GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities sees the European Commission's initiative to mainstream action to support equal opportunities between men and women as an important element in this report. This initiative has a political and a symbolic side. It highlights the fact that equality between the sexes is a necessary dimension of our endeavour to achieve economic development with social and regional cohesion. However, our committee is disappointed that this presentation is regionally based and does not contain accurate data which allow us to assess both women's access to Structural Funds and the impact of Community initiatives on promoting equal opportunities. Under the new regulation which applies to the 2000-2006 programming period, mainstreaming equal opportunities for women and men is a priority aim and the Member States are obliged to conduct an ex ante evaluation of their programmes from the point of view of gender equality using indicators and statistics. We should take this opportunity to stress that indicators and statistics need to be broken down by gender, something which the European Parliament has called for repeatedly. However, we should also stress that we are calling on the European Commission to ensure that the principle of gender equality is duly taken into account and that statistics are kept – not just during programming but throughout the whole monitoring and intervention procedure – on the increase in female employment, the provision of quality, viable new jobs and the creation of infrastructures which allow family and working life to be reconciled. And, finally, we want to stress the importance of coordinated action between the European Commission and the Member States on informing regional agencies and all entitled beneficiaries of the possibilities of implementing equal opportunities through Structural Fund measures.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, I think there is a lot of truth in what my fellow MEPs, Mr Fava and Mr Staes, said about the continuous violence in Chechnya. The reports they have submitted about the lack of reconstruction and about obstacles placed in the way of the humanitarian organisations are shocking. The information we have obtained to the effect that 30 000 Russian soldiers took part in the referendum is mirth-inducing. Chechnya is an international issue. I think it is an outdated notion, incompatible with the EU’s general policy, to say that it is an internal matter for Russia to resolve. We must call for more vigorous efforts to be made and for greater support to be given, as well as for the OSCE to be allowed to open its office again. We need effective election monitoring. At the same time, we in the EU, too, must contribute to the reconstruction.

Political group: ELDR
As the rapporteur states, it is important that the manufacturer of compound feedingstuffs, or whoever is responsible for labelling, provides a detailed list of all the raw materials used. The compulsory definition of acceptable raw materials in compound feedingstuffs for animals is also crucial, bearing the BSE and dioxin crises in mind. We must also ensure that all materials that put human and animal health at risk are banned. Nevertheless, this report was framed during a broader discussion of animal feedingstuffs, on which the Commission made a statement regarding the options for encouraging the planting of protein crops in the EU, taking account of the Agricultural Council of December 2000, which bans the use of animal meal in feedingstuffs for breeding animals, and insists on the need to replace animal protein with vegetable protein. The Commission’s proposal is based mainly on budgetary consequences, forgetting the basic principle of the sovereignty of food, when it states that the best and cheapest solution is to increase Community soya imports by 5%. This will make the EU more dependent for its vegetable protein, particularly soya meal, which could threaten food safety, on imports of genetically modified soya from the USA. Using the pretext of WTO rules and costs, the Commission is refusing to increase aid for growing oilseed crops because they contravene the Blair House agreement. Similarly it refuses to support the use of fallow land under the set-aside system, because this would be in conflict with the WTO’s blue box that requires agricultural aid to be conditional upon production-limiting measures. In this way, the Commission is refusing to encourage production within the EU. This is an unacceptable position, which we should reject, although we support the report, for which we have voted.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I should first of all like to echo the appreciation for Mrs Carrilho’s report and also, of course, for the input from our first speaker, Mr Deva. In fact, I completely concur with the views he has outlined. The reason why I have taken the floor is to draw your attention to a specific situation, namely that in Indonesia, and the Moluccas, to be more precise. I am also doing this because it appears from the reports that most of the Union’s funding for refugees and displaced persons in Indonesia has been allocated to Timor. Needless to say, I fully understand why that was done, given the recent tragedies there and the huge amount of work that still needs to be done there. Meanwhile, however, the situation on the Moluccas has become far more serious. More than 300 000 people have fled from island to island due to aggression, especially from Muslim fundamentalists of the Laskar Jihad and disloyal sections of the Indonesian army and police. On 20 May, another nine people were killed and seventeen wounded in Belakang Soya and Karan Pajang, and even after that incident, violence simply carried on. People from the Christian communities are also fleeing because they are forced to convert to Islam. There have even been forced incidents of circumcision. Similar atrocities are taking place in Irian Jaya. I would therefore ask the Commission to use the aid for Indonesia not only for Timor, but also for the displaced and refugees on the Moluccas and in Irian Jaya. I should welcome a reaction from the Commission to this request. I should also like to highlight how important it is for the European Union to cooperate with the UNHCR and the NGOs. I could not agree more with Mrs Dybkjær, for they end up doing the practical work anyway. In this connection, I should like to know from the Commission whether the problems with the UNHCR have now been solved, that is to say whether the UNHCR is now obtaining more funding from the Commission. For while the number of refugees and displaced persons is increasing, the budget of the UNHCR is being cut back. That is, surely, not justifiable.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, an error no doubt arose in translation. The original text reads ‘Macedonia’, but the Group of the has tabled a note about extending this to ‘The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’. That is not a linguistic, but a political, change. We wish the vote to apply to what appears in the current text, which is to say ‘Macedonia’ only.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Wallström started by describing how inadequate the European Union's climate protection measures have been up to now. It is for that reason that we want to negotiate another new instrument on emissions law. We all – myself included – say ‘yes’ to that. At the same time, though, I say that, if we break down the overall picture of emissions in the European Union, it can be observed that some are already heavily involved in reducing greenhouse gases and others are not. I believe that we must not allow this additional new instrument to call into question the efforts that have already – and with some success – been made, and in view of which we should not be using a straitjacket to wreck structures that have been successful in reducing CO2 and other greenhouse gases. This means that there are two things I see as important: the first is greater flexibility, and the second is fair conditions. If I may start with greater flexibility, I know a business in my part of the world, which has reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 27% since 1990. Why on earth should this business join the emissions trading system, when it has good business reasons for saying that it does not want to? On the other hand, there is a business that is interested, even though it is not covered by the directive. Having themselves reduced CO2, they are happy to join in. In so far, I am in favour of making it possible to opt in and out. Opting in, as provided for in the proposal from the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, strikes me as completely satisfactory, whereas opting out does not; the two are not parallel, in that one can opt out only up to 31 December 2007. I therefore want to put the case for leaving the conditions equal, so that if someone leaves, he is not wholly exempted, but must comply with the same emission reductions as he would if he were still in, but without this 2007 deadline. I would therefore like to urge you to vote in favour of Amendment No 81. I now turn to the second area, which has to do with fair conditions. We must of course ensure that businesses that get stuck in and have already made the effort since 1990 should have this taken into account when emission allowances are handed out. Moreover, it is not acceptable that closures and relocations of firms should be brought into play to acquire emission allowances that are then sold at a profit, thus putting jobs at risk. These emission allowances must lapse. If we take the two together – flexibility and fair conditions – it will be with a clear conscience that we can say ‘yes’ to using emissions trading to protect the climate, but under flexible and fair conditions. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, fishing is an activity that mankind has practised throughout history, but it has never been a great source of wealth, as demonstrated by the fact that the Neolithic revolution was achieved through agriculture and not through fishing. Although the European Union’s fishermen currently enjoy a degree of protection and guarantees that offer them an acceptable standard of living, albeit lower than that of many other workers, the same cannot be said, unfortunately, of the fishermen and fishing communities to be found throughout the developing countries. For these reasons, the Commission communication should be welcomed, praised and supported, since it contains a clearly humanist approach that is enlarged upon in Mr Lannoye’s report. This acknowledges that fishing is an essential activity for many developing countries, but is threatened with extinction because resources are scarce and pressure on the various species is increasing. The fisheries agreements that the European Union concludes with third countries are essential to the survival of activities and cultures that are an integral part of the history and identity of many European countries. Nevertheless, these agreements cannot ignore and fail to respond to their impact on the vulnerable economies of the world’s poorer countries and regions. We therefore need to reconcile the legitimate interests of Community fishermen and consumers with the interests of poor communities in developing countries and with the preservation of fish stocks that are often devastated by an irrational method of fishing, that is also carried out under flags of convenience. In conclusion, the golden rule in this field must be to integrate the external requirements of the common fisheries policy into the overall policy of support for development already embarked on by the European Union. Lastly, I should like to express my support for the excellent work by Mr Lannoye, which shares, as I have already said, the Commission’s inspiration and contains extremely constructive and fair proposals to which we must give our support.

Political group: PSE
I voted in favour of the Lehne report, which improves on the original initiative to widen the scope of the directive on money laundering. The great advantage of this directive was that its adoption led to all the Member States declaring money laundering an offence subject to criminal prosecution. By virtue of its overall preventive effect, it has helped to protect the financial system by discouraging those who might be interested in money laundering from exploiting the financial system to that end, by obliging credit and financial institutions to inform the relevant authorities of anything which might indicate money laundering. The aim of widening the directive’s scope in this way is to reinforce efforts to combat potential money laundering outside the traditional financial sector. The directive, which applied to various financial sectors, including banks, insurance companies, and so forth, is to be extended to other non-financial activities and professions which are nevertheless extremely vulnerable to money laundering. In the case of lawyers, there are to be clear safeguards, particularly as regards maintaining the right of confidentiality. The fact of the matter is that although there is an awareness of the enormous impact of money laundering and other forms of corruption, it is necessary to safeguard our citizens’ right to legal advice and assistance. Furthermore, it is also intended to extend the list of defined offences. In addition to income from drug trafficking, it is also necessary to include activities associated with organised crime, and we need to find a uniform definition of organised crime not just at European level but also at international level. Efforts to approve definitions, types of crime and common sanctions with a view to harmonising criminal law are intended first and foremost to apply to particularly important areas such as money laundering. Because the world is becoming ever more sophisticated, many organised crime syndicates can take advantage of legal loopholes and differences between legislation in the Member States to exploit anomalies between the various systems.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Mr Prodi, we are pleased about the overall intention of the objectives announced which are in line with the challenges which Europe must overcome. I note that you consider the fall of the Berlin wall to be the crucial factor of the end of the century. This event must underpin enlargement. Rather than using the word ‘enlargement’, I want to talk of reunification which has much greater political significance. Your idea is to concentrate your activities on the core tasks. This is one of the goals of your reform. In essence this means applying the principle of subsidiarity. Precise application of this principle can only reinforce the actions taken and give our citizens a clear view of each level of competence. However, saying is one thing and doing is another! You must therefore fight against the tendency of all institutions to try and increase their powers. I will therefore judge you on your deeds. In the meantime, I approve and encourage this clearly expressed desire in your communication. However, I must make two essential points. These concern the simplification and application of Community law. In 1998, 123 referrals were made to the Court of Justice for non-application or non-transposition and 25% of environmental directives were not applied or transposed. Recent events have shown us that these regulations are essential. Community law must not go unapplied because it is too complex or too pedantic. The Union must not make this mistake and I therefore regret the fact that your communication does not go into more detail on this. You are being realistic when you say that the welfare state can no longer provide adequate responses to the problems facing us, including unemployment. Nevertheless, I regret that a clear alternative has not been proposed. The emphasis should have been placed on the rejection of any policy of handouts and instead on the development of initiative and responsibility. You have not highlighted the ageing of our population which will fundamentally alter the structure of our society, not only economically but also in terms of public health. This is a silent revolution and in this respect I expected more from your communication. Finally, you do highlight European research as being at the heart of our future. Yet you do not indicate the resources you intend to implement to achieve this. Also, ethical principles are at the heart of this research but your communication says nothing about these. If you want to better inform the people, you should start by strengthening liaison with this House, as we are the representatives of the citizens.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on behalf of my committee, I wish to thank the Committee on Budgets and Mr Wynn for having given very substantial consideration to our committee’s views on the future financial framework. It is crucial to cohesion policy that the funding it receives should be 0.45% of GDP, especially as the challenge of enlargement is to be taken into account. There must also be adequate funds for developing the weaker regions of the current Member States. I am also grateful that the report is calling for there to be verification of how compatible state aid policy is with regional development. This was a key message going out from our committee. Parliament’s message regarding the simplification of administration and the monitoring of implementation is unequivocal. To its credit, the draft report also mentions the need for financial support for regions with special problems. As someone from a sparsely populated region, I warmly support this.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I do not want to repeat everything that has already been said by Members in the course of this debate, which has seemed very eloquent to me, but every so often we find ourselves once again discussing this problem of the attitude of Europe and the international community towards Afghanistan, because each time it seems that the previous record of human rights violations has been beaten. Recently – this also affects me as an Italian – an Italian hospital in Kabul, one of the few that was working in a decent, modern way, had to be closed because the staff were threatened with reprisals, since the regime would not accept that women could work there in close contact with male doctors and nurses. It has already been said that the regime has also recently ordered minorities to wear specially marked clothes in the street, which sadly recalls a Nazi practice that we hoped had disappeared for ever. All this has left us unable to believe any more in mere verbal condemnations and wondering what effective means there might be for the European Union to put pressure on Afghanistan. As has been said and as the joint resolution has emphasised, it is a question now of putting pressure on the countries that recognise Afghanistan diplomatically and also sustain it economically – Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. – and effectively organising independent forms of assistance both inside the country, with the European Union supplying and distributing humanitarian aid, and outside on its borders where there are refugee and displaced persons’ camps, as in India and Pakistan. All this is extremely urgent, not just to help uphold human rights in that country but also to prevent the Taliban from helping to spread a fanatical, blood-shedding image of Islam in the West, which would add to the image cultivated by our own fundamentalists and racists.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, perhaps the most important decision the Irish presidency faces is the choice of Mr Prodi's successor as President of the Commission. I am sure the President-in-Office of the European Council, the Taoiseach, consults you, Mr Prodi, on the sort of qualities that a President of the Commission requires. What answer do you give him and where can this paragon be found?

Political group: ELDR
Ladies and gentlemen, consumers have the right to know what they eat. If the food contains genetically modified ingredients, then this should be clearly indicated on the label. If GMOs are used in the production process, this should also be evident. In my view, you can take this to extremes and take the rapporteur’s lead. However, we should realise what the implications would be. If we followed the rapporteur’s proposals, at least 80% of the foodstuffs would soon have to be marked as GMO. In addition, nearly 100% of the processed and packaged foodstuffs would receive a GMO label. In this way, information would lose its value in terms of the choices that the consumer wishes to make. We should also realise that we thus accord genetic modification a definite place in food production. This is fine by me. Genetic modification may have many advantages, and I welcome the taboo on GMOs being broken, but I do have concerns. After all, it is easy to predict that biotechnology will thus elbow out normal gen-tech-free production, which we must prevent. This is why I call for the introduction of a ‘GMO-free’ label alongside the rapporteur’s proposals, and I mean really GMO-free, that is to say, 0% GMOs and no use of GMOs during the production. The GMO-free label would also encourage GMO-free production, and GMO-free areas would need to be designated, which would provide an economy of scale at the same time. GMO-free would then remain affordable for everyone and GMO-free should not become elite food, in my view. Consumers are entitled to choose GMO-free at affordable prices. A second point concerns the position of third countries. In all recent food legislation, we have made certain that imports from third countries must meet European standards. However, third countries can always call upon equivalence. Unfortunately, we are now threatening to adopt a different approach and make imports from third countries in practice impossible. With this Fortress Europe approach, we are closing ourselves off from the world and are turning our backs on the developing countries. I consider this unacceptable. Finally, I should like to wish both rapporteurs much strength and, especially, fruitful cooperation, because I believe it is extremely difficult at the moment for Parliament to adopt a sound viewpoint.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, when it comes to money, we all know it is no joke. The same applies to the European Union. That is why we and the other EU bodies agree that we must give priority to protecting the Community’s financial interests. However, we are of different minds on the question of how and by what means we can guarantee this protection. If we are to fight fraud efficiently, we must bring together all police, administrative and criminal law resources, for this is a matter of the European taxpayers' money and indeed of far more than that. It is a matter of trusting in the care taken by the European institutions, and above all of trusting the way the Commission handles the monies entrusted to it. Indeed we know this trust may be failing somewhat in view of the sum the Commission itself named in its 1999 report on fighting fraud, namely a loss of some EUR 850 million as a result of fraud and irregularities. So the Commission must carry out internal reforms so as to finally make good its announcement that fraud will no longer be tolerated and that it will consistently follow up all cases of fraud. OLAF, the European Anti-Fraud Office, must operate alongside it. The report before us rightly devotes most space to that institution. The conclusion of the OLAF Supervisory Committee of 5 December makes it strikingly clear that OLAF is still far from being independent or functioning properly. It says that the obstacles the Commission sets in the way of recruiting OLAF staff can under certain circumstances constitute an irreversible risk to the fight against fraud. I expressly call on the Commission to refrain from any interference in OLAF's activities. Finally, I am in favour of appointing a European Public Prosecutor, so that those responsible for fraud face criminal prosecution.

Political group: PPE-DE