GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Ariel Sharon is a man of war, it is part of him, he promised to destroy Oslo and that is what he is doing at the moment. He confuses the aim of fighting terrorism with the liquidation of the Palestinian Authority and the daily carrying out of massacres. Using his tanks, and with our consent, he has managed to establish a new political-administrative category: now there are occupied Palestinian territories and re-occupied Palestinian territories. I welcome the advice given by President Bush that the perpetrators of the massacres withdraw from the places they have cruelly and unnecessarily destroyed. Powell has pointed out that the President does not give orders to the Prime Minister of a sovereign country, but it does not appear that the advice has done much good. Sharon will decide to order a withdrawal when the massacre is finished. Unless we all, those of us who do not carry out massacres, decide jointly that there is a limit, even for sovereignty, when that sovereignty is employed in a way that goes against the dignity and ethics of humanity. I found Secretary of State Powell more lucid when he said that we may be radicalising a whole new generation of Palestinians and that many new terrorists are perhaps waiting to act when the current operation ends. That is the possible effect, to put an end to the moderates. The day before yesterday, as we know, almost a million Moroccans demonstrated in Rabat against Sharon and in support of Palestine. They are moderates or radicals. If amongst all of us we do not stop Sharon now, hate and radicalisation will spread throughout the Islamic world. We must take concrete and appropriate action now.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the guidelines for the 2001 budgetary procedure as laid down in the Haug report are a starting point for a debate on the European Union budget for 2001 which promises to be both arduous and heated throughout the year. I must emphasise that the amenability of the rapporteur, whom I congratulate, has enabled a broader consensus to be reached. Going back to the first four paragraphs of the motion for a resolution, which identify the European Parliament’s political priorities, and then those that contain the essence of its position, I would like to highlight the following aspects: appropriate funding is being promoted for the new policies introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam as well as for the policies that have been strengthened by the Treaty in the fields of internal and external action. In this way we are sending out a clear political message. The provisions of the Treaty are designed to be implemented. It is not merely a declaration of intent, which would be a serious example of political hypocrisy as well as completely unacceptable. The substance of the Treaty must be implemented. The report broaches the issue of employment in terms of job creation, which in turn is connected to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as to the use of new technologies. This, for us, is the crucial approach. It is vital for new jobs to be created and this depends on the initiative and the creativity of entrepreneurs. Let there be investment, then, in a culture of initiative. The report restates the need for a sustainable and multiannual contribution to financial aid for the reconstruction of Kosovo and for the stabilisation of the Balkans as part of a review of the financial perspective. It rejects such financing if it is to be provided at the expense of existing commitments, either involving external actions or through cuts in the common agricultural policy or other policies. New money must be found for new requirements, with the condition, as always, of judiciously identifying those requirements, and the rigorous use of funds, as should always be the case. In relation to Kosovo, this concern seems to be particularly reasonable. The report insists on the need to reform the European Union’s administrative system, which is essential if there is to be efficiency, responsibility and transparency. This debate has launched the budget procedure and, at the end of the year, when the final assessment is made of the draft budget for 2001, it must contain the essence of this Parliament’s position. Unless that is the case, the democratic legitimacy that Parliament gives to the actions of the European Union, particularly in the budgetary process, would be an enormous confidence trick, which the public would see through and for which they would not forgive us.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on the work she has done on this report. It is a very good one and, like the rest of my Group, I will be supporting it tomorrow. I should particularly like to thank Mrs Randzio-Plath for including a number of amendments which meet the concerns of the charity sector in the European Union and in the United Kingdom as well. Charities face a lot of difficulties caused by the VAT system and the amendments relating to charities in the report, and indeed tabled by the Group, are essential in trying to mitigate those problems. There are other problems in relation to irrecoverable VAT which, sadly, we cannot solve with this report but are also very important. These issues are important to charities across the United Kingdom including places like Chipping Barnet, in my own constituency. It is also vital that Parliament adopts the amendment to ensure that Member States can allow a reduced rate for repairs to listed buildings. That is crucial, particularly for churches in the United Kingdom, many of which are listed. In many cases, repairs to these churches are phenomenally expensive for parishioners. These churches are not just of religious significance: they also have a social and cultural purpose within the community. The burden of paying a full rate of VAT makes keeping them in repair that much more difficult, so I very much hope that Parliament and Council support reduced rates of VAT for those kinds of repairs to historical listed buildings. It is also vital to preserve the existing zero rates in Member States. There is no reason why they should not be able to decide for themselves whether to levy the zero rates. I would strongly defend the United Kingdom's zero rates, particularly in relation to children's clothes and shoes. I see no reason why these should be abolished. They perform an important social function and my British Conservative colleagues and I steadfastly defend those zero rates and will continue to defend them.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I can well imagine that the Commissioner is right about depleted uranium. As far as I am aware, and if my memory serves me right, it even has its civilian uses, but that is something that would have to be checked. However, as we know nothing about what long-term effects the dispersed material may have, there may be some surprises in store for us. I would like to say something about landmines. What we have to know about landmines that some 230 million of them are currently stored in a number of countries. Between 70 and 100 million of them have been laid around the world. It is unfortunate, moreover, that new ones are being laid all the time, so that great significance attaches to the issue of how we locate these landmines and destroy them, primarily in human terms – that is, about ensuring that people do not get hurt in the process – but also in economic terms – that is, about keeping costs down. I would like to encourage the Commission to make the right use of the funds that we have inserted in the Budget for research purposes. In recent years, we have kept on adding funds to the research framework programme for the purpose of researching new technologies for locating landmines, so they should be used for that purpose. Progress has been made, and for that I want to express my gratitude, but these things are extraordinarily complex, and I would like again to encourage you to help, perhaps by developing some sort of multifunctional location device. For my final comment, I turn to disarmament. There are other things – weapons of mass destruction, for example – that have to be disposed of. Every year, our Budget allocates some EUR 100 million to the disposal of chemical, biological and atomic weapons in the countries that formerly made up the Soviet Union. I would like you to submit a report on this, and for us to have a debate on it or produce a statement on the subject. After all, a great deal of money is involved and this is, above all, very much a live issue.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we need to speak our minds on this subject in the European Parliament, during the plenary sittings and in the committees, even if it is obvious that the debate must take into account the world of the culture, the legal culture and the places where institutional issues are addressed. We find ourselves dealing with some very serious events, which in the past seemed to be the norm. Today, something has changed, at least in terms of mechanisms, and especially as regards monitoring, but we are still not satisfied, particularly if debates are held in competent fora that go as far as to discuss a European Public Prosecutor, crimes, fraud, the misappropriation of funds and the disclosure of confidential information pertaining to one’s office at European level. I feel that we must clearly safeguard the Community’s interests, its image and its relationship with taxpayers, who are an indispensable and essential part of Community life. For this reason, it is right to look at the issue of safeguarding common interests, and to establish better links with legal systems within the individual States. In this respect, we are faced with the most sensitive issue: what role would a European Public Prosecutor play in relations with the individual national communities and their domestic legal systems? This issue needs to be explored further in both cultural and practical terms. Today, we run the risk of adding a new institution to the already numerous and varied institutions which exist within each country.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wish to join in the congratulations to Mr van Velzen on a very good and focussed report and to say that it has been a pleasure working with him. As a Member new to this House with his first involvement in work on the telecommunications directive, I have certainly learnt a lot from the process, and I think other colleagues have as well. I want to focus on some of the crucial issues raised in the report and, in particular, the whole transitional period towards a future single open market for all electronic communications. The important thing about this debate is that by and large there is a strong consensus towards that. Our colleague, Mr Alyssandrakis, does not agree with that – and it is always good to have his distinctive contribution to our debates. But Mr van Velzen has quite rightly focussed on some of the difficulties in making that transition and how it is going to be regulated. The second issue on which there is important consensus is that we do not want a centralised regulatory body at European-Union level. We want to see the national regulatory authorities have the responsibility, but there are going to be new responsibilities which will need a strong measure of coordination to ensure that process is carried out quickly and effectively. I should like to say to Mr Liikanen that one of the things to be addressed is that in thinking about combining the regulatory authorities with the overall competition authorities in each Member State, let us not forget that those competition authorities are already taking on significant extra responsibilities through the activities and policies of his colleague, Mr Monti. We need to ensure that those competition authorities are adequately staffed, conscious of their European responsibilities and prepared to buy in to the coordination process that is being proposed in this report, because they will have that crucial responsibility. That will need very careful monitoring, a lot of cooperation between the Member State governments and as Mr van Velzen said, we as politicians have an important role to play in putting pressure on the Member States to ensure that process is achieved satisfactorily. My final point concerns the question of universal service, which has already been mentioned earlier. It is quite right that in his report Mr van Velzen does not propose that we should move to an extension of universal service at the moment. Everything we are talking about shows how fast the market is changing. The value added, the commercial potential of every connection is going up all the time. In remote areas the potential for remote shopping and remote services is going to be much enhanced in the new world we are living in. It is right to keep that under review and not to make a significant change at the moment.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I totally support this proposal since I was one of those who asked for this item to be entered. On many occasions Parliament has expressed itself in favour of a firm stand on the Kyoto commitments. I therefore feel that the European delegation at the Conference in The Hague was right to adopt this hard line. Now, however, we must, as a matter of urgency, work on a new draft declaration. I therefore think that we must proceed in the way you have suggested, until there is a resolution followed by a vote at our December part-session in Strasbourg. (Parliament gave its assent to the proposal)(1)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the figures are tragically eloquent in describing the North/South divide. I should like, in addition to the numbers that have already been mentioned on hunger and malnutrition, to provide some others that I think are worth bearing in mind: 1% of the population owns 57% of the world’s wealth; more than 2.5 billion people have no access to drinking water; more than 2 billion people have no electricity; more than 1 billion live in extreme poverty; and 70% of those infected with HIV live in sub-Saharan Africa. It was therefore extremely positive that, given the tragedy of these figures, the Johannesburg Summit made, for the first time, a very close link between the eradication of poverty and environmental protection. This summit should lead us to draw lessons for the EU’s internal policies. The EU delegation was actually the only one to set out for Johannesburg with a negotiating agenda, which became the Conference’s sole agenda. It was also largely due to the action of the EU that some positive results were achieved at the summit, such as targets for eradicating poverty and for promoting access to drinking water and sanitation. It was also due to the EU’s work that a large number of partnerships between the public and private sectors were agreed on, specifically in the field of water and energy and that a ten-year plan was adopted for sustainable production and consumption. It is also true, however, that it was the deep-seated differences between the European Union and the developing countries, especially in the trade and finance dossier, that prevented more far-reaching results from being achieved. In practice, it became clear that the poorest countries are not prepared to concede ground with regard to biodiversity, renewable energies and governance, whilst the United States and the European Union are clinging on to a model of subsidies for their products in agriculture, fisheries and fossil fuels. This being the case, if we wish to be credible partners of the developing countries and if we wish to narrow this shocking divide in well-being between North and South, we must fulfil our promises on financing, on relieving the debt of the poorest countries and also on gradually eliminating our subsidies to farming, fisheries and energy and of course on eliminating trade barriers.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr Vitorino, President-in-Office of the Council, in preparing a resolution on a subject like human rights, there are in fact two possibilities: we can state principles and avoid naming specific areas; or we can do as we have in fact done, namely name a number of specific areas and so run the risk of forgetting some things. That is partly what this speech is about. However, I want first of all to say that I am very pleased indeed that something about the situation in China has been included, and I want heartily to support the amendments tabled. Something ought perhaps also to have been included about the situation regarding religious freedom for the Falun Gong sect, but it was not. There is nonetheless some quite sharp criticism, and I am very glad about that. I am also pleased that Chechnya has been mentioned. I think this is an area to which we do not pay enough attention. It is an area which may yet become a powder keg for security policy in that area, and perhaps also in our own area. There are some areas to which I think too little priority has been given. The Swedish Presidency says that it will give high priority to the work done towards abolishing the death penalty. I am extremely pleased about that, and I very much agree that this is an area to which high priority should be given. In this connection, we need to keep our eyes on our so-called friends. I think we have to be aware of the situation in the United States. Following the American presidential election, the number of death sentences carried out in the United States will reach record levels. We are in a situation in which there are people on death row in the United States who, we are quite convinced, have not been given fair trials, nor who will in fact be given fair trials unless outside powers help them, for the system will not of itself produce these. I also think we have to remember another of our ‘friends’, namely Turkey – an applicant country – which we do not mention at all in this resolution. It is a problem that we still have a country so close to us which will not abolish the death penalty, which will not introduce general democratic rights for ethnic minorities and which has not acquired control over the methods its police use, either on the street or in its jails. Turkey does not comply with the Convention Against Torture. By establishing a Fortress Europe, we are not doing much to help those people who flee from countries of that type, and allow me, in conclusion, to say to the Swedish Presidency, ‘Remember, we do not improve the situation of refugees by building a Fortress Europe around ourselves.’

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, it is sometimes easier to offer congratulations at such a late hour, but when you have a report like this in your hand, you could offer them at any time of day. I think Mrs Mann has produced an absolutely outstanding piece of work. I would like to focus once more on two particular points. One is the issue of transparency and the other is the problem of a trade doctrine which still endures. On the matter of transparency, I would urge the Commission, in particular, to throw its weight behind Amendments Nos 9 to 11. I think that is precisely the line we should be taking, in other words, not only should Parliament be kept duly informed, but since so much has been made of transparency under the European transparency initiative, a fully comprehensive array of documents should also be made available on the Internet, so that they can be called up any time, and can, in their turn, help enhance the credibility of what we all stand for, namely the development of a new Europe. What is extremely interesting – and you certainly cannot say that of every report – is the justification part that has been appended. This brings me to the second issue, that of the fundamental organisation of trade policy. It certainly has not become any easier to get the message across that what trade means to us, when it is properly organised, is increased prosperity, worldwide I might add. After Seattle and Davos, we have grown increasingly aware that we are dealing with irrational opponents of globalisation. It is all a matter of having the right rules. What it comes down to is fine-tuning, and to some extent, to information too. If only all those who do not have a good word to say about globalisation could recognise, for example, how strong Europe has already become in the sphere of foreign direct investments, as is evident from this report, or indeed in all kinds of other areas. What we need to do is set about convincing them. It is to be hoped that the Commission, in particular, will quickly get to grips with these fundamental issues, so that we can submit corresponding programmes setting out the basic principles, well in advance of 2005 and use them to win the public over.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Commission’s new consumer protection strategy is a highly ambitious strategy which symbolises quality of life of consumers by protecting them against unfair practices and reducing unwarranted price differences between one country and another, as well as giving consumers the confidence to access a market of 350 million people and safeguarding the credibility of consumer organisations. The Commission deserves our congratulations on its detailed research, as of course do our rapporteurs on their proposed amendments. However, the path is not strewn with roses. The obstacles and technical difficulties are manifold. First and foremost, we need to convince the business world and a number of colleagues that a regulatory framework is not incompatible with the competitive ethos and is one of the basic prerequisites to healthy competition. Secondly, everyone must realise that just listing business to consumer relations or even business to business relations does not amount to integrated consumer protection, especially if our common objective is a more efficient market and greater consumer protection. For example, the Green Paper proposals also need to address the proposed regulation on sales promotions. As for the approach, opting as a matter of priority for a coherent framework directive containing a number of principles, such as a ban on immoral practices, the principle of good faith and the principle of fair trading practices, is the right approach. This approach does in fact reduce the need for detailed regulation, allowing a rapid response to be made to the increasing number of unfair practices and devices. Even legislators in central Europe, which are well accustomed to detailed regulation, are relying increasingly on general clauses in order to adapt legislation to changing circumstances. This approach has proven to be valuable and has allowed legislation to be updated. We shall be unable to avoid specific regulation in the end, but it should play a complementary role. Besides, the flexible approach of a framework directive is also in keeping with the policy of increased self-regulation, to which priority should be given, but on two conditions: first, there must be a general time frame within which interested parties are required to agree and, secondly, there must be a common framework for determining who is responsible for honouring the obligations provided for in self-regulation. Another problem is choosing between maximum harmonisation and minimum harmonisation. It is a difficult choice because, first, we do not want harmonisation to result in a lower level of protection and, secondly, maximalist proposals usually obstruct attempts to harmonise. I think that we should proceed on the basis of maximum harmonisation and should only take selective recourse to minimum harmonisation in individual instances. I should like to close with a couple of words about the special attention which needs to be paid to consumer organisations. We need to ensure they are representative and transparent because consumer organisations are currently a consumer protection problem in themselves.

Political group: PSE