GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I too am pleased about the progress we have made in 2003 in crucial areas such as the control of external borders, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime. As a Liberal politician with a fundamental belief in the basic freedoms upon which our democracies are based, I also think that 2003 is the time for some basic reflections upon the initiatives that have already been implemented and, especially, that are being planned under the overall heading of security. I fully acknowledge that the terrorist attacks of 2001 are cause for revising and upgrading our security. As I see it, the attacks of 2001 were above all attacks on the democratic values and fundamental freedoms that we cherish. It is therefore crucial that terrorism should not cause us to compromise in relation to these fundamental values. More specifically, I am thinking, for example, of third countries being permitted direct access to personal data in central reservation systems for air passengers, the introduction of armed marshals on aircraft and the introduction of biometric data into the travel documents of third-country citizens and into the passports of all EU citizens. Quite a few of these initiatives involve very extensive intrusions into the sanctity of private life, raising as yet unsolved issues in relation to current legislation on data safety and the risks of data being misused. I think, in actual fact, that it is time we now did some reflecting upon whether or not these security arrangements are out of proportion. In other words, do the initiatives comply with the basic criteria governing the fundamental freedoms that we, of course, specifically cherish in the European Union? Are the benefits of the initiatives proportionate to their cost? In this area, I am concerned that the Commission was not even in a position to inform me, as rapporteur, about the biometric data required of third-country citizens and about the precise numbers of visa applicants, falsified travel documents etc. The question I should therefore like to put to the Commissioner concerns whether or not the initiatives now being taken with a view to stepping up security are commensurate with a concern not to intrude upon the sanctity of private life and the personal dignity of EU citizens.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Mr Maat has committed himself most impressively to the issue of school milk. That is a good thing. I myself am a great supporter of school milk. In fact, I think that not only children but adults too should drink more milk. I regret therefore that there is no fresh milk available at the Parliament building in Brussels. I do hope that Mr Maat’s next battle will concentrate on making fresh milk available in Brussels. Having said that, I do not support Mr Maat’s proposals. In the evaluation report on the school milk regulation that the Commission itself quotes, it says that if you only take account of the explicitly stated objectives of the regulation particularly to maintain and increase the consumption of dairy products and promote the sale of surpluses, the positive effects are marginal. Nevertheless, on 10 December, the Commission decided not to withdraw the measures but to halve the subsidy. I have asked the Commission a number of questions in this regard. I asked Commissioner Fischler to what extent this measure corresponded with the subsidiarity principle. I believe that this measure could be implemented perfectly well by the national parliaments and that national MPs would be quite able to do so. I am also not convinced about the scientific basis as far as certain aspects of public health are concerned. Moreover, when dealing with public health, the Commission must make a proposal on the basis of the chapter on “Public Health” in the Treaty. Nor is it clear to me in the school milk regulation how much will be spent on administration costs. It is such a small proportion of the overall milk production that I feel that this weighs particularly heavily on the European Commission budget. I am also not sure what the financial consequences will be after enlargement. I am not an opponent of school milk as such but I do object to the way we are going about it. I believe that the Commission must confine itself to the core tasks and leave other matters to the Member States. I support the Commission proposal but not the proposals of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.

Political group: PSE
I have taken the floor today to call on the Presidency to send a letter, or take any other measure it deems appropriate, with regard to what is happening to Afro-Colombian communities on the Pacific coast of Colombia at the moment. Together with a group of other Members of Parliament, I wrote to Colombia in December, because these Afro-Colombian communities were being threatened. The day before yesterday, seven members of these communities were murdered. I am in possession of the details of the names and ages of the victims. However, the most serious aspect of this situation is that hundreds of other members of these communities are still being threatened. We do not have the time to write to Mr Pastrana again. I therefore believe that it falls to the Presidency of Parliament to raise awareness of this problem and ensure that these killings cease. I appeal to you, Mr President, to arrange for letters to be sent from the Presidency to Mr Pastrana and to the European institutions to draw attention to the situation and to try to prevent even worse abuses.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, it revolts, disgusts and amazes me that the previous speaker has said what he has, after justifying and aiding murderers and enemies of freedom, democracy and Europe. Mr President, I am not going to waste a single second – which is what he wants – so that I can defend what we have to defend: freedom, democracy and the area of freedom, security and justice. They are the enemies of freedom, security and justice in Europe. This must be stated categorically. Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I believe that the innovative aspect of what we are discussing here is that, at European Union level, we are providing protection for fundamental rights and for citizens’ rights. This protection, which is going to be enshrined in the new Treaty, is the fundamental condition for the success of the area of freedom, security and justice, and provides the foundation for the legitimisation of the Union. In fact, only by strengthening the protection of the rights and principles enshrined in the Rule of Law can we create the conditions for greater trust between the Member States and make it possible to produce genuinely common policies. Today, and following long delays, these policies are taking shape in the form of judicial, civil and criminal cooperation and are beginning to do so in the field of visas, asylum and immigration. In the field of judicial cooperation, the European arrest warrant has opened up the way to direct cooperation between judges and has broken down barriers so that, amongst others, terrorists and murderers cannot find refuge in European territory for their criminal and violent activities. Furthermore, we must not forget this Parliament’s constant appeals in favour of protection and support for the victims of terrorism. In the field of immigration and asylum, the progress made is not entirely satisfactory. Parliament will do everything it can to ensure that the time limits established at the Seville European Council are respected. Any further delay would not only show a lack of solidarity between the Member States, but would also be a bad sign at a time when the Union is preparing for an historic enlargement. How can we resolve amongst 25 something which we have not able to decide amongst 15? Finally, a comment on the pointless complexity of the decision-making system within the area of freedom, security and justice. Parliament reflected this situation, in which decisions were adapted within the first or the third pillar, in a resolution in 1999. Today we are glad to discover that these same arguments have found consensus within the Convention charged with reforming the Treaties.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, just a year and a half on from the start of the war, Parliament’s initial assessment has been proved right. It has proved impossible to solve any of the problems by military means, and all parties have been the losers. It is tragic that each side should resort to unacceptable methods in response to the other side’s resistance instead of finally sitting down at the negotiating table and beginning the process of reconstruction. I welcome the commitment of Parliament to respect for human rights in the refugee and prison camps. In a situation where violence is used on a routine basis, our delegations, observer missions and resolutions may be able to ease the problem, but I am convinced that they will not solve it. This is why I believe that one of our priorities will be to help this region to shape a new vision for the future. The first requirement is intensive dialogue. To this end, we should continue to use all the means available to us through our links with the Russian Duma. Sweeping condemnations, however, are unhelpful. We shall only be able to make progress in negotiations with the Russians if we take their concerns seriously too. Terrorist attacks in southern Russia and military operations by guerrillas in Chechnya, I am sorry to say, are still taking place. A short time ago, we adopted the Oostlander report, in which we explicitly welcomed the European Union’s twin-track strategy in relation to Russia. The human rights violations in Chechnya must be condemned, but at the same time we must continue to develop cooperation and dialogue. In my opinion, both components of this strategy offer scope for further development. As far as Chechnya is concerned, however, I am worried. It seems to me that the criticism of conditions in the refugee and prison camps which is voiced by the Council and the Commission, as well as by the governments of the Member States, whenever they meet with the Russians, has become something of a mechanical routine which has absolutely no effect. For that reason I should like to ask the Commission to specify the measures it proposes to take in the immediate future in order to make progress towards a political solution to the conflict in Chechnya.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Although this report deals with certain real situations, such as the increase in air traffic or the delays experienced on various routes, and although it is based on certain correct premises, specifically the need to guarantee and strengthen air transport safety, it nevertheless glosses over the underlying causes of these situations, which are inextricably linked with successive actions to liberalise air transport and with the unbridled competition that has resulted from this. In particular, it draws hasty and mistaken conclusions, which lean markedly towards the liberalisation of airspace and towards the future control of this airspace by the main air transport companies. Since it is true that effective cooperation is required and since technical and disciplinary measures are essential in this area, we do not support these guidelines, which are even more radically in favour of liberalisation than those suggested by the Commission. If these guidelines were followed, they would exacerbate safety problems and would lead to greater social problems, in addition to raising questions about the sovereignty of each state over its air space. These questions are all the more relevant because this air space is shared by their respective military air forces.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I am presenting a report by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1577/96 introducing a specific measure in respect of certain grain legumes. The European Parliament has been analysing this proposal since October 1999 and approved this draft legislative resolution unanimously on 23 February 2000. I would like to highlight the following aspects of the amendments proposed by the European Parliament. First, Amendment No 1 on the inclusion of a Recital 2a. This amendment supplements the Council approach, which is purely commercial, and opts for a proposal with wider economic, human and food quality aims. Whereas the Council only talks about the market, the European Parliament highlights the economic interest for the Community of the production of these grain legumes. Given the deficit of protein crops in the European Union, Parliament considers that this system should be improved without cutting the level of aid. Secondly, Parliament’s Amendment No 2 proposes that seed vetches should also be included in the aid system. Aid for seeds already exists for rice, chickpeas and lentils. We propose this aid because, as we all know, the production of seeds is subject to supplementary technical and quality control requirements, so that if the cultivation of seeds were not supported by some form of aid, this could have extremely negative consequences for the quality of production of seed vetches. Thirdly, Amendment No 3 indicates that, in our opinion, the Commission should, without further delay, make proposals for the 2000-2003 period. Before I finish, Mr President, I would like to point out that in 1993 – which is some time ago now – the Council indicated that it intended to gradually strengthen the current aid system for grain legumes. However, this has still not been done. Secondly, successive periods show that we are faced with a chronic imbalance in this system. The maximum guaranteed area is being systematically reduced, thus penalising time and again the farmers who are suffering reductions in aid of up to 20%. Therefore, Mr President, what the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development of the European Parliament would really like to see is an improvement in the system. However, we appreciate what the Commission is telling us, that this is a time of serious budgetary restrictions that we could not implement without reducing aid. That is why we are presenting this proposal, which is really a maintenance proposal, and what we are saying to the Commission is that, without further delay, proposals must be drawn up at the latest for the 2000-2003 period to achieve an improvement in this system without decreasing aid. I thank all the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for their collaboration and support, as well as the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. Thanks also to the Commission for its willingness to hold a dialogue and I hope it will be open to our proposals.

Political group: PSE
general rapporteur. – Mr President, this should, I hope, be the last time I speak in this vote. (Laughter) Last Monday, we discussed East Timor in the Committee on Budgets, and I just want to explain what we are doing here. To maintain a separate budget line for East Timor – which is very politically important for the Timorese Government and for many others – a split vote has been requested on Amendment 674. In order to clarify the vote, I should like to explain that the split vote means that the first part will include the amounts. If we vote in favour of the first part, we vote in favour of the increased amount, which is EUR 25.5 million. As far as I know, that is acceptable to everybody. The second part of the vote concerns the nomenclature. If you want a separate line for East Timor – which is the rapporteur's recommendation, authorised by the Committee on Budgets – you should reject the second part of the amendment by the Committee on Budgets. *** Report (A5-0350/2002) by Göran Färm, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2003 (C5-0300/2002 – 2002/2004(BUD)) and Letter of amendment No 1/2003 (12640/2002– C5-0480/2002) to the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2003 (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0351/2002) by Per Stenmarck, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2003 (C5-0300/2002 – 2002/2005(BUD)) Before the vote:

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I wanted to identify the website that I had visited this morning just before this debate. I can assure the President-in-Office of the Council that the name of the representative of the European Parliament on 7 March is not mentioned in the English version. I would be grateful therefore if you could align that with the Swedish version which is presumably up-to-date as you told us this morning.

Political group: PPE-DE
I am in total agreement with the Habitats Directive and its objectives in terms of protecting the endangered outstanding natural heritage of the countries of the European Union. This heritage and its biological and genetic diversity are the planet’s most precious assets and we must indeed ensure that they are protected, reproduced and handed down to future generations. Even so, I voted against the Sjöstedt report for two crucial reasons. Firstly, it is unacceptable to blackmail European appropriations allocated to our countries by making them conditional, in article 11, upon compliance with the Habitats Directive as it stands. If it were simply a matter of ensuring that European funds are not used to finance projects destroying these outstanding ecosystems, then I should have endorsed the resolution and voted in favour of it, but it is unacceptable and unprecedented to make a European Union policy conditional upon compliance with another and that social conditions should be subject, for example, to environmental conditions. My second reason is that the resolution does not clarify the concept of “disturbance” and the legal discussion, which is so deliberately vague that legal battles could be revived, which might lead to bans on traditional hunts where these are authorised under the Birds Directive and the subsidiary law in the states. It is precisely because the European Union deliberately maintains this ambiguity that some countries experience problems in issuing their “Nature 2000” lists and in implementing the Habitats Directive calmly, without resistance on the part of the farmers in those countries, even though everyone acknowledges the noble nature of the objectives of the directive. - Cunha report (A5-0367/2000)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to reply to the comments that have been made in previous months at this point on the agenda by Members of the Group criticising the situation in Latvia, and in particular the position of Russian speakers. It seems to me that many of those comments have been unfair and misleading. They do not refer back to the illegal Soviet occupation of Latvia, nor indeed to the Hitler-Stalin or Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. I believe that the comments were politically motivated, ignoring the very great diversity within Russian-speaking Latvians. My final point - because I believe an official rebuttal is needed - is on the Latvian electoral law. My understanding is that former members of the KGB are not permitted to stand for election; it seems to me that is in accordance with the national legislation. In this House I am sure we welcome all the new Member States into the European Union. It is important that we understand the sensitivities and the histories of those countries. I hope there will be no further comments from the Group on this subject.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would firstly like to congratulate Mr Cohn-Bendit and Mr Morillon because the working approach proposed in this report reflects the approach drawn up in the resolution on the Euro-Mediterranean Ministerial Conference in Valencia. Therefore, we will do everything possible to ensure that the consensus approach will allow this report to be effective. I am going to refer directly to the issue of human rights, as Mrs Napoletano did previously. It is especially appropriate that today’s debate on Algeria, proposed by the , is taking place so soon after the elections that a delegation from Parliament attended. I must also say that I was surprised by the Commissioner’s comments on human rights in relation to the visit of the troika, a visit which furthermore took place after the elections; I would like to remind you that our visit took place before the elections. The Committee for Information on Algeria is at work and will publish its conclusions at the appropriate time, in expectation of the work on the report on ratification which is being prepared by Mr Obiols i Germà. I would like to point out that the almost complete lack of participation in the elections in Kabilia, the very low turn-out in Algeria as a whole and the fact that the majority of the population has not been involved and that there have been significant complaints about human rights is extremely worrying. In this regard, I would like to insist once again that in our resolution on the Valencia Conference, we express our unanimous concern at the human rights situation, we defend the need for the situation not to worsen in certain countries with which we have signed association agreements – and the conditions are worsening – and we propose the establishment of mechanisms for applying the democratic clause. If we do not move in this direction, our credibility will hit rock-bottom. Therefore, Mr President, I insist that the report by Mr Morillon and Mr Cohn-Bendit moves in the right direction; we will try to persuade them to support our amendments, at least the general ones, not those relating to specific countries. If over the coming months we are not effective in our defence of human rights, through mechanisms and instruments rather than through declarations, I do not believe we will be moving in the right direction.

Political group: ELDR