GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, first I would like to thank Mr Ferber for an excellent report. I know that it was the result of hard negotiations in which the rapporteur and the other representatives of the Committee on Budgets successfully defended the rights of the European Parliament. With the supplementary and amending budget the Council intends to set up three new directorates within its General Secretariat to implement the common European security and defence policy. These directorates are: 1. a Political Affairs Directorate, 2. an Operations and Exercises Directorate, and 3. an External Action Mechanisms Directorate. There would be a total of 140 employees involved in this new organisation, of which 51 would be in newly created posts. One’s attention is drawn the urgency of the situation. Why is there such a hurry to create the new posts immediately, even though the actual budget is to be discussed in a few months’ time? Another problem is the overlapping of functions. The structure of the organisation menacingly indicates that the same functions are to be discharged in the areas of both crisis prevention and civil crisis management in the Commission and the Council. This overlapping must definitely be prevented. Under pressure from Parliament, the Council is now creating a special Title in its budget for the common security and defence policy. It is obvious that this will involve the creation of an entirely new Council activity, which will, in fact, have nothing to do with normal administrative expenditure. For this reason the ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ between Parliament and the Council, according to which they undertake not to interfere in each other’s budgets, cannot be extended to these actions. Expenditure relating to the common security and defence policy falls within the competence of Parliament. Finally, it should be noted that the margin for ‘Administrative Expenditure’ in heading 5 is now only EUR 34 million. On the threshold of enlargement this is so little that it does not make possible any operative additional expenditure at the cost of administrative expenditure.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, 12 years ago this month, we saw the cease-fire after the liberation of Kuwait. In March 1991, UN Resolution 686 set out the conditions of the cease-fire. In April 1991 UN Resolution 687 required Iraq to accept the internationally supervised destruction, removal or rendering harmless of all chemical and biological weapons, agents and components. In August 1991, UN Resolution 707 condemned Iraq's non-compliance. Now, after 12 years of flouted UN resolutions, 12 years of internal oppression and torture, 12 years of violence against the Kurds and Shi'ites of his own country, Saddam Hussein has been given a last chance. And yet, unlike when we took action to rescue the Falklands, Kuwait and Bosnia, this time our constituents are uneasy and uncertain. They see no unity of purpose among the governments of Europe. They see Member States declining to comply with their Nato obligation to protect Turkey against the possibility of attack. Their fears are confirmed that a European defence policy could be dangerous for Nato. They do not know why action is being proposed, what is supposed to happen at the end of it and which countries might be next. The guilt of Saddam Hussein is in effect being compounded by the failure of our leaders to explain. My own Prime Minister, Mr Blair, has abysmally failed to persuade the British people. He could not even persuade a single one of his own Labour MEPs to vote for his policy. Unlike Iraq, we are democracies. Unlike Saddam, Mr Blair, you cannot go to war without heeding the concerns of your own people. It is time we set out the facts and destroyed the myths. UN inspectors are not like a team of archaeologists excavating for ancient Mesopotamia in the sand. It is not their task to play 'seek' to Saddam's 'hide'. They are there to assess Saddam's evidence of how, when and where he has destroyed or handed over his weapons of mass destruction. We do not need more inspectors. Mr Blix has confirmed that. We need compliance by Saddam Hussein. Where are those precursor chemicals, the munitions? Where are the tonnes of bulk chemical warfare agents: 1.5 tonnes of VX nerve agent, 10 milligrams of which on the skin results in rapid death? I do not believe that any of us want war. We want peace, but we want a peace that is free from the threat of terrorism. Saddam Hussein needs to understand that either he complies in full with the UN resolutions or he risks plunging his own people, once again, into the suffering of war.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, to say that the European Union is at a crossroads is no doubt nothing new. It has been said many times. This time, however, it is true. We have established the single currency – which is extremely positive – and we are facing enlargement. The question is if we will undertake enlargement whether we are prepared or not. Will we enlarge with or without deep reform? That is the debate, and this question must be addressed in any discussion of the Intergovernmental Conference, its agenda or its method. It is clear that the Council, for the moment, has not opted for enlarging with deep reforms in place. That puts enlargement in danger. It jeopardises any prospect of political union and, of course, it is difficult for the public to understand. The Council must realise that, if we want the future of the European Union to involve a form of enlargement built on firm foundations, the next Intergovernmental Conference must go much further. The Council is consulting us and Parliament is giving its opinion. We want an Intergovernmental Conference, but not this one. Must there be an IGC? Of course there must, but not this type of Intergovernmental Conference. The agenda must go much further. We must be much more daring with regard to the issues dealt with in the IGC and we must be much more transparent and much more democratic. Being much more democratic means greater participation by the European Parliament and allowing the Commission to exercise even more – yes, more – its ability to take the initiative. We must clearly set firm objectives. The functionalist approach is over, for better or for worse. The functionalist approach has brought us to this point. Have we achieved results? Yes, but the point is to make a qualitative leap and, speaking in political terms, this, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, means convincing the other Community partners that to fall short would be the worst thing we could do at the moment.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, we agree that after Lisbon we need a knowledge-based economy. I am glad that Mr Prodi emphasised the overriding importance of sustainable development, which has implications well beyond the natural environment. We welcome the acceleration of the energy market, though there is a risk of that aim clashing with the aim of sustainable development. I hope you will pursue rigorously a policy of encouraging renewable energy sources and rational use of energy. As far as trade is concerned, we agree that a new WTO round is desirable, again subject to the constraints of sustainable development. I wish to convey to Mr Prodi our very great disappointment at the lack of involvement by the European Parliament in trade matters, which could have been rectified at Nice, but which was not. I strongly urge you to work on an Interinstitutional Agreement which involves the European Parliament in trade matters. We believe in reform and democratisation of the WTO. We believe the everything but arms move is a good step, although some of us regret the delayed timetable which sends a message of less than complete commitment to the least developed countries in the world. As far as innovation and research are concerned, we look forward to a detailed Sixth Framework Programme. If you present us with very vague proposals, that will certainly delay implementation and lead to concern and disappointment throughout the EU. The European research area is of course important. We look forward to wide publicity for the benchmarking exercises, particularly in the areas of enterprise and innovation. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, the cohesion policy is an integral component of the European Union. The European Union will not make progress in growing together if solidarity does not always play some part. We all know that those who are stronger and richer must help those who are poorer or not yet as strong or in the process of catching up. We are talking today about what was to be seen over the last few years and, of course, also about the conclusions we must draw from that for the years to come. Today, I want to take a look at the current state of our cohesion policy, in other words: how are we spending the money we have allocated to this truly vital EU policy? Right up to Agenda 2000, we used to have the stormiest debates about how much money was to be spent. If, though, we now look at how implementation is actually proceeding, we cannot but have grave doubts as to whether this is being taken seriously enough. The new aid period began last year, so, of course, things cannot move as fast at the outset as they can halfway down the track, but it must be pointed out all the same that implementation is proceeding at a wretched rate in the various fields. There is simply no other way of putting it. This has been a frequent topic in the Committee on Budgets, and even the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has taken it up and will continue to discuss it. Looking at current discussions in the context of the Budget consultations – and here I must address my remarks to the Council – we see that the Council has allocated only 1% for next year's new liabilities, and that is then supposed to be converted into payments. One per cent of all we are prepared to commit, that is supposed to be paid out! We are producing a backlog, of the sort that we often used to have. We are piling up funds rather than fast-tracking aid, and fast aid is good aid, because we want many countries and regions no longer to need aid when enlargement actually comes about. If we really want to help them out of their plight, if we really want to make room for the new countries who want to join us, we must give aid fast and in concentrated form, in other words: there must be appropriate follow-up here. I call upon the Commission – which has already submitted proposals on this – but also upon the Council, to follow up words with actions, for cohesion is only any good as and when it actually reaches people, and that needs to be as soon as possible!

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should first of all like to congratulate my colleague, Mr Maaten on the very fine work he has done on this report. Nicotine is an extremely addictive drug. The best thing about it is that it is not particularly dangerous to human beings. The big question is that of how it is absorbed into the body. When it is smoked, for example in the form of cigarettes, large quantities of tar and carbon monoxide are also inhaled, which is extremely harmful. What is more, cigarettes give off smoke, which is of course the whole point of them, and this smoke spreads to the environment. As a result, the nicotine is not only inhaled by the person who uses it and wants it in their body, but it also enters the environment, something which is extremely harmful. The gist of this argument is that we must try to restrict the use of cigarettes as much as possible, including of course the use of nicotine. We must reduce the levels of the harmful substances. We must warn people so that they smoke less and, perhaps most important of all, we must warn young people so that they never take up smoking. One point I think is important in this report is that we should treat tobacco products for export in the same way as those for domestic consumption. There is no difference between people in different parts of the world. It is therefore equally important, where other people too are concerned, to reduce the quantity of harmful cigarettes as far as possible. It is also the World Trade Organisation’s view that no distinction should be made in this connection. In the name of future world trade, everything ought to be included. This should be a fundamental principle. The date from which this is to apply is debatable, but that issue is really of lesser importance. Finally, I should like to say a few words about Swedish snuff. If, now, we had begun a discussion as to the way in which we were to permit the use of nicotine in the European Union and had, for example, three alternatives – cigarettes, cigars and snuff – we should certainly have had no trouble reaching the view that it was snuff which should be permitted, possibly cigars as well but definitely not cigarettes. It is not, of course, nicotine in itself which is so dangerous, and taking snuff does not have much effect upon the environment. It should therefore be simple to conclude that we should authorise snuff throughout the Union. I personally have great respect, however, for the inhabitants of other countries who do not wish to introduce a new manifestation of nicotine into their Member States, and I believe it is important that they get to keep the restrictions in force. Sweden’s experience of a restrictive drug policy has been extremely positive, and I should like to extend this policy further within the EU.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, as a militant supporter of the Lutte ouvrière party in a country that played and still plays a shameful role in Burundi and in Rwanda, as it does in the whole region of central Africa, I cannot remain silent in the face of a resolution that strings together phrases supposedly in support of the people of that region while, in fact, concealing the despicable role the major powers played in the massacres carried out by the armed bands of the two conflicting ethnic groups in that region, the Tutsis and the Hutus. Without even going back to the responsibility of the former Belgian colonial power deliberately sustaining and exacerbating the hostilities between the two ethnic groups in the two countries, today the part that both French and British interests played in the civil war is public knowledge, just as it is public knowledge that the French army was directly responsible for mobilising and arming the Hutu extreme right, which was responsible for real genocide. And successive French Governments, on the right as well as on the left, were not even willing to do what the Belgian Government did, namely acknowledge their responsibility for this situation, although obviously that in no way lessens the crushing weight of that responsibility. I therefore want to register my opposition to the hypocrisy of the major powers and express my solidarity with the people of Burundi and Rwanda who, over and above their ethnic rifts, over and above the responsibility of their own leaders, have paid a heavy price for the large imperialist powers’ domination of Africa.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the European Union's behaviour is inconsistent: we recognise that it is necessary to bring the citizens closer to Europe and that, in order to do this, the Union must show that it is able to guarantee rights, freedom and security, but when it comes to implementing these proposals, the Member States' governments become highly overcautious and indecisive, concerned more for their own powers than for the rights of all. This is how we manage to adopt a Charter of Fundamental Rights and then not incorporate it into the Treaties, how we write in the Treaties that the Union must be developed as an area of freedom, security and justice, but then the good intentions are lost in conventions which are not ratified, in decisions which are not implemented and in the confusion that is created by the fragmentation of competences, initiatives and procedures. The governments raise hopes once again at Tampere and then dash them because they are unwilling to entrust the implementation to those whose job it is to concern themselves with the Union and not the internal affairs of individual States. Our action arrives late and is ineffective because Community initiatives come to a halt on the threshold of cooperation in matters of criminal justice, which are still dealt with on an intergovernmental basis. We need to be more courageous in protecting the rights of the citizens. In my opinion, there is one genuine solution which I hope will be adopted with the next Treaty: as is already the case for cooperation in matters of civil justice, every aspect of the creation of the area of freedom, security and justice must become Community responsibility. There is nothing to fear from this solution: the distribution of competences between Union and Member States would remain the same, but the effect of having standardised procedures would ensure that policies were coherent and also that the forthcoming enlargement of the Union would not, as it is in danger of becoming, be a barrier to the timely protection of citizens' rights. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Madam President, in reference to Wednesday's agenda following the point made by Mr Barón Crespo, last Tuesday I and two other Members of this House had the honour of meeting with the former king of Afghanistan, Mohammed Zahir Shah. At that meeting we discussed the possibility of his playing a role in some form of mediation in Afghanistan leading to the restoration of the democracy which he established in 1964, and which involved free media, free elections and the involvement of women in politics – a very far cry from the current state of affairs in Afghanistan. He also asked us to extend his respects to you, Madam President, and to the House as a whole, and hoped that in due course he would be able to visit the European Parliament. Yesterday I spoke to Mr Patten on this matter and hope there will be some development in this regard involving not only Parliament but the European Union as a whole. On the agenda for Wednesday, it seems to me rather sad that, in spite of the special nature of this international situation, reflected by our solemn sitting the day after the events in America on 11 September and the succeeding week, the Council has made a number of proposals for legislation following the terrorist acts which many of us consider as tantamount to an act of war. In this regard, the European Parliament will no doubt be involved in the normal procedures. It would be helpful to have a longer debate on Wednesday and not take the Ghent Council with the question of terrorism. Secondly, could you give us some indication of when the House will know the procedures to be followed with its committees for the examination, with proper scrutiny, of the proposals now being made by the Council?

Political group: PPE-DE
I also would like to express my pleasure at seeing the President-in-Office of the Council here. As a friend and colleague it is very nice to see him back and, if ever things go wrong in Copenhagen, I am sure we would be very delighted to see him back in one of these seats. However, let us not talk about that bad possibility, until it happens. Thank you for your answer to my question. I understand that the question of the seat is really for another place, though it would save a lot of energy if we eliminated this building. I am particularly interested since the EU institutions should be setting a lead. I hope we are setting an example to the world by trying to save on energy conservation. So I would suggest that if I table a question to the President-in-Office for the December part-session, perhaps he will give me an undertaking that he will tell me specifically what the Council has done with its own buildings as regards saving energy and setting an example to the world: energy-efficient light switches, for example, or any other measures that the Council is going to adopt within the next six months to set an example to the world.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the time for illusions is past, and now we must face reality. Saddam Hussein's criminal regime must be disarmed. That is what most of us in the House want, and to that the United Nations has committed itself in almost innumerable resolutions of its Security Council. Most of the indications are that it would not have been possible to disarm Saddam Hussein without the use of military means, whether another four, eight or twelve months had been spent attempting it. What matters now, therefore, is this war be brought to a speedy conclusion, sparing, if at all possible, those not actively involved in it. My sympathies today are with the soldiers who must come through this war, as well as with their families and with those who will be the victims and will have suffering to endure. I believe that one of the illusions that we must cast off is the role of the European Union. The part it has played in this crisis has been a lamentable one, for it has been divided and lacking any capacity for action and or any influence on the objectives it purportedly seeks to achieve. That is not the least reason why the European Union must, in the post-war period, undertake to make a substantial contribution towards enabling the people of Iraq to establish a state and a social order that are of their own choice and that is prepared to live at peace with the world. It is obvious, though, that the Europeans have failed. When will Europeans at last learn that the world will listen to them only when they speak with one voice? (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
I am pleased to see that the Commissioner has, along with my own Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Mr Byers, formed the impression that the European car industry has indeed taken UK consumers for a ride. But I have to say that I cannot agree with you that it is a simple exchange rate issue because it would not account for the fact that some cars cost around four thousand pounds more in the UK than they do, for example, in the Netherlands. If it were only a question of the exchange rate, then prices should also go down with exchange rate variables. Why then, for example, do imported cars – which now represent over 70% of the UK market – get dearer as the pound is getting stronger? How do UK car manufacturers export record numbers of cars to the continent at a time when exporting is more expensive? Why are cars built in the UK cheaper on the continent just as our pound is making our exports more expensive? I am afraid I do not accept the logic of this wholly. I believe – after an 18 months' investigation by a UK newspaper, following your investigation – that time is running out and the car industry now wants to find a settlement to this issue. If I were to arrange a round table with the industry – with dealers and manufacturers – would you be willing to come along to it and discuss with them how we can find a way through the problem while, at the same time, resorting to competition instruments if we have to?

Political group: PSE