GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, too much time has passed since, on 17 July 1988 in Rome, the establishment of an International Criminal Court was approved, to bring to justice those individuals responsible for the most serious crimes which, as has already been mentioned here today, are the scourge of the whole world, including terrorism. There have been 52 ratifications of the Statute to date but, ladies and gentlemen, as you are all well aware, 60 are needed for it to enter into force. Given that we anticipate that the International Criminal Court will enter into force in the first six months of this year, under the Spanish Presidency, that the first assembly of signatory States will take place in New York, in September this year, that the attitude of the United States has not been positive so far and there are also well-founded suspicions that the American administration will be supporting a campaign against the Court, even going as far as to revoke Clinton’s signature at the UN on 31 December 2000, I would like to take advantage of your presence here, Mr de Miguel, to ask you a few specific questions. What does the Presidency of the Union intend to do with regard to the Bush administration to avoid this risk of taking a backwards step? Does the Presidency not think it necessary to draw up a plan with specific measures and resources to attract the United States to the International Criminal Court? What does the Presidency of the Union intend doing to guarantee that the 18 aforementioned judges, an integral component of this Court, designated at national level, meet with the requirements with regard to qualifications, balanced regional distribution, experience and parity between men and women? When the Rome Statute was approved, Kofi Annan considered it a gigantic step forward. However, a long time ago, Benjamin Ferencz, former prosecutor at the Nuremburg War Crimes Trial, said that there can be no peace without justice, no justice without law, and no meaningful law without a court to decide what is just and lawful under any given circumstances. Today, following 11 September and the conflicts in the Middle East, the citizens see the establishment of this Court as something urgent and necessary. Let us not, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, let time slip away and forget about this until the next crime or war reminds us of this ever-present threat.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Zimbabwe, Mauritania, Togo, it looks very much as if the democratisation process in Africa is in reverse. Some leaders are indeed proving exceptionally creative in eliminating their political opponents and getting round the democratic rules of the game. One of them is General Eyadema from Togo. At the last elections in 1998 he did not hesitate to have the counting of votes stopped and himself again proclaimed president. A period of bloody repression followed, in which, according to Amnesty, hundreds of people were killed. An international committee confirmed those findings, but at the present moment, no one has yet been called to account or punished. On the contrary, the repression is simply continuing. The latest victim is opposition leader, Mr Agboyibo. Last month in a show trial, he was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment for spreading false information. I have met Yawovi Agboyibo several times personally in his home base. I have developed a very great admiration for the way in which, at the constant risk of his own life, he continues to campaign for human rights and the restoration of democracy in his country. This must be stopped in some way. Maintaining the suspension of aid is one thing, but I believe that we must ask ourselves whether a country like Togo still belongs at conferences of the ACS and the European Union. However, the problem is that, just as in the case of Zimbabwe, certain European states follow their own agenda for the sake of commercial or other interests and, in so doing, run counter to the European strategy towards Togo. It is not enough to establish fine principles in an agreement. They must also be applied consistently and that also applies to a country like France.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am pleased that we in Europe can say that the death penalty has been abolished. The abolition of the death penalty belongs, as it were, to our culture. Unfortunately, however, we did not see the abolition of the death penalty in the UN in 1999. We all know that the death penalty is still on the agenda in Iran, Turkey, China and Yemen. I find it particularly tragic that America, the land which champions freedom and human rights, has maintained the death penalty. At the moment, two European Union citizens are on death row, a Spaniard in Yemen and an Italian in the USA, a Mr Barnabei, who is due to be executed in the year 2000. Mr Barnabei, who was previously a respectable man, is accused of having killed a young woman. This is my cause for concern insofar as, like me, he is an Italian citizen. I urge the Commission and, of course, this Parliament, to do everything it can to get this death sentence commuted to life imprisonment or postponed, not just because leading American legal experts have indicated that there may be a miscarriage of justice, as is often the case, but also because he is an EU citizen.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, measures facilitating the simplification of procedures and formalities are always positive, and in this particular case of health care provision they are even more important because they will help to make the free movement of persons easier. These rights need to be extended to as many people as possible, and therefore it is a positive step that a European health card has been successfully created for everyone who travels, studies or works – and also for their family members – in any European Union Member State, thus replacing the forms that currently exist, but without containing data that might put their privacy at risk. I also consider it a positive step to provide all citizens with information on the rights they enjoy in this field in the various Member States and that this should be duly guaranteed. I therefore congratulate Mrs Jensen on the work she has done. I hope that the citizens of the various Member States of the European Union will indeed gain direct access to full health care and that this will happen as soon as possible, according to an established timetable. I also hope that today’s vote will help to ensure that this timetable is adhered to and that the health card will become a reality during the coming year.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I think it is extremely important that a number of minimum rights are indeed to be safeguarded for victims, in a manner which transcends national boundaries. That is what this report stands for. We submitted an opinion to the committee responsible on behalf of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities. It was very important in our view for the report to reflect the specific situation of women, but also that of other vulnerable victims. When I say other vulnerable victims I am thinking, for example, of minors and children, but the list need not end there. There are other groups in our society that are very vulnerable when it comes to violence. I have in mind those of a different sexual orientation. I am also thinking of migrants and so on, who are, of course, particularly vulnerable victims. What did we request for this group of people? Firstly, we said that people who are very vulnerable must be given absolute respect. I am thinking, for example, of the specific situation of women and children who fall victim to sexual violence or physical violence in the home. It is very important for them that if their case comes to court, this really must be able to take place behind closed doors, so that minimum publicity is given to the victims, who are usually ashamed of the fact that they are victims. Because of course, that is what it has come to in our society. I feel, for example, that it is very important for physically abused women to have access to information everywhere on where they can go, where they can find suitable accommodation and stay at a secret address. It is also essential for the police and the magistrature to receive special training. I was very actively involved in this issue in my own country, when I was a member of the government. I noticed how ill-prepared and equipped people in these agencies are – i.e. both the police and the magistrature – when it comes to treating people who are victims of sexual violence, for example, with respect, to questioning them, or providing a separate room for them, for example for women who have been raped and need to be examined. They should not be cross-examining these people in a room which is a general thoroughfare. It is absolutely imperative for certain measures to be put in place for this group of people, these specific victims. The report answers this need. I am extremely grateful that the Commission has adopted the amendments tabled by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities and we will therefore support the report.

Political group: PPE-DE
I would like to thank the Council for that answer. The decisions taken in the EU are extremely important for us European citizens, as they affect our daily lives. It is therefore also important, as the Council agrees, that citizens be given increased opportunities to follow and assess the political debates, so that they can then vote. Voting in elections is the citizens’ opportunity to show what they want Europe’s development to look like. We are in complete agreement on this. With my country, Sweden, holding the presidency, this naturally becomes even more of an issue for me as the Council’s meetings are held around the country. I am naturally satisfied with the measures taken by the Council and with the fact that work on analysing ways of increasing openness is to continue. No doubt, the Internet and electronic means can be used considerably more than they are currently. Debates can be followed live not only on TV, but via the Internet too. This is my counsel to the Council.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I understand that we will be voting on the amendments to the Lalumière resolution tomorrow and not today. I should like to point out that there is an important typographical error in Amendment No 39, which Members will have. It mentions the 'President of Canada'. This should read: the 'Parliament of Canada'. There is no president of Canada. The head of state of Canada is Her Majesty the Queen, who is also the head of state of Australia. *** Calendar of part-sessions of Parliament for the year 2001 Dell’Alba (TDI). – (FR) Madam President, I am tabling a point of order concerning the first vote due to take place, because, I, with forty or so fellow Members, have tabled twelve amendments seeking to transfer all plenary sessions from Strasbourg to Brussels. These amendments have been deemed to be inadmissible. I admit that our Rules of Procedure state that we must deliberate on the matter according to the conditions laid down by the Treaties, but I would remind you that, last April, Parliament voted in favour of a resolution, specifically bearing in mind the Intergovernmental Conference that was then taking place, which requested, with a very large majority, that the seat and working centres of the European Parliament should be decided on by Parliament itself. We could therefore quite easily have voted in favour of our amendments, waited for the results of the IGC and adapted the calendar accordingly. I dispute the statement that these amendments, supported by many of my fellow Members, are inadmissible.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I support the proposal put forward in this debate by my friend, Enrique Barón Crespo, for the European Parliament to send three messages: to the Madrid Summit, to the Sharon Government and to the Palestinian authority, as he said. Words alone, however, are not enough! We have already said as much as can be said and no one has listened. Mr Solana is wrong: we have been humiliated by the treatment that the European Union delegation received in Israel, which is unacceptable. We must now translate our words into action to ensure that we are treated with the respect we deserve. At the point Ariel Sharon’s Government has now reached, only action can be understood. Israel is no longer abiding by the rule of law, as hard as this may be for us to accept. It is not complying with international law or with its own laws. As Commissioner Patten said, the fight against terrorism that we all support cannot be used as an excuse to disregard international law. I therefore support the measure, which must be implemented as a matter of urgency, to suspend the Association Agreement between Israel and the European Union. This is the only option we have left. We must also insist that the United Nations sends a military intervention force to enforce the cease-fire. Following the repeated statements by President Bush, which have not yet led to any action, there is no other way. I used to have a great deal of respect for Israel, but – and it pains me to have to say this – its army is acting like a real colonial army and, in the war that it is waging on the Palestinians, is not even respecting the Geneva Convention.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the proposal for a directive setting standards of quality and safety for the collection, testing, processing, storage and distribution of human blood and blood components has come at exactly the right time, given recent developments in the medical and public health sectors. The primary objective in introducing new rules is to update the legislative framework, so that it covers areas not covered by Community legislation, by tightening the requirements for suitable blood donors, plasma and blood tests and creating a Community quality system for blood donation centres. I should like to highlight two points where I have tried to improve the Commission text – and hence safety – for both the donors and the recipients of blood or blood components. I refer to Amendment No 33, requiring the manager of the blood donation centre to have at least a medical degree, preferably specialising in haematology or some related discipline. The second important point is that blood is in ever shorter supply. In Greece, the demand has increased to the point at which about three in ten patients require blood and, despite the increase in the supply of blood from volunteers, more and more blood has to be imported. The aim of Amendment No 75 is to ensure that the ban on blood donation incentives is not an absolute ban because it is wrong, for medical and scientific reasons, to be dogmatic on such an important health issue. The fact that we want blood donors to be volunteers should not be expressed in absolute terms. We must give the Member States and blood donation centres the facility to offer incentives to cover the collection, testing, storage and distribution of rare blood groups and their components as and where necessary. I should like to congratulate Mr Nisticò on his really excellent work and to ask the House to vote in favour of Amendment No 75 which, while adhering to the principle of voluntary blood donation, really does give the Member States and blood donation centres the facility to meet any requirements and, medically and scientifically speaking, this is exactly how it should be.

Political group: PPE-DE
I too have just returned from the Jenin refugee camp, and it is impossible to capture in words the horror of what we have seen and heard over the past couple of days. A man had been attempting for four days to locate his brother under the rubble with his bare hands, while Israel obstructed the bulldozers that were needed for this. A doctor was not allowed to attend to a bleeding man on the street until this man had bled to death. A Palestinian family had been living in East Jerusalem for fifty years and was evicted from their home on Monday night in order to make room for Israeli settlers. Computers of the Palestinian Ministry of Education were piled up by Israeli soldiers and subsequently blown up with grenades. Can someone tell me what these acts have to do with the fight against terrorism? The Israeli Government is not only fighting terrorism. Sharon is maliciously destroying the Palestinian infrastructure and, with it, Palestine’s hope, and people without any hope are driven to acts of despair. Loathsome suicide attacks are then the end result. And this is how Sharon himself contributes to Israel’s lack of security, which he claims he wants to promote. Israel’s security can only be guaranteed if we remove the causes of this despair: the colonisation and occupation. However, Sharon has indicated he would like to build new settlements. How is this supposed to guarantee Israel’s security? Finally, we are all shocked by the growth in anti-Semitism in Europe. We condemn this emphatically and call on governments to take vigorous action. However, it is unacceptable to do as Mr Perez does and instantly label everyone who levels criticism at Israel as anti-Semitic, and it is a very easy way out of addressing well-founded international criticism.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, this speech is unexpected and comes as a result of non-attendance. I did not have time to write it down, and so I will speak without a text, although it is a subject I know something about. We are all wondering today what to expect of Russia after this crisis. Wars always end, and I imagine this one will end when the Russian presidential elections are over, at the latest. But, ladies and gentlemen, the question of whether Russia will cooperate with us in the future, and what form that cooperation will take, will depend on the skills we demonstrate today. If we chose a policy of humiliation, the outcome may be a bad one, and dangerous too. The TACIS programme is good in the sense that it is practical and gets close to the ordinary citizen. I would like to make a few important points. Firstly, it is important that Russia holds the elections in five days’ time. Secondly, we must continue with the sort of cooperation that aids the development in Russia of democracy and civil society. That is important both for the Russians and for ourselves. Thirdly, in my opinion, aid should be allocated more precisely than at present – so that it reaches the ordinary people, the impoverished Russians, rather than Moscow. Fourthly, we should establish a massive, long-range project within the framework of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement to create smaller projects to cover a timeframe of 20 years. By then – irrespective of who is leading Russia or the European Union – we will need Russian resources. The first of these is Russian gas, as Norwegian gas will run out. In addition to gas, Russia has, for example, the world’s largest forest and mineral resources. We must take the development of the infrastructure and the environment into consideration. We should implement projects which look to the future in this area and which will carry us through this present crisis.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the issue with which Mr Lamassoure's report deals is indeed a complex one. This was apparent not only in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, but was also shown by the first debates in the Convention, to whose work this report will surely make a contribution. For that the rapporteur deserves our gratitude. I abstained in the vote on this report in the Committee and would like to adduce a number of examples of things which, to my mind, the report has not yet addressed in a convincing way. It may well be helpful to define the three types of competence that already exist, but that falls short of a clear statement that the first priority must be to resolve Europe's problem with democracy. When we come to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, things strike me as having been turned on their head. Why? The report gives the impression that Court rulings are needed in order for both principles to be adhered to and put into effect. Nowhere, though, in the text as a whole, is there any mention of the fact that the real problem is to be found elsewhere, with the European political actors who actually initiate action. There are clear provisions in the Treaties, for example the protocol on subsidiarity in the Treaty of Amsterdam, by which all the institutions are bound. The point actually at issue is rather how they carry out the duties accruing to them on that basis, how seriously they really check whether the principles are being infringed before they take action. At the end of the day, everyone has to do this sort of initial check. If they did, nobody would have to go to the ECJ before the entry into force of a legal measure which in most cases has taken years of debate and associated procedures to come into being. Point 33 states that the framework of competences is to be reviewed after ten years. What this means, and what its point is, is a mystery to me. Is it meant to mean that there is to be an amendment to the Treaties every ten years? Is a rule of this sort really what is wanted, something that is rigidly fixed to a ten-year cycle and utterly divorced from potential political frameworks and requirements? Above all, though, the report fails to make clear the need for a social Europe, and that its creation is one of the EU's most pressing tasks against the backdrop of economic and monetary union. We set ourselves the objective of promoting economic and social progress, with a high level of employment as well. We even want to achieve full employment by 2010. The words to date have been splendid, but they need to be backed up by actions. Employment and social security are not variables in competition, but every citizen's individual and fundamental right, and it is in that direction that the European Union must develop.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I shall not prolong the debate. I am grateful for the contributions made. Allow me merely to make a small point concerning the discussion of whether investments should be private or public. I believe, exactly like Mrs de Palacio, that we need all the resources we can obtain. What is important is that there be regulations in each country ensuring that people with small incomes have access to energy, that is to say that we have sound regulations in this area. I believe that competition between different companies is, then, to be preferred to monopolies, irrespective of whether they are public or private. Thank you for the debate. I hope we shall come nicely to an agreement tomorrow in the vote.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, with regard to the Zabell report, I would like to make it clear that I only voted for the amendments which require a legal basis, while I voted against the report as a whole. Indeed, current events show that the policy adopted by the World Anti-Doping Agency is a failure, and Europe should not have associated itself with it since it is a policy made by others and for which we should not have to bear any responsibility. It is a shame that Europe has not understood this, and that today and over the coming years it will find itself involved in a very tough fight, where it will have to use much more incisive, firm and hard-hitting means. I have tried, drawing on my wealth of experience, to make the Members of the European Parliament understand this. I am sorry that many of them have not fully grasped what I have been trying to make them understand throughout this part-session.

Political group: ELDR