GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the summit in Helsinki took place against a very serious background. According to information from Moscow, the Red Cross is now, in anticipation of the winter, preparing new deliveries of aid for people in need throughout the Russian polar region. At the same time, the World Bank and the UNDP are talking of growing poverty, increasing social maladjustment and record youth unemployment in Russia. The fact that social destitution constitutes fertile ground for populists and extremists and for ethnic and religious conflicts is something we can see right now with appalling clarity in Chechnya and neighbouring regions where warlords and criminal clans are feathering their nests at the expense of the civilian population. There seems to be no end to the blood bath in Chechnya. Close on 200,000 innocent people have been forced to flee, and Dagestan is being ever more destabilised. It may be that our best intentions where Russia is concerned will in fact run into a lot of difficulties and be threatened by on-going crisis. In other words, “our best laid schemes might go agley”. No-one within the EU is recommending an independent Chechnya. We cannot accept terrorist acts, but nor can we accept a military solution to this crisis. We demand that Russia initiate negotiations with Chechnya’s elected President without unrealistic prior conditions and that the aid which the EU has also promised should actually get through. Yesterday, Prime Minister Putin got the Duma to approve an appropriation of a billion dollars for the war effort in Chechnya. My question to the Council and the Commission is this: will you see to it that Russian aggression in Chechnya is not partly financed from international sources?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like warmly to thank the rapporteur, Mr Cocilovo, for his efforts, his commitment and also his readiness to compromise on many points. The fact that I am nevertheless dissatisfied will perhaps be of some assistance to him in his dealings with Mr Jarzembowski, because he stands somewhere in the middle between the various opinions predominating in this house. I would like to take up two subjects that have already been debated today. One relates to the level of the toll and the fear of many people that excessively high toll will be levied. I believe that each country, each region will always have to consider for itself whether the toll might have adverse effects on competition, and so an upper limit will automatically be imposed here. In addition, even if there are some relatively high toll fees – such as, for example, those charged for the Brenner – thousands and thousands of drivers have not been deterred from continuing to make use of the Brenner. What this means is that, provided that the fee is not so high that it has a prohibitive effect, we have witnessed an increasing use of goods vehicles for many years. The second problem, which has not been adequately resolved, has to do with the external costs. I acknowledge that the rapporteur has made suggestions here which have also been accepted by the majority of the committee and which relate to the possibility of allocating external costs, that is to say, environmental costs. The whole question turns on the need for the Commission to make proposals – which, unfortunately, it has not done. I have been a Member of this Parliament for two parliamentary terms and there has been constant discussion of this, but no concrete proposals for charging methods have ever been made. Hence also the motions which had been proposed by my party, including with my signature, for an initial statement that the Commission will make specific recommendations for charging methods within two years and, secondly, the proposal that, until that is the case, reasonable – that is to say, non-arbitrary – national charging methods can be used. I would be happy if, at least on the first point, relating to the invitation to the Commission to make proposals within two years, we could achieve consensus even today. This would greatly promote the formation of opinions and therefore also the subsequent negotiations with the Council. Nevertheless, warm thanks to the rapporteur. It is a good, but not yet satisfactory, solution that has been produced.

Political group: PSE
Mr Frattini, we have just heard your opinions and we would like to thank you. I think that they were very clear. I would like to ask whether, in the evaluations given to date and in the proposals put forward by individual Member States to establish the Convention text, or rather the Constitutional Treaty, there have been any evaluations or whether ideas have been included regarding the proposed referendums. I understood, and we know, that our systems do not provide for an abrogative referendum, nor does the possibility currently exist of subjecting this Constitutional Treaty to a similar evaluation. Are there any ideas or not regarding the proposed referendum?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in recent years, we have repeatedly given our very close attention to developments in the Middle East, and I think there is consensus that we all want to do our bit to ensure that the roadmap to peace can be adhered to. I see this, though, as giving rise to three specific demands. First of all, in the first phase of the roadmap, there is reference to the need to destroy the infrastructure of terror. What contribution are we making to that? What contribution can we make to it? This is where there is a need for further initiatives, especially together with the United Nations, if we are to make a positive contribution in this area too. Secondly, I am very grateful to the European Union for now having blacklisted the civilian wings of certain movements. I would ask, though, that we now do what the Palestinian Authority has already done, and block their accounts, so that there is no possibility of terrorism being funded through European bank accounts. In this, we should not merely make declarations, but take the appropriate action. Thirdly, there is something that has been for many years a major concern for me as a member of the Committee on Budgets, namely the issue of the form of the Palestinian Authority. It is a fact that we in the European Union have been spending a very great deal of money, and I would like to see it achieving something. We cannot be expected to invest in a system that does not correspond to what our Budget regulations require. Instead, we must ensure the creation of stable structures capable of giving a country like this peaceful civilian administration in the long term. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I agree with the report’s assertion that water is not a commodity, but rather a heritage that must be protected, defended and treated as such, and that access to water is an inalienable human right. As s, we do not share the idea that water is an economic commodity, which excludes its social and cultural character, and we think that the protection and defence of water should not be guided by the rules of the market economy. With regard to the amendment on the Spanish National Hydrological Plan that, according to Mrs Flemming, we should withdraw, both my colleagues and myself, who presented it, are not going to withdraw it. We think that it is reasonable, that it criticises an EU country’s hydrological plan that is unsustainable from the economic, social and environmental points of view, and that it clearly contradicts the European Union’s Sustainable Development Strategy. For this reason, we are not going to withdraw the amendment. We hope that other Members will vote for it and we trust that this will be the case.

Political group: PSE
We have voted in favour of Mrs Hulthén's report, (A5-0237/2002). For us Swedish Moderates, the most important environmental issue is to avoid development that can cause climate change on our planet. To us, it is obvious that the use of carbon for energy production must be phased out. Work on environmental policy must be more clearly focused on emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. We have voted in favour of the present report as we consider that attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and achieve the targets in the Kyoto Protocol are important. This does not mean, however, that we support the report in its entirety. Items 16, 26, 34 and 35 advocate the coordination and harmonisation of environmental and energy taxation. We are opposed to the EU managing the taxes of the Member States. A decision must also be made on environmental taxes in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. A carbon dioxide tax might need to vary among the Member States, since it must be set off against other measures that the Member States need to take to achieve the lower emission targets. - Report Bradbourn (A5-0294/2002)

Political group: PPE-DE
We are in favour of assisting young farmers without financial resources to meet the considerable expenses involved in setting up business, purchasing farms and equipment. We therefore voted in favour of this report in spite of our reservations, for there is no guarantee that the bulk, if not all of this aid will not go to the children of wealthy farm owners and that, once again, those least well off will be left by the wayside. At this early stage, we would denounce the misappropriation of these funds to benefit the children of wealthy farm owners.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I would like to ask the President-in-Office of the Council, after his few hours working in this Chamber with these Members of the European Parliament, whether he has come to any assessment of what they are worth in terms of pay?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I wish to take this opportunity provided by the Rules of Procedure to ask precisely the questions that I tabled previously. What is the Commission’s position on the requests made by the occupying powers in Iraq and on the serious situation Iraqi society is now experiencing? What measures does it consider should be adopted to support the UN’s action in Iraq?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, Europe is founded upon fundamental rights. So is the American Constitution, namely upon our fundamental European rights and the ideas of John Locke and the French Revolution. American citizens can demand our European rights in their own courts, something which has provided them with empowerment, self-assurance and a pride in themselves. Fundamental rights can create identity and citizenship. They can also help individuals to take advantage of opportunities which are now arising in Europe through freedom of movement, the euro and information technology, that is to say the opportunities which are emerging in the new economy. The assets we have as Europeans in the form of cultural differences are easier to maintain and to accept if citizens know that they can claim their rights throughout the Union. Quite simply, freedom of movement demands a basis of guaranteed, fundamental rights. Enlargement of the Union without guaranteed rights could even turn into a fiasco and delay our economic development. A binding Charter is an indispensable requirement and a necessary part of a much-needed constitution. I want to warn against joining the Council of Europe’s convention, especially if this step were not to be combined with a binding Charter. These complications ought to be studied more closely. I hope that we are to have a modernised version of the wording of Article 6 of the Council of Europe’s convention in which our already existing rights are listed in a summarised and concentrated form, with modern biotechnology and data protection added. The Charter should be easy to communicate to citizens and be clear to them. It should not be divided into two or contain a whole lot of references. The Charter must be binding and embrace the European institutions. It cannot be fair for citizens to be left without protection against abuses by institutions resembling police forces, such as OLAF and Europol. This project will give rise to more powerful European individuals.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in general, following the terrible events of 11 September, Europe has surreptitiously moved the more controversial issues down the Transatlantic Agenda. I was mistaken, as were others. The laws of physics do not normally apply to politics, with the possible exception of the Archimedes principle. I do not think I would be dramatising the present situation in saying that disagreements between the European Union and the United States are both new and alarming. So too is the tone of the disagreement between the European Union and the United States, by which I mean the present government of the United States. We all, or nearly all, bemoan the American unilateral attitude. We do not however accept that this is due to Europe failing to assume its global responsibilities in full. I agree with Commissioner Patten that we do not need new ideas. We must, however, give up the old ones, including the notion that Member States, or certain Member States, can play a leading role in world affairs. It is not just desirable but essential to promote a return to the old multilateral attitude adopted by the United States in the forties and fifties. This can best be achieved by the European Union’s adoption of a single common foreign policy. The latter would help to restore the political balance of the Transatlantic Agenda. Such a new relationship cannot depend on readjusting military capabilities. This issue still poses a challenge for Europe, however. We do not have to restrict ourselves to exercising our enormous so-called ‘soft power’ is we do not wish to do so. Europe can also have a genuine common defence policy. This would not, in the first instance, involve a budget increase. Instead, it would require the forging of a single policy, and a great deal of work remains to be done in this regard.

Political group: PSE
The sale of instruments which facilitate the killing of people can be very lucrative. Since the terrorist attacks of 11 September in America, the profit expectations of the arms industry have risen. The only possible justification for producing weapons is in self-defence against external enemies who aim to take over, suppress us or wipe us out. The production of arms as an economic activity, to make profit by means of exporting to regions where people want to buy those weapons, means that money is considered more important than human life. Against the wishes of Parliament, last year, the Council pressed ahead with lifting the arms embargo against Indonesia, despite the violence in East Timor, the Moluccas, Aceh and West Papua. Mr Titley’s proposal contains only a non-legislative reference, but includes a number of improvements on the current situation, such as the legal enforcement of the Code of Conduct for arms exports, and its application to candidate countries. He is right to request that permission from the Member States be required by European companies to transfer licences for the production of military equipment outside of European territory. I support him in his aims of a worldwide agreement, annual reports on the application of the Code of Conduct and a refusal to allow the supply of weapons to countries that do not provide information to the UN conventional weapons register. - Langenhagen report (A5-0288/2001)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I would first like to congratulate the Commission on its proposal on the prospectus that it initially forwarded to us. I think we can improve the text but I am afraid that Parliament will ruin it if it supports the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, and I hope that the vote tomorrow will enable us to make the necessary adjustments. We are all in favour of the unification of the financial markets. It is essential if we wish to fulfil the objectives that we set ourselves in Lisbon. However, let us not forget what happened across the Atlantic. How can we fail to mention an affair that is still being talked about even now, the Enron affair, and fail to see that the lack of transparency and the lack of credibility of financial information were also among the reasons for this situation? Neither can we fail to mention the number of start-ups that collapse day after day, even though almost as many are launched every day? We need a financial market that is open, accessible to all, mature, transparent, safe and sound, with no distortion of competition and with protection for all, which means access to cheap financial services for companies but also protection of savers, which means all savers, including small-time savers. In order to do that, I think that there are two fundamental principles that we need to restore in the text that we have received from the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. First of all, we need a simple rule regarding the authority responsible for monitoring the prospectus, which is the rule of the country where the issuer has its headquarters. That is the basic rule in the whole structure of the internal market. Let us maintain it, we need it. We need a competent authority with a clearly defined role, with no possibility for delegation. These are three key elements as far as the regulatory authority is concerned. As far as the scope of application of the directive is concerned, there is the issue of SMEs. We need just as much information on SMEs as we do on large companies. It may be possible to make allowances by only requiring information from them on a yearly basis, but otherwise it is out of the question to exclude SMEs from the scope of the directive, as that would compromise the virtues of the European passport.

Political group: PSE
Thank you very much, Commissioner, for that very positive and illuminating reply, at a time when there is great uncertainty in the countryside. However, given the importance of the issue, I believe more information should be provided. So my supplementary question is: does the Commission plan to provide the farmers with direct information and guidance on the advantages and improvements represented by the reform you are proposing? I say this with knowledge of the facts, because in my country there are many parodies in which farmers are constantly being told that decoupling means that the less they work, the more they earn and that they will earn more the more they ‘scratch their bellies’, to employ the terminology actually used. Therefore, Commissioner, if we want the farmers to understand your proposals, bearing in mind that the Spanish Minister for Agriculture’s strategy is head-on opposition, I believe you should consider this question and that the Commission must propose measures to provide direct information, because what we have in Spain at the moment are ridiculous parodies.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, you were very kind to receive me and His Royal Highness Prince Victor Emmanuel of Italy this afternoon, so I believe you know the full details behind the case. But just to refresh the memories of colleagues, the motion which was circulated to Parliament was about restoring the rights of former royal families of Europe, in particular those of Austria and Italy, who are still denied their full civil and political rights as citizens of the European Union. Prince Victor Emmanuel has been in exile for 50 years now. He is an old man. He is asking to be allowed to go back to his country of origin. Why is this urgent? Because this law to amend the Italian constitution has been before the Senate three or four times and the left have always obstructed it, although they have paid lip service to the idea that it is possible to make a new law to allow him back in. I want this Parliament to call upon the Commission to look at this issue from a European Union perspective for the first time and reinstate these families' full civil and political rights. My case rests there.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr van Hulten has done some excellent work in reforming the Financial Regulation and this report is also an excellent example of that. My sincerest thanks go to him accordingly. The reform of the Financial Regulation began with the report in 1999 by the external committee of experts commonly known as the Five Wise Men. The report mentioned the importance of both simplifying financial administration and clarifying personal accountability. Parliament and the Council approved the new Financial Regulation last spring and it comes into force from the beginning of next year. The reform is partly linked to the Commission’s administrative reform. The rules for implementation now being discussed are connected with this new Financial Regulation. The reform would mean an end to the old ex ante control with responsibility moving away from financial administration to be borne entirely by the authorising officer. This change will mean an increase in their power and responsibility. Because authorising officers are the officials with the most important executive role they must be fully accountable for their actions, and cannot take refuge behind the backs of others. With accountability hopefully becoming clearer, we can also increase efficiency, as at present, for example, delays in making payments in the Commission are too long and do not in any way match the sort of efficiency we see in the world of business. The system now to be decided on must not be spoilt by new amendments. For that reason, Amendments Nos 33 and 34, for example, are not acceptable, as they would allow for responsibility for execution to be shared once again by two people, the authorising officer and the accounting officer. The system has to be clear and transparent.

Political group: ELDR