GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, does a peasant suffering from AIDS have the right to access medicine and treatment that he cannot afford? Does a child born in poverty have the human right to receive basic education and appropriate vaccines to protect him from killer diseases? Does a peasant farmer devastated by natural disasters such as drought, pests and soil erosion have the right to our assistance? Do millions of people living in misery for political reasons in isolated countries like Palestine and Iraq have any rights? What do we mean when we talk about human rights? I urge every colleague concerned with human rights to visit, unannounced and informally, any peasant in any poor country and ask him about our views on human rights, political freedom, economic freedom, religious freedom, free access to education and health services. That peasant will look at you in bewilderment and plead: 'All I need is a supply of fresh water to my house. All I need is a source of energy so that I can light my house and cook the next meal'. Internal conflict and civil war resulting in violation of human rights will continue to impoverish the poor until we help them to do the following. Firstly, to have a stake in their rural economies. They need to own their own land, their home and their farm. And secondly, to acquire the technology to break the cycle of dependency on us and seize the opportunity to be self-sufficient, self-reliant through their own local enterprise. When the poor have an economic stake, then civil society and democracy will take root. These people will see the need for law and order and political representation. Then you will see the courts replacing the bullet – and that is when we will see human rights. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am sorry that my giving way to Mrs Oomen-Ruijten seems to have caused her some anguish but I do not think she is any need of any blood products. This is a very welcome report and I congratulate our rapporteur. The safety of blood, as we all know, is paramount. Some of our Member States have had horror stories to remind them of that. But the supply of blood is also paramount for those whose lives depend on it. Our preference is for unremunerated donation – that is the British practice and that is what we want to see – but, in practice, Europe imports nearly 50% of its plasma and plasma products. I am not talking about the standard blood transfusion service that comes around to your church hall and you pop in for half an hour, have a cup of tea, and go back to work. I am talking about plasma donation, where you have to travel some distance to fixed machinery and it takes half a day. We have to import some of those products and a lot of them come from the United States, where many of the products are remunerated. Research shows that remunerated blood is perfectly safe in itself. The key, of course, is the screening of blood products wherever they come from. The hyper-immune plasma products are nearly all imported into the European Union and 2,166,367 people in the European Union depend on them: some 400 thousand in Britain, 400 thousand in France, 100 thousand in the Netherlands, 40 thousand in Finland and so on. These are people with haemophilia, primary immune deficiency, albumen tetanus needs, acquired deficiencies, auto-immune diseases and Rhesus negative pregnant women. Without supplies, their health and their lives can be at risk. Of course we must encourage unremunerated donation. That is our custom and practice but in a world of BSE and CJD, we cannot be purists. Otherwise we are putting the lives of our fellow citizens at risk.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I believe that this is one of the most important policy issues currently under consideration and discussion in the sphere of international politics. We frequently adopt resolutions that I do not believe are quite as significant as this, so we are very much in favour of there being a resolution to wind up this debate.

Political group: PSE
The twentieth century has witnessed some tremendous technological progress, especially in the field of transport and other long-distance communication. This has created two holy cows: the car and the aircraft. Those who seek material gain from cars or aircraft are prepared to subordinate everything to their freedom to use these modes of transport, and overlook the adverse effects on their fellow human beings and the environment. Aviation and airports have now become a privileged sector. They are largely exempt from taxes and environmental rules. This is why they can offer their services comparatively cheaply, even if the airfares are high on journeys governed by a near-monopoly. For this reason alone, aviation can win the unfair competitive battle against the railways, which have lost a large part of their share of international passenger transport to other modes of long-distance travel, especially aviation. As a result, cross-border railways are having to rely increasingly on privatisation plans and major investments in the high-speed network. These measures, however, have a number of detrimental effects on the public and the environment, effects which would not have emerged without the competition from aviation. It is high time that aviation met normal environmental requirements of the kind that are in place for all other sectors, in order to protect the public and the environment against noise, emission of harmful substances and risks of accidents. Should this render aviation companies less profitable or hinder the enormous growth in air transport, this would not be a disaster, but rather a necessity. Mrs Lucas has made a few modest steps in the right direction and these are largely in line with what my party, the Socialist Party in the Netherlands, endorses.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the EU will be faced with having to make very large financial investments when, in different rounds, ten or more countries from Eastern and Central Europe and from the Baltic region become members. Clearly, there is occasion for discussing the EU’s financial requirements if this process is to be managed successfully. At present, the EU is not entitled to raise taxes itself. Nor, as I see it, should it be entitled to do so in the future either. The Haug report does not involve our automatically introducing taxation by the EU, but it opens the door for taxation of this kind, which is bad enough. What is not spelled out is nonetheless what a lot of people are obviously thinking. In the last few days, the Swedish mass media have been saying that the EU intends to introduce a tax on flights and mobile telephones. It is perhaps no accident that it is precisely in Sweden, which has far and away the heaviest burden of taxation in the EU, that imaginations are running riot when it comes to finding new forms of income from taxation. If taxes are to be directly discussed at all within the EU, then the Member States must first, in my view, show clearly and precisely which national taxes are to be reduced at the same time. Otherwise, our citizens will just be afflicted with new forms of taxation, and the EU’s citizens do not need still higher taxes. How, then, is the enlargement of the EU to be financed? Yes, the alternative to new income from taxation is still that of reduced costs. This will involve better prioritising and concentrating on the major and crucial questions. The enlargement of the EU is one such priority. As long as almost half the EU’s budget goes on subsidising agriculture and as long as five sixths of it, including the Structural Funds, goes on subsidies of one kind or another, there can be no doubt that changes can still be made.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the subject of today's debate is far more important than anyone who is not familiar with the figures might imagine. By way of illustration, according to the statistics, there were 23 000 road traffic accidents in Greece alone in 2000, 3 900 of which involved pedestrians. So you can see that we are talking numbers which are not easily disregarded. As we all know, the Commission communication we are examining today is about a commitment by the European automobile industry designed to increase the chances of survival of pedestrians and cyclists involved in collisions with motor vehicles. This particular commitment comes in two stages, one by 2005 and one with even more stringent measures by 2010. The important thing is that, first, the industry itself is anxious to make a voluntary commitment, meaning that no direct legislative intervention is required in the first stage and, secondly, this commitment covers all the important manufacturers, European, Japanese and Korean alike. The debate on this report in the European Parliament's Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism had what I consider to be a very satisfactory outcome, thanks to the efforts of the rapporteur, Mrs Petersen. Of course, with it being a compromise, we are not overly excited about the result but, when all is said and done, it takes account of our group's concerns, which is why we voted for it in committee and shall do so in Plenary. The fundamental elements in this agreement are paragraphs 6 and 14, so I shall just reiterate them if I may. First, we consider that the voluntary commitment being negotiated with the automobile industry represents a first step towards improving road safety and, secondly, we are asking the Commission to come forward with a framework directive in which a clear, realistic time schedule is established for the intermediate and final goals to be reached, as well as methods for monitoring assessment.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I simply wanted to thank the Group of the for this gesture. I believe that we have reached a compromise, that this compromise makes up a whole, that some of the members of the Group of the are not entirely satisfied by the compromise, but I think that we must move on. I therefore strongly urge the members of my group to give their full support to the compromise that we have reached. (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0330/2002) by Rosemarie Müller, drawn up on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (COM(2001) 404 – C5-0591/2001 – 2001/0252(COD)) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0340/2002) by Françoise Grossetête, drawn up on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (COM(2001) 404 – C5-0592/2001 – 2001/0253(COD)) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0334/2002) by Françoise Grossetête, drawn up on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2001/82/EC on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products (COM(2001) 404 – C5-0593/2001 – 2001/0254(COD)) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0325/2002) by Michiel van Hulten, drawn up on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control, on the draft Commission Regulation laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (SEC(2002) 835 – C5-0399/2002 – 2002/0901(CNS)) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0332/2002) by Andrew Nicholas Duff, drawn up on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, on the impact of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and its future status (2002/2139(INI)) Before the vote:

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Russia has yet to come to terms with herself, to decide what sort of society she wants to create and define her position in the world. For over seventy years, her development was distorted and held back by the monstrous experiment of communism which grew to threaten us all. I must say I very much welcome Mr Oostlander's report for its very reasonable and balanced approach, praising constructive reforms while criticising blatant human rights abuses. But let me say a couple of words about our strategic relationship. While encouraging a strong economic relationship between the European Union and Russia coupled with efforts at political cooperation, we must take care that we do not create for ourselves some sort of strategic dependency. For example, it has been suggested in the context of European defence policy – about which I have to say we continue to have reservations – that the European Union might turn to Russia to provide strategic airlift capabilities to complement the arrangements already in place between the WEU and Ukraine. Now I am in favour of encouraging Russia and the Ukraine to move in our direction and cooperate with other alliance countries in crisis-management tasks, but I would not be in favour of us moving in their direction or adjusting our policies in order to accommodate them. It would be a very dangerous situation if the Europeans were to become logistically reliant on Russia. If we do not have our own strategic airlift then we already have a tried and tested ally in the United States – and in this context I am sure that Mr Oostlander has no desire for Russia to supplant the United States as a strategic partner for Europe. We must work in the closest possible harmony with the United States in our dealings with Russia and certainly must not give Russia the impression that there are divisions to be exploited. This would be in no one's interests. Secondly, we must take great care to ensure diversity of production and supply in terms of energy. Already some 40% of natural gas supply for the EU comes from Russia, and an increasing proportion of oil imports now come from the CIS countries, where known reserves are larger than those in the United States and North Sea combined. Many of the transit routes for these are through areas of great conflict. It is in our interests to do all we can to help stabilise that region by economic and political means, ensuring that we do nothing to encourage or sustain instability in the Caucasus and the southern regions of Russia.

Political group: PPE-DE
I have voted in favour of these two proposals because they form part of a coherent set of horizontal measures that will ensure the correct and effective implementation of the measures that the EP has already adopted in the fight against terrorism (the framework decision on combating terrorism and the framework decision on the European arrest warrant). Serious account must be taken of the terrorist threat, on both sides of the Atlantic, because it constitutes not only one of the greatest threats to democracy, the free exercise of human rights and free economic and social development; above all, it constitutes an attack on the most fundamental of human rights; the right to life. I am, therefore, pleased to see that the European Union has made considerable progress since the terrible events of 11 September 2001, on exchanging information, on police and judicial coordination in the fight against terrorism and on its legislative framework. I hope that the next step will be to reach agreement on the priority that must be attached to the issues of funding the fight against terrorism and of stepping up our dialogue with the United States (and the priority for the negotiations opened this summer and an agreement on judicial cooperation with the United States to be concluded). The fight against terrorism must always be marked by the values of the democratic rule of law, by respect for citizens’ rights and by common standards of justice. Any fight that disregards these priorities would represent an unjustifiable concession to barbarity and an unacceptable rejection of the values of our civilisation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Ridicule never killed anyone. Fortunately for the European Parliament, which should have strongly denounced the attitude of the Michelin management which has just announced a massive series of cuts in workforce and redundancies, even though the returns and profits for this firm increased substantially. The simultaneous nature of the announcements, of course, blatantly exposed the scandalous and unfair aspect of current economic reasoning and this financial capitalism which has gained the upper hand in Europe and throughout the world. Of course, in the first place, the European Parliament must, in this specific instance, strongly condemn the Michelin management, and request that the firm reconsiders these job losses, and assure the group’s employees of its solidarity. But this House must also learn the lessons necessary to improve Community legislation, in order to provide some protection for employees against such practices. Obviously, the directive on collective redundancy procedure must be reviewed and measures which afford greater protection for workers and for jobs must be included in it. In particular, it is necessary for employees to be able to challenge the actual basis for these redundancies and the economic motives for these before they are actually implemented, and this at a very early stage of the procedure. Moreover, the establishment of real group level works councils, European Committees with real powers, becomes ever more essential. Once more, the European Parliament should review its directive on this point. Our resolution is singularly lacking in determination and it is to be feared that, unless widespread forces are mobilised, Social Europe will go unheeded on a long-term basis.

Political group: PSE
Although this report adopts the same line as previous reports, we are now facing a new situation, created by the discriminatory and unacceptable conditions set for the candidate countries at the Brussels Extraordinary Council on 25 October, following the Franco-German agreement. Consequently, not only have the financial resources laid down in Agenda 2000 for barely six candidate countries not been increased, despite the fact that ten were accepted for accession; the Commission proposal of EUR 25 billion has also been reduced to EUR 23 billion in the structural policy, and what makes this worse is that, under the CAP, they are attempting to divide between 25 members funds that currently serve 15, without even correcting the current injustices in the way this is shared out, earmarking only 25% of direct aid for the first year, excluding small farmers, and this is something we cannot accept. The Council’s proposals did not meet the expectations that were raised and could even alienate more communities from the EU project. And yet referenda will only be held in the candidate countries next year. Only then will we have a true picture of what the various nations’ desires are. We shall continue to fight for effective economic and social cohesion, which the current conditions for accession do not guarantee, to fight against the discriminatory proposals and to fight for the rights and interests of Portugal, which could be seriously affected unless the current proposals are revised.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mrs Schreyer, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market devoted a great deal of attention to market integration in connection with the eastward enlargement. The effects that will be manifested by this integration must also be taken into account when planning the Budget. We see, looking at the Four Freedoms, that there will be no difficulties in some areas, but problems with adaptation in others. There will be no great changes to the movement of goods, because substantial liberalisation has occurred, nor in freedom of establishment, because the person or business is subject to the laws of the state in which they establish themselves. We will, though, have problems with integration as regards the free movement of labour and the freedom to provide services, for the precise reason that there has been to date no competition in these areas, and these markets are only regionally oriented unless they choose to be otherwise. The frontier regions will therefore come under particular pressure when the freedoms in question are introduced. Specific aid measures are therefore needed. The recommendations of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market make it clear that it advocates endowing the frontier regions programme that you, Commissioner, mentioned, with additional resources. We are grateful to the Committee on Budgets and especially to the rapporteur for their accepting these suggestions and, in part, adding to them. One point in particular is of importance to me: the instruments proposed by the Commission are not sufficient to strengthen competitiveness in the frontier regions, as they promote only cooperation between East and West rather than the specific situation of the frontier regions themselves. A specific programme is therefore needed, and so we request the Commission to present a legal foundation for it; I take their statements to mean that they are prepared to do this.

Political group: PPE-DE