GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I agree with Mr Cashman. For eight years the Russian military has been waging war on the civilian population in Chechnya. This is the reality and we must not close our eyes to it. That is why I should like to ask you the following question Mr President-in-Office of the Council: in the trilogue did you present and explain the list of measures, which you have just presented to us, to the Russian Foreign Minister, Mr Ivanov, in the same terms in which you have just presented them to us here? Did you also tell Mr Ivanov about the threats you mentioned of adopting measures against Russia? Was this really the focal point of the agenda or was it only mentioned in passing. The fact remains that it has not yet had any effect. It is my impression that this was not put to the Russian side in the same serious tone that you have just adopted here. This makes us guilty of these crimes too. We know that in Chechnya people are being abducted, killed and abused every day. (Applause) In addition, we know that Chechens are known as 'blacks' in Russia, a derogatory Russian term denoting that they are second-class citizens. Remaining silent and looking away when civilians are being hurt and abused on a daily basis damages our credibility in the eyes of the world whenever and wherever we defend human rights. That is why it is important for us not to believe President Putin's protestations, which bear no relation to reality and which he repeated yesterday in Weimar, that the people need to be protected from bandits and that State rule needs to be re-introduced. This is completely unrelated to what is really happening on the ground. We need to ensure that there is international monitoring to report on violations of human rights by the army. In any case I would support all calls to invite President Putin and Mr Machadov here to Strasbourg in September so that the dialogue can finally begin and the guns can fall silent, and so that we can end the spiral of violence in this region. (Applause) IN THE CHAIR: MR VIDAL-QUADRAS ROCAVice-President

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, following the euphoria over the peaceful revolution that took place a few weeks ago, we are now preoccupied with a growing number of major concerns. Firstly, there is the terrible economic situation. We all know, partly from comparison with other countries, that if the situation remains as bad as this, if there is no prospect of an improvement in the economic situation, this will have a very negative impact on the chances of improving the functioning of democracy. We all support this: that is laid down in our resolution. We also know, however, that many people’s perspective is determined primarily by their economic situation, and that the confidence in parliamentary democracy – and that confidence is not so great in Georgia as it is – melts away if there is no improvement in the economic situation. To put it bluntly: without food or heating, democracy soon becomes a luxury. A situation such as this must be avoided at all costs, but it is a great danger, one that is threatening at the moment. My second great concern is the role of Russia. Of course, Mr Ivanov, the Foreign Minister, played a very positive role in the departure of Mr Shevardnadze, for which he deserves great credit. At the same time, however, we know that the influence of Russia in Georgia is very bad in the long term from a structural point of view. Firstly, there are the military bases, which Russia said years ago it was going to remove. That did not happen, which is a very bad thing. In recent years, of course, there has been Russia’s support for the three separatist movements in South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Ajaria. That assistance is military, but the assistance is often much more subtle: making it easier for the people from the regions to travel to Russia or to adopt Russian citizenship, for example. This has to stop. In order to change the role of Russia, assistance is required from the European Union. Georgia cannot do it alone. One way is for us to offer mediation. I am very much in favour of this: that is also laid down in the resolution. If Europe can play a role in this, it must be sure to do so. I am afraid that that will not suffice, however. I think that it will also be up to us to exert pressure on Russia to put an end to the negative role it is playing in Georgia. To be honest, the European Union is not good at this. The example of Chechnya shows that we often handle Russia with kid gloves when it comes to their conduct in the northern Caucasus, and now likewise in the southern Caucasus. This really has to stop. Supporting the elections is a very good thing, but it is just a drop in the ocean. Nor will our help in boosting the economy there suffice – which is also essential for the preservation of confidence in democracy – if, at the same time, we know that the great neighbour to the north, Russia, is very actively engaged in pulling the country apart into three pieces. The European Union must play a pioneering role in order to prevent this: if possible, by convincing Russia; but if necessary, by seeking confrontation.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I thought the Loch Ness Monster appeared in summer, but it now seems, on this issue, that it appears throughout the year. This is the fifth or sixth occasion on which Parliament has not followed its Rules of Procedure. Mr Evans has quite rightly said that these issues must be dealt with within the discharge procedure and must be debated in the Committee on Budgetary Control. Therefore, my group believes that, when dealing with these issues, rather than taking advantage of certain leaks which have appeared on one weekend in the press of certain countries, of which I believe the majority of this House have no knowledge, and while I have every respect for the principle of freedom of expression, we must abide by our procedures and adhere to our Rules of Procedure, as well as respecting the Treaties and the specific institution of the Commission. Therefore, Mr President, we are opposed to this absolutely untimely proposal and we believe that Parliament should continue its work in accordance with the established procedures. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, it is, I think, obvious – and here I disagree with many of my honourable friends – that, if nothing else, the Lisbon process, the Lisbon strategy, is not a total failure. At worst, it has not made any headway. Clearly, it is developing and progressing too slowly. The recession which has hit the economy, especially the sectors of the new economy on which we have – to put it one way – somewhat over-optimistically pinned our hopes for the Lisbon strategy, cannot be left out of the equation. As far as sustainable development is concerned, there has been a huge delay. We should already be fully monitoring and developing the outcomes of Johannesburg. I think that both the word and the town have been forgotten. Then there is the letter from the three leaders, which a previous speaker quite rightly referred to and which really does upset the balance which the Lisbon strategy tries to strike. This letter calls for reform, but reform in the wrong direction. The letter ditches the term full employment and talks of high levels of employment. It says – and this is outrageous, Mr President-in-Office and I should like you to respond to this – that we need to prevent new restrictions on companies and that, whenever the Commission proposes new policies, we need to listen to the opinion of companies and the business world first. I have nothing against consultation, but what will you do about the legislation on chemicals? What will you do about the new legislation on environmental responsibility? In one sense, these laws are restrictions which come within the context of sustainable development and so on. Will they too be left out of the equation? I think an answer is required. If not now, then during the discussions at summit level. In all events, a clear answer is required. Obviously the war, or rather, let us not deceive ourselves, the invasion of Iraq may exacerbate all this and does, of course, make it hard to get down to brass tacks and discuss the follow-on strategy for Lisbon. However, a number of questions need answering, Mr President. Have you thought about re-tabling a general reduction in working times in order to create more jobs? About funding the development of the so-called third sector? About updating the ideas in the White Paper, which was when we last thought about this in a specific, integrated manner in the European Union, for example on trans-European networks and tax changes, in order to shift taxes off employment and on to the use of natural resources. Have you thought about re-tabling all this in the light of the failures so far? Or has all this now been forgotten?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we must totally condemn the acts of terror that have been targeted at the Russian people, and which have resulted in a large number of civilian victims. If, and only if, these acts of terror are the work of Chechnya, then they are the wrong way to go about things on the international level. But at the same time we must also condemn Russian action against the civil population of Chechnya and the acts of terror perpetrated against civilians there. Unfortunately, the European Union and the countries of NATO have given an example of how to act in this connection; in the war in Yugoslavia, they showed how conflicts can be resolved. They can be resolved in the EU and NATO through violence, precision bombing raids and attacks on independent countries, all of which runs counter to the decisions of the international community. This way of solving problems is the wrong one. We should be developing international means of peacefully resolving problems between countries and safeguarding people’s freedom and human rights.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, when the Swedish golf star, Annika Sörenstam, wanted to compete with the men in the American professional tournament, the male golf world got the jitters. A number of male golfers reacted with suspicion and antipathy, and others rejected the idea outright. The men wondered what was to happen now. Perhaps she was better than some of them. The reaction encountered by Annika Sörenstam when she wanted to measure her ability against the men is symptomatic of many men’s attitudes to women and sport. Not that I believe that men in general actively conspire against women in sport, although there are some who do so. What is done through thoughtlessness and prejudice has the same effect, however. Women are discriminated against in sport. That is something that emerges very clearly from Mrs Fraisse’s, in my view, quite excellent report. Women obtain fewer resources and shorter training periods and are quite often treated unfairly by sponsors. Moreover, it is often men who call the shots in sport. To this should be added precisely what many others have already said, namely that the media devote more space to men than to women. I am president of a sports association: the Järnvägen Handball Club in Hallsberg. It is a club with a fair degree of equality in terms of its membership, with approximately as many girls and women as boys and men. We have worked single-mindedly to create equal opportunities for girls and boys. I will not say that we have succeeded fully, but we have made a fair bit of progress. A lot still remains to be done, and we have to make an effort in our handball club. All other sports associations must also make an effort and single-mindedly work for an environment of equality in sport. Sport is significant in many ways. It is almost always beneficial and healthy for those who practise it. It creates opportunities for social contact and for being together and helps people flourish. Through sport, we can combat drugs and exclusion and give people room to grow and develop, but everyone – girls as well as boys, women as well as men – must have the same opportunities. The European Parliament cannot remove all the causes of the lack of equality in sport, any more than we can remove such causes in other areas of society. We can, however, be clear about what we want, and we can encourage ourselves, the Member States, sports associations, the media and those who participate in sport always to think in terms of equality and equal conditions for women and men. The Member States can be tougher in the action they take. There can be a halt to subsidies paid to associations that do not fulfil objectives in terms of equality. Sponsors can exercise pressure on clubs. If they do not practise equality, they do not receive any money. There must, therefore, be the will to bring about equality in sport. Where there is a will, there is a way. Let us make use of that will to bring about equality in European sport.

Political group: PSE
I wish to raise a point of order, Madam President. The Commissioner spoke for 18 minutes and during this time she cited dozens and dozens of items and gave a breakdown of the position of the Commission. It is impossible for Members of Parliament to take note of the Commission’s position on the different amendments. That is why I would like to reiterate my proposal that the Commission’s position on the amendments is sent to all the Members of Parliament in writing before we cast our vote.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, by refusing to implement the Kyoto agreement on climate change, the President of the United States is waging an assault not only on people outside the United States but also on his own citizens. Mr Bush’s decision to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol is an indication of his immense lack of responsibility regarding the future of humanity. The Social Democrats also wish to strongly emphasise the fact that his attitude is, more than anything, irresponsible with regard to the developing countries. The USA’s own emissions of carbon dioxide account for around a quarter of those now produced around the world. The USA produces per head of population more than ten times the amount that would represent sustainable development if that were the average figure for everyone on earth. The unilateral decision taken by the American President will tend to have an adverse effect on dialogue on either side of the Atlantic. To avoid any greater confrontation Bush should reverse his decision and embark on an active dialogue with the EU and other parties to the agreement on climate to ensure that we can together take adequate action to prevent climate change. However, in any event, the European Union must keep to its obligations. Europe, and presumably the United States also, today have all the technical facilities to ensure that emissions from industry can be reduced by a third from the levels for 1990 by the year 2010. Now enormous effort, greater than ever before, must be made in the energy production and traffic and transport sectors. There is no economic justification either for abandoning the aims and obligations of Kyoto. Sustainable development does not threaten economic prosperity, on the contrary, it promotes the rational use of natural resources and is an assurance of prosperity and jobs for generations to come. Mr President, the Social Democrats in the European Parliament would like to make a strong plea in favour of strengthening the action to prevent climatic change, ensuring that it does not in any way weaken and that the Gothenburg summit will send a clear message regarding the wishes of Europeans.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I think it is rather fantastic that we have now brought about some pretty good legislation. Two years is certainly a long time, but I personally thought it would take longer. It is incredibly important that we talk about safety, on which we can arrive at a common view. Safety has to be assessed. Openness and public control are more important than anything else in this new legislation. Whatever we say and however we behave, new crises will occur and there will be new scandals. We are going to be presented with new scientific proposals which point in one direction or another and which, rightly or wrongly, will frighten people. The only way to deal with this situation is through complete openness and with total public scrutiny, for people cannot be calmed down simply through publishing decisions. Now, everyone with an interest – consumer and environmental organisations and the media – will immediately be given information, and not only information from a majority of scientists on a panel but also details of minority views. In that way, no one will be able to say that the EU is concealing anything from its citizens. Finally, I want to say that this is all well and good, but that I wonder how things will work out in terms of compliance and control. What is there in terms of a possible system of penalties to be imposed upon those Member States and companies which do not comply with the safety standards? That is one step. It is a large step and also the first. Let us never forget, however, that it must be implemented. Otherwise, it will be merely hot air.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, what are we to do with PVC? Some people are trying to make out that this material is public enemy number one. We find this hard to grasp. The extent to which PVC entails environmental and health risks that do not outweigh the benefits, remains to be seen. This might well be the case. It appears that PVC also has certain advantages as a material. Blood transfusion bags are often cited in this connection. Politicians need not judge these benefits. What we should do, however, is to ask ourselves how we will deal with PVC if it appears that aspects of its use are unsafe or harmful to the environment. What measures will we be taking? In our opinion, this is where the Green Paper leaves something to be desired, particularly since the alternatives for PVC are kept out of the picture. It is a murky discussion, which is held almost as a religious debate between those for and those against. Like Mr Sacconi, we do not wish to base our choices on myths which are being presented to us by those for and against, and which failed to convince any of us, but rather on proper research and usable comparative materials. As long as we do not have that, we can hardly be expected to move on to the field of legislation. Meanwhile, we do not wish to place PVC under a ban, but we do want to handle it with care. The precautionary principle requires us to do this. The industry’s initiative to phase out cadmium stabilisers can only be applauded. We believe that similar action should be taken with regard to lead and organotin. In general, we welcome the industry’s voluntary commitments, and believe these should be supported by a legal European framework, thus creating the scope for sanctions whilst adhering to what is possible in terms of content. The risks at the waste stage are considerable because we cannot dispose of the harmful substances in PVC. One of the few options that are left to us then is reuse, whereby the harmful substances simply remain inside the product. However, the current level of reuse is so modest that it hardly contributes to a solution. In this respect, industry could indeed make an extra effort. Mr President, I would be exaggerating if I said that we cannot wait for the Commission’s legislative proposals. In this connection, the Green Paper gives in actual fact insufficient cause for this. There is a lot of explaining to be done before that happens.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, unlike Mrs Pack, I am of the opinion that the more groups that are involved in Albania the better. The Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs constitutes a forum in which this issue should be discussed, because these are not issues that can be resolved instantaneously, but ones that we will perhaps be confronted with for decades to come. It would, therefore, be valuable for the programme that we have before us, and which I feel Mrs Karamanou covers very well in her report, to be subdivided into measures that can be implemented swiftly, medium-term measures and those regarding a legacy of history that we have been combating for 500 years and which will persist for centuries to come. The legal instruments selected fall into the bracket of medium-term measures; the issue of a group of honest customs officials and unimpeachable judges is an economic issue as well, and one that will take decades to resolve. Recently, we have, thank heavens, seen positive signals emerging from that part of the Balkans that has an indirect impact on Albania. The report mentions a remarkable fact – for reasons of brevity I will confine myself to talking about this point alone – which is to say that the action plan for Albania and the neighbouring countries was drawn up by a working party. Thus it is that documents have been circulating from one body to the next, and the European Commission, for example, refuses to make public the report concerning inter alia even the Customs Assistance Mission (CAM) established in Albania. Here we have another danger linked to the Albanian question: suspicions are being aroused that someone wants to hide something, to cover up something that in fact does not exist. Anyone who knows anything about Albania knows that it is somewhat undiplomatic to name the players in public life there, as much can happen in dealings between countries in the throes of change and an industrialised world that has cast itself in the role of aid donor. But, Mr President, since everything concerning aid to the Albanians is, in fact, quite clear and transparent, I consider the publication of all the documents pertaining to it to be an act of political honesty, and one that would nip in the bud any self-interested speculation. The overarching issue is, of course, that of providing Albania with all the aid that we can, in order to combat crime and make peoples’ lives easier, thereby stemming emigration as well.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, the Israeli Internal Security Minister has just said: ‘Palestinian terrorism is trying to demoralise the citizens of Israel, change their daily life and impose fear with a view to the government granting political concessions’. Unfortunately, the Sharon government has been dramatically changing the personal and collective daily lives of the Palestinians for some time. The Sharon government is mistaken in assuming philosophies such as that expressed by Minister Landau, because the Palestinians are not looking for the Israeli Government to grant political concessions. Nobody can grant what is not theirs. The Palestinians simply want the rule of law to prevail and the principles of international law to be respected and put into practice as they have been proclaiming for decades, though so far fruitlessly. The Palestinian demands are clear and easily shared by citizens of good will. They are simply asking for an end to the military occupation they are subjected to. It must be remembered that they are not fighting the Israeli occupiers because they are Jews, but because they are occupiers. They demand the evacuation of the Jewish settlements, established on their territory with the clear objective of making a viable Palestinian State impossible. Finally, they aspire to the proclamation of a true and genuine independent State. I believe that, before it is too late, the European Union is morally obliged to find a system which will lead the occupier to respect international law. It is that simple. I also believe that the forces of reason and of political intelligence in Israel should mobilise themselves in order to convince their co-citizens that the longer the occupation and repression lasts, the more radical the Palestinians will be. I will end by congratulating Commissioner Patten, with whom I am delighted to agree.

Political group: PSE