GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I should like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Moreira da Silva, for the extremely fruitful cooperation. We in this Parliament have embraced Kyoto. Only four MEPs voted against. Kyoto does, however, mean minus 8% and not plus 8%, which will be difficult enough as it is. Without European measures, our fifteen governments will not succeed individually. Some eight countries have introduced national eco-taxes, but the industrial bulk consumers fall outside of these national eco-taxes. And this is precisely where the European emissions trading scheme comes in, as nearly 50% of European CO2 emissions will fall within its scope. There has been a great deal of discussion in the United States about CO2 trading, but this has not been followed up by any positive decision-making. Hopefully, we in Europe will be taking the historical decision to take the lead in actually setting up a definite scheme. This is desperately needed, for we have been talking about European energy levies unproductively for the past decade. These have not materialised because individual governments, first the United Kingdom and now Spain, voted against. Another reason why these failed to materialise is because Commissioner Bolkestein refused to set up a leading group. In fact, this emissions trading scheme is the European energy levy scheme, but in a different guise. It is a better system, though; better than the energy CO2 levies, both from an environmental and economic point of view. My group, the Group of the , has managed to get two important amendments adopted in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. The first one is the helping hand to the United States. In Bonn in July last year, we talked to American businesses for two and a half hours. They are very interested in taking part in an international CO2 trading scheme. They believe that once President Bush is out of office, the United States will also follow suit. The second point we managed to get adopted is that the European Commission has been tasked with developing proposals in order to extend this scheme to include households and traffic. The traffic sector, in particular, is of major importance, for we have noticed that our national governments have failed to reduce CO2 emissions in the traffic sector, and this will be necessary. We are still at odds on one point, namely that of the allocation of emission rights. My group is in favour of an auction system. We have tabled a moderate compromise, only 15% auctioning and 85% free, but even this 15% auctioning will give a positive signal to industry that has made an early start on CO2 reduction. If the majority of my fellow MEPs endorse this amendment, then my group will be wholly satisfied.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I hope you will forgive me if I remain seated. I am not yet well enough to stand while I talk to you, but please do not think I am being rude. Also, I do not wish to talk for longer than necessary, but I would just like to thank everyone who has helped in preparing the report, which Commissioner Patten has said the Commission will take into account in the negotiations at the Moscow Summit. Thank you very much, Commissioner. (Applause) The fact that the debate on this report is being held in the right place, that is to say during a joint debate on the Russian Federation, makes it clear once again that we still believe it is up to the Russian Government to ensure that reasonable conditions prevail in Kaliningrad. A delegation from this House recently visited Kaliningrad, and anyone travelling through this region or walking through the city is bound to be horrified, unless they close their eyes. We had an opportunity to discuss matters with the mayor of Kaliningrad, who complained bitterly that the last visit by representatives of the European Union had raised hopes about the construction of a new hospital. In this context, help for patients with TB is particularly important. Everything that has been mentioned by the previous speakers – human rights issues, public health and environmental policy – are issues that must be tackled and where help is needed. One thing is sure, and we should not lose sight of this, because it also underscores what Commissioner Vitorino has said: there will be no real peace in Europe until we have managed to breathe life into the partnership and cooperation agreement. I hope we will succeed, but I will not be too concerned as long as the points mentioned here by the various representatives of the presidency, the Commission and of this House itself are also discussed at the Moscow Summit. Many thanks for giving me a few minutes' speaking time. I am sure we will continue to strive to ensure, working jointly where necessary, Mrs Lalumière, that what has been agreed by Parliament so far is actually implemented and becomes a practical policy. Thank you very much indeed! I would particularly like to thank Erika Mann, who, when I asked her if she would present my contribution here agreed to do so without hesitation. Thank you very much, Erika! (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Commission’s goals are laudable and certainly comprehensible in a macroeconomic framework, but it is hard to support them. The Commission advocates greater price competitiveness, but also respect for the demands of society, in other words, sustainability and quality. We need to ask ourselves how European farmers are going to manage to meet the demands of society, which is calling for extremely rigid rules on production methods, guarantees, food security and so forth, at a time when they are being forced to reduce prices and keep costs down if they are to continue to be competitive on world markets. The Commission advocates simplification. In my opinion, an analysis of the proposals reveals that these are complex measures which will increase rather than reduce bureaucracy. Just one element of the proposals – the system of rights in respect of decoupling – suffices to make it clear by exactly how much bureaucracy will increase costs for our farms. I hold a pessimistic view – and I sincerely hope I am wrong – which can be broken down into three very simple points. Firstly, the proposal to reduce prices, together with decoupling, will lead to large-scale abandoning of production in many regions and many sectors, which will speed up structural changes and cause an exodus from rural areas. In addition to the impact on farms, decoupling will result in the dismantling of the agrifood chain, threatening jobs and having a severe impact on farming cooperatives. Secondly, the European market will be strongly influenced by the main world exporters, which, in our view, will certainly not be the developing countries. Thirdly, the only new measures that will be adopted to help farmers implement more stringent rules and safeguard quality will have to be financed by the farmers themselves through cuts in support. In view of this, I do not know how it is possible to endorse reform.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I fully agree with what Mr Hernández Mollar has said. We are aware of the United States’ security requirements but, Commissioners, it is the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which the Commission is committed to upholding, which sanctions the fundamental right to protection of personal data, and it is the 1995 directive, proposed by the Commission and approved by us, that lays down the rules for the protection of that data. That directive stipulates that the Commission, through a specified procedure that it lays down, must ascertain whether the third country offers adequate protection for data transferred to it regarding our citizens and, if not, that it must open negotiations, find solutions and submit its assessment to the scrutiny of the European Parliament. In the case we have here, the transfer of passengers’ personal data by airlines that fly to the United States, as required by the US authorities on the basis of laws passed in 2001 and 2002, presents serious problems of compatibility with European legislation, particularly as regards the possibility of direct access by the US customs to our airlines’ reservation systems and passenger name records. Amongst other things, I must point out that the data to be acquired – through that direct access – could also contain information of a financial nature or of a medical, religious or ethnic nature which might also refer to persons other than passengers bound for the territory of the United States, that the data might be transferred to other bodies without the consent or control of those it refers to, and that US law only protects US citizens. In this situation, the Commission failed to inform Parliament – as it has admitted – it failed to inform the European citizens prior to the date, 5 March, when the demands on the airlines enter into force, and it did not fulfil its obligation to check whether suitable protection exists in due time but has relied on statements by officials and press releases to convey the promise and reassurance of future interventions. Thus, a fundamental right of European citizens is now at risk. The airlines and national authorities that safeguard personal data are placed in a situation of legal uncertainty, exposed to prosecution for breaking national laws and to the risk of serious financial damage. The Commissioners who have competence in this area must accept their responsibilities straight away and obtain a temporary suspension of the effects of the laws in question; they must request formal and verifiable guarantees, obtain the opinions provided for by the directives and submit a decision to the European Parliament under Article 25 of the directive. Otherwise, I believe the European Parliament will have to consider appealing to the Court of Justice to ensure protection for the citizens of Europe.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy are enthusiastic supporters of the common foreign and security policy, and we are also supporters of these Special Envoys which, at the moment, are inscribed in the Commission’s budget. If I need to mention the Special Envoys at all, it is because the Council is insisting on transferring the financing of the Special Envoys to the Council’s administrative budget. That may sound very sensible. The problem, however, is that, in doing so, there is a loss of the inspection and the control that of course exists in the case of budget items in the Commission’s budget. I therefore agree with what is stated in Mrs Haug’s report, namely that we must insist that these appropriations for Special Envoys remain on the Commission’s budget, for we in that way ensure continued parliamentary inspection and control and ensure that Parliament continues, for example, to be listened to and kept informed. In the Foreign Affairs Committee, we have been sufficiently constructive, however, as to think also about how a medium-term solution might possibly be found in a situation where negotiations with the Council were taking place. This can be read about in the Foreign Affairs Committee’s contribution to Mrs Haug’s report. For if the Council definitely wants these appropriations to appear in the Council’s budget, there is, of course, the possibility of the Council’s, in return, entering into a type of inter-institutional agreement with ourselves here in Parliament, whereby the Council promises to give us the same information, control, inspection facilities etc as if the appropriations had appeared in the Commission’s budget. That is, therefore, the Foreign Affairs Committee’s constructive contribution, and I should like to add that we, of course, also insist that, whenever anything new is adopted concerning the common foreign and security policy – be it in terms of expenditure or of initiatives – the Council must inform the European Parliament.

Political group: ELDR
I would first of all like to congratulate the rapporteur on his very hard work on this difficult report. Farming has taken a blow over the past year in the United Kingdom, and sheep farming, of course, is no exception. Given the fact that 80% of my own nation – Wales – is designated by the EU as less favoured and that sheep farming is the only available method of farming in many part of Wales, this report has far-reaching implications for Wales and its hill and upland farmers, as indeed it has for their European counterparts. I therefore welcome additional financial support for farmers situated in less-favoured areas such as Wales and I urge fellow MEPs to support additional payments for these areas. Now although this premium will not solve overnight the immediate crisis, we need to get the proposal through as quickly as possible to ensure that the sheep annual premium payments will be in place by January 2002. The original proposal was disappointing, and a lot of hard work has been put in to get the best deal possible for farmers in this regard. Of course, I want to see farmers get the fairest and highest possible premium. However, we have to work within the budget, and this is why I fully support Mr Adam's proposal of EUR 25 and am confident that the Council will consider this proposal as a very viable option given the constraints. Pitching the figure higher than this would lose money to other sectors including rural development. I will be voting against Amendment No 21, as I believe the wording to be too vague, and I would like to see a clause stating that any money put back into the national reserve from a region or country within a Member State should be ring-fenced to ensure the benefit of this fund is maintained for that particular area – that is a very important point. We must protect our sheep-farming industry because to lose more farmers from the industry would have a catastrophic effect on the make-up of rural communities where small family farms play such a vital role.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I wish to say at the outset that the committee is very grateful that we secured this inquiry. As we are all aware, the initial decision to hold an inquiry was not without its difficulties. It was opposed by the UK Government, which also expressed misgivings as to the duration of the inquiry. It felt that six months was sufficient. However, we would never have accomplished what we did had we not been allowed a 12-month duration. That was vital for us to undertake the task asked of us. On the matter of the three-kilometre contiguous culling, in my own nation, Wales, up to 700 farms were culled of all their animals and only on 60 of those farms were there proven cases of the foot and mouth epidemic. I stress this because, in some of the opposing amendments, the Socialist Group implies, and I quote their justification: 'There was no evidence that animal welfare was violated in more than a handful of instances.' If animals were culled on this scale with no proven blood-tested evidence, it was a clear and blatant violation of animal welfare, and on a large scale. I am disappointed at Mr Byrne's unwillingness to countenance or even research into a prophylactic routine vaccination in future, and this at a time when the Commission has advertised in farming publications – daily and weekly in the UK – all sorts of routine vaccinations to tackle all sorts of epidemics and diseases. On the matter of the legality of the cull in the UK, it is quite unacceptable that, based on two court cases alone in Britain, the cull had a legal basis. In future we must have proper contingency planning. It is quite astounding that the government of the day in the UK had no tried and tested contingency plan in place. I also have grave doubts as to whether we have had sufficient consultation with civil society and simulation exercises to ensure that, if there were an outbreak tomorrow morning, we would all know what to do and how to respond to it. The epidemic in the UK was a catalogue of errors. Regions like my own had no idea at all how to tackle the situation and no powers devolved to them to undertake their task of tackling it effectively. In the interests of communities everywhere throughout Europe, it is vital that the same mistakes are not allowed to happen again.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I would like to propose that we insert the words “between the two countries” after the words – I only have the English text here now – “On the basis of the principles of respect of international law and treaties”. (The House approved the inclusion of the oral amendment) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Joint motion for resolution(4) on the Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum and the resumption of the peace process in the Middle East (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE – Calendar of part-sessions for 2000

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, the EU is to have a single currency and will therefore have a common currency zone. There is also a desire to make the EU a common scientific area, eventually to become a scientific superpower. In many fields the EU is already a scientific superpower. Not all the results and methods applied become common practice, however, as many large countries appear to have their eye purely on their own national, commercial and military interests. They should be opening up their projects to others more. If that does not happen, the EU will not be a genuine European Research Area, and EU money will be used to finance just the scraps and leftovers, for which there are insufficient national funds owing to the fact that the work is deemed to generally lack importance. In Finland we use the expression ‘meaningless research’. That means research that produces results that no one needs, uses, criticises or adds to. The European Research Area must not become an area of meaningless research and EU money must not be spent on financing meaningless research. We have to solve the problem that there is no qualitative monitoring of the use of EU funds in which radically scientific achievements might be appraised. It is to be feared that the use of funds is inefficient in scientific terms. It is possible that a common research centre will mean more bureaucracy than science. For that reason, we must demand that any common research area must be developed according to scientific criteria. I would like to thank Mrs Plooij-van Gorsel for her thorough work in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. The report’s only flaw is its call for an alliance between science and the armaments industry.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, a very important aspect of the common fisheries policy is the communication from the Commission on a strategy for the sustainable development of European aquaculture of September 2002. I therefore greatly welcome the initiative of the Committee on Fisheries to subject aquaculture in the European Union to a thorough investigation in an own–initiative report. The increasing importance of this sector of the fisheries industry is not only due to its steady growth in recent years; it can also be regarded as a genuine alternative to the dwindling stocks worldwide of marine fauna used for human consumption. It also has positive effects on the labour market, and – a point which should be emphasised – not only in coastal regions. A large number of jobs depend directly or indirectly on aquaculture, both in primary production but also in many other sectors. I believe that research in this area is particularly important. The financial resources should undoubtedly be boosted here so that even better recommendations can be made. There are still many unresolved problems in aquaculture. Let me cite a few: the use of pharmaceuticals, minimising environmental impacts, food safety for consumers, improving production units in line with more stringent animal welfare standards, and, not least, protecting wild species from genetically manipulated fish species. Finally, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Martin, very warmly for his very thorough investigation of this issue. We will undoubtedly have reason to continue our debate on aquaculture in future.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this week in Barcelona the European Council will gather in order to seek to build upon the Lisbon Process. At that meeting, we will be pressing for more action to be taken in relation to deregulation, for more liberalisation, ensuring that we learn the lessons of employment flexibility. There are those of us who have felt ever since we have arrived in the European Parliament that there is a lot of rhetoric in this place about free trade, but that there is also a great deal of protectionism with Member States here in Europe. The entire agenda in Europe of taking forward a uniform competition policy and bearing down on state aid is geared towards ensuring that we have free trade. In those circumstances, those of us who count ourselves as the best friends of the United States are hugely disappointed by the action that the US President has taken. It is not putting it too strongly to say that, in a sense, we feel betrayed by it. I do not link this to our support for the United States following the events of 11 September. The events of 11 September were so horrific that they should not be linked with any sort of agreement in any other policy area. But for those of us who have been pointing to the United States as an example of a deregulated and liberalised economy, it has been a shattering blow to see the way in which President Bush, faced with the difficulties that his steel industry is encountering, has gone for protectionism. What is even worse is to read in the Financial Times today a justification of this action from Robert Zoellick, the US Trade Representative. I feel sorry for Mr Zoellick, whom again we would regard as a friend of British Conservatives, because I must say that article destroys any credibility that he had in terms of discussion of trade issues. The United States representatives watching this debate need to know that, while we may have heard from the usual suspects in terms of anti-Americanism, those of us who are friends of the United States feel very badly let down indeed.

Political group: PPE-DE
I have voted in favour of compromise Amendments Nos 61-74, which were adopted together. At the same time, I want to express my very great surprise at the view of children and elderly people, parents, family life and family unity, as well as of simple, decent love of thy neighbour, which comes to light in the following words to be found in the justification of compromise Amendment 72 on the subject of finding necessary resources for making it easier to reconcile working and family life, mainly by setting benchmarks for improved childcare and care of the elderly (which I interpret as also applying to care of children by their own parents in their own homes): ‘The need for childcare and care of elderly family members form obstacles to women’s activity in professional, political or social spheres at various periods in their lives’. It is mainly the words ‘form obstacles to’ and ‘the need for childcare and care of elderly family members’ which cause me deep concern. Moreover, is ‘activity in professional, political or social spheres’, to quote the justification, the highest good and only thing of value for individual human beings? Is it this to which the political authorities attach the highest importance, while family life – the basic unit of society – and the intimate and human values associated with it are now also to be disregarded and devalued in this way?

Political group: PPE-DE