GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I am very pleased about today’s debate within our Parliament on the latest summit between the European Union and Russia. This is, in a sense, a response to the declarations issued by Mr Berlusconi on Chechnya at the end of the summit, declarations that justified the Russian policy of military intervention in the region. Such statements do not reflect the positions agreed by the Fifteen, and my group vigorously condemns these declarations. Europe has expressed its disagreement with this justification, but can that be considered enough? I do not think so. I deplore the very relative importance accorded by the Council and the Commission to the issue of Chechnya, as well as the lukewarm nature of the condemnations of the Kremlin during the summit. Daily life in Chechnya is still an ordeal for the civilian population. Lack of security, disappearances and human rights violations for which the Russian military forces are responsible continue with complete impunity. Over and over again, Moscow uses the fight against terrorism as an argument for justifying everything. That is unacceptable, even if it is, of course, necessary strongly to condemn the attacks by groups of Chechen extremists. In the opinion of the independent NGO observers, the would-be democratic election held on 5 October was a sham. My group questions the legitimacy of such a consultation, aimed solely at convincing the international community that the situation in the region has been normalised and that the people have been able to exercise their sovereignty. In fact, there is no such sovereignty. It is a matter of urgency that the EU should finally condemn Russia, clearly and in no uncertain terms, for its handling of the war in Chechnya. It will not be possible for the reconstruction of this wounded country to begin until after the Russian forces have withdrawn and full peace has been brought to the region. Only genuine political negotiations may enable the way to be opened to a process of democratisation and reconstruction, in which Europe must play a major role by exercising much stronger pressure upon Russia. Why not in the framework of the partnership agreements? Another possibility might consist in supporting the UN’s provisional administration plan in Chechnya. Such an attitude should not be interpreted as going against Russia or the development of the partnership between the European Union and Russia but, instead, as placing ourselves at the service of a peace and security awaited by both peoples.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I am one of those who believe that this building has made history, both in architectural terms and in the parliamentary world. For example, we have the greatest parliamentary chamber in the world at the moment, the best from a functional point of view. I know that I am not abiding by the agenda, because this is a sitting for discussing problems and I am not doing that. My opinion of this building is positive. But I have decided to take the floor because we run the risk of exaggerating the complaints, and anecdotes go down in history as if they were the opinion of the Parliament. I believe that we are talking about a piece of architecture which is difficult to understand and, on the other hand, this “culture of complaint” – which one colleague referred to – leads everybody to complain. I believe that if architecture is a conflict between form, function and space, then this has been resolved admirably. I believe that these initiatives to resolve the small problems are excellent but, in my judgement – and it is that of many of our colleagues – we should not forget that they are small problems which will be resolved and we have something for which we should congratulate the institutions, the French State, the architects and the workers. I believe it is important to highlight it.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I subscribe to the minority opinion of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms on this Commission communication, which is shot through from beginning to end with the notion of Europe as a fortress to which hundreds of thousands of victims of imperialist policy are denied access. It lines up perfectly with the xenophobia and racism which dominate the European Union, especially after September 11, as the Seville Council made perfectly clear. Unfortunately, the Evans report, give or take a few exceptions, follows in exactly the same vein. The Commission communication, which recommends introducing the so-called open method of coordination as a staging post on the road to complete convergence of the Member States' asylum policies, denies to all intents and purposes the spirit of humanity which should underpin asylum arrangements. It sets out new repressive measures, such as front security checks, a biometric database such as the Eurodac fingerprint system, gathering DNA etc., and all at a time when the percentage of asylum applications approved in the Member States of the European Union is already tragically low. For example, according to statistics from the High Commissioner for Refugees, Greece only approved 25 out of 2,838 or 0.8% of asylum applications during the first half of 2002 and only 34 refugees were granted temporary asylum on humanitarian grounds. These figures are a disgrace when you think that the overwhelming majority of people seeking asylum in our countries are from places such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey, Iran or other countries with serious problems. And, unfortunately, there are more than a few who, instead of being granted asylum, are repatriated – to use the official term – in their country of origin, despite the fact that their very lives are at risk.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the President-in-Office says that it is not the Council's responsibility but that of the Member States. But what is the Council if it is not the Member States? I am not certain that is really a satisfactory answer. He also said that it does not come into operation until 2003. That may be so, but if we are working towards equal treatment for people with disabilities, people who are visually impaired, surely we have to start to make progress now and we cannot have an arbitrary cut-on date as opposed to a cut-off date. I accept that what we are referring to here is the Commission, but the Council also surely has some jurisdiction over what the Commission is doing. The Commission must have some relationship with the Council, and I would hope for a more satisfactory response.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I hear what the minister says; I accept that the guidelines are better than nothing and I congratulate the Danish presidency on at least achieving them. But the legal advice given to the EU institutions was that a contracting party to the Rome Statute that concludes bilateral agreements outside the tight scope of Article 98 acts against the object and purpose of the Statute. Is it not true that the guidelines are really too weak to shut the door to impunity arrangements? I heard the minister refer to a common position. I would like to know whether the guidelines legally constitute a common position. Whether they do or not, will the Council at least seek to strengthen these rather vague guidelines of 30 September which allow loopholes contravening the Statute? That would give us a strengthened common position delivering additional safeguards. These should include: oversight of national pledges by the ICC; guarantees that the US will investigate and prosecute its own nationals accused of committing ICC crimes; a requirement on the US to update federal laws to ensure that its courts exercise jurisdiction over all ICC crimes – which is not the case at the moment; agreement to confine the scope to military personnel or closely allied civilian personnel – and not, for instance, mercenaries; inclusion of a sunset clause and the submission of the agreements for scrutiny by the relevant national parliaments.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I wanted to speak about the polemics between the World Jewish Congress and the Commission of the European Union last week. My aim is not to reinforce those polemics but to point out that they had their origin in a report, which apparently has not yet been distributed by the European institutions, on a matter that is unfortunately only too real. That is the revival of anti-Semitism in a number of countries, France in particular, where Jewish children, because they are Jews, are harassed and persecuted every day by Arabs perniciously applying to them what is happening in the Middle East conflict. Mr President, I would like you to intervene to get this report distributed so that the seminars planned on this question can actually be arranged, and quickly, and the European Union can, in accordance with its powers, be true to the commitments it has given, in particular through our Parliament.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, there is talk here and there about information from Stockholm and Sweden concerning how many stem cell lines there are. I wonder about the date to which the answer obtained by Mr Liese is relevant. A lot has happened since 2002. I have received an answer from the Carolingian Institute to the effect that they only have three well-characterised stem cell lines now available to them. That is significantly fewer. I hope that the Commission discriminates according to date in this area.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am tremendously pleased that we have reached this compromise, which means that we will now also be able to arrive at a compromise with the Council at first reading. I wish to thank the rapporteur, Mr Blokland, the Danish Presidency and the Commission for making a real effort to arrive at a solution which is satisfactory and acceptable for us all, even if not all of our amendments have been adopted. The intentions of the Rotterdam Convention are important, and it is also important that it be ratified as quickly as possible, because it concerns the trade in extremely hazardous chemicals. I also think that it can be said that the Commission did an excellent job in presenting this proposal for a regulation, which is to replace the present legislation on hazardous chemicals and pesticides with the rules of the Rotterdam Convention. The proposal actually goes beyond the Convention, for example in proposing that the export notification procedure, too, must be extended to cover articles containing so-called ‘unreacted’ forms of chemicals and that the export of certain chemicals must be banned outright. I am extremely pleased with the proposal, therefore. The aim of this whole exercise and of the Convention is to improve the control of the trade in hazardous chemicals and to place joint and increased responsibility on importing and exporting countries. It is about protecting human health and the environment. For this reason, I also believe that it is reasonable and fair that the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, with the help of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, has changed the legal basis from Article 133 to Article 175, which means that the European Parliament has codecision powers and, at the same time, enables the Member States to have stricter rules. I really hope, therefore, that we obtain a large majority, perhaps unanimity, in favour of this report tomorrow. I believe that we have every reason to congratulate ourselves.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, we upheld unanimously the criterion that it was of strategic importance and a matter of priority to support the interventions of the Structural and Cohesion Funds which are working for a better opportunity for jobs for the unemployed and for equality between men and women. Unfortunately, the excellent Schroedter report did not take account of this criterion, despite the fact that there is considerable evidence to show – as we shall see later in the Berend report – how, in fact, these funds are providing splendid assistance to the most backward regions in order to bridge the gulf that separates them from Europe’s most highly-developed regions. They are growing, but only in terms of GDP. They are increasing in competitiveness but they are not all experiencing an increase in wealth because there is no increase in employment and there are still differences in employment opportunities between regions. Commissioner, please read the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and treat it as a matter of priority, because this is our citizens’ greatest problem. Please take account, in strategic terms, in the revision and in the allocation of reserves, of employment needs, because this, fundamentally is what the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Funds require.

Political group: PSE
Leaving behind the media stir, there are two issues to which this summer’s heatwave in Europe should open the eyes of decision-makers. We are responsible for the disruption of the climate and for the dangerous world that we are going to bequeath to our children. For some things, it is already too late. For others, courageous decisions have to be taken very quickly, even if they are not popular. The thousands of deaths, often of elderly and sometimes unknown people, reminds us that it is not enough to ‘prolong life’ but that we need to give the means to live, whatever the situation, the handicap, health and age. Our society is far from this and worse, it is getting further away from it. (Just look at the French Government’s decisions to lower taxes).

Political group: GUE-NGL
At the first reading, on 15 December 2003, when I was rapporteur on this report, I came to the conclusion that privatisation of postal services had great disadvantages in terms of quality, punctuality of service, the prices charged to the consumers, and working conditions for the staff. There are now, moreover, added disadvantages, in that those who post letters are going to have to pay yet another new tax, and so I was happy that a majority in the House shared my concern and rejected the report. Lamentably, the state-owned French postal service has jeopardized the former good result by putting pressure on the French . La Poste believes its interests to be served by welcoming the tax, which it will be able to claim back from the State. To my surprise, my colleague Philippe Herzog defended this position yesterday afternoon, and, today, the French MEPs from the Group of the have prevented this report from being rejected again. Tomorrow, my group, despite its sympathy for the special situation in one particular country, will stick with the original rejection that I advocated. The damage, though, has been done. Yet again, Europe’s citizens are having imposed on them a tax that does not relate to their income or wealth.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we are in a strange situation because a decision was taken in the groups before the Committee on Budgets had decided on this issue of Montenegro. Also, I have not had a chance to speak to my good friend Mr Westendorp. I believe that the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy is sympathetic to the position of the Committee on Budgets, which I am about to state. However, since I have not spoken to him directly, do not quote me on that – it is only second-hand information. Firstly, I should like to make it clear that the Committee on Budgets supports any aid to Montenegro. It has done so in the past and will do so in the future. On this occasion there is no urgency for this to go through now. The monies will not be made available until August for the first tranche and the second tranche will be paid at the end of the year. We are of the opinion that the relevant committees need to study the details of this proposal. Whichever the lead committee is – Foreign Affairs or Industry – we would merely give an opinion, but those committees and Parliament need to evaluate these proposals. We should not be bounced into a decision because the Council deems it to be necessary. As for budgets, our main concern is where the money is coming from. It is great to make proposals but we feel this urgency should not be agreed upon until we know where the money is coming from. We should leave it until next month. The committees can debate it and we can vote on it at the June part-session.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I hope you will hear me out. I, like the other Members still present, am one of those who stay on until the conclusion of a vote like this. Others have long since left the building. I would like to say, without mincing my words, that those who really work should not be penalised because others pack their bags on Thursday morning! (Applause) (The President declared the common position approved) *** Recommendation for second reading (A5-0207/2003), on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the Council common position for adopting a European Parliament and Council directive establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC [15792/1/2002 – C5-0135/2003 – 2001/0245(COD)] (Rapporteur: Mr Jorge Moreira Da Silva) (The President declared the common position approved) EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE - Huhne report (A5-0218/2003)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, as Mr Sterckx stresses in his excellent report, the maritime accidents involving the Erika, the Ievoli Sun and the Baltic Carrier highlight the shortcomings of and the omissions in current Community legislation. It is high time we had strict controls and supervised ships entering EU ports or using the busy shipping lanes off Community coasts. I need only point out, in order to illustrate just how serious maritime safety is, that 90% of trade between the EU and third countries uses maritime transport. Contrary to the honourable rapporteur and his Amendment No 11 to Article 8, I take the view that the EU has sufficient weight and international clout to adopt its own regulations and standards where the IMO is unable to do so in the short term. I therefore subscribe to the Commission's proposal to install black boxes on older ships and not to allow any technical derogations for older ships. Surely it is older ships which represent a danger to maritime transport and the maritime and coastal environment? A second point I should like to raise concerns how compliance with the measures adopted can be guaranteed at national and European level. The Commission proposes setting up a new European Maritime Safety Agency, on which Mr Mastorakis has reported. Despite the general consensus on the remit and responsibilities of this new European agency, I wonder if it will resolve the fundamental problems involved in improving maritime safety in the Member States. Would it not be better to start by stipulating what the Member States themselves should do in order to anchor a uniform European approach in their national legislation and put it into practice? By that I mean, for example, specific proposals for new national databases, powers for the national authorities to conduct stricter inspections of ships which represent a risk, specific powers for coastal authorities over ships using ports of refuge or criteria for specifying the number of ports of refuge to be notified and the special safety precautions required in ports. But, first and foremost, we need to train and deploy the human resources needed. So far there has been no mention of this or uniform European approach here. This, too, is something the Commission should take into account and include in subsequent action.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur for the successful work that has been done in so short a period of time. An information society for all is certainly an area of focus for the Commissioner in this process. It is important, and I thank her for it. Agreement should be reached at Lisbon on the principles of the sustainable funding of social security on account of this notion. We also have to reach agreement with management and labour, for example, on the subject of remote working and vocational training, if what we are talking about is an information society for all. It will not be so if the basic rights of employees are not safeguarded. There is a threat that, because of the Internet, services will become self-services, and that again is a major employment issue. Another matter is that we have been deregulating the telecommunications industry for around ten years, and now, with these massive Internet players merging there is a fear that they will once again start regulating the market. This, I think, should be stopped. It cannot be allowed to happen and I expect the Commission to sit up and listen and take the necessary action. Thirdly, the quoted share value for a certain Internet company rose by a sudden 4 000% in one month, and this came about merely because unsubstantiated information was given about it for the stock market. With many companies in the same position, or almost the same position, there is going to be a bubble effect in the industry, and when the crash comes I hope the taxpayer will not be footing the bill. Has the Commissioner a remedy in mind for if and when the air balloon companies in this sector burst so that the taxpayer does not have to pay out, as is the case with crises in the banks, for example?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, public transport must be developed for environmental reasons and for reasons based on social equality, for example, and as has already been stated here earlier, it must be made attractive. It is difficult to understand that competition is seen as the only way to achieve this goal. Competition is a good servant but a poor master, and one should always consider separately in each individual case whether competition is the only way to increase cost-effectiveness and to improve services and make them more efficient. Just like Mr Meijer who presented the report stated earlier, many municipalities, unfortunately, have already anticipated the EU’s forthcoming resolutions and allowed for competition in this field, and not always with very good consequences. In addition, I am of the opinion that the proven methods that various Member States have used in the past in connection with public transport should be taken into consideration in this context: it must be possible to retain the licensing procedure that has been found to be so good and cost-effective in Finland.

Political group: PSE
Of course, I thank the Commissioner for his very full answer, from which we can nevertheless extract some new elements in this thriller, if I may call it that. Still, I am very troubled, Commissioner. I have the feeling that in the light of what is happening at the moment at Europol, there is insufficient monitoring, and that in some way or other we shall have to design a system at European level for monitoring Europol more effectively. I know that the present OLAF Regulation is not sufficient for this. I should therefore like to ask the Commissioner to investigate possible proposals. A second supplementary question concerns the coordinator of the Sensus programme. We all know that he is an agent of the German secret service. The man was sentenced at the end of last year for forging documents. I should like to know from the Commissioner, since we do not yet know from previous answers, whether or not the man is still co-ordinating the SENSUS programme. If that is not the case, I should like him to inform us who is coordinating the Sensus programme. I thank the Commissioner for his answer.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, as Quaestor in charge of exhibitions, I sometimes have to refuse exhibitions but, given the proud history of this Parliament in relation to the death sentence, I was proud to authorise that exhibition. (Applause) * * *

Political group: PPE-DE