GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, on a point of order I can inform the House that in no way did the visit by Members from the UK, Sweden and Germany wish to be described as a delegation. We were merely visiting the United States as a group organised from within our own national groups. We did not represent the EPP Group, we certainly did not wish to usurp the role of the official delegation. I contest the point made about the views expressed during that visit as being particularly extreme. We represented the views of our national parties over there as well as the views expressed within the European Parliament.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, promoting the cultivation of plant proteins in the European Union is one of the key issues on which the present and the future of European agriculture and food safety hinge. I therefore consider it to be extremely appropriate, Mr President, that both Commissioner Byrne, who is responsible for food safety, and the Commissioner for Agriculture and Fisheries, Mr Fischler, have attended this debate. The European Parliament has reflected the importance of the matter and has dedicated extensive debates to it as well as two parliamentary hearings. As a consequence of all of this, wills have been united and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development voted in favour of this report with an extremely broad consensus, and it today comes before the plenary without a single amendment. I congratulate Mr Stevenson on his magnificent work. The Commission ought to accept this extremely representative vote and this unity of position because, Mr Fischler, the position of the European Parliament is quite clearly reflected in paragraph 3, which says ‘The European Parliament recommends that the development of EU plant protein production should be encouraged to reduce its reliance on imports and to sustain the multi-functionality of Community agriculture’. In order for this position to develop to its full potential and to become a reality, it is absolutely crucial for the Commission to implement what is asked of it in paragraph 5: ‘...the Commission should fund an extensive research and development programme’ because unless it does fund a programme into the increased genetic and yield potential, utilisation and nutritive value of fodder legumes and grain legumes as key protein providers within the EU, what we will have are words rather than deeds. Similarly, Mr President, Recitals F and I draw attention to the Mediterranean areas, which Commissioner Fischler very frequently overlooks. It has been said more than once in today’s plenary sitting that he must review this position, because these areas must receive aid for this purpose too, so that the production of grain legumes for livestock breeding in the Mediterranean areas of the European Union can also have highly beneficial effects. Lastly, Mr President, I wish to note the importance of the suggestion made in Recital D that we must take account of the difficulties currently facing Argentina, in order not to make that country’s situation worse.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to make a correction to my statement on the EC/Switzerland agreement, because since 1 May this year, Mr Jörg Haider has been neither a member of the government nor the leader of Austria’s Freedom Party. As such, the grounds for the sanctions imposed by the 14+1 on one Member State should be rescinded immediately.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the threat that emanates from the large, uncontrolled flows of small arms and the risk of the proliferation of criminal organisations and terrorist groupings has gained relevance since 11 September. Globally, more than half a billion small arms are in circulation. The use of these arms is responsible for the death of about 500 000 people every year. Small arms claim 300 000 victims in wars and roughly another 200 000 in non-war situations. In Bowling for Columbine, the documentary maker, Michael Moore, showed recently the consequences small arms have, even in a country such as the United States: homicides at secondary schools, among youth gangs and in the criminal world. Invariably, the weapons have been obtained illegally. Many people are, however, the victims of small arms and light weapons, including in conflicts such as the present one in Congo. In order to combat the illegal trade in small arms, adequate legislation is required, as well as regulations with regard to the trade in – and production, transit and possession of – small arms, and the distributive trade in weapons must also be monitored. Weapons must be easy to trace and therefore be provided with a clear mark. Moreover, records must be kept and it must be possible to exchange this information. To prevent small arms from entering the illegal circuit, adequate stock management, safe transport and storage, and the destruction of surplus weapons are necessary. In the light of the UN Conference in New York in three weeks' time, it is important for the EU to play a pioneering role once again. It can do this by calling for proper monitoring procedures for these weapons, by stepping up existing legislation on monitoring the distributive trade, by insisting on effective traceability and clear marking of weapons, and by pressing home all these requests by being the first in Europe to tackle this legislation. I often talk about the importance of Europe speaking with one voice. This step towards unity has been made by the fact that six groups in the European Parliament are united in making this plea. The Council and the Member States are still to follow suit. I hope that they will follow this example.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in Nice the European Union will need to strike a balance between integration and enlargement and in Marseilles it will need to strike a balance between its function in central Europe and its responsibility in the Mediterranean. We need to set priorities; in other words, we need to use the enlargement process to strengthen Europe from the centre outwards and force a stabilisation process in south-east Europe and in the western Balkans, but without neglecting the Barcelona process, which has been drifting for five years now. We can hypothesise as to whether a decisive, uniform EU policy in the Balkans might have prevented the Balkan war and the European Union might therefore have avoided the consequential costs of the war. Now, on the eve of Marseilles, we need to ensure that aid is not given to the Balkans at the expense of the MEDA programme or vice versa and that everything stays within the financial framework agreed in Berlin. With these conditions in place, it should be possible for the special council in Marseilles to reach a consensus which does more than just highlight the fault lines in the EU. We must ensure that the MEDA aid programme is not delayed by bureaucratic hurdles for which the Commission is to blame and that projects are identified more quickly in future by the Mediterranean countries involved. It is disappointing to see that the Mediterranean countries only called up just under a quarter of the EUR 4.7 billion budget of the MEDA I programme which expired in 1999. But this also illustrates that we need to estimate the absorption capacity of the countries bordering the Mediterranean more realistically. I therefore particularly welcome the Commission plan to speed up the association agreement and I think that the revision of the MEDA regulation was a very good move. So far, I have deliberately avoided making any link between the Euro-Mediterranean conference and the conflict in the Middle East. The very fact that this conference is even taking place and that Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to attend and the threat of boycott by the Arab League has come to nothing must qualify as a success. We can only hope that this conference in Marseilles does not turn into a platform for polemics, pushing the first important signs of a Mediterranean policy in the European Union and the revival of the Barcelona to one side.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, during the Finnish presidency, we were able to get through twenty questions in question time. Last time we covered twelve with Portugal as the country holding the presidency. It seems as if we will not get through any more than that today either. But my actual question concerns the fact that the President of the European Commission, Mr Prodi, has sent a letter to the European Parliament criticising the Parliamentary Ombudsman, Jacob Söderman, for having taken part in a public debate and wanting various documents to be widely accessible, as well as having presented his own point of view that there should be more public access to documents in the EU. I would ask the representative of the Council whether he thinks the President of the Commission’s action was right and justified, and whether the Council also wants to restrict the Ombudsman’s freedom of speech on this topic.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I join with others in warning that substantial change still needs to occur in Romania but that we reject the language of rejection. We should recognise the progress Romania has made in strengthening the Court of Audit, in judicial reform and in the introduction of the new Constitution, and we should not rule out a successful close to the negotiations this year. Every effort must be made, in particular by the Romanians, to maintain this momentum. However, we should signal our intent to them, and we do so by seeking to amend the resolution to replace the wording calling accession in 2007 'impossible' in paragraph 1. But problems remain. Despite efforts to reduce the number of children in institutions, Save the Children Romania says that no attention is paid to combating trafficking for sexual exploitation. The recent reported death of 17 psychiatric patients from malnutrition and hypothermia in a hospital in southern Romania shows the severe problems faced by disabled people. Our Amendment No 3 shows that discrimination against these and other groups is magnified amongst Roma communities. I fully support the rapporteur's view that the challenge is not simply one of closing chapters in negotiations but still one of dealing with endemic problems of corruption and political reform in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria for democracy and human rights. Finally, I am delighted that people from my own region in the east of England are linked through a network called Praxis with the Arad County Council in Romania. We must not lose sight of our aspiration, which is not simply about completing a political process of European enlargement but about bringing the people of Romania together with all those we represent.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am a little uneasy about the proposal that my report on the immunity of Mr Gargani be brought forward. The Secretary-General of my Group stated that she would have liked to have had the opportunity to discuss that report, along with other reports, at our group meeting before the part-session. We understood the report was being deferred until the second December sitting in Strasbourg, and so we did not have the opportunity to discuss it. Furthermore, I learned that there was a defect in paragraph 2 of the report as it was adopted by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, but I have not seen any of the adjustments to it. As I am the rapporteur, I would have liked to have seen such adjustments. On these grounds, with the greatest respect and with regret to my colleague, Mr Gargani, I ask that this matter be deferred until the next Strasbourg sitting.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I might inform you that purely coincidentally the German Parliament is also debating Zimbabwe at this very hour today and I believe that, from a political point of view, it is important for us not only to discuss this issue here in the European Parliament – or perhaps also, for historical reasons, in London – but also in other parliaments in Europe, so as to raise public awareness of the situation. Regrettably, it is necessary to extend the sanctions imposed on the Mugabe regime. The use of democratic means has, unfortunately, not enabled the people there to rid themselves of a potentate who bears more responsibility than anyone else for the decline of the country in economic, social and political terms and also in respect of human rights. I have to take issue with what Mr Sylla said. The sanctions that we introduced do not actually affect the general public. The only people that are hit by them are those who in any case have the money to travel. But when, for example, the ‘propaganda minister’, Mr Moyo, went to South Africa on a shopping spree over Christmas, it caused a public outcry in that democratic society too that someone so close to the regime should be behaving in this way. I very much regret the fact that the discussions about extending the sanctions degenerated into political horse-trading, because France would only agree to the extension if Mr Mugabe was allowed to come to Paris for the Franco-African summit. I do not like to criticise a government whose political views are so close to my own, but in this case I would urge the French Government to consider whether it is in the interests of Africans to engage in African politics in this way. Unfortunately, in previous decades for many European countries one single criterion has been decisive in determining whether they have got involved in African politics: whether it served their own economic interests. The result is clear to see in countries such as Côte d'Ivoire and Congo. On the contrary, it is important for Europe to present a united front. I therefore welcome the fact that Portugal would rather postpone the EU-Africa summit than allow President Mugabe to travel here. Moreover, at the 59th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, the Europeans must carry out early consultations so as to ensure that any draft resolution on Zimbabwe does not fail to go through, as happened last year, but that it is removed from the agenda beforehand. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, with a death toll of nearly 500 since the resumption of hostilities in the occupied territories, the material situation of the Palestinian people is worse than it was before the Oslo Accords. Unemployment has reached 50%, the investments in peace are lost, the population is sealed off, i.e., living under surveillance in its towns and villages, and the hopes of an entire generation have vanished into thin air. In face of this disastrous situation, the European Union must raise its voice and call for respect for the law; in other words, we must focus on essentials again, and I thank Mr Patten for having done that so clearly. That means ending the illegal occupation, handing back the territories acquired by force, calling a halt to the settlement of the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights and respecting the Palestinian people's right to self-determination. (Applause) If the escalation of violence is to stop, if the problem is to be resolved once and for all and the just and lasting settlement everybody is longing for is to be achieved, surely the first step must be to respect the United Nations resolutions? That is precisely what the Pope said in his speech in Damas and I hope that this time the Group of the European People’s Party and will not disavow it. (Applause) In any case, we welcome the fact that recital D and point 13 of the joint motion for a resolution recall that fundamental point. Israel, like any other country, has the right to live in peace within secure and recognised frontiers. But Israel, like any other country, must recognise its international frontiers. That, however, is not the case. During a recent interview, Mr Sharon spelled out his strategic thinking by stating that the war of independence was not over, and I quote 'so long as we are not in possession of the entire territory of Israel'. The entire territory of Israel? What territory? Faced with fait accompli after fait accompli, the international community stands by and does nothing. Last Saturday, Israeli shells once again fell on a Palestinian refugee camp. On Sunday, the army killed five Palestinian policemen whom it regarded as suspects. And so the list goes on. Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, it is now time to say, loudly and firmly, ‘basta ya!’ Enough is enough, Mr Sharon. (Applause from the left)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to express my thanks for the broad support given to the main features of this report. Human rights are, of course, indivisible and independent of political parties and national borders. It is therefore important that we in this Parliament should obtain broad agreement on this issue, for a right cannot, of course, be universal if half of Parliament is opposed to it. I should especially like to thank Mrs Swiebel, both for her friendly words today and for the intense collaboration which we have had and which has naturally given her considerable influence. I should like to tell her that I am also delighted to vote for the further amendments which she has tabled and which we shall be voting on tomorrow. I should also, however, like to thank Mr Pirker and Mrs Palacio. I should like to express my gratitude for the broad agreement we have obtained in connection with this report. I think this is commendable, especially this year when human rights have been so high on the agenda of the European Union. Finally, I would say to Mr Krarup that he must withdraw his expression of delight at the change in paragraph 61, because this was an error pure and simple. There are ten words missing from the Danish version. If he reads the English version, he will be able to see what the wording should be.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, President-in-Office, Commissioner, I am extremely pleased both with the tone of this debate today and with the level of consensus that is emerging among the key groups in the House, a consensus which my Group subscribes to. The challenge of reunification, even more perhaps than that of enlargement is so great that it suffuses and surrounds every debate in this House: this is why there is such depth and intensity to all our debates, including this morning's debate on our own need to prepare for this extraordinary challenge. To create a common space of freedom, security and of values by free choice is something without a parallel among democracies in all of our history. It is a matter of the utmost importance and yet has curiously attracted very little public attention. When we look at Eurobarometer statistics, we see that 60% or so of those who expressed a view say enlargement is not a priority, while only 27% say it is a priority. Moreover, the statistics are getting worse, not better. In the largest state of the Union, the Federal Republic of Germany, only 20% say enlargement is a priority. We as politicians must take possession of this debate and not simply leave it to the bureaucracies, for though it is indispensable to discuss the details of the acquis, this is not sufficient to engage the public. We need a dialogue of politicians and therefore we need to avail ourselves of all the information possibilities that Commissioner Verheugen spoke of in his very reflective and elegant speech today. We need, as Mr Hänsch has said, to provide ourselves with information about the cost of non-enlargement, not simply in terms of finance and budget, but of security as well as, of course, socio-economic measures. It was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the American President, who once said that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. Much of our debate about fears about enlargement is based on exaggeration, but in order to confront the populists who exaggerate, we must connect with popular politics through reflection. We need the Commission's help here, because even though we have the will, we sometimes lack the ammunition. In respect of the principles involved, we of course support differentiation; of course, we support the principle of equality that there should not be a Europe of different classes of citizenship. My Group has 23 visiting MPs, our 'virtual MEPs', sitting in the gallery now: I welcome all of you to this debate in the House. Finally, the critical thing now is to move to substantive negotiation, and we are making that important step. The critical thing is not to allow frustration to grow among the candidates – that they are always in the anteroom but never quite in the chamber. That is what we must accomplish in this debate, that is the result we must pursue. People joke that after the collapse of the Berlin Wall enlargement is always just five years away. We must show they are wrong. Let us take the first step in that direction during this mandate.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, following the sinking of the Prestige, the Erika and of many other petrol or chemical tankers that have caused enormous damage, who would not want to improve maritime safety? Nevertheless, although the intentions stated in this report are good, one would be entitled to wonder who will enforce the resolutions that have been adopted. Will the European institutions dare to challenge the huge oil companies by imposing the ‘polluter pays’ principle? Most of all, will they dare to prevent these companies from causing damage by forcing them to adopt precautionary measures, even if these eat into their profits? We all know the answer to these questions. In France, the Total oil corporation has only partially compensated the victims of the Erika, leaving the State, in other words the taxpayers – to cover the remainder. Two years after the accident, Total has also failed to shoulder its responsibilities with regard to the disaster at the AZF factory in Toulouse. These huge corporations can pollute, ruin the livelihoods of thousands of people who earn a living from the sea or, like AZF, be responsible for manslaughter through negligence without even being called to account. They hide behind national or European law because they know that the States, which show no mercy towards small offenders, do not bother the large corporations responsible for causing damage on a completely different scale. Penalties imposed on underlings such as the captain of the ship that causes the pollution are iniquitous, because those who are really responsible– in other words the real beneficiaries of the quest for profit – the owners and the major shareholders of the petrol or chemical corporations, are left untroubled. As I am sure you have understood, we are highlighting the good intentions that have been declared in this report, but we harbour no illusions about its implementation.

Political group: GUE-NGL