GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, firstly, I wish to say that I think there are a number of good points about the Commission’s proposal. At the same time, I want to emphasise that the rapporteur, Mrs Sanders-ten Holte, has done a very good job. Under her leadership, we have been able, during the committee reading, to agree upon a number of additions and changes that make the legislation both more focused and concentrated more upon poverty issues. I am especially pleased about the target of approximately ten per cent for efforts within the environmental area. Environmental issues are all too often hidden away in development work. We have a long list of problems, especially in Asia, that have to be tackled when it comes both to pollution and to safeguarding basic natural resources. A majority of the poor in rural areas are in actual fact more dependent upon what we might call the ‘gross biomass product’, that is to say what is produced by nature, than upon the ‘gross domestic product’, that is to say what is produced by the economy. We then have the controversy as to whether there should be one or two regulations for Asia and Latin America. I am conscious of the fact that Parliament wanted two regulations, but I think that the Commission has very strong arguments in favour of its proposal. In recent years, a number of measures have been implemented to make the organisation of development cooperation more efficient, and it would be strange if we were now to complicate this with two regulations and, as it were, to obstruct the simplification of the procedures otherwise under way. I think Mrs Sanders-ten Holte had an excellent proposal for a regulation divided into two separate chapters. I am not convinced by the argument that the countries are, apparently, so different. We have a single framework for ACP cooperation, and it operates quite admirably. Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra may talk about his 26 votes in favour compared with zero votes against but, if he were to listen in the corridors, he would hear that a very great many of his fellow MEPs are now deeply concerned about our getting into a conflict over this. I should therefore like to urge my fellow MEPs, irrespective of what is said by the leaders of the political groups, to vote against the amendments aimed at our having two different regulations.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, once again the state of Israel is trying to crush the Palestinian people and eliminate its leaders. Once again these crimes are being committed with the unspoken blessing of the United States and the European Union, despite anguished appeals from President Arafat. The Danish Presidency simply calls this murderous attack unproductive and the delegate from the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs has advised the Palestinian Authority to reorganise its security services and isolate extremist elements. At the same time, the European Union is still sending money and selling arms to Israel, despite the European Parliament's resolution on suspending the partnership. The heroic Palestinian people know that not one foreign government stands by them in their fight for a free homeland. What sustains them is grass-roots support. How much longer, Mr President, honourable Members, will the governments of the European Union refuse to listen to the word on the street? How much longer will they refuse to distinguish between perpetrator and victim, when it is as clear as day that the cause of the violence is the Israeli occupation?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the Commission's report and Mr Musotto's are laudable, the one for its analytical description of the situation and the other for its supplementary proposals, although the observations of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs were taken into account only to a somewhat modest extent. Further to them, though, I would like to elaborate, from my Committee's point of view, another issue which has almost been pushed into obscurity. Commissioner, we have learned essential lessons from the difficulties we have had in raising poorer regions or suffering former industrialised zones to the level within the European Union; they should spur us on to improve things and should serve as a benchmark for the process of enlargement. It is above all the poorer industrial zones in the future Member States whose need for massive restructuring measures causes me great concern. I refer above all to coal and steel regions; the steel industries in these countries are absolutely incapable of competing with our own, and the collieries are a potential problem. I do not want to go at this juncture into what will happen if we are unable to give our new friends sufficient aid. I will only observe that, as the ECSC's expiry is imminent, we no longer have a suitable instrument in this field. I reiterate that now because the ECSC continued to be of excellent service to us in recent years, no cofinancing is needed and the system of financing could in any case have been adapted. We also have to make solidarity payments to the applicant countries. I reiterate that now because the new States will not have adequate access to financing. I have touched on this issue now because the Commission played a considerable part in changing this instrument without envisaging the difficulties in the process of enlargement or even giving them some thought. Do something about this problem, Commissioner! The problem is not a small one. We do not have enough instruments suited to the processes of adaptation while enlargement is going on.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the government of the Russian Federation deems itself to be a fully-fledged Member, for example of the Council of Europe. This brings with it obligations which extend far beyond all kinds of international agreements to protect human rights and far beyond the dictates of martial law. The relations which we have entered into with Russia in the form of treaties also point in the same direction. However, the way in which the Russian government is trying to solve its differences with Chechnya flies in the face of these international rules. We can imagine that terrorism and, for example, aggression against Dagestan had to be dealt with. It is a fact that the Chechen authorities cannot be appointed as representatives of a regulated democratic constitutional state overnight. It was, for example, impossible for them to prevent the cruel kidnappings and hostage-takings in their own area, but the means used by Russia is disproportionate and is to be condemned in itself. I refer, in particular, to the bombardments of the people and the treatment of the people who are in the process of leaving that country. We are duty-bound to take a stand against this, not out of self-satisfaction because, as someone from a former colonial power, I know about this kind of war and the regret which surfaces say twenty or thirty years later for crimes committed, but for the future of Russia and Chechnya. That is what we care about it, hence this appeal. We therefore give our full backing to the resolution. The resolution mainly focuses on humanitarian aspects, the provision of aid, moving the Tacis programme in that direction, diplomatic consultation and possibly consultation based on the OSCE with regard to stability in the Caucasus. We, as a European Union, are willing to cooperate with international organisations where Russia requires and expects aid, but we will also have to do everything to continue this type of dialogue with Russia at all costs, even if it is difficult.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of my group I would like to begin by congratulating Mr Blak on his report. I agree with the essence of what Mr Heaton-Harris has said. The new Financial Regulation makes it possible to include the Agency for Safety and Health at Work, the Environment Agency, the Translation Centre, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction and the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia in the European Parliament’s discharge procedure for the first time. I expressly welcome the fact that all the agencies are now discharged by Parliament, as the most recent cases of internal irregularities in the Commission clearly show how important it is to have ongoing checks of the institutions. This innovation is doubtless important, but can be only the first step. A second innovation, an equally essential requirement, is that Parliament must be given a power of codecision in the appointment of directors. It is a contradiction for Parliament to have a say in appointing the ombudsman and the Commission President, while having no such right in respect of the agencies. We know there is a tendency for agencies to proliferate. There are more and more of them. These agencies are evidently to be given their own legal personality. As a Parliament, therefore, as taxpayers’ representatives, we must insist on having a power of codecision in them, in the way they are appointed. I have had a printout made of the various agencies we have at the moment. There is a first generation, to which Thessaloniki and Dublin belong, then a second generation with Copenhagen, Turin and I do not know who else, agencies not receiving a subsidy from the new budget, which you have already mentioned, Alicante and Angers, Codecision EP and Council, Brussels, Brussels temporarily. That is all those agencies like the European Food Safety Authority or the European Maritime Safety Agency, where they have said they will do something but they do not yet know where or when or how. That is an offence against Europe’s taxpayers. That is not addressed to you, but we do of course know that these agencies will have to start work somewhere sometime, and the Member States have proclaimed at the tops of their voices that they will, but they do not know when, they do not know where and they do not know how much it will cost. We have to be concerned about that, and the Social Democrats in this House, like the , as Mr Heaton-Harris has said, will be insisting that we have a power of codecision here and we shall be pressing very hard for it. Reiterated congratulations, by the way, to Mr Blak on his report.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the establishment of a second phase of the DAPHNE Programme to ensure continuity of the projects approved by the DAPHNE I Programme undoubtedly provides us with an excellent opportunity to talk once again about the instruments available to us for combating violence against women and children. This is without doubt one of the most serious problems faced both by societies in the less developed countries and by our societies, which we consider to be democratic and to comply with a genuine rule of law. So we could ask ourselves, what kind of rule of law is this if it does not protect women? Violence against women affects all of us, even in countries with relatively egalitarian societies and with women fully incorporated into active and autonomous life. These things do not only take place outside our borders. It appears that violence against women has deep roots and that they are established in the very part of the world that we live in. The European Union – this Parliament, most directly – must send an unequivocal sign of its firm commitment to combating this violence which kills hundreds of women and which makes thousands of them suffer unjustly and avoidably. The DAPHNE Programme has been an essential instrument for trying to combat this violence, but it has been restricted by its budget. In 2004 the European Union will be enlarged to 25 countries and the rights of the women and girls of these acceding countries are seriously unprotected and a large number of them, furthermore, are victims of trafficking and sexual exploitation, as well as suffering violence within their families. The initial budget is clearly insufficient – everybody has acknowledged this – and this Parliament's message must be crystal clear to all citizens. The increase to EUR 65 million proposed by the Group of the is therefore much needed. The mid-term assessment of the DAPHNE Programme has demonstrated the need to continue with the programme. The DAPHNE Programme is one of those small grains of sand with which the Union’s institutions can contribute to relieving the pain, exploitation and abuse that many women and children have to live with within our borders. I would like to congratulate Mrs Gröner on her report, the Commission on its work and, above all, the broad spectrum of women's organisations which strive every day to try to build a different world.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, research and society face great scientific and ethical challenges in the 21st century. Genetic engineering applications will play a key role. I would like to thank Mr Purvis sincerely. In the last legislative term I drew attention to the importance of genetic engineering in my report on genetic engineering and its impact on agriculture. We must now at last give the green light to green genetic engineering. To stick with this theme of colours, consumers have long since given the green light to red genetic engineering, i.e. the application of genetic engineering in medicine. The advantages are tangible and easy to understand. In green genetic engineering, its application in agriculture, consumers are, as I say, sadly still showing the red light. We must also show the red card to extremists. Biotechnology and gene technology must cease to be the poor relation. The EU must get on board the moving train of research and application or it will leave without us. I am worried by the trend of more and more small and medium-sized enterprises pulling out of green biotechnology and gene technology. The present EU moratorium means that while research is taking place the subsequent application of the product is not being allowed in individual countries. Undertakings, and with them jobs, are leaving Europe. In my view, the lights are on amber here. They must be allowed to change to green. Of course, whether we are talking about red or green genetic engineering, the ethical bounds to biotechnology and gene technology must be clearly formulated. I would like to say to the opponents of research that we have a moral obligation to use the opportunities this new technology offers for medicine and for caring for the world population as a whole. The public will give the green light to biotechnology and gene technology only if they have information and transparency with clearly marked out ethical bounds. I also appeal to industry to do their part in helping us with the public relations work so that acceptance will increase.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to thank Mrs Nicole Péry for giving us high hopes of the French Presidency, which has made great strides with its law on equality. Electoral lists comprising 50% men and 50% women could be worth emulating. However, we are still awaiting the decision regarding a formal Council of Ministers. Unfortunately, we are only ever referred to other Councils of Ministers for a decision. We do not want to wait any longer. Other speakers have made the point: we want political action. It is high time for decisions on equal pay for equal work, i.e. for Articles 141 and 13 to be implemented. The Charter of Fundamental Rights has to be more than a fine proclamation. What we need are concrete implementation measures that will enable people to reconcile a career with family life. The Fifth Action Programme will assist us in this, but we as a European Parliament have already come some way ourselves. We have created a network of committees on equality with our female counterparts in the national parliaments, and in November, we will be meeting our female counterparts from the Member States, as well as those from the candidate countries. We did the same thing, incidentally, in New York, at the Beijing + 5 Conference. I was the rapporteur in Peking and the co-rapporteur in New York. The Polish women were very grateful to us for making it clear that the representative who was there at the time most definitely did not reflect the views of Polish women. I met with some very positive responses there. I would like to remind our President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, of the important speech he made here. There must be no glass ceilings in the European edifice. The European Parliament employs 30% women, which is the highest percentage rate of all the institutions. The Commission has 25% women, so at least there is an upward trend. The European Court of Justice could do better, as only two of its fifteen judges are women. Yes, and the picture looks very gloomy in the Council on the equal opportunities policy front. All I can say there, is that the Council is what you might call a developing country where equality for women is concerned. We have every reason to be concerned. We have heard that the previous Council Presidency first restructured and then scrapped the Ministry for Equality. That gives us great cause for concern, and we expect that as well as stepping up the pace in matters of equal opportunities policy, there will also be concrete measures. IN THE CHAIR: MR PUERTAVice-President

Political group: PSE
When a large number of parties on the extreme right start gaining power in Europe, or come within a whisker of doing so, it is high time we considered why this is happening and what disastrous consequences it will have for our democracies. Nevertheless, the traditional political parties continue to follow their own agenda, without questioning what they do, while sharing out the top jobs amongst themselves. Nevertheless, economists, governments and the European Commission continue their relentless pursuit of ever more liberalism. Economic 'rigour' is not the right response, despite it being one of the conditions of having a global policy which is closer to the people. Liberalism could have advantages to offer in some sectors, but only if it is managed and regulated. Above all, today's broad economic guidelines need to be completely revised if we are to eradicate unemployment and poverty. I do not recognise this objective in the documents we have before us.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as this is the first time you have been in this situation, my reproach is not directed at you; in recent years, though, I have known many Vice-Presidents of this House who said in discussions of this sort on the issue of Question Time that they would endeavour to ensure that it did not happen again and that it was an exception. It is, though, increasingly becoming the rule. I can give you statistical evidence that this is a fact and so I ask you as a matter of urgency to put Question Time back at an hour when it is absolutely certain that it can take place. It used to be held at the beginning of the Tuesday evening sitting and was always on time. It has regularly been wrecked, every other or every third time, since being moved to the afternoon. Nowadays we are regularly stopping at 5.30 p.m. on Thursday through apparently not having anything to discuss until 6.30 or 7 p.m. We do not sit on Fridays, yet we do not have time for Members to exercise their elementary right, guaranteed by the Treaties, to ask questions. This is absolutely unacceptable, and I am asking not only that this be changed, but also for the restoration, as soon as possible, of the Question Time with Commissioner Busquin and others, which many of us have carefully prepared for. We do not want to be sent written answers drafted by civil servants, but to be able to ask supplementary questions, as is the custom in parliaments. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I warmly welcome Commissioner Patten's reassurance that poverty reduction will be a key issue on the G8 agenda. Theoretically, the G8 governments are committed to achieving the UN development targets by 2015, including universal primary education. Over a year ago, at the World Education Forum in Dakar, those same governments promised that no country serious about achieving education for all should fail for lack of resources. Those are fine words, but where are the resources and where is the debt relief? The G8 should cancel now all IMF and World Bank debts for countries committed to those 2015 development targets. Those same objectives are shared by hundreds of civil society groups across the European Union, and many thousands of individuals care so much about those issues that they will travel to Genoa to take part in peaceful demonstrations to draw the world's attention to the need for urgent action on these issues. May I end with the hope that the world's media will listen to them and will report their concerns and give far less attention to those tiny numbers of people who may be involved in violence, but who all too often drown out the legitimate concerns of the many thousands of peaceful, but passionate protestors. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
The European Parliament has devoted particular attention to shipbuilding in the European Union, given the problems faced by this sector since the 1994 OECD agreement was concluded and in view of the serious situation following the closure of many industrial installations and associated job losses. It is obvious that not everyone is complying with the agreement to the same extent, in particular the USA and South Korea, who are resorting to unfair practices and uneven playing fields at world level. This applies especially to South Korea, whose share of the world market has risen from 10% to 50% in ten years. The negotiations initiated by the Commission with South Korea have not led to the re-establishment of fair and transparent competition on the world market, which means that we are experiencing a crisis of which the hallmarks are extremely low prices and the existence of considerable excess capacity, which could lead to the closure of the remaining companies. We are therefore calling for the revision of the OECD agreement and the restoration of the Community preference for shipbuilding, so as to encourage Member States to purchase vessels built in European shipyards. These are therefore measures that the Commission and the Council need to take as a matter of urgency, and we are accordingly supporting the resolution approved by Parliament. – Howitt report (A5-0159/2002)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as both a member of the Group of the and representative of the Pensioners' Party, I feel that this is a major, necessary measure and that it has come at the right time. Not only does it, obviously, deal with accounts and allow Parliament to keep abreast of the Member States' accounts – which is very important, as we know – but it also puts paid to the habitual practice of various States of the Union, especially the State which I represent in this Parliament, namely Italy, whose accounting system is wont to resemble a conjuring trick, particularly where taxes and social contributions are concerned – social contributions which are extremely important for pensioners. Conjuring tricks are performed: money appears and disappears at the drop of a hat. For example, we are told that the contributions paid in by workers are not sufficient for the State to be able to give them a large enough pension. Very often this is untrue, and there must have been some real conjuring tricks going on if a State is able to tell workers who have worked all their lives and have finally reached the point where they are entitled to their hard-earned, longed for pensions that there is no money left to pay them. This is a lie: the accounts have been fiddled. So roll on the adoption of the Knörr Borràs report!

Political group: PPE-DE