GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
The fact that Parliament is dealing with the causes of climate change on our planet is important. This really is a serious issue in the very short term, and it concerns all of us, both because we all breathe the same air, and because of the storms, excessive rainfall and water shortages affecting every continent to a varying degree. The developed countries doing the polluting and the less developed or underdeveloped countries about to do so must be made aware of the situation. So anything that can raise public awareness is useful and a step in the right direction. That is why our resolution is important, and I have voted for it.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I just wanted to ask why we are not voting on Ethiopia now.

Political group: PSE
The Commission’s proposals on the WTO negotiations on agriculture, which were given unanimous approval by the Council, are a further step towards a substantial liberalisation of farm trade, which maintains the current model, based on promoting exports and insists on the idea that liberalising trade will help developing countries. This overlooks the fact that this approach accentuates food dependency and specialisation based on monoculture for export dominated by the developed countries’ food multinationals. Instead of further liberalisations, these proposals should take account of the injustices of the international trade system and call for the right to food sovereignty and security to be recognised, in other words, the right of all peoples to define their own agricultural and food policies. They should also advocate the right of all countries to ban the trade in GMOs. The proposal exceeds the framework of Agenda 2000, which had already made excessive concessions to the detriment of small and medium-sized family holdings. Hence our opposition to any agricultural negotiations within the WTO, which has been giving a further boost to the concentration, intensification and verticalisation of production and in this way, to the elimination of thousands of small and medium-sized holdings, in particular in Portugal. It should be noted that from the outset this proposal makes the interim review of the CAP a precondition, which demonstrates the hypocrisy of some delegations within the Council.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today finds us again devoting our attention to analysing the causes of the wreck of the Prestige, and its grave and far-reaching consequences. This detailed report by Mr Sterckx, to whom many thanks for his excellent work, provides a first-rate basis on which to do this. Both the rapporteur and the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism as a whole have attempted, with great care and thoroughness, to give sober and objective answers to the questions as to the causes and consequences of the disaster and the lessons to be derived from it. I lay such weight on that in view of the past political campaign waged by many Members of this House with the objective of getting Parliament to set up a committee of inquiry. I am able to say today that, despite all the differences of political opinion in the committee, our real and overriding concern was to bring the facts to light and, above all, to come to the conclusions that are needed if we are to avoid such a disaster repeating itself. It was quite remarkable how the Spanish officials, when they appeared before the committee, appeared to misread how things stood in this House and to believe that they did not need to cooperate actively with us in our work. This attitude had changed by the time of the on-the-spot visit in Galicia. The rapporteur nonetheless – and I quote from his explanatory statement – comes to the conclusion that ‘a number of fundamental points remain to be clarified or are the subject of contradictory testimony’. He also points out that various investigations into the precise cause of the disaster, and into the question of who was responsible for it, are still in progress. These observations were made in mid-June, when the report was being completed. In the meantime, several months have elapsed, and new details have become public knowledge, including the fact that the Spanish and the French consulted each other on what was to be done with the stricken vessel; the contradictions in the statements by the Spanish authorities about the quantity of oil disgorged by the wreck and the original quantity of oil that the tanker was carrying; analyses of the effects of oil pollution on the environment and initial assessments of the social and economic consequences after the summer break. These confirm what we had feared about the provisional nature and consequent inevitable incompleteness of the Sterckx report’s recommendations and conclusions. It was for this reason that my group decided to demand that the results of the inquiry be updated, and joined with the other groups in tabling the motion for the setting up of a temporary committee in this House, although we knew full well that there is little time available for this. This House’s political responsibility demands that, if we are to come to the right conclusions for the future, we must do so with the greatest possible clarity and in full knowledge of the causes, and this can only happen if we act on a joint basis, with close cooperation at national and European level. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, at first reading the European Parliament adopted a proposal regulating the matter in, I believe, a satisfactory manner, without ignoring legitimate Austrian sensitivities on the matter. The paradox is that the Council proceeded to the common position as if Parliament did not exist. With an attitude that is reminiscent of old times, it has proceeded to adopt a common position, despite the recommendations made by the Commissioner, Mrs de Palacio, to the Council to take account of the first reading of Parliament, and it has ignored the European Parliament, which of course now, at second reading, is obliged, following this unacceptable Council position, to confirm its position at first reading. Thus, of necessity, things are moving towards the conciliation procedure. I hope that the Council has got Parliament's message and is prepared to enter into a substantive discussion during the conciliation procedure. What do we want from the conciliation procedure? Obviously, we do not want to isolate Austria because we have very good cooperation with our Austrian colleagues and because it is not good for us to isolate countries. As I said in committee, and I repeat here too, if the bell tolls for someone today, we must not forget that it may be us that it tolls for tomorrow. Consequently, we must be moderate in our position. Nonetheless, we must not ignore the interests of the other countries. There are countries which have particularly vital interests in this particular issue: Germany, Italy, my country, Greece. Mainly, we must not ignore the fact that this Union is based on a certain specific philosophy and on a certain specific Treaty. And this Treaty talks about the free movement of persons, capital and goods. We have a single market, the principles of which must be respected. And they must also be respected in this instance. Of course, we are prepared to discuss a transitional arrangement. However, any transitional arrangement must be inspired by the spirit and tend towards this objective, the objective of serving the principles of the single market. This is the position of the Group of the .

Political group: PPE-DE
We would defend subsidiarity and assert that the EU institutions should not interfere with the Member States’ electoral systems or the political parties’ systems for establishing their electoral lists. We have therefore chosen to vote against the own-initiative report by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities on ‘Election 2004: How to ensure balanced representation of women and men’.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the creation of a European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control has never been so important. The recent SARS outbreak, the current threat of a biological terrorist attack and even the current Asian bird flu crisis illustrate the threat from disease in the global village that we live in today. The threat to Europe's health from the rapid spread of disease is real and present. Every year 1.4 billion passengers fly on an international trip. Every one of them could pose a threat to global health security. If they were found to be carrying a new strain of influenza or SARS they could within a few hours unwittingly put the lives of millions at risk. Global warming threatens even Britain with diseases such as malaria, while diseases such as TB are already returning. The correct response is not to turn our backs on the benefits of globalisation – we should not give up the opportunities presented by increases in trade and travel because of biological threats any more than for reasons of terrorism – but we need coordinated action. In today's world no one country can afford to go it alone. That is why Labour MEPs so firmly back these proposals for a European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. When it comes to tackling disease, Europe works. The European Commission was able to ban chicken imports from countries affected by the new strain of bird flu with immediate effect. Without the EU, it would have required an enormous effort to coordinate the actions of all 15 – and soon 25 – Member States. We need to strengthen that coordination and not weaken it through isolation. So I am pleased that Tory MEPs will also back this plan today. However, I wonder how they can square that with their own hostility to Europe and their policy of attacking the EU at every turn. The centre will contribute to the improvement and strengthening of the prevention and monitoring of human diseases in the EU. Its technical work and research capabilities will be an asset, as will the work with the WHO. I agree that accessibility to information for the public is vital, and that is why the centre should have its own website to communicate its work and to publish its opinions. This is one of the EU's success stories, and we should be celebrating its creation.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, anyone who follows the urgent debate in this Parliament will realise that the history of Europe appears to be returning to haunt us. That is to say that, in the previous debate on the Moluccas, we heard a lot of Dutch and now I fear that the Commissioner is going to hear a lot of Spanish, because we are talking about Venezuela. What is happening is that the history of Europe is returning to haunt us. The Europeans who went and occupied the world, now, in a sense, are influenced by what is happening elsewhere, and therefore, when we speak, although – especially for the Commissioner – this may seem like a litany of complaints, we are in fact expressing the opinion of the voters. Specifically in my country, Spain, and in the region I come from – the Canary Islands – the catastrophe in Venezuela has been felt as if it had happened in our own country. My regret is that, at the moment, Mr Busquin, who is a great Commissioner and a great politician, and who is in a position to understand these problems, is not, in fact, the Commissioner responsible for the matter, because he probably already has a written answer and anything I say is not going to influence his reply, because I am sure he is not able to change that reply. I do hope, however, that he will at least read the motion for a resolution and take note of some of the issues which concern us. The disaster in Venezuela has not been an ordinary disaster. We are talking about the disappearance of 50 000 people – in reality, the death of 50 000 people – the disappearance of a state – the state of Vargas – where the Maiquetía airport and the port of La Guaira are located, which is the entrance or ‘hall’ of Venezuela. That state must be rebuilt and it must be done in a way which will prevent any further disaster. The disaster did not happen as a result of mere negligence on the part of the authorities. It happened as a result of the collapse of an entire ridge – the ridge of the Ávila National Park – and therefore this will have to be taken into account in its reconstruction. I hope that the Commission will take Parliament’s considerations into account and will consider the possibility of organising some type of ‘conference of donors’, or something of the sort, with other organisations and states so that, amongst all of us, we can help the Venezuelan government to reconstruct a very important part of the country.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to explain that I tabled a question on the war in Iraq for Question Time to the Council. The question concerned the victims of that war. I have however been informed that my question had not been accepted because it was deemed to be the type of question requiring a statistical answer. I should like to make it quite clear that my question does not involve statistics. It has nothing whatsoever to do with statistics. The question simply concerns the fate of victims of the recent war in Iraq. This is surely a matter of parliamentary and political interest. A bureaucratic criterion was applied inappropriately. I can show statistics are not at issue in any way, and I therefore request this decision be reversed before Wednesday afternoon. I also call for an investigation into why this criterion was applied. I believe it was by way of an excuse rather than in pursuance of the Rules of Procedure.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the general framework set out by the President of the Commission for relations with other countries following enlargement generally has my backing. However, general principle policies do tend to fail in practice. This being so, I have two questions: first, what other good can come out of relations with the Mediterranean countries of North Africa in practice, when general policies have not, in my opinion, been particularly successful. And secondly, on the subject of the candidate countries of the former east bloc, because the quality of relations is sometimes determined by neighbouring countries rather than general principles and because, as we recently realised, many of the candidate countries have proceeded as they see fit on strategic policy matters – we are talking about the problem of Iraq, irrespective of what position you agree or disagree with – the question is: how can we influence these countries so that they do not set their own criteria for relations with their neighbours, which we see as countries of collaboration and peace and which others perhaps see as enemies.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, item 2 of the Minutes on page 5, which is in fact the first substantive page, refers to the points I raised about certain political groups apparently not respecting the Rules of Procedure in that they appear to allow individual members of their group to table amendments in plenary, supposedly in the name of the group, although this cannot possibly be the case because contradictory amendments are tabled in the name of the same group. I would like to underline that although the Minutes mentioned specifically the EPP Group, it is in fact not the only group to have acted in this way. For instance, the Technical Group, the TDI Group, which did not table any amendments at committee stage whatsoever, has now arrived in plenary with between 20 and 30 amendments, many of which are contradictory. They are tabled by different members within that group taking different positions and therefore cannot possibly be a group position. That does not respect our own Rules of Procedure, which allow only 32 members or a group to table amendments in plenary.

Political group: PSE
Mrs Pack has, I think, rightly pointed out that there are still many problems in front of us. But all in all, the peace process in Macedonia may still be considered a small miracle. I fully agree with the words of Mr Haarder in congratulating the Macedonian government and pointing to the courage that government has shown. Indeed, ladies and gentlemen, a Gordian knot has been cut. The minority rights of the Albanians are guaranteed, the operation ‘Essential Harvest’ has succeeded, the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Macedonia remains secure. The multi-ethnic society is indeed being given another lease of life and dialogue is central to the parties. We must continue to pay attention to this region, to the whole of the Balkan region. The Afghan crisis, the war on terrorism, must not distract our attention from this part of the world. We must invest in the stability of the Balkans. We must invest in the stability of Macedonia. We must ensure that sufficient support for the execution of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement is being granted. We must provide good guidance for refugees returning home. We must see to the re-building of that country. And I wish here to underline the words of Mrs Pack. The political history of my own country has demonstrated that only forgiveness, only reconciliation can guarantee real peace in a country. And so amnesty for the revolutionaries is indeed important. This does not mean the revolutionaries who may possibly be accused before the Court of Justice in The Hague. It concerns the others, for whom a regulation is required. I hope that our fellow MEPs who are departing tomorrow for Skopje will be able sufficiently to alert our counterparts over there to this problem. I also fully support extension of the mandate of the European Agency for Reconstruction in that region. Macedonia should be brought under the scope of that regulation, and I also hope that we as Members of the European Parliament will be paying enough attention to the work of the European Agency for Reconstruction, so that we may be sure that the European taxpayer’s money is well spent in an efficient and timely manner in that region.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to draw attention to the complete disarray regarding free movement of citizens from the new Member States. It now seems – but it is by no means certain – that, with a mere 11 weeks to go until 1 May, 13 Member States will take advantage of the facility to put obstacles in the way of free movement. This has led to a spotlight on the two remaining states – Ireland and the United Kingdom – and to hysterical press reactions about being swamped by benefit tourists. I hold no brief for the way the British press is reacting, nor for the rather uncertain reaction of the United Kingdom Government, but I believe that the original decision to allow full free movement was and is economically, politically and morally right. Commission forecasts show that maybe every year there would have been one mobile worker from the East for every 1000 inhabitants in the West, if it had been shared among all states. There may have been some justification for special measures in border areas, but the way this panic has spread and infected most Member States is shameful. It treats the new Member State citizens as second class, contrary to all the promises they were given, and it displays – as on so many other issues such as Iraq, the Constitution and the budget – a depressing lack of EU solidarity. Could you at least raise this with the Commission and Member States in the Council to try and make the transitional periods as brief as possible?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I shall be taking more than five minutes, because the speakers from my group who have withdrawn have left 15 minutes. Therefore, I can take 20 minutes. So, Mr President, I shall speak as slowly as appropriate, because I believe that you do not intend to disallow a genuine debate that includes a full presentation of each argument.

Political group: PPE-DE
Thank you, Commissioner, for a comprehensive and wide-ranging answer. It is always good to hear that the Joint Parliamentary Assembly is receiving much-needed extra funding considering the new work – with the committees in particular – that we are engaged in. Would you agree with me, Commissioner, that support for parliaments is an area of our governance and democracy activities which has been somewhat neglected in the past? For instance, for the country strategy papers, I can find no evidence that parliaments were consulted in any meaningful way, although civil society and NGOs were quite rightly involved. Joint Parliamentary Assembly parliamentarians are really thirsty for information, particularly on the EDF and on following the EPA negotiations. I am interested in the fact that some countries are already putting into their national indicative programmes a priority for parliamentary training and capacity-building, but out of 78 countries, if we are honest only a handful have made that kind of priority clear. I would like to know exactly how we can encourage national authorising officers and others to make this priority clear so we can ensure that accountability of parliamentarians is part of the process that we are engaged in. It seems to me that they do very little challenging of the executive in terms of questioning, financing and so on. I would also like to ask what exactly you suggest that we, as parliamentarians, can do in cooperation with the Commission to ensure that governments make parliamentary activity more of a priority.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, a great deal has already been said, and so I will attempt to make good use of the three minutes assigned to me and concentrate a little more on what needs to be done rather than going over the details of the situation. In any case, the President-in-Office, Mrs Lindh, and many other Members have stressed the severity and scale of the situation in the occupied territories and throughout the Middle East in their speeches. There has been quite enough description. I feel that Parliament's role is coming into its own in this case as well. There have been many debates but few resolutions, and Parliament is realising that resolutions and declarations have to have value and meaning. As you pointed out, in this case we have a resolution which, I hope, will be adopted by a very wide majority, in which practically all the political groups undertake initiatives in respect of the Commission and the Council. I would like to thank Commissioner Patten for the clarity and determination with which he has re-established international law and responsibilities in economic relations with Israel as well. If we do not get back to international law, it will be very difficult to get away from the maze of violence and retaliation which have erupted in that situation. However, I would like to stress to the Council that it may not be sufficient for Mr Solana to bring the matter up in Gothenburg. The Treaty of Amsterdam has provided us with tools which have not yet been used in this field. It is rather strange that the European Union should not have equipped itself with a common strategy on the Middle East, and it is rather strange that the 15 should have gone to the United Nations Security Council and the meetings of the Human Rights Commission in Geneva with different positions. This makes no sense. It is appalling. In my opinion, it is the duty of the European Union to strengthen the role of the High Representative and of Mr Moratinos through a common strategy laying down the direction to be followed. We call for this to be done in Gothenburg. What Mr Salafranca said makes sense. The Mitchell Commission has made recommendations. The first step could be to send observers, but this could be lead to the sending of a peacekeeping force. If the violence does not cease, we will have to do something to assist the process from outside. I feel that this debate has been useful and, above all, I call upon the Council to take the resolution into due consideration.

Political group: PSE