GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, this has not been a very controversial subject. I have never before seen more harmony or unanimity in the House. Having gone through the trauma of the allocation of fish quotas, there is a greater awareness throughout the European Union of the scarcity of this most important resource. Wild fish stocks in the European Union are about 40% of what our consumers in the Union need. This is therefore an ideal means of supplementing the demand. Parliament has been dealing with this subject over many years, yet there is not sufficient consciousness of the important contribution this industry can make to the peripheral, under–developed and poorer regions. It can also be complementary to industry in those regions at a time when wild fish stocks are less available, so that the extra capacity we have and the infrastructure for processing and marketing can be made use of through the production of farmed fish. The advisers who cautioned us years ago have been listened to. The message has got across that we can exercise the necessary caution and, at the same time, make progress in increasing production. We have obviously achieved this. We are now producing something like 27% of our needs from farmed fish and there is no reason why we cannot continue. People cannot look at the dwindling stocks and our failure to conserve them and say that the wide oceans out there present us with opportunities. 80% of all the stocks we know of are inside the 200–mile limit. So there are no stocks out there waiting to be exploited. We know little about the other 20%, and from what we know it is a one–off. We can harvest those fish once and that's the end of it. Fish farming offers prospects for the disadvantaged regions. It can be complementary to the activities going on there and can help to improve the economy of the European Union at a time when unemployment is once again becoming a problem.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the truth is that the news of the indefinite suspension or delay of the talks between Syria and Israel is not good news, but nor is it good news that the day before yesterday there was another bomb attack which injured 16 people. It is clear that, for once, the United States has not been able to secure progress on the restarting of these negotiations, and it is true that the obstacles are difficult to overcome: the Syrians wish to regain sovereignty and jurisdiction over the Golan Heights and re-establish the borders which existed before 4 June 1967, while the Israelis wish, since they consider that it suits their situation better, to have the borders which were set in 1923. The suspension of the talks between Syria and Israel is not the only delay affecting the peace process in the Middle East. The application of the framework agreement between the Palestinian authorities and Israel is also suspended at the moment. After the talks which took place the day before yesterday between the Israeli Prime Minister and the Leader of the Palestinian Authority, the Israeli Prime Minister requested a delay of two months as from 13 February, the deadline for the implementation of the framework agreement on the situation in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. What can the European Union do in these circumstances? Unfortunately, very little. It naturally has to support these negotiations, sponsored by the United States; contacts have to be increased; the presence of the European Union envoy, Ambassador Moratinos, who has fulfilled his mission with great diligence and efficiency, within the powers of the European Union, is positive. But none of this hides the fact that there is a certain sense of impotence, because when the negotiators from each side fly back to the United States this weekend, we will have to remember that, for every 100 dollars spent on the peace process in the region, 60 are contributed by the European Union. When we consider that a conference will soon be held in Moscow, it becomes clear that the European Union’s presence in this peace process is somewhat pitiful. I would like to insist to the Portuguese Presidency that we must play a greater role, that it is time to take over and to secure greater participation for the European Union in this process. I hope that the forthcoming visit by the President of the European Parliament to the region, as well as the presidents of the relevant interparliamentary delegations, will begin an era of greater initiative and a greater presence for the European Union in this complicated and difficult peace process.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I came back yesterday from Palestine, from Gaza, where I attended the plenary session of the Palestinian Legislative Council which was able to meet for the first time in six months, albeit under certain conditions: the members of the Palestinian parliament had to enter Gaza using Israeli public transport, they were unable to use their cars, they were subjected to searches and many of them were prevented from reaching their destination because of the territories being sealed off. On 7 March, in the middle of the night, 33 Palestinian villages – between Ramal and Birzeit, where there is a university – were completely sealed off by Israeli soldiers, who went so far as to use tanks and who dug trenches and destroyed 400 metres of paved land; 65 000 people are enclosed in those places. These are actions which, in my opinion, we can in no way endorse. I, therefore, call upon the President to make representations to Mr Solana and to present a protest at the way the University of Birzeit has been completely closed off. The students and teachers of Birzeit had not opened fire, nor had they taken any other hostile initiative: they were there simply to study. The situation has reached dramatic proportions. Israel cannot continue to violate the Geneva International Conventions and collective punishment is wrong. I do not endorse military or terrorist acts carried out by individual Palestinians or organisations, but collective punishment must be opposed because it is a form of tribal vendetta rather than a reaction. I therefore call upon the President to champion a protest to the Israeli government and to ask Mr Solana to authorise an immediate intervention to bring about the reopening of the occupied territories and put an end to the collective punishments inflicted on the Palestinian people, and to bring about the reopening of Birzeit and its university and the restoration of this people's right to education and life.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I am not going to paraphrase here the technically excellent report of my fellow countryman Mr Gasòliba; I do not have the time in which to do so. On a political level, as a federalist and a supporter of Catalan independence, I ought to be pleased at the relative success of the euro. For Europeans, the euro reinforces the evidence of the process of integration of which it is the symbol. For Catalans, whether French or Spanish, it means that we once again have a common currency, which has not been the case since the disastrous Treaty of the Pyrenees in 1659. I have to admit that I am not entirely happy, however, first of all because this common currency is not as common as all that. Some people do not have any of it, or at least not enough of it. For instance, in the Autonomous Community of Catalonia, some 5% of families are living in a situation of extreme poverty, in other words with an income of less than EUR 240 per person per month. Secondly, I am not entirely happy because I would like Europe to have a stronger and more human symbol of unity than a unit of currency. In celebrating the euro, are we not rather like the chosen people who, forgetting their destiny, began to worship the golden calf? This earth, which has been so copiously watered with the blood and tears of our fratricidal wars, so distressingly covered with the ashes of our tragic genocides, deserves, I believe, stronger and less abstract signs of its humanity and its unity.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I just want to say that this sets a dangerous precedent. We can propose in advance that the report be dealt with without a debate if it is uncontentious, but a debate on the report was envisaged and so a debate should take place.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, there is no doubt that the whole of the European Union stands together with the people of the United States in utterly and totally condemning those who carried out those terrible atrocities in the United States and in expressing our deepest sympathy to the families who lost their loved ones in these terrible atrocities. The European Union and all democratic societies in the world should join together with the United States in seeking to bring to justice those guilty of those atrocities and in doing so, ensure that they target the actual terrorist organisations and their members, not the communities in which they live with the danger of innocent people suffering. Generally, terrorism is found in areas of conflict resolution where unfortunately many of those involved believe in what they are doing. The European Union can play a major role in solving conflict resolution in the different parts of the world by sending to those areas of conflict not an army but a philosophy of peace based on firm principles. It is often forgotten, that the European Union is the best example in the history of the world of conflict resolution. Who could have forecast 60 years ago where we all are now? Who would have forecast all this in 1941, with the second world war raging and millions being slaughtered. If our parents and grandparents had said 'Don't worry, your grandchildren will be sitting together in a parliament of a United Europe', nobody would have believed them. But it has happened, and how and why it happened is crucial. For that reason the European Union, rather than having an army, should set up a Commission department of peace and reconciliation with a Commissioner of peace and reconciliation to spread this philosophy. Firstly, in all areas of conflict you have divided peoples. Violence has no role to play in healing the divisions. Dialogue is the first step. Secondly there is the principle of respect for difference because all conflict is about difference, whether of religion, nationality or race. Thirdly, you need to create institutions which respect those differences, and the fourth element is working together in the common interest. Those are the principles at the heart of the European Union that solved the worst conflicts in the history of the world and are the principles that should be at the heart of conflict resolution in any area of conflict. IN THE CHAIR: MR PACHECO PEREIRAVice-President

Political group: PSE
Our group has not signed the compromise resolution with the larger groups for a number of reasons, but the most important one is this: We believe that fundamental reform of the World Trade Organisation's processes and rules must be a precondition for any new round of trade talks. Reform is not something that can be simply addressed as one issue among many in a new multilateral trade round where it risks being traded off against other interests and demands. In our view, the WTO faces such a crisis of legitimacy in public opinion that reform must come before any further negotiations, and that is the position we have put forward in our joint resolution with the Group. Now that is not a tactic for putting off indefinitely the start of a new round. In our view, nothing has slowed down the WTO more than the debacle in Seattle which was caused in no small part by the chaotic and exclusive structures, rules and procedures of the WTO. So, for those who believe in multilateral trade rules, as we do, serious reform is not an option but a necessity. The lessons of the failed Seattle Ministerial were that the WTO must become a fully democratic and transparent organisation which genuinely supports sustainable development and which effectively responds to the needs of developing countries. They need to be far bigger players in the WTO. Their marginalisation needs to end and they need to be listened to. In recent weeks, many poorer countries have made it clear that for them addressing concerns about the implementation of Uruguay Round commitments should be a precondition for a new round. Just two days ago, a communication from the G77 reiterated that position. Our group agrees with developing countries when they oppose new issues on the agenda on the grounds that expanding that agenda would over stretch the capacity of many developing countries which are already struggling to participate effectively in the WTO process. It would distract attention from the unfinished development business and increase the risk that developing countries will end up accepting disadvantageous trade-offs. The possible opt-outs that are on offer are not a realistic or effective way of dealing with these concerns, since developing countries still do not have the capacity now to affect the negotiations of an agreement which they may be later under pressure to sign. Pressing ahead with a new trade round in the face of major opposition from the majority of developing countries is not helpful. Simply calling it a development round without genuinely addressing the demands of developing countries is a sleight of hand that fails to address their real concerns. Finally, our group agrees that strong international rules are needed to manage trade. We agree very much that internationalism is important, but the current international trade rules favour narrow business interests and not the poor and the environment. Changing those rules is the priority for Doha, not launching a new round.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, my group also salutes the Portuguese Presidency's cooperation with the European Parliament and thanks it for this. As far as the results of the Feira summit are concerned, however, we are rather more sceptical. In recent weeks a debate has broken out between the governments of the Member States about the future of Europe, and even about having a constitution. In stark contrast to these competing visions, however, is the way in which preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference are shaping up. It even seems that the images of the distant future conjured up by a good many ministers are actually intended to conceal the European Council's inability to resolve the issues it has set itself. Since Maastricht this European Council has been putting off the problems, the unresolved questions and the necessary reforms. Many of these were already left unresolved in Amsterdam. The public's confidence in the EU has now reached an all-time low in all the Member States. In eastern Europe frustration is growing at the EU's hesitant attitude. The real initiatives – highlighted by Parliament in all of its resolutions for years – are in some cases not even being discussed in the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference. The most important objective is surely to create and develop a European democracy and to eliminate the democratic deficit. In Feira we did not see a decision to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaty, one of the decisions most eagerly anticipated by the people of Europe. An alternative approach to the Intergovernmental Conference, which this Parliament has repeatedly advocated, was not even mentioned. I think that, instead of making people want to enshrine the prevailing system in a future constitution, the European Council will have given everyone cause to consider the system's gross shortcomings, manifest in the current Intergovernmental Conference. A procedure for adopting a constitution has not been planned or launched; there is barely a definite notion of doing so. Questions remain about parliamentary and judicial control in the second and third pillars, as they do about the status of European parties and so on. Neither are there any tangible plans for meeting the second challenge, to create a social dimension to European integration. I believe that all of this has serious consequences for the degree of acceptance of the EU by those on the inside and also for the expectations which the eastern European countries have of us. We still have a few more months, but the work will have to pick up speed and increase in gravity and depth at a much greater rate than we have seen so far!

Political group: Verts-ALE
I support the appeal made by Mr von Wogau but I would also like to elaborate on the request made by Mr Goepel, because he has made a very interesting constitutional suggestion, namely, that the representative of the Council should speak in connection with the Papayannakis report. I would like to support that and I hope that the Council, which, under the Finnish presidency, has professed to be as open, transparent and communicative as possible with the Parliament, takes up this suggestion. Last night, I understand, the Agriculture Council not only adopted a position on the Papayannakis report resolution, which it was rather beforehand in doing – but it also, I believe, altered the legal basis of the text on which Mr Papayannakis drew up his report. We would like a full explanation of that, but it makes sense to have it from the Council, which carried out this decision, rather than from the Commission, which was, I suppose, only a spectator. So please could we put off this debate on the French beef ban, and could we also make sure that the Council speaks in the Papayannakis report?

Political group: PPE-DE
I support this report, which is intended to provide a new boost for measures to combat corruption, detailing what has been done and what needs to be improved and identifying the areas in which the Union should focus its efforts in the fight against corruption. Globalisation, in conjunction with other factors, has led to increased cross-border trade. Corruption in one Member State is consequently no longer only a domestic problem; it becomes a transnational problem, which would be combated more effectively by means of joint EU action. The Union must demonstrate determination to introduce and enforce an anti-corruption culture at all levels of political activity, in both the public and private sectors and at both national and Community levels, because corruption constitutes a threat to law-abiding society, distorts competition and hampers economic development. I would recall, bearing in mind the recent case of Eurostat, that, in addition to the corruption perpetrated by representatives of the Community institutions, there is another worrying problem: the loss of citizens’ confidence in the process of European integration. The role of the European bodies responsible for encouraging cooperation between Member States in eliminating corruption is crucial. Coordinated action by these bodies (Eurojust, Europol, OLAF and the European Judicial Network) will strengthen the actions undertaken by national police forces and will facilitate transnational investigations, by sharing the Member States’ information capacities.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Council must know how many female agricultural workers are going to join the Union.

Political group: PSE
I wish to thank Commissioner Nielson for his reply. I am pleased that steps are being taken by the Commissioner to follow up on the commitments already made, and look forward to the outcome of the meeting on 8 July. The global statistics for the involvement of children in labour are really astonishing, particularly when you see the breakdown, where it is estimated that something like two million children globally are involved in prostitution and pornography and approximately six million children are in bonded or forced labour. The global figure is something close to 200 million for child labour. Could the Commissioner indicate in what way we can hope to measure the success of the ILO and the European Union's efforts in this area? In addition, could he indicate how we can discourage the major sports companies which sell sports shoes and clothing at inflated prices in European stores? How can we avoid the situation that, when they come under pressure in India, they move to China to carry on exactly the same trade?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the European Union boasts great variety, yet we have a tendency to centralise everything and make it uniform. This is once again illustrated by Mr Piecyk’s report on seaports and inland ports. This report and these amendments, in fact, deal with a number of very different situations. As before, when we were discussing reports on marine pollution and air traffic, we need to draw a distinction between North and South, large and small, and policy which is driven by profit and that which is driven by environmental considerations. It is therefore not easy to use the same yardstick to assess all ports across the European Union. According to some, the report and its amendments enable small ports to strengthen their position, ports which are indispensable for the accessibility and survival of islands and remote coastal areas. Based on this viewpoint, every small port and every ferry port which handles a great deal of tourist traffic should feature on the European list. Port policy would then mainly focus on offering support to peripheral regions. However, in Europe’s most densely populated area around the North Sea and the Channel, there are major ports, including that of my home town, Rotterdam. They are caught up in a bitter competitive battle, partly brought on by the fact that they are offering as many facilities as possible to transport companies at the lowest possible rates. Rotterdam wants to remain the world’s largest port and competes with Le Havre, Dunkirk, Zeebrugge, Antwerp, Amsterdam, Bremen and Hamburg for the same cargo volumes. There is even a notion that Rotterdam should be a “mainport” where all goods reaching the European west coast from other continents must be transhipped to vessels which distribute them to the surrounding ports. Other large ports too are striving for growth and dominance. This competitive battle is at the expense of the environment and at the expense of the financial elbowroom of the large cities. European port policy should be able to do something about this and should be able to distribute the cargo volumes over a larger area. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find initiatives to this effect in any of the proposals. IN THE CHAIR: MR WIEBENGAVice-President

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I voted in favour of the common-sense considerations on the ecological disaster which threatens our planet if current developments continue. These concerns are, however, drowned out in a hotchpotch of irresolute declarations. Neither the Brussels Commission nor the European Parliament have any desire to act or even clearly name the parties responsible for these disastrous ecological developments. The European institutions confine themselves to pious hopes for the protection of the tropical forest, for example, while the major trusts of the wood industry, who are the industrial butchers of forests in any number of countries in south-east Asia or in Africa, foist their activities on the local populations. We know full well who they are. In a number of poor countries, of course, it is the population which is destroying the forests by clearing trees, either to find a minimum income, or to clear the way and gain access to land that they could not otherwise access. But to claim to incorporate the environmental aspect into the development process is pure hypocrisy when the ruling classes of rich countries are in fact blocking the poor countries’ path to development and are maintaining the majority of their populations in poverty.

Political group: GUE-NGL