GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, human rights is a topic which unites the political families in Parliament to a substantial extent, so we had no great problem when it came to agreeing on a joint resolution in preparation for the 59th meeting of the UN Commission on Human Rights. In preparing for this 59th meeting, we are, of course, aware of how difficult it is to achieve substantial results within the UN framework, something that the Council and the Commission have already illustrated to some extent. We should not, though, be creating difficulties about the UNHCR's standing in view of this year's chairmanship having been entrusted to Libya, of all countries. I find it a particular cause of embarrassment that this was made possible by the European Union abstaining when it came to the vote. I know that this was a deal done with the African states, but if a nomination of this sort is to be avoided, we should perhaps be doing more in-depth work with this continent in the area of human rights, rather than only when it comes to haggling for jobs and positions in the corridors of the UN. I have heard what the representative of the Council has said. He quoted the fine declarations that were made in June 2001. At the General Affairs Council this week, we learned how the absence of any agreement has meant that the opposite has been the result, in Zimbabwe for example. Obviously, considerations of human rights were seen as less important than issues of economics. Apart from that, it strikes me as important that the meeting should be followed – and promptly – by the public debriefing from the Council and the Commission here in Parliament. A review of the last meeting is of little use to me right now; I would have been very keen to hear it once the meeting was over. Parliament and the public have a right to know what the Council and the Commission did at the UNHCR meeting, and why they did it. I am glad, though, when a dialogue on human rights is got underway with a country, and the Commissioner mentioned Iran as being one of them. As the rapporteur for Iran, that is something that I welcome. Iran should, though, demonstrate the seriousness with which it takes such a dialogue by cooperating with the United Nations. I found a number of positive things in what the Commissioner said, and I hope that we can make them a reality. We have tabled an amendment expressing our wish that a successor for Mr Copithorne should be formally nominated, and I hope that Iran will also be prepared to work together with him. In this resolution, we have listed a number of countries as illustrations of the indisputable deficits in the area of human rights. We in the Group do take the view, though, that this resolution is not suited to illustrating the dimension of present-day human rights violations in their entirety, by, for example, incorporating a plethora of individual cases under specific headings. We will therefore be rejecting the relevant amendments – not because of their content, but for procedural reasons.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, further to yesterday’s minutes, I would like to express my great disappointment at the fact that even fewer than 200 Members attended the votes yesterday. I conclude this from the minutes.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, the proposal which I have made and I shall repeat is that we should consider holding the debate at 15.00 hrs followed by the urgency debate, followed by votes on the report, other reports that are completed in debate and urgencies this afternoon. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I would like to begin by echoing the comments made by my fellow Members from Galicia and to say that I shall support all their initiatives. My region was affected by the Amoco Cadiz and Erika disasters; their region has been struck by the sinking of the Prestige, but the ship’s name does nothing to ease the problems of those living in the region and of the Galician fishermen. Commissioner, the conception of the new fisheries policy is problematic but the fledgling policy is due to come into force on the evening of 31 December. I think that the Committee on Fisheries has worked hard to restore a balance between the exploitation of fishery resources and the protection of these resources for future generations, without forgetting the economy of coastal regions. In any case, we are seeking a better balance between these two areas than that put forward in your proposals, one that corresponds to sustainable development in the correct sense of the word. This applies, of course, to fish stocks, where this balance is needed, but it also concerns coastal economies. And we tried to draw your attention, in these three reports and in others, to the implications of the political decisions regarding employment in regions that are dependent on fishing, to the consequences of scrapping boats, since of course, if we scrap them and fish levels increase in the future, there may not be any fishermen left to fish them. We must keep our heads. We must also ensure that our fishermen do not use boats that are too old, which they make last longer and that they overload with equipment, thus running all kinds of risks. Our committee, in all its debates and through its rapporteurs, is seeking to influence the final decisions of the Commission and the Council. Of course, there are good decisions and we should highlight them, such as controls and sanctions, involving the relevant parties in the decision-making processes, improving knowledge of fishing techniques and resources. In short, if all this is done, if the balance is maintained, our fishermen will be able to continue to have faith in their work, in their business and we in our regions.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I first state clearly that I condemn all forms of violence. May I also state clearly that I am absolutely in favour of a multiethnic Kosovo. I would prefer to call it Kosova, which is the Albanian term for Kosovo. I agree with Mr Joost Lagendijk when he said that it was inevitable that violence would break out sooner or later in Kosova. Anyone who has ever visited the divided city of Mitrovica knew that it would take little to trigger an uprising. The riots and lynch mobs were easy to anticipate. It is therefore necessary to take the wind out of the sails of the hard-liners among the Kosovar Albanians. To do this, we must eliminate the traumas. Traumas from the past, traumas from the exodus of 1999, the traumas that still haunt the Albanian Kosovars concerning their almost 4 000 missing friends, acquaintances, brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers. Four thousand people are still missing. They have either disappeared or they are still locked up in Serbian prisons on very vague charges. Traumas from the present as well. Is it not true that in the north the international community is in fact applying the secret pact between Milosevic and the Russian generals in which the north of Kosova actually becomes Serbian territory? Whichever way you look at it, the Albanian Kosovars in Mitrovica, 85% of the population, are still being held hostage by the Serbs. Unemployment in the Albanian part is two-and-a-half times higher than in the Serbian part. The Albanian Kosovars in Mitrovica in the southern part earn two-and-a-half times less than the Serbs in the northern part. The international community’s official standpoint is still standards before status. I would therefore like to call for a ‘both-and’ approach. We must aim for both standards and status. Only an independent Kosova will bring true peace to the region. At least, as long as multi-ethnicity is also respected by the Albanian Kosovars.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Since the budget that has been presented – as a reflection of current European policies, with which I do not agree – is a budget that perfectly illustrates the reasons for the crisis in which we find ourselves today in Europe, I therefore, quite naturally, voted against it. This does not, in any way, question the work carried out by the members of the Committee on Budgets. Report: Jan Mulder, Neena Gill (A5-0473/2003)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we are dealing with a good Commission document and a good document by the rapporteur. From a theoretical point of view, I can only welcome them, because I believe they are well thought out and that they correctly mark out the direction which these funds should take. Now, the problem does not exactly lie with the text, but with the budget, on the one hand, which is a reduced budget, slimmed down compared to the one which the European Union has dedicated to such an important area on previous occasions and, on the other, with the lack of prestige which this budget seems to have, which means that one can dip in and out of it and that it is not clearly consolidated. I make this comment so that the Commissioner can take it into account. However, we are, of course, talking about the European Regional Development Fund. This Fund was created for very real and substantial policies, investments in roads, investments in direct infrastructures, and it must now be brought up to date with the new economic situation and the new competitive circumstances. That is a fundamental objective for the Commission: that the ERDF, which has had its time and whose influence has been very positive, should become the motor for an increase in the competitiveness of our production system, particularly in the least-favoured regions. Therefore, innovative factors like this one, however humble, must not be undervalued by anyone. It could be said that innovation is within reach of all the operators involved in the production process. For certain regions it will possibly be very difficult to have real research or development systems. But innovation is the basis of competitiveness and it must exist even where there is no capacity for research, and this objective is therefore important. We are logically talking about 0.4% of the ERDF. There is a passage in Mr Markov’s draft, Commissioner, which I would like you to take into account and which says, and with this I shall end: “suggests likewise, given the scant budgetary allocation set aside for innovatory measures, that the Commission encourage the incorporation of this type of project in the regional operational programmes”.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this report is an ode to the spirit of enterprise, but behind the lyricism lie subsidies and aid distributed by the European institutions, because it would seem that the spirit of enterprise needs an injection of hard cash. The explanatory statement emphasises that the term SME can equally relate to a business employing up to 500 employees and to a craft business employing only two or three people and that, taken all together, these represent 99% of the Union’s businesses. But how many SMEs are actually subsidiaries of large industrial groups? And how are the subsidies distributed between them and the craft businesses? The report does not breathe a word about that, because it would mean admitting that all the talk about small businesses is just a popularity-seeking justification for granting aid to big business. The national governments, and even the regional and local authorities, already act as gigantic finance pumps to siphon off taxpayers’ money, that is to say the amounts levied on the majority of the population including the most disadvantaged, and pour this into big business and thence to proprietors and shareholders. All the European Institutions think about is boosting these appallingly unfair transfers when, even in the rich part of the continent of Europe represented by the Union, there are millions of people living in poverty. And if I may, Mr President, I would like to respond to something Mrs Montfort said. It is the big bosses who are waging the class war daily against the workers and the minority she referred to is defending the interests of the working class.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I should like to thank Mrs Neyts for her full answer, a very concrete answer to a very concrete question. I should, however, also like to approach the matter from a political perspective. Mrs Neyts may say that the present cases of fraud were discovered through internal monitoring. Nevertheless there is a perception on the part of the public and by a large part of the political world that there is insufficient democratic control of Europol, and various avenues are being explored to intensify that control. Among other things under consideration are a modification of the OLAF Regulation and in the Belgian parliament the idea is circulating of setting up a Committee P and a Committee I on the Belgian model for the supervision of police forces and intelligence services for Europol too. Does the Minister see any chance of a debate on this subject being held within the Council and within European institutions, so that we can reassure citizens regarding democratic monitoring of what is, after all, an important police service, although still in an embryonic state?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, each year in Europe alone 38,000 animals are routinely killed after being used to test the development of new cosmetic products. For nearly ten years the EU has had a ban on the sale of products tested on animals but we have yet to implement this. There is no reason why we should not do so, especially in cases where scientifically validated alternatives to animal testing are available. The Commission proposal to now replace this sales ban with a mere test ban is totally unacceptable and of great concern in view of massive public demand to end the use of animal testing for cosmetics. The test ban alone only serves to export the problem as cosmetics tested on animals in countries outside the EU will continue to be sold in the EU. Only a sales and test ban will remove such products from our shelves. This will not compromise the safety of cosmetics, as products sold in the EU must fulfil legal safety requirements. We need to speed up the development of alternative testing.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I endorse what the rapporteur, Mr Marinho, said. The truly tragic events of last week emphasise the importance of the fight against terrorism and organised crime. The coalition we are striving to build across the world to fight against terrorism is trying to find a cure to the problem, but there is also the issue of prevention in terms of security and diplomacy. Other steps too are necessary if we are going to prevent those kinds of crimes from happening again. The second directive on money laundering is already in conciliation and we are trying to get it through. We have to recognise that at European Union level we need only one legal area. It is illogical for people to apply for asylum between one Member State and another within the European Union. It is illogical for us to have a situation where a warrant for arrest is not applicable across the whole of the European Union. There was a case where someone fled to the United Kingdom from France and managed to stall his extradition back to France for the crime of terrorism. He has actually faced the courts for a period of five years. The series of reports we have before us this morning attempt to move things forward. Mr Marinho's report is part of that initiative by the French, Swedish and Belgian governments and I congratulate him and them on this report. A judicial decision in one Member State must have automatic application across the whole of the Union. We must have the mutual recognition that Mr Marinho calls for. Mr bin Laden has a London bank account. One might hope that this report will make it easier for that account and similar accounts elsewhere in Europe to be frozen if that was proven necessary. On behalf of the party of European Socialists, I support this report and the similar measures that will follow in the other reports this morning and in subsequent weeks and months. The best memorial for those innocent people who died so tragically last week is to take action to prevent its repetition. This is one small part of that process.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by congratulating Mrs Roure for the work she has carried out, and to underline what Mr Oreja Arburúa has just said about ensuring that the measures we are about to approve benefit their intended targets and are not cynically exploited. I would also like to remind you of the Lisbon strategy, approved at the European Council on 24 March 2000, in which the challenges facing the Union in the new knowledge-based economy were set out. In that strategy, mention was already made of emerging teaching, research and training needs, which must not be confined within the Union’s geographical borders. At the same time, it is necessary to ensure that every one of these areas exerts a potential attraction all over the world, as befits Europe’s extraordinary cultural and scientific heritage. It is thus the responsibility of the European Union and the Member States to implement policies which attract third-country students. We therefore welcome this proposal, which is another step towards approximating national legislation on admission and residence conditions for third-country nationals, the final goal being to create a comprehensive legal framework regulating admissions on the basis of the reasons for immigrants’ visits. The internationalisation of education and the increased mobility of students is in line with the aim of developing quality education, as laid out in Article 149 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community. It helps in promoting inter-cultural understanding, energising European educational systems and attaining high-quality teaching standards. For all these reasons, I think that the Commission’s proposal is quite positive. It constitutes a forward step in strengthening cooperation with third countries and in developing that quality education. The admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, vocational training or voluntary service has the peculiar distinction of being temporary and independent of the host State’s labour market.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on behalf of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, I would like to ask for Parliament’s support so that the amendments already approved by the Committee on Budgets may be definitively approved. They are not exactly what we had asked for, since in some cases the amount we had requested has been reduced but, on the whole, we are satisfied because we believe that there will be continuing concern to facilitate the promotion of women and equal opportunities by the following means: Information initiatives for the common agricultural policy – where women play an extremely important role, without recognition for their work – through the EQUAL programme which is intended to make it easier to employ women within the Community strategy for equal opportunities. This is the report that we examined yesterday and which, sadly, has been referred back to committee today. Secondly, the incorporation of women into the information society, which is extremely important for the future; financial assistance for women in Central and Eastern European countries, in the MEDA countries; the fight against sex tourism in third countries, where there is a huge problem which affects women in particular; and the promotion and defence of the fundamental rights and freedoms of women. We must also bear in mind that all this is related to the fight against domestic violence, which is taking place under the DAPHNE programme. All in all, we would like to see these amendments approved. We hope that this will be the case. I would like to cite another amendment related to women’s organisations: the committee approved an amount for the European Women’s Lobby. A group of MEPs then presented an amendment to the Committee on Budgets – which was approved – with a view to extending this budget heading to other women’s organisations in order to show our pluralist approach and respect for all options and all political affiliations in the European Union. We also hope that this heading will be approved. For this budget heading we in the committee had asked for a larger amount than was allocated in the end, but all in all, as I said before, we are satisfied and we are hoping for final approval.

Political group: PPE-DE
Ladies and gentlemen, please do not object if I speak now, since we have no hesitation is losing five minutes for a photograph to be taken, one where there was no gender mainstreaming, although there was at least one Luxembourger, the usher. You can therefore easily give me two minutes. (Applause) (DE) Mr President, since 1993, when the internal market became operational and border controls were abolished, the Customs authorities have ceased to be a source of basic statistical information on the trading of goods between Member States, but such information is still needed, and that is why the system known as Intrastat was set up. It could have celebrated its tenth anniversary this year, but the people at Eurostat are at present not in a celebratory mood. If, though, the changes over the past few years are to be taken into account, then the 1991 Regulation urgently needs to be adapted; the proposal put before us by the Commission is a good one, and one that we can largely accept. Above all else, both its text and its rules have become simpler and more comprehensible. The scope has been more clearly delimited, and that is something that we do not always see. The Member States have been left more room for manoeuvre where the collection of statistics is concerned. Finally, we can welcome the way in which the Commission’s text takes account of the SLIM programme in lessening the burden on firms. Despite this, I tabled a handful of amendments, which were adopted unanimously, and I might add that I did this with the agreement of the Italian Presidency of the Council. For a start, the threshold at which firms are exempted from providing information is raised by 1%, which will allow thousands of small and medium-sized enterprises to cut costs without the quality of statistics being adversely affected. Another amendment is aimed at excluding goods which are imported into a Member State only temporarily but without being altered there. Such would, for example, be the case if I were to get married and hire my wedding dress in a neighbouring country, and then take it back there. That would not be included in the statistics. (Laughter and applause)

Political group: PPE-DE