GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would like to say to Mr Pirker that this is a good report, even if, personally, I would have liked to go further. The aim of managing migratory flows is in fact rooted in the illusion of strict regulation, something which has proved impossible in the last several years. Few countries have admitted to the limitations, let alone the failure, of the programmes they intended putting in place. Those programmes are no match for the problems posed by the complexity and diversity of the flows, which encompass traditional movements of labour, people fleeing poverty and asylum seekers. National traditions, cultural peculiarities, massive or residual xenophobia and a greater or lesser openness to the claims of minorities explain the differences between the Member States’ immigration policies. Refugee status is particularly attractive when immigration or staying in a country legally has become virtually impossible, and it is in fact the only door that stands ajar for entry to many of our countries. The many attempts to take advantage of it by persons not strictly covered by the Geneva Convention but who fall into the much wider category of economic migrants, attempts which are sometimes exploited by organised crime, have cast suspicion on all applicants and provided a pretext for considerable restrictions on the right to asylum, which is appalling. Having on our territory people with no rights, with absolutely no security, in fear of being reported to the authorities, reduced to feeding the profitable illegal labour market or resorting to petty crime, but who nevertheless prefer that situation to the risk of being returned to their countries of origin, in fact raises inevitable social, moral and legal questions. Undoubtedly, this problem needs to be tackled as one affecting all Europeans. It is also clear that we cannot arrive at a rational policy by being guided by narrow national interests alone. With rising populism symptomatic of xenophobia, many fear seeing the common treatment of the immigration issue take on a dangerously repressive hue, although we know full well that such a policy is no answer to the problems but that, quite the contrary, it risks enflaming them. I want to conclude by saying that stepping up the fight against terrorism must not be allowed to affect the integrity of our immigration and asylum policies and in particular the substantial development of our national integration policies. Immigration is a reality and we will always have to deal with flows of migrants into Europe seeking work or fleeing persecution. Illegal immigration will not be eliminated simply by opening channels for legal immigration, that is true, but legal immigration may help to give a positive direction to our society’s development. Migration is a phenomenon of the contemporary world. We cannot evade our responsibilities as rich nations.

Political group: PSE
The Danish Social Democrats have voted against the framework agreement because it does not, in its current form, fulfil the conditions for an open and transparent exchange of information between Parliament and the Commission. Article 276 of the Treaty states that the Commission should submit all the necessary information to Parliament in connection with the discharge procedure. The framework agreement restricts this provision. According to the framework agreement, it is only the Conference of Presidents, Parliament’s President and the chairman of the Committee on Budgetary Control who can ask the Commission for information. Rapporteurs and ‘ordinary’ MEPs can therefore be denied access to information. From a political point of view, it is unacceptable that the chairman of the Committee should be able to decide which information can be passed on. It is also problematic from a legal point of view because, according to Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, liability is delegated to the rapporteur. From a practical point of view, it will lengthen the discharge procedure. According to the framework agreement, Parliament and the Commission are to come to an agreement as to which documents are to be handed over. It is unreasonable, however, that the Commission (which is to be supervised) should be involved in deciding which information is to be made available. Moreover, the procedures governing confidential documents are very protracted and may be misused by the Commission to avoid making information available. We hope that a better agreement will successfully be reached regarding the provision of information as an integral part of the discharge procedure. In its present form, the agreement constitutes a restriction on Parliament’s right to information, as guaranteed under the Treaty.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr Howitt's report opens up some interesting avenues. Public involvement in cooperation with developing countries is at the heart of our concerns. This communication should underpin real cooperation with non-state actors. Who are these non-state actors though? Who are these privileged partners? Are they partners imposed on us? We believe that participation should involve a wide range of actors, including partners from the South, and it should prevent the poorest countries from being marginalised. This means that a proper mechanism needs to be established to optimise participants' representation. This communication should not allow the Commission and the governments of developing countries to legitimise their actions by treating non-state actors as pawns. The populations of the countries of the South themselves should be able to democratically appoint their representatives and organise themselves collectively through associations, trade unions and grassroots organisations. It is this process that we need to support by providing the structural aid needed to guarantee that non-state actors have the independence that is vital for dialogue and for the involvement of all strata in society. It is incumbent on European companies to stop banning trade union organisation and rights of association for workers and local people. On the contrary, they should encourage such activities. At present civil society is only recognised in the text of the Cotonou Agreement. It needs to come off the printed page and be put into practice! When we revise the ALA Regulation, it is essential to include this aspect in our cooperation with the countries of Latin America and Asia, which would also make it possible to make funds available to non-state actors in those countries. Involving non-state actors in their governments' development strategy is essential to guaranteeing pluralism, freedom of expression and democracy, which underpin the European Union's missions throughout the world. We are therefore pleased to welcome this report by Mr Howitt. It opens up important avenues that we must not fail to explore.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I was asked earlier on today by one of my colleagues for a rebuttal of the allegations of fraud in the European Union, and so I started off with a great surge of energy, mentioning that 80% of the EU’s budget is spent within the Member States, and most fraud occurs within the Structural Funds and agriculture. So I started off well, but then I suddenly had to slow up because I thought about the kinds of cases that have been in the papers recently – the Eurostat case obviously springs to mind. The problem there is that there was a scandal going on and it is difficult to rebut it. The Commission sat on the report, the General Audit Service did not open the box and look at the report and we have to ask why Mr Solbes did not keep a closer eye on his department. I can rebut it by saying that the procedures for stopping this kind of thing were already in place, but the departments were overworked and there was no time for the system to work through. It was during the early days of the reform process. It is important, however, that we do not continue to allow the Directors-General to take all the responsibility. We have to see political responsibility by individual commissions. They have to shoulder this. It may be worth people taking note of the outcome of the Hutton report today: we have seen the BBC found guilty of incompetence. It is interesting that it is not the Director-General of the BBC who has gone, but the Chairman of the BBC. It is the political head – not the administrative head. We should bear that in mind and think about what that means in this context. The accounting system has also, of course, come in for criticism and I could explain at this point that there are only two countries in the whole of the European Union that have implemented the kind of accrual accounting system that we want to see. This Parliament and the Court of Auditors, however, asked the Commission to get on with it. Of course, we must also look internally at the kinds of problems we have here in Parliament. We are just about to enter an electoral campaign and many of us are enthusiastic about the whole European Union ideal, but we have to sell it in the face of a really difficult press, so you must help us to do more to counteract these allegations of fraud.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, you are familiar with the position of the Group of the . Restarting the Doha Development Agenda promptly is in the interests of economic recovery in Europe. Restarting it promptly is in the interests of all parts of the world. We must fulfil our development promises: stop the agricultural subsidies that have shot up and instead use them for the environment, consumers, and agriculture that is beneficial to the developing world. The European trade agenda must be brought closer to the citizen. The Group of the wants to see a higher priority accorded to a citizens’ agenda. This would read as follows: counterforce. Citizens want protection against unfair competition at work: this is a tribute to your efforts against the US in the steel dispute and South Korea’s unfair shipyard aid. Citizens also want respect for nature and the environment, and consumer-friendly agriculture: no animal transports, quality over quantity and respect for nature. They want social power. They do not want any products that have been manufactured by exploiting women or using child labour. They want support for fair trade products and for free trade unions. Our additional GSP approach would enable extra support for countries that take education, health care and free trade unions seriously, but we would want a multilateral approach to this. As far as we are concerned, that approach would require dropping the Singapore issues: removing them from the single undertaking. Now is the right time to do that. The truth is, however, that many developing countries think that we, like the US, do not genuinely want this. In the field of agriculture, in particular, and with regard to the Singapore issues, the message has not got through clearly. We hope that we shall be generous to the new alliance, that is to say, stop export subsidies for products sensitive to them, open up our markets, and give them help in marketing their products in their own region and on our market. As you yourself say, we have to be clear about the G-21. We need this new, emerging world power as a multilateral player, but the G-21 must also be aware that, if they make requirements of us, they themselves must also make their contribution. They must guarantee their citizens the right to a free trade-union movement, and put an end to child labour and the exploitation of women. Why should they not be the first to give that new alliance a chance, just as we did with Everything But Arms, and permit their countries to import goods? That would make Lula’s agenda credible. Europe’s commitment to cheap AIDS drugs has finally borne fruit. This point demonstrates that Europe is not focusing on short-term gain for itself, but on the bigger picture. This approach to the global free market, with fair rules, will make us a great deal more credible. I believe that prompt implementation of this approach in the Member States and the European Union is the right course to follow.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I refer to the motion for a resolution. It is something of an emotional muddle and manages to confuse three unrelated elements: anti-tank mines, cluster bombs and depleted uranium munitions. It fails to comprehend the nature of the work being done by the group of governmental experts on explosive remnants of war – a sensible body which is mindful of the need for the right balance between humanitarian concerns and military utility in regard to certain weapons. The armed forces of our nations, and those of our NATO allies, are the most conscious of the need to protect civilian populations, avoid collateral damage and ensure that dangers to our own troops are minimised. On landmines, I am proud to have been actively involved in the work to ban anti-personnel landmines and to have been instrumental in helping large-scale funding for assistance to mine victims and for mine clearance operations. I congratulate the Commission in its continuing work in this area. Our armed forces agreed that they could operate without anti-personnel landmines. Anti-vehicle or anti-tank mines are a different matter. Their humanitarian consequences are altogether less significant, and they are an indispensable military weapon as long as there are tanks on the battle field. Unexploded ordnance is a problem in post-conflict situations and more work needs to be done on self-destruction and detection of munitions. The very words 'depleted uranium' conjure up all sorts of fears and ideas related to radiation which seem to be wholly misplaced. It is recognised that there could be a small risk from toxic dust for those working unprotected in close proximity to a vehicle hit by depleted uranium ammunition. While I keep an open mind, there is currently no reliable medical evidence to link depleted uranium with ill health, either of troops or of local people. This resolution is not really about any of these things. It is wild scaremongering. It calls for an immediate moratorium on munitions which are key weapons for use by coalition airforces and armoured forces currently deploying to the Gulf. It is no coincidence perhaps that it follows an Iraqi proposition in the UN last October which sought to designate depleted uranium as a weapon of mass destruction. This ruse was heavily defeated in the United Nations, only to reappear now in the European Parliament. I hope that Members of this House will be very discriminating when they come to vote on the resolution tomorrow.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all aware that in the fast process of globalisation which humanity is experiencing – a process which also shrinks the horizon of our world by seeking a universal cosmic and interplanetary dimension – it is strategically important for our Union to have an advanced space policy. I therefore totally support the decisions which have been taken by the European Council in Lisbon in this respect, the comments and proposals of the Commission since 1999 and the parallel decisions of the intergovernmental European Space Agency. I also support the proposal in Article 50 which the Convention has produced in order to provide a legal basis for Community actions. As in other sectors, Europe must have the necessary ambition and impetus, reflected in its budgets, to be able to play a leading role on the international stage. It must have independent access to space and develop suitable technologies. And it must do so within a system of international cooperation, particularly with the United States and with Russia, who are pioneers in terms of space, and also with others such as Japan, China, etc. But that cooperation cannot be subordinate. Under no circumstances must it be subordinate. In this regard, I am happy with the progress made in one area of our space policy, the Galileo project, and the agreements which ensure its interoperability with the American GPS system, and I hope that we will soon reach agreements with the Russian Glonass system as well. I trust that those agreements do not subordinate the civilian use of our Galileo system to military priorities which cause occasional shadowing of the signal and which are not subject to the control of the people responsible for European security and certainly do not require the consent of these decision-makers. Mutual collaboration, yes, but subordination, no. I would like to end by congratulating Mr Bodrato on the fine report he has presented to us on European space policy.

Political group: Verts-ALE
President, the basic premise of terrorism is that the unexpected, the unconsidered, the unbelievable will terrify the population into accepting political claims, whether they are rational or not. Thank you, Commissioner, for your statement. I welcome the cooperation you have outlined and the special attention which will be given to nuclear installations. I hope that Member States will cooperate with the Commission in this work. Our reaction must be to do all that we can to prevent the sort of widespread slaughter, injury and chaos we saw in the United States. Air travel, nuclear power stations, chemical works and oil depots, are all obvious targets for terrorists. They are designed, built and protected accordingly at very considerable cost to the public. The French government now protects the reprocessing centre at La Hague with fighter planes and missiles. No doubt the United Kingdom does likewise in Sellafield. We cannot inhabit the weird minds of terrorists, but we can pay the high cost of protection. We can work together and we can be very careful when we consider building, or indeed retaining, a potential target. Things will not be the same after 11 September, as many others have said. No one had conceived of using a fully loaded, large passenger plane as a weapon. We have to factor that into our calculations. Please keep reporting to Parliament. We want the citizens of Europe to know that everything possible has been done to keep them safe.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, my group would be in favour of accepting the inclusion of this question on December’s agenda. What we would not agree with is having this matter omitted and then seeing if it can be postponed indefinitely.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, firstly, I thank Mrs Grossetête for her report and I support the last speaker. The problem here is that whenever we try to put the whole of Europe together and try to bring in legislation that suits every Member State, one size does not fit all, and that is why I urge this House to support Amendments Nos 27 and 28 by Mrs Doyle. Most of the medicines which at present farmers in Ireland and the UK buy not from vets but from general suppliers are either drenches for worms or vaccines and they are administered by the farmers. Therefore, it is not the case that the vet will do the administration; these drugs will just be bought from the vets. Vets will then have a monopoly on the sale of these commodities and it puts farmers again at a competitive disadvantage. We have been told many times by the new world that farmers have to live in that they have to face up to responsibilities and the marketplace and yet here we are preventing them from being able to compete in buying those medicines. It is absolutely crazy to try to force this through. I echo again what Mr Nicholson said. I rather fear that the UK Government, having said all along that it would support the farming industry so they would be able to buy these medicines from suppliers and not from vets, has capitulated and caved in. Therefore, it is up to this Parliament to put this legislation forward in a way that will allow flexibility between Member States. That is what we are being asked for. A huge fuss is being made about food safety, but this is not the issue, because these drugs, wormers and vaccines can be bought from suppliers. They can be registered there and therefore we will know when the farmers have bought them. The farmers will then administer them, so there is no need go through all the procedure of veterinary prescription and vets-only medicines. Therefore, I urge the House once again to support Amendments Nos 27 and 28 by Mrs Doyle.

Political group: PPE-DE
Thank you for your reply. I should like to make the following points: Turkey is now a candidate country. This plan is designed to increase its energy potential by 2%. At the same time, it also wishes to acquire Cadou type reactors from Canada, which we now know have already been used for nuclear weapons in Pakistan and India. In this sense, there is therefore a serious risk that some idiot will decide that the new geopolitical balance of power in the Caucasus calls for a nearby country with weapons grade nuclear technology. So much for the political aspect. Now to the technical aspect. The safety factor in this type of project, and I am speaking as an engineer, has nothing to do with increasing safety levels in relation to the risk of collapse by a factor of ten or twenty. In cases such as this, where there is uncertainty, simulators are used. However, we cannot used simulators in cases relating to nuclear energy. In this sense, all high seismic risk areas must be excluded a priori for nuclear installations such as this. Therefore, and given that the relationship between the European Union and the Commission and Turkey has now changed, it would be a good idea if Turkey discussed certain matters relating both to the safety of the area in general and the peaceful development of Turkey within the European Union.

Political group: PSE