GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Purvis, the rapporteur. He has presented a remarkable report and drawn attention to the great potential of biotechnology. We note that biotechnology is unable to develop that great potential particularly well in Europe. There are a number of hindrances to it in the European Union. The greatest one in my opinion is the de facto moratorium on the release of genetically modified organisms. We do not investigate which plants or organisms are particularly dangerous and therefore should perhaps not be approved; instead we do not approve any at all and no distinction is made between different organisms. This arrangement was a problem from the start. There was never a proper basis for it in law, and now it is even more of a problem because the Council and Parliament have adopted new rules for the release of genetically modified organisms, and I cannot understand why some Member States still do not want to end the moratorium. It is particularly harmful to small and medium-sized enterprises that are unable to transfer their work abroad. We have good rules for release and we can therefore end the moratorium now. I believe the dangers of green gene technology are much overstated. I also believe the prospects for medicinal use are overstated, that things are being painted in black and white – genetic changes in farming are bad, in medicine they are per se good. I think there are opportunities and risks in both, and that is also what the report says in item 32. Now that we have good rules for plants, we also need good common rules in medicine. There is room for improvement there. I also believe that we must set ethically-based limits for gene technology and biotechnology. We have already gone some way towards that in Europe and there is now a Committee on Human Genetics that must look particularly at this area again, because Europe is a community of values. This does not mean that we have to have the same laws everywhere, that we harmonise everything, but we must agree in Europe, too, on certain basic principles and I would like to press for that strongly. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
I agree with you, Mr President. I believe that it is appropriate for the committee to consider the issue, but above all – and I am also saying this on behalf of my colleague Mr Gemelli – for replies to be given based on your assessment, Mr President, on the strength of the details that the services will provide you with.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is very important for the sake of European stability to assist Albania and its neighbouring regions. Helping democracy to take root and establishing the rule of law are vital. We cannot forget nations that are in distress: our duty is to support them to the best of our ability. The action programme for Albania and its neighbouring regions will enable us to increase stability in the area. The main area of focus must not be how the flood of immigrants and refugees may be brought under control, but how conditions in the region can be improved so that people can stay in their homes. Albania, and Kosovo in particular, are not yet regions at peace, however, which means that the repatriation of refugees must take place in a controlled way, so that their safety is not jeopardised. The situation of the Kosovo Albanians has long been very difficult, and it is a great relief that, at last, their rights are being recognised. But it is just as essential to protect the rights of the minorities in Kosovo: the Serbs and the Romanies. It will be a long but necessary process to bring about reconciliation between the national groups. Only in forgiveness is there a revolutionary basis for building the future. Economic growth enables difficulties to be overcome in crisis areas. It is not enough merely to pile up aid: we need enterprise at grassroots level and we need to encourage people to stand on their own two feet. People with the same business affairs in common are peacefully bound to one another. Money, as is well known, brings peace. The EU CARDS programme is of the utmost importance in this situation, as, without a system of administration that functions properly, nothing works. We must help them to help themselves. Right now the region needs a guiding hand. The EU, as a partner of the Balkans, has a huge responsibility for the future of the region. We must put an end to selfishness and see our destinies bound together.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in reality, it is the Council alone that should be blamed for the delay in adopting fundamental measures in the field of asylum and immigration. We recall the proposal for a directive on granting refugee status, which should have been approved well before the end of 2003, but this is not, unfortunately, an isolated case. We must also talk about the general aim of putting the conditions in place for an ordered entry into the European Union for those who are without international protection, but the fact is that another important directive on the procedures that the Member States should implement to grant refugee status ultimately fell by the wayside. The Justice and Home Affairs Council of 27 and 28 November abandoned its quest for a political agreement on these two pieces of legislation that are crucial to the first phase of harmonising the common asylum system, and decided to postpone their adoption until the end of 2004. Fortunately, not everything has ended in inertia or deadlock. We must praise the attitude of the Commission and the commitment of Commissioner Vitorino, which were demonstrated in the proposal for a regulation establishing a programme of technical and financial assistance to third countries in the field of migration and asylum, an instrument that will enable us to address the needs felt by these countries in their efforts to ensure that migration flows are better managed. Nor must we overlook the fact that the Draft Constitution of the European Convention provides for a genuine common European asylum system and an immigration policy, which will enable us to abandon the current system of minimum rules in which Member States retain a large part of their national systems. Unfortunately, even this crucial historical area is compromised, and so we can only conclude that 2003 was a year in which there was a keen awareness of the needs, and of providing the appropriate means, areas in which the Commission and Parliament did what was asked of them. It was, however, also a time that suffered from the hypocrisy, hesitation and deadlock that national strategy and ideological prejudice impose on the Council’s decision-making ability.

Political group: PSE
Today is 19 April. It is the feast of Saint Vicent Ferrer, which is cause for much celebration in my home region of Valencia. It so happens that today is the day I take up office as a Member of this House representing the Valencian Nationalist Bloc. I should like to seize this opportunity to highlight a serious problem affecting the production of oranges and other citrus fruits in the region of Valencia. The European Union has failed to adopt precautionary plant health measures to prevent possible attack by pests and diseases due to the import of citrus fruits from third countries such as Argentina or Brazil. This is a particularly serious situation. In the past, it led to the introduction of pests such as the citrus leaf miner. In the near future, it could have serious implications for the cultivation of citrus fruits in the region of Valencia, and across Europe. It is possible that the Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri could penetrate the territory of the Union. This pest causes canker in citrus fruits and the subsequent appearance of black patches on the skin of oranges. The European Union must not evade its responsibility. It must introduce clauses ensuring plant health as a matter of urgency. Clauses of a different nature would be appropriate for other sectors, such as the textile sector. The aim should be to prevent the entry of pests and diseases into a sector that is so important to the economy of Valencia and therefore to the economy of Europe as a whole.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The good doctor Duisenberg has been telling us for several months that economic recovery is underway. Disciples of the other good doctor – Doctor Coué – have been saying the same thing. They see the signs of recovery almost everywhere, in the same way that a fortune-teller can predict happiness by looking at tea leaves. What we should actually be asking ourselves is whether or not we have gone into recession. Faced with this reality, the liberal ideas governing the European Union’s economic policy would seem to be rather harmful. The so-called Stability and Growth Pact and the independence of the European Central Bank are starving the authorities of the resources to cope with the crisis. In light of this situation, the infamous Lisbon declaration has more to do with some magical formula than with politics, and the Commission recommendation for the 2002 Broad Guidelines of the Economic Policy of the Member States and the Community makes use of the same hocus-pocus. When the invisible hand of the market works, everything works, more or less. I say more or less, because we must acknowledge that, in spite of everything, the gap between the rich and poor continues to grow inexorably. This is happening throughout the world as well as in Europe, with tragic consequences, and we see, to take the example of the Republic of France, that those politicians who appeal to the masses are waiting in the wings to take advantage of the situation. Incidentally, I would like to congratulate the handful of Members who recently organised the Europe of the Poor Summit in conjunction with the Fourth World Movement NGO. Seventeen per cent of the population today make up this Europe: in other words, there are 60 million people who survive on less than 60% of the average income. Allow me to return to the idea of the invisible hand, if I may. When the hand suffers from pins and needles, tingling and rheumatism, which appears to be the case at the moment, everything stops working. It will be increasingly difficult for the Member States to respect the liberal restrictions, such as the infamous 3% threshold. And what can I say about the budgetary balance for 2004? Several States are experiencing difficulties: Germany, for example, is currently in this situation, and, as you know, Germany has the strongest economy of the Fifteen. Berlin only has to sneeze and Europe catches a cold. Take the example of our trans-Atlantic neighbours: with their usual pragmatism, the United States of North America, who extol the virtues of liberalism, have just proven once again that anti-liberal measures must occasionally be used. We would do well to draw some inspiration from that side of the Atlantic. Tentatively, rather too tentatively in fact – and I am about to finish, Mr President – the rapporteur is introducing some homeopathic amendments using the liberal credo of the Commission. I have considerable regard for Bruno Trentin but... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mr Salafranca on his magnificent report and also Mr Kreissl-Dörfler for his opinion, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on this subject. The Salafranca report is, generally speaking, very comprehensive and quite ambitious. I am only going to make one point, relating to paragraph 60, referring to the need for the Commission and the Council to provide adequate funding; and I would like to relate it to the report presented to us yesterday by the President of the Court of Auditors on economic management in the year 2000. In this report, in paragraph 5.5.8, something very serious is pointed out: that more than 25% of commitment appropriations allocated to Latin America in the year 2000 could not be used, because of administrative shortcomings. It was not made very clear in the Court of Auditors report whether administrative shortcomings were restricted to those countries receiving Community aid or the Community’s administration itself. In response to the Commission, a series of measures have been referred to which would prevent this taking place this year or next, and Mr Salafranca himself refers to another issue, which is the need for extra personnel in the Directorate-General for Latin America. Some time ago the Director of this Directorate-General told me personally, and I am talking about more than ten years ago, that the Directorate did not need more money, but more staff. I still have no idea whether this particular bottleneck has yet been resolved. Finally, one of the proposals put forward by the Commission is to strengthen delegations’ decentralisation functions. I would also like to insist upon something Mr Salafranca has also stressed, which is that a very large country in Latin America with which we have a privileged relationship, Ecuador, still has no delegation, despite previous agreements and commitments made by this Parliament and the Commission itself.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the resolution is right to condemn a number of matters, and also calls for action on the part of Europe. This is, in fact, possible within the framework of the Cotonou Agreement. That is done in a country, Ethiopia, which is occupying an important position in East Africa. It has, under Mengistu, experienced a horrific period, and has, following a fierce civil war, eventually found peace. Ethiopia is being governed by people originating from the resistance movement. At times, they still display characteristics of a certain ‘bush’ mentality and find it difficult to share power with others, as it were. Tigreans play a major role in the government and do so very expertly. The government also plays a crucial role in a number of peace-promoting initiatives, but is, at the same time, struggling to achieve good relations in Ethiopia, in its interaction with Eritrea, and also within Eritrea. Attempts are being made to build a regional autonomy within the countries, coupled with a certain level of ethnicity, with respect for minorities. This is a painstaking process and is also often accompanied by resistance from certain groups within Ethiopia. We simply have to establish that it is still costing them a great deal of effort in order to build a more powerful, stable democracy. In a way, I appreciate the efforts that this is costing them. At the same time, however, we as international community can hardly ask anything else from them here than that they understand that if they do not observe human rights, do not show respect for groups who think differently, react with violence and violate human rights, this will eventually seriously damage their own status and our position, as well as our chance to support them. I believe we need to operate within that context of understanding and insight, and must also be very clear. That is why we will give our unqualified support to this resolution.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would have kept my peace, had Mr Schulz refrained from making these comments. I have no wish to make a snap judgment of the conduct of the government referred to by Mr Schulz, let alone the conduct of a member of the Commission. But, my dear Mr Schulz, your comments would have had more credibility had you also criticised the fact that, when it was in line for a blue letter, the German Government put so much pressure on the Council of Ministers that in the end the letter was not sent. (Applause) You would have been more credible had you also had something to say when a member of your party in the Commission – I shall not name names because I do not want to open a can of worms – infringed Commission regulations. Please be assured that I have no wish to rake over old ashes. But you are being selective in your complaints and that casts doubt on your credibility, although it does not undermine what may well be well-founded criticism of the conduct of individual governments or Commissioners. That is all I have to say. We agreed that Commissioner Fischler should make a statement today. Commissioner Fischler is most welcome. But we should not make party political capital out of his statement. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, it is true that we are not proud of the situation in which the farming profession finds itself today. But you can be assured that I shall not be speaking just as a Frenchwoman, but primarily as an ecologist and as a European. This is why I am fighting for the environment, and particularly for the precautionary principle, as much for Great Britain as for France, Spain and the countries of Southern Europe. This precautionary principle is, for us, a political line which must be followed in order to guarantee food safety itself. In France, it was under pressure from the people, from consumers, and of course from ecologists and , that this agency for food safety was established. The agency made a recommendation, and of course the French government acted on it. Therefore people cannot refuse to accept the French position, all the more so as we are calling for this type of agency to be established at a European level. Of course, I hope that MEPs and the Commission will follow the recommendations of this future agency once it has been established. But we must spare a thought for the farmers. Mad cow disease dealt them a terrible blow and they barely recovered from it. It is completely unacceptable today to allow the situation to become poisoned by letting citizens from the same profession within the European Union stand in opposition to one another. The distress of British farmers is quite understandable. It must, nevertheless, be pointed out that the farming that is responsible for the situation in which all European farmers now find themselves, or at least a large proportion of them, is a result of a farming policy that emphasises high productivity. Therefore, it is our responsibility today finally to radically modify the European Union’s farming policy. Moreover, we have assumed our responsibilities towards the WTO and is the European Union not in the same situation in relation to the United States that France is facing today in relation to the European Union? We cannot reject, on the one hand, the supposed legality of the WTO’s position on meat containing american hormones whilst, on the other, invoking the European raison d’état in order to reject the precautionary principle that France is proposing. The are asking the Commission for concrete and urgent proposals even if today, the experts have not yet given their verdict. Commissioner, you are familiar with the current situation, and you know that it has been going on for a long time. It is really crucial to put forward proposals in order to reassure European consumers as well as farmers.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, on a point of order, because of the historic debates that will take place this part-session there is no Question Time. I had submitted a question to the Council on the legislative process and the way in which this House is potentially being treated in relation to the proposed directive on legal aid. The Council intends to adopt this measure at the end of the month on the basis of a different text to that on which Parliament was consulted. This will avoid the codecision procedure, which would kick in after the end of the month, and it also avoids the strong advice of the Commission that the Council should reconsult Parliament. I should like to know, on behalf of this House, why the Council feels it has no obligation to reconsult us. Does it not agree that this action runs absolutely counter to the principle of mutual respect and good faith between these institutions in the legislative process, as set out in the Treaties and endorsed by the Court of Justice? Mr President, this is serious and I would ask you to look into it.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, terrorism is a scourge attacking and afflicting our societies. It resorts to violence and terror in an effort to impose its views by force. At the same time it attacks the very core of democratic systems, namely our system of individual and collective freedoms. Terrorists are aware that our democratic societies are more open and consequently more vulnerable. They therefore resort to the advantages offered by globalisation. It follows that the response to the terrorist phenomenon must likewise be a response at global level. In this connection, I should like to congratulate the Presidency-in-Office on convening the Extraordinary European Council at Brussels and on placing terrorism on the agenda for the next Council. I think congratulations are also due to the European Commission on the initiatives it has proposed. On the basis that there is no good terrorism as against bad terrorism, I believe that terrorists the world over need to be aware that there will be international resistance to put an end to this scourge. I also feel that it is important for us all to appreciate that the existing balance between an individual’s right to safety and the principles of legality and individual freedom which underpin our system of values cannot be altered. It is very important for us to understand that the horrendous attacks perpetrated on 11 September must not result in the eventual dilution of the culture of freedom in democratic countries. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I welcome the fact that the committee backed amendments to strengthen the commitment to environmentally sustainable transport by insisting on strategic environmental impact assessments of TENs projects. I hope that the House today supports that position. However, I am very concerned that the Commissioner, backed by the rapporteur, a British Conservative rapporteur, is adding at this stage six new TENs priority projects. The total value of these projects is a massive EUR 66.6 billion. None of these six new projects are in the UK. Indeed, most Member States have been left out. That is why some of us are insisting that either we all secure a fair share of the additional funding or, as an alternative, that no additional funding be granted today.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we should remind ourselves as Mr Van Orden has done why we have these no-fly zones in the first place. They are simply to restrict Saddam Hussein’s ability to kill and terrorise his own people. The no-fly zones are in support of Security Council Resolution No 688 which demanded an end to his brutal repression. They are justified under international law as a legitimate response to prevent a grave humanitarian crisis. Without them, we would have seen the continued brutal repression of the Shias and the Kurds. We would have seen once again as we saw in 1991, the use of helicopter gunships and aircraft to murder, to gas and to displace. So the no-fly zones are vital in avoiding humanitarian disaster. Yet those enforcing the no-fly zones have themselves come under constant attack. Since January 1999 there have been 1 200 attempts to target aircraft with surface-to-air missiles or anti-aircraft weapons. This year alone, there have already been more attacks than there were in the whole of the year 2000. The coalition aircraft are legally authorised to respond to these attacks in self-defence, and they have done so entirely in accordance with international law, attacking only those units which are threatening them. We cannot allow the pilots who are trying to protect humanity to be themselves endangered. That would be irresponsible, and would also be a betrayal of them. Finally, on sanctions, we should not forget a simple message: the sanctions are not causing the suffering of the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein is causing the suffering, as he has done from the day he came to power, and it is entirely in Saddam Hussein’s hands to lift those sanctions, by meeting the requirements that the UN are making on him.

Political group: PSE