GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to devote my intervention to energy issues. Without a clear and ambitious policy on renewable sources of energy there will be no development and no solution to the problem of the greenhouse effect either. I would propose five avenues for the European Union to explore in the run-up to the Johannesburg Summit. The first is a Marshall Plan-type programme for the two billion people who, even today, do not have sufficient energy resources and often live in rural areas or shanty towns. Now that President Bush has blocked the G8 plan on renewables, the European Union – either on its own or with like-minded countries like Japan – should take the initiative and fund a programme for 500 000 decentralised units, to an existing design combining solar, wind and possibly hydraulic energy. These units would be built in rural areas. Information technology could also be incorporated, thus creating a real catalyst for development. The second, which is probably the most simple and most economic way of combating the greenhouse effect, considering the levels it will have reached by 2020, is to set minimum standards for millions of new household appliances – in China alone there will be 100 million new fridges in 2020 – for new engines and for millions of new computer tools. If we manage to set minimum standards for these items, we will be taking the simplest – and by far the least costly – measure, and also the one which will probably have the greatest influence on international policy on the greenhouse effect. Admittedly, this will not be very easy: we would need a secretariat at OECD level before we could proceed. The third point actually consists of three sub-measures which I will outline briefly: first of all the European Union and the countries of the OECD need to lay down clear objectives on renewable sources of energy. We then need to help developing countries to build and structure their energy markets so that they head in that direction. Finally, EUR 350 billion in subsidies currently go to fossil and nuclear energies. If this money were used for something else the economy would be healthier and so would the planet.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the international Afghanistan conference at Petersberg in Bonn led to excellent results last Wednesday. The 29-strong transitional government will include two women. This is a fundamentally important message and a first step towards social recognition. With the end of the Taliban's reign of terror and its mediaeval regime in sight, the brutal suppression of women's rights will also come to an end. They have been the main ones to suffer under the caste of self-appointed warriors of God. They have been denied an education, training, career and the right to any say-so whatsoever. They were banned from public life. The painful result: only 5% of women and girls can read or write. From now on, women will acquire equal opportunities in access to jobs, medical care and the right to vote on a par with men. In Parliament and the government they need seats and a voice. I am convinced that they will succeed in building up their own organisations so that they too can influence the economic and social decision-making processes. They will be unstoppable in finding their new identity, but they need staying power and our support. I hope that the women whom we honoured on 8 March 1998 in our campaign 'A flower for Kabul' will be able to return to their professions as doctors, teachers, professors and managers. On behalf of the PPE and as a member of the Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities, I support the proposal to make the 8 March next year Afghan Women's Day. The European Union has supported Afghanistan alone to the tune of EUR 400 million over the last 10 years. In future, we must invest more in programmes and projects for women. As far as reconstruction is concerned, we call on Afghanistan's neighbours to take an active part in this process. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I have attempted to listen very carefully to the rapporteur, Mr Bourlanges. From what I can gather, Amendment No 69 on budget line B1-406 has been incorporated into this oral amendment. This Amendment No 69 was drafted by a number of Flemish and Wallonian colleagues of mine. What I have as yet failed to understand is what is to remain of this amendment if it is included in the overall compromise. I would very much welcome clarification on this matter.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, on behalf of the 31 Dutch delegates of this European Parliament, I would like to convey to you my heartfelt thanks for the words you spoke a moment ago and for the respect this Parliament has shown for the victims of this terrible disaster in Enschede and for their relatives. Madam President, on behalf of the 31 delegates, there is actually little I could add to your words. I would, however, like to underline how we have been moved not only by what you said a moment ago and the silence that was observed, but also by the prompt assistance across the borders to relieve the distress following this disaster. At a moment’s notice, German colleagues joined forces with their Dutch friends to carry out the frequently dangerous activities which were necessary to control the disaster. German hospitals too have been involved in the care of the wounded, dozens of whom are still in hospital. I find this an example of European solidarity which is what we stand for in this Parliament. On behalf of the 31 delegates, I would also like to thank the Commission which immediately expressed sympathy in the form of a letter from Mr Prodi to the municipality of Enschede. I would like to ask the Commission to consider what kind of a role it sees for itself in relieving distress and in preventing terrible disasters of this kind in which so many citizens are involved. I am extremely grateful to you on behalf of the 31 for the sympathy this Parliament has shown, and I can see in our Parliament a true representation of the European solidarity which this continent so desperately needs.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr Mayer’s document is the first stage in the adoption of the directives on the European company, the European limited-liability company. Only yesterday, when I spoke during the debate, I said that the European company is a good thing, so good that I could see myself celebrating the success of the European limited-liability company by swimming in a bath tub full of euros. I would like to continue yesterday’s discourse by saying that many pensioners came in to see me and asked: “Seeing as you are swimming in gold, why do you not create a European pension as well, so that we pensioners can all become rich as well like the European limited-liability companies?” I hope that there will soon be a European pension.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to begin by thanking the rapporteur. The road has been long and, in parts, an arduous one, but we have now found a compromise that reflects the whole House, that reflects opinion, and we should do our best to ensure that, in this week’s vote, the compromise as such is no longer challenged, but that there are only editorial changes to be made. We all accept that in future there will be competition between the different trading platforms, competition between stock markets and banks. On the other hand, we cannot disregard specific criteria, for example, that in competition the same conditions apply to banks as do to markets. What that means is that, if I take markets as sources of prices – of meaningful market prices – then this cannot be allowed to lead to liquidity being damaged in future and markets no longer being meaningful. As for transparency, we must ensure that the market is transparent for all as a place where prices emerge, and that everyone can understand how prices evolve there. Supply and demand must be maintained. This is what our laborious discussions achieved, and also for pre-trade transparency. We gave some points to the Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR) and we will listen attentively to what advice the CESR gives us. I see it as crucial that there are no winners and no losers in this discussion. Neither the City of London nor any other financial centre in Europe has won. Also we cannot say that the markets or the investment houses should have won, but everyone should be in this market together in the future, in order then to attract customers with the best offer. From a German point of view it is also important for me that the market structure should take national factors into account. I would, therefore, also ask that you give broad support to the two amendments tabled by the Group of the European People’s Party so that small dealers in Germany are still protected. Thank you, Mr President.

Political group: PPE-DE
We cannot carry on producing electricity from the customary sources. Coal and oil supplies will eventually run out and are responsible for CO2 emission. Nuclear energy can cause disasters capable of rendering large parts of the earth uninhabitable, and produces a hazardous waste product. So we must go in search of energy that is already present in nature, but which has remained unused because no one has developed the technology to tap into it. It is not very ambitious of Parliament and the Commission to only want to double the use of this form of energy over the decade to come. There is still too little water, wind and solar power, which is what makes it comparatively expensive. Everyone wants a method of electricity production that is as environmentally-friendly as possible, but they also want it as cheaply as possible. This particularly applies to people who are not very well off and whose first concern, therefore, is that their household costs should remain as low as possible. If clean energy remains an expensive option then it will also remain an elite form of energy for some time to come. Environmentally-aware high-earners are free to make a voluntary contribution to cleaner forms of energy, within a liberalised market, whilst everyone else carries on in the same old way. Clean energy must be available to all and affordable to all. As far as the six points are concerned, such as the incineration of peat and organic waste, I support the veto requested by Greenpeace. - ASEM III resolution (B5-0811/2000)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, like many others in my generation, when I walked through the streets in my home town 25, 30, 35 years ago and called out, 'USA out of Vietnam!', I would never have thought that a quarter of a century later I would be forced to stand here in this House and criticise Free Vietnam partly for the same type of violation of human rights that we criticised the USA for then. Unfortunately, it is not the case that countries that have themselves been subject to violence, oppression, torture, mutilation and mass murder automatically become angels who cannot perform such acts themselves. Israel is probably one of the most obvious examples in world history of the fact that it is not so simple. Every nation must learn over and over again what democracy and human rights are. Now, however, Human Rights Watch, as Mr Swoboda mentioned, is saying that Vietnam has recently taken steps to improve the situation regarding human rights. Tens of thousands of political prisoners have been released. I think that is it appropriate for such a thing to be mentioned in a resolution. We must be harsh in our criticism, but we must not ignore what is nevertheless being done. This only weakens the criticism, and those who are being criticised get the feeling that it is of no avail what they do – if they do not do everything at once, which is something they neither can nor want to do. Criticism can be counterproductive if it does not take into account what has actually been done. Vietnam deserves harsh criticism of the kind reflected in the motion for a resolution – there is no doubt about that – but I think that it is appropriate for us also to include a few sentences demonstrating that we are aware that certain improvements have been made.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I cannot support the report as a matter of principle. The objective of the so-called open method of coordination is to have a legislative effect in various areas of policy, and there is no proper legal basis for this in the EU Treaty. This means that the Council and the Commission can create competences at the European level at will without having the legitimacy to do so. This does nothing for legal clarity or for legal truth, and it certainly does nothing to gain public acceptance. I also know, however, that coordination in various areas is already possible, definitely necessary and perfectly sensible. We can always learn from others. But turning this legal, voluntary coordination into a set of quasi-legislative instruments and conferring on it, moreover, the power to apply sanctions, makes European actions completely incomprehensible. The Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, of which I too am a member, knows exactly how sensitive and varied are the traditions in individual Member States; the fact that it is precisely this committee that is approving this presumptuous acquisition of competences by the back door, as it were, in an own-initiative report, is, I think, much to be regretted. We have always promoted a clear delimitation of competences for Europe and respect for competences in the nations and regions, which demand these things, and open coordination amounts to a slap in the face for them. Furthermore, I could not celebrate the involvement of Parliament in this method as a great achievement, because it would not actually change anything about it. Indeed, I believe it would make matters even worse, because it would give a veneer of democracy to this method, which in no way corresponds to the principles of the rule of law.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am pleased to say that I have attended the UN Commission on two previous occasions, with both Mr van Van Hecke and Mr Wuori, who are taking part in the debate this afternoon. The Council said that we boast a long tradition in Europe on human rights, but it must be recognised that sometimes we hesitate in condemning the human rights abuses carried out by our so-called friendly states. I would urge that we must never hesitate; we must apply the same rules and standards regardless. Double standards undermine our highest ethics and our aspirations for a world free from human rights abuses. I agree absolutely with everything the Commission has said. However, in relation to the Cotonou and Association Agreements, I would say that we must enact the human rights and democracy clauses when human rights abuses occur. Anything else will be seen as a pitiful endorsement of such abuses. We cannot, and must not, look the other way, for one day people will look the other way when it happens to us. The young people and the others who look down on the Chamber today wonder what we talk about. We talk about a world where we can celebrate difference, where there is no persecution because someone's colour, creed, belief or sexuality is different from another's. I would just like to finish, regardless of any prepared speech, on what is absolutely essential and vital to remember. Pastor Niemöller said: 'When they came for the communists, I did not speak out because I was not a communist. When they came for the Jews, I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. When they came for me – there was no one left to speak out.' We must ensure that we are never hypocritical in the defence of human rights, and 11 September must teach us surely that the same rules must be applied regardless of whether a country is our enemy or our friend.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on behalf of the one of the authors, Mr Kreissl-Dörfler, I should like to express the total support of the Group. It is vital that we remember the victims of the current increase in violence and call on the government to protect their rights: human rights, the right of freedom of association and freedom of belief. Equally we are concerned at the insecurity of the indigenous peoples and their eviction from the land where they work. We must also recognise and fight against the discrimination experienced by indigenous and peasant women. There must be a recognition of their work and their rights on the land and within the country. Furthermore, this House expresses with one voice its total support for the peace process in Guatemala. With peace we can rebuild communities and with rebuilt communities we can ensure that fundamental human rights are respected.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I will make a few brief and concise observations. I fully agree with what the rapporteur said about the legislative procedure, the role of Parliament and the need for loyal cooperation between the institutions. I also agree with the rapporteur on his modifications to the Commission’s basic proposals. The Commission proposes a special tax, an abscissa of 50% with a threshold of 70%. Mr Katiforis proposes, firstly, to reduce this threshold to EUR 60 – a proposal which my group agrees with – and secondly, to offer the States which this directive is aimed at an alternative option: to apply the rate of 71%, including within this rate both special taxes and valued-added tax. I believe this is an innovative and important approach which respects the principle of price proportionality, which to a certain extent puts an end to the minimum threshold, and introduces a degree of clarity into indirect taxation. The accumulation of indirect taxes and value-added tax have been repeatedly condemned by this Parliament and this option – to establish a combined minimum level for the two taxes – seems to me to be a good solution. I also agree with the rapporteur that price plays a part in dissuading people from smoking, but it is not the only method, and we therefore expect the Commission to send us supplementary proposals soon, aimed at putting an end to this habit. I also agree that the price increase in coastal and border countries may lead to an increase in fraud. I would ask the Commission to strengthen the cooperation procedures in order to eradicate fraud, which is one of the elements that erodes indirect taxation, especially here, but we will talk about that later with Mr Bolkestein, in relation to the Kauppi report. Congratulations, Mr Katiforis. On this occasion you can count on the support of my group.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, politics makes a qualitative difference when it is able to counter negative trends and uncertainties with positive measures, and surely no such difference is being made through the way in which the second pillar of the pension system is being structured, even when, as here, we are concerned with a financial services directive. In spite of his best efforts, the rapporteur has not succeeded in improving the common position, which really does not add anything in terms of quality. Devising a framework within which products are offered that, from today’s point of view, may seriously impair living standards in old age has nothing to do with a sense of political responsibility. What is really needed here are regulations to reduce people’s uncertainties at precisely the present time. In recent years, British pension funds alone have lost 35 million pounds, and rather more still in the years before that, so they too have not exactly excelled. Nor have matters gone significantly better for the other Member States. At a period such as this, people ought not, where the issue of pensions is concerned, to be led to expect quality when it is not present. Quality regulation of the European market is certainly not brought about by a minimal duty to provide information, together with what is no more than discretionary wording enabling the Member States to define quality for a restricted market with reference to biometric risks. If – as you yourself always do, Commissioner – we want to see such quality or an increase in quality, then we can, at this stage, really make no better start than by agreeing to the proposal by the Confederal Group of the to reject the common position. That alone would signify ‘back to square one’ and, for us, new opportunities of obtaining an improved directive.

Political group: PSE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. – Mr President, on behalf of the committee, I should like to warmly welcome both reports and thank the rapporteurs for their excellent work. It is clear that the EU should be playing a leadership role in Johannesburg. Our own treaty commitments oblige us to do so, and European citizens expect us to do so. That means that the Council and the Commission must listen to Parliament's views and respond to them, because it is clear that Parliament wishes to see measures that are both ambitious and more targeted. The Development Council and the Seville Summit should therefore insist on a proper revision of the Commission's communication in order to address existing gaps, add timetables for implementation and develop action plans for each measure. We do not need any more monitoring of the problem: we are in danger of going down as the only species that monitors its own extinction instead of taking steps to prevent it. We need bold, imaginative action plans and we need them now. The Commission rightly identifies what it calls a global governance gap, with global market forces running far ahead of the ability of institutional mechanisms to contain them. And yet the measures which the Commission proposes to close that gap are woefully insufficient. In particular, the Commission's disproportionate emphasis on free trade and investment as engines for development should be balanced with far stronger commitments to binding frameworks for corporate accountability. As a first step we are proposing a directive on mandatory social and environmental performance. WTO rules must also be reformed to allow governments to make the vital distinctions that need to be made between products on the basis of the way in which they have been produced. How else can we move towards more sustainable production and consumption practices? It is hard to overstate the importance of urgent action at Johannesburg. It has been estimated that if we continue with our current production and consumption patterns we will soon need an extra three planets in order to provide the necessary resources and absorb the wastes. We do not have three planets; we have just one planet, and it is already showing signs of major degradation. Johannesburg has to deliver results.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, it is a matter of regret that the Council is not represented here today. We are very well aware that the request for the Council to be represented here was made at very short notice. For that reason I do not mean to criticise the Swedish Presidency as such, but I would like to make a point about the future, Madam President. Just as we expect the Commission to be present at meetings of the European Parliament, in future it should also be possible for the Council of Ministers to be available to make statements when the European Parliament is sitting in Brussels or Strasbourg. (Applause) We should focus our efforts, following the great success we had just last week with a regulation on transparency and access to documents, so that in future it goes without saying that the Council of Ministers, which is always welcome here, is not only welcomed by us when it is willing to attend, but rather that the Council should always be present here in future. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE