GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, today we have an open market within the European Union, but that means that the market is also open to fraudsters. Most of the fraud against the EU actually comes from money not collected. The Commission has estimated that EUR 90 billion has been lost to the EU budget from cigarette smuggling alone. We have some measures in place to stop fraud from occurring. OLAF has been established, it does its job and passes on the file to the Member States – where it sits on a shelf. We could sanction the Court of Auditors, but the question still has to be answered: who prosecutes? We could fraud-proof further but the question remains: who prosecutes? The establishment of Eurojust is there, but again: who prosecutes? The answer, which is factual rather than theoretical, is: almost nobody. Member States are not serious about tackling fraud in the EU. It took five years for them to ratify the Convention on the protection of financial interests. Prosecution against people who rip off the EU is absolutely minimal. The current system does not work. It is extremely difficult to prosecute cross-border fraud, partly because evidence collected in one Member State does not count in another Member State. What we have here on the table is a Green Paper. It is essential that the European Public Prosecutor's powers are restricted to the financial interests of the EU budget. Anything beyond that opens the door to massive complications and serious constitutional implications – which is why Paragraph 4, which calls for a judicial area to be set up, is nonsense. If the problem exists now, just imagine how difficult it will become following enlargement. If we are serious about tackling fraud, we must accept that the current system does not work and until there is an acceptable alternative, we must go along with this. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we cannot talk about immigrants and immigration without distinguishing between the different types of immigrants. There are at least three different types of immigrants: political refugees, refugees from war zones and economic migrants. Once this distinction has been made, it immediately becomes clear that a single asylum law cannot cover all three categories, as Mr Evans proposes. Not only does this document fail to correspond to reality, it even goes so far as to demonise the Member States which demand the right to decide whether to recognise the right to asylum on a case-by-case basis, depending on the way the society of the country in question is structured and the adequacy of the reception facilities available, without incurring negative repercussions for anyone. Instinctively, all of us have always been supportive of those who find themselves in the dreadful situation of being forced to leave their own country and apply for asylum in another, but the level of danger to which the rapporteur would have it conceded that all applicants are exposed in their countries of origin is not always acceptable. He is compelling governments and Member States – to put it in colloquial terms – not to make a fuss and to open their gates without delay, invoking the Geneva Convention as if it were a magic password, a skeleton key, rather than what it actually is, a series of guarantees that place those seeking and those granting asylum on an equal footing. Mr Evans’ proposal to establish a common minimum standard – as he calls it – actually invalidates this principle by making it too permissive. The same may be said of the proposal to introduce a single procedure – as it is called – which, in practice, takes away from the host State any possibility of verifying the suitability of the applicant, who cannot be denied any right, mind you, and whose only obligation is to produce his credentials, as happens among respectable people. The problem is that refugees and exiles often provide easy cover for decidedly undesirable guests such as drug dealers, traffickers in human beings and terrorists who pretend to be immigrants and then train as pilots and destroy skyscrapers and all the people working inside. The caution and controls that the rapporteur is denying the States are the fundamental elements of basic, legitimate protection of the States and their citizens. The Pirker report, which I do support, on a common immigration policy, is much more responsible, not least because it is more balanced, does not make concessions to cheap populism and respects safety measures. Lastly, to those Members of the left who have attempted once again to bring up the usual controversy against Mr Berlusconi today, I would point out that they are at least a day late. They should read the Arc-en-ciel; although they have missed the debate, they are still on time for the train of cheap populism and pointless political speculation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Europe and the United States do, of course, have a great deal in common, and the need for a dialogue between the two is self-evident, for neither can solve the global problems on their own. However, let there be no misunderstanding: this would be a dialogue between partners that hold fundamentally different views on a number of crucial issues, some of which I should like to mention. At the heart of Europe's safety strategy is conflict prevention and preventive involvement. Crucial to the Bush strategy is armed preventive attacks. The EU's objective is to reinforce the United Nations; that of the United States is multilateralism à la carte via the UN, if possible and if it suits Washington and not via the UN if it does not. The EU's ambition is to stop the distribution of weapons of mass destruction. Officially, that is also the line taken by the US, but at the same time, friendly regimes, including Israel in Palestine, are being protected, while the US itself continues developing what is called mini-nukes. The European Union is in favour of the International Criminal Court with a view to reinforcing international law. The United States is making every effort to make life for the Criminal Court as difficult as possible. The European Union is a civil superpower or, rather, it could be, if it were to concentrate more on improving the points it is good at, or could be good at. These points are conflict prevention, reinforcement of multilateral organisation, trade – fair trade if it were up to my group – and military action, under the UN flag, only if that proves to be unavoidable. In Iraq, the United States learnt the hard way that it cannot solve the problems of dictatorial regimes and terrorism without the help of the United Nations and Europe. However, let there be no mistake: that applies just as much to the European Union. That is why it is best for Europe to adopt the policy of joining forces with the United States where at all possible, but it should not shrink back from being uncooperative should this prove necessary. Not because idealistic politicians think so, but because our citizens expect Europe to speak with one voice and act assertively in order to restrain the United States if necessary.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, let me begin by warmly congratulating the rapporteur, Mr Bowis, and let me also inform the Commissioner, David Byrne, that we appreciate the proposals he has put before us in this White Paper and the relations he has established with Parliament with a view to preparing the best possible legislation in the field of food safety for the future. Today we are discussing a White Paper and it is useful to define a few first principles. I think we have to be very specific about the role of the future European Food Safety Agency, which is to assess and identify risks in coordination with the existing national agencies. We must make it clear, however, that the rapid alert system and the implementation of the measures must fall within the field of political responsibility. That is where the European Commission, the Council and the European Parliament come into play. The second principle is that it is important for this Agency to be highly independent and we must guarantee that independence. It is therefore vital to allow the EFSA to act on its own initiative. It must be independent with regard to the Member States, the European institutions and the agro-food industry. I have tabled an amendment on levels of risk. I have also had an opportunity to discuss this with Commissioner David Byrne. In some cases we find that the public perceives or imagines risks where these are simply rumours, and it is our duty and responsibility to communicate with the public in order to lay these rumours to rest and restore consumer confidence. When we are faced with a potential risk, it is important to apply the precautionary principle. Lastly, in the event of a real risk, we must take urgent preventative measures. To conclude, the brief of the European Food Safety Agency must be confined to food safety. There is no question of extending it to cover product quality or labelling. We must not confuse food risk assessment with questions of product quality. At all events, the European Parliament and the European Commission are firmly resolved to restore consumer confidence.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr Aznar has laid down the clear objective of ‘More Europe’ for the Spanish Presidency and has explained how he intends to carry out the programme. Time constraints dictate that we will have to focus on a small number of issues and not waste words. The first issue is the Convention, which will have to supplement the Charter of Fundamental Rights, promoting the Community method and the federalist approach as a guarantee of political democracy, economic integration and social cohesion. The second issue is the Lisbon reforms, which have now become intertwined with the launch of the euro. The single currency consolidates the single market and represents a decisive step towards political Europe and a common economic policy. The single currency strengthens Europe’s position in the face of globalisation but means that it is no longer possible for national systems to restore competitiveness by devaluing. The Stability Pact must be respected. In the interests of economic recovery and employment, therefore, the structural reforms, mentioned specifically by President Prodi, need to be pursued with the necessary determination. This strategy must be consistent with the overall goals of integration, cohesion and harmonisation of the series of policies upholding the European social model. It is not easy to pursue apparently conflicting goals in a balanced way, but this is the challenge of the present times. The third issue is the ‘political’ contribution that Europe can make to the fight against terrorism which has been occupying all the major democracies since 11 September. I call, in particular, for the reinvigoration of the Mediterranean policy and for peace initiatives in the Middle East. Spain has, on many occasions, been at the forefront of action addressing these issues. Lastly, I support the pledge made by Mr Aznar regarding Argentina, a country afflicted by a crisis which is threatening democracy itself and which could exacerbate the difficult situations of other Latin American countries.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I must start by regretting the absence of Commissioner Fischler. I believe this debate is important enough to deserve his presence here today. Rigorous, transparent, verified scientific reports, carried out together with the industry, should be the first pillar of the CFP reform in order to have credibility in the conservation of our fishery species. We need to diagnose the true state of the stocks precisely and accurately, because otherwise we could be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The European Union should be a global example of marine research, but it is not, not even – and I say this to Commissioner Fischler – with his proposed reform, which pushes science into the background. Last week at a meeting of marine scientists, Mr Robin Cook, of the Aberdeen marine research laboratory and an advisory member of the IC, stated that the fisheries reform proposed was based on scientific reports that were very poor and which lacked transparency. John Molloy of the Dublin Marine Institute – as you can see I do not mention any Spanish scientists here – said that ‘fishermen are scientists’ and that we need to use the raft of first-hand information they have, which is currently being ignored. The Canadian scientist McGuire has also rejected the hake catastrophe reports. The industry rejects them outright. We are aware that the IC and the Scientific and Technical Committee on Fisheries do not agree, and they again brought up the review of current hake reports at Lisbon and Copenhagen. Mr Fischler, without an economic, social and regional impact assessment, proposes equating cod and hake, which are very different species and very different situations; and he adopts drastic, irreversible measures to cut down the fleet as if there were no other alternative measures that would maintain the stock while we wait for conclusive reports. I call on the Commissioner to think it over for once. The Committee on Fisheries approved Amendment 1 – I see the rapporteur is against separating the two species – and I hope the House will adopt it. If not, I hope the Council can bring it back in. We want to protect stocks but not at just any price, not through just any measure. We want the ecological reports to include economic and social reports, and we must take into account the industry which has been fishing in the same waters for several generations, and they do not understand the Commission’s proposal, in view of the results they are getting, and they want other biological reference points to be selected that are broad in scope and more rigorous. I therefore call on the Commission to go deeper into CFP reform and marine research, and to devote more human and material resources to it. I call on it to review the proposal for hake, since the industry that depends on it demands more transparency, more participation, more dialogue, more objectivity and more reliability before it will accept the proposals that the Commission puts before us.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by offering my warmest congratulations to my honourable friend Mrs Kratsa on her first-rate report, which really does give us an excellent overview of past achievements and future developments. Progress has definitely been made on the question of gender equality, even if it is two steps forward and one step back. The fact that certain male colleagues have started to take the floor and enthusiastically support gender equality shows that progress has also been made within the European Parliament. However, I must express my acute concern, as did Mrs Gröner earlier, at the fact that the Convention discussing and planning the future of Europe, in the absence of women, feels that any serious discussion about enshrining gender equality in the new Treaty and, more importantly, applying it in practice is pointless. Unfortunately, even in areas in which there is Community legislation, we often find infringements and violations, as with legislation on an equal day’s pay for an equal day’s work. It is a fact that resistance, with attitudes and structures generated by this long-standing patriarchy, often proves to be stronger than political will or even legislation. We also note that there has been a serious delay with the new anti-discrimination directive based on Article 13, which we have been expecting for some time now, Commissioner. We are extremely worried by the fact that the European Commission keeps putting off a decision. What is the reason for this delay? Can the Commission tell us? Why is this decision so long in coming? Another issue is the fight against various forms of violence against women. We know that various forms of violence in the European Union have mushroomed. We know that thousands of women are literally at the mercy of slave traders. I know, Commissioner, that you mentioned the decisions taken by the Commission to fight trafficking in human beings, but we are by no means convinced that these decisions and the guidelines which you have issued will soon be transposed into the legislation of the Member States and we know that without judicial and without police cooperation, that is, without pan-European collaboration, it is impossible to break up these gangs. Finally, I am delighted, Commissioner, that you have given priority in the 2003 programme to breaking the glass ceiling. This is a particularly worthwhile priority, because we predict that there will be an even balance of men and women in the new European Parliament following the 2004 elections.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, first of all, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on having drafted an excellent report by way of good cooperation, the urgent need for which is evident from the Commissioner’s reaction. He did indeed note that it is a topical subject, but is, at the same time, increasingly pushing the responsibility away from the Commission. This responsibility is said to lie with the Member States and others. However, this is a subject par excellence for action at Community level. Commissioner, Parliament is on your side and, in the discussion about the European Constitution too, it would be very beneficial if the Commission and Parliament could reach sound agreements in good cooperation. Something else struck me in the Commissioner’s reaction. He mentioned organic farming. But, Commissioner, the European Union’s own knowledge centre has calculated that in the event of the uncontrolled use of this genetic technology, also in traditional farming, costs would rise from 1 to 41% depending on the crop, because we have no idea how the consumer will react. This is also why, before we obtain further legislation, we should examine the implications more closely, not only on the farm but also in the sale of the products. How does the consumer react? We know too little about this. It is essential that we should acquire this very piece of knowledge before we can launch into using this technology in Europe. Not only do we need to know what the impact on organic farming is, but also on traditional farming, and also how the consumers will react to this. After all, we have a House with a common agricultural policy that boasts many regional products and a large diversity in Europe, greater than anywhere in the world. This means that the risks involved in using this technology will also be greater than anywhere in the world. This means that we need Community policy in this area more than ever. In the light of Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf’s sterling report, I would ask the Commission, in its capacity as an important European institution, to accept this task with renewed dynamism and table sound proposals following thorough research, in order to achieve truly sound legislation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, my thanks go to the rapporteur for handling this very important report, because developments in the social and economic situation will decide to what extent the citizens of Europe will judge that we have been successful in our work. This issue, which has an impact on their everyday life, is a key issue as regards EU credibility. It has to be conceded that the EU has already aided, I would say quite magnificently, the development of poor countries. I remember what Portugal and Greece used to be like when I drove through those countries for the first time twenty-five years ago. In this connection, French speakers would speak of a “coup de chapeau”: in other words, I take my hat off to the EU. The EU really deserves such a gesture, but differences between rich and poor areas within countries are still too great. What is the result? People react by voting with their feet and go where they can earn a crust. Consequently, we have to build schools, hospitals, and the whole infrastructure for the same people in the same country many times over. This is very costly and it also causes very great social problems. Most people, however, would like to live in the area in which they were born and raised, if they were given the chance to, in other words, if there was work there. We must give them this opportunity. This is a moral obligation the EU and all of us have. The solution, as I see it, lies in clearly encouraging entrepreneurship. By entrepreneurship I do not simply mean the ownership of business, but creating will. I mean the attitude where a person wants to get on in life, whether he or she is an employee, the owner of a business or an official. What is a fair society? One in which someone from a modest background can get on in life so as to make life a little easier for his or her children. In this way, positive development of the regions is also possible, because people will start business and will work if they are given the chance. Finally, I would say that in this matter we should learn a lesson from America, where hard work is still in fashion and success is an indication of ability and not the object of envy, as it often is here in Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I rise to ask if the Council has already considered including the Galileo satellite navigation project in the Odysseus programme and to what extent plans for this have progressed.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Madam Vice-President, may I congratulate you once again for having outlined the Erika II package in clear and comprehensible terms and especially the need for us to inspect vessels in transit – subject to the international law of the sea – rather than only checking vessels that dock in EU ports. These other ships which are only passing through EU waters can cause equally bad and even far worse pollution of our shorelines. So I believe this approach is absolutely correct. As far as liability is concerned, we must take a very careful look at that. The oil companies tell us they have a voluntary fund. This raises the question of whether we need a public fund. If you tell us that experience has shown the voluntary fund to be inadequate, which would be unfortunate, we shall then try to sort out this issue. Madam Vice-President, how do you rate the prospects of the Council taking a decision on the Erika I package in December? Parliament took its decision on 30 November; you presented a good document, and we decided quickly. How do you see the chances of the Council managing to adopt Erika I now, in December?

Political group: PPE-DE