GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this third report on cohesion undoubtedly rounds off Mr Barnier’s activities now that he is leaving office as a European Commissioner. We owe it to his tenacity and his great powers of persuasion that we can justifiably say that the logic of a policy of mere renationalised charity confined to the poorest has not carried the day. While recognising the need to give priority to the least developed regions, this progress report and the Hatzidakis report largely agree that all the EU’s regions potentially have a need for convergence, competitiveness and cooperation. A policy of achieving economic, social and territorial cohesion by 2013, as required by Article 3 of the draft constitution, therefore seems within reach. This policy is part of the idea of the EU bringing old and new members together in a common project. Even on the territory of the present Union of the 15, there are still areas deserving of aid from the Structural Funds and they must still be shown such solidarity. The Structural Funds’ involvement in the French overseas departments until 2013 strikes me as generally encouraging, but I await the forthcoming report that the Commission is to adopt on the implementation of Article 299(2); this will provide greater detail on the specific funds and the action plan for the grand voisinage, which ought to benefit the outermost regions. The battle of figures that some are beginning to use polemically in fact masks a fundamental debate about our ambitions for Europe, something which requires a constructive and rational interinstitutional dialogue. That debate cannot be confined to setting a particular ceiling for Community resources; we must calmly reach agreement on the European Project’s actual purpose. Our common objective must therefore be to commit the EU to a sustainable regional policy, as opposed to one which is strictly in response to economic circumstances.

Political group: PPE-DE
I put this resolution forward on behalf of the Group because I believe the EU arms embargo should not be lifted on 17 January. What we should have instead is an extension of that arms embargo. It would be definitely unacceptable to lift it. The army have failed miserably to disarm and disband the militia. They have been terrorising between a hundred and two hundred thousand refugees in West Timor. They are not allowing aid workers into the camps. In one camp 160 have died. 90% of those were children under five. As has already been said, they are not cooperating with the UN International Commission for Crimes Against Humanity and they are also committing crimes and atrocities in Aceh and West Papua. One case I heard of recently was that the police and the army together beat up a young man. He was going to look for his mother. They beat him up and interrogated him and kicked him to the ground. After that they poured gasoline over him and burnt him alive. That was in North Aceh. It is still happening. The Indonesian Army and the militia and the police are still committing these atrocities. To raise the embargo would give totally wrong signals. I heard also recently about a secret defence intelligence report from Australia. Some of the EU countries did not want to agree to the ban in the first place. Some EU Member States put financial gain above human rights and I do not believe that that is acceptable. While the Indonesian army is still engaged in acts of repression, the embargo must stay.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, I too congratulate the rapporteur on his excellent work. I am particularly pleased about the unanimity shown on this issue within the group. It is therefore specified that, through the adoption of a regulation, the Commission will replace the existing authorisations with authorisations linked to the person responsible for putting the additives into circulation. This will occur at the same time for all the additives in question. A coherent legal framework must be re-established. As of October 1999 the Commission proposed introducing a legal basis into Directive 70/524/EEC for the replacement of the authorisations. However, we must ensure that competition distortions are not created, as highlighted by Mr Kindermann and Mrs Auroi. Genetically modified additives must also be clearly identified in feedingstuffs in order to allow the end-consumer to choose food without GMO components or based on GMO components and to guarantee this. The consumer must remain free to make a fully informed decision. This proposal has no financial consequences for the Community budget. There must therefore be total transparency for producers and consumers in the area of food safety. I am sure that the Commission can accept the report which, as you know, was approved unanimously in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.

Political group: PPE-DE
I have voted against the report. It is probably the first time in the history of the European Parliament that a rapporteur has presented a report on human rights which, for good reasons, has been so fiercely criticised and has attracted such a strikingly narrow majority of votes (274 in favour, 269 against and 14 abstentions). The report reflects options selected on a party political basis and misuses the concept of human rights. This is due to the fact that the rapporteur (by discussing, for example, family legislation and the rights of Greek monks in relation to their properties in Mount Athos) ranges far and wide beyond the original remit and parameters of the report, which are constituted by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. In this way, the concept of human rights is diluted, watered down and devalued, which is pretty serious. I have grave doubts as to how secure a basis there is for the far-reaching assertion in item133 to the effect that in seven EU Member States, including Sweden, a ‘climate of impunity’ prevails in relation to misconduct and violence by police and prison staff. Since the issue in question is not an EU matter, we European and were, however, successful in removing item83 (279 votes in favour, 259 against and 9 abstentions), with its invitation to the Member States ‘to open up marriage to same-sex couples’.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am indeed aware of the letter which Mr Barón Crespo sent to the President's office concerning his unfortunate and malicious statements of yesterday, and confirming them in exactly the same terms as in his speech. On the other hand, Mr President, and according to the explanations given by the secretariat of my committee, and of which the Presidency is directly aware from the note which was sent to it, it is absolutely clear that all, absolutely all, the documents were available in the Committee on Freedoms at the start of the day on the 20th. Documents which, moreover, are public and which, besides being available in the documentation department, are also available on the Internet. Therefore, Mr President, I would emphasise that no political group – including the Group of the – nor any member of the Committee on Freedoms made any comment or statement on the matter, neither during the course of voting on the amendments nor at the start of the same. Furthermore, Mr President, at the end of the sitting I was congratulated by all the political groups for the way in which the work had been carried out. In conclusion, Mr President, and in Spanish, Mr Barón Crespo has lied, manipulated the truth and insulted us, in addition to casting doubt on the good name of the Members of this House, of the officials and also the assistants of the political groups. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, today we are looking at one of the most difficult foci of crisis in Asia, one that threatens to become ever more dangerous, and we cannot grasp this subject if we merely fall back on the usual clichés. Indonesia is a world of many peoples, and, in geographical terms alone, it far exceeds any of our European dimensions. In that part of the world one cannot measure everything by the same yardstick. We have the problem that Aceh is an ancient historic Sultanate, which has had a significant cultural influence on the region. Aceh was a great seafaring nation. Aceh has also had a religious influence on the area. It was from there that Islam spread so extensively throughout Asia, and the island has developed a very strong and healthy sense of identity. In the colonial period, Aceh, like many other nations in this region, was simply brought into line with all the others and then, after decolonialisation, it became a part of the new artificial State of Indonesia. Now we certainly do not want to call into question the integrity of this State of Indonesia, which, on economic and strategic grounds alone, is one of our most important and valuable partners. On the other hand, we have to look at the reality of the situation, and the reality is that in Indonesia they have made the mistake of trying to solve the problem of the over-populated islands of Bali, Java and Sumatra by coming up with what is known as the Transmigration Policy, in other words they have tried to resettle people from these islands on other islands with a different cultural and historical make-up, and to outvote other population groups, which has led to a whole range of ethnic and religious conflicts. These conflicts are not, as in the Moluccas, simply conflicts between Muslims and Christians, but in Aceh they are also between Muslims and Muslims, or between different ethnic groups. For that reason we must approach this subject with great caution. On the one hand we must demand, very clearly, an end to the use of force in Aceh and an end to the terrorist activities taking place in the region. On the other hand, however, we must also demand that the Government of Indonesia, which is our partner, meets its obligations, and that means fully implementing the autonomy arrangements for Aceh and ensuring that democracy and the rule of law prevail there, and that, above all, humanitarian organisations, international observers and the international media have access to the region. Indonesia should have nothing to hide; it is our partner. However, the way in which Indonesia deals with the self-aware Aceh province and its freedom is also an important criterion. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, naturally, the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party strongly condemns the murder of the Irishman, Archbishop Courtney, and demands that the authorities immediately carry out an extensive investigation to find out who murdered him. The people responsible must be held accountable and punished. The important work for peace done by Archbishop Courtney must not, of course, die with him, but must live on. We also extend our condolences to his family and relatives and to the Irish people. Perhaps what happened may lead to the Irish Presidency intensifying its work to support the peace process in Burundi. It is unclear who murdered Archbishop Courtney. The rebel movement, the FNL, has denied all involvement, but nor does it support the peace process. We would, however, call upon them to lay down their weapons and support the peace process, and we would also express our pleasure at their having in actual fact agreed to meet Burundi’s President and engage in talks with him. Perhaps that will lead in time to support for the peace process and negotiations. Burundi is a tragic country in every respect, with extensive destitution in social and humanitarian terms, a good deal of violence, especially against women, and acts of considerable cruelty involving a disregard for human rights. The peace process is very fragile. Many people are guilty of extremely serious war crimes. We strongly oppose any move to grant these people any kind of general exemption from punishment. Burundi should instead implement what was decided in the Arusha Agreement and ratify the charter of the International Criminal Court, or ICC. The wounds in Burundi following 300 000 or more murders will never heal if justice is not seen to be done and the murderers not held accountable. People must be given the opportunity to move forwards, and the national process of reconciliation must continue. We support the setting-up of a UN peacekeeping operation and hope that the EU may do all it can to help in supporting the peace process. We have high expectations of the donors’ conference later this year.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, President Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, after hearing Mr Prodi’s proposals, I am utterly astounded by the position of the and the on food safety. Perhaps they do not feel capable of putting forward concrete proposals today, but we do. That is why we wished to propose a resolution for, throughout Europe, the series of scandals which have occurred means that, today, the citizens and consumers no longer have any confidence in their farmers. The quibbling involved in stating that the Committee on the Environment has scheduled a hearing on animal feedingstuffs should not be an obstacle to the debate. Of course, one can listen to the experts on a small part of the subject, but the fact remains that we, as Members of Parliament, must take initiatives. It seems to me that what the citizens expect of Parliament and the Commission are initiatives. Adopting a resolution today would have been a clear sign on this subject. From the recent past and its frenzied emphasis on high productivity, we have inherited a situation which, in the agricultural sector just as – too often – elsewhere, has subordinated policy to the major food-processing groups and major distributors resulting in mad cows, dioxin-contaminated chickens, motor oil in cooking oil, sewage sludge in cattle meal, and who knows what else? There is a long list of scandals which show that, as regards agricultural production, European States have been no more virtuous than their American counterparts, even if they have banned hormones. We should have the courage to say so. The recent attempts by some governments to control these industries are still insufficient. What is more, a good number of European States have not taken any action. In order to achieve this, we need regulations which prioritise the precautionary principle which the have long cherished. In addition, we must agree on the meaning of this principle. For us it means getting back to the quality of foodstuffs which guarantees the safety of products intended for consumption. We are first of all asking for a list of all the toxic substances which can contaminate our food through pollution, be it of air, water, or soil. We are asking for regular tests in branches of industry where there have been problems with toxicity, and inspections in agricultural areas located in the vicinity of firms creating pollution. We are asking for traceability at all levels, not just in the labelling of the products that go into the housewife’s shopping basket, but also beforehand. We want to ascertain the exact content of products which go into cattle feed. Finally, according to this same principle, it is vital to wait for a period before accepting genetically-modified products whose long-term effects on the resistance of plants unsuitable for cultivation are unknown, as little known as the adaptability of weeds to GMOs. If the European Union really wishes to show all those who have suffered from past neglect that it wished to draw all the parties involved together and that they can once again have confidence in its policies, it must immediately put forward some very concrete proposals on food safety. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
On behalf of the , I should like to thank the Swedish Presidency for its skilful leadership and the good start it has made. We have high expectations in connection with the key issues identified by Sweden, and we hope that Sweden will also make transparency a key issue. On that point, we can all learn from Sweden. We must have access to more documents, and it is completely unacceptable that we should sit here in Parliament without knowing what our own ministers are saying and doing in the Council when they legislate. That is something which must be changed. We are delighted to see the Swedish foreign minister, who of course comes from a neutral non-aligned country, travelling around with her new travelling companions, the Commissioner for External Relations, Mr Patten and NATO’s former Secretary-General, Mr Solana, and we are delighted when, today, we hear the Swedish Prime Minister speak in favour of a common foreign policy. We hope that he too will discover the value of using the European institutions, that is to say the Community method, rather than the intergovernmental method he has so far been a little too fond of. In Macedonia, we sincerely hope for success in ensuring greater equality for the Albanians. That is the only way to peace. If only we could also learn to take action before extremists begin to use violence. In that way, it would be the moderates and not the men of violence who obtain the credit for the results. With regard to enlargement, which is also a Swedish priority, we should like to see still greater commitment on the part of Sweden. That is more important than anything else for securing peace, freedom and prosperity in Europe. It is also high time to prepare for the crucial reform of agricultural policy. We in the hope that you will listen to our colleague, Mr Olsson, who has proposed holding a round-table conference with the new countries on the subject of future agricultural policy. It is high time we put our minds to the problem. We wish you every success, Mr Persson, and, regarding the Lisbon process, my fellow Liberal MEP will take the floor later and comment on what you have said.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, customers in my own country, Austria, have had a free choice of electricity suppliers since 2001 and of gas suppliers since 2002. It is now time for regulated liberalisation to be succeeded by a period of further deregulation. Rather than the pressures of regulation, we want more competition. That is why we say ‘yes’ to the internal market. Where this is concerned, I start by asking myself why it is that, in most cases, it is still by reference to the national market that competition is assessed. Does this old thinking bear any relation to cross-border exchanges in electricity and gas, or to the realities of the networks? I would say, no, it does not. Does it not foster distortion of competition in favour of the larger states and energy-producing companies as against smaller ones? I would say that it does. Reconsideration of this is necessary and appropriate. Turning to my second area of concern, I am grateful to the rapporteur, Mr Mombaur, and the Committee for taking on board the concerns of the Association of European Transmission System Operators and of Vorarlberger Illwerke AG. These have to do with the way in which the definition of cross-border flow is being changed to refer to regulated zones instead of to the borders of the Member States. The old definition is national rather than European and hence contrary to the promotion of cross-border exchanges in electricity through the integration of the internal market in electricity. It is something that we have to change. Thirdly, I would like to have something clarified. We keep talking about the regulatory authorities of the Member States concerned. By this, we should always mean the competent authorities – for it is not always necessarily the regulatory authorities that are competent. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Thank you, Madam President. My group is also of the opinion that the Commission proposal is a very attractive one. My group has always taken the view that the use of agricultural products for industrial purposes should be promoted. I can imagine this proposal on biofuels being the first of many, as agricultural products can also be used for other purposes, such as lubricants and recyclable plastics, to name but two. A whole range of other uses can be added to this. As other speakers have already stated before me, Europe is over-dependent on energy imports. We import about 50% or 45% of what we need, and this dependence is likely to increase. The Commission is therefore on the right track with this proposal. One of the things that should be considered is how we can make vegetable biodiesel even more effective. Doubt has been expressed from various corners, to which I do not entirely subscribe, as to whether biodiesel is all that profitable economically and ecologically speaking. I believe it is, but the Commission might be able to make some changes for the better. Something which is not included in the Commission proposal, but which I very much approve of, is that pure vegetable oils too, and not only biodiesel, can be used as fuel. The technology for this is of German origin and involves the use of a special engine. Why should we not give it a try? Why too, would it not be possible, if farmers use their own vegetable oil, for them to receive tax exemption for this? We will support this at any rate. As far as taxes are concerned, various countries have in the past tried to promote biofuels and there is a tax discrepancy in different ways in many European countries. We take the view that this should be maintained for the time being. In my opinion, this could in the long term give rise to competitive differences, and we should be able to prevent this from happening. We believe that it is acceptable for these tax differences to continue until about 2008, but by that time, a certain harmonisation will inevitably have to occur, and I welcome the fact that the Commission monitors this. In a nutshell, the Commission should be congratulated on this proposal, pure vegetable oils should also be included and, in order to promote the use of agricultural products in general in future, the Commission must table proposals on lubricants, recyclable plastics, and so on.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the European Parliament plays an undeniable leading role in the peace process in Central America. It is now time to talk about the recent situation in Guatemala, six years after the conclusion of the peace agreements, in 1996. The time has come for Parliament to add its voice to those of other human rights defenders, trade unionists and religious leaders working with the indigenous communities to ensure that these peace programmes move forwards and do not stagnate. It is vital that the Guatemalan government finalises the legislative reforms arising from the peace agreements, that the judicial authority consolidates its independence and its capacity to pursue and to prosecute those responsible for the wars and the breaches against human rights that have taken place before and after the peace agreements were concluded. For this reason, the European Parliament sends a message of support to the Guatemalan people and to their Government, to encourage them to continue in their struggle, to guarantee respect for human rights, the Rule of Law and the independence of the judiciary. It is vital that these agreements, which have been so successful not only in Guatemala but also in other countries in Central America, reach a satisfactory conclusion. This means that governments must commit themselves to continue pursuing and punishing criminals, which can only be done by respecting and strengthening the independence of the judiciary. This is this essence of the message of support that we want to send from Parliament to the Guatemalan people, to those who are fighting for their freedom and to their political authorities.

Political group: PPE-DE