Explanations of vote
Oral explanations of vote
Charles Goerens
(FR) Mr President, yesterday the President, quite rightly, made much of respect for the Community method. This method guarantees the involvement of all Member States, and Community institutions, in the decision-making processes, and this from the very beginning.
The G4's way of tackling the banking and financial crisis in 2008 was the opposite of respect for the aforementioned method, which Mr Barroso called for yesterday afternoon. In 2008, we waited in vain for President Barroso to call for order.
The European Union is of course France, the United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany, and Italy - all members of the G4 - but it is also Austria, Belgium, Estonia, Latvia, Romania, Poland, Hungary, Luxembourg and so on, which were excluded from an important phase in the decision-making process in 2008.
President Barroso, you should have enforced respect for the Community method in 2008, via the same statement you made yesterday. This is why I am unable to support your candidacy.
Mr President, may I add a personal remark. It is difficult for those who have the floor to speak with this din all around.
Crescenzio Rivellini
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, after my speech I will say a few words in Neapolitan (Part not transcribed in this document, since Neapolitan is not an official language). I will do so not for reasons of local colour, but to attract political and media attention to our emergencies: the emergencies of southern Italy. I voted for President Barroso, not least because I hope that he will be the President of the whole of Europe, including southern Italy.
Located as it is in the middle of the Mediterranean, the South is the gateway to Europe and the link between different worlds. Through its history, geographical position and culture of hospitality, it can play an important role for the old continent as a whole. Southern Italy should be treated with the same dignity as other places in Europe and, now that it is experiencing difficulties, Europe must intervene as energetically as when it regularised 150 million citizens from the East, who became EU citizens. That operation came at a price, and if, today, a worker from Gdańsk earns 28 times more than he earned before, he also owes it to the economic effort of Italy and of southern Italy.
(The speaker continued in Neapolitan)
Daniel Hannan
Mr President, time has, perhaps, habituated us to the hollowness of the ritual that we have just carried out. Familiar as we are with the EU structures, we have ceased to see how anomalous, how outrageous, it is that we have supreme executive and legislative power in the hands of an unaccountable and unelected bureaucracy. The majority of laws in the Member States come from a European Commission whom nobody votes for and nobody can get rid of. The only bit that pretends to democratic authority is the rite that was just carried out in this Chamber, which I cannot help saying put me in mind of one of those occasional meetings of the People's Assembly in the old Comecon times where we all stand up and congratulate ourselves on having rubber-stamped the decision.
I have no personal problems with José Manuel Barroso. If we are going to have a federalist President of the Commission - and I can see that is the will of the House - it might as well be him as anyone else. He seems a nice chap - and, like all British politicians, I am profoundly Lusophile and aware of our relationship with our oldest ally - but there is something farcical about the pretence that there is any democratic involvement in a system that puts a monopoly on the right to initiate law in the hands of people that we cannot vote for and cannot get rid of.
Syed Kamall
Mr President, like my previous colleague who spoke earlier, I would like to say that I also have my reservations about Mr Barroso being re-elected as President of the Commission.
After all, he more than anyone is committed to further European integration, often against the will of the peoples of Europe. But he did come to our group meeting, the ECR Group meeting, and explain that he was in favour of smart regulation.
Now, of course, there is much doubt about what 'smart regulation' means. Many people believe that smart regulation is bad regulation, or that any regulation is not very smart regulation.
But I would ask him, if he really is in favour of smart regulation, to make sure that, on every directive, the Commission carries out a proper economic impact assessment. We have going through this House next year the Alternative Investment Fund Management Directive. The Commission has failed so far to conduct any proper economic impact assessment - in fact they say it cannot be done.
How, under those circumstances, are we going to get smart regulation? I ask Mr Barroso to reconsider.
Andrew Henry William Brons
Mr President, I opposed the joint motion for a resolution on forest fires, despite the fact that I agree with European countries cooperating voluntarily to prevent, fight and repair the appalling damage caused by forest fires.
However, I object to the creation of European Union bodies that would exercise power over Member States in areas that are wider than necessary to deal with this problem. I draw attention to paragraphs 3, 7 and 8 of the joint motion for a resolution.
This proposal is exploiting admirable humanitarian responses to the appalling tragedies that we have seen in order to take further steps towards the creation of the European protection force called 'Europe Aid' as outlined in the Barnier report.
Philip Claeys
(NL) Mr President, I abstained in the final vote on this resolution, although I did do so with some reservation and a number of doubts, as this text does, without doubt, include many positive elements, things that no one can really oppose. I am thinking, for example, of the support for reinforcing the Member States' civil protection measures by means of the exchange of experts and working methods. Last summer, we saw once again that some forest fires assume such a scale that cooperation is necessary, but that cooperation between Member States takes place already. Such cooperation can, of course, be deepened further, but it is questionable what value there is, for example, in having a separate EU reaction force. Doing so simply takes resources from the Member States, creates yet another new EU body with its own staff and adds yet more bureaucracy.
Written explanations of vote
Maria da Graça Carvalho
President Barroso has made Europe the world leader in the fight against climate change. The European Union is the only international bloc that has a clear, consistent negotiating position for the Copenhagen conference. The political guidelines for the next Commission outlined by President Barroso present an ambitious, modern vision for Europe, to which the fight against climate change and the areas of the knowledge triangle are central.
The challenges facing us are complex, and the responses must necessarily be holistic. For the post-2010 period, therefore, President Barroso is proposing a coordinated and convergent approach involving the Lisbon Strategy, energy and climate policy and social policy. New sources of growth and social cohesion are proposed, based on a new industrial strategy for Europe, a modern service sector and a dynamic rural economy.
President Barroso thus prioritises the real economy and its modernisation through scientific research, technological development, innovation and the principles of sustainability. The Commission, under the leadership of President Barroso, in partnership with the European Parliament and the Council, will help to cultivate a prosperous, sustainable and socially advanced European Union.
Françoise Castex
For the sake of political consistency and out of respect for our electorate, I voted against the re-election of Mr Barroso. In the five years of his mandate, Mr Barroso, who harnessed the support of certain EU countries for George W. Bush's war in Iraq, has never been able to revive the European Union or to strengthen it in the face of national self-interest. He did not measure up to the task when the financial, economic and social crisis occurred.
All he has done in these five years is support the wayward paths taken by financial capitalism instead of proposing the new regulations Europe needs in the 21st century. The European Commission's policy needs to be reoriented. Mr Barroso is not the man for the job. His programme is no match for the scale of the current crisis: it lacks a European recovery plan, a pact for employment, regulation and effective supervision of the financial markets, and more robust and prompt instruments to correct the current imbalances. We need a directive on public services and a reoriented policy by the Commission on pay. If we want to save our European social model, we need a much more ambitious social agenda.
Diogo Feio
I am pleased to say that, as a Portuguese and a Member of the European Parliament, I voted in favour of the re-election of José Manuel Durão Barroso as President of the European Commission. I believe his performance during the previous mandate, which was beset by so many political, financial and social difficulties, and the experience he acquired in this post, justified the support of the governments and the renewed confidence of this House.
I deplore the many attempts - not all of them open or serious - to prevent his candidacy from succeeding, and I note that they were frustrated not only by a lack of any credible alternative but also by the foolishness of the arguments on which they were based. I regret that Members from my own country could not resist taking that path, which is as easy as it is inconsequential.
I hope the second Barroso Commission can combine technical competence with that 'something extra'. I also hope it will effectively respect and make use of the principle of subsidiarity, and will choose the safety and solidity of taking small steps, as recommended by Jean Monnet, rather than adopting the fast-track approach that has promised much but contributed little to the real progress of the European project and dream. However much we aim for the horizon, we only get there by putting one foot in front of the other. Let us go the right way.
José Manuel Fernandes
I welcome the result of this vote, which brings Dr José Manuel Durão Barroso back to the European Commission Presidency. Portugal is proud to have a Portuguese of such recognised ability and quality as Dr Barroso at the head of the Commission. It is even prouder to see the value of his work during his first mandate, from 2004 to 2009. This value has been acknowledged by the European Parliament in this vote. In fact, he was elected by a very large majority, greater than that required by the Treaty of Lisbon.
Over the last five years, Dr Barroso showed strong, comprehensive leadership. The energy and climate change dossier, the Services Directive and the regulation on chemical substances are just a few examples of success and leadership. He was also at the forefront in the search for solutions and in concrete proposals to resolve the economic crisis that is still affecting us. The European Parliament has just sent out a signal that Europe is strong and has a strong leader. Therefore, with confidence and hope, we can advance towards a Europe of greater prosperity and solidarity.
João Ferreira
The political guidelines for the next mandate of the Commission, which have just been tabled, reveal its President's intention to continue pursuing the main lines of action that were included in the guidelines of the mandate that is now ending. Those guidelines lie at the origin of the deep economic and social crisis that we are now experiencing, the tragic consequences of which - unemployment, inequality, poverty and exclusion - have mercilessly afflicted the workers and peoples of Europe.
In Portugal, the consequences of implementing the policies resulting from these guidelines have been the destruction or utter crippling of essential productive sectors - agriculture, fisheries and industry; the assault on workers' rights, the devaluation of wages and the corresponding increase in unemployment and insecure work; inequality in income distribution, which now clearly diverges from the EU average; and the failure of the policies of deregulation, liberalisation and privatisation of basic sectors, which have dismantled public services and commercialised essential aspects of our collective existence. Keeping these same guidelines means perpetuating the concentration of wealth, maintaining divergence instead of convergence, and causing further damaging eruptions of a latent systemic crisis to occur sooner rather than later.
Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg
We would all like to see a stronger Europe, and for people to be better off! You do too, judging by the 'Political guidelines for the next Commission' which you presented to Parliament. Yet more is expected from a candidate for the future head of the Commission: he is expected to say how he intends to achieve this, rather than just presenting a list of challenges.
In fact, the goals are so wide-ranging that there is the danger of them ruling each other out, and there will definitely come a time when a choice will have to be made as to which of the priorities are 'more important'. For example, which would you choose if the aim of European economic competitiveness clashes with the aim of high levels of employment? The text you sent us does not make this clear.
I have the impression that your document is simply a wish-list of things that were not achieved in the previous term. The question is, why not?
I would, however, like to speak on the point about the Internet in your programme. You mention the importance of the Internet for economic development and the social cohesion of Europe, and even promise that the new Commission will develop a 'European Digital Agenda'. What I would like to know is how you intend to implement this idea in practice, and what the Agenda will contribute which is new compared to previous initiatives?
Bruno Gollnisch
Like my friends representing the national movements in Europe, I am one of the 219 MEPs who voted against Mr Barroso. He is a likeable and cultured man, but most of all he is the symbol of the failure of the European Union. He has failed to save our economies and our jobs from unfair global competition; to help European countries come out of the crisis; to reform the financial system to curb unbridled speculation; to guarantee democracy; to ensure food self-sufficiency; and to curb the accelerated de-industrialisation of our countries.
In a word, he has failed to demonstrate that the Europe of Brussels is more than a machine for grinding down, impoverishing and enslaving nations and peoples. On closer observation, the election of Mr Barroso is also a symbol: that of the way in which this Europe works. What sort of uproar would there be if, instead of the President of the Commission, who is going to influence the lives of 500 million Europeans through his policies, it was a Head of State who, despite being the sole candidate, was elected by little more than half of the votes?
Sylvie Guillaume
Today I voted against Mr Barroso's candidacy for three essential reasons. Firstly, his own track record in the last five years: a Presidency which was weak, conservative and liberal, immobile in the face of the crisis, incapable of stimulating a coordinated recovery, and exclusively attentive to the wishes of the Heads of State or Government. José Manuel Barroso has certainly not furthered a strong Europe. Secondly, the inadequacy of his response to the conditions set by the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament: providing neither a genuine recovery plan, nor a pact for employment, no regulation, supervision or effective instruments to correct the imbalances in the financial markets, and making not one commitment concerning a framework directive protecting public services. Finally, the messages sent out by voters during the European elections, which showed us that they no longer want a weakened, incomprehensible Europe, where compromise is considered a superior virtue to political direction.
Jacky Hénin
The election of the President of the European Commission is an extremely important act, and the citizens of the EU should have the right to know their representatives' choice.
Personally speaking, I regret and condemn the secret ballot procedure that leads to a complete lack of accountability.
Moreover, as I can find no common ground with the policy proposed by Mr Barroso, I confirm that I will not be supporting his appointment as President of the Commission.
Cătălin Sorin Ivan
At the end of the five-year term (2004-2009), the assessment of the European Commission's activities does not cast President Barroso in a favourable light. Based on this fact, it seems necessary to abstain from voting, especially at a time when a negative vote would be an unwise political decision, given the lack of any alternative, while a positive vote would be tantamount to expressing unconditional and unjustified confidence in an unsatisfactory programme.
I believe that the support being given to President Barroso by Member States is unarguable proof of the fact that he has not been a strong president, but rather one for whom national interests have taken priority, meaning that it has been national leaders who have set out the guidelines for his mandate. The European Commission needs a president to support the development of Community policies, constantly strive for integration and promote the concept of a United Europe. He must not be in any way an advocate for national interests. From a social-democratic perspective, President Barroso has not fulfilled a large number of the commitments made at the start of his mandate in 2004. Very little interest has been shown by the Commission in many of these, including the consolidation of a Social Europe. Consequently, I chose not to vote for President Barroso's reappointment.
Astrid Lulling
I voted in favour of appointing Mr Barroso as President of the European Commission.
I have come to this decision for four reasons.
The European Council unanimously proposed Mr Barroso's candidacy.
In my understanding of democracy, election winners can claim the right to choose one of their own.
There is no other choice but Mr Barroso; no alternative solution has been seriously considered.
The criticisms directed at the outgoing President are mistaken about an essential fact, namely that the Commission is able to make proposals and that it is the Member States that lay them down.
My support also comes with some expectations.
In the course of his second term of office, Mr Barroso should be a little more independent minded, not least with regard to the large Member States, and the sole objective of his actions should be to serve the general interest of the Community.
I regret that the Commission has a tendency to evolve into a conglomerate of commissioners, free to act as they please. I would ask Mr Barroso to use his influence to counteract this evolution.
I would like the institution, as 'guardian of treaties', to regain its original strength, in other words, its capacity to show the way with rallying projects.
Willy Meyer
Mr Barroso, the President of the European Commission, is responsible for the current situation of financial, economic, food and environmental crisis in which Europe is immersed. To date, no one has recognised his error, and the blame has instead been placed on the United States. To date, the Commission has tried to build a Europe based on policies of privatisation and dismantling of the social state.
The Commission adopted the Lisbon Strategy, which predicted economic growth of 3% and the creation of 20 million jobs by 2010. The failure of this strategy is clear. Despite that, the Commission is proposing to renew this strategy and continue with these policies, which are the cause of the crisis. This crisis is not a pandemic; it is the result of a gamble on one specific policy: the policy adopted by the European Commission. Its foreign policy programme makes no reference to the Sahara or Palestine. These issues are not only not its priorities, but the EU is planning to grant advanced status to the Kingdom of Morocco and to upgrade relations with the State of Israel.
Maria do Céu Patrão Neves
The work carried out by President Barroso over the last five years was characterised by great pragmatism, seriousness and firmness in the way he looked after Europe's top interests.
His world leadership in combating climate change, the timeliness of increasing Europeans' involvement with the oceans through the launch of the new European maritime policy, and his ability to generate consensus on the financial perspective in a Europe of 27 are a few examples that justify keeping him at the head of the European Commission.
Economic growth, investment in innovation and training, and fighting unemployment are fundamental pillars for Europe's integration to continue, and they are also Mr Barroso's priorities for the future.
At a time when the world economic and financial situation is not at its best, Europe needs a strong leader who can breathe life into the European project.
For all the above reasons and many others, I believe Mr Barroso is the ideal president to guide the EU's destiny in the forthcoming term of office.
Frédérique Ries
Like 381 of my fellow Members, I supported Mr Barroso's appointment as head of the Commission. I did so for many reasons, not least because some people are levelling particularly unfair accusations against the candidate. I hear some dream of a new Delors, while they forget that we have changed the world... and Europe. The Europe of the 12, of Kohl and Mitterrand, is no more and will doubtless never return.
The first President of a Commission of 25, then of 27, Mr Barroso had the delicate task of handling the enlargement of 2004, a mandate marked by consolidation. The second will be one of ambition. I hope it will be so and I want to give him the credit for this. I want to refuse to play the game of sorcerer's apprentice, to refuse to wait, not for Godot, but for another hypothetical candidate that the Council has no intention of putting forward. I want to refuse to wait and to further weaken our institutions and the reputation that Europe still enjoys among Europeans. So yes, we will expect him to keep his promises, such as combating climate change and discrimination, and the urgent concerted action in the face of the economic and social crisis. To postpone this vote one more time would be to bark up the wrong tree. To wait for a phantom candidate would be a mistake.
Nuno Teixeira
A strong, ambitious Commission Presidency is essential for Europe to regain its position as world leader by seeking a balance between economic and political goals on one hand and social and territorial cohesion on the other. Priorities must be defined pragmatically but without neglecting the values that lie at the origin of the European project.
We have a number of challenges ahead, such as reforming the Community budget, which Europe must address by showing that it is able to set the world agenda on various topics including the fight against climate change and the regulation of financial markets. At a time when unemployment is soaring in several Member States, it is vital to seek a sustainable way out of the current economic and social crisis. This goal should unite the Member States around the principle of solidarity and the strengthening of the European single market.
Since I believe that José Manuel Durão Barroso has the qualities that will allow him to continue to successfully fulfil the expectations that we have placed in him, since I think the fact that he holds the post is an honour for Portugal, and since I see it as an advantage for a small, isolated, distant and outermost region like Madeira to have someone in the Commission who thoroughly understands its reality, I support his new candidacy for the post of President of the European Commission.
Frank Vanhecke
I voted against the re-appointment of Mr Barroso as President of the European Commission as, for the past five years, he has been the very symbol of a Commission that chose to disregard the democratic rejection of the Treaty of Lisbon and did so contemptuously and in a particularly arrogant fashion. Mr Barroso also repeatedly argued for a new wave of mass immigration and constantly played down the problems associated with the possible accession of Turkey to the EU. It is also telling that Mr Barroso yesterday refused to answer a justified question from a British Member about his intentions with regard to a European Commissioner for Human Rights - an internal one within the EU, that is. Big Brother Europe marches on, but apparently no one is to know, and that includes MEPs.
Derek Vaughan
in writing. - Although it is not the norm for me to abstain, I felt that, for today's vote on the election of the President of the Commission, abstention was the right choice. I accept that Mr Barroso has made some concessions, for example, on the issue of social impact assessments. However, Mr Barroso has failed to show commitment in putting forward proposals of importance to the S&D Group - for example, a strengthening of the Posted Workers Directive, a directive of vital importance for the protection of Welsh workers. We also need more commitment about the portfolios given to newly appointed commissioners and a clear explanation from Mr Barroso about the organisation of the next college. I do not believe that Mr Barroso's pledge to fight social dumping in Europe is far-reaching enough, and it is for this reason, as well as the abovementioned, that I took the decision to abstain on this vote.
Bernadette Vergnaud
I voted against Mr Barroso's candidacy, above all, because I believe in a genuinely political Europe, which cannot be satisfied with a Commission bound by the desiderata of big business. I also believe that one cannot campaign by calling for another form of European leadership only to then give a blank cheque to a champion of liberalism whose programme is sorely lacking in ambition and values. A man who has taken shelter behind the idea of 'better regulation' in order to 'deregulate' everything that I, as a socialist, defend: public services, social protection of workers, respect for health systems, regulation of the financial economy and protection of consumers and of the environment against the power of industrial groups. Out of respect for my own convictions and those of the electorate, I feel that these values cannot be called into question by ulterior motives and tricks aimed at obtaining derisory concessions from conservatives who control the majority of the Member States, the European Parliament and the Commission, and who will not rest until they have furthered their deregulatory policy.
Dominique Vlasto
Although the vote on the President of the European Commission is secret, I would like to express publicly my support for the candidate from our political family, José Manuel Barroso, and sincerely to congratulate him on his re-election. As the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) won the European elections, it is quite natural that the President of the future Commission should come from our ranks. Therefore, despite the futile unrest among the divided left and the Greens, who did not, however, have a candidate to put forward, Mr Barroso was comfortably re-elected. I also welcome his reaffirmed commitment to work in close cooperation with our Assembly, within which he can count on our determination and our support each time the proposals of our European project have to go to the vote. Parliament and the Commission will now be able to set to work without delay, which was the most important thing at this difficult time, where there are many challenges to take up swiftly for the sake of all Europeans. Moreover, while Europe is involved in the G20 and climate negotiations, it must be united and in good working order: today's clear, unambiguous vote also strengthens it in the face of the other world powers.
Jean-Pierre Audy
I voted for the European Parliament resolution of 16 September 2009 on the forest fires of summer 2009. This resolution follows numerous others highlighting the frequency, the seriousness, the complexity and the impact of natural and man-made disasters in Europe, the number of which has increased rapidly in the last few years. The forest fire phenomenon is aggravated by rural depopulation, the progressive abandonment of traditional activities, poor forest management, the existence of vast expanses of forest planted with one single species, the planting of non-adapted tree species, the absence of an effective prevention policy, the levity of penalties imposed in cases of arson, and the flawed implementation of laws forbidding illegal construction and guaranteeing reforestation. It is regrettable that, despite Parliament's demands, the Commission has not taken steps to create a European civil protection force, and I welcome the action of my friend Mr Barnier, who has long been proposing this facility. Finally, at a time when private insurance companies do not offer fire cover for forests, it is becoming imperative, faced with the private sector's failure to act, to consider a public/private collective instrument to insure forests against storms and fire.
Carlos Coelho
Unfortunately, conditions of extreme drought and forest fires in southern Europe have been growing both more frequent and more intense. Immense damage has been caused in terms of loss of human life (11 people have died just this summer), reduced economic activity and environmental degradation, particularly through an increase in the rate of desertification, in that some 400 000 hectares of European forests have disappeared every year over the last decade.
Climate change is contributing to the increase in natural disasters, but many cases are still unforeseeable or are caused by criminal acts. Scientific research therefore needs to be developed so as to improve risk assessment procedures, fire prevention systems and fire-fighting facilities, and the requisite financial resources must also be released.
We need a European strategy to combat natural disasters, as well as greater interoperability and coordination among the various Community instruments. The Member States should enhance their cooperation and coordination so as to guarantee solidarity and the availability of additional rapid mobilisation resources to fight these disasters.
I call on the Presidency of the Council to make an urgent decision on the regulation for the new Solidarity Fund, in order to increase transparency and make its mobilisation more flexible in an emergency.
Diogo Feio
Southern Europe has been the victim of disasters (drought and fires) that have threatened human lives, economies and local ecosystems and are contributing to the gradual abandonment of extensive areas that were once populated, worked and cared for. Rather than being a problem for one country or another, this issue and its serious consequences have now become cross-border in nature and clearly deserve a response at European level.
As I have said previously, the European Union will benefit if it remains united even in adversity and if it is able to mobilise resources such as the Solidarity Fund as well as systems and methods to avert the causes and mitigate the consequences of these scourges and to provide a flexible, prompt and suitable response to them.
In addition to the European Commission, which should adopt a leading role in seeking solutions and implementing best practice, the whole forestry sector should be called on to share knowledge, define solutions and point to ways to help diversify the activities associated with forests.
A Portuguese nursery rhyme says a tree is a friend. The European Union should repay this friendship and thus support the future of rural areas.
João Ferreira
The reason why I voted in favour is linked to the need for effective solidarity and the immediate mobilisation of financial resources, so as to be able, with all due urgency, to tackle the socially and environmentally tragic situation that has befallen the areas and communities affected by this summer's fires.
I believe, however, that the resolution should place greater emphasis on the effects of certain Community policies, particularly the common agricultural policy, which lead people to abandon the land and productive systems, and on activities which contribute to a preventive approach to the problem of fires.
The consequences of the CAP, particularly in countries like Portugal, are among the underlying causes of the fires which today devastate vast areas of land year after year. I believe, however, that this possible and desirable cooperation among Member States in fighting forest fires should not be used to pave the way for removing important aspects of Member States' individual sovereignty, namely in terms of civil protection and measures for controlling and intervening in their own territory.
Sylvie Guillaume
Once again this summer, forest fires have devastated the south of France. Like our other European neighbours, our citizens have found themselves battling flames, these disasters resulting in both material damage and human suffering. This is why I have advocated the setting up of an independent and permanent European reaction force, whose task would be to assist Member States and regions affected by fires and other disasters. Equally, we need - and this is also the appeal we have made to the Commission - a strategy which allows us to conserve the rich ecosystems in our natural parks, be it the Bauges, Ardèche or Lubéron, with the whole undertaking relying on funding designed for preventive measures and actions to re-establish the damaged ecosystem. Recourse to the CAP might be justified to prevent the spread of forest fires, which are too often the result of abundant undergrowth in some areas. Finally, I have also advocated mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund, a fund that today is blocked by the Council even though it is needed desperately.
Eija-Riitta Korhola
Mr President, in Monday's debate on the forest fires during the summer of 2009, I said that natural conditions will alter with climate change. That is a fact that cannot be contradicted. It does not, however, explain environmental disasters, especially if the same phenomena recur every few years. We can and must be better prepared. That is why I had to vote against my group's position today with regard to Amendment 5 and, to be perfectly honest, that position puzzles me greatly. It really is time the Member States of the Union took a look in the mirror. One feels fully justified in saying that the destruction caused by forest fires could have been prevented if certain Member States had developed and implemented more effective preventive measures and worked harder to stop criminal activity in the acquisition of more land to build on.
Our political environment cannot be one where people close their eyes to the facts. This benefits nobody, especially when it concerns the scale of the human tragedy resulting from forest fires. It has been suggested that climate change is one cause of the increase in the number of forest fires, and it is true that Europe will have to prepare for longer forest fire seasons than just June to September which, until now, has been the norm. Summers are beginning earlier and they are warmer and drier, especially in the south, and the risk of fires is therefore growing. The problem of fires itself, however, lies not in any progressive change to natural conditions, but elsewhere. It is one thing to adapt to the changing environment; it is quite another to accept rigid bad practices and be unprepared.
Willy Meyer
In Greece, 130 000 olive trees were destroyed by the fires, as well as many hectares of vines, cattle, beekeeping holdings, storehouses, stables and a large number of greenhouses and houses. In Spain, 95 769 hectares have been burnt by forest fires, causing 11 deaths and estimated losses of EUR 395 million.
The social, economic and environmental damage caused by the fires to local economies, productive activity and tourism is huge, rendering necessary support for affected citizens and the re-establishment of previous environmental conditions through immediate national and Community intervention.
We urge the Commission to mobilise the current EU Solidarity Fund without delay and make available the resources needed for the purpose of supporting rehabilitation plans for the affected areas, the restoration of their productive potential and the full reforestation of the burnt areas.
The deforestation is partly due to the construction of roads and railway lines. The Commission must promote measures so that public works financed by EU funds include an amount of public investment for the improvement, maintenance and increase of public forest.
Andreas Mölzer
Unfortunately, the summer of 2009 was marked by devastating forest fires in southern Europe, which caused huge material and ecological damage. It was clear in this context that arsonists, who profit by destroying forests, are encouraged by shortcomings in or the lack of forest registers, or by poorly defined land use. It was therefore important in this motion for a resolution to call on the Member States to revise or amend these registers.
In addition to reforestation, cooperation between experts, fire brigades and other groups deployed is required both in emergencies and for prevention. This motion for a resolution contains logical proposals, such as how the Member States can be supported in a disaster in accordance with the principle of solidarity. That is why I voted for the joint motion for a resolution on the forest fires in the summer of 2009.
Frédérique Ries
We must say straightaway that preventing natural disasters and adapting to climate change is not an easy task. Even if the European Union fares somewhat better than other regions of the world with the creation of a strengthened civil protection mechanism and the financial godsend represented by the Solidarity Fund, more than 600 000 hectares are destroyed each year.
I am not just talking about the forest fires in the Mediterranean Basin, the worst of which were those of summer 2009 in the uplands around Athens. For me, two proposals seem essential to improve the situation. Firstly, Mr Barnier's report of 2006 on a European civil protection force must be implemented in full. We are still waiting for the European green helmets to be set up to give substance to a European policy for civil protection voted for by citizens. Secondly, it is important for the Commission to have a right to oversee what is happening locally. It would be surprising to say the least if European grants were paid when some forest fires were probably started by criminals with the sole aim of preparing the land for development.
Joanna Senyszyn
I voted in favour of the resolution on forest fires. So far this year, over 200 000 hectares of forest have been destroyed by fire in the European Union. That is more than in the whole of 2008! In Poland, the coefficient of the threat of forest fires is one of the highest in Europe. In April 2009, the number of fires was the highest in five years.
We must take urgent and effective measures to counter climate change, which is one of the causes of the fires. Another important issue in the adopted resolution is that of coordinating EU mechanisms for the prevention of climate change and, in particular, the effective use of the Solidarity Fund to limit the consequences of fires.
We need to set up a European reaction force capable of acting quickly in case of natural disasters. This would be a financial and organisational completion of the actions undertaken in the Member States. I hope that the Parliamentary resolution on fighting the effects of fires will be duly considered by the European Commission and mobilised to intensify its own actions in this field.
Catherine Stihler
in writing. - Today's debate on forest fires in welcomed. The devastation to many sites of natural beauty is a loss to us all. We must show solidarity with our colleagues and help the countries affected.
Nuno Teixeira
As a result of the reforestation promoted by the regional government, along with initiatives by environmental protection organisations, recent studies show that the forests of Madeira have increased by almost 5 000 hectares in the last 36 years, an achievement that is all the more noteworthy because it goes against the national trend. This inestimably valuable heritage must be protected and, while we certainly need to be prepared to respond to forest fires, I feel it is essential to balance the allocation of resources across fire prevention, detection and actual fire fighting. I voted in favour of this resolution since I believe this policy can be promoted at European level through a strategy of solidarity that seeks to coordinate fire response and the effective prevention of hazardous forms of behaviour.
With special emphasis on the outermost regions, this approach should involve both the authorities and the owners of forested land in cleaning up woodlands, planting native species and repopulating rural areas. Criminal behaviour should also be suitably punished at a national level. Flexibility in the implementation of procedures associated with the use of existing structural funds or new ones, such as the EU Solidarity Fund, will allow a swifter response to be given to people affected by the loss of farmland, homes and livestock as a result of fires and other disasters.
Frank Vanhecke
I abstained from the final vote on the compromise resolution on the aftermath of the forest fires in 2009. This was because I note that the majority in this Parliament believes that combating forest fires at the European level should not be restricted to support and coordination but that, in reality, a kind of separate European fire-fighting corps would have to be established, yet another European body that would cost vast sums in order to duplicate work already performed by others.
It is, in any case, an illustration of the fact that the Euro-federalists are less concerned about efficiently and competently managing our continent and more concerned about making a statement, namely that everything must be regulated at the European level - in spite of the principle of subsidiarity that we hear acclaimed so frequently.


Cloning of animals for food supply (debate)
President
The next item is the debate on the oral question - to the Commission by Neil Parish, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the cloning of animals for food supply.
Neil Parish
author. - Mr President, I should like very much to welcome Commissioner Vassiliou here this evening to listen to our oral question, especially at this late hour.
When we deal with cloning, it is not only a case of food safety, but also we in Europe believe that, under the common agricultural policy, we are producing food to a very high standard and also to a very high welfare standard. The problems with cloning concern not only the welfare of animals but also consumer confidence in food that may come from cloned animals.
You only have to look across the Atlantic Ocean to the United States of America to see how to stop cloned animals from entering the food chain. For instance, if a cloned bull is worth EUR 1 000 at the end of its life to go into the food chain, then the people who have bred that bull have to put up a bond, which may be worth EUR 3 000, and when they destroy that animal and make sure that it does not go into the food chain, they get the bond back. It is quite a simple way of keeping cloned animals out of the food chain.
I think we have to take this matter very seriously and I would urge the Commissioner to look at this again.
I will go through some of the problems with cloning, especially from a welfare point of view. Cloning entails serious health and welfare problems for clones and their surrogate dams; animal health problems come from invasive techniques required to produce a clone; there is the suffering of surrogate dams which carry cloned foetuses, and high levels of ill health and mortality in early life for cloned animals.
The OIE Scientific and Technical Review identified that only 6% of cloned embryos resulted in healthy, long-term surviving clones.
The EFSA report also points out an increased proportion of pregnancy failure and disorders in surrogate dams of cloned embryos. These disorders and the large size of clones make caesareans more frequent in cattle carrying clones than in conventional pregnancy. Mortality and morbidity is higher in clones than in sexually-produced animals; the welfare of both surrogate dam and clone can be affected.
On the ethics side, the European Group on Ethics has doubts as to whether cloning animals for food supply is ethically justified. It also does not see convincing arguments to justify the production of food from clones and their offspring.
If you look into the figures of what has happened when animals are cloned, cloned calves are often 25% heavier than normal, leading to a painful birth; 25% of cows pregnant with clones at day 120 of gestation develop hydroallantois. Reports in 2003 show only 13% of embryos planted in surrogate dams result in calves delivered at full term; only 5% of all cloned embryos transferred into recipient cows have survived. EFSA's opinion cites a study where out of 2 170 cattle receiving embryos only 106 live births occurred - 4.9% - and only 82 survived more than two days.
We also have to consider the problems that occur not only on the animal welfare side but also in the gene pool of animals - and this is a farming aspect also. Take the Holstein Friesian - it is thought that there are only about 50 strains of the Holstein Friesian. If we start cloning bulls and the heifer from a cloned bull is then put back on to the offspring, so the same father is used, then we will create an even tighter gene pool. There are then problems with disease and with genetics being carried over to those offspring. Therefore, we need to make sure there is hybrid vigour.
The industry itself cannot explain why a cloned animal has the cell of the parent - an older cell. Therefore, again, there is the risk of producing an animal that is not as strong and as healthy.
Therefore, I call on the Commission to submit proposals prohibiting the cloning of animals for the food supply and the placing of cloned animals on the market in meat and dairy products.
Androula Vassiliou
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I want to thank Mr Parish for raising this question, because it is a question to which the Commission has given a lot of consideration and considers important, and it is indeed something which preoccupies us. The European Commission - as Mr Parish said - has asked EFSA to provide an opinion on food safety, animal health, animal welfare and the environmental implications of the use of live animal clones.
The final opinion was adopted on 15 July this year, and the Commission is now evaluating the necessary steps to be taken. This opinion refers to uncertainties in the risk assessment due to the limited number of studies available. It also refers to the fact that the health and welfare of a significant proportion of clones have been found to be adversely affected, often severely, with a fatal outcome.
The Commission is aware that, even though the efficiency of animal cloning has improved in recent years, adverse health affects on animal health and welfare still occur today. There are indications that mortality and morbidity rates in clones after birth are higher than in sexually-reproduced animals. However, most surviving clones are normal and healthy, as determined by psychological measurements as well as by behaviour and clinical examinations.
The Commission closely follows the scientific developments in this area. In 2004 the Commission also financed a pan-European research project called Cloning in Public, addressing ethical, legal and other societal aspects of farm animal cloning. The project was coordinated by the Danish Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment and aimed to promote public debate on the issue of biotechnology.
As far as the involvement of the public is concerned, in autumn 2007 the Commission launched a public consultation on the ethics of animal cloning for food supply, and in September 2007 it organised an open round table on the same topic with representatives from academia, industry, NGOs, civil society, international organisations, industry etc. In order to increase public participation, the round table was also broadcast on the internet, and its proceedings have been published.
Last but not least, the Commission has recently launched a Eurobarometer survey on consumers' attitudes to cloning for food production. Its purpose is to ask the public about their opinion and their awareness regarding cloning and food derived from the offspring of cloned animals. The results will be made available very shortly.
The Commission takes ethical considerations fully into account when dealing with sensitive issues such as cloning. The Commission has given its attention to the ethics of animal cloning since 1997, when the group of advisers to the European Commission on the ethical implications of biotechnology issued an opinion on the ethics of cloning. Due to the state of the art of technology at that time, the opinion did not address the use of cloning for food purposes. It is for this reason that the Commission asked the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies, the independent advisory body to the Commission in this field, to give an opinion on the ethical aspects of animal cloning for food supply. Their opinion was published in January this year. Considering the current level of suffering and health problems of surrogate dams and animal clones, the European Group on Ethics expressed doubts as to whether cloning animals for food supply is ethically justified. It advocated that at the moment there are no convincing arguments to justify the production of food from clones and their offspring. The Commission is currently examining the concerns expressed by the Group.
Under international rules, restrictions to imports of products must be based on legitimate concerns, not be discriminatory, and be proportionate to the objective pursued. According to global trade rules, imports of food products from third countries might be suspended if they present a serious threat to animal or public health. On the basis of the studies conducted and the opinion of EFSA, the Commission will consider whether restrictions must be imposed. I am sure this will be done very shortly.
Agnes Schierhuber
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, today's discussion is absolutely essential as a means of drawing attention to the dangers inherent in cloning. I am very grateful to Neil Parish for having put this oral question to the Commission. One thing is quite clear, namely that animal health equates with food safety.
As we know, there are various types of cloning processes: therapeutic and reproductive cloning as well as DNA cloning. What we are discussing today is reproductive cloning. Reproductive cloning means creating a genetically identical copy of something: a plant, an animal and perhaps one day - if we feel the need to overstep all boundaries - even a human being.
When cloning is used in animal breeding for food production, however, there are problems. The first of these to which I wish to refer is the high loss rate. We know from the Americans that only a very few clones survive. Consequently, cloning for food production is not financially viable. From the very beginning, the clone has the genetic age of the original. That is to say if the original is a six-year-old cow, the clone will be a calf whose genes are six years old. In the cloning process the cloning genome is inevitably damaged. This makes the clone susceptible to diseases and parasites.
When cloning occurs over several generations, Commissioner, there is a cumulative depletion of the genetic diversity on which species depend for their survival because it enables them to adapt to changes in their natural surroundings.
Lastly, the question arises whether mankind can presume to intervene in the most natural biological processes, even if it is done with the best intentions. It seems to me that there is no need to alter something which has worked for millions of years. Human being have too short a lifespan, in any case, to experience the effects of their actions over long periods of time. I hope we shall not find ourselves in the same dilemma as Goethe's sorcerer's apprentice, who could not rid himself of the spirits he had conjured up.
Csaba Sándor Tabajdi
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (HU) Mr President, I completely agree with Mr Parish's proposal: two types of zero tolerance are needed here. Firstly, cloned animals should not enter the food chain in any way; we are all agreed on that. We also agree completely, and we would ask the Commission to ensure, that cloned animals from Argentina, Brazil or elsewhere outside the Union should not be imported or brought into the European Union in any way. This is the double zero tolerance which I believe is the essence of Mr Parish's proposal. Mrs Schierhuber and Mr Parish have both said that there is still a huge amount of risk, that there are no real, appropriate controls or monitoring, and there are inadequate test samples, inadequate trials, and any trials relate only to pigs and cattle, so there is a huge amount of risk. In fact, it could be summarised by saying that they should not enter the food chain, and it would naturally be absurd and idiotic to obstruct genetic engineering and bioengineering research. Research is one thing, but the food chain is another thing, and thirdly lengthy, reliable checks that are independent of organisations in the sector are needed, as well as independent monitoring for more and longer periods. Thank you for your attention.
Mojca Drčar Murko
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, from experience with other issues that tackle food safety, as well as raising adequate questions linked to the relations between humans as the dominant species and the animals, we know that public perception depends very much on specific knowledge of the matter. Consumers are increasingly sensitive with regard to the suffering of, and injuries to, farm animals. Therefore, they have to be properly informed about the risks posed by the cloning of animals. An educational campaign is needed, explaining to them what an incredibly wasteful process cloning has been so far.
It was expected that EFSA would not find clear safety concerns related to food products from clones of farm animals, compared with conventionally-bred animals. However, EFSA also underlined in its recent report that the practice has major repercussions on the health and welfare of animals.
The issue raises societal problems, which advise us strongly to ban animal cloning for food, as well as the import of cloned animals and their offspring.
Janusz Wojciechowski
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, our civilisation lives from the exploitation of animals and will certainly long continue to do so. We kill animals to satisfy many needs, but we also set ourselves certain standards. We Europeans, at least, impose limits on the suffering of animals and support their wellbeing. Our legislation prescribes that an animal is not an object.
Cloning animals is a controversial scientific achievement. Cloning animals for economic purposes, on the other hand, is an ethical abuse. It is not animal husbandry but animal production. It is based not even on the principle of the production line, but that of the photocopier. We should reject it on moral grounds in the name of respect for animals, but also in the name of our own humanity. It is only one step from treating animals as objects to treating human beings as objects. It is already only a short step from cloning animals to cloning people. On behalf of the Union for Europe of the Nations, I support the resolution.
David Hammerstein
on behalf of the Verts/ALE. - (ES) Mr President, I wonder what we are hoping to achieve by a moratorium on cloning animals for food supply? What do we hope to achieve by applying the precautionary principle and preventing the import of cloned animals? What do we hope to achieve by ceasing to treat animals as mere objects and inflicting unnecessary suffering on them?
Dolly the Sheep died ill and malformed. The Dolly the Sheep experiment was a failure. However, it would appear that we have not learned from it.
Cloning can reduce genetic diversity; it can generate greater vulnerability to animal diseases; it can generate a situation where sentient beings, our animal cousins, which can feel and experience pain, undergo greater suffering.
Kartika Tamara Liotard
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (NL) Mr President, I want to thank Mr Parish most sincerely and I can fully support his comments. It has been proved that cloning causes suffering to animals, and the EFSA came to the same conclusion. If we allow animals to be cloned for food production, we come up against the following problems, in addition to animal suffering and ethical objections: it is very questionable whether consumers actually want to eat cloned meat at all, it is not certain how safe it will be and, finally, the public debate about cloned food has not even really started yet.
I therefore really object to the fact that the Commission even dares to propose allowing cloning to be covered by the definition in the new foodstuffs regulation. By doing so, it is indirectly showing that it can support animal cloning for food production. I am therefore urging the Commission, in this report too, to reconsider its position. In view of all the objections, I also call on the Commission to put forward proposals for a total ban on animal cloning without delay.
Jim Allister
Mr President, it is right and natural to want to improve stock quality by breeding from our best animals. Artificial insemination and embryo transfer provide for that. Cloning, however, is quite different: it is, as the United Kingdom Food Standards Agency has observed, a quantum leap way beyond giving Mother Nature a helping hand.
Quite apart from other ethical issues and the danger of copycat science in the human field, animal welfare is a real concern. The premature ageing and health deficiencies seen in high-profile cloning cases that have made the headlines, such as that of Dolly the sheep, are good reminders of those welfare issues. Devoting more money to tackling animal disease would serve us better than experimenting with nature.
From a consumer perspective, there is also a food quality issue, since cloned herds would all share the same vulnerability to the same strains of disease, whereas genetic diversity is one of our best protections against rampant outbreaks of disease. In fact, whichever way I look at this subject, I can find nothing to convince me that animal cloning is right, necessary or in the public interest.
Czesław Adam Siekierski
(PL) Mr President, if the protection of biodiversity is a priority of the European Commission, then there should be no talk of cloning. I would like to hear the arguments in favour of cloning animals for food. Are we to be guided solely by economic considerations? What about the ethical, social and health issues?
Before we decide to allow such food to be sold on the EU market, we must have our citizens' permission for such a step. I myself am not sure I would be able to swallow a pork chop from a cloned pig or milk from a cloned cow.
Instead of genetically modified food and food from cloned animals, we should be thinking more about action in favour of a return to natural foods that are ecological, healthy and contain no chemicals. Let us leave cloning in the realm of research. In my opinion, the road from the laboratory to the knife and fork of the European consumer is still long, because there are still too many question marks. And because there are so many questions still unanswered, I am convinced we should not act hastily in this matter.
Nor should the Commission act against the opinion of Europe's citizens. Even if food products derived from cloned animals were allowed on the EU market, I am convinced that, if they were clearly marked and people had to take a conscious decision to buy them, they would not find too many takers among EU consumers.
If we introduce products derived from cloned sheep, poultry, goats or cattle, we shall destroy the image of the European agricultural model, which sets such great store by protection of the environment and the wellbeing of animals.
Andrzej Tomasz Zapałowski
(PL) Mr President, I also fully support Neil Parish's proposal for a ban on the use of cloned animals for food production. However, for some considerable time now I have been watching the Commission strive to impose legal arrangements on Member States that will lead to the introduction of genetically modified foodstuffs for mass distribution, and in future perhaps also meat from cloned animals.
In many countries, including Poland, local authorities have passed resolutions demanding that whole regions, and even a whole country, be kept free from GMOs. Under pressure from industrial lobbies, the Commission is ignoring these resolutions and pressing for the introduction of genetically modified foodstuffs on the market. EU Member States owe the public a clear answer: are they in favour of healthy, natural foods or genetically modified and cloned foodstuffs? We must not be hypocritical about this.
Let me also ask the Commissioner how she intends to protect the public against the unwitting purchase of food that may in future come from cloned animals? Such food will not be specially labelled, since exporters will attempt to smuggle it into the European market.
John Purvis
Mr President, I am going to be the different voice in this argument, because, through the ages, man has manipulated the breeding of animals and enhanced their productivity to meet his needs. There is a clear continuum: natural service to artificial insemination, to embryo transfer, to embryo splitting, in vitro fertilisation, blastomere nuclear transfer, foetal nuclear transfer and now somatic cell nuclear transfer.
Every new development has been seen as too far, and each time the technique has been improved and perfected, the benefits have come through and the anticipated problems have faded away.
Now the farmers' unions are beginning to foresee benefits to animal health and welfare through the use of cloning. The Food and Safety Agency says: 'There is no indication that differences exist in terms of food safety between food products from healthy cattle and pig clones and their progeny, compared with those from healthy, conventionally-bred animals.' Nor does it see any environmental risks - and there are benefits: safeguarding high-value animals and their genetics, conserving and even reintroducing endangered breeds, eliminating dangerous pathogens and their transfer internationally, improving productivity and competitivity, and encouraging research and development in Europe rather than elsewhere.
So why do we Europeans repeatedly fall into the knee-jerk trap of distrusting any new development and of rushing to ban new things? Look at what happened with GMOs. So let us discuss and debate, and base our arguments on science and facts. I urge the Commission to follow developments carefully, encourage research, clarify the science, defend the facts; but do not ban. Let us drop this inaccurate, illogical and misguided resolution.
Mairead McGuinness
Mr President, lest Mr Purvis think he is alone, let me try and walk a middle line. This is a very worthy debate and it is a shame it is being held at this late hour. I listened to the first part in my office and it was riveting - which can be rare for a European Parliament debate - because it is practical.
I would like to mention a number of points. What concerns me in the debate now is the link between genetically-modified foods and the cloning of animals. I am not among those calling for a ban on GMOs, because in Ireland we use a large volume of genetically-modified animal feed ingredients and need to continue doing that. The concerns on cloning, well voiced by the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Mr Parish, are on the welfare side, and clearly there is concern that animals suffer. That is an issue that needs to be looked at.
Calling for a ban on cloned animals in food production may not address that issue if the research stage of that process is concerned. Therefore, while my immediate reaction as a Member of the Committee on Agriculture was to support this resolution - I am glad we raised this issue and applaud the Committee and its Chair for doing so - my gut instinct now is that Mr Purvis is perhaps on the right track, and that an outright ban might be a step too far. I await the Commission's very considered opinion.
James Nicholson
Mr President, let me first of all welcome the opportunity of holding this debate. I think it has been very timely.
This is a subject that gives great concern. What I do not like is that we in Europe do not have sufficient control to ensure that cloned animals do not enter or reach the food chain. I understand the need to allow animal breeding and development, and I understand fully what Mr Purvis is saying - and I have no wish to bring to an end the ability of science to develop in any way, shape, size or form - but I strongly believe that we must set in place clear criteria and controls. I share Mr Parish's concern about the welfare of the animals. I do have great concerns about animal welfare, because a very high percentage of cloned animals suffer at a very early age.
Let me repeat: I do not oppose, or wish to stand in the way of, futuristic developments. In the past we have made many mistakes. Let us not do so on this delicate subject. Let us protect the food chain from cloned animals. I am opposed to them in the food chain.
Androula Vassiliou
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the opinion of the European Parliament on this new technology and its consequences is of course of the utmost importance for me and I welcome the views of the honourable Members. In particular, I wish to say that EFSA's opinion gives us new food for thought, and many factors need to be taken into account. I agree that novel food is not the right tool to deal with the question of food from cloned animals and this is something that can be discussed during our deliberations on the proposal for novel food.
I wish, however, to make a clarification here because I heard a number of speakers speaking about cloning and genetic modification as if they were one and the same thing. No: genetic modification and cloning are two separate techniques. Expert opinion states that cloning does not alter genetic material and clones are merely genetic copies of animals.
In finalising my comments, I wish to assure you that in any future actions the Commission will carefully examine all factors at play.
President
The debate is closed.
I have received the proposal for a resolution tabled by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday, 3 September at 11.30 a.m.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Magor Imre Csibi
in writing. - Even if strict conditions are respected and EFSA concludes that cloned meat is equivalent to conventional meat, animal cloning for food supply is, to many people, a risky and morally unacceptable practice. The current level of suffering and health problems in cloned animals reinforces that claim. If conventional methods work, then why should we encourage a technique that causes so many animals to suffer and die? It neither improves breeding, nor food safety nor the security of provision. It clearly provides no obvious benefit to the consumer.
Furthermore, European consumers have, on several occasions, expressed their wish not to have food products from clones or the offspring thereof on their table. It is a legitimate call and sends a clear signal, so why are we even considering cloning for food supply in the first place? People want to have control over what they eat and they are concerned that cloning will ultimately be forced on them. If we do not wish to further alienate the public from the European project, I believe we had better listen to their will and enforce it. Therefore, I call for no cloning of animals for food supply.
Anna Záborská
in writing. - (SK) I was amazed when reading the text of this resolution. I should first of all like to say that I shall vote for it, but I have a few comments:
Paragraph B: 'whereas cloning processes show low rates of survival for transferred embryos and cloned animals, with many cloned animals dying in the early stages of life ...'
What would the future for humanity be if man took the same remarkable degree of care and if we stopped freezing human embryos?
Paragraph C: '... mortality and morbidity levels in cloned animals are higher than in sexually produced animals and late pregnancy losses and disorders are likely to affect the welfare of surrogate mothers'.
What would the future for humanity be if the whole of society gave such support to mothers of families as we give to the protection of surrogate animal mothers?
Paragraph D: '... given current levels of suffering and health problems of surrogate dams and cloned animals, the European Group on Ethics ... questions whether cloning animals ... is ethically justified ...'
What would the future for humanity be if this Group took into consideration the suffering of women who become surrogate mothers in order to improve their financial situation or the stress suffered by women following repeated unsuccessful artificial fertilisation attempts or consistently forbade the use of human embryos for research purposes because it is morally impermissible.
Lucky animals, because this resolution also shows that they are in some cases better protected than man.