GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I have nothing much to say about landmines. The subject speaks for itself. We have all seen the television footage of maimed children, including recently in various areas of former Yugoslavia. Most of what I have to say has to do with depleted uranium. Natural uranium contains over 99% uranium 238 and very little uranium 235. Uranium 235 is excellent as a fuel in nuclear reactors and is used in nuclear weapons. Consequently, the material is enriched with uranium 235 and what is left, the residue, which is mainly uranium 238, is what we know as depleted uranium. This depleted uranium is used in bombs because it is very dense and highly penetrating; it can blast through floors, tank armouring and so on. However, the drawback is that it vaporises when it explodes. And when it vaporises, most of it oxidises. These oxides end up as soluble uranium salts over an area of 10-15 kilometres, although they are often carried several hundred kilometres on the wind. They can be inhaled, enter the water supply and so on. The problem with uranium 238 is that it has very weak alpha rays, meaning that I can hold it my hand without coming to any harm, but if I inhale it, because the body has phagocytes which absorb these particles, the cells are irradiated very close to their genetic material and this is thought to be the cause of the harmful effects of depleted uranium. Of course, research carried out has not proven 100% that this is what happens, but the results are very convincing, which is why we must be very, very careful. That is exactly what Parliament’s motion says; that because it is highly likely that it represents a public health risk and that exposure to depleted uranium is dangerous, the European Union (this is point 7) needs to monitor this research and everything else to do with depleted uranium, including possible extensive environmental pollution and the long-term dangers to human health. It is perfectly logical that the European Parliament should take an interest in this sort of issue; it needs to be taken into account so that we can avoid using this ammunition because, I repeat, it has huge drawbacks. Also, depleted uranium takes several thousand years to decay. If an area is contaminated, it remains contaminated for thousands of years. The principle of precaution alone should make us think twice about using this ammunition which, I repeat, can contaminate areas for thousands of years, with long-term dangers to public health. That is why I should like to ask my honourable friends to vote in favour of this motion which, I think, for both mines and depleted uranium ammunition, is a commensurate response to the current situation. I think that the European Parliament should vote for it and that the Commission should take up and monitor this issue. I trust that the Council and the Greek Presidency will do something about getting the Ottawa Convention ratified, so that anti-personnel mines can be eliminated, and introducing a moratorium, followed perhaps by a total ban on the use of depleted uranium ammunition.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I do not want to rephrase my question, but to put a supplementary one. Commissioner, if everything was the way you describe it and Doha really was better than Seattle, how, then, do you explain the numerous complaints by NGOs that they were disadvantaged in the run-up to the event, that they could not get visas issued to them and that they were deterred from active involvement by bureaucratic obstacles being put in their way or by being told that there were too few hotel beds? Secondly, you have just described the narrow field of vision experienced by the European delegation, and how our delegation was composed. That was not, however, what my question was about; I was asking, rather, about the extent to which civil society could consider itself represented there, my point being that the situation was quite different from that in a country in which there is the freedom to demonstrate and the corresponding possibility of self-expression. If though, you do not see things that way, I would very much like you to confirm that a second time.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as is apparent from what the Commissioner said this evening, we rarely disagree with the Commission on the direction we should all take when we talk about the working environment. We are all of us concerned about the fact that far too many people receive lasting physical injuries in the course of their work. What perhaps is worse is that, in a long list of areas, there has in actual fact been no improvement in the working environment in the EU. It is against that background, Commissioner, that we had hoped that the Commission might have been more ambitious in its working environment strategy and, in any case, when it came to following this up. I had hoped that we might today have been able to obtain a promise of more than just timetables for the various activities. As the rapporteurs have emphasised, the situation in the area of the working environment is such that, since 1992, there have been swingeing cutbacks in the resources available to the Commission in this field. I am aware that there are different ways of doing the calculations, but the fact is that the money is not enough. We are concerned here with cutbacks at a time when problems in the working environment have become more complicated and extensive and when, as a matter of fact, we face new working environment problems. We must work with different tools, we must look into prevention and we must help the national authorities. There are many very complicated tasks that have to be carried out, and the challenges we face in terms of directives cannot adequately be described in a three-minute speech. As Mrs Evans has also pointed out, we know that working environment problems may be in danger of becoming problems for women. We know that small and medium-sized enterprises require special attention. There is an urgent need for a directive on the whole range of muscle and bone problems. Stress and harassment require concerted action, and we are also aware of the possible need for a general recognition of occupational illnesses in a minimum directive. In the light of all the initiatives we all consider necessary, what is probably our greatest disappointment is that the Commission does not intend to follow up this strategy with a proper action plan. When the Commission says that it would like to be involved in timetabling, our answer must be that timetables should be made still more binding, and we must propose that a proper action plan in actual fact be prepared. If the Commission agrees that we must have timetables and that we must make them more binding, it will hopefully – at the end of this debate in which there will presumably be more people demanding an action plan – explain to us why it does not go the whole hog, pursue this strategy further and draw up a proper action plan. We know, of course, that this would be more binding upon the European Parliament, the Commission and, especially, the Member States. I hope that we can make progress. We need an action plan covering the working environment.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it is very easy to react on emotion but this House should not react on emotion, it should react on facts. That is why I cannot support this report. I believe it to be highly selective and deeply flawed. It fails to give a balanced assessment. The quotes used in the report are highly selective and outside the context, and therefore fail to give a fair summary of the legal situation. There are errors of fact, for example relating to the Lloyd's accounting system. Closed accounts do not, as is suggested, come back to life. Rather, as with all insurance, claims are made against a policy after it has ended. The report states that directives have not been implemented. This is an opinion. It has not been proven. Also, the report does not detail the substantial efforts made by Lloyd's to alleviate the Names' losses. But there were also problems within the Committee on Petitions. I repeatedly pointed out that the way Mr Perry was trying to set up a committee of inquiry was not the correct way, was against the Rules of Procedure and, indeed, the Treaties. Sir Nigel Sheinwald did not seek to block an inquiry, but pointed out quite rightly, that any inquiry should be within the Rules of Procedure and indeed our Treaties. Let me quote the relevant section of his letter. He believes that 'they do not permit a committee of inquiry to be established where the alleged facts are being examined before a court and while the case is still subject to legal proceedings'. As we have heard from the Commissioner, there is now a case before the Appeal Court of the United Kingdom, and it is right that we should be very careful and considered before we set up a committee of inquiry. Again, Mr Perry has used comments and quotes from the Jaffrey case in the Court of Appeal selectively. I could go on and on, but let me reassure Mr Perry. The Group will vote in favour of his amendments. I believe his amendments actually tie up some of the problems that we have been dealing with. Indeed I am pleased that at my suggestion Parliament's services have called for other changes and, in particular, the deletion of Mr Perry's insistence in paragraph 5 that his explanatory statement should be incorporated into the resolution. These are just some concrete examples of changes that had to be made to a deeply flawed report. I will finish on this. If, in this Parliament, we raise expectations for citizens and petitioners that we cannot meet, we do so at our peril. Mr Perry's process throughout has been genuine and sincere, but I believe he is raising expectations that cannot be met. He is demanding documents that he knows cannot be supplied. I am the author of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. Mr Perry is making demands of the Commission for an inquiry which he knows the Commission cannot make. Finally, the Group will support this but, in all honesty I have to say to the House, with my hand on my heart, I cannot support this report and therefore I will not.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, when we consider the historic, colonial interference of many European countries in various places around the world, for example Burundi, it is very important that we have this discussion here today on Burundi where government forces have been responsible for extra-judicial killings, disappearances, torture and other serious violations. Meantime armed groups unlawfully kill, maim, abduct and torture civilians in pursuit of their political aims. Moreover, armed belligerents in Burundi continue to recruit, at times forcibly, child combatants. As was agreed last December, and has already been mentioned here, it is imperative that Burundi enacts a stable and real cease-fire between government and rebels as a precursor to a meaningful and lasting peace. We in the Green EFA group have also called for judicial and army reform, as provided for in the Arusha accords of 2000, and an end to impunity for those who continue to perpetrate human rights abuses. We also invite the government to set up a truth and reconciliation commission, as has been called for by so many in civil society. We call on the government to ratify the International Criminal Court. We also recognise that Burundi is in need of help from the international community, especially financial aid for the economic reconstruction of the country, for the maintenance of peace and the promotion of a legitimate functioning government. This is a challenge that the EU must rise to. But we must also be aware of the fact that little is being done to stop the well documented flow of arms that fuel conflicts and cause massive human rights abuses – not just in Burundi, but in so many other parts of the world. This is something that must be a priority for the EU, we cannot allow arms to be sent to countries where they are causing such massive human rights abuses. We should not be involved with arms in the first place, to be honest. IN THE CHAIR: MR DAVID MARTINVice-President

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, what is making things so very complicated, I believe, is the fact that we can never be sure of anything. I heard you welcome the efforts of the Moroccan authorities. For my part, I have just read the very recent report of the IFRM which was presented yesterday and which demonstrates the extent to which 11 September has had devastating effects in these countries, taking the form of many arbitrary imprisonments all over the place, which clearly represent a genuine violation of respect for human rights. So while we welcome the very interesting and noteworthy progress made in relation to the family code, certain extremely worrying elements nevertheless remain. I say this to demonstrate that the very considerable efforts agreed by the Commission and by this Parliament – which you stress yourselves – to reinforce all the mechanisms for action and assessment concerning respect for human rights are determined not only by the international context, but also by the relations that the EU’s Member States individually maintain with these different countries. How many programmes will we need in order to cancel out the disastrous effect of President Chirac’s visit to Tunisia, where he stated that there were no human rights problems, and, in the middle of a hunger strike by an eminent lawyer, that the main right is the right to eat? How many programmes will we need in order to remedy that? We are well aware that, in the evaluation of the association agreements, the constraints of the realpolitik on the part of the States are terrifying. We truly need to consolidate the Community efforts resulting from the support of the associations, of the NGOs, of civil society and, as we know, of the Members of this Parliament and the Commission. So there are actors who can perhaps overcome that handicap. But I would like to ask you directly, Commissioner, about any responsibility you may have in this regard. In Tunisia, how can we explain that, while the Ben Ali government is in the process of holding back the funds allocated to the Tunisian Human Rights League, the Commission is initiating a clearly nonsensical programme aimed at providing support for media that do not exist, which are shackled, entirely in the hands of Ben Ali? Everybody knows that Ben Ali is going to use this not inconsiderable sum to fund his presidential propaganda. Do you realise that or do you not? How is such a thing possible? That is something I really wonder about, as it is precisely on us that such a decision depends.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I too would like to start by welcoming the Commission’s strategy for the run-up to the election that has just been set out by the Commissioner and, in particular, the training of the Zimbabwean election monitors. The black people of Zimbabwe are still suffering under the legacy of colonialism. Cecil Rhodes, one of Britain's most successful colonists, said the purpose of colonialism was: “To find new lands in which we can easily obtain raw materials and at the same time exploit the cheap labour that is available from the natives of the colonies”. The legacy of this barbarically successful strategy can be seen in the chaos that is happening in Zimbabwe today. Today, just 4 000 white farmers still own over 70% of the arable land while more than seven million black Zimbabweans scratch a living from overcrowded communal areas. We condemn the violence but we also see that black Zimbabweans have a compelling case. This makes President Mugabe’s refusal to proceed with the lawful land redistribution programme even more deplorable. It is a fearsomely difficult problem when Mugabe will not negotiate. But I call on the UK Government to do all they can to persuade Zimbabwe to set up an independent arbitration board fully representative of the landless people and, once it is set up, perhaps with the assistance of the Commonwealth, to resume financial aid as soon as possible. The British Government must recognise the moral debt owed for crimes of slavery and colonialism and continue to do all in its power to support a peaceful and progressive settlement to the land issues in Zimbabwe.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to focus on the report by Mr Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado, which duly establishes the European Parliament’s position on the fourth of the major issues to be addressed by the current IGC. It outlines the framework within which reinforced cooperation is to be developed and sets out the conditions that govern it. This framework must be enforceable both on the countries that want to participate in closer cooperation and on those that are not participating in it or at least not from the start. Reinforced cooperation must therefore respect the principles set out in the Treaties and be conducted within the single institutional framework of the Union. On the other hand, it must not constitute a barrier to trade or precipitate splits in the common market, breaks in the links of solidarity and cohesion between the Member States or, as Commissioner Barnier has said, an unravelling of the Community acquis. The implementation of reinforced cooperation must not result in new bodies being set up to swell the ranks of the European institutions. In stressing this point, the joint memorandum from the Benelux countries, as well as Mr Gil-Robles’ report, rejects the idea of having a specific secretariat or directorate for each and every closer cooperation initiative. Openness and transparency must be ensured under all circumstances. No Member State should ever be refused the chance to participate, at any time, in an existing area of reinforced cooperation, and this guarantee must be extended to include future Member States. The rapporteur is quite correct in firmly stressing the need for the Commission’s powers of initiative and the participation of Parliament, at least on a consultation procedure basis, to be the norm whenever there is reinforced cooperation. Moreover, reinforced cooperation within the three pillars will initially have the objective of moving further towards European integration. It may also prove essential if we are to overcome persistent obstacles. On the other hand, should the effect of this reinforced cooperation be to destroy institutional balances, to exclude the Commission and to throw off the democratic control of the European Parliament, it would not be achieving its aims and it would be better to dispense with it.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I just want to inform you that the coordinators of all the political groups in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs have adopted the decision, which will be endorsed by the committee itself, to table an oral question during the next part-session regarding the decisions that the General Affairs Council adopted on matters of sensitive institutional importance without consulting the European Parliament.

Political group: PSE
Vice-President, thank you for giving me the floor. With your permission I would like to re-raise the point of order that I tried to make just before the votes this morning. I will re-read the point that I wanted to make. I currently chair the European Parliament's delegation for relations with the United States of America and would like to raise a point of order under Parliament's rules concerning parliamentary delegations. It has come to my attention that a group of EPP Members visited the USA in July. Normally I would regard this as a private matter, but in the programme for the visit, which I can supply to you, the group is described as a delegation and in particular Mr Robert Goodwill, MEP, is described as leader of the delegation. This of course puts the visit in an entirely different context. An official delegation from Parliament, which I headed, visited the United States of America in June. I think that you will understand that confusion may well arise when another group of MEPs arrives in the USA some three weeks later as, to all intents and purposes, a second European Parliament delegation. I know that there was a strong anti-European tone to their reports, and this, of course, is a matter for the EPP, but when damaging and derogatory remarks about the European Union stem from what is purported to be an official visit from the European Parliament, I feel that the matter should be raised here. I would ask you as a matter of urgency to investigate whether Parliament's rules have been broken. Could you also ascertain whether the Members concerned had a formal invitation from relevant bodies in the USA and intend to declare their visit in the Members' register of interests? I will of course pass on the other documentation that I have received.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Socialist Group is pleased with this proposal because it is one step further towards simplifying agricultural policy and favours small-scale farmers. The proposal recognises that in many instances the administrative costs of managing and processing the aid do not match the amount of aid that these small-scale farmers receive. According to the Commission’s own data, 23.2% of farms receive direct payments of less than EUR 1 000, the amount set by the Commission as the maximum to be received under the simplified system. However, 48% of farms receive less than EUR 2 000 and, as has already been pointed out, there is a great deal of variation within the Member States. This indicates to us that if we want the simplified system to be effective, the maximum amount should be increased to EUR 1 500, as approved by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. Moreover, we feel that it is unacceptable for any change to the management and payment system to be financially detrimental to those farmers with the lowest income capacity and who receive a lower percentage of aid. We therefore support the rapporteur’s proposal that single global payments, which are calculated on the basis of the actual payments received in previous years, should be increased by 20% to compensate for the increase in future payments outside the simplified scheme. This will prevent discrimination and the possible negative financial effects that this proposal could have on small-scale farmers. I wish this initiative, which seems to be an experimental one, every success in its implementation and I hope that the Commission will continue to put proposals to us that move forward in the sense of simplifying the system and the management of agricultural policy, which is essential for achieving greater transparency, bringing Community policy closer to the European people and helping them to understand it.

Political group: PSE