GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I visited Kuwait recently where I met a man whose childhood friend has been killed during the assault by Iraq upon Kuwait. He went out into the street and saw his friend’s body. When he put his hands down he saw that he was dead. He found that he was touching almost a piece of jelly. The Iraqi soldiers had broken every single bone in that man’s body. When we talk about the Iraqi people let us not forget the 750 or so Kuwaiti prisoners of war still inside Iraqi prisons. We do not know what has happened to them. We have to keep looking. I visited Iran. I have talked to the families of prisoners who are still in Iraq from the Iran/Iraq war of 1981-1988. A million people were killed because of Saddam’s assault and predatory efforts inside Iran. Maybe 25 to 30,000 prisoners from Iran are still inside Iraqi prisons. Let us not forget those people either. I have been to Kurdistan. I have seen the results of the chemical weapons. Do not let us forget the half million Kurdistani people whose lives have been taken away from them by Baghdad since they were invaded in the north with chemical weapons in August 1988 shortly after Saddam was driven out of Iran. I have been to the marshlands of Iraq many times, the antique heritage of the world, the marshlands of Mesopotamia. I have seen year after year the steady drainage, the reduction of the water, and the fact now that over half a million marsh dwellers, reaching right back beyond the beginnings of civilisation of our world, have now had their livelihood, their lives destroyed, their place removed from under their feet by the Iraqi marsh drainage. And why? So that Saddam can get his tanks closer to Iran and closer to Kuwait so that he can invade more easily next time. The no-fly zones have been effective in protecting the lives of at least some of those people but we should do more; we must do more. It is within our power to restore the marshes of Iraq. This man is a monster. When we talk about the no-fly zone, when we talk about the collateral damage, do not let us forget that point. In 1989, he earned USD 15 billion from oil and he spent 13 billion on arms. In 1999 he earned USD 16 billion and at least, legally, he could not spend any on arms. I recommend that we look at taking the food distribution of the “oil for food programme” out of his hands, that we look at tearing down those dams that have wrecked the marshes and that we work to set up a criminal court where he can be tried at least in abstentia. When we talk of a policy on Iraq, Commissioner Patten spoke about the recklessness of the Iraq regime. It is not recklessness it is ruthlessness. This man is indeed a modern Hitler. (Applause from the centre and the right)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the explanatory memorandum to this report implicitly constitutes a real indictment of the current economic and social order as reflected in the areas of health and rights concerning reproduction and sexuality. It is revolting, in fact, that pregnancy and giving birth should be among the principal causes of death and injury among women living in developing countries. Of the 600 000 deaths which occur following a pregnancy, 99% occur in developing countries, a dreadful figure, to which we then need to add the 50 million women who suffer serious complications. It is also revolting to find that AIDS and, more generally, sexually-transmitted diseases, affect poor countries much more than developed countries. Consequently, the proposals which have been put forward seem quite derisory as a means of dealing with this situation. Moreover, the failings noted in these proposals are not merely connected with the insufficiency of the funding proposed for the implementation of a health policy for poor countries. Even more serious is our inability to lay the blame at the door of the pharmaceutical trusts which, in order to preserve their profits, are even opposed to the idea of marketing generic medicines. The dictatorship exercised on society by industrial and financial groups, which is unbearable in all areas of society, has drastic consequences in areas involving the health and physical integrity of human beings. In the face of this dictatorship, all these proposals merely serve to illustrate the powerlessness of the European institutions as soon as it is a question of an area which touches the lives of women and men. Nevertheless we shall vote for those amendments which are likely to lead to a certain amount of improvement or which at least confirm certain human principles, including the right to contraception and abortion.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I was not referring to that particular vote but to votes in general. It is obvious that some presidents do not look at the hands, so to speak, but go straight to the electronic voting system. I was wondering whether this is the correct procedure. I know it takes longer, but should we not always have a show of hands first?

Political group: PPE-DE
By adopting today a new instrument of exchange and cooperation in the field of higher education, we are sending out a positive signal to students and teachers in third countries in the rest of the world that we are outward-looking and welcoming. This Erasmus Mundus programme offers a new vision of higher education in Europe, enabling foreign students to make a ‘tour of Europe’ in two or three different universities, including those entered by competitive examination. Thanks to the title, ‘Erasmus Mundus Masters Course’, it will be possible for the training proposed by the European Union easily to be recognised in all countries. Students will therefore be guaranteed a warm welcome and high-quality training. We must make our higher education attractive. The promotion of linguistic ability, before and during the periods spent here by students and academics from third countries, must be strongly encouraged. We sincerely hope that the Council will put its weight behind the budget of EUR 230 million proposed for this programme, a budget that should be equal to the ambitions of the latter. Indeed, almost 4 000 students from third countries and almost a thousand academics should benefit from this programme between now and 2008. In my report on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, I drew attention to the Bologna Declaration of June 1999, to the effect that ‘[t]he vitality and efficiency of any civilisation can be measured by the appeal that its culture has for other countries’. - Report: Mauro (A5-0314/2003)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I voted in favour of the resolution on European postal services with all the more satisfaction since it reiterates once again the position I have always defended in this House, which is the need for a high quality universal service, particularly ensuring this service in the least populated regions and rural regions, and there are some even in my small country, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. In these regions but also in some districts of towns and cities, as Mr Posselt explained so clearly, post offices and postmen have an almost socio-cultural role, I might say, which goes beyond merely delivering mail. I know that this service is unprofitable. It would perhaps be less costly to make a fax or email available to isolated houses or villages. In principle, I am in favour of abolishing public sector monopolies, whether in water, gas, electricity, telephone, satellite, cable or any other services. Nonetheless, liberalisation, which has a lot to offer to the consumer in terms of the price and the quality of the service, especially in the telephone sector, must cease as soon as the service provided becomes inadequate or disappears, when the firms profiting from liberalisation are not making money. If they cannot be obliged to provide what the state monopoly was able to guarantee, particularly thanks to its obligation to provide a universal service, then the public service must be protected. I feel we can still afford to maintain a postal service, even if our post offices operate like businesses. They clearly have to make some effort so that they are no longer described as snail mail even if they cannot attain the speed of email.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, firstly, I would like to thank the four rapporteurs for their excellent work. Improving EU administration is one of most important reforms of this parliamentary term. The main objective of the reform of the Commission must be a reduction in bureaucracy, increased efficiency and an end to financial confusion. This means simplifying ways of working, devolving power downwards, and a better definition of the power of decision. The key to reform is to increase and emphasise the importance of personal responsibility. People in positions of responsibility within the institutions must bear both the legal and financial responsibility for their decisions. Emphasising the importance of personal responsibility requires, among other things, the swift reform of Staff Regulations. The reform will require activity-based budgeting. The managers of units and institutions must be given a certain amount of leeway in administration. Attention should be mainly focused on results, rather than working practice. Only then can the resources that are available be allocated most effectively. An institution and its directors must have clear scope for the best possible administrative practices. Bearing responsibility will mean ending the advance monitoring of financing. If there is more than one decision-maker, nobody clearly bears the responsibility. Administrative reform is particularly necessary to improve financial transactions in the European Union. The same practice needs to be followed in the payment of EU bills as in the outside world. The current three-month term is too long, let alone the fact that many payments are delayed for more than a year. That is a shameful state of affairs when we consider that the EU itself is a champion of modernised business practice. My group firmly supports administrative reform.

Political group: ELDR
I would like to commend the rapporteur on his work. It should not just be edible agricultural products which are in the limelight. We must continue to refer to the Internal Market principles in our policy, including public health. I am pleased with the fact that non-food products, in addition to food products, are now being taken into consideration. I can fully concur with the view taken by my colleague, Mr Jan Mulder, in this respect. However, in the long run, we will need to aim for an independent agricultural sector which can survive on its own within the market. Finally, I would like to extend seasonal greetings to everyone, especially those few who have taken the trouble to attend this last Friday session of the year 2000 in Strasbourg, and to wish you all a good and, above all, wise new century.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by congratulating Mr Pirker on the excellent report he has presented us with and also the Commission for its initiative, the quality of which has already been emphasised and which, this time, will certainly also win the support of my friend, Mr Christian von Boetticher. The signing in 1990 of the Schengen Agreement and the abolition of controls at national borders have made controls at the external borders even more important in preventing threats to our citizens’ security from entering the Community area. The growing threats from terrorism, organised crime, the trafficking in human beings and from drugs and illegal immigration have moved to the top of our political agenda and have become a core concern of our citizens. It is a matter for some regret, however, that our external borders continue to constitute a weak link in the overall system, which endangers not only the effective protection of internal security but also the full implementation of the principle of free movement. This situation takes on even more significance as a result of enlargement, when the new Member States will gradually take over the task of ensuring security at the external borders, with a considerable proportion of responsibility being transferred to those countries. It is therefore crucial for the Union to adopt coherent measures on security at its borders, without infringing Member States’ own competences, but helping to increase the effectiveness of this protection. I agree with the rapporteur, Mr Pirker, that it is vital to develop a common policy of control for our current and future external borders, which requires common standards to be established for external border management, a common guideline and a common core curriculum for the officials concerned, a European Staff College for senior officials, priority for funding projects for establishing common standards, a jointly-funded European Corps of Border Guards, consisting of specialist units, which would, in an emergency and at the request of the Member States, be temporarily seconded to assist national authorities at vulnerable sections of the EU’s external borders and in crisis situations. These common measures must also contribute to solving problems that we are seeing today, in the level of transposition of the Schengen acquis at the current external borders with regard to the type and practices of border control, which differ between land and sea borders, with regard to who is responsible for border management, which varies from Member State to Member State, even resulting, in some cases, in the duplication of competences and, finally, with regard to the use of different technologies that are sometimes incompatible and hamper the achievement of a uniformly high level of security. I shall conclude by repeating the words of Commissioner António Vitorino: this concern to better manage our external borders must contribute to increasing internal security in the Union and in the Member States.

Political group: PPE-DE
Various Dutch fellow MEPs have made statements in the media to the effect that the refuses to prescribe ethical limits for scientific research. Our voting behaviour has proved that this is nonsense. First of all, adopted Amendment No 41 has a liberal pedigree. It demands that both during the implementation of the programme and for the results, the ethical basic principles, such as protection of human dignity, data and privacy are adhered to. Additionally, with regard to stem cell research, the guidelines drawn up by the ESF ethical committee must be observed. Furthermore, our group wanted to adopt Amendment No 22 of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, which prevents funding being channelled into research activity aiming at human cloning for reproductive purposes, the creation of embryos for research purposes and eugenic modifications in the genetic heritage. Unfortunately, the restrictive text of Amendment No 322 has been adopted in which therapeutic cloning has been ruled out. We regret this, precisely because therapeutic cloning offers genuine opportunities for patients suffering from Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, AIDS or diabetes. We have therefore abstained from the final vote. Report Caudron (A5-0355/2001):

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I voted in favour of assent but abstained on the Brok report. This was because of the ambiguous nature of the wording concerning independence of the foreign and defence policies of a future enlarged Union from the United States. The institutional and financial provision for enlargement is not good. There is a real risk of losing ground as regards political integration, and financial programming is patently inadequate. Our own shortcomings cannot, however, justify our holding 10 nations hostage as we struggle with the Council, nor can they justify our slamming the door against the prospective entrants. More than 10 years have passed since the fall of the Iron Curtain. It is now our historical duty to welcome these countries into the Union. We alone are responsible for the delay in institutional reform. Following the unsatisfactory Treaty of Nice, the backlog made it necessary to convene the Convention in order to give Europe a constitution at last. At the earliest, the latter will be adopted after a short IGC in the wake of the Convention, and before 1 May 2004. There should be no mistake about what is at issue today, however. We are not taking decisions on institutional matters or financial perspectives. We are saying yes or no to entire peoples taking up their rightful place in the Union. We are deciding the future of peoples whose historical fate it was to be excluded from the process of building a democratic Europe for half a century. From now on the new entrants will fight alongside us for the future of the Union. They have to help us stop drifting towards a free trade area and set our course towards creating a high quality social model. They will join us in the struggle for a political Europe able to speak with one strong voice in the world. They will work with us on a constitution allowing interested countries the freedom to establish a joint foreign and defence policy, thus breaking new ground for Europe.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, what is in front of us is very definitely an austerity Budget, or at least it is meant to be one. In agriculture, we are EUR 2 billion below the level agreed in Berlin, which is itself EUR 10 billion below the previous guideline for agriculture, which has not yet been repealed. We are on EUR 20 billion, lagging behind EUR 126 billion. Every year, we repay billions of euro. Parliament must, then, perform its function of making the greatest possible reasonable political use of the Budget that we have been promised. That goes for agriculture as well, and I am grateful to Mr Färm for taking up the essentials of the suggestions that the agricultural sector has made to him. It is precisely in the agriculture sector that there are disputes. Commissioner Fischler takes our suggestions on board while, on the essentials of conversion, going from the first pillar to the second. He wants to convert some of the agricultural budget to be spent on enlargement, but what happens? It unleashes a discussion on savings in which you, Mrs Schreyer, are also participating, and, if I may say so plainly, I consider it a sham debate, as agricultural savings are not at all the point at issue. Not much money finds its way into agriculture and into Europe's rural areas; indeed, to put it bluntly, it flows only in the wrong channels. Great tasks lie ahead of us, and reforms cost money. Once the reforms are underway, we will not be able to get back to talking about savings if we then have an austerity budget in front of us anyway. That means that we have to achieve a balance between the first and second pillars if the reforms are to gain acceptance. We will not support radical cutbacks within the first pillar. I agree with you that it is easy to spend other people's money, and it is clear that the net recipients have quite different ideas about this from the countries that are net contributors. That must be taken into account, but the debate must not be allowed to end up as a perverse discussion on austerity; on the contrary, it must be about the reforms, and not simply a matter of saying that cuts make for the best agricultural policy.

Political group: Verts-ALE
We believe that the focus of alcohol policy should be decided at national level. Issues of taxation, retail monopolies, advertising, import restrictions and age limits should all be decided by the individual Member States. The Stihler report addresses a recommendation from the Council in this area. As it is not a matter of legislation for Member States, we have voted for the proposal, as we share its main political stance.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, may I first of all congratulate the rapporteur on the report he has now drafted. I think – and Madam President you will know from your own experience – that the action taken by Parliament in the case of the Auto-Oil issue was very courageous indeed. We have tried to clean up passenger cars as well as truck traffic, including heavy commercial vehicles, and not just the cars as such, but we have also tried to ensure that clean fuels are used. This whole package will ensure that air quality will indeed improve. The only encouraging thing I have read recently about the environment, in the Dutch press, is that this improvement in air quality owing to the use of cleaner cars is already in evidence. I would be dishonest if I failed to mention that a few people in our Group do not fully agree with the report and the amendments proposed by the Environment Committee. I think that, possibly, further negotiations need to take place where further compromises can be reached before the vote takes place. The people who are of the opinion that the requirements now prescribed by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection and its rapporteur, Mr Lange, for heavy commercial vehicles, are too strict, should consider the following. In Europe, we still boast a sound automotive industry for heavy and light vehicles. The same automotive industry exports vehicles to the United States which must already meet stricter requirements or, at least, the requirements as prescribed at present. I think it is in no-one’s interest that we in Europe set lower standards than what would be perfectly feasible, even in the longer term. This is why I urge that the proposals by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection actually be adopted in tomorrow’s vote.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for far too long, life in Angola has smacked of caricature, a caricature of a country which brutal decolonisation left high and dry, of an African country torn apart by endless civil conflict between fratricidal factions and of a civilian population wracked by poverty and sorrow, scratching a living on land overflowing with oil and tramping barefoot over diamond mines. However, having been reduced to a pathetic caricature of a country, with its people living a life of hell on earth, hope came to this long-suffering nation the day after the Unita rebel leader Jonas Savimbi was shot to death. The new dialogue, set up immediately between the government and Unita representatives and born of a common will to restore peace, has the support of the entire international community. This promises to be a turning point in Angola’s history. Angola could become a model of national reconciliation, normalisation and return to the rule of law. In a word, it could bring its people back to life. Angola has acquired the resources and is making the efforts needed to reunite its people and remould its society. Nature has given this country sufficient resources and wealth to deliver it from need and give it the best conditions of life on earth. It is by counting on us and on action by the entire international community, especially multiple support from the Union, that Angola will be able to assure itself of a future. The Union can no longer use the excuse of danger from armed forces and can now send food aid to the starving population. There is no country more in need or more willing to follow the democratic rules and respect for human rights suggested by the European Union. What better example than our European history to avoid the horrors of neo-colonialism in Angola and lead the country, in transparency and independence, towards sustainable economic development and the emancipation of its people.

Political group: Verts-ALE