GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I represent a country of whose history fishing and the sea are an integral part and in which the fisheries sector still provides around fifty thousand jobs. Against this backdrop, some fundamental criticism must be made of the Commission proposals. In their current wording, these proposals are unacceptable. Our first criticism is that ending aid for fleet modernisation is totally unacceptable. Given that 40% of Portugal’s fleet is more than 25 years old, this would definitively sideline the overwhelming majority of Portuguese fishermen and prevent them from undertaking any modernisation. Our second criticism is that the ban on aid for the creation of joint enterprises for fishing outside Community waters will only serve to increase our imports from third countries; it would, therefore be sensible to continue to allow vessels decommissioned from the Community fleet to fish in the waters of third countries under these joint enterprises. Lastly account must be taken of the efforts that some countries, in this case Portugal, have already made under the Multi-Annual Guidance Plans for fisheries, where the effort that has already been made to reduce the fleet should now be considered and deducted from their targets. To conclude, Commissioner, I should also like to say that other issues have not been given due consideration. For example: if a stock preservation programme exists, why are we continuing to allow fishing for the manufacture of fishmeal to take place? Also, why is it that no specific measures have been envisaged for the outermost regions, whose aquatic ecosystems are highly sensitive? In this regard it is crucial that a specific solution is found for these outermost regions which, in Portugal’s case, are Madeira and the Azores. I also hope that the opinion delivered by the European Parliament will take account of those aspects that have not been considered and that the Council is able to reach a reasonable agreement.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, the Commission initiatives on harmonising taxation of vehicles and fuels are broadly justified and are to be welcomed. They are justified because they constitute an essential factor for the smooth operation of the internal market, by attempting to eliminate or alleviate the anomalous situation of vehicle and fuel markets that are enormously segmented. These initiatives are to be welcomed because they systematically prioritise an approach that takes account of the environmental impact of traffic. Transport and mobility are, today, crucial factors for the pricing of goods and services and it is, therefore, crucial that in no way do they constitute breaches of competition. This does not mean, however, that there can now be complete harmonisation of fuel taxation even if this is spread over time. A degree of competition in taxation is, of course, perfectly acceptable if it leads to tangible benefits for consumers. The ultimate aim of all Community initiatives and proposals for initiatives must be to meet the needs of Europe’s citizens, either by making goods available and guaranteeing their quality, by ensuring the environmental sustainability of societies or by gradually reducing the costs of accessing this type of goods. This proposal, in this specific wording, does not look as though it will help to achieve significant results in the field of environmental protection and could even lead to pressure to raise prices. Furthermore, an initiative of this nature can only be accepted by the Council if it is integrated and coordinated with the directive on the taxation of energy products and with the proposal for a framework directive on infrastructure charging. The political complexity of this issue and the difficulties in managing, in the context of this directive, the administrative aspects of its implementation, specifically those concerning the distinction between fuel used for commercial purposes and fuel for private use, and the consequent return or refund of duties, justify the reserved standpoint of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. The Commission must view the possible rejection of this proposal, however, as a spur for drawing up a new draft that takes account of the suggestions and proposals made in the European Parliament, respecting the immediate interest of the citizens and contributing to overcoming the inevitable resistance of some Member States.

Political group: PSE
I support this report in order to state that, as one might expect, there is no consensus on the Members’ Statute, an issue that I have followed with particular interest, both as a Member of this Parliament and in my capacity as Quaestor between 1994 and 1999. I feel that this is a political issue and I would state unequivocally that Members’ allowances and expenses must be based on the economic and social situation of the Member State in which they are elected because, once elected, they are in this Parliament to represent their communities – in any event this is one reason for their presence here.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, the cases of industrial restructuring which are most traumatic, because they are unforeseeable, are those dictated by aggressive, acquisitions-seeking behaviour in the market. Much has been said about the lack of technical adaptation and market trends, but the extent of their social consequences is never considered. Do we know how much they have contributed to the impoverishment of people and regions? Do we know how those that suffer from them recover from depression and at what cost? Do we know in what way and how much these factors contribute to the long-term unemployment of people over the age of forty? Do we know in what way and how much these factors contribute to the fact that the true retirement age in the European Union is between fifty-five and fifty-seven? The Lisbon resolutions were designed to respond to these points by giving priority to employment, to the viability of social protection, to combating social exclusion and also by preventing changes to the economy. We do not know how much these approaches are contributing to increasing social security costs and we do not know how many people are becoming more dependent on systems of social protection. Who is it that ultimately pays for social restructuring? Is it the market or the taxpayer and the working person? Prevention and fair, balanced change are impossible. The social partners say so and have even just signed a pre-agreement document in order to implement the directive on European society concerning information and consultation. Commissioner, we have also heard it said that the market is not governed by the laws of nature and that the political authorities should act by means of legislation, institutional action and social dialogue. Social insecurity and the increase in crime are becoming part of post-industrial society and affect both traditional sectors and the so-called new economy. The Portuguese, French, and now Swedish Presidencies have raised expectations by pushing ahead with dossiers that had been hitherto neglected. The Commission’s programme for 2001, however, gives no hint of these dossiers being brought to a successful conclusion.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I was unaware that British Members of this House had a reputation for being verbose! (Laughter) The President of the Commission introduced the communication in broad outline, so perhaps I could ask Commissioner Patten about two points of detail since he has touched on them. Could we have an assurance that, as the President has said, we are not attempting to create a new iron curtain and that, for example, the present visa arrangements between Poland and Ukraine will not be made more difficult once Poland becomes a member of the European Union? I see the President of the Commission is nodding, so that will cut down the time for his answer. The second question to Commissioner Patten is that, since the acceding Member States have tremendous experience of relations with countries such as Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, would it not be timely now to set up some sort of working party? Those acceding Member States could then begin to feed in their experience in foreign policy relations with our new neighbours, perhaps reporting to Commissioner Verheugen or indeed to Commissioner Patten himself.

Political group: PPE-DE
Ladies and gentlemen, the Pomés Ruiz report has the good fortune to assess the implementation of the stability and convergence programmes at a time when the economic climate has helped these programme achieve success. The rapporteur complains that the objectives are more the result of higher than expected tax revenues and the favourable development of interest rates than of the Member States’ own efforts. This perception betrays a rather narrow-minded budgetary policy. In my view, there is nothing reprehensible about being able to achieve balanced budgets through development rather than by imposing fasting and prayer on the Member States. To try and balance the budget solely by cutting expenditure, while, at the same time, wanting to reduce taxation, is something which goes beyond economic restructuring and the spirit of the Stability Pact, at least in my understanding, to limiting the involvement of the public sector in the economy. It is something in addition to the Stability Pact. This trend can also be seen from the reference to the fact that tax and social contributions in Europe account for approximately 46% of GDP, while in the USA and Japan they only account for 30%. But they are higher in Europe because we have a social state. If Mr Pomés Ruiz’s group wishes to change the policy on the social state, it should table it clearly and not tack it on to the Stability Pact. I did not find one single reference in the report which justified Greece’s being singled out, as Mr Karas has done, but I should like to say the following, now that the subject has been raised: it is irresponsible to say that inflation in Greece has only fallen over recent months. Inflation has fallen over eight years from 18% to 2%, thanks to constant and unstinting effort. I had hoped that we warranted more generous support for this tremendous effort, which has required sacrifices on the part of the Greek people. To say that Greece will be unable to sustain the criteria, I am sorry, but that is prejudging the facts. How do we know that they cannot be sustained in Greece but they can be sustained in so many other countries of the European Union? The Greek people are determined to apply the criteria and they will show their determination in due course. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I congratulate the rapporteur on her excellent contribution to identifying the causes and the scale of poverty, which is an appropriate term for a social reality whose cruelty should not be watered down into a concept as wide-ranging and abstract as social exclusion. I support the Commission’s initiative to create a programme which meets the objectives of the Treaty’s new social agenda, and which puts the Lisbon decisions into practice. I also hope that it will welcome the amendments in this report, on which there was a broad consensus. I urge the Council to establish quantifiable goals, and specific, cross-sector action programmes to combat exclusion, based on indicators which provide considerable information so that closer cooperation can be translated into tangible and effective action, more in the social results that it achieves than in satisfying electoral needs. I support the need to gain more knowledge about the causes of poverty and I also support preventative action against exclusion resulting from mergers, industrial change, relocations, rural desertification, and urban ghettoisation, with innovative and tangible responses involving both sides of industry, local and national government and concerted action by the public.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are fully aware that this debate addresses one of the most important and ‘hottest’ issues at European level: Common asylum and immigration policy. This situation is the result of two separate factors: firstly, it has come about because the Treaty of Amsterdam granted new competences to the Community, opening up new possibilities for action on a European scale; and secondly, because there has been a considerable increase in migratory pressures from third countries, the devastating effects of which have been highlighted by certain recent tragic events, such as the massive influx of refugees from the Kosovo crisis and the tragedy at Dover. It is therefore necessary, for both humanitarian and economic reasons, to define a global policy that is able to effectively manage these migratory flows, which currently constitute a legal vacuum, to which the European Union cannot fail to provide a response. We must take account of the fact that three different types of people are involved in this problem: asylum seekers, temporarily displaced persons and economic migrants. Although the symptoms are similar, it is important to distinguish the causes and find different answers. Confusing the status of these people does not help to solve the problems we are facing, and actually makes them worse. We also know that this external pressure adds to the internal pressure felt by States that are facing a decline in their own population, caused both by a slowdown of population growth and a reduction in the population of working age, with an increasing population of those over the age of 65. Concern is also growing about the sustainability of social security systems. The answer cannot be to make vain attempts at preventing and halting immigration at Europe’s borders. The answer lies, instead, in managing and freezing it at current levels. Hence the need for a carefully thought out, clear and coherent common European policy for the management of migratory flows. In order to prevent new problems emerging, we will have to consider the real labour needs of each Member State and the resources available for the reception and integration of these immigrants. It must be understood that we incline more to the approach advocated by Mr Pirker. I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate Commissioner Vitorino on his announcement today that, within a month, he will be presenting two initiatives on combating illegal immigration and on repatriation. Lastly, I wish to emphasise that we need to adopt a prudent approach to a sensitive issue that requires intelligent answers. It makes more sense, for example, for us to give priority to legalising immigrants who can be integrated into the labour market and who are already on Community territory than encouraging a new wave of immigration.

Political group: PPE-DE
The presence of pesticide residues in products of plant and animal origin affects human and animal health and must be reduced as far as possible. This question is intrinsically linked with commonly used agricultural practices – the agricultural model – and with the environmental risks associated with using pesticides, particularly in soils and water. The proposal before us is intended to consolidate and harmonise existing legislation on pesticides and to standardise the rules across all Member States. The regulation sets maximum pesticide levels for all products, gives the Commission the final say in setting import tolerances and gives the European Food Safety Authority the responsibility for risk assessment. In spite of our reservations about the report’s federalist attitude, the questions of principle appear to be sound, provided that Member States retain the possibility of enforcing more stringent measures in their own territories and that specific national and regional characteristics are taken into account, such as climate differences and the available best agricultural practices. We must, moreover, address the issue of setting levels, which should be based not on helping business or on complying with WTO rules but on consumer health. It is, therefore, vital that imported products are subject to the same rules.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the abuse of alcohol by children and young people is a serious problem, and it is a growing problem, but for me it is not an EU problem. Mr Prodi said last year, here in this Chamber, that, out of consideration for the EU’s legitimacy in the eyes of the people, Parliament and the EU should not become involved in all manner of ridiculous matters. The abuse of alcohol by children and young people is no laughing matter – on the contrary – but the problem falls within the province of families, the local community and the Member States. We are talking about the principle of subsidiarity. There are sensible things in what is being proposed. We are discussing the provision of information to young people and the risks of alcohol, but the proposal also contains so much that is over-protective and so many admonishments, and these are aspects I cannot support. The EU must not dictate the frameworks for the cultural differences in the Member States. In fact, the EU must ensure that the differences are respected and, therefore, the advertising of beer on English television must be permitted, even if this might be unacceptable on Spanish television. We must respect diversity and strengthen the principle of subsidiarity, partly out of consideration for the legitimacy of the EU.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, like many other speakers, I think that the Commission communication is very narrow. What is being discussed is coordination of the economic guidelines and employment guidelines. We are agreed, however, that the concept must be expanded. We need an environmental process and, especially, we also need a social process as an important part of the total process which was developed from the Lisbon Summit. These four parts, which are each of independent importance, must be coordinated. Otherwise, we will see an imbalance, changing the character of employment policy, for it will then no longer be determined by the link to the social perspective but will easily become a structural policy which means that employment policy will become a kind of reflection or mirror image – or an appendage. It is incredibly important to talk about social integration, work for all, good quality work. Many of these things are usually carried forward by the Commission. I sometimes wonder whether the Commission is speaking with a forked tongue, for it often emphasises the importance of good social goals of this kind, but at the same time these views are missing from this particular communication. I think this is so serious that I would like to formulate a kind of warning. If it should be the case that this is not just a coincidence but a trend, the balance and the harmony which seemed to follow from the Lisbon decisions will be replaced by conflict on the labour market and what we used to call class struggle. We are already seeing such trends today on Europe's labour market and these will become even clearer in the future. If we have this type of conflict to fight against, I believe that this is almost the worst thing that can happen for economic development in Europe. Furthermore, I would like to add something which has to do with synchronisation and coordination. A kind of horizontal coordination of the economy and employment at European level is now being discussed. I think that, here too, we must talk about social and environmental issues. At the same time, there is vertical coordination between levels. The biggest problem of all which we face, and which even the Commissioner, for example, knows that I always return to, is that it makes no difference how much we coordinate at European level if we do not achieve better co-ordination between European level and national level and as long as the national labour markets are not sufficiently open. I would like to emphasise this particularly, as it is sometimes said rather vaguely that the national parliaments have to be given a greater place. However we must be clearer and talk about how this is to be achieved. My answer is always that responsibility must be given to the national parliaments.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I would like to thank Commissioner Patten for his words, but I cannot fail to express my deep regret at the fact that Parliament has not dedicated a wide debate, which could maybe have ended with a joint motion, to a matter which is so important and so affects our societies and public opinion. It is strange that a summit with an agenda which is so sensitive to global governance issues should receive such severe, groundless criticism. Clearly, there has been a problem and there still is, not just of communication but also of democratic participation, not the participation envisaged by the violent antiglobalisation protesters but the participation that we see in national parliaments. The market will not be the only subject of discussion at Genoa, then. Quite the contrary: in actual fact, the agenda is wholly centred around the fight against poverty. Fighting against poverty means, first and foremost, employment and the fair redistribution of the wealth derived from the process of globalisation. As an economist, I would remind the antiglobalisation protestors that wealth has to be created before it can be distributed. However, if Europe's goal of full employment is to be more than just the egotistic vision of a wealthy Community, it must be translated into a global objective of accompanying the process of liberalisation of free trade with active employment policies which will help to produce active societies and thus lead to social inclusion: by overcoming what is known as the digital divide, by building up human capital, by promoting self-employment. Making employment a priority must lead to the widespread introduction of minimum levels of protection for all people. Fighting against poverty means improving cooperation between the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the ILO and the WTO in order to integrate macro-economic stability and development policies with social policies. As you can see, a great deal has changed since the summits of the mid-'70s. As Commissioner Patten pointed out, on the first day of the Genoa Summit, the Heads of State and Government, who will be the guests of the Italian President, will meet with the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, the President of the European Commission, Mr Prodi, the President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Verhofstadt, the Director-General of the FAO, the Director-General of the WTO, the Director-General of the WHO and the President of the World Bank, and also with the Presidents of Nigeria, South Africa and Algeria, who launched the support and development plan for Africa. The G8 Summit is certainly an exercise in global governance which can and must be fine-tuned but, already today, its foundations are much wider than those of the summits held during the seventies and eighties.

Political group: PPE-DE