GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
As Swedish and Danish Social Democrats, we have today voted in favour of Parliament’s proposal on the EU budget for the budget year 2001. The budget creates a reasonable balance between the need for budget discipline and the EU’s opportunities to implement important activities. In proportion to the Member States’ finances, the Council’s proposal represents the smallest budget for more than 10 years. Parliament wants to increase this somewhat, but we still have a good margin to the budget ceiling. Nonetheless, Parliament has succeeded in driving through a number of important priorities – especially, increased efforts in the fight against unemployment and poverty, a number of important environmental and equality issues, etc. We have voted against the right’s attacks on the LIFE programme and the European Women's Lobby. We are firmly resolved to find the funds required in order to be able to provide increased aid for reconstruction and democratisation in the Balkans, including in Serbia, now. Consequently, we call upon the Council to react positively to Parliament’s initiative for a common and long-term solution before the final decision on the budget is taken in December. Revising the budget ceiling for external policy (expenditure category 4) is not an end in itself, but we are prepared to do this if it is required in order to obtain the necessary funds for the Balkans. We take a critical view of the scope and direction of the EU’s agricultural policy. This needs to undergo more extensive reform in the future, partly in order to provide scope for the expansion of the EU. The EU’s agricultural policy is far too expensive. We are highly critical of the overproduction of agricultural produce and of the fact that the EU is using funds designated for information purposes to sell this surplus. We are also very critical of the extensive subsidy given to tobacco production, which we believe is in direct conflict with the EU’s increased ambitions in the area of public health. On this point, we have voted in favour of amendments that aim to abolish the tobacco subsidy. We would also like to emphasise how important it is that the implementation of the EU budget is made more efficient, so that we can get to grips with the great backlog that exists in certain areas. The budget system, like the methods for openness, auditing and political control, must now be rapidly improved and modernised. We, ourselves, have tabled proposals concerning what is known as the Baltic budget line, but have accepted that this will be put on ice for the time being and until such time as an overall solution to the problems within expenditure category 4 has been found. However, Parliament has been delighted to accept the Commission’s proposal to establish new budget sub-headings for local and regional cooperation in the Baltic region within the framework of the Phare pre-accession instrument. We have also voted in favour of an increase in the budget for twin-town cooperation, which we consider to be an important programme for encouraging cooperation at local level within the Union.

Political group: PSE
Ladies and gentlemen of the European Parliament, Commissioner, it is an honour for me, as the youngest member of the European Socialists, and as a Member of the European Parliament from Hungary and Karcag, to have an opportunity to express my views on a subject that it would not have been possible to discuss 15 years ago. Not only because a 15-year old would have had difficulty in becoming a Member of the European Parliament, but also because at that time we did not see the slightest possibility of Hungary becoming a member of the secure and free region provided by the European Union. In the twenty-first century, our freedom and our security have often been in irreconcilable conflict with each other. Everybody would like to avoid challenges that threaten the security of one’s nation, but nobody wants to damage our civil, political and social rights won during the eighteenth century and strengthened by many revolutions, including the 1848 and 1956 Hungarian revolutions. It is difficult to solve these conflicts, but I believe that the Members of the enlarged European Union, together with the citizens of Europe, will be able to find the answers. The European area of security and the Schengen Agreement provide protection for us. At the same time, we must not forget that the borders of Europe are not the same as the borders of the European Union. In our efforts to make the Union safe, we must not ignore our solidarity with those nations whose representatives do not sit here with us at the moment. Europe, and within Europe, the European Union will only be able to become a great and strong community if its responsibility to ensure its safety goes hand in hand with its unquenchable desire for freedom as well. Ladies and gentlemen, I do not need to talk to you now about the Hungarians’ commitment to freedom, because you all know my people. I have often been asked what we Hungarians bring with us into the European Union. Among many other things, we bring our faith and our readiness to act for a Europe that is free, secure and based on solidarity.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I shall just comment on one point made in the report by the Committee of Independent Experts, which is chapter 5, concerning fraud in the European Union. The Committee of Independent Experts has hit the nail on the head in the sense that, at the moment, fraud is a matter of national responsibility. That is to say that, theoretically, somebody could take all the European Community’s money, and if that person is brought before a court, in a legal system which does not recognise the crime of fraud against the Institutions of the European Community because it is not classified as such, that person would not even be able to be tried, because there would be no legal basis to do so. I think that this is quite a serious matter. We must remember, for example, that only four States have ratified the European Union Agreement on cooperation in the fight against fraud in the European Union and that, at the moment, there is no legal framework for combating fraud. The Committee of Independent Experts’ report has some practical conclusions to offer on this matter. The most important is the creation of a European Ministry for Public Affairs in various stages. Both Joan Colom and Mrs Theato mentioned this. I think though, that the problem goes far beyond that. Specifically, the Committee of Independent Experts’ report proposes that the Union Treaties be amended in order to give the European Ministry for Public Affairs far-ranging powers. But the question we should ask is, is it not time, if the European Union wants to protect its financial interests effectively, for a Community Criminal Law which would allow us to establish fraud against the Community’s financial interests as a Community-wide crime, and to have a competent criminal legal system? I have the impression that, when all is said and done, the proposals are positive, that we should endorse them, but that probably, bearing the Intergovernmental Conference in mind, we should take them further. I would like to end my intervention by thanking Mr Marín for his hard work over all these years in his posts within the Commission, and in his final one as President-in-Office of the Commission, and by wishing Mr Kinnock good luck, a lot of tact and caution in the difficult tasks which await him in the forthcoming months and years.

Political group: PSE
Could I just briefly refer to the statement made by the Commissioner on Zimbabwe, which I very much welcome. We have put off these Cotonou negotiations and we really need to have a deadline by which they must take place. Otherwise I can see Mugabe will just keep on deferring it until nothing happens at all. I would suggest that we ought to set a date, such as January 12, by which, if nothing has happened, we proceed with the sort of strong measures that we have suggested. Turning to the cluster bomb issue, I have to say that I have been one of the foremost activists in support of the campaign to ban antipersonnel landmines because our armed forces recognise that their limited military utility is outweighed by the danger that they so often pose to civilians, often many years after a conflict is over. There are other weapon systems that could be used instead of antipersonnel landmines to equal effect, but without the negative dangers. There are those engaged in mine clearance actions who will testify to the fact that a large proportion of the hazardous material they come across is unexploded ordnance of various sorts rather than antipersonnel mines Sometimes this ordnance includes unexploded bomblets from cluster bomb units. I have to say that cluster bombs are not antipersonnel landmines and it is bogus to try and confuse these two issues. While I would support the need for such remotely delivered munitions to contain self-destruct or neutralising mechanisms, it would be most unwise to insist on a ban until our armed forces are satisfied that their operations would not be impaired or that they have substitute weapons of equal effectiveness. We have to be very careful and beware of what I might call 'banning creep'. Otherwise we are going to blur the focus of our actions against systems such as antipersonnel landmines and the wide support which that sort of campaign attracts. There are some elements in the resolution that I can support, but I am suspicious of some of its driving elements. Therefore, I am inclined to abstain on the resolution.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too should like to thank Mrs Smet for a quite outstanding report. However, I cannot omit to say that I find it disgraceful that, in the year 2001, we are still discussing these problems, and we know into the bargain that enlargement is not going to make matters any better, to put it mildly. The conclusion is that not only do women have lower paid jobs but, as a result, they do not get the plum management positions either, their having access to which is one of the prerequisites for our being able to change the situation. If, however, I wanted to take the floor here this evening, it is because I want to draw your attention to a study which has just been published in Denmark and which shows that ‘unequal pay’ has its origins in childhood. The study shows that girls receive far less pocket money than boys. They are given far fewer consumer goods than boys and they earn less than boys, which means that boys begin saving up while they are still children. Inequality has thus already been established. This applies to all age groups, except for the 16 to 18 group. In all other age groups, girls are given less pocket money than boys. It is parents themselves, indeed women themselves, who give their girls less pocket money than their boys. It might also be added that boys have much better jobs and so earn more, too. The situation is the same regarding consumer goods. It turns out, of course, that boys have more TV sets, more PCs in their rooms etc. Perhaps we should begin with ourselves. Parents must give some thought to how they treat their children and prevent their being treated unequally from the cradle onwards. I recommend obtaining this Danish report. I thought it was very interesting.

Political group: ELDR
The only reason why we voted in favour of these amendments is because the obligation to ‘set up an institution which guarantees that the workers concerned are paid outstanding claims’ is supposed to ensure, throughout the European Union, that workers who have lost their jobs as a result of their employer going bankrupt will receive at least partial legal compensation payments. This protection is, however, scandalously limited. The texts of the European institutions themselves stipulate that certain categories are excluded from this protection such as home-helpers and fishermen who are paid from shared proceeds. Additionally, however, there is an amendment which states that ‘Member States may set limitations to the responsibility of the guarantee institutions’. In other words, if a general obligation is defined, the States can do what they want, and essentially place a ceiling on compensation payments paid to workers. As regards the financing of these guarantee funds, Amendment No 6 hypocritically states that ‘the employers shall contribute to the financing, unless it is fully covered by the public authorities’. Although it is, without doubt, better, in terms of the protection of workers, for the public authorities to pay compensation in the event of bankruptcy of the employer, in any... (Explanation of vote cut short pursuant to Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I should briefly like to refer back to my speech. I asked the President of the Court of Auditors three questions, two of which were left unanswered. I specifically asked him whether I would be able to gain access to the dossier drafted by OLAF following the submission of my fraud dossier to the Court of Auditors. He failed to give me an answer to this. Neither have I received a reply to the question whether the case involving Mrs N, the former member of the Court of Auditors, is an isolated one and whether we can rely on this not being common practice within the Court of Auditors. Thirdly, I should say that I am extremely dissatisfied with his response. In its press release, OLAF first says the following about this case: ‘we have submitted a dossier to the judicial authorities in Luxembourg’. OLAF subsequently adds: ‘in this context OLAF has recommended to the European Court of Auditors to open a disciplinary inquiry into these persons and to initiate recovery procedures in respect of the sums in question’. I now hear that the Court of Auditors is waiting for the judicial inquiry in Luxembourg. I fear that this will take years and years, as is customary in Belgian courts. I should still urge the Court of Auditors to do as OLAF has recommended.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, as regards the issue of language learning beyond the official languages, that is to say, the regional languages, minority languages and also the issue of migration languages which has just been raised, I believe that these areas should indeed be kept separate, with the official languages, regional and minority languages on the one side, and the migration languages on the other. I would ask the Commissioner to share her opinion with us on this point, also with regard to the programme which was launched in connection with the European Year of Languages and which was very clearly defined. In my view, also given that the funding available is limited – the Commissioner needs far more resources for this area of activity than she is currently being provided with – some sort of prioritisation is essential.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, greater power for the European Union to act in the field of foreign trade and payments is one of the fundamental demands of the European Parliament and of the Commission too, as you, President Prodi, emphatically underlined earlier today. Although we now see the French Presidency, Mr President of the Council, playing a decisive part here, it is also plainly evident that we are still at square one today, just a few days before the IGC ministerial meeting. You bear responsibility for the success of this project; you, the President-in-Office of the Council, also have the power to make things happen. We should include not only trade in goods but also the corresponding trade in services, as well as investments, intellectual property and competition, in the range of matters which are subject to qualified-majority voting in the Council of Ministers and amend Article 133(1) of the Treaty accordingly. That is our basic demand. We in the European Union account for 40% of trade in goods and services in the world, compared with the US share of only 20%. We therefore bear a worldwide burden of responsibility for the establishment of more open markets as well as having the opportunity to export our technological systems and services to many countries of the world. I have seen at first hand in our Committee on Constitutional Affairs that the great majority of government representatives support the reinforcement of the role played by the European Union and are demanding that. Apparently, however, it is the French Government which is needlessly stonewalling on this issue. Let us not forget that France, as a major economic power in the European Union, benefits directly whenever the EU is able to speak with one voice and successfully defend its interests in negotiations with representatives of the world's major trading areas – the United States, Canada and the countries of Asia. We proceed on the assumption that France will defend with justifiable vigour her own vital interests with regard to her cultural identity, which is also related to the cultural identity of Europe as a whole. We are urging a compromise, with provision for unanimity where these interests are affected, but I believe there is some way to go before we can start to move forward.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the EC label is an important factor of consumer protection. But it is a purely quantitative measure. All that is necessary is to prove compliance with existing European legal provisions. That is certainly not enough for the consumer. Consumers also want quality testing and certification procedures so that they can find out whether a product is of above-average standard and therefore also meets their requirements. That is why third-party certification is quite crucial, especially for safety components. We saw from the rail accident in Eschede that very serious accidents can occur if the railways only do their own monitoring, without any third-party certification. Do you think that in future we should place more emphasis on third-party certification in the European Union?

Political group: PPE-DE
I supported Mr Mulder’s amendment aiming to delete Paragraph 30 of the Van Brempt report, as I consider it ridiculous to continue to invoke the precautionary principle with regard to GMOs. For 12 years, in many parts of the world, it has been proven that the use of pesticides can be reduced thanks to genetic improvements, and there is nothing to suggest that GMOs are not a sustainable agricultural alternative. Europe has been producing mad cows, dioxin chickens and other such delights. Throughout the rest of the world, over 50 million hectares of genetically-improved plants are being grown with fewer chemical inputs and pesticides, and there are no scientifically-proven contraindications.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, further to the statement you have just made, I must point out that if I am not mistaken there are three issues arising under the same item in the order of business. Firstly, there is Mrs Stauner’s report. Next there is the decision, proposed by the Group of the European People’s Party; to request a Commission statement on the Eurostat case, with a resolution. Lastly, there is a proposal for a motion of censure tabled by part of the . I am not sure if the whole Group supports this proposal. It would be appropriate to check. There are therefore three issues relating to the same item in the order of business. In the interests of rationalising Parliament’s workload, it would be best to discuss these issues jointly or to delete the Eurostat case. I should like to raise another very important matter too, Mr President. Pursuant to Rule 34 of the Rules of Procedure, I would ask you to state which Treaties are applicable to consideration of a motion of censure. Currently we are working in a Parliament composed of Members representing fifteen Member States. When Parliament votes on 3 May, however, it will be composed of Members from twenty-five Member States and the enlarged Commission will be in place. I believe this is an important constitutional matter. I am not thinking only of the new Commissioners, who will be welcomed with a motion of censure. I feel strongly that it is important to deal with this matter before moving on to consider the motion of censure and vote on it. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner Wallström, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to begin by thanking the Commission for the proposed amendment to the Seveso II Directive. I also wish to thank Mr Lisi for his sterling work. I nonetheless entirely agree with the rapporteur that the Seveso II Directive should contain those points not approved by the Council and the Commission, partly because of the need to avoid grey areas and partly because it would make for better opportunities to remedy the shortcomings in the existing legislation. For example, all forms of mining should be incorporated, and there must be more training of staff and more information about the areas of risk that exist. Moreover, potassium nitrate should also be incorporated. That is not something in conflict with the objectives of the directive. Nor is it a question of completely changing this proposal for a directive but, instead, of tackling the problems we have seen in connection with the serious accidents that have taken place in recent years. I wish above all to put the case for Amendment No 13 concerning a new recital 3a, explaining why we believe it to be particularly important for Amendments Nos 1 and 2 to be incorporated. The proposal put forward by the Commission concerning the Mining Waste Directive and published, if I remember rightly, on 2 June concentrates more upon the management of waste. In my view, it does not, however, extend to include, for example, hazardous substances produced in mining. If it is now to be possible to limit the consequences of serious accidents, I believe it is necessary for these hazardous substances actually to be included. They therefore belong in the Seveso Directive and not in the usual place for dealing with waste management. That is why I support, above all, Amendments Nos 1, 2 and 13, but also other amendments.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I wanted to express my concern as some facts are liable to be misinterpreted. With regard to the urgent debates, we argued in favour of the inclusion of the Temelín nuclear reactor because this is a topic which is very much in the spotlight at the moment. However, I would ask you if we could move on to the debate on Iran as soon as possible. This remains necessary due to the relentless violation of human rights – the execution of the death penalty by stoning springs to mind, as well as the constant disruption of international television programmes. We voted in favour of Temelín but we believe that a debate on Iran is just as imperative.

Political group: Verts-ALE