GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, Commissioner Fischler, it is undoubtedly a great opportunity to take part in this new debate and also to take the floor under the sub-heading of reform of the common agricultural policy in the context of the 2003 budget. In my view – and this is a view shared by the majority of the Agriculture Committee – the 2003 budget, which is the subject of today's debate, is not the right context in which to discuss reform of the common agricultural policy. Neither is a debate assessing Commissioner Fischler's proposals on the mid-term review on today's agenda. Instead we should focus on the actual budgetary figures for the coming year and here there are two essential points which most definitely require a clear decision from us. Firstly, the Council is proposing a general reduction of 0.8% or 0.6% across all 1a lines, which amounts to a cut of EUR 275 million. Secondly, in the Agriculture Committee, our colleagues from the proposed a drastic cut in export refunds; to be more precise they wanted to reduce all export refunds to zero. Neither of these proposals can be right today. It would send out the wrong signal. Accordingly, in a vote on a proposal tabled by the Group, the Agriculture Committee rejected both proposals by a majority. I am quite happy – and this may be a perfectly sensible course of action – to consider moving funds from the first to the second pillar, but only in the context of a dedicated debate on the mid-term review and on a codecision basis. Every year, to the great delight of the Member States, huge sums of money flow back to them from the agriculture budget. At present, the utilisation rate of the 2002 agriculture budget lines is around 80%. The reality of the situation does indeed support the call for better management and optimal use of agricultural funds. To mention the example of export refunds once more, this is another area where a great deal more could be done. For these reasons we, along with the majority of the Committee on Agriculture, are against anticipating the results of the mid-term review. IN THE CHAIR: MR INGO FRIEDRICHVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, forgive me for interrupting the sitting, but the news reaching us from the Ivory Coast is extremely grave, with civil war breaking out at this very moment between supporters of Laurent Gbagbo and Alassane Ouattara. This morning we asked the President to send our congratulations to the self-proclaimed candidates, but I think we ought to be calling for democratic elections to be held that include all the parties which were excluded by the military junta. The alternative is the risk of seeing an inevitable slide towards a total balkanisation of the region.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, within the context of votes on the directive at first reading, the Commission promised Parliament that it would submit two related directives: one on cogeneration, on which the Commission has kept its promise, and another on energy efficiency services, which is highly important in order to provide a framework for the market in this regard. This directive was promised us, first of all, after summer 2002, then for the end of 2002. It has still not arrived and today there is a faint possibility that this important directive might not be adopted during the current Parliamentary term. Can the Commission assure us that this directive will be presented as soon as possible, preferably before the summer?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, there must be a common and effective EU contribution to the success of the UN World Conference Against Racism next year and its European preparatory conference next month. The EU has a human rights duty and competence to make all different, all equal, a reality. It can and must forcefully tackle race discrimination and xenophobia making the EU a world leader in the celebration of multicultural and ethnic diversity. Let us do it with wholehearted political conviction, not just as a diplomatic exercise. This question and motion outlines ways in which racism must be documented and prevented and sanctions implemented. Getting effective sanctions means firstly exploiting EU powers for anti-discrimination laws and agreeing the Article 13 Race Directive in record time sent the right signal of determination. Effectiveness also means stepping up intergovernmental police and judicial cooperation under Article 29 of the EU Treaty and ways to do that are explored here. We want to hear that the Member States will sign Protocol No 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights which makes discrimination a direct infringement of the convention on the occasion of the convention’s fiftieth anniversary in November. Other Members and Groups with many helpful amendments which I will accept, but there are some I cannot accept. Firstly, I regret that the opportunity has been taken to identify specific countries and parties as especially bad e.g. Amendments Nos 1, 3, 5 and 6. The trouble with singling out some countries but not others is that you do not make a comprehensive assessment. I therefore appeal to the sponsors of these amendments to consider withdrawing them. In particular I would appeal to Mr Ford to withdraw his Amendment No 1 even if I have sympathy with it since it would be a pity if a motion on these very important European and world conferences were derailed over Austria.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, whilst there is genuine cause to welcome the question and the resolution tabled by Mrs Jackson on the Union’s position at the New Delhi Conference on Climate Change, the fact that the report has been tabled so late leaves us with some doubts as to its real aim. So, ladies and gentlemen, how should we interpret this debate, which is being held after the opening of the Conference, if not as a sign of political and psychological immaturity in the face of the reality of the threats to our world posed by the upheaval of climate change? We must ask ourselves whether the latest UNEP report, which revealed that USD 150 billion is spent on environmental damage each year, escaped the scrutiny of certain European visionaries. Do not worry, ladies and gentlemen of this House. I do not mean you. Commissioner, how do you intend to convince your fellow Commissioners of the urgent need for practical measures? In New Delhi, what we actually need to do is to increase the international reaction to the threat of climate change a little more. This momentum, which the European Union harnessed to implement the conclusions of the last Earth Summit as fully as possible, must be maintained with a view to the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, as defined at Bonn and Marrakech. The European Union must continue to be a driving force in combating climate change. At New Delhi, we must also pave the way for the second period, as you have said, and prepare to address requirements which are more pressing because of the gravity of the situation, and we know that time is of the essence. There are three essential points we must uphold in New Delhi. Firstly, as regards carbon wells, which distort the true environmental picture, scientific rigour and objectivity exclude this simple solution, this expedient. Secondly, it is imperative that the surge in air traffic and its impact on the increase in greenhouse gas emissions are included in the process. What is the Commission’s current view on this? Thirdly and lastly, the COP 8 must not fail to condemn the attempt to include nuclear power as a renewable energy, for nuclear power is limited and even obsolete. For example, Amendment No 15 to our resolution, seeking to reinstate it, must be rejected. There is no more urgent subject for us and our debates than the potential future impact of climate change. There is nothing more essential in politics than the very essence of all politics: the continued survival and proper functioning of the Earth itself. We must act now to give ourselves the chance of a future.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, speaking on behalf of the Socialist Group, I would like to warmly congratulate the rapporteur, above all on the highly critical comments she has made. In order to nip in the bud any tall tales about post-2000 implementation, I would also like just to remind the Commissioner – and I know this is not exactly his area of competence – that, as at 6 December this year, we had EUR 500 million left over in the B31 budget line covering education and youth programmes. EUR 500 million, Commissioner – and I would like to tell you what it means when money is paid out in this area so slowly as to become indefensible. It means that class war is being waged. Under those circumstances, the first to be prevented from taking part in programmes of great value to Europe are students from poorer backgrounds. As a representative of the Socialist Group, my comment on that is that these are not bureaucratic difficulties that just happen to have cropped up; people are actually being prevented from receiving anything, and that is something we quite emphatically will not stand for. When it comes to the giving of discharge for the coming year, Commissioner, we will be casting an eye over what happens when payments are made in future, and what will be done about delays to this programme, and I also hope that our rapporteur will be examining it with great care. Otherwise, the devil will take the hindmost – in this instance, those whose parents' income is rather more modest, to whom we feel we have especial obligations.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, international trade is fundamental in our system and, in the opinion of those who advocate a different type of globalisation, including myself, international trade must be based on fair, equitable trading bringing development and wealth to the greatest number of people possible. Regrettably, the trade negotiations held under the auspices of GATT and the WTO did not serve to create fair international rules: quite the opposite, they left entire communities with no defence against the greed of multinationals. It therefore follows that these institutions are suffering an unprecedented crisis of legitimacy in respect of vast sections of communities, and are in vital need of thorough reform. The Désir report addresses clearly the limitations and dysfunctional areas of international trade, of unequal participation, and the lack of transparency and democracy and the ensuing consequences, and proposes reforms to remedy these shortcomings. We support the report and will vote for the motion, but we feel that this must only be the start of a process of change. The Commission and the Council must refuse to be influenced by pressure from the rest of the world.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, on a point of order, on Zimbabwe, I am appalled to hear that last week COREPER decided that the EU-Southern African Development Community Ministerial Conference, scheduled for 7/8 November, is not now to take place in Copenhagen but in Mozambique. You will recall that this Parliament had insisted that under no circumstances should the Zimbabwean Foreign Minister be invited to the Copenhagen Ministerial Conference, as this would be in flagrant breach of the EU travel ban. We never received assurances on this point and now we know why: European Union foreign ministers have decided cynically to side-step their own EU travel ban. We shall now have the shameful spectacle of European foreign ministers travelling to Africa for no other reason than to facilitate attendance at their meeting by the Zimbabweans. This is grotesque and an affront to this House but, far more importantly, it is an insult to the terrorised and starving people of Zimbabwe, whose lives and livelihoods have been destroyed by the actions of the Mugabe regime. Mr President, on behalf of Parliament, I ask you to make the strongest representations to the President of the Council expressing our disgust with this decision and seeking its reversal.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, the integration of the economies of the poorest countries into the world trade system will remain an illusion unless the returns envisaged take into account the difficulties which those countries have in trading and, particularly, in developing. The fight against poverty and food insecurity and the prevention of the conflicts which often result from them must target the structural causes and must break away from economic, agricultural and trade policies which are now bankrupt. The main economic obstacles preventing the food needs of billions of human beings from being met are well known: the obligation to sell at prices that are lower than production costs, the way in which farmers in those countries are more or less forced to concentrate on export products that are useful to the countries of the North rather than necessary to the people of the South, and the liberalisation of trade carried out by international institutions such as the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO, thereby depriving individual countries of the right to define their own policies. The Commission could decide to set about solving these problems. Unfortunately, I am afraid that the method it has chosen is once again not the right one. The UNDP report for 2002 reminds us that if the process continues at the present snail’s pace, it will take more than 130 years to abolish hunger. World hunger requires more than an urgent appeal by rich countries to poor countries, asking them to fall in with the laws laid down by the WTO. When 60% of the people of Zambia need food aid, and when the multinationals, Monsanto and DuPont, control 93% of its seed market between them, more than short-sighted and short-term private investment is needed. When commercial trade worldwide represents 7 000 billion US dollars a year, when financial transactions amount to 1 500 billion US dollars a day, and when the World Bank itself considers it necessary to double world development aid which has reached a ceiling of 50 billion US dollars a year, when is there going to be a useful tax levied on international financial transactions in order to finance that aid? This is where the intervention of the European Union could be useful. The fight against poverty makes it essential for the developing countries to gain the right to fix their own priorities and strategies in order to support sustainable food production by utilising their own natural and human resources and local know-how and investing in the structural transformation of their economies, at the same time receiving legitimate, guaranteed prices. Free-trade agreements concluded between parties which are not on a level playing ground and which are based on the abolition of customs tariffs regardless of the level of development of each party have exacerbated poverty and have had a negative impact on food security. There is an urgent need to encourage the local production of food crops by encouraging access to land, water and biodiversity resources. There is also an urgent need to cancel the debts.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we now come to the follow-up report on the 2001 discharges which contains many interesting points and which constitutes an excellent piece of work on the part of the rapporteur, Mr Casaca. It seems, however, that most of those present are concerned about one subject in particular: the fraud uncovered in Eurostat just when we were finalising the discharge of the budget management for 2001, and therefore just when Mr Casaca’s report was being drafted. Unfortunately we did not pay much attention at the time, and it was only in the summer, July to be precise, that the Commission really registered the gravity of the matter in hand and began to react. Fortunately the Commission did begin to react and to set in motion a series of internal reforms which were completely necessary and which seek to do away with a culture and approach which are outdated, inappropriate and have generated a great many problems. For example, we need to reduce external involvement, since this leads to even less control, and in turn to even lower reliability in terms of how contracts are concluded and in terms of the final outcome anticipated when they were put up for tender. Another problem which has become apparent in the Eurostat case is the very poor internal information system within the Commission. Information exchanged between different levels – namely between the Directorates-General and the Commissioners – is limited, and totally absent in some cases, although this Commission did establish a code of conduct in 1999, which it has not implemented. I presented a report which the rapporteur has incorporated more or less in its entirety, with a view to improving internal information flows within the Commission because, in my view, if internal information channels had worked properly, many of the problems could have been avoided and we would not have ended up in the current situation. I also believe the internal reform of the Commission needs to be reviewed. At the outset there was a great deal of enthusiasm for the reform, fully supported by Parliament, but it has proved a slow, difficult and sometimes inefficient process. This is why, Mr President, we have to conclude that the Eurostat revelations show that we need to seek a solution to this problem and also to other internal problems in the Commission, with a view to everything working better, which will benefit all of us.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, one could, with reference to Mr Goebbels' report, say that it was worth it in the end. It is an own-initiative report dating back as far as 1999, when it was prompted by the crises in Asia, Russia and Brazil. In the meantime, there has been a succession of further small crises, and we have got on with our work. In the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, our group wholeheartedly agreed with the basic line taken by the rapporteur, not least because you, Mr Goebbels, took up a clear position on the Tobin tax. The international monetary system is undergoing transformation, as is clear from your report. We want to bring proposals into this process of transformation, but we can also see that the euro has firmly established itself since 1999 and has fully proved itself as an anchor giving stability to the global economy. That in itself is an important contribution by Europe to stabilising the international monetary system. Mr Goebbels has done a sound job of work, something I want to emphasise here today. For that reason, we are in substantial agreement with his proposals: the improved supervision of banking, surveillance of international financial activities, greater powers for international bodies such as the IMF and the World Bank to really get to grips with crisis situations. As you have just said, the IMF must become more democratic. Above all else, it must fit into the overall scheme of things so that it does not become the bogeyman of crisis management. Of course, the states must work together in this, for financial means alone will not overcome crises. We agree with closer collaboration at international level between national supervisory and regulatory authorities, a stronger coordinating role for the European Central Bank, something that has still not been resolved, and which we would remind you is overdue – the establishment of an observatory for systemic risks at the Bank for International Cooperation, and continued efforts at reform of the international monetary system. We share Mr Goebbels' view – contested in their proposals by our Green colleagues – that the Tobin tax does not belong in this report. Looking through the proposals, I noted that the Group of the also, according to Amendment No 10, wants this to be checked up on, even though it does refer to an ECOFIN Council resolution. On that point we take a completely different view. We agree with your basic approach and we will be asking for a separate vote on this subject. Introducing such a tax, whose technical problems cannot in any case be resolved, would imperil the transfer of capital and thus also put at risk the advantages of global division of labour, investment and employment. That is why we are opposed to it, but will vote for your report without a Tobin tax, and against it with one.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am not going to repeat what the previous speakers have said about the need for this directive. A few days ago, Commissioner, it was said on the subject of the Michelin debate that intelligent approaches to restructuring were required. I shall give you the example of the restructuring of a company of European dimensions which has a European works council, which is intelligent, but only in one respect. And this is exactly what we are trying to avoid: a lack of balance in social dialogue. All of Parliament’s amendments have been very significant, and one that I consider to be extremely relevant is the one that expresses the need for ethics and good faith on all sides. What happened, for example, with the restructuring at Ford in Portugal is a prime example of what happens when this good faith is missing. At the end of the 1980s, Ford in Portugal had twelve hundred employees. The company moved the factory to Poland and promised investment in that country in return for state tax and other incentives. That investment was never fully made in Poland. And Ford is now announcing the closure of both factories: in Poland and in Portugal. This kind of relocation and restructuring, Commissioner, is this century’s way of doing business. It has nothing to do with introducing new technology or with companies’ needs to maintain productivity levels. According to Ford, they do not have problems with their productivity levels; on the contrary, they say that these two plants and their workers are enormously productive. And the result is that because these employees are so highly specialised they will only be able to find work as unskilled workers. We should be concerned by all of this social upheaval. It requires a response, it requires steering through, and it requires legislative measures and more besides! It was high time that the Commission started monitoring companies of this size because it is not the companies of fifty or a hundred employees that are under threat. Let us begin, then, with companies of European dimensions, and let us begin by assessing what a necessary restructuring actually is. We in the European Parliament represent both sides of industry, and one of them has no voice of its own, Commissioner. It is crucial that we let it be heard. I sincerely hope that the Portuguese Presidency will provide a response to this and I shall use all my influence to this end.

Political group: PSE