GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, as a member of the Group of the , I should like to thank the rapporteur. I think we have a fairly broad consensus on this ALTENER programme. I also hope that, in the negotiations with the Council, he is able to get at least the EUR 81.1 million we have been talking about. It is important, however, that, one day before the debate here in Parliament on the Kyoto follow-up conference in Bonn, and also a few days after the second-worst nuclear accident in history (this time in a hi-tech country), we should also place this ALTENER programme in a wider context. It is against a particular background that we are framing energy policy: we want to protect the environment and we want to cut down on CO2 emissions, so we must examine in particular whether the liberalisation of the European electricity market, as is at present being implemented in a number of Member States, is not counter-productive. Wholesale liberalisation in Germany is now already putting both biomass and solar projects under pressure and, in the social sphere, it will also, of course, result in our soon finding ourselves with a lot of little Michelin-style incidents because jobs are being rationalised out of existence so that power companies’ share prices rise. I think it is time to analyse this liberalisation – in both ecological and social terms – and then to consider what are the good approaches. Personally, I particularly like the Danish model, where there is transparent access to the grid; there is an energy tax which corrects prices; there are clear targets for renewable energy sources; and there is an almost protected market. We also need a protected market for renewable energy sources and for block-type thermal power stations. In my view, merely national corrective measures or national “protective barriers” of an ecological and social nature are insufficient. We must also consider, at a European level, how we might build in corrective features. We naturally want this “feed-in directive” adopted very quickly. I believe we need mechanisms in the field of renewable energy sources similar to those we have today for nuclear energy. We need an export guarantee because, all in all, renewable energy sources mean many more jobs and better environmental protection. Renewable energy sources should be worth that to us.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I must protest about the use by the United States of America of the death penalty on an almost industrial scale. This is the most powerful country in the world which claims to embody the cutting edge of civilisation. Regardless of the risk of judicial error, a society which uses this machinery of the law to knowingly and coldly perpetrate such a barbaric act, in order to wreak revenge for vile and barbaric acts committed by individuals, can only be regarded as behaving in a way which is worse than that which it condemns. The abolition of the death penalty worldwide is the very least that we should be calling for if we really want to defend human rights. The condemned sometimes await their execution for many years in American prisons. I must particularly highlight the threat of execution hanging over Leonard Peltier and Mumia Abu-Jamal who are both victims of the machinations of a police force and legal system riddled with racism. In truth, they have both been condemned to death for their political ideas. Having respectively suffered 26 and 18 years of this vile torture of waiting on death row, they must immediately be set free.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it has been wonderful to start the day listening to people here actually trying to outdo one another with regard to the heartfelt praise that has been lavished on my fellow countryman, Jacob Söderman. I wish all the best to those continuing this work. As a fairly new member of the Committee on Petitions, it has been especially interesting for me to become acquainted with its work, which includes familiarising myself with its annual report. Particularly now, when we are having a debate on the future of the Committee on Petitions, it is excellent that we should have a report which, once you read it, makes you realise that the special position the Committee on Petitions has among the committees as a whole really cannot be emphasised enough. It is important, however, that good legislation should be enacted at European level, particularly in such areas as environmental protection, where problems do not recognise international borders. How, though, will it benefit us or the environment if Member States apply European legislation only when it does not clash with other interests? Although the national authorities, and ultimately the courts, have the principal obligation to monitor compliance with Community legislation, there is also a need for European legal redress when citizens do not fulfil their obligations. As an ordinary citizen is not generally in a position to submit a matter to the Court of Justice of the European Communities to decide on, the options he or she is mainly left with are either to make a complaint to the Commission or to petition the European Parliament. It is, of course, primarily the task of the Commission to monitor compliance with EU legislation on behalf of the EU, but then again it does not always seem over-anxious to interfere in the affairs of the Member States. Petitions do not come from us in Finland or the other Nordic countries in any large numbers. One isolated case, which threatens the diversity of nature in Finland, is the Vuosaari Harbour Project in Helsinki, and that came under Community scrutiny having gone through this very petition process, an exercise the Finnish authorities have regarded as futile. Vuosaari is an example of a case in which the Commission has been unable, for one reason or another, to intervene. When you read Laura González Álvarez’s report, you can, however, say that the Committee on Petitions has proved to be an excellent route to open democracy and real concrete results.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the Commissioner is to be warmly congratulated on the courage with which she has tackled this very difficult problem. I would like to make two points. First of all, for some of the accession countries, the question of financial provision is a very difficult one. Lithuania and Slovakia were specifically mentioned by the Council last week. Could the Commissioner tell us how that issue is going to be tackled? Secondly, about a year ago I took the initiative to invite Mr Lacoste, the chairman of the Nuclear Regulators' Association, to come to the Industry Committee. I have kept in touch with him since and we have discussed the possibility of him coming to the Parliament to give an annual report on what is happening. Could you foresee the inclusion of such a provision in your proposals?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, this is a good day to raise a series of Euro-Mediterranean considerations, since a series of cultural, social, religious and political events are taking place which cannot pass unnoticed by those of us, looking on from Europe, who wish the best for the countries bordering the Mediterranean which furthermore, throughout history, have lived alongside certain European countries. This debate is also appropriate because this Parliament’s delegation for relations with the Maghreb countries visited Morocco and Tunisia last week, with a full working agenda. It is true that the situation is different to the situation some years ago, since we can see certain slight improvements in specific areas such as human rights and in the economic field, despite certain difficulties. In general, we have seen a common desire on the part of these countries to associate themselves with their neighbours in the north who form part of the European Union, since they see us as their sole hope of solving the problems they are facing on a day-to-day basis. That is why the different European institutions, Parliament, the Commission and the Council, must make an effort so that these people in the Mediterranean area may improve their situation. To this end, we must carry out a decisive and courageous policy which will allow us to successfully confront the Euro-Mediterranean challenges which have arisen in this globalised world. The Mediterranean and its peoples need us. We cannot leave them to struggle alone.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am now faced with the very difficult, if not impossible, task of finding something new to say. Everything has already been said, but not yet by everyone. I shall therefore follow everyone else's lead and express my warm thanks to the rapporteur for the good work and positive cooperation. I would also like to congratulate him on his excellent substantive work, as well as on his great sensitivity during the negotiations, which enabled us to achieve a compromise among the parliamentary groups and among the European institutions. I think that is absolutely crucial. It has already been said repeatedly here today that the speedy entry into force of the Cartagena Protocol is naturally an issue that is close to everyone's hearts. However, I do not want to pass up the opportunity to express my great regret that the largest exporter of genetically-modified organisms, namely the United States, again remains outside the frame on such a key issue, where global multilateral regulations are essential. We face a major political challenge, that of convincing our counterparts in the United States of the need for such regulation. The common position is also a great success. In substantive terms, the Council endorsed almost 70 per cent of the position adopted by Parliament at first reading. I note with satisfaction, especially as rapporteur for genetically-modified food and feed, that there is clearly something of a tradition here, with the Council generally following Parliament's position. I hope that the vote tomorrow will be a major step towards the ratification of the Cartagena Protocol.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the European Union has many critics but few voices of protest are heard when the institution takes action to protect our air, our rivers, our seas and our land. Because people everywhere recognise that pollution knows no national boundaries and can only be tackled effectively by countries working together. To its great credit Europe has taken a lead in introducing legislation to protect the environment. But laws which are not enforced equally by all 15 Member States will be cynically ignored by those who seek financial gain at any cost and will generate a sense of injustice and eventually hostility in all those who play by the rules. None of us, of course, have any reason to feel superior. No country has a perfect record when it comes to enforcing environmental legislation. This report takes us a positive step forward and shows Parliament at its best as a defender of the public interest. It emphasises our commitment to protecting our environment and applying equal procedures in each Member State. It greatly strengthens the Commission’s well-meaning but frankly insubstantial recommendations for inspection procedures which could not guarantee that improvements will actually take place and it provides for a detailed programme of action to make sure that existing laws are properly enforced within a realistic but tight timetable. There are one or two sections in this report, as drafted, which I believe would benefit from some very minor amendments to tighten them up. I have tabled a couple and one of the delights about making a maiden speech in this House is that one has the feeling that those words might actually be studied for their merits rather than simply judged on their party political background. The real substance of this report and my concern is as raised by Mrs Jackson, that the Commission may not give its support to these proposals. I congratulate Mrs Jackson on the work she has undertaken. I believe strongly that this report should be given Parliament’s wholehearted support and a message should be sent to both the Commission and the Council that we are determined that these essential measures should not be diluted or weakened in any way.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I support both the line of the proposals which have come from our colleague Mrs Roth-Behrendt and the objective which many people in Parliament have been trying to achieve for the past ten years. No other issue has taken Parliament so long to deal with as that of animal testing in the matter of cosmetic products. So I think the message that should go back to the Member States is that this Parliament believes that, until we get serious, the industry will not get truly serious. I accept that there are a large number of areas where there is cause for concern in terms of medical research and extremely difficult and serious tests for which no valid alternatives have yet been produced. But I remain convinced that, unless we are able to send a clear signal by reasserting the position we took at first reading, there will not be that incentive that comes from the clear knowledge that these sanctions are there and will be implemented. The test ban and the marketing ban have not been complied with. We cannot afford further delays. I would say to everyone, including the Member States who tried very hard to bring us a common position that we could accept, we still have to try harder. The answer is to send a signal at second reading, so that the rapporteur and our colleagues of all parties have the strongest possible negotiating position when we come to one of the most serious processes of conciliation we have ever had in this Parliament.

Political group: PSE
Afghanistan, a country where, during the Taliban’s reign of terror, women were not allowed to leave their homes, were not allowed to work or receive education, is the most poignant example of a country where fundamentalists, backed by their delusions, oppressed women. However, on a smaller scale too, there are women across the world who are being oppressed, abused or discriminated against in the name of religion. In many Islamic countries, girls are genitally maimed, although this is not mentioned anywhere in the Koran. In fact, the Koran prohibits this practice. This is no longer religion, but fundamentalism. Some fellow MEPs labour under the misapprehension that I, along with other MEPs, denounce any religious interference in politics. This is incorrect. We welcome the fact that people are involved in European politics. This comes about via industry, environmental organisations and the unions. Needless to say, religions will also lobby for their interests and their ideals. The fact that churches defend their political agendas here among MEPs is a credit to our institution. I am therefore delighted with the Vatican’s attention to this report, as documented in the authoritative Spanish newspaper, El Pais, among others. As a first step towards an open dialogue with the Vatican, I should like to say the following in response to their criticism: we simply want women to be able to decide for themselves whether, and if so when, they want to bear children. The report also focuses on the difficult position of women in developing countries and of lesbians. These are real problems which would be solved far better if politicians were to join forces with churches. Cooperation always leads to better results. Our joint fight against capital punishment or poverty is a good case in point. Would it not be wonderful if, on the road to yet more cooperation, we could start an open dialogue with regard to the Vatican’s position on condoms? Last year, 2.6 million people died of AIDS in Africa. If the Vatican stops the ban on condoms, we might be able to rescue a percentage of these people. Let us therefore enter into this open dialogue so that we can together fight fundamentalism at some stage in future, on the understanding that each take up their own responsibilities. I should like to thank the rapporteur and the fellow MEPs with whom we have cooperated.

Political group: ELDR
State aid for employment is an important way of stimulating the job market and small and medium-sized enterprises. Transparency and rules at European level are also important. Having said which, however, I worry that the Commission regulation may deprive the Member States' governments of specific, additional tools for fighting unemployment under special circumstances. Likewise, the report throws its weight behind labour market 'flexibility', which may further dismantle the employment rights of workers, which is why I am unable to vote in favour of it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
This own-initiative report, which the Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities was authorised to draw up, has been turned by its rapporteur and her communist and green acolytes into a pamphlet in favour of abortion and contraception. Fourteen of the 20 recitals and 17 of the 31 paragraphs in this long-winded resolution are devoted to these issues, as if women had no other problems, even in connection with their reproductive health. The obstinacy with which this united has pursued its goal here, regardless of the adverse consequences it might have, for example in connection with the second referendum on the ratification of the Nice Treaty in Ireland or with the referenda in the accession countries, and without considering the fact that the EU has absolutely no competence in this field, thanks to the principle of subsidiarity, points, in my mind, to a regrettable confusion about its sense of mission. This being the case, and because reason and realism were unfortunately not enough to teach these abortion fanatics otherwise, I did not vote in favour of this report. I wish to make it absolutely clear that abortion must not be elevated to the preferred means of birth control. Neither can we have the morning-after pill being given out in schools free of charge, as this encourages carelessness and lends it respectability, which at the end of the day releases men entirely from their share of the responsibility and forces women, especially young women, to put their health at risk. Surely this is unacceptable!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to talk about the Sommer report and the way in which it promotes and affects the future of enlargement. I would like to make it clear from the outset that we agree with what the Commission says in its communication with regard to the impact enlargement will have on regions directly bordering candidate countries, and we fully support Mr Sommer’s report, which has the merit of accurately identifying the specific problems facing these border regions, problems which they will have to address quickly because of their proximity to countries which are still very far off achieving European economic standards. We also fully support the amendment we have tabled, which has been adopted by the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, calling upon the Commission to undertake to provide a clearer, more exhaustive definition of a ‘border region’, duly allowing for both land and sea borders, which takes into account changes in the Union’s political priorities as well.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, I mainly wanted to talk about the last point on patents. Many citizens are concerned about reducing greenhouse gases and they even send us projects that are extremely interesting but which we are not in a position even to understand and analyse from a technical point of view. I wanted to find out if the Commission had opened any sort of ‘one stop shop’ that these people could contact, because if they are not scientists or do not belong to a university, there is no one to act as a sounding board for their ideas.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The vote on our motion for a resolution against terrorism means we can state firmly once again that terrorism is evil by definition, is totally unjustified and should be eradicated at all costs. The main characteristic of and driving force behind these unscrupulous minority groups is the imposing of their ideas and power through violence and fear. The causes of terrorism should not be confused with the means it employs. Terrorist leaders, whoever and wherever they are, have need of resources to be able to achieve their goals, namely: – money, first and foremost, from their personal fortunes or obtained through racketeering, criminal activity, drug trafficking or petrodollars... – foot-soldiers, which they find in fragile environments by playing on nationalism, religion, ambition, dreams, revenge, poverty or despair... – terror, which they impose on democracies and their citizens that are ill prepared to resist ... and always ready to negotiate compromises... We remember all the terrorist movements and their actions over the last few years, whether it be the Baader-Meinhof gang in Germany, the Red Brigades in Italy, movements in Corsica, in Ireland or in the Basque Country, striking every day, not forgetting the massacres at the Munich Olympics, the suicide bombers in Tel Aviv and the networks of the fundamentalist multimillionaire Osama Bin Laden. All these actions have a common goal: to destroy democratic systems by means of terror. Combating terrorism should be the main objective of all democracies, wherever they may be. The ability to call upon a large amount of resources is needed in order to implement measures with determination, to mobilise the citizens, explaining to them what is at stake, and to strengthen the power of the public authorities at both national and European levels. Without this...there is not much hope! This is why I supported the European Parliament’s forceful and legitimate request to be closely involved in the actions of the Council in this area. If we are to combat terrorism effectively, public opinion must be roused, and the European Parliament is the best representative of this opinion. - Joint motion for a resolution on development aid (B5-0034/2002)

Political group: PSE