src/plugin/language-identifier/src/test/org/apache/nutch/analysis/lang/en.test

Resumption of the session
I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on Friday 17 December 1999, and I would like once again to wish you a happy new year in the hope that you enjoyed a pleasant festive period.
Although, as you will have seen, the dreaded 'millennium bug' failed to materialise, still the people in a number of countries suffered a series of natural disasters that truly were dreadful. You have requested a debate on this subject in the course of the next few days, during this part-session. In the meantime, I should like to observe a minute' s silence, as a number of Members have requested, on behalf of all the victims concerned, particularly those of the terrible storms, in the various countries of the European Union. Please rise, then, for this minute' s silence.
(The House rose and observed a minute' s silence)

Madam President, on a point of order. You will be aware from the press and television that there have been a number of bomb explosions and killings in Sri Lanka. One of the people assassinated very recently in Sri Lanka was Mr Kumar Ponnambalam, who had visited the European Parliament just a few months ago. Would it be appropriate for you, Madam President, to write a letter to the Sri Lankan President expressing Parliament's regret at his and the other violent deaths in Sri Lanka and urging her to do everything she possibly can to seek a peaceful reconciliation to a very difficult situation?

Yes, Mr Evans, I feel an initiative of the type you have just suggested would be entirely appropriate. If the House agrees, I shall do as Mr Evans has suggested.

Madam President, on a point of order. I would like your advice about Rule 143 concerning inadmissibility. My question relates to something that will come up on Thursday and which I will then raise again.
The Cunha report on multiannual guidance programmes comes before Parliament on Thursday and contains a proposal in paragraph 6 that a form of quota penalties should be introduced for countries which fail to meet their fleet reduction targets annually. It says that this should be done despite the principle of relative stability. I believe that the principle of relative stability is a fundamental legal principle of the common fisheries policy and a proposal to subvert it would be legally inadmissible. I want to know whether one can raise an objection of that kind to what is merely a report, not a legislative proposal, and whether that is something I can competently do on Thursday.

That is precisely the time when you may, if you wish, raise this question, i.e. on Thursday prior to the start of the presentation of the report.

Madam President, coinciding with this year' s first part-session of the European Parliament, a date has been set, unfortunately for next Thursday, in Texas in America, for the execution of a young 34 year-old man who has been sentenced to death. We shall call him Mr Hicks.
At the request of a French Member, Mr Zimeray, a petition has already been presented, which many people signed, including myself. However, I would ask you, in accordance with the line which is now constantly followed by the European Parliament and by the whole of the European Community, to make representations, using the weight of your prestigious office and the institution you represent, to the President and to the Governor of Texas, Mr Bush, who has the power to order a stay of execution and to reprieve the condemned person.
This is all in accordance with the principles that we have always upheld.

Thank you, Mr Segni, I shall do so gladly. Indeed, it is quite in keeping with the positions this House has always adopted.

Madam President, I should like to draw your attention to a case in which this Parliament has consistently shown an interest. It is the case of Alexander Nikitin. All of us here are pleased that the courts have acquitted him and made it clear that in Russia, too, access to environmental information is a constitutional right. Now, however, he is to go before the courts once more because the public prosecutor is appealing. We know, and we have stated as much in very many resolutions indeed, including specifically during the last plenary part-session of last year, that this is not solely a legal case and that it is wrong for Alexander Nikitin to be accused of criminal activity and treason because of our involvement as the beneficiaries of his findings. These findings form the basis of the European programmes to protect the Barents Sea, and that is why I would ask you to examine a draft letter setting out the most important facts and to make Parliament's position, as expressed in the resolutions which it has adopted, clear as far as Russia is concerned.

Yes, Mrs Schroedter, I shall be pleased to look into the facts of this case when I have received your letter.

Madam President, I would firstly like to compliment you on the fact that you have kept your word and that, during this first part-session of the new year, the number of television channels in our offices has indeed increased considerably. But, Madam President, my personal request has not been met. Although there are now two Finnish channels and one Portuguese one, there is still no Dutch channel, which is what I had requested because Dutch people here like to be able to follow the news too when we are sent to this place of exile every month. I would therefore once more ask you to ensure that we get a Dutch channel as well.

Mrs Plooij-van Gorsel, I can tell you that this matter is on the agenda for the Quaestors' meeting on Wednesday. It will, I hope, be examined in a positive light.

Madam President, can you tell me why this Parliament does not adhere to the health and safety legislation that it actually passes? Why has no air quality test been done on this particular building since we were elected? Why has there been no Health and Safety Committee meeting since 1998? Why has there been no fire drill, either in the Brussels Parliament buildings or the Strasbourg Parliament buildings? Why are there no fire instructions? Why have the staircases not been improved since my accident? Why are no-smoking areas not enforced? It seems absolutely disgraceful that we pass legislation and do not adhere to it ourselves.

Mrs Lynne, you are quite right and I shall check whether this has actually not been done. I shall also refer the matter to the College of Quaestors, and I am certain that they will be keen to ensure that we comply with the regulations we ourselves vote on.

Madam President, Mrs Díez González and I had tabled questions on certain opinions of the Vice-President, Mrs de Palacio, which appeared in a Spanish newspaper. The competent services have not included them in the agenda on the grounds that they had been answered in a previous part-session.
I would ask that they reconsider, since this is not the case. The questions answered previously referred to Mrs de Palacio' s intervention, on another occasion, and not to these comments which appeared in the ABC newspaper on 18 November.

Mr Berenguer Fuster, we shall check all this. I admit that, at present, the matter seems to be somewhat confused. We shall therefore look into it properly to ensure that everything is as it should be.

Madam President, I should like to know if there will be a clear message going out from Parliament this week about our discontent over today's decision refusing to renew the arms embargo on Indonesia, considering that the vast majority in this Parliament have endorsed the arms embargo in Indonesia in the past? Today's decision not to renew the embargo is extremely dangerous considering the situation there. So Parliament should send a message, since that is the wish of the vast majority. It is irresponsible of EU Member States to refuse to renew the embargo. As people have said, the situation there is extremely volatile. There is, in fact, a risk of a military coup in the future. We do not know what is happening. So why should EU arms producers profit at the expense of innocent people?

In any event, this question is not presently included among the requests for topical and urgent debate on Thursday.

Agenda
The next item is the verification of the final version of the draft agenda as drawn up by the Conference of Presidents at its meeting of 13 January pursuant to Rule 110 of the Rules of Procedure. No amendments have been proposed relating to Monday and Tuesday.
Relating to Wednesday:
The Group of the Party of European Socialists requests that a Commission statement be included on its strategic objectives for the next five years and on the administrative reform of the Commission.
I would like Mr Barón Crespo, who made the request, to speak to propose it. That is, if he so wishes, of course. Then we shall follow the usual procedure, hearing one speaker in favour and one against.

Madam President, the presentation of the Prodi Commission' s political programme for the whole legislature was initially a proposal by the Group of the Party of European Socialists which was unanimously approved by the Conference of Presidents in September and which was also explicitly accepted by President Prodi, who reiterated his commitment in his inaugural speech.
This commitment is important because the Commission is a body with a monopoly of initiative in accordance with the Treaties and, therefore, basically dictates this Parliament' s political and legislative activity for the next five years. I would also like to point out, Madam President, that this Parliament voted to express its confidence in President Prodi during the previous legislature. It did so again during this legislature, in July, and then, in September, it voted once more to approve the whole Commission. There has therefore been enough time for the Commission to prepare its programme and for us to become familiar with it and explain it to our citizens. To this end, I would like to remind you of the resolution of 15 September, which recommended that the proposal be presented as soon as possible.
The events of last week - which originated outside the Conference of Presidents, that Conference being used simply to corroborate and ratify decisions taken elsewhere - present us with a dilemma. Either the Commission is not ready to present this programme, in which case it should clarify it. According to its President, it is in a position to do so. Given that the Commission is represented by Vice-President de Palacio, I believe that, before voting, it would help if the Commission could let us know how ready it is to present this programme, as agreed. Alternatively, Parliament is not ready to examine this programme, as some appear to be suggesting. In my opinion, this second hypothesis would imply the failure of Parliament in its duty as a Parliament, as well as introducing an original thesis, an unknown method which consists of making political groups aware, in writing, of a speech concerning the Commission' s programme a week earlier - and not a day earlier, as had been agreed - bearing in mind that the legislative programme will be discussed in February, so we could forego the debate, since on the next day our citizens will hear about it in the press and on the Internet and Parliament will no longer have to worry about it.
My Group believes that since a parliament is meant to listen, debate and reflect, there can be no justification whatsoever for this delay and we believe that, if the Commission is ready to do so, we still have time to re-establish the original agreement between Parliament and the Commission and proceed in a manner which fulfils our duty to our fellow citizens. Therefore, the proposal of the Group of the Party of European Socialists, and which you have mentioned, is that the Prodi Commission present its legislative programme on Wednesday, including its proposed administrative reform, because, otherwise, we could find ourselves in a paradoxical situation: on the pretext that there is no text, on the one hand, the President of the Commission would be denied his right to speak in this Parliament and, on the other hand, there would be a debate on a reform when Parliament had no prior knowledge of the texts on which it is based. Therefore, Madam President, I would ask you to request that the Commission express its opinion on this issue and that we then proceed to the vote.
(Applause from the PSE Group)

Madam President, I really am quite astonished at Mr Barón Crespo' s behaviour and the fact that he is now asking for this item to be put on Wednesday's agenda.
Mr Barón Crespo, you were unable to attend the Conference of Presidents last Thursday. I am not criticising this; it happens from time to time that people send someone to represent them. Mr Hänsch represented you on this occasion. In the Conference of Presidents, we had an in-depth discussion. Your Group was alone in advocating what you are saying now. We then put it to a vote. As you know, each chairman has the same number of votes as his Group has Members. There was a vote on this matter. As I recall, the outcome of this vote was 422 votes to 180 with a few abstentions. This means that all the Groups with the exception of the non-attached Members - but, of course, they are not a Group - were in agreement; only your Group thought that we should proceed as you have proposed here. All of the others were of a different opinion. That was the decision.
I should now like to comment on the issue itself. We have confidence in the Commission and in Romano Prodi and, after a difficult procedure, as everyone knows, the vast majority of our Group supported the vote of confidence in Romano Prodi and the Commission. We believe, however, that the Commission's strategic plan needs to be debated within a proper procedural framework, not only on the basis of an oral statement here in the European Parliament, but also on the basis of a document which is adopted in the Commission and which describes this programme over the five-year period. There is no such document!

The Commission will present its programme for the year 2000 in February. We have said, very well, if the Commission does not wish to introduce the 2000 programme as early as January then we will do it in February. We have agreed to this. After all, we do not wish to quarrel with the Commission; if at all possible, we believe that the Commission and Parliament need to tread the same path. However, we in Parliament also have a supervisory role with regard to the Commission and we do not have to agree with everything which comes out of the Commission.
I should like us to be able to do a reasonable amount of preparation for the debate on the five-year programme in our Groups. You cannot prepare if you hear a statement in this House and have no idea of its content. That is why we would recommend - and it is my impression that the Commission is also open to this idea - that we hold the debate on the Commission's long-term programme up to the year 2005 in February - and I hope that the Commission will agree on a programme before then which it will propose to us - and that, at the same time, in February we also hold the debate on the Commission's legislative programme for the year 2000. The fact that the subjects are connected also suggests that we should hold the debate on both programmes together. That is why my Group firmly rejects the proposal made by the Socialist Group.
(Applause from the PPE-DE Group)

Madam President, I would like to make it very clear that, above all, the Commission has absolute respect for the decisions of this Parliament and, amongst those, the decision establishing its agenda. We therefore respect whatever Parliament may decide.
But I would also like to make it very clear that President Prodi made a commitment to this Parliament to introduce a new debate, as Mr Barón Crespo has reminded us, which would be in addition to the annual debate on the Commission' s legislative programme, on the broad areas of action for the next five years, that is to say, for this legislature.
Madam President, I would like to say that the agreement reached in September distinguished this debate from the annual presentation of the Commission' s legislative programme. I would also like to say that the Commission is prepared and ready to hold this debate whenever it is convenient and that we were ready to do so this week as we had agreed originally, on the basis that it would be presented the day before in a speech to parliamentary groups.
Therefore, Madam President, I would like to repeat that the Commission has debated the action plan for the next five years and, when Parliament decides, - this week if that is the decision - we are prepared to come and explain the programme for the next five years and, next month, the programme for 2000, which is what we fully agreed upon.

I propose that we vote on the request of the Group of the Party of European Socialists that the Commission statement on its strategic objectives should be reinstated.
(Parliament rejected the request) President. Still on the subject of Wednesday' s sitting, I have another proposal regarding the oral question on capital tax. The PPE-DE Group is requesting that this item be taken off the agenda.
Is there a member who wishes to speak on behalf of this Group to propose this?

Madam President, I can hear a ripple of laughter from the Socialists. I was told that large sections of the Socialist Group were also keen to have this item taken off the agenda, because at the vote in the Conference of Presidents no vote was received from the working group of Members of the Socialist Group responsible for this matter. I do not know whether this information is correct, but the PPE-DE Group would, in any case, be grateful if this item were removed because Parliament has addressed this issue several times already. Decisions have also been adopted against a tax of this kind. That is why my Group moves that this item be taken off the agenda.

Thank you, Mr Poettering.
We shall now hear Mr Wurtz speaking against this request.

Madam President, I would firstly like to point out Mr Poettering' s lack of logic. He has just been preaching to the Group of the Party of European Socialists because they went back on a decision taken in a perfectly clear manner at the Conference of Presidents, and now he is doing just the same. We discussed that matter and we were unanimous, with the exception of the PPE and ELDR Groups. As my fellow chairmen will recall, I even mentioned that it was not a matter of knowing whether one was for or against the Tobin tax, but of whether one dared to hear what the Commission and the Council thought of it. It is not a lot to ask. I therefore repeat the proposal that this oral question to the Commission and the Council should be retained so that we can find out, once and for all, the positions of these two bodies regarding the proposal which is relatively modest but which would give a clear message to public opinion, particularly after the tide of feeling generated by the failure of the Seattle Conference.

We shall proceed to vote on the PPE-DE Group' s request that the oral question regarding the capital tax be withdrawn from the agenda.
(Parliament rejected the request, with 164 votes for, 166 votes against and 7 abstentions)

Madam President, I would like to thank Mr Poettering for advertising this debate. Thank you very much.

Madam President, has my vote been counted? I was unable to vote electronically, since I do not have a card. My vote was "in favour" .

Indeed, if we add the two Members who have declared themselves, then the result of the vote would be ....

Madam President, the Presidency has already declared the result of the vote. There is no room for amendments.

Ladies and gentlemen, once again, we see it is essential for Members to bring their voting cards along on a Monday. Clearly there is a problem here. That being the case, I shall have to make a decision.
I too forgot my card, and I would have voted against. I therefore consider that the oral question may be kept on the agenda as per the vote.
This is the last time that we shall make allowances for Members who have forgotten their cards. Let that be clearly noted and understood.
(Applause)The oral question will therefore remain on the agenda, and yes, your President is entitled to vote just as she is entitled to forget her voting card.
We shall continue with the other amendments to the agenda.

Madam President, in the earlier vote - and I will abide by your ruling on this matter - on the question of the strategic plan of the Commission I indicated that I would like to speak in advance of the vote on behalf of my Group. That did not happen. I would appreciate it if, on the close of this item of business, I might be allowed to give an explanation of vote on behalf of my Group. This is an important matter. It would be useful for the record of the House to state how people perceive what we have just done in the light of their own political analysis.

Madam President, I do not wish to reopen the debate, but I had also asked for the floor, to comment on Mr Barón Crespo's motion. You did not call me either. I regret this, but the vote has already been taken and the decision is made so let us leave the matter there.

I am terribly sorry, Mr Hänsch and Mr Cox. I did not see you asking to speak. Even so, I think the positions are quite clear and they shall be entered in the Minutes. When we adopt the Minutes for today' s sitting tomorrow, then any Members who think the positions have not been explained clearly enough may ask for amendments. This seems to me to be a workable solution. Of course, the Minutes for tomorrow' s sitting will take into account any additional explanations. I think this is a better solution than proceeding now to extremely time-consuming explanations of votes. Mr Cox, Mr Hänsch, would this be acceptable to you?

Madam President, if the vote records correctly how my Group voted I shall not, and cannot, object to that. If your ruling is that I cannot give an explanation of vote, I accept that but with reservations.

We shall pay particular attention to the wording of the Minutes, as we always do, of course. If they do not properly reflect the positions adopted, then we may correct them, if necessary.
(The order of business was adopted thus amended)