GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I am pleased that Mr Nisticò has included many of our amendments. There are, however, some gaps, requiring amendments to be tabled with a view to ensuring the maximum level of safety of blood products. We therefore consider that all undesirable effects and incidents relating to any stage of the blood donation and transfusion process must be reported, no matter how serious they are. We also consider that it is genuinely essential, in the interests of quality and patient information, for a medical examination to be carried out on all blood donors before blood is taken. Secondly, the question of remuneration for blood donations is fundamental. Most European countries have a system of voluntary, unpaid blood donations. We cannot accept any challenges to this principle, and we believe it should be extended to the whole of the European Union. From an ethical point of view, we cannot defend the idea of selling blood or, indeed, any other component of the body. The human body is not a commodity. In this respect, we find it extremely shocking that companies can make a profit from free blood donations. The remuneration of donations could be counter-productive in terms of quality. Donors motivated by financial gain might be led to deny any health problems they may have, which could have tragic consequences – as in China – for their own health and for the health of recipients. I am not denying the risks in terms of blood supplies, but I think we can motivate potential donors by means other than money. It is in order to ensure that the objectives of this directive, the quality and safety of human blood, are achieved that I am calling on my fellow Members to vote for our amendments.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Even the debate on this issue, just a few days after the criminal invasion of Iraq by the British and American forces, constitutes provocation. Under this agreement, the ΕU can hand the citizens of its Member States and their personal data over, with no strings attached, to the jurisdiction of the USA, the prosecuting authorities of which will do as they please far from any democratic control. Joint EU/USA investigating teams will operate uncontrolled in the ΕU, in violation of national constitutions and domestic law. This is an agreement at the expense of the citizens of the Member States of the ΕU. It does not result in any differentiation in the domestic law of the USA, such as the repeal of the death penalty or the discriminatory provisions in the 'patriotic law' which deny non-US citizens legal aid, changes to the legislation of states in the USA which are incompatible with European law, or an end to the inhumane detention of prisoners of war, including citizens of Member States of the EU in Guantánamo. We call on our peoples to organise mass demonstrations against a dangerous agreement which, on the pretext of combating terrorism, will escalate prosecutions against the grass-roots, anti-imperialist movement by extraditing the fighters at its vanguard to the USA, together with anyone in general whom the USA considers suspicious; to prevent the legalisation of uncontrolled activities by the US prosecuting authorities in the ΕU and to stop their governments from ratifying any such agreement.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, on behalf of the Socialist Group, I welcome and support this proposal. It is a step forward that 44 new substances recognised as CMRs have been added to the list of banned substances and are going to be removed from products and other uses within the Union. It is certainly a step forward in the protection of human health. The question of cosmetics now appears to have been resolved and we can express ourselves satisfied with that agreement. Again, that is a significant step forward for the health of cosmetics users. As regards the question of chemicals in products, I accept the view expressed in Parliament's report that we should start to look very closely at this issue. However, I agree with the Commission that this issue has much wider implications than simply controlling 44 chemicals in our existing proposal and their potential dangers. It is now clear that this issue is going to be addressed in the new forthcoming chemicals policy. We can therefore express ourselves satisfied that we have made good progress on this proposal and we can look to pick up the issue of chemicals in products, and a range of other issues, when we address the chemicals policy proposal that we understand the Commission will be publishing for wider consultation on 7 May. I expect we can start work on that in the autumn of this year. Therefore, on behalf of the Socialist Group, I commend this proposal and its results to the House and look forward to continuing our constructive dialogue and work with the Commission.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, if you want to find out what is really important for a person, do not ask them. Just ask to look through the stubs on their chequebook or the entries on their credit card account and you will find out. This afternoon we are actually looking through the stubs of the Commission's chequebook and what do we discover? EUR 2.4 billion spent on olives but EUR 240 million on the Socrates Education Programme for the European Union. As budget rapporteur for the Committee on Culture, I cannot but help notice that we spend one tenth of the money on education that we spend on olives. On information for enlargement, the Commission proposed EUR 14 million in the budget – a good sum you might think, until you see that the subsidy proposed for bee keeping was EUR 16.5 million. I am not criticising support for bee-keeping, but I think that this Parliament was right to increase the amount that the Commission wanted for information on enlargement from EUR 14 million to EUR 21 million. If people in the candidate countries and the existing countries do not understand enlargement, then we shall only have repeats of the problems that we experienced in Ireland. On that EUR 21 million, the Budgets Committee accepted the proposal from the Committee on Culture that EUR 1 million should be set aside for training future MEPs from the candidate countries. We had the President of Hungary here this morning, which shows that clearly politicians from the candidate countries are looking forward to joining this Parliament and they need training to be able to do that properly. I am also pleased that we have been able, if this budget is now passed, to reinstate the amount of money for e-learning, namely EUR 17 million as opposed to the Commission's proposal of EUR 9 million. It is not just that our budgetary priorities are wrong, the system is also wrong. I will pay tribute to the support we have had from the budget rapporteur this year and from the Commission, but the Council is absent this afternoon. It has been absent from discussions with the committees looking at the proposed budget. It really should be ashamed of its position in this respect.

Political group: PPE-DE
May I frame a question which I hope the Commission will feel free to answer simply yes or no. Wittgenstein told us that to choose a language is to choose a form of life. I think, therefore, that if we lose languages we lose forms of life. Does the Commissioner agree with me that it would be a tragedy for Europe if it loses languages such as Scots Gaelic, and Lowland Scots through neglect and that the lesser-used languages deserve greater encouragement than they get now?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I wish to thank the Council and the Commission for their statements on employment strategy, and I also wish to thank the two rapporteurs. In my speech, I wish to concentrate on employment strategy. It is good that there has been an evaluation after five years. It is important to see what has worked well, what has not worked so well and where there is room for improvement. The Council is right in saying that it is the result which counts in the end. The overall results for the past five years are, however, fairly good. There has been an increase in active employment measures, unemployment has fallen, and employment has risen accordingly. If we compare the way we have tackled employment during various phases of recession, we can confirm that this recession is a great improvement on the last, even if unemployment is rising at present in some countries. On the subject now of the proposed changes themselves and their extent, it is certainly the case that the pillar structure is not an end in itself, but it is important that a number of different aspects are included in employment strategy. Here, I am of course talking about the targets of a rise in employment and a fall in unemployment, an increase in employment for women, high-quality employment and aspects of work organisation. There is one more aspect that no one has mentioned, which is that sustainable development must be integrated into employment strategy as it is into the other two strategies. I share the view that has been expressed on stability. We should not step in and make changes every year. Unless there are any particular developments, these processes should be allowed to continue for a number of years. I also share the view as regards focus. It becomes difficult if there are too many indicators and targets. We need to focus on the most important goals, and we need to take care of implementation and results. Regarding openness and the participation of partners, I wish to emphasise what has been said about the social partners. They already play a central role, and there are reasons for increasing their participation in the employment strategy. There are, however, some shortcomings, especially in the field of democratic control. There is a lack of influence on the part of the European Parliament on overall strategy, and a lack of influence on the part of the national parliaments regarding implementation and Member States’ national action plans. These issues are important. We cannot let such important issues be decided behind closed doors by employees’ associations. We must have proper democratic control. When we coordinate the processes, however, no one process is more important than another. The economic process is just as important as the social and employment-policy processes, and we must also bring in the social guidelines when we synchronise the processes. All of this is important. If there is anyone who should be doing the coordinating it is the General Council.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I wish to join with all those who have expressed gratitude to our rapporteur, who did indeed have to go against his own instincts in order to be able to put this compromise before us, and I am also grateful to him for having incorporated in these compromises amendments that Mrs Roth-Behrendt and I had submitted. I can therefore support the essence of the lines the committee has taken. Perhaps we should take another look at one or the other of these amendments, if they really do, as it were, again jeopardise the legal basis as given. In essence, the considerations on which our amendments were based were that the internal market has a legal basis that allows us to make regulations on advertising only if that advertising has an impact across borders, and, moreover, to a substantial degree. I agree with Mr Lechner that this is not automatically the case with newspapers and magazines. I also think we are insisting that sponsorship agreements both in culture and in sport have to make allowances by means of proper transitional periods. I also think that the right to freedom of information is meant to matter to us. On it, indeed, depends the economic basis of both the traditional media – and major daily newspapers are telling us what is going on here – and also the new media. I join with Mr Medina Ortega and with all those who regret the fact that we have no better legal basis for health policy in the European Union than that which currently governs the internal market. I would also like to observe that the Convention working party on the powers of the European Union proposes that it should in future no longer be possible to have recourse to legislative measures relating to health policy in the EU, but that only so-called support measures should remain feasible. I hope, Commissioner, that this will give you a reason to drum up support from the Commission for a reshaping of the Convention's proposals on this subject.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, we can see that the response to this terrorist act is being prepared, and I believe it is being done with great care. The United States is dealing with this business calmly and attempting to solve the problem in a multilateral context, including cooperation with NATO. This indicates that all is being done with calm deliberation. I believe that, for this reason, we must also make it clear that there is no reason for us to evade our responsibilities and obligations, not simply because of our gratitude and not only in order to guarantee the future of transatlantic relations, but because it is in our most fundamental best interests. Terrorism is taking on the dimensions of a war and resulting in destruction the like of which we knew only in wartime; it is this terrorism that is in a position to strike in the same way at Brussels today, London tomorrow and Madrid the day after tomorrow! The combatants are already in our midst, and so nobody can steal away. Nobody, I believe, should look for an alibi, a reason not to join in when the action really does start; and, when it does, it will involve the taking of steps which we must develop on the basis of a new definition of security policy: military action involving the application of all foreign policy instruments, for example the prevention of alliances in favour of the other side, and in conjunction with internal security, about which Mr Vitorino and many in this House have already spoken. On this last point, it must be clear that cross-border measures can be put in place against cross-border terrorism and that the best national legislation and the best national police can do nothing without cooperation in this sphere. Let me finally say just one thing: nothing justifies terrorism, but we must still make it our concern to remove the root causes of support for it. We must, therefore, play our part in removing the breeding-grounds for terrorism in the Middle East and in many other regions (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
I am not one to defend terrorism and terrorists and so I am not shocked that Mr Öçalan should face trial in Turkey. Nevertheless, the drama of the Kurdish people is very real, and if we want to see their rights respected, a reasonable and balanced solution will have to be negotiated with its representatives. This is assuming that there will not be an irrevocable decision on Mr Öçalan, especially an execution. Finally, we must remind Turkey that its association with Europe implies respect for the same values and principles which unite the countries within the Union. -Contamination by dioxin

Political group: PSE
Mr President, at the end of this debate I should like to say a few words of thanks, first of all to the chairman of the committee. We did not know each other before the committee was formed, and yet within a few days we were cooperating as if we had been working together for years. This is not to be taken for granted; it is no everyday occurrence. Thank you very much for that. (Applause) I thank the members of the committee. We did not always agree, but the atmosphere between the members was never unpleasant, and our cooperation was constructive. These are also things we cannot always count on in this House. So let me express my sincere thanks to them too. My thanks go the Secretariat, the Secretary-General and his staff, and to the many people who have helped us with their advice and information. Some of them are mentioned in the report. There are others who have not been mentioned in their own interest. My gratitude to them is no less heartfelt. (Applause) IN THE CHAIR: MRS FONTAINEPresident President. – Thank you, Mr , for your perfectly justified acknowledgements.The debate is closed.The vote will take place at 12 noon.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I too would like to thank the rapporteur for her excellent work in connection with this report. A really excellent proposal has been produced, thanks to cooperation. The definition of renewable energy sources approved by the committee is a reasonably successful and all-embracing one. Peat must also be included in it, as many of my colleagues have argued with persuasion here. Increasing the use of renewable energy can reduce dependence on oil and also create jobs in sparsely populated regions. In addition, it is an important means of cutting greenhouse gases in the Community. I think it is good that we are setting our sights high, but it is most important that we can agree common targets with credibility and, furthermore, with commitment, which is what the rapporteur referred to here earlier on. I think the principle whereby the directive can create a framework for the increased use of renewables in the production of electricity is a good one. Although it will be left to the Member States to decide on the promotional measures to be used and to implement them, we also need increased input from the Union.

Political group: ELDR
I too would like to begin by congratulating Mrs Malmström on this report. It is an important proposal because it introduces a more formal structure into the process of Parliament's scrutiny of the Commission's legislative programme, which is, after all, a very important component of one of our most important functions – that is to say, scrutinising and holding the Commission to account. Following what the Commission is up to is always slightly difficult unless one is a true initiate of the workings of the European political system. Most people are not, and so to introduce a more formal structure into this process is, in my view, a very desirable development because it should assist those outside the circle of initiates, by providing as it does a series of markers for the cycle of the year's business. Ignorance of the way in which the European Union works, coupled with the failure of national parliaments to oversee and scrutinise European matters properly, are two of the great weaknesses in the European political structure as it has developed. Now, while it is for national parliaments themselves to determine their own agendas, I as a Member of the British second Chamber as well as a Member of this House feel that the formal structuring of the way that the European Parliament scrutinises what the Commission is doing may well be a very useful template for scrutiny by national parliaments and at the same time for disseminating accurate facts about what is going on at European level, to the benefit of all our citizens.

Political group: PPE-DE
Thank you, Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. The Doha Conference has spawned a sense of enthusiasm that I can only ascribe to the fact that expectations were so low, for I have to say that we remain very critical. Inequality of power is simply too pronounced in the world, which leaves its mark on conferences of this kind. While the developing countries wanted to see the earlier agreements through to a conclusion, Europe wanted to continue to build at multilateral level. There was therefore a certain level of ambiguity which has facilitated some progress. We are, of course, delighted with the fact that in connection with medicines, unmistakable progress has been made, because there is now at least an agreement about the intellectual property rights. However, we are hugely vexed by the fact that Europe continues to insist on high import levies on agricultural and textile products, while an agreement on a gradual cutback had, in fact, been reached. The first results should be evident as soon as 2005, and upon further research, it now emerges that too little has happened in this field. At the moment, agricultural support as a whole is hardly any lower than at the end of the eighties. As at previous WTO conferences, the liberalisation of the economy was also mentioned at Doha. Although the issue of intellectual property rights may have been a positive illustration of this, surely this was only a tiny ray of hope. Ideally, we would like see that we side with the weak, for whoever observes this world at war is bound to see that this is all about inequality of power.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Commissioner, we are today going to be initiating a process – which will certainly be very beneficial to Europe – of generating great added value for the much-needed modernisation of our social protection systems. I wish to ask you a question and perhaps make a small suggestion. The focus of the Commission’s action will be an annual report assessing the various national strategies. Do you not think, Commissioner, that it would be useful for the Commission also to work on the basis of other information, to accept what in situ missions and universities can provide and, of course, information or debates that we could provide from Parliament, so that you are not limited to what might merely be the interests of each of our governments, which might be more interested in making propaganda for themselves than in seeing the reform implemented?

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the will, in effect, vote in favour of the Whitehead report. The European Food Safety Authority, an essential food safety mechanism serving the consumers and the political authorities of Europe alike, is essential to the performance of the functions that it will be assigned. Its first task is to investigate all the failings that led to the recent food safety crises, both the crises in the food business, such as chicken dioxins, food and mouth disease, trafficking in veterinary products, the excessive use of vaccines and tranquillisers on animals and also the original BSE crisis. I would point out that even Finland now has its first case of mad cow disease. That is the first point I would like to make. My second point is that it is the agency that must also stop the uncontrolled spread of contaminating transgenic products that are even infesting traditional cereal crops, since consumers are rejecting transgenic crops, whose only virtues are commercial. Therefore, this agency must also, other than resolving all those problems, ensure food safety from the farm to the fork. In order to do so, the Food Safety Authority must apply, from the beginning of 2002, the principles of transparency and monitoring that my fellow Members have already mentioned. The failings in the area of hygiene as being the sole criterion, which has been highlighted in the many crises that we have listed, particularly in animal feed, shows that the agency must give advice on good practice, on labelling, on products that have been produced locally, that contain dairy products, instead of dealing with industrial standards alone, which do not prevent salmonella, listeria or any of the more distressing epidemics. Its main function is therefore to coordinate the national agencies, and to do so, the agency must be independent and transparent. On the other hand, I have doubts regarding Amendment No 34, which deals with the appointment procedure to the Management Board, a process that seems hazy at best, since it refers to the meritocracy of the Management Board. So what exactly does meritocracy mean in an agency that should be composed of experts in the relevant scientific fields? The Management Board has a political and managerial role. I very much fear that this meritocracy is simply a way of masking the pressure exerted by large food corporations. I hope that the Commissioner will be able to reassure me on this point. As for where the agency will be based, we believe this is a side issue... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: Verts-ALE