GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the majority of the Security Council – France, China, Russia – is now in favour, subject to certain conditions, of lifting the embargo imposed on Iraq nearly ten years ago. Imposed on the Iraqi people I should say. The UN inspectors responsible for monitoring disarmament in Iraq have destroyed or ordered the destruction of the stocks of arms, material and products that could lead to the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction. They have made sure that Iraq has no long-range missiles that could threaten its neighbours. The International Atomic Energy Agency has concluded, after a number of investigations on the ground, that Iraq has no capacity to produce nuclear weapons, as has been confirmed by the reports of three groups of experts on Iraq, and as the UN Security Council’s Resolution 1284 confirms today. That is why our resolution calls for this embargo to be lifted. Nonetheless, the US Government refuses to definitively lift the embargo, on the pretext that Iraq has not respected its obligations. Without offering the slightest proof, Washington continues to accuse Iraq of secretly manufacturing biological and chemical weapons. In response to this concern – which, according to the experts, is unfounded – France has proposed to the Security Council that the lifting of the embargo be accompanied by further inspections relating to disarmament and by controls on Iraqi imports. Washington has refused this proposal too, thus creating a situation which primarily hits the Iraqi people and not their leaders. According to the UN humanitarian agencies, several hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, including some 500 000 children, have died prematurely because of the embargo, for lack of food, medicines or adequate care. For the first time in ten years, an American delegation of advisors and congressmen published a report yesterday, on 14 March, on their return from a visit to Iraq. In it they call for the embargo to be lifted for humanitarian reasons. According to that delegation, the ‘oil for food’ programme is a totally inadequate response to the urgent physical needs of the Iraqis. Mr Eric Rouleau, the former French Ambassador, speaks of a slow-motion genocide. Our resolution therefore calls for an end to this situation. However, we also think we need a broader debate on this subject. That is why we are not putting this resolution to the vote today. On an issue as serious as this one, we prefer, first of all, to call for a Commission and Council declaration. We are therefore proposing that this debate be deferred to the month of April. At that time, we will endeavour to obtain the support of all those who want to bring this inhumane embargo to an end and to do so, needless to say, without giving Saddam Hussein’s regime a blank cheque.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would firstly like to thank the rapporteur for all his work and, above all, for his great willingness to seek solutions to possible problems. Spain is a country with great wealth when it comes to languages, and there are many regions or Autonomous Communities in which Castilian is co-official – as the official language of the Spanish State – with another language, such as Catalan or Basque, amongst others. Above all, moreover, I must say that we feel very proud of this. We in the People's Party always try to ensure that one of these co-official languages does not thrive to the detriment of another, for the good of our citizens and in order to have a totally bilingual population. We in Spain already channel enough money towards the promotion of languages and, for this reason, we do not agree with channelling more Community budget for this purpose, bearing in mind all the existing needs at European level. We believe that certain points in this report – and we agree with its general basis – do not entirely respect the principle of subsidiarity and even violate the principle of proportionality and Community legislation. We have full confidence, however, that, this being the case, the European Commission will play its role as guardian of the Treaties and put right anything which is not correct in the report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, the equal value of all people is fundamental to the European Union. That, at least, is the message in speeches made on solemn occasions. Actual practice leaves a lot to be desired, however. The European Year of People with Disabilities is coming to an end. In the course of the year, the searchlight has been directed to a more than usual degree upon the situation of people with disabilities, and it has revealed a lot of shortcomings. It is excellent that these deficiencies are being brought to light, but something also needs to be done about them. The equal value of every person must, then, also be the criterion for what needs to be done. People with disabilities are still discriminated against. It is not a matter of isolated cases. Instead, discrimination is the rule, rather than the exception. What is at issue is being able to cope successfully in everyday life, faced with a lack of jobs and problems using shops, post offices and banks, buses, trains and ’planes. It is about being able to use public services and to read newspapers, watch television and listen to the radio. The fact is, there is a host of difficulties for people with disabilities, making clear the need there now is for a new, all-embracing directive concerning the rights of people with disabilities.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I have great pleasure in commending the whole of this resolution to the House. The recognition of the rights of children is of vital importance. I am glad to be able to say that 25 years ago I published an article which, at least from a certain point of view, helped in pushing forward that case. I do not want to talk about the whole motion for a resolution today, however. I want to talk about one particular problem which is dealt with in the amendment by my group. I am old enough to have children over the age of 25. I see visitors in our gallery who are about the age of 25. Like many people I can just imagine what it would be like to have a child ripped from your hands at the age of 20 days and never to see them again, be yourself in prison for five years under torture and cruel treatment, and then spend the rest of your life at liberty trying to find your lost child. Sara Méndez from Uruguay was in this Parliament yesterday to press forward the case for recovering her child, or getting information about her son Símon, who was ripped from her arms aged 20 days after her illegal capture in Buenos Aires in 1976. That is a dreadful thing to happen and we should add to this admirable motion for a resolution a clause calling upon those who are in authority in Uruguay to recognise the evil of disappearances, to recognise their bounden duty to bring children back to their parents and to end this scandal and disgrace. I hope we will carry the motion for a resolution and make that point.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I would like to take the floor at the beginning of the topical debate, because, in accordance with Rule 146 of the Rules of Procedure, this is the right time to do this in my opinion. Indeed, the next item on the agenda is a resolution on Euro 2000 and hooligans. And although we are certainly in favour of discussing this matter, there are elements in this resolution which are still under investigation by the legal authorities in the Netherlands. In our view, therefore, it would be premature at this stage to pass judgement on this legal investigation. I would therefore move, based on Rule 146, to adjourn the debate on this resolution until our part-session in September. This Rule also stipulates that such a motion shall be put to the vote immediately.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I should like to recommend to the House that we split this vote in two and, in respect of the wishes of the House, that we delete the first half of the paragraph and then vote on the second half. I believe that will meet all Members' concerns.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I share the view of Mrs Maes. (FR) I shall continue in French in order to show that indeed we must have a common stance. What is clear is that Zimbabwe is in chaos. Human rights there are being trampled underfoot. Do we now need to erect a cordon sanitaire, which effectively means there will be no dialogue? No. We do need a cordon sanitaire but one which clearly expresses what we want to achieve when we meet with these interlocutors. I would like to say to the last speaker that there was no champagne in Brussels. There was a reminder of resoluteness and there was a reminder of values, because if we want to safeguard the interests of the people of Zimbabwe, we must continue to get our position across to everyone, including the authorities. Therefore, what I am asking is that the amendment we have tabled and which highlights the fact that we must invoke the law each time and we must specify what actually the scope of human rights is. This is an important element. So, let us not condemn those who defend this point of view, but let us call on the entire European Community – be it the Commission, the European Parliament or the Member States – to reiterate just how important human rights, and the law itself, are in this very sensitive area. That is why I sincerely hope that the European Parliament will vote in favour of the amendment we have tabled.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the situation in East Timor may have taken a turn for the better thanks to the change of power in Indonesia and thanks to the arrival of the peacekeeping force, but for the ordinary citizen in East Timor and also for the refugees still in West Timor, the situation is still very alarming indeed. This may not apply to the political situation – indeed, East Timor’s independence is now being respected – but it very much applies to the humanitarian and judicial situation, for which a solution has not been found in any shape or form. Although the UNHCR are making every effort to bring the people back, there is a great deal of opposition. UNAMET are trying their utmost to protect the people but the militia groups are still active. What is really required is a swift international inquiry into the past events, an international tribunal to administer justice and, in particular, to punish the killers. What is also required, is aid for the reconstruction. This is needed quickly as the rainy season is on its way. Exactly how much money has the Commission earmarked for this situation? Mr President, as we are on the subject of Indonesia and dramatic events there, could I also receive feedback on what was laid down by resolution in early October, namely that the situation on the Moluccas is also becoming untenable. This area too is having to deal with 70,000 refugees, 500 killed and a judicial system invariably staffed by militia groups. We have asked for help and we have not really had any reaction to this. Mr President, the Indonesian government appears to be sensitive to international criticism. I therefore welcome the fact that both the Commission and this Parliament are taking action in respect of Indonesia. It would be a good idea for the Commission to pay a visit there to have a look and talk to everyone. I also agree with what has just been said, namely that a delegation of the European Parliament should also go and visit East Timor once again, and maybe the Moluccas too, to gain an insight into the events in these areas. At any rate, this item should not be taken off the agenda for a long while, because the people over there are still going through a very tough time.

Political group: PPE-DE
I value the attempt to develop a common European security policy, but I am against the development of a common military defence force. For example, the wording is far too far-reaching in respect of CESDP and NATO, in respect of the use of “threats of the use of force” as a means of applying pressure in conflict prevention activities, which directly contravenes the UN Charter. The same applies to the wording concerning improving the EU’s capacity to penetrate enemy air defences and naval intervention, as well as the wording concerning closer cooperation in respect of collective defence guarantees. I therefore cannot support the report.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I wish to point out with some emphasis that certain items in Parliament's report on the ongoing handling of BSE are having negative effects on Europe's farmers and I therefore voted against these unrealistic demands, which had been introduced by some elements in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. To be specific, these were the obligatory reduction to the age of 24 months, the debate on omnivores in connection with BSE, and also aspects of waste management. I am, furthermore, opposed to the demand for a reform of the CAP with food safety as one of its objectives, as this is already set down very definitely in Agenda 2000. Our agricultural policy is founded on the principle of multifunctionality and on family-run farms, and the production of safe and high-quality food is a matter of concern for farmers like us. By doing this, we would be sending the wrong signal. The delegation of the Austrian People's Party in this Parliament has therefore abstained in the final vote.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, representatives of the Council and the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, it is very gratifying that the Swedish Presidency has accorded the environment a high priority. This is vitally necessary, and it also entails responsibility. To reverse the deterioration in the living environment requires radical political decisions – a break in the trend. Expectations are high in view of the statement of Mr Persson, the President-in-Office of the Council, to the effect that sustainable development on the EU’s agenda will lead to a green strategy for the 21st century. This involves providing the economy with ecological ground-rules, integrating environmental issues in all other policies and introducing the necessary means of control. It is therefore incomprehensible that the Swedish Government is acting in opposition to such environment-related taxes at EU level as minimum levels of carbon dioxide and energy taxes. Why was a negative decision made on this in Nice? Another question of great immediate interest is how the Swedish Presidency is planning to assume the task – which it has inherited from Nice – of formulating a strategy for the political future of the EU. You, Mr President-in-Office of the Council – along with a large proportion of the population of the Member States – are, of course, opposed to a federal development of the EU. What is your vision and how do you envisage subsidiarity and the division of powers in the future? How is the President planning successfully to maintain a Swedish policy of non-alignment and neutrality while, at the same time, his task during the presidency is to continue to develop the EU’s military capacity? Finally, I would like to congratulate the Swedish Presidency.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the UN Commission on Human Rights is not just a discussion forum but also an exceptional instrument for the dissemination and defence of human rights. Undeniably, the composition of the Commission and the dubious solidarity between member states who have little respect for human rights often prevent us adopting clear-cut, distinct conclusions, or even any conclusion at all. However, the very fact that a serious breach of human rights in a United Nations member state should be mentioned at Geneva is really a political fact in itself. The countries on the receiving end of the criticism decry “name calling” and are lobbying hard in advance to prevent any discussion, and this is exactly where the European Parliament, being so committed to the defence of human rights, can fully play its part. In conjunction with the relevant NGOs, and particularly with Amnesty International and the human rights leagues, Parliament can address the Council and Member States in order to insist that, in Geneva, the Fifteen present well-founded common positions on priority issues. For 2001, the priority issues that I believe should be discussed in Geneva are, first and foremost, the death penalty, torture, forms of discrimination against women, failure to respect children’s rights, freedom of the press and freedom of information. Among recent forms of human rights violations, the instances of disappearance or extrajudicial execution, often preceded by torture, are particularly despicable. The victims are undoubtedly always political opponents of the regimes in power. These violations, against which there is no possible appeal, have been recorded in the Russian Federation (in relation to Chechnya), in Sierra Leone, Indonesia, Colombia, Iran and Iraq, in Palestinian territories occupied by Israel and in Turkey, amongst other places. I could go on and on. This list is long but it is not comprehensive. Parliament will do itself credit by demanding that the governments of Europe adopt a firm position on this issue. We have just approved the new Charter of Fundamental Rights. We must act in accordance with our principles. The victims’ families are awaiting our action.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to take this opportunity to say that I share the opinion that the market and free competition are important values. In this area, however, as in many others, we should not be fundamentalists, fanatics, or, if you will, ayatollahs, which, as we shall see in the forthcoming debate on Iran, is the worst-case scenario. Yet it strikes me, Commissioner, that this is precisely what the Commission is increasingly becoming, and in an increasing number of fields. I should like to give you an example: the Commission has just begun legal action against Greece for insisting that those who serve on coasting vessels in their islands must speak Greek. This is absolutely ridiculous, Commissioner. I should like to remind you that, very recently, only a few years ago, many dozens of Portuguese seamen lost their jobs on Norwegian routes just because they did not speak Norwegian, in spite of the fact that Norway is also required to abide by the laws of free competition. Though it pained me, I felt obliged to accept the reason given, namely that of safety. It is absolutely essential that crews serving on ships, especially on island routes, must be able to speak the language of the country concerned. In taking legal action against the Greek islands – which is similar to the action it has taken in other parts of Europe – the Commission has displayed an utterly fanatical attitude; it has shown that it has no idea how far to go with free competition, nor does it know where safety – or other extremely important values – should begin and end. The Commission lacks a sense of proportion and common sense and should take firm steps to remedy this state of affairs.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we have two problems: energy supply and emissions. Whether we like it or not, nuclear energy provides a solution for both problems. In turn, it creates two further problems; safety and the management of waste. In short, this safety problem particularly involves the countries of the East. This debate cannot therefore ignore public opinion. I believe it has been very courageous to put this issue on the table. We also welcome these two Commission initiatives and I would like to ask the Commissioner a question: how have these proposals and initiatives been received by the candidate countries?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, what this boils down to is that this Statute for Members of the European Parliament, with which we are dealing, is a never-ending story, and the way in which it has gone backwards and forwards, backwards and forwards, in this House for years on end, actually passes all understanding. I cannot do other than agree with the rapporteur when he says that, politically speaking, the core issue is whether we are a parliamentary assembly or a Parliament. If we consider how it is that the European Convention is discussing the Constitution, while we have for decades been unable to sort out the issue of the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, then the public will have every right to ask just what is actually going on here. It has often been my experience that the public are quite amazed by the differing salaries paid to MEPs for their work, and, above all, by how large the differences are. I am certainly in favour of this one House, by way of a Members’ Statute, adhering to the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. It goes without saying that I also expect the Council to take up this issue and very speedily take the decisions that will enable the Members’ Statute to enter into force with the minimum of delay. I wish to associate myself with those speakers who have made reference to the issue of reimbursement. The fact that, in future, it will be our actual travel costs that are reimbursed is something that I see as being a core issue in terms of the credibility of the work done by this House and by us ourselves. I want briefly to discuss Article 20 of the Statute, which deals with old-age pensions. Our group has very lively discussions around this issue, as we, of course, cannot do other than note that discussions are going on in many Member States about raising the retirement age, and by a substantial margin. This goes hand in hand with an attack on social security systems. The proposal for the Statute, however, provides for us to have a retirement age of 60, which is low indeed. I believe this to be a contradiction, and one that we will be unable to explain to the public, and I see the application of differing standards to the pensionable ages of Members of this House and members of the public as amounting to privileged treatment.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Without democratic regulation by the state, health becomes a commodity. This commodity is available to anyone who is rich and powerful but not to anyone who is poor and powerless. We see that the average life expectancy of disadvantaged population groups is shorter than that of privileged groups. There is constant pressure to replace income-dependent insurance premiums with a premium that is the same for everyone regardless of their income. Commercial companies offer special care to anyone who can and will pay for it. Hospitals are going into the commercial market; people with the most money can queue-jump and loss-making treatments are being scrapped. Waiting lists are being created, people are being referred to distant hospitals in other Member States, and the number of unnecessary deaths is increasing. To combat this trend, it is important for governments to provide good healthcare that is accessible to everyone. A European programme of Community action in the field of public health can contribute to this. However, it is necessary that the amendments rejected after the first reading get a comfortable majority today, so that we can clearly establish that health is not a commodity and is not subject to financial compromises, and that there is a great deal to be improved in the area of healthcare in many Member States, which has been neglected for the past twelve years.

Political group: GUE-NGL