GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, some time ago, Scott Ritter, the former weapons inspector, paid a visit to the European Parliament. He asked us to travel to Iraq to support the weapons inspections. He believed that would show not only the USA and the world at large, but also Iraq, that the weapons inspections are not something thought up by the USA, but the only way to achieve peace; and it would show that the weapons inspectors have strong support, even among us pacifists and opponents of war. At a video conference yesterday with the chairmen of the political groups, Hans Blix confirmed that he too believes that there is something to be gained from Members of the European Parliament travelling to Iraq and clearly expressing their support for weapons inspections to the Iraqi leaders. Against this background, it is very sad to listen to attempts by the Liberals to malign and cast suspicion on the 30 or so Members of the European Parliament who have decided to travel to Iraq with a view to promoting peace. It is easy to sit in safety back home in Europe and pour scorn on those of us who, out of desperation in the face of the risk of a large-scale war, are trying to make at least a small contribution. I think that is very sad. We are for peace because we are against the use of the death penalty. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a gangster, but if we are to have an international legal system, he must not be lynched, and we should not impose a collective death penalty, which hits innocent people. Within the EU, we do not permit the death penalty for individuals even in the case of the worst of criminals. Ladies and gentlemen, we have to have an international legal system and not revert to a cross between the Middle Ages and the Wild West.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Since 1997, when the mad cow scandal was uncovered, Parliament has been asking for animal feedingstuffs to be given the utmost attention. We must effectively be vigilant in this area as animal feedingstuffs are the first link in the food chain. We are particularly keen to implement in a practical manner at European level this concept of food safety from the stable to the table, or from the pitchfork to the fork. The three reports adopted today make it possible to progress in the right direction. The prohibition of undesirable substances in animal feedingstuffs is therefore a basic element in our food safety policy. First of all, because it is important to set acceptable health limits, and secondly, because it is necessary to prohibit the possibility of diluting contaminated foods in healthy foods in order to make them of a quality fit for consumption. We have the example of the thousands of litres of dioxin-contaminated milk which could be legally watered down with quantities of healthy milk. The principle of this exceptional practice is quite scandalous. Until now, poisoning has been legal provided that it is carried out in infinitesimal doses. Furthermore, the practice of watering down contaminants leaves the way clear for fraud throughout the territory of Europe. The destruction of contaminated foods or food compounds provides a twofold guarantee making it possible to limit the trafficking in this type of food. Firstly, it is guarantee of safety for the consumers who will, naturally, be the first beneficiaries of this measure, and secondly, it is a guarantee for the crop farmers and animal farmers that only health food is available on the market. For all these reasons I voted in favour of the ban on dilution proposed by the European Commission. It was, moreover, essential to step up harmonisation of the conditions of performing checks and inspections in the field of animal feedingstuffs. That has now been done. I should now like to see the Council of Ministers moving ahead rapidly and supporting the amendments we have adopted. - Paulsen Report (A5-0256/2000)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I voted against this report on the Nice Treaty, but I found it ironic that my colleagues from the main political establishment parties in Ireland, who criticised the no-campaign in Ireland saying we have no grounds for criticism, endorsed a report today which is extremely critical of the Nice Treaty. At home they say one thing and out here they do something very different. I also find it quite alarming that this treaty basically endorses the whole concept of a European constitution which is something that has not been debated in the national parliaments. In fact, in Ireland when we bring this issue up during the referendum process, we are told that it is not going to happen. It is quite clear today that this is going happen and there needs to be a bit more honesty with the people. It is rather disturbing that we had the Swedish Prime Minister, coming here yesterday urging a 'yes' vote. People are trying to put pressure on Ireland to say that if do not vote 'yes' we will be stopping enlargement when this is not the case. The kind of Europe the Nice Treaty proposes is far more detrimental to the eastern European countries, because it divides Europe. We should be looking for a Europe that is not divided into first and the second-class tiers.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I have asked the Commissioner when he will do his duty as far as Sweden is concerned and remind the Social Democratic government of a signature which was placed here by Sweden. When will the Commission enforce the Treaty?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Minister, one presidency follows another, but, hearing Mr Chirac, we realise that the speeches and the pious hopes regarding exclusion remain the same. It must, however, be noted that the fate of the fifty million poor people or the fifteen million unemployed people in Europe remains the same, whatever the presidency. Europe is democratically bankrupt. The operation of the institutions is quite outside the concerns and outside the control of the citizens. Europe is a liberalising machine deregulating public services at the expense of the people’s basic needs. Europe is a fortress favouring illegal trafficking in modern-day slaves, as the Dover tragedy showed. The demonstrations in Seattle, Geneva and Millau, however, show that another sort of Europe, another sort of globalisation, is possible. To achieve a democratic Europe, let us begin by bringing down the Schengen fortress and agreeing that all men and women have the same freedom of movement as capital, and let us regularise the situation of illegal immigrants. To achieve a social Europe, let us begin by banning layoffs on the part of firms in profit. Finally, to achieve a Europe of justice and solidarity, let us begin by setting up, and not just talking about, a Tobin tax, up to a level that would make it possible to guarantee the subsistence of the billions of children and adults totally without resources. For the people, these requirements are the priorities in the debate, which is certainly needed, on the weighting of votes or the right of veto.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin my prepared statement by thanking Commissioner Verheugen for discussing the subject of the Beneš Decrees and thereby, as Parliament has already done in many resolutions, clearly pointing out that this issue very definitely possesses a European dimension. Commissioner, you were right to observe that problems of a legal, but also political and moral, nature have arisen and are certainly of relevance to the process of integration. I will now also expressly welcome and support the encouragement you have given in this House to the Czech Government and the Czech public to do everything possible to put a stop to such discriminatory effects in the legal field as may still result from these Beneš Decrees, and thus remove potential obstacles on the path to enlargement. I greatly regret the remarks by some Members to the effect that enlargement is inevitable. As if we were now to have to do everything in our power to move this process further forward, because it would otherwise be unstoppable! This process is not only unstoppable, it is also explicitly desirable, and to be desired, moreover, with the utmost ardour! In particular, enlargement incorporating the countries in Central and Eastern Europe, and those to the North, overcomes the historic burdens laid upon us by Yalta, at last overcoming the division of Europe, and benefiting us all, especially countries such as Austria and Germany, who will profit directly from the growing markets at their front door! (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of Mrs de Veyrac’s report, not just because I feel it is very positive and thorough, but because we are going to have to devote a great deal more attention to this theme in future. I also believe that not only do we need to undertake the necessary public works, as provided for in this report, we must also make more funding available, so as to achieve the necessary level of acceptance amongst the general public for these areas. A great deal still remains to be done, but we are on the right track. That is why I voted in favour.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I was happy to vote for the directive on ozone. As we know, ozone, in itself, is activated oxygen: a healthy thing. What, I regret to say, is not healthy is destroying part of the protective layer of ozone which is in the air, causing an increase in radiation from the sun and the climate change that we all fear. If this should happen, as we are well aware, that would be harmful – as it already is – to all the citizens but, especially, since it is mainly a question of the air we breathe, to the elderly, many of whom suffer from respiratory problems. I therefore hope that the European Union will genuinely continue to work to combat air pollution.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this House’s celebration of International Women’s Day should not be a burdensome duty. I would have preferred us to adopt – much more frequently in the course of a year, rather than just on this day – reports on the Commission’s legislative initiatives, rather than own-initiative reports on topics such as the situation of women who belong to minorities or the reconciliation of professional, family and private life, which, interesting though they may be, do regrettably little to get us further forward in practical terms. One can certainly, in these areas; keep making new demands – some of them, alas, exaggerated – but extreme and sometimes unrealistic demands do nothing to help the women we want to help. On the contrary, they can turn out to militate against the employment of women. My lady colleagues and I had ourselves submitted amendments to these own-initiative reports, only – as we are accustomed to doing – to see them fail in the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and that is why we have resubmitted some of them to be voted on. What I would like to say in this debate is that I am not very happy about the oral questions to the Commission and the Council. I am not in the least convinced that there is a need for one member of the Commission, and one Directorate-General, to have sole responsibility for the equal treatment of men and women. It would, I think, be much better for these problems to be dealt with by a Commissioner – of whichever gender – whose remit included such things as, for example, the internal market or employment policy, rather than setting them apart in a ghetto in which they would suffer the same fate as this House’s Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, that of not being taken seriously by many decision-makers. As regards the composition of the Commission, I do not think that the questions to the Council aimed at ensuring that there should be enough women Commissioners, are actually very much help at this present time. How is the Council – which, incidentally, I do not believe is actually represented at the moment – supposed to lay down, on 1 March, that at least one-third of the Commissioners should be women after November 2004? I hope there will be more of them than that. Even if a proposal of this sort is in the draft constitutional treaty, I think it is absurd that every Member State should be required to put forward a list of three candidates, be they male or female. This sort of selection procedure does nothing whatever to ensure that the next Commission will include the best male Commissioners and enough outstanding female ones.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, when, on the last day of the last part-session in Strasbourg, it appeared on several occasions that we did not have the quorum required for voting, I suggested to the President of that sitting, Mr Wiebenga, that, from now on, we ought to carry out all the Friday votes at twelve noon or at the end of the sitting on Fridays, just like on the other days, and not get the attendance registers signed until the Members leave, with a note of the time of their departure. Mr Wiebenga has announced that this matter will be referred to the President and the Bureau. My question to you is: has the Bureau looked into this matter yet?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the measures that have been taken and the position adopted by the Commission on the European shipbuilding industry do not, in my opinion, reflect the serious and indeed critical nature of the situation in that industry, and the same applies to the transactions and outcome of the meeting of industry ministers on 5 December. May I remind the House that the results of what has been a highly successful adjustment process are now being put at risk. We have had a process of quantitative adjustment, in which capacities have been reduced. We have had a process of qualitative adjustment, involving modernisation, the introduction of state-of-the-art technology and high productivity, and I can assure you, Commissioner, that shipyards are one of the areas where advanced technology is of the essence, not only information technology and related domains but production technology too. In short, a generally successful process is now being placed in extreme jeopardy. I also wish to remind you that many of our shipyards are in remote regions with structural weaknesses – regions that are undergoing radical adjustment processes. Shipbuilding is often the key industry in such regions. The process has not yet been completed, and the situation remains delicate. Insufficient progress has been made towards diversification; consistent adherence to the present course is essential. The line being followed by the Commission can only be detrimental to the shipyards of Europe. Further investigations are planned, but not until next year. So is the situation insufficiently clear? Have there not been enough detailed analyses? Have visits not been paid to Korea? Has the Commission not received unsatisfactory information? Is the present situation really so shrouded in mystery that we have to wait until May 2001 for a more detailed review? The Commission knowingly tolerates the exposure of the shipyards in the European Union to unfair competition for almost six months. This brings additional pressures and dangers to a situation that is already complicated. It will inevitably push individual companies over the edge. Allow me to make one final remark. It is surely the height of inconsistency to proclaim such dedication to free external trade that we are even prepared to tolerate an unfair partner and yet, at the same time, to maintain internal restrictions on competition such as the artificial ceiling on our shipbuilding capacity. Our internal and external policies are clearly at odds with each other, and this must be corrected.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, yesterday, after the intervention of the President-in-Office of the Council, which had painted an optimistic picture of Community development, the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, took the precaution of pointing out that the economic development we are experiencing presented the enormous difficulty that it was accompanied by an increase in the social marginalisation suffered by the European Community. Mr Schulz has just referred to this phenomenon, speaking on behalf of the Socialists, because we are currently running the risk that, as a consequence of the liberalisation of the Community economy within the framework of the globalisation of the world economy, we may see a situation of greater social differences and the disappearance of the European social model, which we are so proud of. Mr President, the previous Commission worked under the motto “do less in order to do better”, as opposed to the supposedly active approach of the Delors Commission. As we know, it is a question of quality rather than quantity, which was also mentioned by both Mr Schulz and Mr Swoboda, speaking on behalf of the Socialist Group. The question is in which direction this Commission is heading. I hope that this Prodi Commission is not one which does less in order to do it better, but rather one which does what has to be done. While the Delors Commission took us from the Single European Act to the Union Treaty and an extensive enlargement of the European Community, I hope that the Prodi Commission will be the Commission of a social Europe, the Commission which ensures that economic development does not go hand in hand with social discrimination, but rather with social progress. To this end, I hope that the Commission will bear in mind the points of view being expressed in the European Parliament. As the President of the Commission knows, the current Union Treaty provides for a sort of relationship between the European Parliament and the Commission, whereby, although responsibility for legislative initiative lies with the Commission, it must take account of the positions of Parliament in drawing up legislation. In this respect, I would like to refer to the codification of Community law. At the moment, Community law is an impenetrable jungle, absolutely incomprehensible to the citizens of the Community, including those whose profession involves the exercise of the law. Until now, Community law has developed on the basis of a form of casuistry similar to that of the medieval legislators, and we therefore lack any kind of system, specifically with regard to civil law, competition and the protection of consumers and intellectual property. Finally, Mr President, I would like to remind you of a text which is mentioned in the Commission communication. It is point 2(3) on the statute of the outermost regions, which is to be implemented by the Commission. Today the Commission is to speak of the first document in this field, and I hope that, in doing so, it will take account of the requirements of these outermost regions of the Community.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr Chichester has quite rightly stated in his report that environmental considerations must be taken better account of in the Union’s energy policy, but, by virtue of the principle of subsidiarity, the Member States bear the main responsibility for energy policy. The environmental dimension must also be included in energy policy at regional and local level. That too has been mentioned in this report. The recently amended SAVE and Altener programmes are the cornerstones of a sustainable and environment-friendly energy policy. Energy efficiency and the use of renewable sources of energy must be stepped up to meet at least the ambitious targets of the Union. That will require research, pilot projects, exchange of experience and new technology applications. We have to ensure throughout the whole Union area that the networks are also at the disposal of small companies that produce renewable energy. The greatest barriers to the increased use of renewable energy and energy saving are attitudes and ignorance. For that reason, communications have an important part to play in the promotion of more environment-friendly production and use of energy. All this requires money. Unfortunately the Union budget sets aside very little funds for the promotion of a sustainable energy policy. This amount has to be increased if we mean to keep to our targets. The Member States also have to seek bold taxation solutions and other incentives to boost energy efficiency and increase the use of renewable sources of energy. Peat, as a renewable energy resource, must also gradually be included in the incentives package. The report presents nuclear energy in too favourable a light. In my opinion, nuclear power is not the solution to the environmental problems of energy production. Nuclear power is still needed, but the safety factors involved and the storage of nuclear waste are still serious problems.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the previous energy framework programme terminated at the end of last year. As the Intelligent Energy for Europe programme that is to replace it is only just now being discussed, we cannot accuse the Commission and the Council of acting too hastily. The previous programme, however, was a lot later in making its appearance, so there has been some progress, albeit slight. The new programme includes fewer separate programmes, so that is good. In fact, resources for the previous framework programme had been chopped up into excessively small bits, and it has not been easy to achieve any visible results. The administrative costs of having many programmes, the consultants’ fees and the various seminars, of which there is no shortage in Europe, eat up resources, with the result that there are fewer left for concrete action. In the new programme resources are being increased, the overall sums involved will increase and the fact that a five-year programme is being replaced by one lasting four years will mean that additional cash is available each year. The energy industry, however, is such a capital-intensive sector of production that not even additional funds will solve the problems EU countries have with regard to adequate supplies of energy, the security of supply or energy saving and environmental protection. The common objectives that have been set, for example regarding the use of renewable forms of energy, are so ambitious that achieving them depends crucially on the Member States. We cannot leave it just to the ALTENER programme to achieve these goals. It is being proposed that a new special Agency should be set up to coordinate cooperation in the energy sector. Experience has shown, however, that agencies do not always reduce bureaucracy – they tend rather to do the opposite – and special agencies are always harder for Parliament to monitor than the Commission is. Setting up new agencies does not increase administrative transparency. With regard to the work the rapporteur has done, I would like to join my colleague, Mr Caudron, in expressing my thanks to her on behalf of our group.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I wish to thank the Spanish Presidency for its answer. I also want to take the opportunity sincerely to welcome Spain to the European Parliament as the country holding the presidency of the European Union for the first half of this year. I nonetheless want to ask a number of follow-up questions. Does the Council believe that the Indonesian authorities have taken the necessary, adequate measures for dismantling the Islamic terrorist group, Laskar Jihad? Is it the Council’s view that Laskar Jihad is continuing with its terrorist activities, or is any form of de-escalation now to be seen, with the prospect of a cessation of this violence against innocent people, mainly Christians in the Moluccas? Last of all, I wonder if the Council considers there to have been close cooperation between the United States and the European Union in combating this Muslim terrorist group.

Political group: PPE-DE