GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
On behalf of the quite large Non-attached Group of thirty-plus Members, some of them refugees from other places, I congratulate you on taking office. This is a wide and diverse group with a lot of political philosophies, which stretch across the whole range, but they have in common the fact that they all have a political mandate, they have all been supported by thousands, indeed often millions of people in various ballot boxes in different countries. Winston Churchill once said that democracy can be inconvenient, but it is the best system we know. You also, in your introduction, made a point about people who feel marginal. Often, people within this group have felt marginal; indeed some of them used to be in a group that was dissolved and they felt very unhappy about the way that was done. I do not wish to make any political points because it would be very difficult to find a common political point in this group; but I do want to point out what unites all the members of the Non-attached Group, which is that we look to you for fairness, we look to you for reasonable treatment, we look to you to recognise people in this part of the House when they speak and we look to you to recognise that although many of us may be awkward, we are nonetheless democrats and we nonetheless wish to play a part in the workings of this House. You come from a small country and a small group; indeed we know that you come from a very small group because you were a group of one when you came from Ireland. I am now a group of one so that gives us something in common. So, from one member of a group of one to another member of a group of one, let me say: congratulations. We look forward to working with you and I know all my colleagues on these new benches look forward to you treating them fairly and, I hope, giving them the democratic respect which I know they all deserve. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner Vitorino, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to congratulate Mr Kirkhope. In fact, his name fills us with hope. Mr Kirkhope’s document has lifted the lid on a great deal – a great deal of child suffering and human suffering. We are delighted that there is now a definition at long last. Secondly, that this phenomenon must be increasingly brought into the open and binding measures must be drafted. This includes setting up contact points, such as those in Belgium and the Netherlands, and also in the other EU Member States and candidate countries. After all, there is quite obviously a correlation between child pornography on the Internet and trafficking in children. This correlation is evident in the countries of origin, the transit countries and the host countries in the European Union. This is also borne out by the studies carried out by police forces in this field with regard to under-age asylum seekers. They disappear on their own, or even accompanied, from asylum centres and reappear within the world of prostitution. This correlation is also evident in the case of possibly kidnapped and missing children. Recently, mothers recognised their own children on a porn website which could be viewed at police stations in France. We also know that details of people’s identity are used or misused by people with connections in the world of child porn websites. In order to conceal their own identity, they use the bank details of others. In order to stamp out child pornography, we need a multi-disciplinary approach. The police and criminal investigation services must be able to do their jobs well. This means that the politicians need to ensure that the police can do its job effectively. The police within the European Union work differently from the police in some candidate countries, as other MEPs have already pointed out. Politicians too should believe that child pornography exists on the Internet. The NGOs are doing a great job. To finish off, I would like to point out that some pimps use the Internet to distribute photographs of young people engaged in prostitution.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, as colleagues have already commented this evening, these are very important reports because lawmaking is arguably the most important part of government and it defines, in many ways, the fundamental character of any system of governance. I have been in and out of this Parliament now for almost 15 years, and throughout that period there have been reports about the subject matter that we are discussing this evening. What I am not sure about is whether, over that period, legislation has improved or worsened. But I am sure that there is much more political interest in, and debate about, this subject now than there was in my earlier days. That, I am sure, is something of a move in the right direction. Nevertheless, the proof of the pudding is in the eating - as we say in Britain. It is not what the Commission, or the Council, or the Parliament say that matters: it is what we do that counts. What, therefore, are the crucial points? The first is, of course, democracy. All procedures for government, whether administration or legislation, must be underpinned by the ballot box. Those who take decisions in these areas must be answerable and accountable for what they do. Finally, the systems in which they work must be transparent. Secondly, all this must take place in the framework of a rule of law. Where abuse occurs, there must be available legal redress administered by an independent judiciary. This can take place in a whole variety of areas: whether there is a failure to transpose, or whether something takes place as a result of improper procedures. To pick up on a point that Mr Medina Ortega made, the areas where self-regulation is in place must in turn operate under the rule of law. Thirdly, there is that frequently banded-about word ‘subsidiarity’. We should not be doing at European level what should in fact be done at a national level, however exactly you define that. Fourthly there is proportionality. Any legislation that we draw up must be proportionate to the abuse or the mischief which it is intended to address. In this context, while I commend the proposals of the Mandelkern Report, we must be careful that the impact assessments do not themselves turn into an additional bureaucratic hurdle in the legislative process. Finally, of course, there is a need for clarity. All I can say is, as an Englishman, that an awful lot of the English that is produced in Brussels is not recognised as such by my fellow countrymen. We should lead by example. Do we actually improve legislation as it passes through this House? I think the truthful answer is that ‘sometimes we do’, when in fact the answer should be ‘always’. We should begin by putting our own house in order.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, each year, at the beginning of the budgetary procedure, we face the challenge of responding to a public which is justifiably concerned and to the challenge of discovering whether we are capable of achieving a serious and effective balance in order to guide the next budget in such a way that taxpayers will know on what, how and why the European Union is going to spend their money. I would firstly like to express my satisfaction at the excellent work of the general rapporteur, Mr Carlos Costa Neves, and to congratulate and wish Mrs Buitenweg and Mr Colom every success so that they can reach the agreement we all need as soon as possible. All of us are concerned, and with good reason, not only about achieving a financial regulation which meets the legitimate demands of this Parliament, but also about the Union’s political will to deal with the phenomenon of illegal immigration. I am grateful that Mr Costa Neves has had the political sensitivity to lend budgetary support to this priority. I would ask the Commission and the Council to show the same concern and sensitivity, which must be translated into programmes in favour of true integration, into effective support for the regions of origin and into the creation of a common immigration policy which will support and facilitate the work of the Member States in this area. Although immigration, the repercussions of enlargement on agricultural spending, the animal health crisis and consumer protection generate disquiet and concern throughout the Union, the sectoral problems must also be responded to within these budgetary guidelines. I would ask for solidarity for the fisheries sectors in Spain and Portugal. Thousands of workers and hundreds of vessels are waiting for compliance with the safeguard clause laid down at the European Council in Nice in relation to aid for the restructuring of the Community fleet which has been unable to work. Given Morocco’s clearly hostile response throughout the negotiation process, the European Union must respond effectively and with solidarity.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, you have in principle anticipated my point. Nonetheless, Mr Posselt is right. We need to discuss Thursday afternoon's agenda. I have no wish to gainsay my honourable friend Mr Whitehead, who said at the start of the debate that he had to give his speech and then leave to catch a flight, but to me it is absolutely unbelievable that a Parliament should arrange its schedule to accommodate Members' flight connections. (Applause) We in the Group of the shall therefore be discussing this with our Rules of Procedure experts. Other groups should do likewise, so that we can return to the old schedule for Thursday afternoons. Otherwise we might as well spare ourselves the effort. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mrs Langenhagen, the draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Fisheries, has clearly communicated the concerns of this committee with regard to the draft Budget for 2004. In the view of the Socialists, and in my view as their spokesman, three of the issues of the many which the rapporteur indicates in her report are the most prominent and my group fully agrees with them. The first relates to the socio-economic crisis in the white fish sector, which results from the recovery plans for a series of species including hake and cod and to which we must now also add halibut in the fishing grounds of the NAFO. We agree with the sum of EUR 150 million proposed by the rapporteur. The second, ladies and gentlemen, relates to the scrapping fund, for which the Committee on Fisheries proposes a sum of EUR 32 million. I would like to say to the Commissioner that he, as Commissioner, and the Commission itself, has promoted a reform of the CFP of a highly destructive nature, scrapping fleets, and that the Commissioner for budgets should perhaps tell us now how much additional funding is going to be allocated by the Commission to pay for this policy of scrapping. The third issue I would like to focus on is the fisheries agreements. The new ones: Tanzania, Kenya, Libya, etc. for which additional funds will be needed, and the old ones, for which the Committee on Fisheries maintains its former demand that the part corresponding to compensation for fishing opportunities be separated in this budget line from the part corresponding to development cooperation with third countries.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr Solana, I believe that we can establish a link, not only a philosophical link but also a political one between the problem in the Middle East, Iraq and Chechnya and the role of Europe. I think that our role is to be clear-headed and to state the truth. Mr Wurtz is right in saying that twenty years ago we condemned, twenty years ago we ...We say this to the Israelis. That is right and it is true. And to the Palestinians we must say: twenty years ago, we said you must acknowledge not only the State of Israel but also that there would be no mass return of Palestinians to that State of Israel. Both these things are true. If we want to give some hope to the Israeli population, we must eradicate the fear. They fear the attacks, the fatal, suicide attacks, which above all mean that those who carry out these attacks do not recognise the State of Israel. The Palestinians fear occupation by the Israeli army. The two things are very closely related. And then in Iraq, the truth is straightforward. We say that Iraq must recognise the UN resolutions, in other words, all weapons, if they exist that is – and I know nothing about that, I had never been an inspector, nor have you, nor have any of us, no one here in fact – must be destroyed after they have been inspected. The way in which Saddam Hussein conducts politics and has conducted politics in the past is a danger to other nations. Therefore, we must also call for weapons inspectors and for non-governmental organisations to be allowed in to inspect the democratic situation and the relationship between the Iraqi people and Saddam Hussein. The same applies to Russia and Chechnya. It is quite incredible that Russian women and children were indeed taken hostage, and we condemn this. It is even more incredible that Mr Putin then took the hostages hostage, failing to say how they were, which gases were to be used, and failed to communicate the information at his disposal to the families. It is equally incredible that the entire Chechen population can be taken hostage by a former KGB man who is acting as if the Bolsheviks and Communists were still in power, as a KGB agent, in other words. Europe must condemn the attacks, Europe must take part in anti-terrorist actions and Europe must say no to all totalitarian impulses, even if a power such as Russia is involved. The Duma voted in favour of restricting the right to information which is tantamount to restricting democracy. If Europe remains silent in the face of Putin’s actions, then Europe will not have had the insight or the strength to safeguard democracy. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, at the meeting at Feira it was decided to increase flexibility. My interpretation of this is that flexibility will also be introduced in second pillar matters, in a foreign and security policy. Is yours the same interpretation? At the same time I have been following the French President’s ideas on how the countries of the European Union should develop at their own pace and on how there should possibly be a hard and solid core of pioneer states. Do you consider that such a hard core – as the former President of the Commission, Jacques Delors, calls it – could include a country that is militarily non-aligned?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, we are all still wondering how this could have happened. The fact is, international mobilisation was slow and initially inadequate with the exception of immediate aid from neighbouring countries, notably South Africa, and only at the beginning of March did significant international support begin to flow in. The first point to note is that the international organisational structures necessary to deal with such disasters do not exist, because where the technical resources do exist, they exist within each country’s armed forces and security forces, forces prepared for search and rescue operations. We do not yet know the final toll for this disaster. But we do know that some two million people have been affected, we do know that at this moment there is a calamitous lack of drinking water, and we do know there are an estimated one and a half million anti-personnel mines left in the country and many of them have been dragged onto farmland and highways that had already been cleared of mines. It is now a question of rebuilding the country. Mozambique is a country martyred by a colonial war conducted by a government which, in Portugal, also oppressed the Portuguese people until the liberation of 25 April 1974. It was torn apart until a few years ago by a bloody civil war, but is recognised internationally as being exemplary in the way it has established itself on the path of economic, social and political development. First of all, we must provide relief and restore hope to the people of Mozambique. The shock must be absorbed and the economy relaunched. We can now welcome the international mobilisation which is under way and the President of Mozambique himself has already expressed gratitude for the extent of the aid. As for the European Union, it must take a leading role. For one thing, the Paris Club has the capacity to contribute effectively in material terms, and in fact it has just taken the decision to suspend debt servicing until a global agreement is reached on total cancellation. In our opinion, the countries of the European Union should act rapidly to achieve this. In addition, in cooperation with the local authorities and other countries and organisations, particularly the United Nations, the European Union can make a serious effort to organise and support the reconstruction of Mozambique. Let us work towards that, let us strongly support the international conference on the reconstruction of Mozambique due to be organised by Canada. Let us work to ensure that the international community is able to build up the resources needed for rapid reaction to grave humanitarian disaster situations. Let us, in the European Parliament, ensure that the European Union plays its part. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, species extinction and the loss of biodiversity in Europe and worldwide are proceeding at an ever-increasing pace. Despite all the measures we have taken so far, we have quite simply failed to curb this trend. Following the adoption by the Council of the Community strategy on biodiversity in June 1998, it is gratifying that the communication proposes biodiversity action plans in four areas – conservation of natural resources, fisheries, economic cooperation, and development – and this is of course very welcome in principle. The Commission's proposals on agriculture are to be welcomed as well. I am therefore rather disappointed that the otherwise excellent report by the rapporteur takes such a negative view of agriculture – at least, that is how we see it – and fails to make any mention of agriculture's contribution to protecting biodiversity. My group will vote for this report, but we will vote against it on a number of individual points. You see, I come from a country which would have no future without its farmers. Austria is primarily an Alpine country, and without our Alpine farmers – whose working practices date back a hundred or even two hundred years – there would be a great deal wrong with our country. We are well aware that agriculture – especially non-intensive agriculture – also maintains specific eco-systems. Some habitats, such as those which exist in the mosaic of planted fields and boundaries defined by hedgerows and ditches, are quite simply vital to protect specific flora and fauna and ensure that they can nest and find sources of food. I do not want to recite a list of the different types of bird affected or tell you which species have survived as a result of agriculture, and I certainly have no intention of telling you all about plant and insect species. Nonetheless, I think it is important to mention that non-intensive agriculture – let me emphasise this quite specifically – non-intensive and family-based agriculture has made a very substantial contribution to the conservation of wild and, indeed, domesticated flora and fauna. I believe that if we fail to recognise the contribution made by farmers today, we are doing a disservice to our natural environment and our eco-systems. We will vote for this report, but in the areas where we think it does not do justice to our farmers, we will vote against it. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
The importance of the negotiations about to take place under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation, which will open in Seattle on 30 November, is of course due to an agenda that covers huge areas of human activity: from agriculture to cultural activities, transport to education and health, copyright and designations of origin to foreign investment, and all of this combined in a global perspective as if these were all nothing more than simple “saleable” goods. Some issues are particularly important – and they become particularly serious – because the guidelines which it is being sought to impose on them are obvious, such as liberalisation and the total control of world trade, the systematic privatisation of the public sectors and services which still claim to be public, deregulation and free access to public markets. What this means is that we are facing an obviously neo-liberal perspective, which we are not only trying to uphold but also trying to consolidate and strengthen. This type of objective is cropping up in such topical matters as food safety, public services and “intellectual property”, always in favour of a blind liberalisation of capital and in disregard of ILO working standards and of environmental rules that have been accepted throughout the world. This objective has dangerous implications for people’s cultural identity and for the actual development of dozens of countries, particularly the poorest. These facts, of course, are causing growing movements of public opinion which are expressing reasonable concerns and seeking new directions. There is, of course, no question as to the need for international economic regulation. It is, nevertheless, obvious that there other ways of achieving this, ways that are quite different from those currently in force and to those being planned, and this places the need for a moratorium on negotiations on international trade relations on the agenda. Apart from this, this regulation will always need to be guided by principles of cooperation and development; it will need to include respect for social and environmental standards adhered to throughout the world; it will need to respect the wishes, interests, specific differences and different degrees of development of the States concerned; it will need to respect and promote preferential agreements such as the Lomé Convention, and it will need to reject the treatment of some human activities such as education and culture as mere goods. As it is so vital, it must be made completely transparent. New MAIs must be stopped and some laws must be definitively revoked, such as the Helms-Burton law blocking Cuba, as they are illegal from the perspective of international law. Now this is quite obviously not the guideline that is currently being proposed to us. This is why, of course, we are voting against the Schwaiger report.

Political group: GUE-NGL