GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, with the next three reports this House is voting on the package negotiated with the Council on the decision to create an internal energy market in Europe. As acting chairman of the committee responsible, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, I am obliged to make a statement here before we continue. The House is voting on 50 amendments in three reports. This compromise document is accompanied by two statements. One is the statement by the Commission, which the Vice-President of the Commission presented to the House during Monday's debate, and that is recorded in the Minutes. It is also accompanied by an interinstitutional statement by Parliament, Council and Commission, and it has been agreed that this statement should be read into the Minutes of Parliament, that both statements should be published in the Official Journal of the European Union with the legislative text and that this arrangement should also be recorded in Parliament's Minutes now. I am therefore obliged to read out the interinstitutional statement here. I can reassure you that it is not very long. It reads as follows: ‘The European Parliament, the Council and the Commission underline the need for Member States to ensure that adequate financial resources for decommissioning and waste management activities, which are audited in Member States, are actually available for the purpose for which they have been established and are managed in a transparent way, thus avoiding obstacles to fair competition in the energy market’. Mr President, I ask you to sign this statement on behalf of this House and to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, if we look at the list of EU Member States which have already ratified the Treaty, we see that five of the six founder Members have already completed ratification. Only the Netherlands has not, although it campaigned exceptionally hard for this Court and also for its headquarters. We therefore wonder what lies behind this. Of the remaining nine Member States of the European Union, there are only three which have already ratified it, including much maligned Austria. I should also like to call on the other States of the European Union to initiate the ratification process as soon as possible. We need this Criminal Court so that international crimes against humanity – which, as you know, have unfortunately not diminished but tended to increase in number – can finally be referred to a significant, objective and worldwide body. Earlier we spoke about Cambodia. We are debating the former Yugoslavia. The special tribunals which are set up there are certainly justified. But we must be aware that they are being defamed by some nationalist forces in these countries who say that they are victors' courts. To prevent this from continuing to happen, it is tremendously important for there soon to be one unified criminal court throughout the world so that we no longer need to operate through special courts. The Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague is very commendable. It needs our support. But you will have seen that two days ago President Kostunica, who only recently was making solemn speeches in Parliament, refused to receive Justice Del Ponte because she was allegedly not of equal rank in accordance with the rules of protocol. This is scandalous. It shows how important it is not only to enshrine legal standards in international law throughout the world, directed against expulsion, mass murder and aggression, but also to provide the corresponding instruments with which to enforce them. This is first and foremost this Criminal Court. We have worked hard for it and it is high time that it be able to take up its duties.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in light of the time saved, please allow me to make two comments: firstly, Madam Vice-President, you are quite right. It is essential to take grandfather rights into account in relation to slots, but this must not lead to slots being bought and sold. Secondly, we are pleased that Mr Minetta is coming and we are pleased that the talks about common airspace are progressing, but I would remind you of the fabled proverb: ‘Beware of Greeks bearing gifts!’ It also applies to the Americans. As one of the longest-serving Members of this House, let me say that it was a pleasure working with you, especially on the issue of air travel, over such a long period. Many thanks, Madam Vice-President.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, firstly, I should like to say that we very often say in this House that consumers must have the same rights as economic operators, and that all sides must be heard. That is what this is about. A situation in which certain organisations are more valuable than others is alien to a large number of us. That would be reminiscent of an Orwellian society. Finally, I should like to point out that I do not think that we can share the Commission’s interpretation that the requesting of internal reviews by qualified entities would not cause problems in the most successful, progressive countries. That is incorrect. (The President cut off the speaker)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the Barcelona Declaration on the Middle East is an initial attempt by the European Council to stop talking officialese and to get away from the mistaken principle of equidistance which up to now has been the hallmark of the Council's common positions. The European Parliament had already opened up the way with its resolution in February, as did the United Nations Security Council with its Resolution 13/97. At the same time, it is evident that the doves are making their presence felt in Israel itself and I am delighted that our own Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy decided yesterday to invite Yossi Beilin and Abed Rabbo, the key figures in the Coalition for Peace. In view of the spiral of unparalleled and ruthless violence in recent weeks, it was certainly time for more specific language, and to point the finger of blame not only at the acts of Palestinian suicide terrorists, which we condemn, but also the provocation, destructive acts, extra judicial executions, excessive use of force and the isolationist measures used by the Sharon government in relation to the Palestinians. During a recent trip to Ramallah, two members of my group, Mr Menéndez del Valle and Mr Sakellariou, were able to see for themselves the Palestinians' extremely precarious living conditions. However, what I would call the European U-turn does not mean specifically pillorying Israel's violations of international law and in particular of the Fourth Geneva Convention. It means rejecting the policy of security at all costs that Mr Sharon has adopted since his election, with the results that we know. I would like to quote the sentence which I believe is key to finding a solution to the present situation: 'it is essential to address the security, political and economic aspects as inseparable and interdependent elements of a single process'. The political aspect on which the European Union should really forcefully insist is the withdrawal of the Israeli army of occupation to within its internationally recognised borders, that is to say the 1967 borders. Unfortunately, it is not Mr Arafat who holds the key to ending this nightmare, but Mr Sharon. If, however, against all expectations, and flying in the face of the advice of the entire international community, Mr Sharon's government persists in seeking a military solution to the conflict, then, Mr President-in-Office, the European Union should suspend its Association Agreement with Israel, as one of the essential conditions of that agreement is no longer being complied with. I also believe that the European Union should present Mr Sharon with the bill for investments financed by European taxpayers that have been deliberately destroyed by his army.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the conflict in the province of Atjeh (Aceh) has been going on for 27 years and has already resulted in thousands of deaths. The situation deteriorated even further after the breakdown in May of the fragile Cessation of Hostilities Agreement, the establishment of a state of emergency by the Indonesian Government and the closure of the province. The imposition of martial law led this House to adopt, in June, an initial resolution, in which we denounced the lack of freedom for the people and of freedom of the press. We expressed our concern regarding the fresh upsurge of violence, the daily murders and the increase in the number of arrests and disappearances. This condemnation was not sufficient, as martial law has just been extended for six months. We regard this decision as unacceptable. Our main concern, however, relates to the closing-off of the region and the fact that it is impossible to gain access to the people, and particularly the victims of the conflict, because when there is a state of emergency the military governs the region and distributes the humanitarian aid. We call on the Indonesian Government to respect international military law and to allow humanitarian organisations access to the area so that they can provide assistance to the refugees, displaced persons and prisoners. We are also concerned about the radicalisation of the conflict and the marginalisation of civil society campaigners at a time when moderate critical voices are needed to move towards peace and reconstruction. With the hope of re-establishing dialogue, on behalf of the human rights group of the Committee on Development and Cooperation, I organised, in October, a discussion on the critical situation in Atjeh and Papua. Unfortunately, the Indonesian Government’s failure to face the separatist movements and civil society representatives prevented us from making any progress in achieving a peaceful resolution to the conflict. Sadly, it is all too clear that the fall of the Suharto dictatorship and the return to democracy in Indonesia have not been accompanied by a significant improvement in human rights. In reality, the army is still in power. Civil liberties, trade union freedom and the freedom of expression continue to be scorned. The tragedy in East Timor does not appear to have served as an example for the Government in view of the demands for autonomy that are coming from Borneo, the Moluccas, Atjeh and Papua. There is no doubt that the rise in fundamentalism and in the number of terrorist attacks that are in the headlines of the international press are of grave concern, but it is in the name of national unity and the fight against terrorism where, far from the view of the media, freedoms are treated with contempt every day and a savage repression rages, not only in Atjeh but also in Papua. Even though we do not support the armed rebellions, we call on the Indonesian Government to engage in dialogue with the fighters in order to build peace, and we call on the European Union to promote the reconciliation process.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I welcome the Commissioner's initiative and this report which seeks to improve upon it. Europe has managed to avoid the economic crises that have hit many parts of the world over recent years. Growth is picking up, inflation has been brought down to its lowest levels for a generation, yet we still have persistent poverty and exclusion. Europe's unemployment rate is still far too high at 8.3%. Well over half of the 14 million unemployed, according to Eurostat's latest figures, have been out of work for over a year. Furthermore, according to the EU's statistical service, 18% of European citizens live below the poverty line, while one-third of those living in poverty are working. In my own country something like 75% of those who are working and living below the poverty line are women. The situation seems to be getting worse. Between 1980 and 1995 overall inequality rose in Member States. Globalisation, technological innovation and the emergence of a knowledge-based economy are coinciding with changing family structures, shifting gender roles and increasingly diverse societies. The simple fact is that social exclusion is a brake on economic growth, while an inclusive society enhances growth and the well-being of everyone. The Commission estimates that the under-use of available human resources and the wider cost of ill-health, crime etc. could be between EUR 1 billion and EUR 2 billion annually. This is an enormous figure. It is absolutely imperative that Europe address the divisions that already exist and prevents new ones arising. The existence of a single currency and an increasingly coordinated economic and fiscal policy mean that social policies cannot be the sole responsibilities of national jurisdictions. It is imperative, however, that Member States engage fully with this programme and consult widely with civil society to establish ambitious targets for eliminating poverty and exclusion. The first test of the Member States' seriousness will be their approval of Parliament's decision that the funding should be increased from EUR 70 billion to EUR 100 billion. This in itself is a paltry sum given the extent of the problem. Finally, I wish to congratulate the rapporteur for a report that identifies the true extent of poverty and social exclusion and questions the notion of a Europe committed to defending social justice and solidarity unless all European institutions and civil society engage seriously with the issues.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, clearly, a joint motion for a resolution can only call for a peace process and commit the European Union to monitoring the political and military developments in the country. The authors of the resolution call for assistance from the international community, of course, which is essential, although they also point out that armed clashes have claimed many more civilian victims in recent weeks. However, we have to conclude that national reconciliation is an undertaking which is chiefly the responsibility of the peoples of Somalia. Some progress has been observed in this direction. Indeed, the aim is to prevent instability, to prevent the waves of refugees and to endeavour to repatriate them, to prevent the suffering and the ongoing acquisition of arms as far as is possible, even just by means of temporary measures, for all these factors contribute to the danger of Somalia’s instability having a destabilising effect on other countries. In this case, as in many others, politics and the often vain attempts to organise a conference are endeavours to find non-violent ways of making progress in situations dominated by violence. Despite the extremely complex, involved situation, in our opinion, the Nairobi Conference must take place as soon as possible and find new ways forward. This is my personal opinion, the opinion of my colleague and, I believe, the opinion of all the other Members too. However, these are only expressed hopes. Our document welcomes the initiative to organise a conference, although it is impossible to know as yet whether all the parties will agree to sit down at the same table. It calls on countries which export arms to respect the embargo laid down by the UN Security Council, although we know that if a faction wants to buy arms it will certainly find them on the market. It calls for vigilance to ensure that Somali territory is not used for criminal activities, but it is not clear who will be able to carry out this supervision. The Transitional Government? I am somewhat sceptical about this, given that not even the other actors in the region have full control over their own national territory. I would like to end by pointing out that the resolution warns Europe that the Somali question could have a disastrous impact outside the country and informs the Somalis too that the world is in one way or another attentive to their problems and willing to help them. It may be that, for the first time, there is a glimmer of hope that more rational, positive ways out of the crisis will be found. Our duty is to condemn the situation while, at the same time, discussing ways forward. In this regard, I feel that the peace initiative described by Commissioner Diamantopoulou is a way out of at least the worst phase of the Somali crisis.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we should be clear as to why this resolution today is so important. Firstly, we all know that there is a wave of judicial executions across the USA – over 600 since 1977 – but this would be the first federal execution since 1963. Secondly, it is important because this is the only case since executions resumed in 1977 in which the evidence of unsolved, unadjudicated crime in a foreign country has been used to secure the death sentence. Juan Garza's death sentence came as a result of murders in Mexico, which he was never charged with. Thirdly, there are 21 prisoners currently in federal death row: 14 are black, 5 are white, one is Asian and one is Latino. We know that in state trials black defendants are four times more likely to be sentenced to death than white defendants. Fourthly, Governor Ryan of Illinois, as we have heard already, has imposed a moratorium on the death sentence in his state because of its appalling record of wrongful convictions. When we bring all those factors together we see that the death penalty in the US is an arbitrary process and is fundamentally a racist process. That is why we constantly demand that the death sentence should not be carried out in the US. In this case it is particularly important because it is a federal execution and will be the first since 1963. That is why we urge President Clinton to grant clemency in this case and a moratorium on federal executions. There is a presidential campaign under way. In a presidential campaign executions, regrettably, become a political football in the US. President Clinton has the opportunity – he is not standing for re-election – to make a stand on this issue today.

Political group: PSE
The report underlines the importance the EU attaches to the Ukraine. It highlights the progress made in the country’s development and in the partnership between the EU and the Ukraine, but is not afraid to refer to matters of criticism. I would like to discuss three aspects. Firstly, the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1989 led to the rapid formation of sovereign independent states, a process that happened quickly, almost overnight, but which could not change the specialisation that had developed over decades or the cooperation between the various countries’ economies. Although at a different pace, the process of transformation, for which the EU also pressed, went hand in hand with social breakdown and unknown poverty for large sections of the Ukraine’s population. The EU ought to attach greater importance to dealing with this problem in its cooperation with the Ukraine. While the EU and the Member States pursued primarily market interests under the slogan of stability, little attention was paid to the cooperation established over many years between the CIS states, one might even say it was torpedoed. In its own interest, the EU should pay greater attention to this factor in future and, in its understanding of how the Ukraine fits into the world economy, should also bear in mind that other CIS states are engaged in a similar process. Secondly, the Ukraine has been given a lot of advice, and in many areas this has no doubt been legitimate and helpful. But politics is always tied up with interests. And if the shaping of partnership shows a strong tendency to benefit one particular party, then there is a problem. Partnership with the Ukraine ought to promote economic stability and social security and prevent or help to reduce tension. This is where the EU’s and the Ukraine’s real common interests lie. Thirdly, no-one will dispute that the OSCE played an important role in maintaining stability in Europe during the cold war. Both sides were involved in this process and both sides gained from it. The cold war ended ten years ago, and the OSCE should now be developed primarily into an instrument for the peaceful political resolution of conflicts. But NATO is pursuing the opposite course, basing its new strategy on strength and displays of power outside the alliance’s borders, which are steadily moving eastwards, and the EU is following in its wake. I consider involving the Ukraine, which has a long frontier with Russia, in this strategy to be a very serious matter. The Ukraine – and other CIS states as well – ought to be more closely involved than in the past in political processes for the resolution of conflicts. The OSCE would be the appropriate framework for this. With the Union acquiring new external borders, this factor will be of increasing importance not least with regard to the Ukraine. - Carraro Report (A5-0063/2001)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I thank you for giving me an opportunity at the end of the debate to express my gratitude for the way it has gone. It has been a very lively debate, characterised by emotion and level-headedness, and touching on various points. For that I am very grateful to the Members of this House who have spoken. I am grateful to Mrs Flemming for making me aware of what Leonardo da Vinci said, and I have been constantly trying to think up points of similarity between him and Mr Liikanen, who, when he responds, will perhaps astonish us by telling us that the two of them have much in common and that he, in the depths of his heart, actually has great sympathy with Parliament's proposal. I am very grateful to all the Members who have supported me and a similar number of whom will, I hope, support the proposals when we vote at noon today. Should cosmetic amendments – and ‘cosmetic’ is the appropriate word – be necessary, I am convinced that we will have to make them in the course of the conciliation procedure. I would like to briefly address the points made by Mr Nobilia and, at the end, Mrs Jackson. I have to tell Mrs Jackson that I could not withdraw the amendments even if I wanted to, because the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy had adopted them with 44 votes in their favour. It has therefore now become the Committee's position and not just my own, and I have to make a true and faithful report of that to Parliament. I would like to say in addition that I am a lawyer rather than a natural scientist, and so I have done something very simple. I have borrowed the position of the Scientific Committee on Cosmetology, composed of European Union scientists, who have established that 26 substances result in allergic reactions, 13 of them to a severe degree. That labels should indicate the presence of these substances I find the most utterly obvious thing in the world. We have labels for nuts in chocolate and everything else for people who suffer from allergies, and we have to have labels for this as well. The aromatic oils industry having belatedly woken up to this, I can well understand why, three days before the vote, it was trying to influence us. I do not want to ban its products, but I do want the substances listed, in one language rather than in eleven, and with their chemical names, in the list of ingredients, which is, incidentally, what the Scientific Committee on Cosmetics proposed. It is my conviction that we owe that to the European Union's consumers.

Political group: PSE