GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I understand and sympathise with the idea behind the amendment tabled that incentives are needed in the marketplace so as to encourage the purchase of environmentally friendly products. However, the wording is too specific. I suggest an alternative that reads: 'Insists that, to promote the consumption of environmentally friendly products, the Commission encourage Member States to consider various incentives, such as reduced taxes, rebates, etc.' I understand that my colleagues who originally tabled the amendment accept this. (The President established that there were no objections to the oral amendment) Amendment No 14:

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, few African leaders have been able to count on so much international goodwill when taking up office as the Ethiopian leader, Meles Zenawi. The end of the military dictatorship, the peaceful separation of Eritrea and the formation of a government of national unity turned the country at the time into a fine example of a successful transition from dictatorship to democracy. Unfortunately, this image has been brutally shattered. The bloody border conflict with Eritrea, the government’s inability to prevent another famine and the repression of the past couple of weeks have seriously compromised Ethiopia’s image. It is correct that unemployed young people have taken advantage of the student protests earlier this month to start plundering, but that in no way justifies the excessively harsh police action which claimed at least 30 lives. Neither does it justify the gulf of repression during which students, journalists, human rights activities and opponents were rounded up and accused of inciting violence. Ethiopia is facing two fundamental problems: firstly, the government’s insubstantial ethnic basis, and secondly, poverty. As far as the first problem is concerned, an inter-Ethiopian dialogue must be established urgently, representing all political and ethnic groups. Europe can play a crucial role in this. As for the second problem, the Ethiopian government must pledge its unconditional support to a peace agreement with Eritrea, so that the necessary funds for development are no longer diverted to defence expenditure and weapons. Cameroon

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I want to thank Mr Lamassoure for his sterling work. I wish to put the following question to the Commissioner with responsibility for enlargement, Mr Verheugen. Is it possible for Turkey to become a member of the European Union in view of the continued Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus, continued Turkish migration from Anatolia to Northern Cyprus and the documented destruction in that part of the island of the historic heritage in the form of monasteries, churches and cultural buildings? If, in the future, it is possible for a country, such as Turkey, to continue to occupy a part of another future EU country, namely Cyprus, and yet remain a Member State, what will have happened to that democracy and spirit of reconciliation that forms the very soul of European cooperation and the very values that underlie it? In that case, what will have become of our credibility in working for peace? I also think that it is necessary for Turkey, in the same ambitious way as Germany, to deal with the dark and sombre chapters of its twentieth century history. It is not acceptable for Turkey to go on denying the Armenian genocide of one and a half million Christians. It is not acceptable for it to deny that Christian Assyrians, Chaldeans and Syrians were also exposed to a genocide in which hundreds of thousands of people were murdered following a fatwa concerning holy war on the Christians, issued in 1914 by the top Muslim leader.

Political group: PPE-DE
We can congratulate the French presidency on taking this initiative to prepare for the UN special session. You obviously have made a commitment to involving civil society. Will you also make a commitment to actually consulting children, since the events involve them? I hope that their views will also be sought in the months ahead. Secondly, it is also the case that while many Member States are very active on the issue of children's rights it is actually much more difficult in a European Union context to be as proactive. What progress do you think we might make in securing a legal base for the European Union's work with children and the promotion of children's rights?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Cashman for his excellent work. However, he is not the only one I should like to thank, as my sincere thanks also go to Hanja Maij-Weggen, of the Group, who is the other rapporteur, thanks to the enhanced Hughes Procedure. I am glad that they have been able to work in close and successful cooperation in this matter. Transparency and democracy are important values in our work, and they will come about if registers on existing information, including that deemed confidential, are made obligatory. This is the principle which I have made the starting point in my own report on the accessibility to information on the environment. It would also be important if the public were given information as to when a document, which is not available to the public at the time a request is made to examine it, because it is incomplete or confidential, will actually be made available. I would like to focus attention on something which concerns public accessibility to documents which fall within the authority of the Commission or are in the possession of bodies set up by the institutions. These latter would include, for example, the European Environment Agency in Copenhagen as well as the Food Safety Agency, which is soon to be established. Naturally, the documents these bodies hold must unambiguously be included within the scope of provisions on accessibility. I do not think Mr Cashman’s chosen technique here is a good one, however. It is technically cumbersome to classify these bodies in a separate Annex, as new bodies are forever being created or changed. It would be better to create provisions in the paragraphs themselves, which would oblige all bodies to publish their documents and create registers on them. Secondly, I would like to draw attention to the work on derogations. The provision of derogations is a very delicate matter, and what is otherwise an excellent report and a huge increase in transparency will very easily be overshadowed in the minds of the public by any clumsy set of provisions on derogations. Naturally we have to finally decide on the sort of practices which would shed public light on the work of the Council, and no set of derogations must be allowed to let the Council retreat behind it in the way it did before. But it is just as important to temper public opinion, which borders very much on the paranoid as a result of exaggerated secrecy with regard to documents on such matters as security and defence. In fact, it is important, as far as security is concerned, that the public can judge, using facts and documents, just how much confidence they have in European defence.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this amendment is redundant, as sentence 2 of Amendment No 24 makes provision for the eventuality of an appeal at law. The reference therein to Article 17 (3) of the directive is final, and so we cannot now vote on any alternative options. There is no doubt in my mind that this amendment must lapse.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to concur with the many interventions and congratulations delivered by other speakers, and I would particularly like to echo the sentiments expressed by Mrs Theorin in connection with the role of women in the peaceful resolution of conflicts. It is an illuminating report, which has been drafted with great expertise. Some will even find it shocking in its boldness and honesty, but at least it tells the truth. That is why I support the full report in its almost original form and we feel that the majority of the amendments tabled by our colleagues have the effect of watering it down and are even downright hypocritical in some cases. Mrs Theorin has written a combative report and we hope that the aid for adoption centres will not be scrapped, see Amendment No 19c. The do not support the compromise text drawn up by our fellow delegates in connection with Amendment No 19. I would like to congratulate Mrs Theorin on her boldness and strength of purpose.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I am very sorry to have heard in the debate MEPs from my own region in the UK from different parties say that they will be opposing this report. I am pleased to support the rapid reaction facility and I do so as a Member of Parliament's Development Committee. In the week that 600 people lay dead after the earthquake in El Salvador, this European Union must be able to move more quickly just as we failed to do in response to the impact of hurricane Mitch in that same country back in 1998. I ask Commissioner Patten in closing the debate, first to assure us that the facility will be utilised in response to crises world-wide in support of the EU's development goals and not just in Europe's own backyard. Second, could he tell us how he could make such a promise when year after year the Commission proposes funding interventions in Central and Eastern Europe and in the former Yugoslavia at the expense of budget lines benefiting the developing countries. Third, will he undertake to bring forward a detailed operational relationship between the rapid reaction facility and the financing of ECHO and indeed explain why he has not at one and the same time brought forward proposals to speed up our humanitarian assistance as part of the reform programme which he knows we support. Finally, can he tell us is he shares our belief that development is the best form of conflict prevention and to commit himself to enhancing the EU's development programme to avoid the need for crisis intervention in future years.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like first to thank Mr Moraes, who has managed to address such sensitive issues as immigration and integration by drawing up what is, over all, a satisfactory report. In view of the new demographic challenges that the European Union will have to confront in a few years’ time, the Commission and the rapporteur are right to present immigration as part, but only part, of the answer for Europe. In view of the economic and social consequences of the ageing of the population, it is clear today that managed immigration will without a doubt avoid a slowing down in economic growth and a decline in our fellow citizens’ quality of life. However, I doubt that such managed immigration can take place, because obviously everyone aspires to a change of scenery and a better standard of living. Moreover, we sometimes encourage such flows by our votes; I am thinking in particular of Mrs Lambert’s report, report 1481, which extends our entire social security system to refugees and immigrants. That being the case, we need a number of measures to facilitate and improve the reception and integration of aliens without penalising either the host country or the aliens who are moving lawfully on the territory of the European Union. One of the necessary conditions for successful integration is that immigrants should have access to the European Union’s employment market and we are all agreed on that. It seems to me premature, however, in the context of a report on employment and integration, to give third country nationals the right to vote in local and European elections. As my fellow Member, the chairman of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, said, how can we imagine third country nationals voting in European elections when they do not have the right to vote in general elections in our countries? As for local elections, each of the Union’s 15 countries currently has its own practice in the matter of voting rights – nationality based on parentage or place of birth – and it is unthinkable today to imagine that the same legislation could be applied to all 15 countries of the Union by a vote taken so stealthily. That is why I shall be voting for Amendment No 4, which notes that third country nationals have the right to vote in local elections in some countries but does not oblige the other Member States to do the same.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I thank the Commissioner for his very detailed and, in my opinion, very good and positive reply. I wish, however, to ask a further question. Recently, those responsible for creating and spreading a virus have used other people’s computers to send out spam. This is known as the Trojan Horse principle. Although, let us say, 60% of computers might be protected, there are always some which have inadequate protection, and the hackers and crackers can use them as bases and platforms for spreading spam. Has the Commission considered how one might respond to this very international problem of a virus and innocent people’s computers being used to turn spam into a problem on a large scale?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, a happy circumstance: two ladies at the head of two institutions deciding a matter of the utmost importance. For the first time, women are in the majority at European level. My congratulations! They say that new brooms sweep clean. We are facing a major problem. The Commission discussed and decided its employment policy 2000 today. The question which must be asked time and time again in connection with the budget is: how can we ensure that the employment situation in Europe improves? I think there is an urgent need to consider which budget lines can be used to create employment in Europe, which budget lines can be used to secure jobs and which budget lines destroy jobs. I think these considerations need to be analysed more seriously in research programmes and the necessary conclusions drawn from them. A second important confirmation is the confirmation of the posts for OLAF. The fight against fraud must be a priority for us. We have noted that our budget is in fact about the same size as the fraud perpetrated in numerous cases. We are talking here, perhaps in inverted commas, about a few million, while several billions are being lost through fraud, which is why I see the creation of OLAF as being of prime importance. I hope that, with OLAF, we can manage to ensure that honest and decent people on the market will again be given a better chance, as will those who dutifully pay their taxes and help to ensure that our social system functions properly. I too should therefore like to thank the members in particular for increasing the budget line for the promotion of small and medium-sized enterprises by 15 million euros. I think it is the right way forward, because this sector creates new jobs, presents the greatest growth and pays the most taxes. When we talk of giving, we should also think about what we will be taking. Small enterprises make a very special contribution here, which is why the START programmes and support programmes are particularly important, because they show that we sympathise with small enterprises. We have also set aside 10 million for digital applications. This is the sector which will have the highest employment in the future. Commissioner Liikanen has told us that, up to the year 2002, some 1.2 million jobs will probably remain vacant in the multimedia sector due to a lack of training. That should give us food for thought. We should focus on the sectors in which we can earn money, the sectors which guarantee that the European Union too will have enough money in the future to be able to tackle the problems of this planet.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is not easy to criticise the French presidency during this debate as it is not present. I understand that President Chirac, Mr Vedrine and Mr Moscovici have other important meetings to attend. However, I am sure that the President of the European Commission, Mr Prodi, has important meetings to attend as has Commissioner Barnier and yet they have done us the courtesy to wait for the end of this debate. Mr Moscovici says we should not blame him, we should blame other governments at the Council. It is deplorable that he has not found it possible to find a deputy to wait for the end of our deliberations. We are after all hoping that we shall be joined by applicant countries from Central and Eastern Europe who have been used to the arrogance of government and people not being present, to people giving speeches and then disappearing. I deplore the fact that Mr Moscovici has found no deputy. Has Nice been a success? Mr Moscovici says that we must turn to our own national governments and criticise them. I am happy to do that. Mr Blair returned to Great Britain as a conquering hero because he had not surrendered this, had not surrendered that and had fought for Britain's interests. Well, of course, I support him in that but what has he actually achieved? He tells us that he has ensured that enlargement will take place. I do not know whether the Commission will reply at the end of this debate but I wonder, in the absence of the Council, whether the Commission is equally confident that by 2004 this European Parliament will contain Czech, Hungarian and Polish Members of the European Parliament and Members from the Baltic States. Mr Moscovici says that of course you must temper your idealism with realism. I just ask him: Did General de Gaulle temper his idealism with realism, or Winston Churchill? 'Public opinion will not wear this.' 'We cannot get this through the House of Commons.' 'Oh, there is a referendum.' Is there? Have we no leadership in the European Union? Where is the Council? Where are the governments? It is deplorable and the only hopeful sign is that the European Commission has clearly recovered its sense of self-confidence. This European Parliament will join with the European Commission in insisting that our demands are met.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I will be brief in saying that my Group had two fundamental objectives in dealing with this proposal from the Commission. The first is to support the Commission as far as possible in its effort to keep it simple and not to include unnecessary complications such as biometric risk. The compromise which Mr Karas has engineered in Parliament is one that we can live with. We would have preferred to have the original Commission proposal in its simplicity, but I recognise the considerable political difficulties which Mr Karas faced and thank him for his efforts in engineering that. The second key objective of my group was to stiffen the resolve of the Commission, to be more liberal and more 'market opening' in its approach to the abolition of quantitative rules. The Commission's draft directive envisages that Member States will be able to continue to set quantitative limits on the operation of pension funds. I am delighted that Parliament looks as if it is going to insist that there is a five-year time limit. I very much hope that the Commissioner abandons any attempt at realpolitik, involving dirty compromises in the Council, and sticks to what is Parliament's clear desire. We want to ensure that pensioners have high returns without any additional lack of security, applying the prudent person principle. Those are the two key objectives for us and if we manage to get them voted in Parliament tomorrow, this legislation will lay the ground rules for a vast growth in private pensions in the Union. It will improve the investment returns to existing pension schemes and thereby improve pensions. It will establish, for the first time, a pan-European investor base for growing and integrated euro-area financial markets.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, with its membership increasing from 15 to 25 countries, Europe is at a turning point and must face up to the challenge of its size. History commands us and we have commitments to do this. The fact remains, nonetheless, that there will be numerous question marks, when we realise that a Europe with 25 Member States will have 30% more inhabitants, 30% more territory, but only 10% more wealth. Along with enlargement, Europe is therefore in need of greater solidarity. But how are we going to manage to show more solidarity with the same amount of money? It is impossible. There is no use in continuing to bury our heads in the sand. Europe must decide to provide the necessary resources for the radical transformation that will bring about enlargement and must reformulate the criteria for granting structural aid so that the poorest populations are not adversely affected. We must therefore pay particular attention to the outermost regions, which are amongst the ten poorest regions of today’s Union. In this respect, I welcome the recent proposal by the Spanish Presidency to set up a permanent forum specifically for these regions. Ladies and gentlemen, Europe has chosen cohesion, and therefore solidarity, the price of which is the coherence of our common project.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the European Parliament has, on various occasions, approved texts which state that the death penalty is an assault on human dignity, on human rights and it is a great pity that we have to establish once again that the death penalty still exists among our American friends and that, regrettably, the number of executions is increasing – there have been 350 since 1990. What I find particularly distressing is the fact that young people as well, people under 18, can also be sentenced to death, and even the mentally handicapped can be sentenced to death. Those are particularly depressing aspects of the text now before us. Every execution is an irreversible act and that makes it so extraordinary. In the case we are discussing here it was not life imprisonment that was imposed, but the death penalty, and that is on the basis of facts that were not proven beyond any doubt. For that reason even the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights asked for time to re-examine the case and to be able to issue an opinion, and it also asked that no date be set for an execution. We must urge the Americans to act not only in this specific case, but to ensure that the death penalty is abolished in their country. Together with a few other countries where democracy is a long way off, they are the only ones where the number of death sentences is rising. This is by no means an enviable record. Our Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party has repeatedly argued in favour of the abolition of the death penalty, not only in this specific case, but in general. More specifically, I would ask our American friends to abolish it once and for all.

Political group: ELDR