GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I voted in favour of this report. The initiatives advocated by this report will, I believe and hope, enable us to prevent the disasters that we have experienced, particularly in France with the case of contaminated blood. We cannot keep this tragic outcome, which is so imprinted on our minds, out of our discussion. It is therefore up to us, at European level, to establish high standards for blood quality and the safety of collection, to be exacting about storage conditions and traceability and to impose strict testing rules. Blood is not like other commodities. It is not a commercial commodity and nothing should make us depart from this idea. I remain firmly opposed to any commercial use of human blood and I am in favour of the principal of voluntary and unpaid donation. For ethical reasons, first of all: our Parliament, and in particular its Committee on genetics, makes many references to ethics. Do ethics push us towards establishing payment for blood donation? Should the relationship between doctor and donor be based on trust or solely on a financial relationship? With regard to ethics, we adopted a Charter of Fundamental Rights in which it is clearly stipulated that it is forbidden to use the human body as a source of profit. Coherence must be a part of our political commitment. Also, for scientific reasons: studies have shown that the safety of supply appears to be better guaranteed through the practice of unpaid donation, that the blood collected in this way is less likely to transmit infectious diseases. In a directive whose aim is the quality and safety of blood, this scientific observation cannot be left out of our discussion. Finally, for cultural reasons: in France – and the support of the various associations that have contacted me shows me this – we cannot accept the idea of payment for blood donation, precisely for the reasons that I have already given. (Speech cut short pursuant to Rule 137 of the Rules of Procedure) - Evans report (A5-0229/2001) . – (IT) Mr President, Jonathan Evans, the rapporteur for this report amending the rules on competition, usually sits next to me in this beautiful Parliament. He has convinced me of the virtue of his report, which I have voted for, but as a representative of pensioners and the Pensioners Party, Mr President, I have to say that it would be good to have the same rules for pensions throughout Europe if we want to have true competition between products made in Europe. If the cost of employment, which includes the cost of pensions, is different – it is higher in Italy, lower in Germany, lower in Holland – then there is unfair competition. We need to have the same pensions rules throughout Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the title of this resolution on child labour, which we also support, is contradictory, because at that age children should be at school, not working. The truth is that there are agreements, there are declarations, there is the FIFA Code, there are mechanisms banning child labour. But child labour among children as young as 10 years old, as my colleagues have said, is increasing every year. Child labour has other serious connotations: for example, it decreases salaries in the regions in which thousands of children work, takes work away from adults, causes poverty in families and, above all, deprives children of the right to education, which they should have from birth. Recent data indicates that there are thousands of children in India and Pakistan, aged 10 or under, who are working to produce balls, and we believe that in the European Union’s talks in the World Trade Organization and in bilateral talks with each of the countries mentioned, one of our fundamental requirements should be that child labour should end. But, as one of my colleagues has already said, it is not enough just to demand that child labour be ended, but alternatives have to be offered to the families in order for them to survive. And of course monitoring and surveillance systems have to be put in place in order to ensure that it no longer happens, and it would be good if, as the World Cup is now being played, giving rise to so much passion, including in this House, we could say at the next World Cup in 2006 that child labour no longer existed, if not across the world, at least in part of it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, unlike the previous speaker, who quoted George Bush senior, I would rather quote Berthold Brecht. George Bush talked about “points of light”, but Berthold Brecht said: “die im Dunkeln sieht man nicht” (you cannot see those in the dark), which brings me straight to the heart of my short speech. The fact of the matter is that one in five people in this world do not have access to clean drinking water, primary health care or primary education. Europe, which is not only a trading bloc, but also one of values and standards, is an area that could make a huge impact on that level. Last year, we sealed an agreement with each other, on the other side of that table, on which occasion the Commission, the Council and Parliament put their signatures to Budget 2001. In this budget, they doubled the appropriations in all regional programmes for external aid, both for primary health care and primary education, not over and above but within the scope of the budget. Targets were set and extra staff were made available. It is of the utmost importance to our Socialist Group for the Commission to actually take steps now in its work programme for this year in order to instruct the EU delegations in the regions, and our counterparts, with whom we jointly do business, as well as our own service. We also want the Commission to make additional staff available for the purpose of acquiring expertise in health care and education, so that we can actually make rapid progress in this respect too. If the Commission takes this line, it will lead to a more results-orientated style of working, with less emphasis on the open-ended hoarding of budgets. It will mean that more effort will be made to achieve direct results in fields that are also extremely fundamental to development. It could be a fantastic signal for Europe to give out, i.e. that we are not just concerned about the fabric of society within our own borders, but also about what is happening overseas. I hope the Commission will deliver some sound results on that score this year.

Political group: PSE
Thank you very much, Mr President. Mrs McNally has come up with an interesting idea. She mentioned intelligent energy, in contrast to stupid energy, which, at times like these, reminds me of oil and of ‘stupid white men’, the title of a book by an author of whom some of us think very highly and who has won an Oscar. On the one hand, then, there are the stupid white men following a very definite principle of energy use – old and conservative – and we have an intelligent white woman, Europe and something else. Of course, there is a lot more to it than this. I believe that programmes such as this one give us a chance to make progress in formulating what is meant by the European way. I also think it smart to set up a European Intelligent Energy Agency, which has a chance of becoming what the USA’s Environmental Protection Agency was in the early 1970s in the eyes of the rest of the world. At that time, when there were as yet no and our environmental awareness in Europe was underdeveloped, it was access to information and the EPA’s pilot schemes that made the development of exemplary projects possible. That is something this agency could do here. Certainly, though, it is also smart to take on board the point that we should not be giving this agency yet another new bureaucratic superstructure, but finding a place for it where capacity already exists. I believe that intelligent energy also includes intelligent transparency about the use of resources. This new agency could set an example by really showing how it manages the funds allocated to it, and by the absence of what is a cause of justifiable criticism of the European institutions, by which I mean lack of transparency in the way funds are spent and used, in the knowledge that without transparency, there is no democracy.

Political group: PSE
Today, Mr President, we have voted on two reports on human rights. Even though it is in fact the issue of human rights that leads me to sit in this House, I voted against both of them. The reason for this is the fact that the issue has, unfortunately, been misused for ideological reasons. My criticism is primarily aimed at the way in which, with the van den Bos report, we have taken an unambiguous stand for religious freedom throughout the world, whilst at the same time treating the statement by Cardinal Ratzinger and the Catholic Church on same-sex partnerships as some sort of violation of human rights. This just shows the ideological misuse of the issue of human rights. European society is founded not only upon the inviolable dignity of the person, but also upon the inviolable dignity of marriage and the family, the defence of which is one of our tasks as politicians. Future reports on human rights should protect marriage and the family, rather than calling them into question.

Political group: PPE-DE
The trend of the votes on the recitals, paragraphs and amendments of the Herzog report is a perfect illustration, even a caricature, of the weight of liberalism and the single market, and of their precedence over all other considerations in modern-day Europe. Paraphrasing Jean de la Fontaine, it could be said of the large parties and political forces of the European Parliament, that ‘nobody died from them, but they affected everyone ‘ For a large majority in Parliament, and therefore much of institutional Europe, public service is at best a commodity like any other when it is not ‘a barrier’ to the happiness money brings. I therefore voted against this report without any uncertainty or hesitation.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as the last Member to speak in today's debate, it appears to me that there has been an unusual degree of unanimity, accompanied both by concern and a determination to bring about some sort of happy ending. Are we really in the worst stage of the Palestinian crisis or has the tragedy risen to its climax, to be followed by catharsis and a way out? Without wishing to judge, we must admit that Sharon's policy has even made victims of the Israelis: he has painted himself into a corner with a no-win policy. Perhaps Sharon dreams of a final solution to the Palestine problem, to complete the circle of one of the darkest periods in the history of Europe. But America must take its share of the blame for failing to understand that supporting no-win policies basically undermines its own policy and role. Are we Europeans merely bystanders here? No, we are not. I believe that the proposals made by both Commissioner Pattern and the High Representative, Mr Solana, and everything else said during the debate, are very serious proposals with the potential to become practical policy. Nor do I think that we, the European Union, are mere bystanders doomed, like Sisyphus, to roll the boulder to the top of the mountain and then watch others toss it back over the edge. We must, however, also turn our attention to other matters because now we have a crisis in the Middle East and tension on the borders of the European Union. And then we have another crisis within Europe. The Balkan crisis. In this sense, Mr Solana was right to comment on the state of flux around Albania, around Kosovo, around Montenegro and the area in general, where there is not so much a fragile equilibrium as an unstable equilibrium, which is far worse. The success of any endeavour which, in the Balkans in particular, has been undertaken mainly by the European Union, must be based on – and we must insist on – a fundamentally political solution, because that is where, in the final analysis, we shall be judged on our ability to manage crises peaceably and bring about political results.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we would like to have Belarus as one of Community Europe’s neighbours and, perhaps, one day, as part of it too. Although we may wonder to what extent some countries can become part of Europe, that problem does not exist where Belarus is concerned, for it is in Europe. However, the last assessment of the situation carried out by the Council of Europe a few months ago excludes the possibility of inviting Belarus to join its Parliamentary Assembly. From the point of view of democracy, nothing much has changed, and yet the European Parliament is patiently hoping for an initiative that can further the re-establishment of certain rights. At first, it might even be a case of agreeing on the meaning of individual definitions, for I sometimes have the impression that a dialogue is taking place between deaf people, between two parties who do not understand what the other means by the word ‘democracy’. It is true that there are many reasons why Belarus might want to attach itself to Russia, but it would be in its national interest to maintain a certain balance. The next local elections will, in any case, be measurable evidence of whether any progress has been made in the area of fundamental rights. The abolition of the death penalty, freedom of the press, of association, of religion: these are the minimum conditions, but how long will it take to achieve them so that dialogue can be resumed? In geopolitical terms it makes sense: sooner or later it will happen. An extremely high level of corruption, poverty and disorder catapulted Lukashenko to power in 1994, but his remedy was too brutal: he eliminated some of the corruption but his authoritarian tendencies were combined with the sort of dirigisme which had already led to the break-up of the Soviet Union, and there has been little change since then. Let us hope that some progress is made soon.

Political group: PSE
Mr President-in-Office, I understand from your reply that talks are in fact under way between the United States and the European Union. As for your assurances about human rights, I would have no trouble accepting them if the way in which the European Union interprets human rights in practice did not differ considerably from what the man in the street understands by human rights; if, helped by terrorism, the European Union were not building up a repressive, autocratic mechanism to be used against anyone who stands up against its policies. An article appeared in the English newspaper, the Guardian on 3 September, expressing concern about the fallout from these talks with the USA. If the Guardian is worried, Mr President-in-Office, we are right to be ten times as worried. I should like to ask you a specific question: what will be the national parliaments' and the European Parliament's input into these agreements and, on a more general note, what part will they play in ratifying these agreements?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we – and therefore I personally as rapporteur – agree with the request from the Group of the to keep, if possible, the debate on Thursday morning at 10 a.m. and to postpone the vote – which was conclusive at first reading – until the next session, that is to the part-session at the end of the month in Brussels. (Parliament decided to postpone the vote)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to congratulate the Swedish presidency on its success and also express my regret that the Irish referendum result overshadowed many of their achievements, particularly in the field of enlargement. The European Council in Göteborg was generous in response to our predicament and I welcome its willingness to help the Irish Government find a way forward. I regret that it is not going to be easy. With a little more effort by the political establishment in Ireland, a 'yes' vote could easily have been obtained but now that the referendum has taken place, many people, including supporters of the Nice Treaty, will be reluctant to overturn it. It also must be said that the recent remarks of Mr Prodi in the Irish media to the effect that enlargement can proceed even if Nice is not ratified, unfortunately adds to the confusion. However, my major concern arises because of the existence of a strong eurosceptic core at the heart of the Irish government. While the Taoiseach was speaking to our European partners inside the Council in an attempt to repair the damage inflicted on our reputation, his finance minister, Charlie McCreevy, was outside describing the Irish rejection of the Nice Treaty as a remarkable and healthy development. I wish to take the opportunity of warning the Council and the Commission to be careful, as Mr McCreevy's continued eurosceptic approach could well be an indication of his intention to provoke another row with the EU over Ireland's budgetary policy in the run-up to a possible autumn Irish general election. I hope that the ratification of the Nice Treaty proceeds successfully, and that when we revisit the issue in Ireland, we will have a different result.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I wish to inform Mr Varela Suanzes-Carpegna that these are the terms of the Conference of Presidents, but I see that the relevant services have already explained this to him. The idea – at the request of most group Chairmen – was that the four rapporteurs would speak first, and then the representative of the Commission would follow. This was what happened in the Conference of Presidents, at which I had the honour of representing you, Madam President. Mr Varela’s request is out of place.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I meant no disrespect to you or to Mr Rübig, who has produced an excellent report, or to the Commissioner, by being late, but, as my colleague has explained, it was completely outside my control. Unfortunately it is another incident in the ongoing saga of accessing Strasbourg. I am glad that a clear distinction has now been made between nuclear safeguards and nuclear safety and security. I would like to see the Safeguards Office getting all the resources it needs to continue to do its job to the fullest extent possible, particularly with accession countries coming in. I welcome very much Commissioner Palacio's indication on 23 April, and again here today, of her intent to submit a nuclear package, which I hope we can see this autumn. This will deal with the whole area of nuclear safety and security. Could I also ask her as a matter of form to include in that package the need for proper consultation and communication between neighbouring States within the European Union, including the accession States, so that concerns can be discussed in a proper way, in a proper consultative forum. Lord Inglewood of BNFL recently indicated that he would certainly take on board the concerns I expressed to him on this subject, in the same way that the concerns of the Austrians in relation to Temelin have been structured by the Commission. I would like that template to be used throughout the EU as part of the package of nuclear safety and security measures, so that there is a proper procedure and a proper forum to discuss real and perceived fears. I accept that maybe not all the fears are real, but even the perceived fears need to be dealt with before they get out of hand and become too politicised. If we have such a forum as of right, with the proper expertise there to listen to both sides, it will go a long way towards helping everyone to live in peace on this very vexed issue. I come from a State that is non-nuclear and against electricity being generated from nuclear power. I respect the rights of other Member States, but they must respect our right and listen to our concerns and act on them. We look to you, Commissioner, to put such a structure in place, so that a forum of this kind could perhaps be included in the promised nuclear package, which I welcome very much. I thank my colleague, Mr Rübig, for an excellent report.

Political group: PPE-DE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. – Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mrs Prets on her report and to thank her for her cooperation in respect of the opinion from the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. I can understand the concerns of the insurance industry. The proposal will bring considerable changes to its practices and at present it is uncertain as to how to go about implementing these changes. Understandably, industry never likes uncertainty. However, I do not understand industry's argument that the current use of gender to differentiate premiums and benefits is not discriminatory because it is based on objective factors. Even if it is the case that on average young men have more car accidents than young women, or that on average women live longer than men, this is not true of all individuals, and these individuals are disadvantaged accordingly. In any event, the existence of objective differences, whether between individuals or groups, is not of itself sufficient grounds for according them unequal treatment. There must be a sound political justification for doing so. I have to say that in the 21st century I do not believe that such a justification can be provided where the routine provision of goods and services to men and women is concerned, any more than it could be where other such socially constructed groupings were involved. If I speak with some feeling on the matter it is because, on several occasions in my own life, I have experienced the kind of discrimination that this directive is intended to prevent. I do not want to see new generations bearing the same scars. I would ask insurance companies to look to see whether the changes might not actually afford opportunities to them. I would not willingly purchase an annuity because I do not believe it would offer a financially advantageous way of arranging my affairs. Perhaps I am not the only woman who feels this way.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the day before yesterday saw the commencement of this trial in Cairo of these 50 men accused of homosexuality. We Liberals would like to protest strongly against this trial on several grounds. We always condemn discrimination and injustices against people on the basis of homosexuality, ethnicity, gender, religion, etc. What is more, homosexuality is not illegal according to Egyptian law. Even so, these men risk harsh punishment. In addition, they have already been through a first trial, as several colleagues have already pointed out. A second trial contravenes all legal principles. We Liberals would like to remind everyone of Article 2 of the EU-Egypt Association Agreement. We refer constantly to this article on respect for human rights. Is it not time, Commissioners, to take this article seriously and find the means to make it useable, allowing us, in certain cases, to bring countries contravening Article 2 to their senses or at least to implement sanctions against them? I am counting on the Commission to protest in the strongest possible terms against this trial.

Political group: ELDR