GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, violence in this conflict cannot offer a solution. A solution should be sought not by military means, but by way of politics and -diplomacy, but one of the key problems is that the leaders on both sides – and I mean on both sides – are in a weak position. Despite this, there still seems to be goodwill, as is evident, among other things, from the proposal to release a number prisoners from each side. The European Union should play a pioneering role, much more so than it has done to date. We are, after all, the region’s key trading partner. I would therefore argue in favour of working for peace from this House, this Parliament, even though it appears that Parliament is becoming increasingly divided into two camps. It is not up to us in the European Parliament to fan the flames through all kinds of unilateral actions. On the contrary, we must use our joint goodwill and energy much more to help establish reconciliation and lasting peace. That is the Parliament’s task.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to start by thanking the European Ombudsman, Mr Söderman, the two rapporteurs, Mrs Lambert and Mrs Thors, all the members of the Committee on Petitions and the Secretariat. We started from the premise that the purpose of the institutions is to serve the citizens and that, therefore, any breach of the citizens' rights will lead to a loss of confidence in the institutions. We are currently required to create a complex, comprehensive, harmonious, functional legal framework, and we must therefore also create judicial mechanisms such as the Charter on Rights, a body of law establishing criminal, civil and administrative law, the agreement procedures for the mutual recognition of judgments passed by Member States, Europol and the sectoral agreements, the establishment of the European Fraud Investigation Office as a tool for investigating abuse of the law, the likely institution of the office of European Public Prosecutor which should be the investigating office of the Court of Justice, the separation of the careers of judges responsible for giving rulings and investigating magistrates, and the separation of criminal, civil and administrative responsibilities: all these are instruments which advance the progress of the European Union. Yesterday's framework agreement is a milestone in this sense. Finally, we would like to request that, in a similar way to Parliament in the codecision procedure, the Committee on Petitions may be permitted to present its own justification for certain decisions, and we call for amendment of the Treaties in order to streamline the entire legal system and existing legislation.

Political group: PPE-DE
This report confirms our worst fears about the intentions of some people in relation to the Charter and that is why we have voted against it. We are not voting against a Charter itself, but so far the process seems to suggest a wasted opportunity to protect the citizens of Europe from the overburdening powers of the European Institutions. There is a gap to be filled in providing fundamental rights to citizens of the Member States concerning European regulation and legislation. This report turns its back on this need and thereby devalues the potential of the Charter. In the process of voting against, we have, of course, tried to improve the contents in the interests of the members of the nation states of Europe who might be affected, and some of the amendments which we have supported are aimed to do this. Conservative MEPs will continue to examine the progress of the proposed Charter through our representative on that body, Timothy Kirkhope, MEP, (Yorkshire), and in discussions with our colleagues in the European Parliament, and we will be as positive as possible in this exercise. However, we do not hold out too much hope of converting this whole exercise into something which could be really positive in turning back the tide of legislative bureaucracy and over-regulation, and genuinely protecting the human rights of the citizens of Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, when, in the autumn of 1998, the European Parliament made a decision to continue with the Auto-Oil Programme, the matter was timetabled to return to Parliament in good time to facilitate a Council decision during the spring of 1999. However, the German Government, which sat on the issue during its Presidency, clearly had other ideas. The matter was seriously delayed and did not return to Parliament until the middle of the summer. If the initial timetable had been followed, the manufacturers would probably by now already have certified the requirement in stage 3 of the Programme. Environmentally more friendly diesel vehicles would already have begun to be driven on European roads. Now, Mr Lange has drafted comprehensive amendments at this late stage in the discussion of the issue. If Parliament complies with Mr Lange’s proposals, there will be further delays. That would not be good for the environment in Europe. Europe presents a variety of faces. Sweden and Finland, especially their northern parts, are very much dependent upon efficient road transport. It is quite right that we should impose tough environmental requirements upon motor vehicle manufacturers. They should really need to employ absolutely all their skills and knowledge in accomplishing the tasks we set them. We must not however draw up proposals in such a way that they contain aspects which are bad for the environment. If our decisions lead to the simplest solution becoming general practice, which is to say that of basing exhaust purification technology on catalytic converters which require large admixtures of ammonia solution, then the distribution system alone, involving the distribution of this ammonia solution to all petrol stations throughout Europe, would mean that a not insignificant portion of the environmental benefits would be lost. A technical solution like that would be especially problematic for us in northern Europe. I want to say too that the EU cannot provide direction in Europe by means of directives which are not adapted to the real situation throughout Europe. Let us make very high environmental demands, but let industry too have the time it needs to develop the best possible technical solutions for the future which are good for Europe’s countryside and for the environment in Europe’s large population centres. From this perspective, the common position is a better alternative for the environment than continued delay.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, some MEPs will probably be surprised to hear the reality of the situation, which is that Gibraltar is a British colony. It is very odd that there are still colonies within the European Union in the year 2000, but that is the case, Madam President.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, electronic money does not yet have the same importance in the European Union as e-commerce, e-business, e-Europe. We must ensure, of course, that we in Europe also increase our competitiveness in this area vis-à-vis the United States. The introduction of the Euro will undoubtedly have a positive effect and will mean that the time has also come for us to establish uniform regulations to safeguard electronic commerce. I think that electronic money will gain in importance, not just in commerce but also for consumers, particularly as the safety precautions on the Internet are regarded as inadequate and many are therefore hesitant to choose this option. It has to be said that electronic money in the European Union today enjoys rarity value rather than common usage. This must change! In this regard I must also point out that within the European Union these electronic payment systems also fail to work because interoperability is not guaranteed. I think that we should do something about this if we want to promote this means of payment in future. We must also do it in the interests of consumers, because costs will be saved. However, the issuing of electronic money is not just about the simplification or safeguarding of payment processes, but in practice also concerns financial stability and the functioning of the payment systems. For this reason we need uniform regulations and we must realise that there will be particular fears if electronic money is issued not just against cash holdings or similar bank account holdings, but if e-money is given on credit. I think that this is the particular cause of the fear of instability instead of the stability which we want to ensure in the European Union. I therefore think that Article 8, which provides for an extension of the conditions for exemption, creates excessive discretionary powers. This could result in many electronic money institutions not being affected by the regulations applicable to credit institutions. This cannot and should not be the case and we all know that national issues of e-money can no longer be guaranteed today, if we look at the wording of Article 8c in particular. The Council’s amendments, which extend the scope of money, cannot be in the interest of the consumer. We need electronic money which is valid in a given environment. For this reason, it must cover the entire European area and not just a national area. I also think that institutions issuing e-money should be treated as equal. It is, of course, also important to consider the role of the European Central Bank – controlling the amount of money in circulation, for example. However, I am thinking primarily of consumers. Even if e-money can be used without limit on the Internet and for mobile telephones, this does not mean that it might not be counterproductive. For this reason I cannot support the new wording of Article 8c. I think that we must do everything possible to increase consumer confidence in the electronic money age and not to build consumer foundations which have no stability.

Political group: PSE
Advocating a common European army, as the report does, is not without its funny side, at a time when the UK army is close behind the US army in a terrible war in Iraq while the other armies, by political choice or lack of capacity, are stating their opposition to the war. What, therefore, would a united European army have done? Behind this tragi-comedy, however, is the idea that supra-European militarism should be added to differing national militarisms. We reject both because these militarisms consist solely of making the people pay, sometimes in blood, but always in taxes, for wars carried out to the benefit of a few large trusts. Let nobody plead the need to defend their country at national level and continental level! The French army, for example, has not needed to defend its country since 1945. It has, on the other hand, waged numerous colonial wars or participated in armed banditry disguised as war all over the world. We therefore voted against this report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, tomorrow, Parliament is to adopt an excellent decision, proposed by several groups, Article 8 of which mentions a number of countries. However, there are of course countries not mentioned here, and I would call for these not to be forgotten at this meeting. I would also especially call upon the Council not to forget Turkey, which still holds political prisoners in solitary confinement, when combating torture is discussed. I would urge that the prisoners in Camp X-Ray, who are being held there in defiance of the Geneva Convention, should not be forgotten. I would also urge that, when political and social rights are discussed, there should be no forgetting Turkey again, which is now in the process of banning the HADEP party because it is close to winning the minimum 10% of the votes it needs to be represented in the Turkish Parliament. I would also again call for the United States and China to be remembered when the death penalty is discussed and for its not to be overlooked that the United States has still not approved the International Criminal Court by ratifying the Statute of Rome. I would also say to the Commission that I very much approve of these agreements which we draw up in relation to third countries and which have human rights clauses attached. I just do not understand why observance of the agreements is not rather more strictly enforced, and I am thinking particularly in this context of Israel which has an agreement with the EU that is quite clearly not observed. I do not understand why such breaches have no repercussions and why the agreement is not cancelled immediately.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as both rapporteur and Chairman of the Committee, I must say that I am very surprised. The request is completely unexpected. In this House, on Monday, we discussed the report I tabled on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, which adopted it unanimously. Also, two influential Members, representatives of the Group of the European People’s Party – the ones who spoke on behalf of the Group – spoke clearly in favour of the report on Monday. Now we are told, no less, that there are serious legal gaps. I, naturally, respect the legal background of the Member who spoke, but I am also surprised by the fact that these serious gaps were not regarded as such by the members of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs – who, in terms of legal knowledge, are deemed second to none. What I mean is, the Committee cannot, under any circumstances, go any further than it has done already, as the inclusion of this Interinstitutional Agreement in the Rules of Procedure does require technical adjustments, but these must not call into question the agreement negotiated and signed on behalf of Parliament. Therefore, may I say that as far as we are concerned, it makes no sense to refer the report to the Committee. (Applause) (Parliament rejected the request for a referral to committee)

Political group: PSE
Madam President, this proposal for a Regulation implements Resolution 1390, adopted on 16 January of this year by the United Nations Security Council, pursuant to Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. With regard to the 30 days required for signatory States to adopt the measures that correspond to the implementation of the aforementioned United Nations Resolution, the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs yesterday voted in favour of the urgency procedure and for there to be a procedure without report, that is to say, that it should pass directly to plenary with time for amendments to be tabled by the political groups. I would ask the Presidency to set a long deadline for the tabling of amendments to take account of these circumstances. I would like to make two further observations. The first is that, in order to implement Resolutions such as Resolution 1390, the European Union should take two different types of action: one which corresponds to the second pillar, common foreign and security policy, and another within the framework of the EC Treaty. Yesterday, the Commission almost unanimously came to the conclusion that Parliament should work on the development of instruments in the second pillar, in other words, the development of the common position that is being adopted at this time. And, if Parliament is not involved, it should at very least be kept informed, for what is laid down in the Treaty is one issue, and common sense and the idea that this House is the true representative of citizens’ interests is quite another. My second observation is that the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights has expressed a great deal of concern in this regard and will formally request that the Council and those Member States that form part of the United Nations Security Council make use of those procedural mechanisms needed to correct possible non-justified inclusions of names of natural or legal persons in these lists. This is currently the cause of much public concern in EU Member States. Finally, we would ask the Commission not to force us to take this kind of action. Parliament cannot seriously be expected to support this decision with only five days notice, for it is not really a question of issuing an opinion, but of supporting this United Nations Resolution, when the Resolution was passed on 19 January. We would ask that in future we be more rapidly involved in the process of drawing up this type of Regulation in order that this Parliament can provide its support with full knowledge of the facts and not, as in this case, in a truly unbalanced effort.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to warmly welcome the report on aviation fuel tax because it addresses head-on the fact that aviation is the fastest-growing source of greenhouse gas emissions and that far from discouraging these emissions, the current exemption of aviation from a fuel tax actually promotes and artificially stimulates the aviation sector and the environmental damage that goes with it. I particularly welcome the fact that the report reinforces one of the key points that I made in my report for the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism which this Parliament voted on a few months ago, namely, that since it is undoubtedly politically difficult to achieve international agreement on an aviation tax, at least in a short term, we should look at alternative tools to achieve the same effect, including an emissions charge. Such a charge could be levied on all flights coming into or going out of EU airports, on all carriers, and plenty of research has been done to show that this would not have negative competitive effects. It could be agreed very swiftly without requiring international consensus, and could help make significant progress towards internalising environmental costs. The importance of moving ahead on this issue swiftly is very clear. The forecasts for the global growth of aviation are terrifying. Official figures suggest a doubling of passenger numbers in just fifteen or twenty years, and if you look at what that means in UK terms alone, in order to meet that scale of demand we would be needing an extra four new Heathrow Airports or an extra eight new Gatwick Airports. That would clearly be both politically and environmentally unacceptable. So, instead of trying to meet projected demand we need to try to manage and reduce that demand by ensuring that the price of aviation more accurately reflects its environmental cost. When air tickets are 42% cheaper today than they were ten years ago, it is clear that the wrong price signals are being given out. It makes no sense at all that I can travel from London to Brussels return for just £89 by Virgin Airways, for example, yet when I use Eurostar, which produces far fewer greenhouse gases and is a much more pleasant way to travel, I have to pay the equivalent of around £250 for a similar journey. So to conclude, action in this area is overdue and if we do not do something about it very swiftly then our efforts to try to reduce the impacts of climate change are going to be stymied.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I should like to begin by congratulating the rapporteur on a very good report. The very fact that my Italian colleague is opposed to it means that it really is a report of very high quality. Even though there was a slight decline in fraud and irregularities between 1997 and 1998, there is nonetheless still a need for more effective supervisory mechanisms. Reform of the Commission is now under way. Mr Kinnock has submitted a timetable, and it is now up to us to applaud it. I am very impressed with the reform plan. In general, it is both visionary and realistic. There are nonetheless a number of sticking points, and these are what we ought to draw attention to and criticise. Parliament has already proposed, in the Van Hulten report, that an external court should be established under the aegis of the Court of Auditors. This would deal with disciplinary matters and help recover money which has been paid out unlawfully. This idea is one we should stick to, I think. If such a body were to be established, this would mean that disciplinary matters would be taken away from the Commission. We have had a lot of bad experience with internal disciplinary councils. At present, officials who have had actions brought against them by the disciplinary council have colleagues of theirs sitting in judgement over them. That is indefensible. Both the ECHO and MED cases are all too well-known examples of this state of affairs. I also agree with the rapporteur when he criticises setting up an advisory panel to deal with irregularities. We have, of course, established OLAF to deal with suspicions of fraud and irregularities. Another panel would serve only to undermine OLAF’s powers. I cannot, however, vote in favour of setting up a European Public Prosecutor’s office. I can well understand people’s being tired of all the fraud and therefore demanding that we have a common public prosecutor’s office. It would, however, be a colossal enterprise to set up when the problems are, in reality, elsewhere. In actual fact, there is a need for a fundamental staffing reform. It is, for all that, only the most serious cases which will have penal consequences. Ninety per cent of cases will be disciplinary matters concerning negligence or incompetence. Instead, there is a need for public, internal supervision and for more leeway when it comes to sacking people. We need changes to staff regulations and to the disciplinary procedure, as also proposed in the report. I would also point out that I had three minutes in which to speak. I spoke for only two, but I am very disciplined. I am happy to let someone else use my time. You should also, of course, be allowed to make mistakes from time to time.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, in a situation in which the outrages in the USA have been used by some people as a pretext to incite antipathy towards asylum seekers, it is especially important for the European Union to devise minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status which are based on respect for human rights. The Commission's proposal meets this requirement. I particularly welcome two provisions proposed by the Commission. Article 3(3) states that Member States may decide to apply the provisions of this Directive to procedures for deciding on applications for kinds of protection other than that emanating from the Geneva Convention for persons who are found not to be refugees. This means that persons fleeing from fundamentalist violence – as in Algeria – or rape victims can be granted asylum. The UNHCR has been calling for this provision for some time. Unfortunately, it has not yet been adopted in practice in my own country, for example. Annex 1 sets forth the three criteria which must be met for a country to be defined as a safe third country. If these criteria are applied in future, some of the deportations from EU countries will no longer be permitted. I am pleased that the Commission's acceptable proposal has been improved by the Committee responsible and not watered down as the original rapporteur Mr Schmitt intended. As it now stands, the Directive is an important step towards a more humane asylum policy in the European Union.

Political group: GUE-NGL