GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I am pleased that the Committee on Budgets has endorsed so many of the amendments by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, in particular budget line B7-524 – assistance in the nuclear sector. We call for an appropriate sum for cancer equipment in the Republic of Belarus, which is still significantly affected by the consequences of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident in adjacent Ukraine. Up to 23% of its territory was contaminated; about 2 million people – including 500 000 children – live in the radioactively contaminated areas. The sickness rate in the contaminated areas has grown dramatically. For instance, the number of children under the age of 18 suffering from thyroid cancer is 50 times higher now than before the accident. Among the adult population, the growth of the number of thyroid-gland cases has increased fivefold. The most effective method of controlling these tumours is high-dose-rate brachytherapy, which minimises exposure to radiation of healthy organs and tissues during radiation treatment of malignant growth. High-dose-rate brachytherapy requires high-tech equipment and, due to the high acquisition and maintenance costs of this equipment, Belarus needs assistance. We should not let our very real concerns over democracy and human rights in Belarus prevent us from helping its children.

Political group: PPE-DE
I did not vote in favour of the report by Mr Böge and Mr Colom i Naval, which reflects the result of the negotiations between the Council and Parliament. My concerns are not allayed by the result of the trialogue, which was intended at least to limit the damage that the Council has done to democracy in the EU. Annex XV remains in the Accession Treaties and will thus become primary legislation. Everything else, I regard as empty words. Only after years have elapsed will we be able to begin to prove that the opposite is the case. The Council, though, has already demonstrated that it is acting against Parliament. See also my explanation of vote on the Accession Treaties. - Brok report (A5-0081/2003)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as long as people eat meat the treatment of farm animals will be the subject of lively debate. The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development wisely chose Mr Maat to prepare this report, which largely succeeds in reconciling animal welfare with the economics of farming. The fact that over 450 amendments were tabled showed the extent of interest and the wide range of opinion as to detail. Mr Maat handled this with skill, but on such a high-profile issue the amendments tabled before Parliament calling for even tighter conditions were to be expected. The committee's report achieved a number of important objectives: a reduction in travelling times; upgraded transport conditions, including provisions for rest periods, feeding and watering; additional training for drivers and animal handlers; improved enforcement of the rules; stronger rules relating to journey planning and registration; satellite monitoring of vehicle movement; the ability of Member States to ban export of animals for slaughter is included; there is a preference for slaughter near to the farm and encouragement for mobile slaughterhouses. Looking ahead, we must ensure that the rules are properly implemented, that transport as meat increasingly becomes the norm, and that the rules are driven more by science than by emotion. I shall support the report and look forward to early adoption of the revised rules. The provision of a review clause would be helpful and I trust the Council will introduce this.

Political group: PSE
The conventions are, of course, concerned with the relationship between States and citizens and, since the EU is not a State, the fact that the EU increasingly behaves like, and is acquiring the powers of, a State is a problem. In that way, a loophole has appeared in connection with fundamental rights, and this loophole should, of course, be closed. In our eagerness to make things right, we are, however, in danger of doing a lot of damage. The EU is faced with a number of choices. Are we to secure our own rights? Are we exclusively to look after ourselves and our own? Or are we to reinforce human rights throughout Europe? The EU must not start competing with the existing authorities for resolving disputes, such as the Court of Human Rights here in Strasbourg. That would, of course, weaken the latter and damage the situation regarding human rights throughout Europe. In my view, the EU’s Court of Justice should therefore be kept away from the project concerning fundamental rights. Instead, the EU ought to take Strasbourg’s judgements seriously and demand that present and future Member States ratify the European Convention on Human Rights, the ILO conventions and the essential UN conventions, as well as having economic and tariff agreements depend upon the parties adhering to these conventions. In that way, the EU would reinforce the existing conventions, and that is something there is a need for.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, tackling the education crisis is one of the most effective means we have at our disposal for breaking the cycle of poverty and achieving the 2015 human development targets. The Committee on Development and Cooperation and our rapporteur, Mr van den Berg, therefore deserve thanks for a report that demonstrates a thorough knowledge of the subject and genuine concern. Now it appears that the 2015 target for universal primary education remains a long way off. That is the single factor which is significantly undermining all the other work that is being done in the world to reduce poverty. The financing needed is EUR 8 billion per year. It is a lot, but not impossible, in order that everyone’s right to education, as stated in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights more than 50 years ago, might come about. The rapporteur quite rightly mentions that the Commission must participate in the World Bank’s ‘Education for all – Fast track’ programme. Likewise, he warns the EU, and with good reason, not to agree to schooling being included as a service in the WTO’s General Agreement on Trade and Services. Primary education must be regarded as being independent of free-market rules and productivity criteria. We must trust in the notion that raising standards of education and the literacy rate is the best thing global trade can hope for. That is why the G8 countries must also be reminded of their promise to finance the Fast Track Initiative. My own experience of cooperation development work reinforces my conviction that it is especially necessary to invest in girls’ education. That is the key to development. That way we can combat excessive population growth, as an educated woman will have fewer children. Women’s education is also a way out of the vicious circle, where, for example, many Asian women and girls find themselves: in mortal danger from the womb to the grave, with discrimination starting even before birth and continuing all their life. Where a girl is a liability and a burden on the family only a determined shift in attitudes and the commencement of education opportunities will ensure there is any change.

Political group: PPE-DE
The EPLP welcomes the conclusions of the Musotto report on Cohesion. However we believe it is premature in the debate to take a fixed position on the future options for designating European Assisted Areas. There will continue to be areas of need in the UK post-2006 and we would like the Commission to assess the role that both a safety net mechanism and transitional funding could play in assisting poorer regions of the UK post-2006. It is disappointing that the British Conservatives failed, among others, to support this amendment. In addition their failure to support a stronger role for local and regional governments in the management of European funding is a blow to democracy and partnership.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, unfortunately I have to say that it was I who asked to have this point debated, and for one simple reason. I find it difficult to understand why a temporary – and, I repeat, a temporary – subsidy arrangement must now suddenly be extended. As rapporteur for Parliament’s statement on the original regulation, it is fairly clear to me that I asked the Commission for a guarantee that this arrangement would only be temporary. The Commission assured me of this, as did you too, Mr Monti. For the same reason, the regulation was also limited in time. The regulation contained, moreover, a mousetrap clause whereby the regulation would cease immediately in the event of the dispute with South Korea being resolved. When an expiry date was placed on the regulation, it was precisely because there was no wish to see this arrangement become permanent, regardless of whether or not the dispute with South Korea was resolved. For me, this was a mitigating circumstance, since at no time have I been convinced that South Korea does in actual fact compete on unequal terms. On the contrary, I am afraid that this regulation has only helped to distort competition internally within the EU. I would therefore take the liberty of asking you, Mr Monti, whether the regulation is, in reality, on its way to becoming permanent, and whether you do not see this as a backward step in the fight against direct production subsidies. Could it perhaps be said that a promise has been broken in this case? I am therefore rather tired of the matter this evening.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, peace is the European Union’s very raison d’être. I am pleased about the fact that Commissioner Patten and Mr Solana have already underlined this repeatedly. We have also opted for a common and joint development along the road of democracy, cultural diversity and tolerance. But look at us now! We are observing the misery in Chechnya in a position of powerlessness, and regard the wars in Africa with indifference, despite the fact that we have close ties with so many of these countries, given that they are ex-colonies. Some of them are our ACP partners. The war is an extension of degenerated underdevelopment. In Kosovo, we stepped in with military means, having been unable to prevent the war in ex-Yugoslavia. We are now unable to guide the peace. This is why Europe is not credible as a Union. I do not believe, Mr Solana, that we can restore this credibility by military means. As representatives from the Group of the , we all come from nations and regions which have never gone out to war with foreign countries, but we always needed to fight those who came to oppress us. We are very sceptical about your current plans to form a military capability in the short term. This is not because we are against European defence, but European defence can and may only be the outcome of a sound, democratically-based decision process in respect of foreign affairs. At the moment, Europe does not have a foreign policy to speak of. I can hardly believe that we will ever achieve this at intergovernmental level. In my opinion, it is far too easy to sit down with the military and gather up all the military equipment, which are such nice toys, after all. I am very sceptical about the fact that Commissioner Patten cannot inform us in an equally credible way that he has drafted a prevention plan to stave off further degeneration, underdevelopment and conflicts in Europe and outside. Because our borders do not stop at the Mediterranean Sea.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Sasi has just reconfirmed the unfortunate idea that the European Union is examining the events of Chechnya as a Russian internal matter alone. However, Russia is in breach of many human rights agreements. For example, the European Council’s agreements strictly prohibit countries from murdering and bombing their own nationals. The OSCE agreements also demonstrated clearly that countries are committed to the notion that violations of human rights can never constitute the internal affairs of a state. In addition, Russia’s centralised power is oppressing a national minority. We might even suspect that ethnic cleansing is taking place there, with Russia trying to create Chechen-free buffer zones. Our group’s position is that our wishes and cabinet discussions are not enough: financial aid for Russia should be restricted to humanitarian and environmental aid. My colleague, Mr Schori, gave an account just now of the latest information on how Russia is, in fact, strengthening its military budget. Does the European Union want, for example, to be involved, through a pact of partnership and cooperation, in increasing Russian military expenditure, which will be used to punish Chechnya in the future?

Political group: Verts-ALE
The crimes of Marc Dutroux in Belgium and similar atrocities elsewhere have been waiting for a response for years. People who put their personal pleasure, or earning money from the pleasure of others, before the protection of children are a danger to society as a whole. Society must be protected against people who force children into sexual acts and who are even capable of killing those children if they can no longer be used for that purpose. I give my unqualified support to that part of the proposals in the Karamanou report. Unfortunately, in certain other proposals and in the debate in this connection, I have detected a nineteenth-century, Victorian undertone. I get the impression that a number of people who advocate tough measures would, in fact, ideally ban same-sex marriages, nudist beaches, pornographic images and text, sex outside marriage and Manneken Pis. I also get the feeling that they want to criminalise parents who, they believe, do not raise their children in a sufficiently prudish manner. You are already committing an offence if you give your children sex education, if other people can see your children naked or if the children can see their parents naked. That is not how you deal with the irresponsible, the profiteers and the criminals; instead you take away newly acquired freedom from ordinary well-meaning people. That part of their objectives will not receive my support.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, on the subject of the situation in the Middle East, two months ago this House was unanimous in praising the commitment to peace shown by Avraham Burg, the speaker of the Knesset, and Ahmad Qurie, the President of the Palestinian Legislative Council. Since then, those who preach hatred and advocate violence seem once again to have won the day. We would be failing to understand the origins of this crisis if we imagined that fears which have reigned for generations were to give way to lasting peace, a prelude to reconciliation, without further ado. If the European Union is to continue harbouring the ambition of playing a part in securing this peace, as is its vocation, it must first of all keep its head, and then bring all its weight to bear to facilitate the task of the decision-makers of that region who are firmly resolved to move towards peace. First we have to keep our heads, which means that amid all the emotion and horror it is not our job to castigate one side or the other. Then bring all our weight to bear, which means that the Union must speak with a single voice, which unfortunately was not the case last week at the tenth extraordinary session of the United Nations General Assembly. Bringing all its weight to bear also implies not contenting ourselves with advocating a renewal or intensification of economic aid under the pretext that only by raising the standard of living in the region will we be able to help establish a lasting peace. Such a solution would only have an impact in the long term. Faced with the emergency situation that now exists there, this is clearly no longer sufficient. We are well aware that Jerusalem is the nub of the issue. Well, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, since the High Representative is now participating in the negotiations, which is something we all welcome, I would ask you whether the time has not come for a powerful initiative from the European Union, which might offer its services to both sides in order to arrive at a status for Jerusalem that both find acceptable and, why not, to ensure that this is enforced.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the present report by Mrs Palacio marks the successful completion of a laborious task. We can adopt it, put it to one side and everything will take its course. Is it just routine then? Not for me! Because this report forces us to confront an issue which the European Parliament debated in the last Parliament and brought to a proper conclusion. I am talking about uniform electoral law in Europe. Do you remember the Anastassopoulos report in which we laid down a basis for electing Members of the European Parliament in accordance with the same principles in all the Member States? The new Members of this House will have to look it up. Presumably it is slowly starting to resurface in the minds of longer-serving Members. No wonder, because this tends to be an everyday occurrence where the democratic foundations of the European Union are concerned. Or am I wrong to say that the best proposals made by Parliament of all the nations of Europe – legitimised by virtue of being directly elected – are all too often of little value? Often they fall victim to the idleness of the Council and the governments of the Member States. This is the case with the Anastassopoulos report and uniform electoral law. Parliament has adopted it. Unfortunately, there is no sign of it being transposed. In my opinion, this is catastrophic. It is precisely in view of the European Union's enlargement that the public expects its democratic foundations to be consolidated. This includes uniform electoral law with all the possibilities it has to offer, which we have described in the report. As we vote for the Palacio report, let us express the hope that after the next European elections the relevant report will be based on uniform electoral law. This would make the work easier and would be a substantial contribution to greater democracy and transparency in the European Union.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I believe that nobody doubts today, and nor should they, that the Committee on Petitions and the Ombudsman contribute to two fundamental principles of European construction: the application of Community law and also the institutions’ knowledge of the citizens. Nevertheless, I believe we must make improvements in certain areas in order to prevent the Committee on Petitions and the Ombudsman from confronting problems while carrying out their everyday work. Firstly, on a very practical level, I believe we should strengthen the services of the Ombudsman, the services of our own secretariat and the services of the European Commission which work closely with us, Commissioner, because sometimes they have difficulties providing us with information on the petitions we send them. Secondly, the presence of the Council in our Committee on Petitions should sometimes be essential, but it never appears. I believe that time limits should be reduced, otherwise we will lose credibility. We should renounce those Member States which obstruct the work of the Committee on Petitions. There are some and we all know who they are. We should be able to suspend projects that violate Community law and Europe’s natural and cultural spaces. Madam President, I believe that the method of a joint report by the Committee on Petitions and the European Ombudsman should also be used for the joint annual report on respect for and application of Community law, because that would show us how essential the work of the Ombudsman and the work of the Committee on Petitions is in assessing the application of Community law. I would like to end, Madam President, by thanking the European Ombudsman for his work promoting the transparency and efficiency of the European institutions and furthermore for his independence, which has been clear to us throughout this time.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Today, Mr President, I too voted in favour of the accession of the Czech Republic. It is self-evident that the Czechs are part of Europe, in the heart of which they live. I would no longer have been able to look my friends and relatives in Prague in the face if I had voted against them joining us. My ‘yes’ vote, though, is intended primarily to strengthen those in Czech public life, in political parties, parliament and government, who have come to recognise that, rather than having to drag the ballast of history into the future, a people that finds the strength to face up to the whole of its own history reaps honour rather than humiliation. Reconciliation is the fruit of truth and of any person's willingness, for a moment, to put himself in another's position. I know as a German that even we, who overran almost all our neighbours in wartime, regained the esteem and respect of all by not repressing these aspects of our history or treating them as merely relative. Let the Czechs try it too; it is a liberating thing to do. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, although food scandals are frequent topics of discussion in this House, we are not talking about the everyday scandal that our food contains, unfortunately, far too much in the way of pesticides. A number of speakers have already pointed out how it is a proven fact that pesticides can cause cancer. Studies have shown how, for example, in Norway, the children of agricultural workers are at significantly greater risk of cancer. Other studies of a similar kind demonstrate that there is a clear causative link involved, and so we must make every effort, and the Commission too must send out a clear message by making pesticide reduction programmes mandatory. Countries such as Denmark and Sweden have shown us that pesticide reduction programmes can achieve a reduction in pesticide use of up to 70% within only a few years, without agricultural yields suffering as a result. A study by the American Environmental Agency made clear years ago that 90% of all pesticides are superfluous. Just imagine it – 90% of all pesticides are not needed! At the end of the day, the farmers who think that more is best, even though the very opposite is the case, also come off badly. So I would like, once again, to make it very clear that our group – as we have already shown in relation to Mr Lannoye's report – is committed to reducing the use of pesticides and wants to use a levy to ensure that their prices reflect the ecological facts, for, at the end of the day, it is the consumers who must pay higher prices for groundwater because pesticides continue to be so cheap and are used in such large quantities. What is of the essence is that we want labelling to bring about greater transparency. Our problem is that, where the control of pesticides is concerned, the control authorities in the Member States are groping in the dark, because, to take one example, the German authorities do not know what pesticides are used in Spain or in Greece. The consequence of this is that we need some sort of labelling, a sort of passport, if effective controls are to be possible at all. I do think that this is where we have to make a really big effort, as excessive use of pesticides eventually means that we also have to consider the health costs involved. My great plea to you, Commissioner, is that your strategy should bring about a real reduction in pesticide use and make possible more labelling for the benefit of consumers.

Political group: Verts-ALE