GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur very warmly on his report. I am a passionate supporter of the WTO, as he is, because I believe that it offers poor countries the opportunity to integrate with wealthy nations. As a member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I am also most grateful to Mr Schwaiger for taking the view that consumer protection, animal welfare and health are very important issues which we will deal with as priorities at a later date. If we fail to do so, we can expect to witness situations such as the Seattle débâcle time and time again. In advance of this debate, however, I should like to raise two specific issues. I think that it is appalling for the WTO to impose or consider imposing sanctions on the European Union simply because the European Union is trying to protect its citizens from hormone-treated meat. We now have scientific proof that one hormone in particular is carcinogenic, while there is a strong possibility that a further five are also carcinogens. The precautionary principle must apply to the WTO as well. Secondly, in the European Union, a number of states – notably Great Britain and Austria – have banned animal testing of cosmetics. The majority of citizens and consumers in the EU want to see this ban extended throughout the European Union. I think that the WTO will have to accept that it is possible to be very successful economically yet remain sensitive to the pain and suffering of God's creatures – animals – and that we must respect animals as well.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, the communication under discussion forms an important introduction to closer cooperation in the field of research. As things are now, resources are wasted due to overlapping and lack of coordination. On behalf of the Group, I wish to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Plooij-Van Gorsel, for a good report and for her extremely enthusiastic work for this cause: your views have the full support of my Group. The statistics indicated in the communication regarding the poor level of investment by EU countries in research are cause for concern. Even worse is the fact that the gap with respect to the USA is widening. However, some Member States have made considerable investments in research, and this appears to have paid dividends, particularly in the area of information technology. While I have the floor, I would like to bring up a few additional points. I would prefer to talk about cooperation or strategy, rather than research policy. The word policy has a connotation of activities being closely controlled by Brussels. In research, however, objectives for activities should not be defined at too detailed a level. Each research community is best aware of its own needs for investment and development – these should not be too tightly controlled by policy. The participation of women in scientific research within the EU continues to be too fragmented. More tangible action must be incorporated in the programmes in order to promote this participation. Researcher exchange programmes and interaction between research teams are matters which deserve our full support. They are a means of disseminating information and skills; these activities will create true European cooperation – networks which will also bear fruit later on. The COST secretariat has already produced some commendable work. Its position as research coordinator should be further strengthened.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President-in-Office, would you agree that the greatest cause of the very substantial rise in crime in the world today is the drugs industry, which is doing so much damage to our young people in so many countries, and that a major step in reducing crime would be to wipe out that drugs industry? Therefore, is it possible for the European Union to take the necessary steps to deal with the countries where those drugs are produced as an industry, to eradicate them completely, because the only thing they offer to the world is total damage in every way?

Political group: PSE
I have voted for the Schmid report because I believe it supports and makes a contribution to the achievement of the three main goals of the 'European Employment Strategy', namely full employment, increased productivity and greater social inclusion within society of marginalised and disadvantaged groups. I believe that the report's addition of a fourth goal, namely, mainstreaming of male-female equality is laudable. The implementation of the guidelines on the 'open coordination method' is the correct way forward, as it involves national parliaments fully in the discussions and adoption of national employment plans. This will make the report meaningful in constituencies like mine where unemployment is concentrated in small pockets of poverty in London despite the low unemployment nationally of the UK.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 2004 will be the European Year of Education through Sport. Sport has been since time immemorial a favoured, successful and effective means of influencing, in a fundamentally positive way, educational policy and the educational values that underlie our life together in society. The promotion of sport and the partnership between sporting and educational facilities has a positive effect on teamwork, tolerance, solidarity, the campaign against drugs and violence, and on fair and healthy competition without recourse to doping. These are values that need to be rediscovered and promoted. This makes the choice of 2004 as the European Year of Education through Sport, and against the backdrop of the Olympic Games and Paralympics in Athens and the European football tournament in Portugal, very much to be welcomed. The Commission is proposing a total of EUR 11.5 million to finance it, EUR 3.5 million of which are to be paid towards operational expenditure in 2003, the year when preparations for it get underway, and EUR 8 million in 2004. The proposed financial framework must be compatible with the upper limit laid down in the Financial Perspective and must not be allowed to result in cutbacks in other areas. For reasons of efficiency and for the avoidance of unnecessary administrative costs, a coordinating body should be provided for in each Member State. There is, in my view, no need for a formal requirement to consult a group of as yet unspecified experts who would decide on the financing or cofinancing of individual measures. Administration and evaluation of the programme should remain a public matter, that is, one for the Commission. The decision on the European Year of Sport is the right one, but it is continuity that brings success. This splendid scheme thoroughly deserves to be continuously developed, signifying as it does an investment in our young people growing up to be healthy and able to contribute to the integration of a healthy and united Europe. This investment in our future will pay dividends, for our young people are our future!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would firstly like to congratulate the Commission, because I believe that this project – which we are now christening Erasmus mundus, thanks to Mrs De Sarnez’s fortunate idea – is coherent with the rest of its policy, since it opens up the world to us, it recognises that there is a form of globalisation which we must confront through active and positive policies, and at the same time, it recognises the importance that postgraduate studies are taking on, and must take on, in Europe, as well as European Masters degrees. I believe it is an important and reformist document. I would also like to congratulate Mrs De Sarnez on her common sense and her open spirit, because that is the best way for us to work together. There are certain points which I believe are interesting, but which concern me. In this regard I do not agree with my friend, the communist Member Konstantinos Alyssandrakis. I believe that European Masters and postgraduate programmes should help the universities to create partnerships amongst each other; so that they can make free use of the world scene to come together, without external controls, except quality indicators. I believe that no police authority can determine the limits of knowledge and partnership. Furthermore, I believe that at such a dynamic time for society, we cannot work if we do not allow the people to work in partnership and for the universities to meet, to seek common ground and make decisions. We must simply ‘bless’ – to use a very classical term – their actions. What do worry me – and I address this to the Commission – are the quality indicators, because I am afraid of borders of States and countries. In this regard, I would go as far as to suggest that we should give more support to the establishment of European universities and institutions of a European nature, which, together with the States, would serve as experts, as ‘stake holder’ bodies and as genuine beneficiaries of the programme. These bodies must truly cooperate on these projects and in this way they will also ease the Commission’s burden. Furthermore, I believe it is very important to create institutional incentives. For this programme we must not just support students, but we must also reward those universities which work and meet together, and those which carry out the greatest number of exchanges with third countries, because we must create enthusiasm; we must stimulate this process which, by means of the Erasmus programme, has been a success, even if it has been very slow. We will only succeed if we accept the difficulties faced by universities in implementing this policy of approximation and if we help them in this new experiment. Finally, I also believe there should be more help for the poorest students, since many of them are not able to join in with the programmes.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, some schemes, which are perhaps the product of the intellectual laziness of their authors, seek to present a picture of a Community fleet that preys on the resources of developing countries. Today’s report could serve to cast doubt upon this stereotype, because Gabon is a country with enormous resources, mainly oil, which is extracted by Western oil companies, and has a very similar per capita income to Poland’s, as well as an enviable annual inflation rate of 2%. It goes without saying that the Community boats of four Member States, which will be fishing under this agreement, will of course do so in compliance with the principles of responsible fishing and under the strict conditions imposed by the CFP. Many of us, however, are bound to wonder, as we do with regard to other agreements, whether this is a fisheries agreement or a development cooperation programme financed from the CFP, since, out of the total sum, 70% is earmarked for activities designed to develop the local fishing sector. This is why we are asking the Commission to direct some of this money to support measures to control and preserve stocks. Mr Maat, the Socialist Group will be voting against Amendment No 2 and I hope the Commission will do the same, because the fees that should be paid by shipowners whose boats fish under this agreement cannot be different to those paid under other agreements unless we take Greenland as an example, where the shipowners pay not a penny of fees. I wish to conclude by saying that those who are attempting to prevent Gabon from being able, like any other country, to sell part of its fishing rights at more than three times its market value are doing it no favours. By the same token, they should be against Gabon exporting its oil and its minerals to places such as the Netherlands, the United States, China or France, for example.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted today against giving discharge to the Commission in respect of its management of the 2000 Budget. My decision to do so was determined by the following considerations: EUR 11.6 billion, that is 14% of the overall Budget, have not been paid out. I take that as a clear indicator of the Commission's mismanagement, and also as a trend, as the figures show an increase over 1999. The 20% of the resources that have not been used in a regular manner is equal to double the previous year's figures. The Court of Auditors has, for the seventh time in succession, refused to issue a statement of assurance. New charges in the so-called van Buitenen report have been known to the Commission since August 2000, but no work has been done on them, and they have not been laid before Parliament, thus blocking my report on the Leonardo programme. In the plenary debate yesterday, Mrs Schreyer, the Commissioner responsible, showed no capacity whatever for grasping the Commission's shortcomings, preferring to shift responsibility for any irregular outflow of resources onto the Member States, something with which we are abundantly familiar. The Treaty establishing the European Community, however, speaks of the clear responsibility of the Commission. Mr Kinnock, the Commissioner responsible for internal reform, does, admittedly talk a lot about reform, but, as the Court of Auditors has established, the reform process can as yet point to no measurable progress. The Commission under President Prodi is, for the first time, attesting on its sole responsibility to the management of the 2000 Budget. It can no longer pray in aid of the misdemeanours of its predecessors. I have therefore, as in the two preceding years, voted against the discharge resolution. - Report Blak (A5-0088/2002)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I shall begin by expressing my deep disappointment with this reform of the common agricultural policy and I wish to challenge your conscience, Commissioner, with the injustices and the discrimination that your policy is perpetrating against farmers and also with regard to the way in which you are protecting desertification and damaging the credibility of the Union itself. Let us look at the injustices: you are responsible, Commissioner, for around seven million farmers in the Community. Only three-and-a-half million are entitled to direct aid – only three-and-a-half million. Of these three-and-a-half million farmers, 52% receive only 4.5% of the aid. Is this or is this not a profound injustice? In my own country, one hundred farmers – the one hundred largest – receive more than 60% of farmers in my country do. I challenge your conscience with this injustice. Next, Commissioner, your policy is discriminatory! Two areas of production, cereals and bovines, which between them account for 21% of Community production, receive 60% of aid; I repeat, 21% of production receives 60% of all aid. I call that discriminatory, Commissioner! It is all the more discriminatory because these two areas of production are those most responsible for desertification. By not opposing this policy, Commissioner, you have contributed to the enormous increase in unemployment throughout the Union, because the only winner is something that causes unemployment and not the areas of production that actually employ people. The third issue concerns the damage done to our credibility, because the institutions have a duty to protect the weakest. Commissioner, I have probably been involved in politics as long as you have, and the basic duty of the institutions is certainly to protect the weakest members of society and yet you have put yourself in the position of protecting only the strongest. Why have you abandoned the ceiling, Commissioner? Even the United States, which has companies that are two hundred times larger, has a ceiling of EUR 350 000, and you, who initially had a ceiling in place, abandoned it, concluding that it was excessive because it should not exceed EUR 100 000. You and this Parliament will go down in history as being profoundly unfair and discriminatory and for having damaged the credibility of the political process. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Andersson, for his endeavours and his achievement in putting together a report which received almost unanimous support in the vote in committee. I hope that the same thing will happen in tomorrow’s vote. I am equally pleased to pay tribute to Commissioner Diamantopoulou for having endeavoured thus far and for continuing to make every effort to ensure that the reforms which the 15 Member States are attempting to carry out do not bring extreme poverty for the elderly, who are already too poor and, in many of these States, whose only source of income is their pension. That said, I would like to advocate a different course of action to fulfil the commendable desire to provide secure, funded pensions in the future. It is absolutely vital that we stop the wastage taking place in the different pension systems of the States of Europe. It is absolutely vital that we reduce the cost of labour, which is so great in many of our States as to make it difficult for European States to compete on the world market economy. In Italy, for example, each worker carries pension costs of 34%, in Switzerland, contributions of just 10% lead to pensions which are just as respectable as Italian pensions, and, in Portugal, for example, the figure is 7.6%. This means that we must investigate where it is that the money is being wasted, where the inefficiency lies and where changes need to be made. Moreover, I would like to say that there are two ways of paying debts: there are debtors who, when they have to pay the debt which has fallen due, do not show up and run away; then there are others who do without a summer holiday and give up their car in order to pay their debts. The debtors are our 15 States and the creditors are people – pensioners and elderly people – who live off their pensions. We must not bury our heads in the sand but endeavour to pay off the debts we have incurred with the elderly people of today.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, as regards endocrine disrupters we currently have a lot of doubts, a lot of questions and absolutely no certainties. These substances can have excessively harmful effects on reproductive functions, whether they be human, animal or plant. We do not know the maximum exposure levels or the likely exposure times involved. These substances themselves have not been listed. That is already a lot of questions. Focusing on research now will provide us with the means to find answers to all these questions. Moreover, this is the meaning of paragraphs 3, 6 and 7. Better cooperation with American and Japanese research authorities is absolutely vital. A programme of Community research that enables as much information and scientific proof as possible to be gathered must be supported. In our 2001 budget, we must set aside appropriations on a par with our ambitions for the sixth framework programme on research and development. This research alone will allow us to take into consideration the specific risks linked to these disrupters in future framework legislation on chemical substances. The rapporteur – who has produced an excellent report – cites the precautionary principle as the basis for the relevant measures to be taken. But also in this respect, intellectual honesty must be demonstrated. The precautionary principle not only leads to the implementation of legislative measures; positive, non-legislative measures may also be introduced. My amendment aims to make this reality. I also hope that the opinion of the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Eco-toxicity and the Environment, which was expressed on 5 September, will be taken into consideration. The expertise of this scientific committee is well known and it would be appropriate to take its opinion into account before any legislative decision is taken. I think that it is important that we should rely on the opinions of experts. The precautionary principle also dictates that we should base our decision on the best scientific knowledge available. The Group of the Europe People’s Party and is henceforth opposed to the motion to shift the burden of proof as of today. I feel bound to repeat this, although this is what I have been saying all along. So, even though there are no certainties, it is much too early to overturn the regulations on responsibility applied to this matter. In the case of dangerous substances, authorisation is required before they can be placed on the market. It seems to me that this procedure is already a safeguard. I agree with the rapporteur that our Parliament must send a realistic and responsible message to the general public, to consumers, to the Commission and also to industry in general. Their doubts and concerns are real. We must provide a commensurate response.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would also like to congratulate our rapporteur, Mrs Attwooll, for the spirit of consensus she has created in our committee in order to arrive at compromise amendments, particularly with Mrs Fraga Estevez and to substantially improve, as has been said, the Commission’s proposal on a key issue, which we all recognise, in the current common fisheries policy and in the policy that we are creating for the coming years. European fleet policy is a sensitive and complicated issue – this is something we all agree upon. However, if each State defends its own interests and only complies when it is in its own interest, we clearly get nowhere. Therefore, the Commission must rise to the challenge, through an effective policy accepted by everyone, of designing a fleet that is really suited to our fishing needs. A safe, effective and competitive fleet. Mrs Attwooll’s report, like the report by Mr Busk, is currently of fundamental importance. We want it to draw attention, on the one hand, to the fact that the increase in onboard safety measures has nothing to do with increasing fishing capacity or power, and on the other, to the need not to introduce substantial last-minute changes to programmes which have been in operation for five years, because an annual extension is one thing, but to change fundamental conditions in the general philosophy of the MAGPs now, at the last minute, is quite another. I therefore hope that the House supports this message which the Committee on Fisheries wants to send this afternoon, and that the Commission will, of course, take it into account.

Political group: PPE-DE
Thank you for the information you have just given us, Commissioner. Given the exponential growth of Community expenditure in this sector, do you believe that the various Member States affected by the second BSE crisis will actually be able to meet these requirements with the resources likely to be available to the Commission in the years 2002 and 2003?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to make it quite clear that the way this subject is being exploited for political ends is totally unacceptable, particularly the attempt to undermine the role played by the Catholic Church and the Holy See in those international bodies from which some would like to see it removed in order to further lobbies such as those behind this motion. I would like, first of all, to point out that the Holy See is one thing and the individual people belonging to the Catholic Church are another. The Holy See is not a State of which every Catholic is a citizen; the Holy See serves the universal community through its authority but it cannot be held responsible for every action of all the Catholics in the world, whether priests or lay people. This must be clearly understood to be a fact when we form opinions in a delicate matter such as this. Therefore, when the motion makes several explicit references to the responsibility of the Holy See, it is entering the realms of political exploitation, which must be totally rejected. Pakistan

Political group: PPE-DE