GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, I voted for the report on biotechnology. The Pensioners’ Party and the pensioners expect a great deal from biotechnology. They know that research is being carried out on extending the life span of human beings. I know that this is a problem for the governments who say that there is not enough money, but we have the pleasure of living long, comfortable lives. Mr Purvis is a living example of this: just by drawing up his report on biotechnology he has become younger, if that is possible, for he is always youthful. We all admire him for his vivacity and his enormous enthusiasm for his parliamentary work. He is the epitome of eternal youth and he has become even younger in the drawing up of this report, so it is true that, thanks to biotechnology, we will be able to live longer in the future!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are apparently all in agreement, for I notice that even the believes that the current chemical policy is characterised by a lack of substance, too much bureaucracy, powerlessness to acquire knowledge about all substances and also the incapacity to take measures. That is why support for the White Paper is so important, but even more so, support for the improvements which are being proposed in the Schörling report. Pressure from the chemical industry has been enormous, particularly in the last few days. Apparently, it does not lack the necessary financial resources to set up big campaigns and to portray a large majority of this Parliament as a bunch of eco-fundamentalists. But I believe that the outcome of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy was balanced and that it therefore deserves every backing tomorrow. I should like to mention a few essential points. I am of the opinion that, in the long term, all substances will need to be registered, but that in the medium- and short-term, priorities will need to be set; the latter, however, not simply on the basis of production volumes. Smaller volumes too must also be granted sufficient attention, and the starting point should really be the intrinsic characteristics of a substance. As Mr Bernd Lange stated a moment ago, the substitution principle is essential. If a less dangerous substance is available and tested, what logical reasons do we then have not to use it, other than perhaps financial considerations? A second essential element is that we must be able to ban substances of high concern, such as persistent and bioaccumulative substances and endocrine disrupters, unless they are essential from a social point of view and no alternatives are available. We should then be able to authorise them under strict licensing. Last but not least, maximum consumer information must be provided via clear labelling, but also via publicly accessible databases and information on the substances.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am not speaking on behalf of my group. I will vote with the majority of my group as I always do when they decide in a democratic way, but I am afraid I do not hold the same view as Mrs Keppelhoff-Wiechert. She made her case very well and she 'threw the book at it'. There was no conceivable argument against use or about the possible dangers that might occur that she did not invoke. I find myself in the same position I found myself in many years ago when, on the initiative of Parliament, we banned natural hormones in the production of beef. We cost the European beef producers something like EUR 12 to 15 billion. In the meantime we did not enhance the safety of beef. We based our decision on political ideology rather than scientific investigation. The truth is that we ban American beef today because those hormones are there; but the truth is also that we know that, if we allowed the Americans to sell that beef into our market, at good value to our consumers, and if we were to put a label on it saying those hormones were there, they would still buy it. We know that. If we did not know that, why would we ban it? Let them come with their beef and if our consumers are so concerned they would not eat it anyway. But I do not believe they are so concerned. It is the same with this product we propose to ban today. It is motivated by ideology rather than science. I believe we have a committee called the CVM. This committee for veterinary medical products which works within the European Medicines Evaluation Agency concluded that BST was safe, efficacious and of suitable quality. As such, they recommended that the product was suitable for release. They found that it did not affect the health of animals and that it was a natural product that did not affect the health of human beings. We had another committee which gave a different point of view. My understanding is that it is the committee that gave the all-clear which is the committee on which we are relying. The only thing I want to say to the Commissioner is, could he please tell us which advice he is taking? Does he regard the committee whose advice he rejects as incompetent, unable to judge what is good for animals or dangerous for human health? Is he going to dismiss them and refuse to accept their advice or opinions any more?

Political group: PPE-DE
Prominent in this report is a whole set of demands for speeding up the process of liberalisation in various sectors. It even criticises the Stockholm European Council for not having fixed a timetable for the definitive liberalisation of the gas and electricity markets, which is unacceptable. We also reject its call for Member States to move ahead rapidly and in a uniform way on opening up the energy, transport and postal services markets. It therefore comes as no surprise that it attacks the public monopolies, specifically in the field of electricity, that it calls for the local call market to be opened up or that it considers that the privatisation and liberalisation of public services will lead to lower prices and higher quality.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, this is in no way a criticism of you personally. I would like to thank the Minister for his availability but I am going to withdraw my speech, for two reasons. Firstly, this Chamber has a certain dignity, and that dignity is manifested in the way we work. Secondly, agriculture is going through an extremely delicate period. We are a political assembly and, with my farming background, I find it absolutely unacceptable that we should deal with agricultural issues in this way. We will decide as a group how best to bring tonight’s situation to the attention of President Cox.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome both the Commission's initiatives on biofuels. Plans to apply reduced rates of excise duty to biofuels or to exempt them from duties altogether, and to provide for the promotion of their use with a catalogue of clear objectives, will help to reduce the European Union's high degree of dependency on oil imports in an environmentally sound manner. From here on in, though, I propose to confine myself to the proposal on the promotion of biofuels. My heartfelt thanks go primarily to our rapporteur, Mrs Ayuso González, not only for submitting an excellent draft report, but also for her really good cooperation. The promotion of biofuels fits into the EU's overall strategy of doubling the penetration of renewable energy sources by 2010, a strategy for which we have essential reasons. In Kyoto, the EU made the commitment to reduce the output of greenhouse gases by 8%. Traffic in particular is a major source of these. It is likewise important to safeguard security of supply, and promoting the biomass as a source of energy will give rural development new and significant impetus. Speaking as I do for the Group of the , I therefore welcome the responsible Committee's confirmation of the line taken by the Commission, that binding national targets should be set for further increasing the share of biofuels. I have, however joined with the rapporteur in tabling a compromise amendment providing for indicative targets to be linked with the possibility of their being reviewed. The rapporteur has gone into the background to this. The one thing we now see as important is that we should meet the Council halfway by being willing to set indicative targets as well, but this means that we expect the Council, this very week, to accede to the demands made by the competent Committee in various areas. It is important in this context that environmental and climatic conditions should come under particular scrutiny, that agricultural practices should be examined accordingly, and that it is not in the least acceptable for the Council to do as it is no doubt currently trying to do, and provide for any Member State to be able to opt out without substantial obstacles being put in the way of their doing so. What are we to do with a directive that starts by setting targets and then makes them more lenient? We are, then, prepared to come to a speedy agreement – indeed, the whole point is that we desire one – but such an agreement is not to be had at any price. We hope to have reached agreement with the Council by Thursday.

Political group: PSE
There are questions that will not go away; nor will the historic wounds that remain open in the Armenian community throughout the world. In its resolution in June 1987, the European Parliament asked Turkey to have the courage to look at its past with open eyes in order to be able to look towards the future. Democracy is guaranteed by historical truth, which cannot be bought or sold and cannot suffer at the hands of special interests, be they financial or economic. What is at issue today is not recognition of the Armenian genocide's reality, as this House has already had occasion to declare that in 1987. In asking that the Lamassoure Report should make reference to the genocide, I was not seeking to revive ancestral hatreds or to blow on the embers of intolerance, but to echo the legitimate concerns expressed in Armenian communities. The children of Armenia who were exiled to our countries at the beginning of the century expect today an act of justice. They want a ‘moral resting-place’ for their ancestors. Remembrance is an even more pressing duty at this time when the last witnesses to the exile, the last to escape the carnage, are themselves quietly dying away. I am convinced that joining the EU implies adherence to the fundamental principles in accordance with which it was created; democracy, respect for human rights and for the rights of minorities. Such a step invites each one of the candidate countries to take up the burden of its past in order to be able to make its peace with its own history. I regret that this House has not followed me in doing this.

Political group: PSE
Deploring the fact that the European Union is lagging behind the United States and Japan, the report proposes a series of measures claiming to encourage ‘innovation promotion and progress in research’. All the proposed measures are centred on the idea that it is the task of the public authorities to finance the research, directly or indirectly, but that it is private interests who will profit from it. This ranges from subsidies to what the report calls ‘innovative enterprises’ to measures to encourage ‘synergy between businesses and universities’, which means that as far as research is concerned the latter will be subordinate to the former. In its explanatory statement, the report not only preaches the promotion of ‘entrepreneurship at the educational level’ but also says that ‘obstacles to mobility arising from social security systems should be removed’. The title of the report is ‘Innovation in a knowledge-driven economy’. It would be more accurate to talk about the subordination of knowledge, research and public money to the interests of the bosses in a profit-driven economy. Since we are opposed to both the spirit and the letter of this report, we have voted against it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, the European Commission’s proposal on the reform of the banana sector is negative, unacceptable and disastrous for the agricultural sector in the outermost regions and the ACP countries affected by it, which, of course, supply 40% of the Community market. I have put this so strongly because, if implemented in the terms which have been laid out, it would lead to the sinking of the economies of thousands of families who live off this very special activity on Community islands such as the Canaries, Madeira, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Crete, not forgetting the producing areas of the ACP countries. It would therefore lead to social and economic deterioration in regions which are already least favoured and suffering serious and permanent difficulties with their development, with horrendous difficulties in terms of conversion and which are vulnerable to the uniform and homogenous commercial measures which are taken at international level. In my opinion, the European Commission has given in to such measures, incapable of recognising the regional agricultural reality and diversity of the countries of the Union and the need for a genuine policy of solidarity and cooperation with the ACP countries which, until recently, were colonial territories of countries which now form part of the Union. Therefore, it is a good thing that the Commission is receptive to the report by Mr Dary, who I congratulate, and the amendments tabled, which are intended to achieve the following: correct the imbalances created by globalisation and persuade the Commission to be sensitive to the problems of banana-producing families, not to submit to imports with single customs tariffs and to fight where necessary to maintain, for a reasonable period, its commitment to the citizens and the agricultural organisations involved. These organisations make up one of the most vulnerable sectors of very special regions of the Union and the ACP countries, with the accompanying social, economic and environmental repercussions. For many of us, bananas are a national issue, since they are related to our history and our culture.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I have little to add after Mrs Oomen’s intervention. I only hope that you will understand this. The Dutch group which made Fridays a subject for discussion in this way did not do this because they are against Strasbourg or anything like that. They did so because time and again, there is heavy criticism, also in the Netherlands, regarding these Friday sittings and also because most of us prefer to work in our country on Fridays. This is because we already spend a great deal of our time in Brussels and Strasbourg as it is, and because we need the time to talk to our electorate. I think that a serious discussion about Fridays is urgently needed and this should not be confused with the discussion about Strasbourg. It is a discussion on the question of whether we organise our work efficiently and well and whether we have any time left to spend in our own constituencies. I support the action in this sense.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, taking as a starting point the reports by my esteemed fellow Members Mr Evans and Mr Pirker, I would like to talk about the communication from Commissioner Vitorino which is at the heart of this. He is a colleague whom we hold in extraordinarily high regard on the basis of our joint work in the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, and whose opinion I have very little in common with! A fundamental debate is taking place about asylum and immigration in Europe. It is about guidelines for asylum and immigration in Europe. We need to be clear about two things: first about the quotas to be applied and secondly about the content. As far as the methodology is concerned, European directives on asylum and immigration can only set minimum standards. It is only possible to oblige the European Union as a whole to accept minimum standards. Anything going beyond that will not be accepted. One example of this is that Commissioner Vitorino's proposals on family reunification may suit some people, but it is not possible to stipulate a binding solution for the entire Union. Some revision is needed here. As regards content, we need to limit and control immigration. Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you mentioned the concept of ‘fortress Europe’. It is precisely because we do not want to erect a fortress Europe and could not do so anyway that we must control and limit immigration. The approach proposed by Commissioner Vitorino does not meet these requirements. A couple more examples: by adopting the concept of the safe third country, we in Germany have been able to reduce the number of asylum-seekers from some 450 000 to well under 100 000. Commissioner Vitorino has virtually given up this concept, by making its use dependent on conditions which make it almost impossible to apply in practice. My second point is that binding material grounds for granting asylum are laid down in the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. It would be giving asylum-seekers an incentive if we go beyond the binding framework of the Geneva Convention, as in the case of persecution by non-State agents for example. There are some very worthy individual arguments in favour of this, but we cannot allow a higher level of asylum than at present. The problem of asylum is with the procedure. It is still a fact that 90% of all asylum-seekers in Europe are not victims of political persecution. So we need to get the procedure under control. If we can manage to bring the procedure to a rapid conclusion, we can be more generous when it comes to grounds for the granting of asylum. However, this does not sit well with the three-stage asylum procedure that Commissioner Vitorino is proposing, for example. Commissioner Vitorino, if Mr Schily, the German Minister for the Interior, who as you know does not belong to the same party as I do, behaves in the same way in Council as he does in Germany then your proposals have no hope at all! (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, I asked you whether you might consider my idea, which is that the Stability Pact should be linked to the Agency for reconstruction and development and, in particular, to the work of the Commission, which, very soon, will have enough staff to be able to undertake the work.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for your reply. It is extremely important that the programmes in the area under discussion commence immediately at the beginning of 2000. EU aid will have an important impact on the development of regional industry and, for that reason, there should be no interruption between the old programmes and the new. I would still like to check that I understood correctly that these new programmes can start to be implemented, with the risk taken at national level, right from the start of 2000, as long, obviously, as the proper applications have been made beforehand.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, you are absolutely right that to amend the Rules of Procedure requires an absolute majority of Members of the House. We have just decided not to amend the Rules of Procedure and therefore, not to add this new Rule. However, the rest of this report comes under Rule 186 of the Rules of Procedure which specifies that by a simple majority we are allowed to decide to add an item to the Annexes of the Rules. It specifically refers to interinstitutional agreements; it even categorises them. It is up to this House to decide – as for every other interinstitutional agreement – by a simple majority whether to add this as an Annex to our Rules of Procedure, without changing the Rules of Procedure. We did not actually need the reference in the Rules of Procedure. That was an optional extra which we have decided to dispense with. We can still decide whether to add this interinstitutional agreement to the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
While I consider the motion for a resolution to be very positive, there is an issue which I believe should have been dealt with in more depth – the role of forests as carbon sinks. The United Nations Conventions on Climate Change consider that one of the policies which should be implemented with a view to mitigating climate change is the promotion of forests as fixers of carbon, through forestation and reforestation activities. The Kyoto Protocol lays down the maximum quantity of carbon sinks which may be used by States with a view to compliance with their objectives for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. However, owing to the fragility of the scientific basis for the role of forests as carbon sinks, the European Union was never enthusiastic about considering this measure in the Kyoto Protocol and it was eventually accepted as a concession which was essential for reaching an agreement, particularly with Japan and Russia. Now that this issue has been decided upon, especially following the Marrakech Conference, the EU should take advantage of Forest Focus to develop a European strategy for the use of carbon sinks.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first of all, I wish to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Sbarbati, on her excellent report. This is a serious, thorough study of the problems faced by the elderly, but it is also a bold, innovative report in terms of the proposals it puts forward to promote the active participation of the elderly in working, social and cultural life. The ageing of the population is, today, an indisputable fact which places considerable pressure on the social security systems of some Member States. Enabling our citizens to age in an active and healthy way is one of the great challenges of our times and requires Community policies to match national social security and public health systems. We cannot simply limit the issue of intergenerational solidarity to the financial sphere. We must foster a global vision of support for the elderly and for their families, particularly for women who look after elderly people. Our current social model makes a cult of youth. This is a deeply ingrained idea, which thoroughly pervades all areas of social life and which must be combated through the effective practice of intergenerational solidarity. Given the significant increase in life expectancy as a result of the enormous medical progress that we have seen, particular attention must be paid to demographic developments in the population. We must produce a coordinated strategy for employment in conjunction with measures to counter discrimination on the grounds of age and modernise pensions and health schemes. It is crucial that we develop concrete policies and specific programmes for the various categories of elderly people. These measures will have to be appropriate to the different specific circumstances of elderly people in terms of standards of living and financial self-sufficiency. Because we cannot treat unequal situations equally, Member States will have to provide a response to the situation of elderly people who are completely bereft of savings and who are completely dependent on the help and care of relatives or others, and they will also have to ensure that a form of insurance is created that guarantees the elderly the right to see out their days with dignity and serenity.

Political group: PPE-DE