GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I congratulate the Commissioner, and I congratulate Mr Peter Liese. After the committee adopted Amendment No 30, I felt a real need to add here that the Member States should, at the least, uphold the ban on research involving the destruction of human embryos. You see, I would now like to exercise one of the great achievements of our European continent. I would like to exercise the achievements of freedom of thought and freedom of conscience. Please do not try to make matters easy for yourselves by claiming that we are not here to preach morality! What else is at stake, then, when embryos are destroyed? We do not need to harmonise at all, for we all share a common set of ethics which states, at least: you shall not kill! I respect your opinion, but please respect the opinion of others who say: I will not kill! Someone once told me that at the very moment when the egg and sperm cells join, a unique person is created – not just anyone, but a person with a specific hair colour and individual qualities – in other words, a human being. I know there are the famous fourteen days, Mr Purvis. I am afraid that we do not entirely agree on this issue. Has individuation occurred or not? Am I not already killing? Please recognise that people are afraid of having to kill. Yet perhaps we are discussing all this quite unnecessarily. Let me tell you that a few days ago, Professor Huber of Vienna University presented his most recent research achievements and findings. In many years of work on blood obtained from umbilical cord, he has achieved massive successes which give him the justified hope that in a few years, he will be able to generate organs from it. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as I hope everyone in this House knows, EUR 5 million went missing at Eurostat. I believe this is an unacceptable waste of taxpayers' money. Taxpayers whom I represent across the United Kingdom's capital – in Barnet, Enfield, Croydon – are concerned that the tax they are paying, which is channelled to the European Commission, is not being properly accounted for. This is a situation that has gone on for far too long. Just a little over five years ago it was said of the Santer Commission that it was difficult to find anyone with the slightest sense of responsibility. It saddens me that the situation has not changed and it saddens me that so many people in this House voted for business as usual. For these reasons I voted to support this motion of censure because it is unacceptable that the Commission should continue to evade responsibility for its actions and vital that it should continue properly to police the funds which the taxpayer entrusts to it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I welcomed the Minister's reply but I would like him to give an assurance to this House that he and the Council will not lose sight in their consideration of this problem of the 604 Kuwaiti citizens who disappeared as a result of the illegal occupation of Kuwait by Iraq and that they will keep pressing the Iraqi authorities for an explanation of the fate of these people.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, the enlargement of Europe brings us face to face with the historic question: we talk of enlarging Europe, but what exactly do we mean by Europe? I think that to interpret the Union as a reinstatement of a geographical entity would be excessively mechanistic. The European Union is, I think, a reinstatement of an historical reality which goes back three thousand years and which needs a new basis if it is to continue working. And all those who played a part during those three thousand years will, where they still exist, naturally have a place in modern-day Europe. I say this because questions have been raised recently as to whether Turkey qualifies as a European country on the basis of geographical criteria. But of course the criteria cannot be geographical. Turkey is, without question, part of our history. May I remind you that when the crisis in the Ottoman Empire reached its peak in the nineteenth century, the European powers referred to the Sultan as ‘the sick man of Europe’, not the sick man of the Middle East or the sick man of Asia Minor. What stands in Turkey's way is not its lack of European credentials, but its lack of democratic credentials and its expansionist foreign policy. Today there is cause for hope on both these fronts. The recent elections were another example of the Turkish Republic showing willing and demonstrated that a real, fundamental change of government is possible. All that remains to be seen is if permanent changes will be introduced which will consolidate democracy in Turkey and help satisfy the Copenhagen criteria. And, provided that the Copenhagen criteria are met, there will be no further obstacle to Turkey's becoming a member of the European Union. As for the second issue, its aggressive, militaristic foreign policy, here too there is a criterion and that criterion is, of course, a resolution to the Cyprus problem, the occupation of northern Cyprus by the Turkish army. If, as it has been asked to do in European Parliament resolutions, Turkey really wants to help resolve the Cyprus problem on the basis of the UN Secretary-General's most recent plan, then it will start backing off in its foreign policy as well. This will bring about a peaceful revolution in this area, which will be especially valuable to Turkey, which has more need than anyone to carve out a democratic future for itself at last.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, as far as the labelling of beef is concerned, we are not debating the substance here today but the timetable, which needs to be laid down. We are also debating the highly topical issue of the Council’s approach and the Commission’s behaviour and position. The Commission has submitted two proposals to us on beef labelling, one which makes beef labelling compulsory in Member States as of 1 January 2001 and one which is drafted as a transitional regulation up to 31 December 2000, i.e. voluntary labelling. The timetable submitted by the Commission must be rejected in the interests of the consumer. Mr Kindermann has submitted what I consider to be a convincing timetable. The European Parliament should agree to voluntary labelling up to 31 August 2000, with compulsory labelling to be introduced as quickly as possible. Only in this way can we send out a clear signal to anxious consumers. There can be no question of continuing to allow the slowest link in the chain to set the pace. Nor can there be any question of the new Commission continuing to hide behind what to me look very like the old delaying tactics. The delay in the implementation of the regulation cannot be ascribed solely to the Commission and individual Member States. In other words, this approach would have been totally unnecessary if the Commission had acted promptly at the time. Then there is the point that the applicable Regulation 820/97 still contains the obligation to introduce the compulsory system by 1 January 2000. The Commission’s excuse for the delay is that the Member States were late sending in the necessary reports on the implementation of the labelling system. I really do wonder if the model pupils in the Member States are again being punished here. We must not tolerate this cat-and-mouse game by the Commission any longer! You should know, Mr Byrne, that none of us can afford to put on such airs and graces. You should bear in mind that we really want to decide on this proposal under the codecision procedure. Consumer interests must come first. Consequently, we should, in my opinion, support the timetable suggested by Mr Kindermann in tomorrow’s vote. With this timetable we really can send a signal to our anxious consumers and we should all bear in mind that we sit here as the representatives of the people, that we have been elected by the consumers and that it is we Members of Parliament who must lay ourselves open time and again to discussions with our citizens. I have the impression that the Council has already distanced itself from them by quite some way.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, there was a time when the People’s Republic of China was systematically excluded from international negotiations and world trade by Europe and America. The fact that a divided and backward country made a new start and started rebuilding its economy, in a way that was enthusiastically received by masses of workers and peasants, was felt as a threat by the outside world. Over half a century later the heirs to that revolution are still in power. Their ideology and the enthusiasm of the population have gone, but unfortunately they have retained their dictatorial traits with a vengeance. For this regime, economic growth and political calm are of supreme importance and as a result anything that runs counter to them is attacked fanatically. That bodes ill for ethnic and religious minorities and those with political criticisms. Organisations are banned, people are locked up and death sentences are liberally used. Small, powerless countries that breach human rights at home, rightly attract foreign criticism. In the case of China, the most populous country on earth, things are usually different. People with widely differing political views say that it is a large and important country that may become a major trading partner and that we must therefore stay on good terms with it. My group believes that an end should be put to this special treatment. Human rights, including freedom of religion, cannot simply stop at the Chinese border.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I too would like to say how much the Commission’s statements today have pleased me. However, I would like to dwell on the point of transparency because, like yourself, I too Commissioner think that transparency is directly and mainly related to the public’s confidence in food safety. However, you mentioned the concept of ‘confidentiality’ in connection with transparency, and I would like to ask you where this concept of ‘confidentiality’ begins and ends because I think this is the most sensitive point if we are to win back the trust of European citizens.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, what has occurred in a tributary of the Danube is considered by many experts to be an accident on an environmental scale as serious as the scale of the Chernobyl disaster. It affects not only Romania, but also Yugoslavia and, in fact, the entire Danube basin. We consider the matter to be important enough for the Commission to react swiftly to this situation, and I think that Parliament must make its position clear and vote on a resolution on the subject. (Applause) (Parliament gave its assent) President. – Still relating to Thursday’s sitting, the PPE Group has requested that Mrs Cederschiöld’s report on increasing protection by penal sanctions against counterfeiting in connection with the introduction of the euro should be brought forward to Wednesday as the last item on the agenda. Is there a Member who wishes to speak on behalf of the PPE in favour of this proposal?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, like others I welcome these reports on combating ship-source pollution. The UK, as an island, is especially vulnerable, and the history of our coastline is littered with horrific accidents and disasters not dissimilar to the Prestige. I am sure there is merit in the idea of harmonising sanctions, but these need to be very powerful measures and certainly must not weaken Member States' existing legislation. Harmonising up, yes, but levelling down, no. Then we need to ask who we are really trying to make responsible. Mr Andrews referred earlier on to 'rust buckets': the elderly ships on our seas that are a threat to coastlines, to maritime safety and to marine life. In the event of an accident, it is not the captains of these ships who need a custodial or prison sentence; it is the owners, those who are really responsible. All too often, it seems, it is those at the top, those with ultimate responsibility, who escape justice. Mr Ortuondo Larrea and others referred to flags. This is something of a distraction. The real issue here is the farce whereby ships are allowed to sail under flags of a country with which they have no connection at all. Finally, we also need to ensure that the rights of people living near areas vulnerable to disasters are protected. We have to consider the consequences for citizens who live close to pollution disaster areas. All these aspects vary from one country to another and, listening to this debate, I remain to be convinced as to how these harmonising instruments will actually crack down on those who are really responsible and bring them to justice.

Political group: PSE
Like the speakers before me, I am delighted to be speaking here for the first time. I will not be making any particular reference to our national situation in Latvia, nor will I talk about minorities – there will be time for that on other occasions – but about Europe as a whole. Freedom without security is not conceivable, as we have already heard, but the threats to freedom today are of quite a different nature to what they were in the recent past. If the threat to freedom previously came mainly from other countries, nowadays that is no longer the case in Europe. The European Union in itself is proof of this. The threat to freedom comes from within our country – violence is increasing, organised crime, terrorism and corruption are the most direct threats to freedom, to various human rights. For a long time now the criminal world has not recognised borders, so cooperation between various security bodies in the European Union, as well as beyond its borders, is especially important. The European Parliament must do everything in its power to ensure this cooperation. The sense of menace to the individual is today no longer slight. We must not allow a situation where fear is the defining factor in people's thought and action, where we would be prepared to yield, to compromise with those who do not respect us, because of fear. In order to guarantee human freedoms, sacrifices must be borne. Only by certain curbs on freedom can security be achieved. If, in our discussions of how far freedom ought to be restricted for the sake of security, we keep our ideals in mind – and these discussions should never end – then we will be on the right path.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is very good to hear that the Commissioner is not afraid of a trade war but responds very positively to the idea that these important political aims set by the European Parliament, for example, such as a ban on the marketing of cosmetic products tested on animals, are political decisions, not a question of protectionism, and thus it is important that our representatives defend these issues at international level. You yourself referred to the possibility of bringing up in the next WTO round the question of whether in the future more attention could be paid to the way the product is produced in these trade issues, in other words not merely the end product. Has there been any discussion on this? Can you shed any more light on this reference of yours? Do you believe this is a possibility?

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, my contribution today is not based on all kinds of theoretical analyses but on my own experiences over the past week, because I happened to be in Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip when the disturbances took place. On that basis, I would like to make three observations. Firstly, I would like to comment on Mr Sharon’s provocation on Thursday. It was clear from the outset that the issue was one of internal party-politics, namely the battle between Sharon and Netanyahu. In my view, what is far more damaging is the fact that this provocation was condoned by Prime Minister Barak, who, in my view, either made the huge mistake of wrongly gauging the implications of Mr Sharon’s visit, or made a conscious attempt to bring the whole situation to a head. Secondly, I would like to turn to the disturbances at the Al Aqsa Mosque on Friday. The next day, I talked to various people who visited that Mosque and it is really incomprehensible that various men in their fifties and sixties – i.e. not those throwing the stones – were shot at in the Mosque. Talking of provocation, I find it extremely shocking that the Israeli Government should shoot people who were praying in the Mosque on Temple Mount on the Holy Day of the Muslims, and I believe that the international community was entirely justified in its condemnation of the incident. My final comment concerns a visit to the hospital in Eastern Jerusalem the next day. In fact, I have quite a few observations regarding that visit. I found it extremely shocking to see that during the disturbances, an ambulance driver was shot. In another incident which I witnessed with my own eyes, an ambulance driver was shot in the foot from a ten centimetre range as he was trying to come to the rescue of some people. The most shocking of all is the fact that the Israeli police and the army used fragmentation bullets. These are bullets which, upon contact with the body, shatter into dozens of pieces. They are banned internationally, even in battles amongst soldiers; yet they are now used against citizens. My conclusion is that the Israeli Government has applied excessive force which has been widely condemned, and rightly so. My question to Mr Solana and the Commission is the following: what could the European Union do in very concrete terms in order, first of all, to substantiate the international inquiry into these disturbances, and secondly, to bring the peace process back on track?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I also wish to congratulate both the rapporteurs on good and timely reports. Speaking mainly on Mr Clegg's report, one of the greatest obstacles to investment and competition in the telecoms market throughout Europe has been the lack of consistency and application in regulation. The differing requirements, and consequently the differing costs, have deterred new operators from starting up operations alongside existing ones. As a result, it has stifled the market and reduced competition. Therefore, I welcome this new regulatory package as it proposes changes by generating a consistent approach with the aim of liberalising the telecoms market. It provides a unique opportunity for all the governments to set the standards in a developing market and to finally begin fulfilling the goals we set at Lisbon, which have been all too slow to be realised. Today's buzzword in the telecoms arena is 'implementation'. This is the key issue, more so now than before, as the sector is showing positive signs of stabilising. However, I fully support the rapporteur in questioning the Commission as to why it is that only five Member States have met the deadline for the transfer of the new regulatory package this year and why the Commission has been very slow in responding to this. What exactly is it proposing to do? The Commission needs to be tougher. We need action from the Commission, not just words, because delays not only penalise both new entrants and incumbents, but also put up barriers to the National Regulatory Authorities and the collation of information from the market players. We have to move on and we need proper market analysis on which we can base further action. I am also extremely disappointed at the slow development of broadband. I have been contacted by numerous people in the West Midlands who have expressed their concerns about this moving at a snail's pace and the need to address that, especially in some rural areas.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I too would like to thank the Belgian Presidency, and I hope that we shall all have a really successful summit in Laeken. Today we are debating the Commission's work programme, and I wish to say that my group supports the general resolution by the various political groups concerning this programme. Why? Because there is an interinstitutional agreement between two institutions, and I do not think this House is being unreasonable in expecting the Commission to adhere to the undertakings it has given Parliament. Mr Prodi, in your White Paper on European Governance there is much talk about how Europe could be better governed. However, you are not performing one of the most elementary tasks, that is to say the presentation of a legislative programme. I heard this morning that an e-mail with an attachment arrived last night. The text that I am familiar with so far is a work programme which as far as I can see is simply full of platitudes. It includes announcements about comprehensive packages of measures, other measures are to be proposed, specific measures are being prepared, and so it goes on for 20 pages. But what the Council and Parliament need to know above all, and in good time, is what legislation will actually be presented, and, first and foremost, why. We need to know what the basis for this legislation is so that we can act in unison here. I must not forget to point out that the national parliaments, which also have a certain role in this process, and a not inconsiderable one at that, have some problems with the whole process. This is a problem that has to be solved, Mr Prodi. I also have a few more comments about your communication for the Laeken Summit. I consider that it contains some extremely interesting ideas that are worth supporting. It is true to say that limiting ourselves strictly to the four priorities identified in Nice would weaken the credibility of the Convention, in other words the list of issues to be addressed needs to be widened in order to meet the public's expectations and to ensure that the enlarged Union will have a viable future. However, I also have to say that with this paper too, I kept asking myself why the Commission was showing so little courage and vision in the run-up to such an important summit. What will the public think if the Commission talks about defending a certain European ideal, as it does in the document, in such an unambitious way? What ideal are we talking about then? What is the process of deepening that we are all in favour of to be like, and why should it just relate to democracy, as the document suggests? I really find it rather mysterious why, with an eye to Laeken and particularly when we are envisaging convening a historic convention, we do not quite simply say, yes, our common goal is to create a truly democratic Europe. Furthermore, Mr Prodi, I expect, in view of all this, that in future the Commission will act far more energetically in its capacity as the motor of European integration.

Political group: GUE-NGL