GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Obviously I welcome the adoption of a European Parliament resolution on the FAO World Food Summit. After all, it was my group that requested it. Five years after the first summit, it is clear that the progress made – a fall of 40 million in the 800 million who are suffering from hunger – is very small compared with the objective of halving the number of undernourished people by 2015. The resolution contains some interesting paragraphs, such as the one about the need for the new WTO round to focus on development and food security and the need for concomitant reforms of the common agricultural policy and common fisheries policy. Overall, however, the commitments made are very weak: the resolution does not recognise the supremacy of the right to food, or to sovereignty over food supplies, and neither does it tackle the structural factors which generate food insecurity. In fact, as we are well aware, it is not the quantity of food available in the world that is the problem, but the way that it is distributed amongst those who live there. The new technologies on reproduction, in particular genetically modified organisms, will not change anything either; quite the opposite. Thanks to these seeds and genetic technologies, small farmers and the people who live in the South are even more at the mercies of the multinationals. Not only are these firms tightening their grip on farmers by selling them their magic seeds; they are also encouraging them to produce food for consumers in the North, to the detriment of their own needs. This explains why three quarters of the people suffering from hunger in developing countries are small farmers. The time has come to put an end to unfair commercial rules and practices where trade in agricultural goods is concerned. The European Union should not delay in scrapping its export subsidies. It is not enough to talk about joined-up Community policies; this principle also needs to be applied in practice. The objective of the millennium is to halve poverty by 2015, not to protect our farmers, our fishing fleets and our agri-food industries; that is why we will be asking you to support our amendments. The best way to fight famine is actually to give access to the earth, access to water and access to genetic resources back to the people of the South, and to protect their farmers and their own markets.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner and also Mr Stevenson for the solidarity he has shown for Galicia as chairman of the Committee on Fisheries. Ladies and gentlemen, though there are not many Members present in the Chamber at this time of night, I would like to point out that the renewal of the agreement with Morocco was one of the most important objectives of the Committee on Fisheries. When this agreement was not achieved, we went out of our way to ensure that the budget that had been earmarked for the agreement would go instead to the fisherman affected. After some very difficult political and budgetary negotiations we secured this money. The practical application of the regulations approved demonstrated to us the need to improve them. We did not want any potential beneficiary to be deprived of even a single euro. We worked with great determination to rectify the situation. This is the purpose of the resolution we will vote on tomorrow, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries. The proposal we have tabled has been improved by the contributions of the Group of the . A consensus was reached rapidly, and I think we should all congratulate ourselves on this. I believe the Commission should accept in full the proposals we will vote on tomorrow. These will amend Regulation (EC) No 2561/2001 and ensure better social cover. This is what we want and what the Commission wants, and I believe it should be achieved.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as a woman, I have always been proud of what the European Community has achieved in the area of equal treatment of men and women. In that respect, we have played a pioneering role, certainly as regards the equal treatment in what – for the sake of convenience – I should like to call the working and professional environment. That has not always been the case. Now that we have a legal basis enabling us to go one step beyond the professional and working environment, I think we should do this. I do welcome the fact that, in terms of tax law, the Commission provides, at least at the moment, for temporary derogation. I believe that to be important, because where tax law is concerned, we move into the realms of family policy, and I think that we should continue to give the Member States free choices in that field. Understandably, the insurance industry has asked for a derogation to be put in place for them, because the proposal requires them to make huge adjustments. I would, however, ask them to understand that we nevertheless want to include insurance in the scope of this directive. I accept the legal argument that, strictly speaking, the unequal treatment of what is different does not amount to discrimination. This, however, should not stop us from taking positive steps in order to establish the equal treatment of men and women in the broad sense of the word, in society. That, therefore, means that we need to go beyond working and professional regulations and in that sense, I can also largely support the Commission's proposal.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the biotechnology industry in fact provides us with an important means of combating certain diseases, reducing the use of chemical products in agriculture and of protecting the environment. Mr Purvis quite rightly emphasises all these developments. However, by almost exclusively falling into line with the approach of biotechnology companies, and by giving priority to economic and technological aspects, the report pays minimal attention to the major questions of ethics and safety, which are giving the general public so much concern. There is a risk that the biotechnology industry, seen from a strictly industrial and mercantile point of view, will make all these problems worse; for example, unfair trade, environmental disasters, industrial mergers and unemployment and the increasing power of multinationals. I do, therefore, find the report is too partial by far and is even prejudiced. It disregards the concerns that were even expressed in this House on GMOs. It questions the moratorium imposed by several Member States, one of which was France. I agree with what my fellow Member has just said. I think that, given all the problems we face – and since I heard you mention courage earlier – it would show courage to persevere with the precautionary principle and take time to verify the facts of the situation. While I do, therefore, acknowledge the advantages of biotechnologies, I cannot support the report as it stands. I hope that it will be amended, particularly in the light of the conclusions of the Sjöstedt report, which is, in the main, based on respect for the precautionary principle. In its Sixth Framework Research Programme, the Commission made biotechnology and genetic engineering priority areas. It is preparing a strategic communication on biotechnology to be completed by the end of 2001. I call on the Commission to do all it can to take full advantage of the contribution that biotechnology can make to economic growth and to the protection of the environment, but also to take full account of ethical, environmental and social issues, which I believe require dialogue between politicians, scientists and citizens.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, thank you for your perceptive comments on global warming. However, like my fellow Member, I do not totally agree with what you said about progress in the fight against this phenomenon. We keep having conferences on global warming and they all turn out much the same. We should ask ourselves how many more so-called natural disasters it will take before the harmful effects of global warming, and their consequences, particularly on the economic and social development of European and world society, are really taken into account. You do not need to be a scientist to realise that global warming is a fact. The floods which are causing increasing amounts of damage are enough of a signal to be taken seriously. The insurance companies, which obviously are directly and financially involved, have sounded the alarm about these natural disasters which seem to be beating all records this year. We should regard these indisputable signals as stop signs for they remind us daily of the urgent need to act and to adopt specific measures to combat global warming. Yet it is astonishing how little attention is paid to all these conferences. Apart from a few environmentalists who are deeply concerned about global warming, total indifference is the norm. Even worse, under pressure from powerful nuclear lobbies, nuclear energy has nearly succeeded in being recognised as a renewable source of energy. This would be a disaster in itself. To conclude, I believe we really are a long way off success in the fight against global warming. This is why we have to set an example in this House, particularly as we appeared to be in the vanguard at Rio. ***

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like you to take note of my strong protest at the conditions under which this debate is to be held. I am not referring to the absence of the Minister, although this is also a problem, but to the systematic manner in which the Conference of Presidents organises debates relating to the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, amalgamating every topic into a joint debate. It seems to me to show a total lack of respect that, at the same time and for the same duration as a debate of such great importance as that on annual progress in the field of Justice and Home Affairs, we should also be debating the Hazan report on the Council report on justice and home affairs: EU priorities and policy objectives for external relations and the Watson report on a recommendation to the Council on an area of Freedom, Security and Justice: security at meetings of the European Council and other comparable events, and any other matter that may be on this Committee’s agenda. Mr President, this is the same as if we were to debate the assignment of radio frequencies and the association agreement with Egypt at the same time because they are both the remit of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. I hope that more respect will be shown in future.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Trakatellis and Mrs Scheele have produced a comprehensive piece of work, which should make for better information and greater transparency, as well as helping European consumers to enjoy freedom of choice. Consumers have to know what they are buying and what they are eating. Effective, reliable legal framework conditions for authorising, labelling and tracing GMOs need to be created as soon as possible. Both regulations, along with the lifting of the de facto moratorium on authorisation, are crucial to the implementation of a forward-looking strategy for European biotechnology, demands for which Parliament endorsed at the beginning of this year. The moratorium impedes the progress of green biotechnology in the European Union, and, in particular, both damages Europe’s innovative SMEs and stands in contradiction to the Lisbon objectives. The room for action set out in compromise motion No 1 on the Scheele report is desirable. We must, however, ensure that, if individual Member States decide to go their own way, this does not frustrate the aims of this regulation by interfering with the common internal market. When it comes to the adventitious and technically unavoidable presence of GMOs in non-genetically-modified products, we need rules that work in practice. In the final analysis, as we all know, every threshold value we set is arbitrary, but the 0.9% threshold value provided for in the Common Position is reasonable and helps to guide manufacturers and consumers. The threshold value is important in terms of different types of cultivation being able to coexist, as, in the natural world, there are no techniques for preventing such things as cross-pollination. The most important yardstick by which the new legislation must be judged must be the practicability of its framework conditions, which must, in particular, be in line with WTO rules and must not allow excessive bureaucracy to hamper the development of biotechnology in Europe. Above all, they must help to inform consumers and protect them.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Lemierre, ladies and gentlemen, I cannot add my voice to the praise heaped on the Bank by the rapporteur and the previous speakers. It is not the task of parliamentarians to pay tribute to banks' investment successes but to check whether this Bank, which is funded from the public purse, complies with the political rules in force in the European Union, namely the rules of transparency, the rules of sustainable development, and the rules of environmental compatibility. It is our task to demand that it does so. This brings me to my points of criticism. Point 1: the support for investment in the BP pipeline for oil exploitation in the Caspian Sea. This, as everyone knows, is not necessarily intended to end hostilities in this region and bring peace. On the contrary, more than one million people have become refugees here over the last ten years. Admittedly, this is not an accusation that can be levelled at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development itself, but the Bank does have a commitment to political principles. The fact is that this project will not produce a peace agreement, but will simply let the conflict in the region simmer on. In effect, that means that the European Union will benefit substantially from the production of oil, but for local people, it will not create the desired peace or prosperity. It is also unclear who bears the risk in the event of accidents. There are certainly no opportunities for local economic development. Transparency, too, must also be improved, especially transparency for the population. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development is supporting dubious nuclear projects in Rovno and Khmelnitsky. We know that the European Parliament has spoken out against this, because it is not convinced that these reactors can be made safe. We also know that they are being built solely to supply cheap electricity to Western Europe, not to resolve the problems in Ukraine. This House has therefore opposed any such investment. I would therefore like to ask the President how, in that case, the Development Bank has still transferred EUR two billion to EURATOM to make these projects possible.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we vote in favour of this directive tomorrow or the day after we will be establishing one of the cornerstones of the fight against organised crime because, as Diemut Theato mentioned, the driving force behind organised crime is the money from drug trafficking, from trafficking in human beings and from all forms of organised crime. This money is laundered and put into circulation in the legal economy. This poses serious dangers: a danger to the economy because of distortions of competition; a danger to the company of being undermined, and a danger to the state whose stability is threatened. That is why it is so important that we take up the battle here against money laundering and prevent it from happening. Because if we succeed in stamping out money laundering then we will also stamp out organised crime. That is why I welcome the fact that a new proposal has now been tabled which extends the first directive. The situation has changed. Organised crime is using new kinds of businesses. Money is being laundered through different channels from the ones which were used in the past. That is why it is absolutely essential for the European Parliament, for the institutions, the Commission and the Council, to make decisions here so that we have a new effective instrument with which to combat money laundering. That is why we in the support the fact that this directive extends the list of predicate offences to all areas of organised crime from which these proceeds are derived, and extends the scope to cover the professions and businesses which are abused or which may specifically be involved. I very much welcome the rapporteur's efforts to propose an approach which actually makes the directive enforceable and practicable and thus into an effective instrument in the fight against organised crime. We will be firmly supporting these proposals from the rapporteur.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I have two questions for further clarification. My first question is: which criteria exactly have led to the conclusion that the PKK is a terrorist organisation? My second question is: in what way is this concept being interpreted as regards those who cooperate with such an organisation? After all, this could go very far when we talk about a movement which is actually being recognised as a kind of national liberation movement by the Kurds themselves. Finally, who do you consider as a contact to talk on behalf of the Kurds when the peace process is underway, bearing in mind that in Northern Ireland too, partners had to be selected who were initially thought inappropriate?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Savary, you have done sterling work in the sense that, based on considerations pertaining to traffic safety, the environment and noise restrictions, it is excellent that a light form of harmonisation has been opted for. In my view, Mr Savary’s arguments concerning the legal basis – which is necessary because we may otherwise be facing legal battles – are sound. I also think it is important to maintain the status quo. I am saying this against the interests of my country and those of its transport sector. In this case, I take the view that the interests of the core countries should definitely prevail where the problems I described a moment ago are concerned. The periphery, where, for that matter, the ports are situated and traffic originates in the first place, should adapt itself to this. And then it becomes abundantly clear that, if the free movement of goods is thought to be restricted, we should realise that there is always inland shipping, there is always railway transport and that there is always the option of short-sea. If you travel from the Netherlands to Italy, I would advise you to use short-sea. We are all working very hard on this. In my view, Mr Savary is right to introduce Amendment No 13. I would only suggest to him to re-insert the words “exceptional cases” which he has omitted, where restrictions are concerned, because this does put a brake on the whole thing. I shall leave it there, and to Mr Vermeer, I would suggest he take the train next time.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The Transparency Directive is one of those needed to complete the financial services action plan, which aims to establish an internal market for financial services in 2005. The last Spring Council notified Parliament of its wish to complete this process before the forthcoming European elections. Our opposition to this process, which forms part of the Lisbon Strategy, revolves not solely around federalist issues relating to legislative harmonisation and to the effective loss of sovereignty over monitoring financial services markets and those operating in these markets, it is also based on economic considerations, given that the unchecked movement of capital and the speculative nature of a market focused on the short term and on accruing capital gains are responsible for increased volatility and for the likelihood of financial crises, which affect economic growth and jobs. The issue of information made available to investors is crucial, not in order to appease investors, but to ensure transparency and truth, which were both absent from the recent financial scandals involving Enron and Worldcom, along with Parmalat in Europe. While we are purporting to protect small investors and small undertakings, efforts are being made to deregulate and reduce the cost of capital for, of course, the large multinational corporations. - Report: Prets (A5-0155/2004)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, may I say from this side of the House as one who served in the last Parliament that it is a great pleasure to see Mrs Péry here in this Chamber in Parliament. I would like to make several points about this issue of an observatory or monitoring centre. First of all, existing bodies within the EU institutions are already doing this work and are capable of doing it. It seems curious to me to propose another agency, more machinery, and more budgetary expenditure to duplicate work that is already taking place. For example, the Joint Research Centre Institute in Seville that deals with prospective future technologies is looking at this area. The Dublin Institute has been mentioned already. Secondly, governments and other types of public sector organisations do not have a particularly good record or an aptitude for predicting change in industry, in commerce, in business and in enterprise. Nor, in my view, should they try to do that. Let the economy and market forces get on with it. I am curious about the emphasis on industrial change when we in the developed economies now live in a situation in which 20% or less of the work-force is employed in conventional industry and everyone else works in the services sector in the new economy. I am surprised because that emphasis denotes unawareness of this particular form of change. In other words, it is all happening, it has happened already and furthermore it has happened probably despite, rather than because of, the fact that governments second-guess what is going to happen and how it should happen. Moreover, if there is a need for study on an academic or research basis, then it is surely better to use existing bodies. By all means involve the two sides of industry in the research work, but let us not set up yet another EU agency or body. In short, we should not try to reinvent the wheel. Instead, we should leave the economy and the market to get on with it, since this is the best way to promote change and renewal and create new jobs.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, does the Commissioner agree with me that there seems to be a new and growing abuse of children which is within the competence of the European Union? Children are being used by mothers from eastern and central Europe on the streets of our cities for begging. They are mostly coming into the Union as refugees. Either they should be taken into care or the begging is unjustified because they should be receiving social benefits from the state. This is something perhaps which should be added to the list of child abuse which we as a Community ought to be looking into very carefully.

Political group: PPE-DE