GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, human rights are an issue we Spanish Socialists are particularly sensitive to, since, at a time when for the majority of men and women in the countries of the European Union human rights formed the main foundation for their system of coexistence, Spain still had to go through decades of hard work and suffering before achieving acceptable and dignified human rights conditions in our society. Mrs Díez González, the rapporteur, is well aware of this. She understands the situation better than most, perhaps, given that, being a Basque and a democrat, she belongs to a category of Spanish and European people who, even now, have to fight against ultra-nationalist terrorism to consolidate the fundamental rights which are the European Union’s distinguishing marks. The purpose of my speech is mainly to express my support for Mrs Díez’s and Mr Van Hecke’s proposals and suggestions, adding just one or two observations. The first is that there should not be a restrictive interpretation of the many excellent initiatives they have suggested. For example, it should not be the case that very high standards in human rights should be a prerequisite and unavoidable condition for the European Union to be able to cooperate with third countries, but rather that to raise the level of respect for human rights in each country with which we cooperate should be the objective and result of such cooperation. My second observation comes as a response to criticisms we have heard with regard to the fact that, whilst we make many demands in the area of human rights in relation to third countries, particularly countries in the developing world, we are far more tolerant, on the other hand, when faced with frankly unsatisfactory situations in this area within EU countries themselves. This is not true. These reports refer specifically to third countries, but I take it for granted that the moral and political authority of our debate on cooperation in the world surrounding the European Union, with which we hope to be able to have a coherent relationship, will be much more credible and effective if we practice what we preach, and when what we require of others is endorsed by our own conduct, and by our self-imposed requirement to continue making progress, day after day, to improve the protection of human rights within the EU itself.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, it is obvious that we all face questions of life and death which we are also possibly confronted with in our personal life and in our family, that we wrestle with the question of what a dignified death is, what society's responsibility is. So at the very least we should have the courage to respect each other: both parties with their different opinions base these on ethical principles. There is not one party here that has the exclusive right to ethical principles and nor is there one party which can address the other, the Liberals, the and the s, under the heading of human rights violations. If we want to have a serious debate, an open debate – and that is what we want – then it is unrelated to subsidiarity because that is a separate issue. With regard to content, it is a matter of showing respect for something which involves everyone very deeply. The facts as they were presented by the Group in recent weeks, the tone in which they were presented and the heading under which they were described, i.e. human rights violations, have certainly not promoted this respect. It is a false start. If Mr Liese wants to organise a debate he can, but then he must not do so from one position, he must invite people to conduct a public debate together. We are willing to do so, but not to take part in a vulgar party-political attack on something that is of great importance in Dutch and Belgian society and which is treated very fundamentally as such with different views, with respect for each other's position but in a manner in which you could say that the whole of society has proceeded very carefully. So I should also like to enter into this debate with Members who hold a different opinion to mine.

Political group: PSE
draftman of the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport. – Madam President, my opinion dealt largely with the technical progress of the Commission's negotiations with the candidate countries on the relevant chapters, but it also called on both the Council and the Commission to redouble their efforts to raise awareness of public opinion. I wonder whether in their summing-up replies both Minister de Miguel and Commissioner Verheugen might refer to progress, as far as public opinion is concerned, and any further initiatives they have in mind. We all pay lip service to this – bearing in mind the referenda – but much greater practical application is required, in particular from the Member States, not simply from the institutions of the European Union itself. I have three thoughts concerning action in the Member States. Firstly, further public platforms should be given to leaders from the candidate countries, not only political but also cultural leaders – writers, film-makers, and musicians. Secondly, the links between the institutions of civil society should be publicised. Thirdly, something should be done to overcome the collective amnesia which was imposed by the Soviet tyranny on western Europe, allowing us to forget the thousand years of cultural, political and commercial links which we are now in the process of restoring.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on a point of order, Northern Ireland has been referred to a number of times in this debate and the notion of unconditional dialogue with terror has been suggested as the basis of the Irish peace process. That is not true. The Irish peace process was based on the unconditional cease-fire of the Provisional IRA. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
I voted in favour of the report. Solidarity between the peoples of the European Union, economic and social progress and the strengthening of cohesion feature among the European Union’s general objectives. For many, the main fear elicited by enlargement is that of seeing the regional funds currently available in the fifteen Member States disappear to the sole benefit of the ten new members. Although this solidarity is at the core of the European contract, under no circumstances could partnership be abandoned. The European Union must continue its support in the regions of the Fifteen affected in particular by natural geographic handicaps. I am thinking in particular of mountain regions. The Council, the Commission and Parliament cannot remain idle on this issue. For a long time, the mountains have been comprehensively ignored by European programmes. These areas have many resources. They require special attention in the agricultural sector (aid for the countryside and for young farmers) and within the framework of sustainable tourism development, as well as requiring specific support for SMEs (to avoid desertification and protect employment) and support for maintaining services. The success of these guidelines hinges upon the European budget, which must match the ambitions we have set ourselves.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first of all I would like to congratulate my Welsh colleague for her excellent speech and I am also glad that there is basic agreement from all sections of the political spectrum. Some of us newcomers to this Parliament are already beginning to tire of good intentions, fantastic programmes and of hearing about the spirit of the Community regulations. Instead of spirit, we are going to end up with ghosts and sleepless nights because, in reality, commitments are not being fulfilled. It is therefore appropriate for the European institutions themselves to start by making good their commitments with regard to additionality. The Court of Auditors has already drawn up an assessment of the implementation of the additionality principle in June 1999 which shows that it is a total disaster and a mistake. Secondly, we must take into account – and this is a political declaration – the real Europe, the citizens' Europe, the Europe of nations and nations within the States, because until these are taken into account, we will keep coming back to the same old problem. Scotland, Wales, the Basque country, Catalonia, Galicia, even a region as large as Andalusia, cannot depend on the decisions of a central State, however much of a State it is.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I am pleased to support this initiative on behalf of the /Green Group in Parliament. We thank Mrs Kinnock for her efforts. Inter-state and, more recently, inter-regional alliances both within the European Union and with partners outside is an initiative we can pride ourselves on developing enthusiastically. Funding schemes such as INTERREG, PHARE and others are a clear expression of this ideology. This initiative of itself cannot be expected to resolve overnight, as it were, the problems of economic deprivation in the new South Africa. It has to address massive domestic problems including social integration, chronically poor housing for the majority of the population, massive unemployment and an economy that produces only 0.46% of world GDP. The concern of most South Africans is that our initiatives take so long before coming to fruition. We must ensure that all support schemes can be expedited far quicker than at present. An agreement that provides for the full liberalisation of 95% of South African exports to the EU over a ten-year period with tariffs eliminated on 86% of its industrial goods is a very long time to wait for a country facing such acute economic and social problems. Tariff restrictions are fine, but should be viewed in the context of the restrictions on third world countries exporting to the developed world being four times as stringent as the tariffs we face when we export to them. Inter-regional relationships must also be fostered with South Africa, a country of regions. The role that the regions and historical nations of the EU can have in building economic and cultural links with the diverse regions of Africa is vital and should be an essential prerequisite to its future prospects, as will the elimination of its debt. The decision of the World Economic Summit in Cologne this year to cancel $100 billion of third world debt was important in this regard and should be a catalyst for further action by all EU countries, not just the few. Financial partnership is not the panacea that will cure the problems of South Africa as a whole. A whole raft of issues that are crucial to the task of ensuring that South Africa is in a position to maximise the opportunities afforded by this agreement now need to be explored in a holistic way. The EU should be looking to develop strategies and training programmes to ensure that the regeneration of the South African economy is sustainable in the long term both economically and environmentally. I welcome this initiative.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Mr Nisticò is not here, but we have to debate the twenty-third amendment to this directive, which restricts the use and release onto the market of dangerous substances and preparations classified as carcinogens, mutagens or substances toxic to reproduction. Naturally, my group and I are in favour of adding a further 25 dangerous substances to the banned list. I, personally, am also the rapporteur for the twenty-fifth amendment to this directive, through which a further batch of substances is being added. That is not at all what is controversial about this recommendation. Instead, my criticism applies more to what is not included and to the defects in the current legislation. The designation ‘substances and preparations’ by no means covers the use of CMR substances in consumer products, that is to say in those products with which we, as consumers, in the first place come into contact and through which we are exposed to these dangerous substances, for example when we buy toys, textiles, new flooring etc. The directive does not, then, cover the main source of what we are exposed to, that is to say carcinogens and other dangerous substances. At first reading, the European Parliament asked the Commission to extend the directive to include the sale of consumer products, and we requested a proposal by 2002. In the common position, the Council states that a full risk assessment is required if it is to be possible to introduce restrictions on products. What is more, the Council comes up with the amazing argument that this really will be difficult because there are so many products. That is, of course, precisely why, in fact, a directive is required, namely so that people do not continue to be exposed to carcinogens through consumer products. The conciliation on which we are now to adopt a position, together with Mr Nisticò’s recommendation, constitute a compromise I believe to be quite contrary to the new chemicals policy we have adopted, proposing that CMR substances not be permitted to be used in products if, through what is termed a reverse burden of proof, they have not proved to be safe. A reverse burden of proof is not what we now have in the outcome achieved but, instead, restrictions that apply only if, by means of a risk assessment, it can be demonstrated that a risk exists. In other words, we have precisely the policy that all the institutions have recognised as being ineffective in protecting people’s health. Unfortunately, it will be a good many years before the chemicals policy comes into force. In order to protect people’s health, we really needed measures covering CMR substances in consumer products immediately. The Group of the will not therefore be voting in favour of the recommendation.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The today supported the amendment tabled by Jean Louis Bourlanges of the Group of the , which called for the resolution to be separate from the explanatory statement. By way of explanation, consider the following quotes: 'One might conclude that the Commission had decided in some fields to draw a veil over and forget past events. The Commission has sought to distract the public attention from unresolved internal problems in the present by making glib and bombastic promises for the future.' 'The Commission apparatus which wielded excessive power even under President Santer has now become even more powerful; moreover it is all too often dominated by coteries'. By any standards these comments are excessive, unfair and, in the context of the discharge procedure, wholly unsuitable. On the final vote on the resolution we were faced with three choices today: to vote in favour, to vote against or to abstain. We chose to abstain and this requires explanation. To vote in favour of the Stauner report is to vote for postponement of granting discharge which, all things considered, we believe should be granted now. As we explained in the Budgetary Control Committee, our preference was to vote 'yes' to reform but 'no' to visiting on this Commission the sins of its predecessors. In the we have been consistently in favour of many of the elements in the Stauner report such as access to documents – it is a duty of the current Commission to provide access to documents. But the political question remains – is this the moment and is this the issue for an apparent public stand off between Parliament and the Prodi Commission? We think not. If we do not vote in favour of the report it is because we want to indicate a preference to do business on reform now rather than later because we believe, on the evidence to date, that this Commission is a reformist Commission. Voting against the report would merely have the effect of sending the report back to the Budgetary Control Committee without a clear expression of what happens next and by what means. We are against such an approach. So we have chosen to abstain. This is a motivated abstention rather than an indifferent one. Our Group preference was to have voted to grant discharge while promoting reform which we accept is also the view of the European Commission. Unfortunately, today's choice did not allow for such an option and so we have chosen to abstain.

Political group: ELDR
Firstly, I want to thank the Council for its answer. Unfortunately it contained very little on the issue of the situation of women in Iraq. Yesterday I was in the position to hear directly from Baghdad a UNICEF representative saying that the Shia have taken over Sadr City, and that means difficulties for women. Mrs Elisabeth Rehn, my predecessor here in Parliament, wrote a very influential report dealing with the situation of women in both war and peace. She pointed out that it will be more difficult for women when there is peace. Unfortunately, especially in Afghanistan, we have a situation where women cannot be sure that they will not be raped. This is a problem in western Afghanistan. Please, Council, what actions are you taking in the light of Mrs Rehn's work? She proposed several actions, including the suggestion that peacekeepers should be very well informed about the rights of women. As for the situation in Iraq, is there any way you could intervene?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, we made a decision earlier that we would have an urgency on Zimbabwe. However, since this Parliament has taken an extremely principled view on this issue, it would be appropriate if you were to find the time to write to the Council to urge it to make a strong statement on the situation, which is in danger of escalating this week into a final showdown between the democratic movements in Zimbabwe and the regime led by Mugabe. There is enormous mass action going on, there has been tear-gassing of people, at least one person has been killed. Morgan Tsvangirai has been arrested as has his deputy Welshman Ncube. I would ask you, Mr President, to express regret that the Council made a statement very early this morning, which was extremely weak. Certainly, it was not unequivocal in any sense in the way that it dealt with the situation in Zimbabwe. We need strong action and since the G8 is meeting and President Mbeki is there, we need to see our representatives in the G8 urging Mr Mbeki and other African leaders to distance themselves from the kind of actions we are seeing in Zimbabwe at this time.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it is regrettable that despite all the efforts made by rapporteur Maaten, we must conclude that no one is really happy with the developments that now characterise this report. I would like to make three brief comments. My first comment concerns the legal basis. The Court has had a judicial review carried out and states quite explicitly that Article 95 can be the legal basis in some cases, provided certain conditions are met, but also states that Article 95 will not be sufficient in certain cases, for example Article 133 would need to be added where the export ban is concerned. In view of the lack of motivation, I therefore support the amendment tabled by Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, which calls for us to reject the common position and ask the Commission to submit a new proposal. As for the other comments, I would point out that we ought not to concentrate too much on symbols that do not tackle the root cause of the problem. Imposing higher taxes is not a satisfactory way of discouraging people from doing something. Increasing the space for warnings out of all proportion is not a satisfactory way of achieving the desired goal, i.e. better public health. What is more, I feel this will set a poor example if we want to put warnings on other products at a later stage.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, on a point of order, I should like, through you, to thank President Cox for his visit to the UK today. In that context, on behalf of the Group, may I say that a number of my British colleagues wish to participate at least in some way in the occasion of the state funeral of the Queen Mother tomorrow. That is to take place at 12.30 p.m. I have raised the matter in my group, which supports my request, that the vote tomorrow might be brought forward to 11.30 a.m. so that all British Members who wish to can at least watch the state funeral at 12.30 p.m.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too wish to thank the rapporteur and, of course, the Commissioner and the President-in-Office for their excellent work. Our group will also vote in favour of this budget because it shows that, once again, we have reached an exemplary compromise, despite being under increasing pressure. The main sources of this pressure are unemployment, the BSE crisis and the Balkan stability pact. We have resolved and reached satisfactory compromises on all these urgent problems – and never once to the detriment of the interests of the EU. We wanted to secure the EU's ability to act and the confidence of the people. Nonetheless, I should like expressly to agree with Mr Colom i Naval, who said earlier that the financial perspective has become more and more of a straightjacket, preventing any real planning, any real long-term planning. Constant use of the flexibility reserve is undermining the transparency of the budget and in time this too will lead to a loss of credibility. Even the Notenboom procedure, whereby funds are transferred to critical regions, in this case to fund the Balkan stability pact, does not really guarantee a transparent budgetary procedure. It already looks likely that the huge risk of a clash between MEDA, Mediterranean rim projects and the Balkans will increase over the next few years, despite the fact that we all know that this is where money is urgently needed. On the other hand, we are also aware that the Council is perfectly capable of suddenly questioning the financial perspective when it comes to BSE, when it comes to national interests. I found Mr Chirac's statement at the Nice Council extremely interesting. I think the Council urgently needs to consider how it, for its part, intends to handle the financial perspective. In all events, Parliament will be a much tougher negotiating partner next year.

Political group: Verts-ALE