord with me. I would like to thank the rapporteur for the excellent cooperation in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy which culminated in this own initiative report. Mr President, there is too little investment in ICT across the entire European Union, both by industry and by the government. Take, for example, the sixth Framework Programme: EUR 3.6 billion has been earmarked for ICT, but that is far too little. For let us consider what is needed to turn Europe into the world’s most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy, as was agreed in Lisbon. First of all, we need a good infrastructure, of course, and I am taking a wide-angled view on this. Based on my liberal belief, this does not, of course, primarily require government involvement. At European level, however, there is naturally a need for a high-speed, trans-European research network, and that is where the European Union comes in a big way, as my fellow MEP pointed out a moment ago. I would urge the Commissioner to show more ambition in this area. There is also a need for good quality content. Once again, the lack of capital is a huge barrier, especially to innovation. The content sector consists of fledgling companies and medium-sized companies that wish to export, and due to the turbulence on the market, there is little willingness to provide risk capital. Moreover, Europe displays strong regional differences in the supply of capital. This situation puts Europe at a disadvantage compared to the United States, where three to four times more risk capital is being invested in digital content and in Internet-related activities. That now leads to innovation, more economic growth and, obviously, to employment. The public sector should play a more significant role in improving the situation by combining supply and demand in the European Union. Finally, Mr President, for the first time in history, technology is driving constitutional law. That is why I am asking the Commissioner why the topic “citizens and governance in the European knowledge-based society”, for which EUR 225 million has been earmarked in the sixth Framework Programme, does not fall within the same category as “technologies in the information society”. Mr President, the government itself will also need to adjust to the information society.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I want to thank Mr Ebner for a very comprehensive and stimulating report. We could return to the subject at a later stage in another way and produce some costings and a tighter, more comprehensive proposal as to how we will put the ideals expressed in this report into effect. We have to consider too that we will have a conflict. Firstly there is the size of the budget we have and enlargement, which will also lead to an increase in the mountainous area within the European Union, while at the same time we refuse to produce any resources to finance the very idealistic proposals in this report which most people in this House would subscribe to. In parts of the European Union at this moment people drive two hours to work in their cars, two hours home and live in overcrowded circumstances. All the utilities are over-utilised while in other areas we are closing down public services. Roads are under-utilised, we are withdrawing police stations and closing down little churches and schools. We in the European Union should not make the mistake the Americans made. We should not abandon vast areas of our countries, where human activity will fade away. These mountains will not be attractive if there are no villages, if there are no variable scenes of farms and livestock and people living there. They will not provide the tourist amenities we need in the future. If we allow this to happen, it will be like what we did in my country 50 years ago when we closed down our railways. We will regret it in 40 or 50 years from now. If we lose these areas as habitats for human beings and everything that goes with that then Europe will be so much the poorer and we will regret it. We should fight within the European Union because individual States have failed. I was in Scotland during the summer and I have seen the extent to which the Highlands have been denuded of their population. Britain is much the poorer for that. If we allow this to happen elsewhere we will have a Europe that will be much poorer. We should return to this subject later and make firm proposals for the budgetary resources that we, as a Union, could use towards this end.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am at a loss. The vote in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs was clear: we rejected the proposal by a crushing majority and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs therefore proposes rejection of the Commission proposal.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would also like to thank the Court of Auditors for its report again this year. I am extremely disappointed that this is the first occasion on which the Court has been able to present its audit this year. I think it is one of the primary responsibilities of this Parliament and I am very saddened that it has taken it until December to put on the agenda something that came out in November. The way the report has been set out has improved a little bit; however, I think the document itself is still largely impenetrable. It is over-complicated and is badly presented. We hope, President, that you will continue in your efforts to make this clearer in future. The main issue on which the Budget Control Committee is likely to concentrate this year is of course the accounting system of the Commission. This is not because Marta Andreassen has told us that we should do that, but because the Court has been pointing out these failures since 1994. The fact is that the Commission has been extremely slow in instigating those reforms and we still are unlikely to see a complete radical reform until 2005. I think this is an unacceptable degree of complacency. We must go much further and set a more ambitious timetable. Although we do recognise, and in fact what we are asking the Commission to do here is already ahead of 11 EU Member States in their presentation of their accounts. But we are being tough on you and we want to push you to meet the standards of the best. The Court has also been remiss in the fact that they have failed again to name and shame Member States who have failed to control EU spending and I do not think we are ever going to identify the real culprits until the Court of Auditors stops being quite so cowardly and starts naming people. It is also worth noting, as people have said before, that this is the first year when Directors General have taken control of their own departments but 22 of those DGs have expressed reservations and we will be investigating those during our research. An issue that many are keen to follow is also the failure of the Commission to fine Member States who infringe EU directives and I would just like to warn the Commission that we are going to take this issue a lot more seriously. We want to see more money coming into EU coffers from the fines that should be imposed on Members States who fail to respect directives.

Political group: PSE
I would like to make a proposal: since we currently only have four items on the agenda for the topical and urgent debate and since the Rules of Procedure and common practice allow us to have five, I would suggest that we add the item on Argentina rather than replace it with another item.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I apologise for taking up your time. You are aware, as I am, of a campaign waged by the Daily Record newspaper in Scotland, in the course of which some extremely unfair things were said about our colleague Mrs Thorning-Schmidt, whose valuable report we adopted today – things which I deplore. It is the case, however, that this valuable report, which protects working people against noise in the workplace could have had unintended side effects on the music industry. I am very glad that Amendments Nos 23 and 25 were corrected, thereby saving the world of pipe bands amongst others. I think I am the only piper in this House, so I am particularly pleased about that! But I do want to say to Mrs Thorning-Schmidt that her Scottish colleagues regret the way she was unfairly pilloried in our press.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to give Mrs Lucas credit for her report. I mean her original version. She is right when she points out that if the volume of air traffic continues its rapid growth it will be absolutely necessary to take measures to control the problems it causes. It is part of sustainable development to reduce emissions and bring noise levels down. The report gained the support of everyone in the committee. The amendments made to it, however, throw the baby out with the bath water. The original report was a natural extension of previous EU legislation, but if the amendments are adopted it will mean enormous financial losses for European companies that have taken investment decisions on the basis of EU acts. For example, the time span for noise reduction is very long. The time that passes between the decisions taken and implementation can be up to two years. But now some excellent aircraft which have just been modified in accordance with Chapter 3 would have to be scrapped in four years’ time. The citizens and companies of the Community must be able to have confidence in legislation, as continual shifting of the goalposts undermines long-term plans. The resultant costs weaken the area’s air transport competitiveness as compared with airlines outside the EU, and, at the same time, in fact, makes it harder to adopt environment-friendly technology in the airlines based within the EU. What is economically realistic about demands for new technology in the name of environmental protection to replace aircraft which are still serviceable and in good condition? On the contrary, this sort of action will constitute a burden on the environment, as materials will have to be produced and aircraft built before the economic lifetime of existent equipment is up. In addition, scrapping serviceable aircraft will mean an additional burden on the environment. Drafting radically new regulations on aircraft noise has to happen globally and under the auspices of ICAO, and careful, long-term community and town planning consequently has a key role in this. Finally, I would like to remind everyone that increasing fuel tax in the air transport industry would bring with it an added burden for those who live in sparsely populated countries. A long journey is a long way to go.

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, I think – and this is not because I am French – that we must put this Franco-British squabble behind us. We already had occasion to say so on Friday and I think that the work being done by the Agriculture Ministers shows that it is crucial to find a compromise that is acceptable to everyone and not only to us, the MEPs who are rather trailing behind the news, but especially to consumers. If there is a problem today and French specialists have recommended that this ban should not be lifted, this means that there are some serious questions to be asked. Personally I am trying to put myself in the shoes of consumers who must by now have an idea of the situation. On the one hand you have a French food safety agency which says that there are in fact risks, and on the other, experts who tell us unanimously that there is no problem at all. Personally, this raises serious questions in my mind. I have read in the press that there are only three prion specialists on the Scientific Committee. I therefore turn to you, Commissioner, in order to find out if these three prion specialists really abstained, in which case those who voted unanimously were not prion specialists and we would then be able to understand why the proposals, the compromises and the supplementary questions tabled by France have been accepted.

Political group: Verts-ALE