GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, everyone has the right to life and freedom under the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. All the Member States of the United Nations have committed themselves to respect that declaration. The death penalty irrevocably violates the right to life and is inevitably cruel, inhumane and humiliating. In the year 2000 alone, 70 people have been executed in the USA. There is a long list of countries in which the death penalty is carried out or in which death sentences are imposed, such as China, Iran and Iraq. Although no death penalties have been carried out in Turkey since 1984, over 69 people have been sentenced to death. The Turkish Parliament has the final word on carrying out this sentence and has 49 cases to deal with. This is unacceptable for a state which is seeking membership of the European Union. Turkey must abolish the death penalty if it is to be accepted into the European Union. Why have a death penalty? Since the death penalty has existed, people have unsuccessfully tried to justify the need for it. Nowadays, supporters of the death penalty chiefly use the argument that it acts as a deterrent. They maintain that the number of serious offences rises when the death penalty is abolished. There is not the least evidence of this anywhere in the world. For example, how can you explain that the murder rate in the USA, where the death penalty still exists, is considerably higher than in countries where it has been abolished? There is always the risk of an innocent person being executed – there have already been many cases in which innocent people have been sentenced to death. In particular, the death penalty is applied relatively often to the disadvantaged and to minorities. The underlying principle of the death penalty is revenge, which is inappropriate in a civilised state. Whether it is Abu-Jamal in the USA, Öçalan in Turkey or even the execution of Abdul Achmin Sabi in Iraq – we should condemn all of this. I regard the death sentence as a barbaric ... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, that is something I wish to oppose. As recently as last month, we drafted a resolution on this very important topic, and a form of words relating to this terrible accident was to have been incorporated in the declaration adopted in Copenhagen. We do not consider any further, supplementary resolution on this topic to be appropriate; rather, the whole issue would be given even more weight, in our view, if something were to be framed to form part of the Copenhagen declaration. We therefore oppose the Socialist Group's motion.

Political group: PPE-DE
This report, which we have adopted, addresses an issue of enormous importance in the European Union, both due to its importance in dignifying work and in creating better working conditions, and because of the scant attention that the Commission has paid to this issue of health and safety at work, clearly reflected in the drastic reduction in staff attending to these issues by over 40% in the last ten years, as the report states. The final text, which is the outcome of an extremely thorough debate to which we contributed various proposals, addresses various aspects of this issue and makes certain demands, specifically: - The urgent drawing up of a detailed action plan containing financial and timing commitments for each main proposal; - Special attention to be paid to the gender dimension, taking into consideration the discrimination still suffered by women, due both to less attention being paid to vocational training or difficulties in access to employment, and to the difficult, dangerous and poorly remunerated work that women often perform; - To propose a comprehensive Directive on workplace ergonomics in order to improve the existing directives and to take account of musculo-skeletal problems, which are suffered by over half the people affected by work-related complaints in the EU. - Brok report (A5-0329/2002)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr President in Office of the Council, I wonder if there is any EU country that has declared itself prepared to give Amina Lawal protection against the possibility of the court case not going the way we wish it to. Has any country shown a readiness in the Council to make such a statement? If we are serious about wishing to protect her, we must press our countries to give her protection against this type of state persecution which is, de facto, exercised against many women.

Political group: ELDR
The Stockholm Summit will not be remembered for its successes, the endeavours of the Swedish Presidency notwithstanding. It did not manage to set up a European Food Safety Agency, despite the spread of foot-and-mouth and BSE. It did not manage to agree on a common European patent system. It continues to rely on the USA for a satellite location system, now that the Galileo programme has come to a standstill, and questions relating to the electricity market are no further forward than they were at the Lisbon Summit. However, the main problem lies in the guidelines issued by the European Council on dismantling social protection mechanisms. By obsessing on notions such as the ‘ageing population’, the need to ‘modernise the European social model’ and the priority of ‘the sustainability of public finances’ in relation to social systems, they are covering, strengthening and legalising the attempt being made by numerous governments in the European Union – such as Greece – to dismantle social protection systems and hand the workers over to private insurance companies without so much as a guarantee. I believe that the labour movement should react decisively to these negative guidelines from the European Council in Stockholm.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, there is an error in Amendment No 1 in the Swedish text. The correct version states that the “increase” in the total EU quota is kept within the limits proposed by the Commission, but the Swedish text reads “reduction”.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, today, and over the next few days, dozens of farmers from Karditsa, Trikala, Larissa and Magnisia in Thessalia and from other areas of Greece will stand in the dock accused of having taken part in rural demonstrations held in order to rebuff the all-out attack on them from the common agricultural policy and avoid being wiped out, so that they can stay on their land and in their villages. The previous government responded to the reasonable demands of the farmers with hundreds of rural tribunals, which were set up throughout the country and sentenced farmers in order to break their fighting spirit. Governments come and go but the rural tribunals stay. The criminalisation of rural demonstrations is designed to terrorise the fighters of poor and middle-class farming into stopping their fight to overturn this policy, which has brought such hardship to Mediterranean products and to their income and has resulted in the abandonment of the countryside. The new Greek Government which, when in opposition, said that it disagreed with these prosecutions, is keeping quiet like a new Pontius Pilate. From this tribune we condemn the pogrom continuing even today of the fighters of the rural movement and we demand an immediate end to it. It is certain that no trial or sentence will break their fighting spirit. The poor farmers will fight to stay in their villages and on their land, they will continue their productive activity, because it is a question of life for them and their families.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The Olympic Games will be held on the territory of a Member State for the first time since the creation of the Schengen area and its integration into the Union framework. We have here a specific Community measure that sets out a system of derogation from the rules on the issue of visas for members of the Olympic family taking part in the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens. The aim of this Regulation is to facilitate the task of the Member State entrusted with organising the next Olympic Games – Greece – while enabling it to fulfil the commitments made under the Olympic Charter. Temporary derogations from certain provisions of the acquis communautaire on visas are provided for; they are of limited scope, proportional, of a technical nature and fully justified by the exceptional character of the event. Members of the Olympic family who, because of their nationality, are subject to visa requirements will continue to be subject to those requirements. The intention is merely to facilitate the procedures for submitting applications and the form in which visas are issued (the Organising Committee will simply have to forward a list of participants to the services responsible for issuing visas in Greece). Neither is there any conflict with the basic principles or security rules of the Schengen area (the Greek authorities must check that all the requirements are fulfilled before a visa is issued).

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to begin by congratulating Mrs Miguélez Ramos on her work, especially on the even-handed analysis she makes in this report and on having hit the nail on the head. Perhaps I should say the nails, as there are two fundamental issues here, which various speakers have already commented on and which this Parliament cannot fail to note. The first is that we are surprised, or rather amazed, that Parliament should now be heard on procedural aspects of the Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture, when it was not heard at the time the Council’s membership was discussed. Last year, as we all know, the Commission approved, on its own initiative, Decision 478/99, which created this Advisory Committee. It did not listen to Parliament on a subject as important as the representativeness of fishing organisations and their importance to formulating and managing the common policy. I find it incomprehensible that Parliament should not have been heard. It is a real mystery. Sometimes people’s reasons defy reason itself. I do not know if there is some reason of which I am not aware for Parliament not being heard. My second observation is that we have many doubts as to how representative these bodies actually are. For example, a country such as my own, Portugal, which is a large fishing nation in European Union terms, the fifth-largest in terms of the size of its fleet, is not appropriately represented here. I am astonished. I find it a total mystery. To conclude the second issue, or to hit the second nail on the head, and bearing in mind these shortcomings in the Advisory Committee and in its representativeness, it is crucial that financial aid for other organisations which are not part of the Advisory Committee be earmarked and set aside.

Political group: PPE-DE
The message of the statistics is plain, especially where freight traffic across the Alps is concerned. In Switzerland, 66% of freight is transported by rail and 30% by road; in the EU, the proportions are reversed and the difference even more starkly pronounced. What this means is that, politically speaking, the Swiss are doing something that we in Europe, in the European Union, cannot manage to do. They fix the heavy traffic levy at such a level that all external costs are completely internalised, so that the costs of road surfaces, accidents and environmental damage by noise and air pollution are all covered. Of this revenue, 80% is spent on the alternative; on building base tunnels, on measures for protection from railway noise and on improvements to rail services. In technological matters, too, the Swiss, in little Switzerland, are years ahead of the EU. The Swiss have a system, one that works well, with microwave technology, to be combined in future with digital tachographs. The question is: why can we not manage that in the EU? The proposal for the Eurovignette again lays down a maximum, one that is so low that nobody can seriously believe that it offers any proper incentive to use rail rather than road; nor, indeed, are the Member States allowed to spend most of this money on the alternative. What this means is that this is a half-hearted policy, and we see its results when we consider the statistics on climate change, accidents and so on. In much the same way as the German transport ministry, the Commission has allowed itself to be pressed into the service of two big players and wants to force upon us satellite technology that is not yet fully developed. I think that we who sit on the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, as well as on the other, would be doing well to bring the Commission back a bit nearer to earthbound reality and to demand neutrality in matters of technology. By way of conclusion, I want to say something about the effect that distorted competition between road and rail has on society. After this House had adopted, after only one reading, Mr Markov’s directive on driving hours and rest periods, Mr Berlusconi and his government did not even think it necessary to put it on the Council’s agenda. That, I think, is quite simply a scandal. How can we in Europe make progress on the social and environmental fronts when such significant directives are not allowed to make progress at Council level?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, if you continue to be this generous then we shall be very satisfied with you.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to present my warmest congratulations to the rapporteur for her excellent work. By covering postgraduate education, this Erasmus Mundus programme will be a very useful addition to the existing Erasmus programme, which, as you know, promotes respect and intercultural understanding as well as dialogue between our different peoples. The greater openness to the outside world that these Erasmus Mundus programmes bring is something quite remarkable and will make it possible to further enhance understanding between peoples. Yes, peoples: I did say peoples because I note that these days, unfortunately, it is the fashion to talk about citizens and to forget about peoples, as we see in the Convention's draft constitutional treaty. I belong to a people, the Catalan people, which does not necessarily coincide with the French and Spanish states, and I am pleased to recall here that the Erasmus Mundus programmes will foster mutual understanding between peoples, not only European peoples, but peoples from all over the world. Catalonia – since that is what I was talking about – hosts many students from throughout Europe. Barcelona is an attractive cultural centre and the fact that Catalan is not, regrettably, an official language astounds some students when they arrive there. They then discover that in Barcelona, Valencia, Palma or even in Perpignan, classes, or some of them, are taught in Catalan. In Barcelona, the majority of classes are taught in Catalan. You may have had the opportunity to see a very wise and very well-made film by Cédric Klapisch, l'Auberge espagnole, which is the story of some Erasmus students and which also mentions this language problem. I think it is desirable for all European languages to enjoy equal rights, not only in these Erasmus Mundus programmes, but also in all of the European institutions.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Commissioner, I am pleased to hear that certain measures are to be taken. Nevertheless, I call into question the fact that when the Commission encounters problems with the partners participating in particular projects, it attributes at least half of these problems to the partners themselves. I have information to the effect that even small project partners are in full possession of the facts about the contracts and know exactly what they have to submit. I have had a case described to me where the same paperwork was submitted on three separate occasions, but the Commission still maintained that it had never received this paperwork. I therefore wish to put in another request for the application procedure to be attended by extremely clear guidelines laid down in advance. I have encountered problems of this kind before, not just in the drugs sphere, but with many other partners that work with the Commission and seek co-financing. It is not only in the drugs sphere where the application procedure takes such a long time and is so complex, and I believe the problem does not lie wholly with incompetent, small project partners, but can also be put down to the fact that the requirements set by the Commission are not clearly formulated. The question remains as to whether we really want to cut back on the small organisations within the European Union, when it is important to support drugs projects – including those in the regions – using a whole range of approaches, specifically in this area, but also in general. I believe it would not be in our interests to only give large organisations a chance to move things forward in this sphere, rather our aim must continue to be that of promoting a variety of organisational structures. That would be a wholly misguided attempt at a solution to my mind.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I should like to make a few observations about the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste. I will start, first of all, with the legal basis. The Commission is mistaken to refer to Articles 30, 31 and 32 of the Euratom Treaty, which pertain only to the health and safety of workers. They are not related to the safety standards for nuclear facilities. The Commission should have adopted the correct legal basis, namely Article 203 of the Euratom Treaty. According to the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, this Waste Directive mainly sets unified timetables. This approach will benefit neither the nuclear energy sector, the environment nor the public. As far as the disposal or storage options are concerned, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy is of the opinion that there is no broad international consensus. Even in France, the nuclear energy country par excellence, national legislation requires a series of different options to be considered. As for timetables, not one single new Member State will be able to meet the timetable under the current circumstances, not even Finland, which will need another two years. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy also takes the view that the export of waste outside of Europe will have to be banned and that the proposed directive must be amended accordingly. The Commission must publish its current plans for the management and disposal and storage of radioactive waste of all Member States and allow comments to be made. It must draw up a list of waste whose export is not allowed – not into the atmosphere or into the sea – and may not qualify for disposal or storage. In addition, a proposal in the style of Aarhus must be established following compulsory consultation of the public. With regard to the safety of nuclear plant, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy is of the opinion that the current amendment to the directive will not lead to an improvement because the international, worldwide directives that are already in place are more or less taken as a basis. We also have to get off our chests the fact that the dismantling funds should be paid for by the nuclear energy sector itself and not by the taxpayer. We therefore take the view that the directive should be tightened up drastically so that it results in the introduction of the latest safety standards, compliance with which can be enforced effectively. This too is missing from the present proposals. Finally, I should like to comment on the remarks made by Commissioner de Palacio about Kyoto. I assume that she was expressing her personal view and that she did not represent the view of the entire Commission, for she is not responsible for this dossier. I will therefore ignore her remarks with regard to Kyoto.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, Truro is in Cornwall, not in Devon. Can you give assurances that France is not just playing for time? With the Scientific Committee having ruled on Friday that British beef is safe, it seems incredible that we have this further delay. I believe it is probably just a face-saving exercise on behalf of France. I am sorry that the Agriculture Minister, Mr Brown, seemed to cave in. Whatever the reasons for it, it does not help consumer confidence. We need to make sure the ban is lifted as soon as possible. Can the Commissioner give assurances that it will be lifted in the foreseeable future? Last Friday he mentioned a two week time span. Can he tell us now what he feels the time span should be for the lifting of the ban by France?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President-in-Office, I cannot say your answer is satisfactory. If the Council were truly concerned about human rights one would have expected a more specific answer. We are talking here about two very ancient peoples who have been subjected to systematic genocide by the Turkish regime, a genocide perhaps not so impressive as in Armenia, but just as effective. Several thousand people have become refugees or immigrants to the European Union and only a few tens of thousands remain in the area where they have lived since ancient times. I would like to ask whether you can be more specific. Of course, your reference to the Treaty of Lausanne is apt, but beyond that, the European Union also has a responsibility to stress certain things to the Turkish regime concerning the need to respect human rights, whether they stem from the Treaty of Lausanne or in a broader sense. Is the Council going to take any specific action along those lines?

Political group: GUE-NGL
I would like to congratulate Mr Bradbourn on the excellent report he has presented to us, which has my total support. His report demonstrates a great deal of technical knowledge in the way it approaches the extremely important subject of developing the trans-European transport network. I would like to stress the two following points here: - there is a need for a policy on infrastructural trans-European networks as a means of integrating the economies of the single market; - trans-European networks are a vital instrument for Europe's policy of growth, competitiveness and employment, and a mean of boosting an operative cross-border transport market so as to establish a truly European internal transport market area leading to further progress for Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
I would ask, for a quite specific reason, to take the floor under the rules of procedure. I shall not, like Mr Rothley, talk in very elevated terms, but explain to him that the reason why the Group of the wishes to omit paragraph 5 of the resolution is simply that the Praesidium has already made a decision. At the same time, however, there are some important principles contained in this demand that changes to the reimbursement of travel costs enter into force at the same time as the new Statute, if it ever sees the light of day. There is one particular point, however, that ought to be clarified, and I should therefore like to table an oral amendment to paragraph 5. Instead of calling upon the Praesidium to take a decision, the wording might be in terms of taking note of the Praesidium’s decision. At the same time, an important addition should be made: namely, where the words ‘enter into force together with the Statute’ appear, I wish to propose adding the words ‘and with the same validity as the latter’. It may perhaps be a little difficult to grasp in translation, but the principle is that decisions taken on the reimbursement of travel costs must have the same legal validity as the Statute. That is what I should like to propose.

Political group: GUE-NGL