GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, we are concerned here with saving the life of an innocent person and with a completely unfair judgment. What, however, is also at issue – and I am addressing Commissioner Fischler at this point – is getting to grips with Sharia law and the Islamicisation of parts of Central Africa where this case is one among many and where we can expect incidents of this kind to be repeated again and again. It is a matter of questioning clearly, steadfastly, patiently and consistently whether Sharia law really is compatible with human rights and the UN Convention on Human Rights. We are a group of MEPs who have written to Nigeria’s embassies throughout the European Union and in the rest of the world and asked them to attend to this case. We must do everything possible to influence Nigeria’s Supreme Court. As stated in the resolution, we must also address the issue of its becoming possible for all Nigerians to enjoy the same rights and the same protection under the Constitution, irrespective of whether they are Muslims or Christians or members of another faith or of none. We must also be able to question whether it is reasonable for Sharia law to be so fundamentally at odds with international law and human dignity. We must do everything possible to ask the following question: where, among believing Muslims, are the voices in Africa and Europe saying that this situation is incompatible with what needs to be at the heart of all religious faith, namely love and tolerance?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I think that the Commission has made a laudable attempt at achieving greater continuity and coherence, but please allow me to say that I do not think the attempt goes far enough towards the optimum goals. I should first like to say something about continuity. I think working in the context of the longer term is fine, but adjustments must remain possible from time to time. The communication from the Commission takes account of this. I have a question on the timetable. The timetable now provides for new guidelines to cover a period of three years: 2003 to 2006. This would take us beyond the Commission's and Parliament's mandates; I had hoped that this would be more of an induction programme, linked to the political mandates of the Commission and Parliament. Can the Commissioner comment on this? Secondly: the global economic guidelines are mentioned as key implementation instruments, as they also contain the lines of force of the employment strategy. My fellow MEP Stephen Hughes has already commented on this in the context of the Ecofin Council. Employment is part of those economic guidelines, but it had already been decided that they would also contain the consensus view on matters such as coordination of pensions and healthcare. I should like to know what has happened to these topics, as I see nothing about them in the notification.

Political group: PSE
I congratulate Mr Pohjamo on the excellent report he has drafted on the Parliament and Council proposal for a regulation on the carriage of passengers, freight and mail by air, which I support, especially with regard to the need to adopt regulations that will enable mechanisms to be set up to provide European carriers with up-to-date and comparable statistics for this sector. These will help to guarantee the safety of passengers and the efficient management of these companies. In this context, I should also like to emphasise the importance that this set of regulations will have in helping to resolve the issue of air space saturation. - Hernàndez Mollar report (A5-0450/2002)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the use of ICT increases productivity, changes the way we work, creates the possibility of community in a new way, facilitates study, raises quality and largely eliminates geographical differences. The problem, however, is the digital divide, which probably affects about one third of our population. Education and training do not reach them, and they do not have computers. For that reason, I propose, Commissioner, that funds be made available, as directly as is possible, for organisations devoted to caring for the disabled, unemployed, poor and elderly, which can maintain levels of education and training within their own circles, as education and training do not extend to these sorts of people either. In this way they will also be able to purchase and build up a stock of equipment, because the digital gap is, of course, in practice an even wider form of social gap.

Political group: PSE
I have voted in favour of the Rod report because I support the signing of the Cotonou Agreement. This is for various reasons. Firstly, because through this agreement the EU is reaffirming its commitment to the ACP countries, and therefore its will to contribute to the sustainable economic and social development of those countries. Secondly, because it makes the eradication of poverty by means of gradual integration into the world economy the main objective of the agreement. And thirdly, because the political dimension it includes could make a major contribution to removing the obstacles which have largely prevented ACP-EU cooperation from bearing the fruits we expected. In fact, without democracy and peace, it is not possible to promote economic development or to guarantee that the benefits of that development reach the whole population to an equal degree. Hence the importance of the political dialogue, good government and the prevention of conflicts that the agreement seeks to achieve. I therefore do not agree with many of the criticisms contained in the explanatory statement accompanying the Rod report. It is true that everything in this world can be improved, but Cotonou represents a step forward in the EU’s development cooperation policy. It is a step which many others must follow, particularly in relation to Parliament’s control of EDF funds. This agreement, however, takes us in the right direction.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, two points. First, we did in fact agree in the Conference of Presidents to discuss both issues. We wanted to discuss them separately but we were told, no, it had to be in conjunction with the Commission statement. You just have to agree at some point on what it is you want. We are prepared to discuss it one way or the other. But what we do not agree with is someone telling us, every time we decide something, that it has to be done the other way round and then turning it all round again! Secondly, on the question of government intervention. It may come as a surprise, but you are right to criticise the German Chancellor and he is right to criticise the government ... (Interjection from Mr Poettering: then he should do both!) ... that is what I am saying! Except that the Commissioners do not represent their governments, they represent the interests of the European Union. The ministers represent governments and we have to make that perfectly clear to all our governments. So instead of sitting here trying to represent parties and governments, let us join with the Commission in representing the interests of the European Union. Agreed? Agreed! (Laughter, applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the European Commission's proposal on the reform is welcome. After all, it is far-sighted to embark on a process of modernisation and reform at this stage, notwithstanding the successful history of the Regulation on merger control. I also think it is far-sighted since account is already being taken of the enlargement processes. I endorse the rapporteur's report – as, indeed, does my group – but I also share the concern, for example, that some of the proposals set out in the Green Paper cannot actually be achieved in practice. For this reason, it is very important to ensure that the Commission gives its pledge that the issue of definitions, but also the replacement of the dominance test, will not be held over until other occasions in the future when the Regulation is reviewed again. I think this applies especially to the international dimension of the merger processes and especially to the innovative areas in which mergers are taking place. The number of transnational corporate mergers has risen steadily in recent years. Their growing number and complexity are undoubtedly one reason for reviewing the division of competence and adopting new arrangements on coordination between national and EU competition authorities. I welcome the greater concentration on the Commission as a central contact point in the interests of efficiency, transparency, legal certainty, a shortening of deadlines and reducing the administrative burden on companies, and I also expressly endorse the Commission's indication that it may be necessary to create an additional judicial instance. What must be examined in detail, however – and here I disagree with the previous speakers – is the major impact of mergers, especially on employment, and the criteria and procedures for examining the permissibility of a merger. Throughout the EU, thousands of jobs have been lost as a result of such restructuring. Companies should undoubtedly have the greatest possible freedom to make management decisions, but it is often the largest employer in a region which carries out these restructuring plans. The resulting job losses do not only affect the individual workers; they also have an impact on economic and social cohesion in the region as a whole. I would like to remind you in this context that the Nice European Council expressly described economic performance as being inseparable from social progress. This must be taken into account in competition law and competition policy, also within the framework of merger controls.

Political group: PSE
I congratulate you, Commissioner, on always being allowed to make statements on such scintillating subjects, first Temelin and now Kozloduy. You must be a very happy man. May I ask how much a decommissioning of this sort costs? What happens to the contaminated materials? Who pays for it all? How long does such decommissioning take? What actually happens if there is some sort of mishap before 2006? Who pays then? Who bears the costs? Following on from your answer to Mr Rübig's question, do you not also believe that we are yet again seeing how urgently necessary it is that we should have common European standards rather than always arriving at decommissioning dates by a process of rough estimation? Blocks 3 and 4 in 2006 – that is what we have said now. Should we perhaps not make that 2004 or 2003? What happens then if something goes wrong in 2005?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I have two short minutes in which to make four points. Firstly I would like to join in the warm congratulations to Commissioner Lamy and indeed his distinguished predecessor Sir Leon, now Lord, Brittan. I hope the brevity of my congratulations does not diminish the warmth of them. Secondly, a point addressed to the Council. The Council's attitude towards parliamentary assent to a deal like this is linked to the Council's parallel attitude towards the Commission's proposal for its extension of its own powers over areas such as intellectual property and services in Article 133 more generally. I have to confess I get the impression that there is a certain degree of institutional territoriality here, particularly in the large Member States, where the trade and industry ministries are very reluctant to see the Commission continue to extend its scope in those new areas in WTO trade negotiations and, consistent with that, also reluctant to see the European Parliament increase its influence. This simply cannot carry on. It is such a weird anachronism that a policy that was communautarised back in the 1950s is as unaccountable and non-transparent as it is. I would plead for the internal territorial interests of Member States to be overcome on this particular point. Thirdly, technical assistance. It is great that we are going to coordinate with the Americans, but look at the numbers: EUR 25 million is absolutely nothing in comparison to the challenge we face! We have a total budget for China of EUR 80 million. Even if we allocate all of that to China-WTO accession it would still not be enough. We – the Commission, Council and Parliament – have to be a lot more ambitious in actually allocating much more money towards this enormous task. Finally, human rights. I hope the fact that we have signed up to this bilateral deal with the Chinese does not leave them thinking that we are going to be any more forgiving on human rights. It is all the more important that all three institutions should now be particularly robust about the way the Chinese behave in the so-called dialogue on human rights. Let us not give them the impression that a deal on the WTO means that we are going to be weak on human rights – it should be the reverse. We should be all the more robust.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, first of all, I should like to welcome the White Paper. In reality, we are aware of the effects upon the environment and public health of only a very small proportion of the hundred thousand chemicals that exist. I think it is a serious problem for the EU’s environmental and public health policies that a combined strategy for chemicals policy was not implemented many years ago. Now, however, it has arrived as something I very much welcome. I should also like to thank Mrs Schörling for an outstanding report which tightens up the Commission’s proposal in some crucial ways, ways which, in my opinion, could well be adopted without changes. That is not, however, going to happen. The industry, and others, have also made their influence felt here in Parliament, and the result we shall adopt tomorrow will not be quite as good as it might have been. I should like to point out some of the substantial improvements contributed by Parliament. We are having a very great deal of emphasis placed upon the precautionary and substitution principles. This constitutes a reversal of the burden of proof. With what is also the Commission’s point of departure, we are now acquiring a stricter system – with, importantly in my view, some clear deadlines – for regulating, phasing out and authorising chemicals. It is also important that we should have an extended list of hazardous substances that are to be phased out. Finally, I should also like to highlight the issue of animal experiments. I think that, in this area, a very important contribution has been made, including by the Liberals, to getting the issue of restricting animal experiments onto the agenda. That is something I am very pleased to be able to support, including in the vote tomorrow. There are many substantial advances which ought to be included in the forthcoming legislation, and I shall therefore merely ask the Commissioner, finally, when the Commission’s proposal for joint legislation is to be tabled? I understood it was to have been early next year, but it would be splendid if we could have a fairly clear date made known in this House today.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we shall vote in favour of this resolution in spite of all the criticism that can be directed at it. If the European Parliament can prevent a crime from being committed against Amina Lawal by adopting a position, then this is what it must do. Condemning a woman for having given birth to a child, in the name of antiquated laws, is a despicable crime, in the same way as all forms of oppression of women and all forms of mutilation are despicable, whether or not they are perpetrated in the name of religion. We firmly echo the protests against the fact that women are oppressed and deprived of their human rights in the name of the Sharia law, but we are equally firmly opposed to what is being done in the name of the Vatican or the Bible. We must, of course, condemn the barbaric acts in Nigeria, but we must also condemn these acts when they are committed in the United States, this superpower which poses as a model of modern civilisation, or even here, in the European Union which tolerates some of its Member States implementing laws which ban women from enjoying the basic right to own and control their own bodies. Whilst we oppose acts of barbarism perpetuated elsewhere, we must also ensure that our own house is in order.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Unfortunately, Mr Moscovici was not here when I spoke. I should like him to tell me if he supports the addition of another objective to the objectives listed in the CARDS programme, namely support for education and training in south-east Europe. This is an important new objective in the CARDS programme. The Commission is in favour and I should like very much to know if the Council is too.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too should like to welcome the Swedish Presidency and its programme which contains many good priorities. Just like a whole succession of speakers here today, I am worried about the tendency to frequently and stridently emphasise the intergovernmental model at the expense of the model we commonly call the ‘Community approach’, i.e. one which involves the Commission’s being given a greater role and importance. I note the Prime Minister’s assurances of openness, irrespective of which model is chosen, but the question is, of course, more far-reaching than that. The interesting contribution by Commissioner Prodi confirmed the challenges we face. I listened with interest to the Prime Minister’s comments on the environmental issues. They sound fine, but there is a problem in that the majority of today’s environmental problems are directly linked to energy consumption, and the problem is that Europe at present has no energy policy. The Member States have not even managed to agree about a common charge on carbon dioxide. The Swedish Government has stated that it wants to see such a charge, but only if a unanimous decision on this can be reached which, however, is the same thing as no decision at all. For ten years, this question has been blocked by individual governments. What makes the Prime Minister and the Government think that it could be resolved at this present time? Without a charge on carbon dioxide, the EU will not be able to meet the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. Furthermore, the strategy for sustainable development, which is going to be taken up for discussion in Gothenburg, will be severely compromised if the EU does not take a coordinated grip on these energy issues. Commissioner Prodi raised the issue very creditably, and many other speakers have done the same. The question is whether the Swedish Government will be prepared to think again. Finally, I wish to say that I, just like Mr Olle Schmidt, would have liked to have seen a fourth ‘E’, standing for empathy and relating not only to the refugee issues but also to relations with the Third World. Reference has been made here today to the Tobin tax, but I think that this will be impossible to implement. One way of accumulating more money for global issues would be to encourage all Member States to fulfil their commitment to giving 0.7 per cent of their GNP in aid. In addition to this, as Mrs Carlsson said, the rates of duty on products from developing countries should be reduced. Is the Swedish Government prepared to act in this spirit?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, these three reports – by Mr Fava, Mrs Sanders-ten Holte and Mrs Maes – were adopted by very large majorities in committee. Members have therefore rightly drawn attention to what the present legislative process will achieve as we move towards a Single Sky. All that, including the thanks to the Commissioner and to the rapporteurs, merits nothing but agreement. As several Members have already said, though, ideal solutions are still a long way off. Those who are unwilling to admit that should put themselves, for a moment, in the position of the public. Our citizens take a far less rosy view of the topic of ‘flying in Europe’, above all when, as frequently happens, they are obliged to travel by air. They regard flying in Europe as safe. That is a good thing, and may it stay that way, even though, here too, there is still room for improvement. Above all, though, they regard flying as extremely expensive. For what I pay to fly from Graz, my home town, to Brussels, I could just as well fly to Los Angeles or Kuala Lumpur. Quite clearly, something is out of proportion here. More delays are occurring. Flying at high speed as we do, we spend more time sitting around at airports, and it happens all too often that we do not fly at all. Strikes, especially just before public holidays, keep reminding us to what an extent some people, when the issue of safe air travel comes up, consider their own interests rather than the public interest alone. Looked at in that light, we should not only laud what has been achieved, but we should also, and especially, work on the basis that what we are taking the first steps to get moving today might well need further improvement, so that, setting ourselves higher standards, we may ensure greater safety in the air, and also proper transport conditions in Europe. There is still much to be done.

Political group: PPE-DE
It is gratifying that the efforts to create a liberalised energy sector now look seriously as if they are to bear fruit. Most countries are by now well under way with implementing extensive changes to the structures of their markets. Some countries have already implemented full liberalisation, and I am especially pleased that Denmark is in the vanguard. Denmark ought to make use of this favourable position and complete the liberalisation, as has already happened in Sweden, for example. It is therefore unfortunate that the Danish Government does not apparently have any plans for the time being to take the final step towards full liberalisation. Mr Mombauer’s excellent report hits home regarding several points. In particular, it should be emphasised how important it is to take account right now of the candidate States’ situation. Liberalisation of the energy markets in the countries of Eastern Europe will require special arrangements, and particular account must be taken of the environment. It is also important to draw attention to the fact that all electricity production should be transparent, and that special support for this must in no circumstances constitute a distortion of competition. - Radwan Report (A5-0169/2000)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am sure that, like me, you were pleased to see that Mrs Lucas’ report seeks to increase the use of the bicycle as a mode of transport, for it is a clean, non-polluting mode of transport which is good for the health of those who use it, even if they are not called Coppi, Bartali, Merckx or Gimondi. I have to say that we are assisted in this by many of our town mayors, for they ensure that the buses are always full of people during the rush hour and thus discourage the citizens from using buses and encourage them to travel by bicycle instead, for the cost of public transport is always exorbitant. Thus, the citizens and workers prefer bicycles, which cost nothing to ride, to public transport. I therefore hope that the mayors of these towns will continue to promote the use of the bicycle in this way.

Political group: PPE-DE