GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in 2003 the current period of the financial perspectives will reach its half-way point. This is the first budgetary procedure which deals successfully with the consequences of enlargement in terms of administrative spending. In my view, this is a good departure point for dealing with future difficulties. It is fair to point out that the efforts to reach an agreement in the July conciliation were successful and will allow us to vote in favour of the 2003 budget tomorrow. It goes without saying, therefore, that I warmly congratulate the rapporteurs, Mr Färm and Mr Stenmarck, and the chairman of our Committee on Budgets. The series of commitments achieved during the conciliation, and enshrined in the declarations, demonstrates a clear advance for Parliament in decision-making with budgetary consequences and an advance in terms of ensuring better control of budgetary implementation and outstanding commitments. There has been mention here of an issue which is of great importance to my country: resolving the second stage of the funding of the Spanish and Portuguese fishing fleets in view of their inability to fish in Moroccan waters. I would like to say sincerely to my colleague Mrs Dührkop Dührkop that we share her objectives, but not the methods or comments we have just heard here. I believe that this is a good example of interinstitutional cooperation. Both the Commission and Parliament and the Council have reached an agreement and I believe that at this time when regions such as Galicia are suffering the consequences of an extraordinary disaster, the fact that our institutions are showing their sensitivity and solidarity is a positive thing which we can communicate to the citizens. I must also say that once again the revenue for the next financial year will allocate a significant amount through the surpluses of the previous year. This situation, which reveals a chronic under-use of payments in certain areas, must come to an end. I would like to say to the Council that it cannot ignore or diminish the political priorities of Parliament and that the loss of appropriations must not be repeated, as is going to happen with the Community funding for Europol for certain actions in the fight against terrorism, simply because the Council does not want to be subject to the control of this House.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I should like to congratulate Mr Hatzidakis on his excellent report. Trans-European networks are essential for the completion of the internal market, but also for the economic and social cohesion of the European Union. The Commission’s report on the implementation of the trans-European networks in 1998 outlines, in general terms, the results of the financial implementation of the priorities that were established, such as rail transport to exceed the 50% minimum that had been laid down. This is a good sign. It is nevertheless important to analyse these figures country by country and not just in aggregate, because the same approach should be adopted in every region. The implementation of investments by sector may seem appropriate but the same cannot be said about other aspects that are worth pointing out and on which I would like to hear Commissioner de Palacio’s opinion. Firstly, the need for investment in the trans-European networks that compensates for the decrease seen during the 1990s, not just by increasing appropriations, but also through the participation of the private sector and through the use of Eurobonds. Secondly, the adoption of fundamental measures which will stimulate progress in the seven specific projects still experiencing difficulties, so that their completion can be scheduled and the necessary work accomplished. Thirdly, that in future reviews of the trans-European networks, greater importance is attached to the access of the remote regions to the central regions and to island regions. To conclude, I should like to stress the fact that economic and social cohesion is not compatible with the Commission’s working proposals on this matter for 2000, because by seeking to concentrate investment in existing bottlenecks, we would be favouring the central regions, to the detriment of remote regions, such as Portugal, which are obviously the regions with the greatest need for transport networks that bring them closer to more highly-developed areas.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Madam Vice-President, I too should like to thank the rapporteur for his report. The numerous proposed amendments are proof of the interest which this report has generated. An aid regulation for transport infrastructure and use is important, because it will increase transparency. And apart from this, we may expect this directive to improve efficiency and bring about environmentally-friendly and safe transport, even if only one small step at a time. Although no one particular type of transport is given special attention in this directive, we expect traffic on the roads to be relieved. But this will not happen if there is false competition between the various modes of transport. As far as I am concerned, this regulation shifts the emphasis, with the Committee making provision for various amendments which go in two directions. First – as Mr Jarzembowski has already explained – we think it is important to provide a more accurate definition of the concept of external costs. They cannot be interpreted differently from one country to another or from one region to another, because that really will cause distortion. Secondly, we also assume that distortions of competition will be avoided by treating carriers identically. If a state invests in transport infrastructure which is to be equally accessible to all users, then no distinction should be made between these carriers. Irrespective of whether this aid is intended for the railways, the roads or an inland port, the aid must be measured against the criterion of accessibility of the infrastructure to users, so as to guarantee fair competition. Then we also fail to see – and some proposed amendments also relate to this – why, according to this philosophy, multimodal platforms or inland ports should be burdened with a de facto notification requirement. We expect simpler administrative procedures and, hence, equal treatment of all carriers.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too was in Johannesburg and I spent very little time at my hotel, and not because I was doing the rounds of the famous bars of Johannesburg. I just wanted to say this: the Commissioner referred to the presence of MEPs in Johannesburg and said, I think somewhat condescendingly, that we left before the work was finished and would have done well to have stayed until the end. I assume the Commissioner meant, if we expected to be taken seriously. Could you please confirm to us from the chair that our delegation to Johannesburg had orders from the Bureau itself to leave for Europe by Sunday at the latest in order to attend September's part-session.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, I am sure that everyone here in this Chamber wants a modern, progressive Turkey. However, to be perfectly honest, I am beginning to wonder if Turkey wants the same thing. That notwithstanding, the message which we must send out is that, if Turkey joins the European Union, it must adjust to European standards and not the other way round, with the European Union adjusting to Turkish standards. To be honest, I am not sure if this message has got across – I am referring, Mr President, to the period following the approval of the partnership – and I should simply like to draw the House's attention to two facts. First, to what happened in the Turkish jails which was condemned by the European Parliament. And, secondly, to the hard line stance taken by the Turkish-Cypriot leader Denktash, who is refusing to sit down to inter-community talks and who is being encouraged in this stance by Turkey. Turkey has obligations on both these issues under the partnership agreement and is choosing to ignore them. In all events, even if you overlook Turkey's disdain, so far at least, for its obligations under the partnership agreement, you will be brought up short by Amendment No 1 proposing that Turkey participate in the ISPA and SAPARD programmes. This amendment is totally unacceptable and I will tell you just two reasons why. The first reason is that the budget for these programmes has already been decided. It was decided and agreed in Berlin – Mr Verheugen was personally involved in this agreement as Germany's Minister of European Affairs and knows all about it – and cannot be increased. Consequently, the only solution would be to cut the share of the other Central and Eastern European candidate countries, such as Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, etc., which would then receive less money. The second reason, and this is very important, is that, when it adopted the ISPA and SAPARD programmes, the European Parliament voted against amendments seeking to fund pre-accession tools, Cyprus and Malta from these programmes, on the grounds that Cyprus and Malta were being funded under the ΜΕDA programme. May I remind the House that Turkey also benefits from the MEDA programme. What I am wondering, therefore, is why we said no to Cyprus and Malta and are now preparing to say yes to Turkey. And I say this notwithstanding my immense appreciation for the report by Mr Swoboda, who has done sterling work here in the European Parliament. But that does not prevent me from disagreeing with this specific amendment for the reasons stated, reasons which are of a technical and a political nature. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
The report comments on a Commission communication on immigration, adopted in November 2000, which considers the issue from a mainly economic perspective, linked to job prospects, which may create the conditions for establishing immigration quotas in the European Union. It appears that the European Union is only interested in using labour from third countries to meet the needs and shortages of European capitalism, indifferent to the obstacles this may create to those countries’ own development by depriving them of vital human resources. It is, therefore, crucial that we find a new perspective on cooperation and development policy, particularly with third countries, in order to contribute towards greater support for their development and provide their populations with decent standards of living, something which the report, unfortunately, does not touch upon. With regard to immigrants, it is important to guarantee and respect all their rights. Hence the proposals we submitted on upholding the legalisation of all immigrants, our insistence on the need for recognition of civil and political rights, namely the right to vote in local and European elections and the guarantee of equal treatment in terms of economic, cultural and social rights.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, the issue of the decommissioning of nuclear waste is a very serious one. I should like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca, for his conscientious approach and his efforts to reach agreement on an issue of such sensitivity for our citizens. Agreement is not consensus, as political groups and indeed Member States differ strongly on nuclear matters. Nevertheless we can agree on the necessity of dealing with decommissioning and the safe handling of nuclear waste as an urgent requirement. Nuclear power is not sustainable and should not be promoted, as it still is under the outdated Euratom Treaty which goes back, as has been said, to 1957, and which aggressively promotes nuclear power but does not adequately protect the public health of our citizens. It is not subject to the democratic control of the European Parliament because it is not part of the treaties of the European Union. However, the European Parliament has a budgetary role, which is why the Commission's budgetary proposals are not acceptable. We can only accept it for the year 2000 pending a more correct budgetary solution in 2001. On nuclear waste it is important to emphasise that no solution has been found. Only certain Member States create nuclear waste, and these are the states that should therefore pay for dealing with it. Finally, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur for proposing to convene a trialogue so that the European Parliament can play an appropriate role in managing in a sound manner, as Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca has indicated, our terrible legacy of nuclear waste which future generations will have to deal with and which, with its dreadful effects, can devastate all life on earth. There are obsolete nuclear power plants all over the EU, not just the ones that we are considering with the JRC. This has important implications for the future, so that we can deal soundly with the situation. I thank the Commission for its proposals in general and, in particular, Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca, for the way he has involved colleagues in trying to find a solution to this problem.

Political group: Verts-ALE
As a party we have said in the National Parliament that we are in favour of a court in principle, but the problems lie in the details. This is essentially the American position as well. Their principal problem (and it affects us as well since we contribute more UN peacemakers than any other country) is that the provisions regarding what is known as 'command responsibility' are so loosely drawn that the crimes of individual soldiers or groups of soldiers could result in military and political leaders up the chain being indicted for actions which they did not plan, participate in or even have foreknowledge of. The Americans have constantly referred to the risk of malicious prosecution and we support their concerns. That is one reason why Conservatives voted against it in April of last year, and that remains our position. It is, therefore, not a question of being 'Little Englanders' but of countries with real international responsibilities being careful of what they sign. Clinton signed at the last moment but made a (public) declaration recommending that his successor should not present the treaty to the Senate for ratification. Bush has said he will not do that and there is virtually zero support for it in the Senate anyway. There is also the problem of Paragraph a) in the composite resolution which suggests that terrorists who commit war crimes and crimes against humanity can be tried under the Court's provisions. This is vigorously disputed by many legal experts (including the House of Commons Library) and governments, some of whom made sure at Rome that terrorist acts were not specifically included in the Statute. I would refer you to the ratification declaration by the French government which states that 'The Government of the French Republic considers that the term ''armed conflict' in Article 8 paragraphs 2 (b) and (c), in and of itself and in its context refers to a situation of a kind which does not include the commission of ordinary crimes, including acts of terrorism, whether collective or isolated.' The British government made a similar declaration in June 1999 hoping that a way could be found to get agreement on the inclusion of terrorist acts in the future. After September 11, it is obviously more difficult to say that everyone except terrorists should be covered by its provisions. To say that they can be covered is one way of trying to square the circle, but it is a contested interpretation to say the least. There is also the problem raised by Tories like Douglas Hurd in the Lords regarding the problems it might pose for the settlement of international disputes, although that concern is mitigated to some extent by the residual power of the UN Security Council to prevent a prosecution in the interests of international peace and security. - Democratic rights in Turkey

Political group: PPE-DE
Prime Minister Aznar's performance this morning suggests that his presidency promises to be focused and business-like and committed to addressing the big issues. The presidency has many tasks on the international front; carrying forward the global war on terrorism is the most difficult and the most important. The presidency has promised to resolutely promote solidarity with the United States at this time of crisis, and it is right to do so, but other foreign problems will crowd in. In Zimbabwe we have a growing tragedy which requires urgent EU action: smart sanctions need to be introduced immediately and a clear message sent about the dangerous consequences of the criminal path on which Mr Mugabe is currently engaged. The presidency faces similar challenges on the economic front. If Europe is serious about making itself the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010, then Barcelona promises to be a moment of truth. We simply cannot afford continued failure. Europe has to get it right. Since Stockholm things have in fact moved backwards. The liberalising agenda has become bogged down by new social and environmental targets. Since then we have seen at least three new EU directives which directly reduce labour market flexibility, with more in the pipeline, as well as new national laws, as in France, that tie the hands of business. This is a job-destroying agenda. In the target sectors for greater competition, the picture is frankly unacceptable. In financial services – telecoms for instance – liberalisation is proceeding too slowly. The freeing up of energy markets and postal services is way behind schedule. If Europe really wants to emerge as the global economic leader by the end of this decade, it must show real commitment. We need to make it easier to start and run a business and to keep and invest profits. That means a lot of vested interests will need to be confronted. We look to Prime Minister Aznar to lead the way.

Political group: PPE-DE
The Commissioner showed us where his heart was in the opening remarks. I should like to ask him if he is aware that, notwithstanding the implementation of many of the Community programmes, in a recent BBC television programme Newsnight there was clear evidence that there is a systematic breeding programme in Romania in particular, where children are being bred for export and sale. It was a totally horrendous programme, although I agree social exclusion is a major factor in these dreadful occurrences. There were children who were being bred specifically to be put into an institution from which they were subsequently sold to people coming into that country to buy babies. There is also the question of Internet pornography. Poland is one of the significant countries from which much of this is being broadcast. It is not enough that we have these small, under-funded programmes. What are we actually doing in terms of the accession discussions with these countries to make our opinion abundantly clear that this is unacceptable?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is clear from the excellent Attwooll and Busk reports that the systems of control and surveillance in the European Union leave a lot to be desired. Very little has changed since I drew up my report on controls several years ago. The application of the control regulation is extremely patchy across the Community, with some Member States applying parts of it well and other parts of it not so well. The level of fines and penalties varies widely across the Community, despite having a common list of serious infringements. We desperately need an EU-wide coordination of control and surveillance. The credibility of the common fisheries policy is at stake in this area. In other words, the Commission must be given far wider powers in this domain, as we have been saying in this Parliament for many years. I therefore fully support the idea in the Commission's reform package to create an EU inspectorate and my group will be voting for both reports.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, it is more than three years since President Putin came to office and it is time to take stock. What has happened since then? The FSB secret service, the successor to the KGB and which Mr Putin once ran, is now three times larger than when President Putin came to office. Politics has been increasingly neutralised. The same is true of the media. There are hardly any really independent large media left. Now it seems to be the turn of business, to judge by the goings on surrounding the so-called oligarchies. Those are serious danger signals in Russia itself. Looking at Chechnya, we find that in 1999 Mr Putin unleashed the second Chechen war of the post-Soviet era, part of the most bloody election campaign in recent history, or in history at all. This war has seen hundreds of thousands driven from their homes in Chechnya and tens of thousands murdered. Many speak of almost one fifth of the Chechen population. That would be as many as under Josef Stalin. These are not trivialities, they are very serious events and Europe needs to be concerned with them, especially when an important partner is involved. We all know that Russia cannot develop a Swiss democracy over night. But Russia has set strict criteria for itself. It has joined the Council of Europe. It has entered into a special partnership with the European Union. That means it has itself agreed to be judged by democratic standards and the rule of law and it must try to live up to those standards, but I fear it has increasingly failed to do so over the last few years. Of course things are better today than in the days of totalitarianism, but we are currently witnessing a trend not to more but to less democracy and rule of law, as Yelena Bonner, the widow of our prize-winner Andrei Sacharov, has made clear. So far as Chechnya is concerned, President-in-Office, I have only one thing to say: you are confining the Chechnya problem too much to the subject of terrorism. The Italian word for what is essentially going on in Chechnya is not terrorismo but resistenza. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I thank Commissioner Solbes for his statement. I sometimes feel that Asia, ASEAN and ASEM are the Cinderellas of Europe's foreign relations, receiving far less attention than they deserve on issues of industrial economic, financial, political and security matters. I welcome the promise that we have here to change that situation. I am not sure about the proposal for exchanging politicians – who would we get in exchange for Mr Haider and Mr Le Pen? There are three main points I would like to make. Firstly, events in Seattle and Prague show that it is no longer possible for many of the key global issues to be negotiated behind closed doors by small groups isolated from daily life. I welcome the parallel ASEM People's Summit 2000 and the proposal in the compromise text that this should be institutionalised for future ASEM meetings. I also welcome the proposal for the re-establishment of the joint parliamentary meetings of MPs from the ASEM member countries. Secondly, like Mrs Maij-Weggen, I want to talk about Burma. I am very pleased that, while Burma is a member of ASEAN, it is not a member of ASEM and in the past ASEM has called for the restoration of democracy in that sad country. We continue to hope that the military regime in Burma will eventually recognise that the only way forward is by dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi rather than by confrontation. We hope that the Member States will continue to monitor that. Thirdly, this summit is being held on the Korean peninsula in Seoul. We have seen a historic breakthrough as vital as the ones we have seen in the past in Northern Ireland and in the Middle East, with Kim Dae-jung and Kim Jong-il having the political courage to hold the first summit in this sadly divided peninsula. Yet we have seen recently in both Northern Ireland and the Middle East how fragile these peace initiatives can be. We urge the Commission, the Council and the ASEM member states, both from Asia and from Europe, to do what they can economically and politically to aid and assist this process further. Europe can play an important role as honest broker.

Political group: PSE