GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, I would like to voice my support for the report and, at the same time, my gratitude to Mrs Sandbaek. This report sends out alarming signals and challenges us, in particular, to combat poverty and devastating diseases such as AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis far more resolutely than before. My group does not underestimate the Commission’s efforts. However, the facts presented in the report tell their own story. The impacts are probably most severe in Africa. As people die, whole villages die as well. As a result of poverty and disease, vast territories are virtually depopulated, even without war. Of course, the issue today is the adoption of practical measures and programmes to control these diseases. Nonetheless, the general social context cannot be ignored. People who live in poverty have no energy to fight these deadly diseases and nor do they have the money to pay for drugs. The armies of refugees, camping in open fields or in tents, are easy prey to these pandemics. When the market is dominated by the profit motive, it is difficult to supply high-quality drugs at low prices in the developing countries. However, this is exactly where politics must accept its responsibility and do more to meet it. Regrettably, WTO conferences are aimed more at reinforcing the privileges enjoyed by major monopolies than at supplying the comprehensive and reliable services of general interest that are so urgently required. If we ignore the signals sent out by the World Social Forum now, we will hear them far beyond Mumbai. In light of this emergency, whose roots go back to the colonial era, it comes as no surprise – although it is only right and proper – that the former colonies should now demand compensation from the former colonial powers. This, as the report says, is where the EU, the Commission and this Parliament have to redouble their efforts.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, the notion of sustainable development is nothing new in European Union policy. It is clear from the messages we receive on a daily basis that we can no longer satisfy our requirements by borrowing against the future of our children and future generations. The Union played one of the leading roles at the Rio summit on sustainable development, making commitments on important issues without hesitation, although we must admit that several of these commitments were not honoured. Today, 10 years on, we are preparing for the Johannesburg summit and we need to take stock and take a critical look at all the decisions which fell by the wayside. This is the only way we shall improve our odds of meeting the new targets, i.e. economic development geared to social progress which takes serious account of the environment. The Union needs to make a decisive contribution to this endeavour, in the form of proper political decisions, followed by proper practical application. The Union must also recognise the right to development of developing countries, by taking initiatives and setting a proper example on all aspects of sustainable development and ensuring that non-governmental organisations are involved in all development plans. We need to focus on issues relating directly to the eradication of poverty and applying a macroeconomic strategy will help here. Of course, all this and all the other questions raised by the rapporteurs in their reports require funds as well as political will. I should like to close by thanking and warmly congratulating both rapporteurs on their very important reports; I hope they will be applied in practice and will not just remain dead letters which merely express our wishes.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I too would like to extend my deepest sympathy to our Spanish colleagues in the face of the latest terrorist murder by ETA. I agree that more resolute action is required against terrorism. It is worth bearing in mind that those responsible for the 28 murders in Omagh have still not been brought to justice. Turning to the problem of HMS Tireless, it seems to me that this is indicative of a more widespread difficulty in the equipment of the British armed forces as a direct result of policies pursued by the Labour government. On the one hand we have a government with no connections to the armed forces and with a card-carrying member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament as Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, using the armed forces as a political tool to further its ambitions in Europe and apparently realising rather too late that the European Union defence scheme would indeed damage the NATO alliance and transatlantic relations. On the other, the Labour government is not prepared to ensure that the armed forces are provided with the resources to carry out the increasing burden of commitments being placed upon them. It is scandalous that, at this moment, 11 out of the 12 hunter-killer submarines in service in the Royal Navy are non-operational, with four in refit and 7 showing signs of the defect which afflicts HMS Tireless. The recall of the submarine fleet has robbed the Royal Navy of a quarter of its fighting vessels and left the Trident and carrier forces with much reduced protection. It is a fact that at one stage the only submarine operating in British waters was a German U-boat. Last year, much of the Royal Navy was forced to stay in port because it had overspent its clearly inadequate fuel budget. Meanwhile, at a time when flexibility and rapid response are military watchwords, the Navy's frontline strength is being slashed. The submarine fleet is being cut by almost 20%, the frigate and destroyer fleet, already too small, is being cut from 35 to 32%. I point all this out because the maintenance and repair problem of Tireless is a reflection of a wider malaise affecting the Royal Navy through cutbacks which have gone too far. And, as we have already heard, it has provided those that do not really have the wider, democratically expressed interest of the people of Gibraltar at heart with an opportunity to make mischief.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should first of all like to say that I am not speaking on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, but on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, where I was shadow rapporteur. I should like to thank the rapporteur for her clarity of vision. She spoke about Brazil, but I should like to start close to home in discussing biodiversity. At present in the fishing industry we are depleting glass eel stocks from our coastlines, with the result that the eel itself hardly occurs in its natural habitat. This seems to me to be an issue for the Commission and our Environmental Commissioner to look into further and to draft a policy accordingly. The Fishery Committee’s second point of concern pertains to the development of genetic engineering in fish farming. Canada and the United States currently have a system which they can set in motion as soon as they receive the green light. It seems important to me for the Commission to verify to what extent we can stop this development in Europe, or at least are able to hold a reasonable political debate on the subject before we resort to such technology in fish farming. The third point concerns aquaculture and the implications on the maritime environment. We need more research on that score too, particularly to find more closed systems. The fourth point to which the Fisheries Committee would like to draw your attention is the implications of the dissonance which sometimes exists between bird and fish stocks. Particularly with regard to cormorants, there are serious problems in Europe. Fifthly, the Fisheries Committee wants research to be carried out into the connection between climate change and fish stocks. What is the connection? Insufficient research has been carried out in that area and we will very much welcome the Commission’s action plans particularly on that score. The sixth point concerns policy we are currently adopting to close areas in order to protect certain fish species. It is unclear whether this has truly positive effects on fish stocks or not. More research by the Commission in the framework of biodiversity would be appreciated in that area too. Allow me to conclude by at least inviting the Environment Commissioner, Mrs Wallström, to come and exchange ideas with the Fisheries Committee on these specific points, so as to ascertain to what extent she can make a contribution to the Green Paper on fishery, also in terms of biodiversity. We would welcome such an initiative from the Commissioner with open arms.

Political group: PPE-DE
Through this report, the European Parliament, which has power of control over implementation of the EU Budget, has analysed allocations for 2003. The aim is to ensure that the EU’s financial resources are used effectively in order to attain the goals laid down in its policies, as well as to guarantee continuity with next year’s budget. It is, therefore, with a sense of grave disquiet that I agree with the conclusions of this report, which draws attention once again to the problem of funds that are committed and not used. This is especially worrying since a part of those funds falls under the N+2 rule, which states that funds committed must be used by the Member States within two years of the initial allocation, or the funds will be forfeited. This situation becomes even more unacceptable and disgusting when it occurs in the implementation of the Structural Funds and in the internal policies of the EU. I therefore lend my support to the transparent, frequent and detailed presentation of sums cancelled, annulled or forfeited because they have not been used, as well as an assessment of the financial impact of those losses. This valuable information should be presented by budget heading and by Member State. I also support the idea of streamlining the rules for submitting applications for structural funds, especially by improving the timetabling and implementation of those funds. These provisions must be adopted when the mid-term review of the Structural Funds is undertaken. - Resolution on trafficking in children (B5-0320/2003)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, one of the biggest gaps in the anti-money laundering regime has been that it only applied to financial institutions. As successive international reports have made clear, lawyers and other professionals become vulnerable to exploitation as unwitting accomplices in the washing of dirty money from criminals and terrorists as banks tighten up, which, I am glad to say, they are at last having to do. I regard the outcome of the conciliation on this directive as satisfactory if it is interpreted in a common sense way. That means that lawyers, accountants and tax advisers must, outside a strict definition of legal privilege, report transactions that are suspicious, in other words, that they have reason to believe their client is involved in money laundering. This is the only feasible interpretation. There has been a huge amount of hype on this directive aimed at protecting lawyers' vested interests and not, I am afraid to say, individual rights. This has delayed the finalisation of the directive for an unnecessary six months. Parliament has not exactly covered itself with glory. I hope all Member States will declare that they have no intention of invoking the option to exempt lawyers from the ban on tipping off clients that the authorities have been alerted. We need to make sure that our legal and financial systems are not exploited, rather than concentrating on the position of the lawyers themselves and their own self-interest.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, when Mr Fischler, the Commissioner for agriculture, tried to sell his reform proposals to professional associations and politicians in Luxembourg in September, he showed a great deal of understanding for the Grand Duchy's situation, which he classed as a special case, and stated, amongst other things, that if such special situations were to be reflected in the policy, which he wished to see, then it would be necessary to draw up tailor-made plans for Luxembourg, and his proposals made this perfectly feasible. Commissioner Fischler also assured Luxembourg on that occasion that he considered we had implemented the concept of rural development in an exemplary fashion, and in this respect he even said that nowhere else had EU resources been better invested. That is all very well and good. Of course, once the legislative proposals reflecting these ideas for reform are on the table, we will find out just how much we can rely on those statements. In Luxembourg, 70% of farms would be affected by the modulation proposed, that is to say by the progressive reduction in compensation payments by one-fifth, in addition to the expected drop in income because of cuts in producer prices and because of the mandatory 10% ‘environmental set-aside’. This is unacceptable and would lead to the socially and environmentally unacceptable demise of family farms. Proposals that would achieve eastward enlargement by wiping out farmers belong in one place – the rubbish bin. I am able to vote for the compromise resolution that Joseph Daul has invested so much time and understanding in, even if it is with a heavy heart, Joseph! The summit on 25 October agreed, thank goodness, that the common agricultural policy agreed in 2000 in Berlin up to 2006 would not be undermined by any radical changes before then. So we and the Commission have time to reflect. In any case, less favoured regions should be exempt both from the modulation and also from mandatory environmental set-aside. In conclusion, I would like to ... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I should like to thank the Commission for the information which it has given us on the fight against BSE and to tell Commissioner Byrne that my impression is that he has the situation in hand and that his proposals are clear and decisive. I think this is what we need because, apart from BSE, we also have hysteria and panic to deal with in several areas. This initial information which we have been given is without doubt most comprehensive. But I must say, Commissioner, that I would have liked to have seen the information on the countries which you so nicely listed compared with the results of controls carried out by food and veterinary health inspectors. I must say, in all honesty, that I only have to think of the ignorance and squirming with which the Agriculture Council has reacted to proposals over recent months, including Parliament's proposals, to lose all confidence in information provided by Member States and ministers. Of course, there is always some cause for objection with most measures. But we all know that the measures being decided now are the result of a failure to act, including over recent years, and we cannot afford to lower our sights. A few speakers have already referred to tests. The point is: if we do not test all animals, then the results are meaningless. I have heard that the abattoirs are simply refusing to slaughter animals. What is being done? They are being clubbed without being tested. That is just not on. We must intervene here, we must sort this out throughout Europe. Mrs Roth-Behrendt said we need more and better controls and indeed we do. But we also need clear-cut, comprehensible laws in Europe. We shall be dealing with hygiene regulations shortly. I say to you, in all honesty that, from what I hear from the Member States at the moment, I have no cause for optimism whatsoever. We are back on the same old merry-go-round, it is just not on. We need to stand together and give Europe clear-cut laws. That is the only way to get a grip on the problem.

Political group: PPE-DE
I should like to thank the Commissioner for her reply. It is true that the DG for the Environment has not given the go-ahead for the EUR 80 million subsidy for which the Spanish Government has applied for the Júcar-Vinalopó project. The DG for the Regions did want to grant the subsidy and subsequently asked the European Investment Bank to draft a socio-economic report about the economic viability of the Júcar project. However, the representatives of the European Investment Bank have only spoken with the Spanish Government in Spain, not with any of the people who are opposed to the Júcar project. The report of the European Investment Bank on this Júcar-project is not public. I should like to ask the Commission whether this report can be made public, particularly the technical information which the Spanish Government has supplied to the European Investment Bank?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, growth and employment in Europe depend to a large degree upon exploiting European infrastructure effectively. We should therefore have already set in motion the TEN projects that have still to get off the ground. It is no secret that I am very much in favour of a permanent link between Denmark and Germany, and I am glad that the new Danish Minister for Transport is also a supporter of the project. However, I am a little put out that German politicians are rather less enthusiastic. There has previously been some doubt as to whether a permanent link across the Fehmarn Belt is the way forward, but any such doubt has now been shown to be groundless. All the inquiry reports from the Danish and German Ministries of Transport show that there are neither environmental nor financial problems with building a bridge. With a faster and easier link between Denmark and Germany, we can build bridges to the new democracies in the East. We are not only building a bridge in physical terms, for practical purposes. We are building a bridge between countries to help industry and for human, political, social and cultural reasons. Building a permanent link between Germany and Denmark will create many new and much-needed jobs in the area. There are almost always people who automatically say ‘no’ to anything new. Anything which brings about change is a little frightening, whether it be EMU, the euro, environmentalism or a bridge. One should not, however, be afraid of something good. A link across the Fehmarn Belt is an exciting, rather than a frightening project. Finally, I should like to add my voice to the call to increase the budget appropriations for the trans-European transport networks, as they are quite inadequate. Improved growth and employment require sums of a quite different order.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that you cannot control safety – you have to create it. Listening to today's debate on food safety, I fear that we have not come very far in recent years. Producers and consumers have the same objective, we are all in the same boat, so it is not just consumers that are affected but the producers themselves as well. As I see it, consumers are quite right to be alarmed by the serious problems we have had recently, the string of scandals that have already been mentioned – BSE, dioxin, Nitrofen – it is a very long list. Ultimately, however, the weakest link in the chain is always the farmer, the producer, who has taken a battering because of the price situation. That is why the agricultural sector has a particularly great interest in achieving high quality in the upstream market. I am at present rapporteur on the issue of additives in animal feed. Commissioner, I am certainly in agreement with you in calling for very stringent measures to be applied to a wide variety of additives. We are talking here about antibiotics and cocciodiostatic drugs. I have just been discussing this with some of your colleagues. As a practical person, I firmly believe that we got things adequately sorted out on paper a long time ago but, in practice, when it comes to implementation and control, I regret to say that we will still have a lot of black sheep to deal with in future. We will only make progress here if the control system involves tougher sanctions. As I see it, those who are too slack deserve to be pilloried and should have their quota withdrawn and their production units shut down. Only if you point the way on this with our support can pressure be exerted to restore a reasonable situation in the European Union, one in which producers and consumers can process or consume food in the knowledge that it is safe and we can maintain the high quality of food that we have in the future as well. I would like to fully support Mrs Roth-Behrendt's proposals, but we have spent over 20 years talking about people's willingness to spend more money on food; it is just that the distribution process has totally changed. We need to be honest about the fact that many people simply cannot afford it. They want it all. They want not just to eat and drink, they also want to go on holiday, to travel, and so on and so forth. That is why we have food that is virtually free.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we in the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party are clearly working on a joint position which we will vote on at noon, in order to condemn violence and support dialogue, but also so that the short-term efforts, such as the appointment of a mediator and the support for the Traikovski plan, should be immediate measures. It is also important that the medium-term efforts and the Union’s responsibility in this area – the association agreement is clearly an important factor – make positive progress. I would like to devote my speech to two additional aspects of what is happening in the FYROM and which clearly affect the European Union. The first is that there have rarely been such difficult tests of the European Union’s external image as the successive crises in the Balkans, and that is still the case. Although there has been a substantial improvement since the appointment of the High Representative, Mr Solana, due to his management and his cooperation with Commissioner Patten and the Council, it is clear that all our will and our effort must be aimed at making our action more effective and saving our political prestige, since, for the image of the Union – and this has been made clear today by President Verhofstadt and Mr Patten and Mr Michel – a lot is at stake. Another important effect for the European Union – which has not been mentioned and is indirect, but very important – is its repercussions for the enlargement process. Although by chance, it happens that the countries directly neighbouring the FYROM – Bulgaria and Rumania – are the countries which have the greatest difficulty in achieving the sufficient economic development with a view to enlargement and the negotiation. I believe that this proximity has a negative effect on the conflict in many respects – not only economic – and a very direct effect on the process of direct investment in these countries. I believe that our intervention, or that of our countries, should take good account of this, because countries such as Bulgaria, for example, have made a very positive contribution to stability in the area.

Political group: ELDR