GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the rapporteur on the rules for implementing the Financial Regulation has presented many good proposals, but I would like to say right at the outset that we should avoid giving the impression that the last Commission's downfall was due to a bad financial regulation and the rules for its implementation. It is my belief, Commissioner, that such would be a false assessment and would lead us into renewed disaster. It was far more a matter of culture. If, on the one hand, you are saying that the amendment of the Financial Regulation and the rules associated with it is one of the most ambitious tasks involved in the reform of the Commission, then I have to say that you cannot be aiming very high! You tell us that the reason we cannot have external candidates for the post of accounting officer is that there is a Statute that says so. I ask you! If the Commission cannot even alter a Statute, how does it think it is going to govern the EU? Surely one of the first things that the executive should be able to do is to change the rules governing its own staff! That, Commissioner, is just not acceptable! Perhaps you are putting the cart before the horse. In my judgment, this is about changing the culture. That was possible under the old rules, and will also be possible under the new ones. When, for example, I study reports, as I have done in connection with the whole Eurostat business, in which you looked on and you continued to spend European taxpayers' money on employing firms that, to your own knowledge have demonstrably deceived and cheated you, I do not know, Commissioner, whether this renewed culture, under the banner of zero tolerance, the idea with which we started out in 1999, has actually gained a foothold yet!

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Finland has had a period of transition to adapt regulations for imports of alcohol to EU levels. This is being done by 2004, according to the deadline fixed in respect of the Internal Market. In asking for extra time for harmonising exports from non-member countries, however, Finland has been keen to ensure that imports from the Internal Market, considered a priority, are harmonised in a controlled way. The European Court of Justice and the Commission accept this order of priorities, and I thus hope for understanding on the part of Parliament as well. In my opinion, the picture created in Mrs Lulling’s report of the situation in Finland is a false one. Commissioner, you can surely ascertain that from what we Finns have been saying here in our speeches. The essential problem regarding imports from non-member countries is that an EU-wide restriction on imports has been imposed on strong alcoholic beverages and wines among products liable to excise duty, but, for some reason or other, there is no such restriction on beer. Therefore, as regards the importation of beer, the general euro limit has to be observed, which is products to the value of EUR 175. At Russian prices, as we have heard, this means more than 200 litres of the best European beer. That is double what a citizen of the EU can bring in from another EU country. At what limit the importation of beer from non-member countries should be set is not as important as attending to the issue of imports from non-member countries according to a timetable only after the Internal Market has started functioning. The border between Finland and Russia is quite exceptional in the EU. I would point out that no other EU country faces such a wide price differential on its borders as Finland – and the problems resulting from this price differential will not be resolved at any level of excise duty. Recent information, for example from research carried out in France, shows that alcohol causes serious public health problems in all EU countries. I also understand that Sweden and France are planning an EU policy, when they hold the presidency, aiming at preventing health problems caused by alcohol throughout the EU. Knowing the high social costs of alcohol-related problems, the harmonisation of excise duty should preferably come about at the average rate for Europe, not its lowest. Excise duty is not fiscal in nature, simply a policy to provide revenue for the state, but clearly it is an instrument which will lead to healthier lifestyles, aided by a market economy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I agree with my fellow Members that this is a positive proposal overall. I share their view that we should support the Commission’s objectives and that, taken as a whole, the rapporteur’s proposal is good. My group will therefore support it. Take the example of the proposal to establish a committee on herbal medicinal products. This committee would be independent, have the same power as the committee on conventional medicines and would come under the European Agency. Clearly, this is most certainly a good idea. It is in fact an excellent idea, which will, I believe, allow us to use high–quality herbal medicinal products in complete safety. Another significant and additional benefit is that we will have real experts in herbal medicine on this committee, which is clearly essential. The second positive element of the proposal is the amendment distinguishing between food supplements and medicines. We must ensure that we do not establish too strict a recognition system, as this could lead to some food supplements being classified as medicinal products when they have no medicinal effects. Finally, I would like to comment on the amendment proposed by Mr Davies. I believe that his amendment is sensible. I agree with him that we need to set a single period of traditional use for herbal products, regardless of their origin. I think it is somewhat arrogant to assume that third countries could not supply correct, high–quality information, enabling us to use these medicinal products without any risk.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, the relentless escalation of terrorism is turning the fight against it into a priority objective of a number of policies, and, therefore, of the policy we want here in Parliament. Recent events, such as those in Bali, the Philippines and Israel, show the urgency of coordinated, joint action to eliminate this social scourge which attacks the most fundamental rights, such as life and democracy, the system of government that we have chosen for ourselves. Fortunately, we reached a swift agreement, and, ten days after the attacks on 11 September 2001, we had already signed a plan to combat terrorism jointly. Mr Vitorino and Mr Patten – who is not present – now is the time to come to this House, to tell us the problems relating to the development of this plan and identify those involved. We do not need a general opinion. We must go into detail and say which States are cooperating more or less than others, because this is a problem that we are also experiencing on our doorstep. Last Saturday, the citizens’ group Basta ya, to which we awarded the Sakharov prize, organised a huge demonstration in San Sebastián for the freedom of Basque and Spanish citizens, so that each individual, whether nationalist or otherwise, might hold whatever political beliefs they wish. Last Tuesday, we interrupted the Plenary to condemn the attack in which a sergeant in the Spanish Civil Guard, Juan Carlos Beiro, died in Leiza (Navarre). This is a priority objective, which should encourage all European citizens to call on you to come here to provide explanations, and the Council to identify those States which are fulfilling their duties, implementing the action plan we implemented on 21 September 2001, and those which are not. If we do not identify who is fulfilling their duties to the greatest and the least extent, we will not be serving our electorate nor defending democracy with democracy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I do not want to delay the House, but colleagues may recall that on 14 February there was some discussion at the opening of the part-session regarding a broadcast on the Today programme and Mr Kirkhope, who is a Member of this House. I should like to read the following apology which was broadcast by the BBC last Monday: 'On February 14 2000, the BBC broadcast a report about a new Register of Members' interests in the European Parliament, making particular reference to the interests declared by the Conservative Chief Whip, Mr Timothy Kirkhope. The report, which was later referred to on BBC News, contained a number of inaccuracies. Mr Kirkhope has not turned himself into a political consultant and has not and does not lobby the European Parliament. In addition, the BBC report implied that he will for a fee advise on how to handle things in the European Parliament which the BBC accepts is not the case. The BBC is happy to make this clear and has apologised to Mr Kirkhope for the errors.'

Political group: PPE-DE
Nothing can justify the violation of an individual’s fundamental rights and freedoms and which issue from that individual’s inalienable dignity. I am therefore against fundamentalism as the expression of a way of thinking that denies a person – man or woman – their freedom and the right to choose their own destiny, and It is my view that the European Union must, with every means at its disposal, uphold and promote respect for human rights wherever they are violated. I cannot, however, accept the implicit censure of religious values and actual religion that the Izquierdo report makes, under cover of its censure of fundamentalism – and not only in relation to Christianity. It is one thing to freely espouse religious principles that accord with respect for human rights; it is quite another to impose rules of behaviour that entail the negation of individual dignity and the infringement of such rights. It is one thing to support the separation of Church and State, a position I fully share because it is the basis of the democratic system, but quite another to deny the Church and religious communities their right to freedom of expression in the name of secularity – in other words their right to interpret, according to their way of thinking, the facts of public and political life that govern citizens’ lives. By adopting this report today, the European Parliament has done the cause of the freedoms we wish to promote no favours, because behind the censure of fundamentalism there is in fact a new form of fundamentalism that they are trying to impose on us: secular fundamentalism, which is just as deserving of censure as any other, in that they all deny the freedom of the individual to choose his or her own model in life. This is the reason why I voted against the report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I take the floor to express my perplexity and to say that this Parliament is being presented with the budget of the outgoing Commission before we have elected the new one. I believe that, within the context of turning the European Parliament into a genuine parliament, we are doing something that never ever happens in State institutions. It is the incoming government – which won the elections – which presents the budget and it makes no sense that the Commission that has resigned now obliges us to debate a budget which, in any event, has been initially drawn up by it. I say this in the context of European construction. Mr Prodi, you have said that you want the Commission to be a genuine European government and Mr Poettering, Chairman of the main political group in this Parliament, has even spoken of this role for Parliament in relation to the Commission. I wish to add – and I am sorry to cause any Member uneasiness – that the new Members like myself have felt most uneasy because we are dealing with amendments to a budget which we did not know and approving amendments to a budget which has still not been presented. It is an absurd situation and I believe that – although I do not want to request any measures at the moment – legal measures will be required in the near future.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, if Europe wants to be more significant in the world, it has to increase in size, but Europe must also be more democratic and more transparent. This is the view taken by many fellow MEPs. I would add that the Europe of the Member States is not sufficiently European. There is also the Europe of the regions which remains hidden away. For example, you mentioned a shortage in the workforce, but there are regions in Europe which have unemployment of 6% or even of 16% and 20%. This is where Europe, and also the Member States, fail to come up to scratch. Additionally, we need a bigger Europe in order to translate the Union’s weight into political clout for the benefit of stability and peace. We have already mentioned Macedonia. It is necessary for everyone to be aware that the existence of second-class citizens always leads to difficulties. I would like to conclude by making an observation with regard to the Middle East, where an escalating conflict is claiming victims in Palestine on a daily basis. We too have worked hard for peace but, every day, we watch it being increasingly shot to tatters. We are, in fact, a major donor to the Palestinians and have granted Israel privileged relations. But we are lacking in commitment to the right to self-determination on the part of the Palestinians. We do not exert enough pressure to obtain peace.

Political group: Verts-ALE
It is time for sanctions against Israel, Mrs Lindh. In today’s edition of the French newspaper, Libération (16 May 2001), one of Israel’s best known pacifists, the writer David Grossman, observes that, if one does not believe in miracles and does not approve of catastrophes, there is only one way to change the situation in the Middle East, namely through ‘international pressure’. He also states that it is Israel, the occupying power, which is mainly responsible and therefore in greatest need of external pressure. Because the United States never does anything that Israel does not like, there is an important international role waiting to be fulfilled in this area. The EU has for a long time been the biggest provider of economic and administrative aid and the most important supporter of the Palestinian Authority. EU politicians have complained that the EU does not play a corresponding political role. Why, then, not take up the gauntlet and do what the United States does not want to do and what both Palestinians and Israeli pacifists are pleading should be done, that is to say bring specific pressure to bear upon Israel? Formal bases in international law for economic sanctions against Israel are to be found in the shape of those infringements of Israel’s Association Agreement with the EU, demonstrated by the Commission with reference to the fact that goods from unlawful Israeli settlements on occupied land are being sold to the EU with ‘Israel’ cited as the country of origin. If, now, it really is the case that the EU’s new rapid reaction force does not exist at all to protect the EU’s interests as a superpower but, in fact – and as Mrs Lindh usually maintains – is there simply to be unselfish about making peace in the world, why not propose that it be deployed in the Middle East along the only lawful dividing line between Israel and Palestine, namely the 1967 frontier? Unfortunately, nothing of this was heard when Mrs Lindh presented the EU’s Middle East policy before the European Parliament today. There were a whole lot of words, but absolutely nothing concrete and nothing which could in any way put an end to the bloodbath and to the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine. The matter is made that much the more tragic by the fact that Sweden’s own voice on the subject of Palestine has gone completely silent. The work of the former Foreign Minister, Mr Andersson, is being carried on not by Mrs Lindh but by her Danish colleague, Mr Lycketoft, who now talks in no uncertain terms about Israel’s violation of human rights and of international law. Both in her capacity as EU President and as Swedish Foreign Minister, Mrs Lindh appears, rather, to have capitulated before those forces which do not dare to stand up to Israel and the United States. That is deplorable.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to begin by thanking the rapporteur for his very extensive work, but above all for being really skilful in his cooperation with other groups and for trying to find wide-ranging solutions. We appreciate this very much. I think that the report before us contains a great many improvements on the Commission’s proposal. After all, this is a very complicated subject. When it comes to the trade in emission rights, the main emphasis should be on taking measures that are as effective as possible. At the same time, there is a risk that this might be seen as a substitute for political action to reduce emissions, and this must not happen. Sometimes, too much confidence is placed in the trade in emission rights compared with the necessary measures that also have to be taken in other areas. The trade in emission rights at global level within the Kyoto Protocol is a system involving many risks. It is in danger of producing a situation where rights to emissions are purchased that do not subsequently exist. We must discuss how this can be avoided in future. As for the actual proposal, we want the system to be binding and for the exemptions that are made to be as limited as possible. We want as many sectors as possible to be covered, and we naturally support the proposal for an extension to more sectors. We think it is reasonable that all six greenhouse gases be included, and we think that auctioning off a part of the quotas should begin as soon as is practically possible. This is wholly in line with the principle that polluters should be expected to pay for pollution. We also support the idea of a national ceiling on trade, and we want effective sanctions. We will therefore vote on the various parts of the proposal in accordance with this.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as many previous speakers have said, Sierra Leone offers the absolutely worst example of what happens when a country uses child soldiers. In our Finnish newspapers, we could read a week or two ago about an eighteen year-old girl who had been compulsorily recruited, had suffered an amputation and had been raped. She could see no future and no hope. For me, her story represents everything that is so horrific about the use of child soldiers and forces us to think about what we can do about this. We should also note that a third of the child soldiers who have been recruited in Sierra Leone are still mere girls. We should demand – and I hope that the Commission also does so – that the President should respect the agreement once entered into with Unicef. This means that Unicef should be allowed to work in the country in order to rehabilitate children who have suffered psychological damage. I believe that Unicef is the organisation which has far and away the greatest experience of this work. I therefore believe that, in the future, we should in every way support precisely this organisation, for it is psychological damage above all that the children are suffering from and which makes many of them want to return to the military forces. It is this that is one of the most serious threats for the future.

Political group: ELDR
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is a far cry from the Declaration of Human Rights of the UN, the European Convention on Human Rights and the constitutions of many Member States of the European Union. The claim that this is the first time reference has been made to social rights does not stand up: there are references to social rights in international conventions such as the international labour conventions. For example, we note that: - Article 15 states that 'everyone has the right to engage in work' but does not recognise the right to a paid job, - Article 16 recognises the freedom to conduct a business, the first international text to do so, - Article 28 allows employers to take anti-strike action (lock out) and sideline workers organisations in negotiations with employers, - Article 3 leaves abundant scope for every form of genetic experimentation, - Article 14 recognises the right to education but interprets it simply as being a right to free attendance applicable only to compulsory education. The Charter has diminished, not extended people's rights, for obvious reasons. Those who dreamed up this Charter are banking on using this weighty document to pursue their aggressive policy against everything the working classes have fought, sacrificed and died for over the past 150 years. If the Charter is adopted at the forthcoming summit in Nice, either by incorporating it into the Treaties or simply by proclamation, it will be a step backwards. There is no doubt that its ultimate purpose is as a precursor to an impending European Constitution which, in turn, will be the jewel in the crown of the EU's attempt to become a federation in which the institutional arrangements are such that decisions are taken by the minority of strong members but apply to everyone, the main purpose being to serve the interests of private monopolies in the European Union, at the expense of the workers and the people in general. We are well aware of the fact that the Charter may represent a step forward on certain issues for some countries. However, for most countries and in comparison with international provisions already in force, it represents a step backwards. Our aim must be to progress, not to go from bad to worse. The MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece voted against this text, which is both useless and dangerous.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as you know, today is the eleventh World Press Freedom Day. Many of our fellow Members would certainly wish to take this opportunity once again to state their solidarity with this struggle, a struggle, furthermore, which is proving successful, because, according to the Reporters sans Frontières association, fewer journalists are being imprisoned and fewer media outlets are being censured than a year ago. Nevertheless, the list of sources of pressure and oppression against journalists is a long one. Amongst the states which ‘Reporters sans Frontières’ accuses, such as Burma, Syria, China, Ethiopia, Tunisia and many others, we can now increasingly add various mafias, terrorist groups and fundamentalist movements. Just in the last few days, we were saddened to learn that Brice Fleutiaux, the French reporter who had been held hostage for several months in Chechnya and on whose behalf we intervened, was unable to overcome the depression that affected him as a result of his incarceration, and took his own life. I therefore believe that this Day must be an opportunity to give impetus to our collective commitment to this essential element of democracy.

Political group: GUE-NGL