GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the Socialist Group is also extremely concerned about the unrest that has arisen in Chad since the re-election of Idriss Deby. Accusations of electoral fraud, arrests and torture of members of the opposition, demonstrations broken up violently. We condemn these violations of fundamental rights in the strongest possible terms. I have a further question – in fact I agree with all the questions posed by the honourable Member from the . Is Idriss Deby in fact a new oil dictator ? It is of course not very friendly to put it in those terms, but it looks very much as if the money earned from oil extraction is being misused to keep him in power. Does this mean that Chad will follow in the footsteps of countries such as Nigeria, Angola and Sierra Leone? We know the impact of the extraction of raw materials such as oil and diamonds have had, and are still having, on the conflicts in these countries. The Chad-Cameroon pipeline project is receiving help from the World Bank and the European Investment Bank. Parliament expressed its concerns about the pipeline project as early as January 2000. Unfortunately, recent events in Chad seem to have proved us right. The special set-up of the project is intended to guarantee that the proceeds are used for the economic and social development programmes for the benefit of the poor, but the unstable situation in Chad is threatening these good intentions and that is unacceptable. Both the World Bank and we in Europe must increase pressure on Chad to ensure that the human rights situation there is improved. This may, as far as I am concerned, eventually lead to the cutting off of funding. At the same time the international companies involved must take their share of the responsibility. I would argue again – as I have previously done with other countries in Africa – for a code of practice between the international institutions and multinational oil companies, according to which the companies concerned commit themselves to the conditions of socially responsible business. Signature of this code of behaviour – which could be an initiative of the European Union or the Commission – should be a minimum precondition for multinationals to participate in projects in developing countries where public funding is used.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, after the vote in East Timor, the process of self-determination in Western Sahara is the last one outstanding in the world. But it is a process of self-determination which grows more complicated by the day, as highlighted last week by news of the repression taking place in the occupied territories of Western Sahara. On the proper conclusion of this process of self-determination depend the stability, peace and indeed the economic integration and development of the whole Maghreb. I would even say that the transition to full democracy apparently under way in the Kingdom of Morocco also depends on it. From our point of view, the culmination of the process of self-determination in Western Sahara lies in the application of the peace plan from the United Nations and the Organisation for African Unity. And the core of that peace plan is precisely the holding of a free and fair referendum on self-determination, in which voters can make their choice without any kind of pressure. In spite of the efforts of the United Nations, in spite of MINURSO, in spite of the progress that has been made in compiling the electoral roll, the referendum keeps being postponed virtually sine die. Of course, the delay of the referendum is essentially the responsibility of one of the parties, which is failing to finalise acceptance of the terms under which the said referendum is to take place. For that to happen, for self-determination to become a reality in Western Sahara in the short term, the available instruments must be used: the Houston Agreements and the efforts of James Baker. Direct dialogue between the parties is essential. The Kingdom of Morocco and the Polisario Front must restore the direct dialogue which existed at the end of the 1980’s and which led to the Houston Agreements. The European Union should make it a priority to help keep that process going, to help it succeed. Regrettably, the Union has not acted in the most appropriate way up to now. Much has been said, but little has actually been done. The most important point in the resolution we are going to adopt here today is the European Parliament’s call to the Council to take common action, as provided for in the Treaty on European Union, on Western Sahara. And that means statements and instruments, making all the instruments we have at our disposal available to help bring this process of self-determination to a satisfactory conclusion, assist Mr Baker, support the United Nations, call on the parties to respect the terms of the international resolutions and set in motion essential humanitarian cooperation. That is how we can contribute to achieving a priority objective: peace in the Maghreb. Self-determination in Western Sahara is essential for that.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, when I voted in favour of the Ayuso González report, I did so as a matter of firm conviction, and in doing so I am in agreement with the overwhelming majority in this House, for the fact that only five Members did not vote in favour of it should be a signal to those elements in the Council who have hitherto sought to prevent or delay favourable treatment for biofuels. All the arguments speak in favour of biofuels: abandoning excessive dependence, greater benefits for the environment, and an increase in the sources of income available to rural firms. This makes it incomprehensible that there should be so little awareness on the part of certain elements in the Council, comparable to their ignorance of the promotion of electricity generation from renewable energy sources. I hope that this solidly united vote by Parliament will, as it is intended to do, stir up the Council to demonstrate some awareness and enable us to benefit the environment, to strengthen agriculture and, above all, to be less dependent on others for energy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, there is a statement by the President-in-Office of the Council which could appear positive but which worries me very much. You have spoken, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, of new common initiatives at European level in the field of immigration. Do you know why it worries me? Because we have not yet reached any agreement on any of the old European common initiatives in the field of immigration. It worries me enormously that we are increasing the volume of paperwork that we already have in the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs on European initiatives in this field without achieving any results. There is just one single Directive (of those proposed by the Commission), just one, on which an agreement has been reached: the one on family regrouping. And it is a compendium of exceptions – there are more exceptions than there are Member States – and it is such a weak Directive that we will have to wait to see what this Parliament does with it. Because, in reality, what it has generated inside and outside this Parliament is enormous frustration. We need agreements on what the Commission has already proposed in relation to the legal framework for the management of legal immigration. We do not need a lot more ideas: they are all on the table. I am worried also because when we talk about new initiatives, we talk about somersaults. Somersaults like the one the President of the Commission has communicated to us and which is entitled ‘European fund for the return of immigrants’. This leaves me entirely perplexed. Can you explain to me the added value of action relating to the return of immigrants? Can you explain to me what contribution will be made by a European fund which cannot be created at the moment by the Member States, who have full competence in the field of return? Are you telling me that they cannot exercise these competences because they do not have sufficient money to do so and that we therefore need a European fund in order to implement the national competence of expelling citizens who are here illegally? I really do not understand this. I am however in agreement, and I think it is a good idea, with the common management of borders. I do actually believe that we need to do something here, and I would be in favour of supporting the Commission's proposal. I would like to end by saying that an element of border control relates to immigration and another which relates to crime, as you have said. I am very much in favour of combating organised crime and I would like to ask you, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, whether, in this field and within the field of justice and home affairs, you believe you will be able to implement the European arrest warrant before the date set, as planned by this House and the Council?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we are in the presence of the old hands today – that group of Members who have tried to deal with the questions of food safety and hygiene in cooperation with the Commissioner throughout this parliamentary term. I want to pay personal tribute to Mrs Paulsen, who has brought through a number of complex, difficult measures of this kind. Mr Goodwill said that these measures have unintended consequences. I would remind him of the principle of 'unright time', according to which people always say that the time is not right for doing something. Well, it is high time to be doing what we are doing in this area. The institutions have come together. There have been significant changes in the proposals for sanctions, financing, transparency and import controls. That, with the input of the Council, has made this a good proposal, and a very good one for Mrs Paulsen to end on, because I know this may be her last report in Parliament. She deserves all our thanks. The main issues that have been raised and which I wish to touch on are, first, how the balance of fees is being struck in a way that is fair to small operators, as Mr Goodwill said, but nevertheless does not allow exploitation and evasion of the rules by some. Second, how far we can specifically assist developing countries in meeting EU standards. How are these standards going to be applied and what assistance are we able to offer? Most of all, how can we guarantee the system of prior notification for high-risk products at ports that have the necessary facilities to deal with them? There is a big question mark concerning these ports of entry and recent experience shows that we have to deal with this issue. Finally, I am particularly glad that we have reached some agreement on the issue of sanctions. Sanctions as originally proposed were unwise and would not have worked. I am pleased to say that the route we are now taking, which has been agreed by most of the main players, is likely to lead to success.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in normal circumstances this procedure, as it is being proposed by the Commission, would be totally unacceptable. The Prestige accident occurred on 19 November. Six days later Parliament's delegation was in a conciliation meeting where we agreed on the mobilisation of the flexibility instrument for the remaining EUR 27 million for the restructuring of the Spanish and Portuguese fleets. All this could have been dealt with differently and in a different time frame. The proposal as it is violates certain principles. Firstly, it violates a procedure that is transparent. Secondly, it violates the principles of specificity of the budget established by the financial regulation. It violates last year's decision to mobilise the flexibility instrument for the restructuring of the Spanish and Portuguese fleets, and it also violates the principle of sound management since there is no margin left under heading 2, which implies that decommitments and then recommitments have to be made to make the necessary funding available. Having made all that clear, let us look at the political and the pragmatic approach. We, in the Committee on Budgets, are political and pragmatic people – not just budgetary people as people seem to think we are! (Mixed reactions) As Mr Gerhard Schmid said to me a short while ago, not everyone believes in God but they all believe in the Committee on Budgets! (Laughter) The Commission proposal at least gives us the chance to use this year's budget – the 2002 budget – and that would be a better solution for taxpayers, to make sure that we are using money from this year, rather than getting supplementary own resources for next year. Whilst condemning the procedure and making it abundantly clear that this calendar of the Commission should not in any circumstances represent a precedent, I can recommend, on behalf of the coordinator of the Committee on Budgets, approval of the urgency. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as the Commissioner knows, the European Parliament very much welcomes the analysis that she has given us here today. However, what I feel is missing, Commissioner, is a lack of a clear assurance or guarantee about the protection of EDF funds within the Community budget. One thing that was also missing from your remarks was a reference to the need to have the agreement of the ACP to this arrangement. I would not expect the ACP countries to accept any situation that they felt gave them less leverage and less influence over decision-making as regards the EDF. I would like to know how you intend to ring-fence. You said you were not quite ready to do this, but the diversion of EDF money towards other European priorities is something that we have been used to in the past. We have experienced it and we are very keen to avoid that happening in new circumstances. Commissioner, would you consider a new additional heading for development in the financial perspectives? Also, would you be prepared to suggest this in the proposal on the next financial perspectives for the end of 2003?

Political group: PSE
The Irish Government is currently the only EU government currently 100% in favour of the cancellation of the poorest countries' debts. Unfortunately, that government does not seem to be very prominent in promoting that policy, even though it was adopted back in July 2002. Many people and organisations would like to see this policy promoted during the Irish presidency. We would also like the Commission to support this. In the UK, the British Jubilee Debt campaign are trying to mobilise politicians to support this. When we talk in Parliament and in the Committee on Development and Cooperation about trying to help developing countries, it has been recognised that cancelling the debt would be one of the most sensible ways of ensuring that we can actually help these countries. The debt is grossly unfair. These countries are being exploited under false pretences. The only way forward for any just society in this day and age should be to promote the policy that the Irish Government has endorsed. We would like to see that happen during the Irish presidency and we would like to see the Commission come on board too. Commissioner, you have not given any guarantee that you would support this policy. If, for example, we can get the majority of the Member States to support this policy and to adopt it, then of course we would like to see the Commission support it as well.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, as you know, in today's Question Time there is a question of mine relating to widespread fraud in the flax industry, with thousands of millions of euros being gained fraudulently. In the question I ask the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, for his opinion of the political responsibility of Mrs Loyola de Palacio following the report of the Spanish prosecutor, which confirms this fraud. Mr President, this point of order is to ask you for express support in relation to what I am going to say. As well as finding it incredible that this question has not been considered a priority for an oral reply, I would like to tell you that, although it is reserved for a written answer, I already have in my hands a written reply, because a newspaper in my country has already stated: “In his written reply to a question put by the Socialist MEP, Juan de Dios Izquierdo, Mr Prodi has indicated that, on the basis of documents available to the Commission, he can only reaffirm his full confidence in Mrs de Palacio. Furthermore, in response to another Socialist question on the possibility that the case may destabilise the entire executive, etc.” Mr President, I have not yet received the written reply, as you might expect, and yet I have it here. I do not think that it requires much imagination to know which group has been behind the scenes, applying pressure so that my question should not be given an oral reply in Parliament and so that this newspaper should already know Mr Prodi's precise reply. Mr President, I would ask you to investigate the situation and to protect the Members of this Parliament, because this is not an example of the transparency which Mr Prodi promised us at the beginning of his mandate.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, it is obligatory to begin by congratulating Mrs Bastos on the excellence of her report and at the same time to welcome the timeliness of this debate. Despite the solemnity of numerous legal texts, such as Article 13 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, Articles 20 and 21 of the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, and various texts in our respective constitutions, the truth is that discrimination against women continues to be a reality. This debate comes on International Women’s Day, but I believe that the success of this commemoration must not end with holding certain celebratory events or producing fortunate or appropriate slogans. The success must be operational and lasting. I believe that employment is the best means for integration, for overcoming differences and creating equality. Although the presence of women in the labour market has increased over recent years, the increase has been insufficient: there is still wage discrimination, redundancies as a result of maternity, a lack of specific prevention of risks for pregnant women, sexual harassment and psychological harassment – ‘mobbing’ – with a view to dismissal, thereby making a constant mockery of the rights of women such as the right to childcare leave, etc. Therefore, alongside these employment aspects we need to support the family – the low demographic rate demands this – we need to support home-working by means of the new technologies and their distribution, we need to make women’s working hours more flexible, to integrate immigrant women, to increase employment opportunities for women who have been victims of domestic violence and, at the same time, of course, to speed up separation and divorce procedures, increase crèches and nurseries, and all of this – as Mrs Hermange said earlier – within the context of fulfilling the Lisbon strategy. To conclude, Mr President, in society women must not have more problems than men, but the same problems. They must have the same opportunities and responsibilities as men and they must receive ‘equal pay for equal work’. This requires, Mr President, and I will end here, a change in culture, in mentality and habits. And this cultural change must be extended to all social groups, so that equal opportunities are real and not just symbolic, only existing on paper.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, a commitment to sustainability leads us too to support fully Amendment Nos 20 to 30 to the Stevenson report. We must ensure proper protection for sensitive nursery and spawning grounds such as the Irish Box. Sustainability also requires the use of technical measures as dealt with in the Hudghton report, but these are most effective when they have the full support of those engaged in fishing. Indeed, fishers may become pioneers in the area as happened in Scotland with the square mesh panel. Therefore we thoroughly endorse the involvement of regional advisory councils in decisions on technical measures and we hope for the speedy establishment of such councils. Finally, as regards the Fava report and the sustainability of the fisheries industry, decommissioning may be good for marine resources, but if fleets are reduced too far then the industry simply cannot survive. Even with a moderate level of reduction, effects on communities are severe. Help is urgently needed. Only today we have heard that the Commission has declared that what seems to be an eminently sensible arrangement in Scotland concerning quotas, is not compatible with common market rules. How many more blows are our fishing communities supposed to take before faith in the European project is finally lost? When we see what is happening to them, even the most committed amongst us may begin to have our doubts. Please let us act with the sustainability of resources and of industry and with communities in mind. If we do not, it may be too late on all counts. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I would like to ask my colleagues in the Group and the Group if they intend to maintain their motion for a resolution, which contains flagrant untruths. The discussion we had yesterday evening showed that both the Commission and the Council support the creation of a monitoring centre for industrial change. Moreover, Madam President, you yourself requested it at the European Council in Lisbon on our behalf. We cannot vote on a resolution when the groups say that neither the Council nor the Commission approves of the idea of creating a monitoring centre for industrial change. It is a flagrant untruth and I believe that it is only logical that both groups should withdraw their motion for a resolution.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the events in the Middle East are a real tragedy. I am very grateful to you for raising this subject. My group fully supports the substance of what you have said. As to how we should deal with this serious matter here in this Chamber, I think it would be appropriate if the problems in the Middle East were to be raised tomorrow in the debate with the President-in-Office of the Council and the President of the Commission, either by individual Members or by political group chairmen or whoever speaks on behalf of the groups. I do not think that we can change the whole agenda, as we have a great many topics to consider this week. I also have last Thursday's events in Belgrade in mind, and would like to suggest that we should include the Middle East peace process in tomorrow's debate on the Biarritz Summit. That seems to be a very appropriate way of dealing with this problem.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, when we look at relations with the United States, we have to ask ourselves whether or not the United States is prepared to adhere to multilateral agreements. We have seen what has happened in relation to Kyoto; we saw the attempt to sabotage the UN Conference on the proliferation of small arms and we now see the Farm Bill, which threatens to exceed the limits set out in the WTO in terms of subsidies for farmers. What is worrying about this is that in the Doha agreement both the EU and the United States promised the smaller countries that they would have access to our textile and agricultural markets. Now the US seems to be going back on that, just as it has done with textiles in relation to the Caribbean countries. The real danger is not only the message the Farm Bill sends out to the poorer countries, but that it will also encourage those Members of the EU who are opposed to our own farm reform. We have made enormous progress in CAP reform, but a lot more is needed. I would hope that the actions by the United States in pursuit of 'pork barrel' politics, because of the elections in November, are not going to encourage those Members of the EU who are opposed to further reform.

Political group: PSE