GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the financial implications of the emergency plan proposed by the Commission to deal with the upheavals in the beef market as a result of the BSE crisis, have now been referred to the Committee on Budgets. This plan was published on 13 February and was, therefore, unable to take into account the crisis caused by the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, two areas infected with which were discovered in the United Kingdom in February. In these circumstances, I believe it should be stressed to the House that the current number of cases already represents a potential cost of over EUR 170 million, and that, on 8 May, the Commission quite rightly proposed establishing a reserve of EUR 1 billion. This new crisis to hit European farmers has three major consequences. The first is a direct cost to the Community budget, which still has not been defined but which is regularly increased. The second is a negative impact on beef and veal consumption and exports and lastly, the third is an impact on animal destruction programmes and, as a result, on slaughter costs. In addition to the Commission’s proposals, we must therefore be well aware that we are up against a major problem. All the financial forecasts of beef consumption and exports are approximate, since they do not take into account the consequences of the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. It is my view, therefore, that beef and veal consumption in 2001 will, unfortunately, fall by more than the 10.8%, forecast by the Commission. It is also unlikely that exports in 2001 will reach 60% of the GATT limit. The financial requirements could well, therefore, be higher than the Commission’s forecasts. We all understand that, in normal circumstances, financial inaccuracies would have been enough to justify a refusal but, given the urgent nature of the situation, the Committee on Budgets decided to support the Commission’s proposal and it hoped that Parliament would approve the amendments, as the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development have been able to, thanks to the excellent work by Robert Sturdy, while requesting a prior consultation of the budgetary authority should the costs incurred need to be revised.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Adam, for the very good job he has done on this report, and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for bringing forward a very practical report. That is the key to the whole thing because, as Mr Adam has said, we very much want to be able to trace sheep movements. However, we have to realise that in the UK alone there are 35 million sheep and there are probably up to 100 million individual movements of sheep. The idea that every sheep could be recorded with a 14-digit number when it is being moved is completely ridiculous. Let me take you through a scenario. A thousand ewes with 1 200 lambs are taken to the hillside. Six months later those sheep return and some of them have lost their tags. The Commission still insists that they should have the same individual number. I say to Commissioner Byrne quite clearly – and I am sure he realises this because he is an intelligent man – that the idea that the lamb will have the same tag is absolutely ridiculous. We have to realise that if you make the law an ass, it will be seen as an ass and we must be very careful to bring in legislation that is practical. Our committee has voted for batch movements of sheep and it is clear that if those batches are moved you will be able to trace where they have been. If there is a problem with scrapie in sheep then the whole flock will be slaughtered, so individual numbers are not necessary. Provided that the holding number is on the tag, that is all that is needed. As we move forward into electronic systems, we have to be absolutely sure of the cost to the industry of introducing this. We also need a system that will be practical. I have seen systems demonstrated in hotel rooms, but they have to be demonstrated on the hillside in pouring rain, to farmers and shepherds who can easily deal with that system. All of these things have to be practical, because we need the sheep and lamb industry. I recently visited New Zealand, which has a lot of sheep. Sheep are necessary to the European Union, and we must be careful not to price ourselves out of that industry. I would urge the Commission to look at our report practically and wake up to the idea that we have got it right.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Commission’s proposal has its basis in Article 251 of the Treaty and therefore, Mr President, it is subject to the codecision procedure. It relates to the economic accounts for agriculture and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, for which I am rapporteur, has been responsible for the main report. Mr President, Eurostat has been publishing these accounts since 1964, producing them on the basis of a common methodology and sharing competence with the Member States. After 39 years of existence during which the economic accounts for agriculture have shown themselves to be an indispensable instrument for controlling and evaluating the common agricultural policy, the Commission believes that the time has come to formalise them and to provide them with a sufficient legal basis. The Commission justifies this need through the risk of their possible deterioration as a result of budgetary restrictions and the need to use these accounts in view of the coming enlargement. I agree with all of this, Commissioner, and I have no objections, as I have stated in previous debates. The issue which causes me some problems at the moment, and which my amendments deal with, relate more to the agricultural aspect of the issue and specifically to the current reform of the common agricultural policy. This reform, as you well know, implies a substantial change, a fundamental change of orientation, a change which is not just terminological, but which is fundamental. The accounts for agriculture are a basic tool for analysing the economic situation of agriculture. Precisely for this reason – because we use them for the control and evaluation of the CAP, because they are a basic tool – they must be faithful to the reality of the agriculture they are reflecting. That is because if the instrument we use is not the right one, the accounts would end up being fictitious or suffering because they lack the transparency they require. Therefore, Commissioner, I believe that once the reform of the CAP is to be implemented, it will be necessary to progressively adapt and update the economic accounts for agriculture, in order to introduce the new values and fundamental elements of the new CAP, so that the economic accounts for agriculture do not become obsolete and inaccurate within a few months. If this is not possible immediately, I would suggest, Commissioner, that you consider what I have said, so that it may be carried out progressively and as soon as possible.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, the recommendation for second reading by Mrs De Sarnez, and the amendments unanimously tabled to it by the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, are to be welcomed because they clarify and enhance various aspects of the Erasmus Mundus programme. The Education Council’s agreement that the financial envelope should be set at EUR 230 million is important, since that figure seems fairly satisfactory. Just as important is that this programme should open up new prospects in higher education, both within Europe and in terms of Europe’s collaborative relationships with third countries. Those relationships, moreover, should exist not only at student level, but also at the level of the non-European scholars invited. Finally, the care taken over linguistic matters and the principle of cultural diversity, the quality label and coordination between higher education and professional training, are also important. All of this becomes even more significant given the adoption of the measure making it possible for participants in the programme to travel round Europe attending several different universities. Furthermore, access to this same programme for European students has not been forgotten. Neither have their scholarships and inter-university Master’s courses. Thinking in terms of enlargement, this agreement becomes even more meaningful, since from now on we have the opportunity to enhance the already impressive scope and size of the above-mentioned tour of Europe’s academic centres. It has now become necessary to devise a promotional campaign in order to allay the doubts and fears which, according to the media, have already arisen in certain academic circles. Some fundamental questions remain, however. Is this the way for the European education system to compete on truly equal terms with its United States counterpart, in either quantitative or qualitative terms? Also, at European level, will a more even distribution of students among universities in the Member States be obtained? Only time will tell us the answers to these questions. For now, it should be noted with approval that, in terms of higher education, Europe now has at its disposal yet another extremely useful international tool, which has raised the hopes of many, and justifiably so.

Political group: PPE-DE
The resolution highlights the tragic situation of over 307 million people who are currently living on less than 1 dollar per day. So 900 people are dying of hunger every day in the world. Despite several fair proposals, such as cancelling the debts of the least developed countries (LDCs), which I fully support, I cannot vote in favour of this resolution. The resolution considers that the LDCs have not been capable of making the structural economic reforms that are essential in order for them to cease to be in that category. This is a clear contradiction. It is precisely because these Southern countries, dominated by the imperialist countries of the North, have no other choice than to comply with structural adjustment policies and debt repayments that they are now falling deeper into poverty. The resolution repeatedly extols the virtues of the IMF and World Bank methods and of the laws of the market for bringing LDCs out of poverty. That is actually where we should be looking to find the underlying causes of poverty in those countries.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I also wish to thank the rapporteur for the tremendous work he has done under very difficult circumstances to bring this report to us today. I would also like to thank the Commissioner for what he said and for the effort which the Commission has made to accept amendments from Parliament. I know the Council is doing the same and is standing by waiting for us to adopt our opinion today, so that it can go ahead and adopt the employment guideline package. That presupposes, however, that we will adopt this report today. In that respect, I would like to make an appeal to the Group, because that group has a tendency to seek revenge for the rejection of the Thomas Mann report on the spring summit some two months ago. That group has made it known that certain amendments are regarded as key amendments and if they are rejected in the House today then that group will vote to reject the whole employment guideline package. That would be a tremendously damaging blow. We have already dislocated the streamlined coordinated process, involving the employment and economic policy guidelines. I hope we can get the whole exercise back on track and I hope that group will pull back from this brinkmanship. The amendments its members regard as key amendments are causing us some difficulties. For example, Amendment No 64 concerns the stability pact. They are placing considerable emphasis on that point. That is strange because not even Mr García-Margallo y Marfil from the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs places such emphasis on this point in his report on the broad economic policy guidelines. Amendment No 66 calls for a reduction in the overall tax burden on individuals and companies. A number of Members have made reference to this amendment already. This is a fundamental ideological point and is causing some difficulty for a number of my members. The emphasis that the Group members are placing upon this suggests that they have a determination not to seek consensus and to look rather to create problems for the adoption of this package. This amendment on the overall reduction in the tax burden is incompatible with the one they have tabled on the stability pact and it also concerns an area of responsibility that is reserved for the Member States themselves. I cannot believe that if that amendment were rejected the Group would reject the whole package but I am assured by Mr Mann that would be the case. I hope the group will pull back. Reluctantly I am urging my members to abstain on Amendment No 66 in the hope that it will get through – although I disagree with it. If I fail and they lose that amendment, I again would appeal to the Group to pull back and not reject this package. It is simply not worth it. My final point, which is very important, is on Amendment No 23 on the social economy. Last month I mentioned in the debate on the Cooperative Statute that the social economy had disappeared from the employment guideline package. I hope we can bring it back in as a result of this amendment.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, although I welcome the Commissioner’s statement, there is a contradiction in what she has just said. She answered Mr Cohn-Bendit’s question by saying that she has no legal basis to act against this over-professionalisation of sport. Yet, in answer to the question of Mr Barón Crespo, she said that she intends to act when it is a matter of business. The EC Treaty gives the Commission very few means of proposing directives, but it is clear that organisations such as the Tour de France, the Giro d’Italia, the Tennis Masters and many others are pure business. These are profit-making activities and, seen from this perspective, the Commission could therefore at least try to regulate the sector and its working conditions to a certain extent. As Mr Cohn-Bendit very rightly said, if sportspeople take drugs, it is because the competitions require this.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as a member of the Group of the and also as a Member of the European Parliament from the Basque Country, a land which has supplied a fair number of emigrants to Latin American countries, I want to express my solidarity with all those who fight for human rights to be upheld – not only in Peru, but throughout the world. And I want to denounce the situation that exists in Peru, a situation which is due not just to the complacency and connivance of the United States, as has been mentioned here, but also to that of plenty of other countries, including European ones, and the hypocrisy which reigns over international politics. It is well-known – and there is the Carter Foundation report – that access to the media must be provided as soon as possible, media bias must be ended, harassment of candidates and observers in local elections must be ended, improper use of public funds for electoral advantage must be exposed, there must be transparency in electoral administration and access for all parties to the elections and the rights of independent electoral observers must be guaranteed. In this respect, the reference just now to a permanent human rights observatory for Latin America seems to me entirely appropriate. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
We do not at all share the views presented in this report. Paragraph 30 of the draft report states ‘that the exercise by the Union of its competences, whether exclusive, shared, additional or coordinating powers, must no longer be thwarted by paralysing (no power of initiative, unanimous decision-making, ratification by the Member States) ... procedures’. This means that, by majority decision, it will be possible for the EU to take initiatives in all the areas in which it sees itself as called upon to act, without the Member States being able to curb initiatives or seek the opinion of their national parliaments or the people of Europe. In spite of the fine words about the EU’s having to draw closer to the people, the latter are still not to be asked for their views when the EU’s political projects are developed. The report would introduce employment policy into the EU constitution. That would entail the centralisation of labour market policy in the long run and a shift towards unilateral economic policy. We believe that this is not the way to go in order to achieve the EU’s goal of full employment. It needs to be possible to adapt employment policy to local needs if it is to be effective. The open coordination process that currently applies in the employment sphere allows policy to be adapted in this way, with a secure basis in the conditions experienced by local players. This process should therefore be strengthened and not, as proposed in the report, dismantled so that it disappears from Community policy.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Although we welcome some aspects of the resolution that has been adopted today by the European Parliament, we must express our reservations and criticism of some very negative aspects, specifically its support for the war strategy that the USA is implementing in Afghanistan, which will not only fail to resolve any problems but will actually worsen the humanitarian crisis and incidences of racism and xenophobia. We are also critical of the relentless political pressure to speed up the militarisation of the EU and the communitisation of aspects of ‘justice and home affairs’, through the ‘creation of a genuine European judicial area.’ What is particularly worrying is the fact that proposals have been tabled for creating a ‘European search and arrest warrant’ or the controversial and dangerous common definition of terrorist acts as well as measures that represent a serious attack on fundamental freedoms, guarantees and rights linked to the coordination and effectiveness of law enforcement in the framework of cooperation with the USA. Nor can we fail to mention the symptomatic absence from the resolution of any critical reference to the Ghent Council decisions on confirming compliance with the ‘Growth and Stability’ pact, with maintaining the policy of wage moderation, or the reform of the labour markets, the processes of liberalising public services – of which the recent decision on postal services is one example – the reform of public services in social provision or the Council’s announcement of the launch of a new round of negotiations at the WTO. These measures will have a serious effect on the interests of workers and of the communities in the various countries of the EU. With regard to the creation of a ‘preparatory convention’ for the new IGC, we feel its prime objective is an attempt to limit or impose conditions on the sovereign decisions of governments and national parliaments. This is why we have voted against this motion for a resolution.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr Lamassoure's report is a good one both in terms of methodology and substance. I would like to mention three points regarding the methodology: it examines the contradictions and weaknesses in the present system of competences in the light of intellectually honest criteria, presenting the history of our institutions; it then goes on to clearly define a model for sharing competences acceptable to European public opinion and eliminating doubts about the absorption of competences by the European institutions, clarifying a debate in which there is an unfortunate display of demagogy and lack of ethics with regard to the European dynamic; and lastly, whilst they are subject to discussion, certain proposals do not deviate from a viable model for the functioning of the European Union, without exaggerating the federalist orthodoxy or subterfuges in terms of European revisionism. However, what really stands out is the hard core of specific competences. Nothing has been lost here of the original model, of its adaptability to new circumstances and of the courage to propose new responsibilities with regard to the definition of foreign and defence policy, as regards the establishment of an area of freedom, security and justice, and even regarding the financing of the budget. Furthermore, this report sets out the Union's own responsibilities with regard to solidarity between its Member States and its citizens, especially on the question of cohesion and of structural policy. So it is no wonder, Mr Lamassoure, that I am heaping such praise on you and that we are voting in favour of your report. The Convention should make good use of it and reflect carefully on it if we are to be given an opportunity to have a modern treaty in which the European Union provides added value for its citizens, its regions and its Member States.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am happy to say that the remaining two hostages, two humanitarian workers, British citizens, were released yesterday. They had been captured on 27 March last together with a further seven westerners and a Somali by the warlord Musse Sudi Yalahow. Of course, we are reassured by their release, but it does not diminish our concern at the failure to respect human rights and our condemnation of the continued acts of violence and banditry perpetrated by the armed militia in Somalia. It is vital that the temporary Somali Government does everything possible to initiate constructive dialogue working towards peace, stability and national reconciliation with all the parties involved, Somali community leaders and the authorities of Somaliland and Puntland. We all need to renounce the use of arms in order to be able to address the country's serious political, social and economic problems, so that all the parties tackle the issues of the management of aid, education, health and the economy together. The donor countries must all step up humanitarian aid and cooperation activities, ensure that the embargo on arms is fully respected and require all the parties concerned to cooperate to re-establish peace. The European Union, in particular, must provide all the financial and technical assistance necessary to guarantee the success of the peace initiative of the Intergovernmental Development Authority and Djibouti, but, in particular, it must, as it did in the case of the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea, undertake a coherent political initiative and speak with one voice to promote dialogue and negotiation to resolve the country's most urgent problems. Civil society, the local communities and the non-governmental organisations, which are fighting for national reconciliation and peace, must be supported. We must disband the armed groups which have caused the death of at least 20 civilians in recent weeks and step up mine-clearance operations. We must also show our complete solidarity with and support for the organisation 'Médecins sans frontières', which, as I said, was attacked on 27 March last.

Political group: PSE