GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mr Kirkhope for his excellent report. There is no doubt in anybody’s mind: the physical and emotional integrity of children and the protection of victims of sexual crimes are of fundamental importance and must lie at the heart of the Union's concerns. Despite earlier initiatives by the Commission and Parliament, the misuse of the Internet and its harmful and illegal content have only increased, and it is time and again apparent how difficult it is to combat child pornography. What exactly needs to be done in order to combat child pornography effectively, especially on the Internet? First of all, we need to set up an easily accessible and recognisable contact point. In fact, the Netherlands was the first country to set up such a contact point back in 1996, on the initiative of the Internet providers. Secondly, for the purposes of enforcement, police forces and the judiciary need more expertise regarding the Internet and ancillary digital technology. This is simply lacking. Officials need to be trained well, otherwise they will be unable to combat child pornography effectively. Lastly, the penalties must be harmonised in Europe and must be increased. If not, the Internet will remain a threat and it will never be the challenge which it could be.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, Commissioner, the Dakota Indians have a wise saying: ‘when you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount’. Things have not yet got quite that bad with the WTO, but what happened in Cancún is certainly a cause for concern. I too regard abandoning the negotiations more as a pyrrhic victory for the developing countries than as a success. Another interesting point here is the suggestion that the negotiations foundered on the rock of agricultural issues. How could that have been the case, though, when there were never to be any negotiations in the form of an official agriculture round? I too regard the EU proposal on agriculture as totally acceptable, even if many developing countries were looking for something more. It was still an excellent proposal. So what role did the United States play? It suited President Bush very well that there were no negotiations at all on agriculture, because reality would then have dawned on many countries. They would have then realised just who was putting the brakes on and that would have no doubt somewhat irritated the ‘coalition of the willing’ and those dependent on it. Mexico accordingly had to break off negotiations before they had even started, and the United States is also more interested in bilateral treaties than multilateral ones. I have one more thing to say, however, about those who believe that they now need to mount a campaign against the NGOs. Firstly, they greatly overestimate the NGOs' power, and, secondly, they demonstrate what they ultimately think about participation by some areas of civil society. My advice to them is to close this particular can of worms before it leads to their own downfall.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on the issue of fishing, there is a constant tendency in this Parliament to confuse privileges with conservation. I agree that there must be areas in which special conservation measures must be taken, and even that there must be no fishing in them for many years. But this conservation has nothing to do with the fact that in certain areas there are States who enjoy the privilege of fishing and others for whom it is banned. In this regard, the case of the Irish Box for example, or other areas in European Community waters, that is, continental waters, is not the same as the case of the Azores. In the Azores, the problem is that they do not have a continental shelf, and those islands must be granted a privilege so that they can survive by means of fishing. In the Irish Box or other areas, we are talking about a privilege granted to several States in violation of Community law. In this regard, this confusion has been exploited to achieve a vote whose result I believe to be profoundly wrong.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, you are right: a serious political crisis is at hand in Moldova. I do not share the opinion of the Council of Europe's rapporteur, who believes that there is still a chance of the government itself finding a solution to this political crisis. I suspect that, following the vote on the lifting of the immunity of two opposition politicians – something I regard as irregular – the ruling parties see themselves as victors and do not grasp what three months of mass demonstrations mean, namely that they have forfeited the confidence placed in them and that they themselves are no longer in a position to lead their country out of the crisis at the present point in time. I fear that the crisis in this utterly impoverished country will escalate and thus make it ungovernable. I therefore believe that immediate action by the Council and the Commission is required and that they should not wait until the chestnuts are back in the fire. It is my view that the following must be done. The EU, the OSCE and the Council of Europe must form a troika to mount a short-term mission to the country. This mission must reach agreement with the government as to what steps have to be taken in order for the crisis to be resolved. Sanctions will also have to be discussed so that the government does not take these steps half-heartedly. The steps required include, in my view, exemption from punishment for those who have protested peacefully in the past or may do so in the future, the withdrawal of all resolutions on the Russian language and on the teaching of history, the revocation of all the measures that amount to censorship of the media, and the securing of basic conditions for political and economic development.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, 'sticks and carrots' quoth Mr Watson: there were plenty of sticks and carrots in the Stability Pact - sticks for the workers and carrots for the managers, sticks for the unemployed and carrots for the financiers. Not only was the Stability Pact socially unfair, it was totally unworkable, and the tragedy about breaking it is not that we did not wish it to be respected, it is that it was ever set up. That was the real tragedy. If we had stuck to the Maastricht criteria with the same severity that the Stability Pact asks us to stick to the three per cent, would there be a euro today? Would there be a euro, Commissioner? I ask everybody here to put their hand on their heart and answer that question honestly, like honest people who want rules to be respected. The second point about this is that the Commission tells us that it will continue applying the Pact. If the same case happens again, how will the Pact be applied? I hope with the same latitude that was shown to France and Germany. It would be unfair for a different standard to be applied to a small country in the future. It has also been suggested that the deficits of today are the taxes of tomorrow. How very simple! The deficits of today can also be the investment of today, which will produce the higher income of tomorrow, from which higher taxes can easily be paid. So I suggest we stop making virtuous speeches here and go and enrol in a good course of elementary macroeconomics, which some of us here seem to need - of course, I am not including the Minister in this comment. He seems to know about it - or has learned about it - and I am grateful to him for that. The substance of the matter is that today we need expansionary, rather than contractionary, economic policy. Just as there is inflationary stability, there can also be deflationary stability. From that point of view the demise of the Stability Pact is good for stability.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I really want to support the proposals of the rapporteur and Chairman of the Committee, Mr Rocard. There is no need to go into the appalling nature of the decision in 1999, which established selection entirely leaving out the ten countries that are joining us in less than a month. The solution proposed by the Commission, which aimed to split the procedure in two, would mean that for much too long a period – until 2019 – there would be two colleges, which is quite the opposite to integration. Integration does not mean continuing with two colleges within the Union and its selection and decision-making processes made up of old and new Member States. I think that this goes entirely against the desired objective, which we say is for them to become members. Therefore, and also for other reasons, I think it is wise to stop this in 2010. The other reasons are linked to the evaluation that is taking place, which you mentioned, Commissioner. I think that the deviations that have been highlighted by Mr Rocard, which are linked to decisions that are far too motivated by self-interest, exploitative and for reasons of prestige or even less attractive reasons, even political reasons, have reduced the European quality of these events and that is what we need to discuss. This is the quality that the new selection process, which we say we want, needs to reaffirm, definitely through competition, also taking into account the events that are taking place at the moment, such as Lille 2004. The event is on the one hand very attractive and factual, with very interesting things to see, but at the same time there is a great frustration among those involved. Artists and those involved in culture are quick to point out that this event, which is mainly focused around factual matters, could devalue their work as artists, break down the relationship that there normally is with the public and result in fierce competition between cultural structures. These collective comments from a network of cultural players and artists in a city or region where the ‘European Capital of Culture’ project is taking place, in Lille, should attract the attention and interest of the evaluation that is underway and encourage care. We should await the evaluation and try to find a selection and competition method that will promote adding value to Europe, as this is the challenge, to ensure that culture is valued across Europe.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, everyone is agreed that something needs to change within the railway industry. It needs to operate within a large-scale European network instead of just within the individual Member State borders. Long waiting and transfer times at borders and the fact that direct international connections have ceased to exist are a cause of frustration. We would all like to see ineffective, conservative and bureaucratic procedures brought to an end. Indeed, they cause frustration amongst users and unnecessarily drive freight and passengers onto other types of transport. I indicated yesterday as well as during previous debates that cooperation between the railway companies of the different Member States should be stepped up, so as to offer joint solutions for cross-border traffic. This cooperation should have been sought a long time ago. If this had been the case, there would have been fewer opportunities for those intending to elbow out existing railway companies by introducing newcomers onto the market which offer price reductions to the detriment of the working environment, working conditions and the environment in general. Mr Swoboda is right in stating that years of lack of investment in capacity, infrastructure and technology must now be rectified. He entertains the possibility of authorities offering financial compensation in order to make the use of railways safe for public transport and does not rule out a role for public companies in future. On the other hand, however, his statement that, in this line of industry, rights must be available to all to an equal extent, makes him a hostage to liberal ideas. This is borne out in his ideas that we should aim for full recovery of costs rather than expect extra charges for each additional train. One unintended consequence could be that passengers and freight are forced to use alternatives which, can, on this basis, compete structurally at lower prices. These are cheaper for the consumer, but cost society as a whole more dearly because these alternatives cannot afford to care as much about workers and the environment. In addition, Mr Swoboda has deleted the exemption rules for islands and Member States which do not have cross-border railway connections, as formulated in the Council’s common position. In his opinion, everyone should be affected by liberalisation to the same degree. In our view, this deletion does not constitute an improvement on the Council’s position.

Political group: GUE-NGL
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. – Mr President, as has already been said, this is one of the major issues facing the European Union. As the elderly population increases, we need to work out ways of coping with it and to find a strategy across the European Union which really works. But this is ultimately the responsibility of Member States. Our challenge is to ensure that Member States carry on with their own provision, but with coordination and cooperation and the sharing of best practice throughout the European Union. We must also be aware that not all elderly people fall into the same category. Elderly people should be encouraged to remain active because otherwise, as previous speakers have said, this will ultimately cost more money than we are able to afford at the moment. So we need to find a sustainable way of keeping people active and healthy for as long as possible. I welcome Mr Mantovani's report and the Commission communication. We must ensure that, sooner rather than later, there is real dialogue between Member States and an exchange of best practice, so that we can put the strategies into effect and make this a reality.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the most important renewable energy source is hydroelectric power. Without it the part played by renewable energy sources in the energy production of EU Member States would be very low, although the important role played by wind power in Denmark cannot be underestimated. Other renewable sources of energy are difficult to find. The view of the Council, according to which the incineration of unsorted waste is considered to be renewable energy, is unsustainable. Hydroelectric power should be supplemented by forms of energy other than waste incineration. Parliament is sticking to its target of twelve percent of gross energy consumption being produced by renewable energy by 2010, but this is not far away, so achieving this target may be wishful thinking. The lack of funding for the Altener Programme indicates that the EU is not playing a major role in achieving this target. Achieving this target is thus entirely down to the Member States.

Political group: GUE-NGL
he horrifying events in Madrid gave the European Council an excuse to speed up the application of anti-democratic measures already legislated and to move even closer to the USA and ΝΑΤΟ. Apart from strengthening mechanisms for prosecuting, putting on electronic file and controlling (in other words, hunting) the persecuted seeking refuge on our continent, controls will be carried out on charities, to make sure they are not financing terrorists and, of course, on extreme religious and political persuasions. The real causes of terrorism remained outside the interests of the Council, for obvious reasons. In the economic sector, having confirmed that capitalist restructuring is not going all that well, they again call on the workers to sacrifice themselves for the sake of the profits of the monopolies. The systems of social protection will have to be ‘modernised’, the elderly will have to work, everyone will have to be at the mercy of employers on minimum terms, in insecure, part-time jobs. Every country will be controlled and recommendations will be made to any which do not comply. Thus we shall acquire ‘more and better jobs’! Knowing that their conclusions will cause a new wave of grass-roots fights, they call on the Member States to ‘build Reform Partnerships involving the social partners’. Even if a few bought-out leaders assist, we are certain that grass-roots resistance will strengthen. The peoples have the power to ruin their plans.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would first of all like to join in warmly congratulating the Greek Presidency. Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Thessaloniki offers you the opportunity to strengthen the Union's immigration policies and to improve the measures for offering security to European citizens. These are two essential, but different, objectives. You must confront the new threats resulting from organised crime, whose tentacles stretch throughout and beyond the European Union, and you have instruments for doing so, such as the European arrest warrant and Europol. Strengthen them and use them to combat large-scale international crime and also small-scale crime, the crime which fills our streets with beggars, children and prostitutes, victims of human trafficking, but please do so using the instruments necessary for each issue. A member of Al Qaeda is not an illegal immigrant who indulges in terrorism, but an international criminal. And you must manage immigration, which is a different thing, a complex social phenomenon which should be dealt with from different angles. Do that, please. Return to the global and integrated vision laid down at Tampere. Return to the map drawn up by the Commission, adopt the legislative framework envisaged, apply the measures proposed by the Commission with regard to third countries, integration, employment, with regard to all the issues relating to this field. Mr President-in-Office of the Council, the majority of illegal immigrants enter the Union legally. The majority of illegal immigrants are domestic employees working in our homes. A danger to the European Union? To whom? And above all, please, please call things by their real name. If the leaders of the European Union are going to persist in mixing international organised crime with immigration we are going to have a problem. If we tell the citizens that immigration, even if the adjective illegal is added, is one of the new dangers to be confronted by the Union, we should not be surprised if it leads to excessive reactions, we should not be surprised if it creates a problem with the citizens of the Union and their perception of immigration. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I have a request: the next item, paragraph 48, is the very sensitive issue of party membership of Commissioners. Since the vote on the first and second part might be misleading, because there is no first and second part, it is a parenthesis which needs to be removed, I would ask you to read out this parenthesis so that the Members know what they are voting on today.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, competition stimulates business, as the example of the motor industry over the last 100 years has shown. The fact that there were at least three major production centres, the USA, Europe and Asia, was extremely good for business all round. Airbus is another good example of what can be achieved by exposure to international competition, if we are not simply content for other people to make a good product that we can buy or even use free of charge like the GPS. It will be no different with what we are discussing today – the GALILEO satellite navigation system. Of course it is no bad thing that GPS exists. Of course it is no bad thing, it may even be a good thing, that in many cases it is available to users free of charge. But that there is, to all intents and purposes, only an American system is not good at all. The Russian GLONASS is probably not entirely in the same category. We Europeans have no real rights of access. The examples there have been in the past have shown that we are suddenly bereft of navigation in one case or another. Almost more important and quite central from my point of view as a university teacher is that we have no real involvement in technological innovation if we are not engaged in development ourselves, if we do not carry out research ourselves and if we do not ourselves take research to the applications stage so that it can also go into industrial production. We need both, we need access and we need technological development. We cannot talk about a society of knowledge and learning without taking the next logical step. Above all, too, we also need the many potential applications in transport. I believe that requires no further explanation. Admittedly there are also problems when it comes to GALILEO. The problems of finance have still not really been resolved. Industry is still biding its time, waiting for public funding, while the public authorities in turn plead Maastricht criteria, empty pockets and the like. Hopefully there will sooner or later be a genuine public and private partnership in this matter. A last word on the tricky subject of double use or only civilian use. I cannot understand the naivety of many of the tabled amendments. There is not only good in the world. The events of 11 September were a cruel demonstration of that. Finally a word of thanks and appreciation to the two ladies who have made such a big contribution to this evening’s report, the rapporteur Brigitte Langenhagen and the Transport Commissioner Loyola de Palacio. Neither of them lost their bearings in dealing with this topic.

Political group: PPE-DE