GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Rocard is calling on the Commission to define a framework for basic statutory health insurance systems in a Green Paper. The logic of this is that all health care not included in this basic insurance has to be covered by private supplementary health insurance. That means that the present statutory health insurance system, which has, up to now, been based on the principle of social solidarity, will be reduced to an 'à la carte' health system. The public would then have to invest additional and ever greater amounts in private supplementary health insurance schemes in order to pay for costly treatment that has, thus far, been covered by statutory health insurance systems. For example, someone who is chronically ill but who has only a small income will, in future, accordingly find it very difficult to afford the treatment they need. This simply amounts to dismantling public services and it implies turning our backs on the principle of equal health care for all based on need. We reject this socially unacceptable reform. Article 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights calls for the establishment of a universal right of access to preventative health care and for a high level of health protection to be defined and put into practice. On this basis, the Commission should take the initiative and create solid cornerstones by way of guidelines for the Member States' health systems. This would enable the EU to lead the way by creating a social Europe and a high standard of health care for all, regardless of income. Rules concerning the coordination of private supplementary health insurance systems in the EU make sense as long as they involve guarantees of freedom of movement for individuals and employees. We also support the call for a ban on genetic testing or medical examinations leading to selection on the basis of risk. Supplementary health insurance schemes must provide protection against the risk of bankruptcy, insolvency and fraud, but should not serve as an excuse for limiting the range of services provided by statutory health insurance. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
As Liberals, we always put the individual at the heart of all political decisions. In her report, Mrs Jöns addresses the subjects of health care and health services which, in different ways, have a big effect upon individuals in their daily lives. She addresses many important aspects of health care and the health services, which we too, of course, consider to be of great importance to the population of Europe. We nonetheless believe that responsibility for health care and health services must remain as close to the user as possible. In order to obtain the best adapted health care and health services, we believe that responsibility must lie at national, rather than EU, level. We have therefore chosen to vote against this report.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the aims of this report on improving road safety and guaranteeing minimum standards of health and safety for all road transport drivers are obviously worthwhile, but these goals need to be related to reality, for example their impact in peripheral and remote areas such as the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. I have received many letters expressing a degree of alarm about the possible consequences of this proposal. For example, a haulage company in Arran, not the most remote of Scotland's islands, pointed out that many hours are spent on ferries to and from the mainland. This is an issue which may adversely affect tourist travel to, as well as from, areas like Scotland. A coach operator in Glasgow is of the view that if the Hughes proposals are fully implemented, mainland European coach operators may regard Scotland as a destination too far. In the case of Scotland's Western and Northern Isles, two or three ferry crossings may be required before reaching Scotland's mainland, often landing in areas very remote from the ultimate destination. The report's conclusion also refers to achieving a level playing field with other transport sectors already covered. The reality, though, in much of rural and island Scotland is that no alternative to road transport exists. Indeed, a former Shetland Islands MEP was fond of pointing out that the nearest mainline railway station to Shetland is in fact Bergen. Scotland's road transport sector is already being penalised financially by the UK government through punitive taxation on fuel. Some aspects of this working time proposal potentially threaten the already fragile viability of road transport. Therefore I cannot fully support the more restrictive proposals in this report.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to take this opportunity to wish you, the Bureau and all Members, a good transition into the new year.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, this answer is certainly gratifying. The statements made by the Commission’s representative, Richard Wright, have certainly been interpreted with some special purpose in mind on both sides. Now, however, the matter is evidently going to be raised at the next EU – Russia summit in November. Before then, how will the issue be dealt with by the Council and what sort of procedure will such strategic decisions as these go through within the Council? In other words, how will the Commission proceed with the Council in this matter before November?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr van den Bos is to be congratulated on his work, but the trouble with a wide-ranging report like this is that it eventually includes everyone's pet hobby-horse and the key messages may be obscured. It is a cliché now to state that human rights are indivisible. But I am not convinced that the human rights of mass murdering terrorists or those that aid and abet them in any way deserve the same consideration as those of decent law-abiding citizens. We are reminded that in the fight against terrorism our democracies must take care not to abuse civil liberties and human rights. This is, of course, true, but equally, we must not allow human rights to become a political weapon in the terrorist armoury. It is the terrorists and their apologists that are the biggest abusers of the human rights of our citizens. It is very easy for us to wring our hands over all the human rights abuses around the world. To my mind, the European Union should focus more precisely on some achievable objectives where it has leverage. It should concentrate action on a few areas where there is the possibility of getting results and then act with consistency and determination. I think of Burma – on which I shall speak tomorrow – and Zimbabwe, where millions of people are suffering under Mugabe's tyranny, a situation shamefully tolerated and encouraged by leaders in some African countries in the region. Resolutions of this Parliament have too often been ignored by the Council. Some countries have tried to exploit the situation to their own advantage. Instead there should be a consistent, coherent approach based on a clear strategy to remove Mugabe's boot from the neck of his people. It could be done. Corrupt and brutal governments in failed states are usually the main source of human rights abuse of millions of the world's most disadvantaged people. As British Conservatives, we are insistent that, in return for enhanced development assistance, recipient countries should implement their side of the bargain, namely good governance, the rule of law and respect for human rights. Maybe then we would have some progress.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to inform my fellow Members who are streaming out of the Chamber that I voted against the Costa report. I did so quite voluntarily, because I pressed the wrong button. I am absolutely convinced that this compromise is not a sound compromise. The fact that those concerned felt it would be better to allow a free-for-all rather than conclude this compromise speaks volumes: a free-for-all, in practice, is better than this compromise. I hope that during the discussions on the directive on road charging in the coming weeks and months, we will pursue the channels and utilise the available opportunities to establish the safeguards for the health of local communities in sensitive areas, such as narrow valleys, that are necessary to meet current standards. I would therefore ask the House to provide its assistance and support in connection with the directive on road charging as well.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, my name appears as a signatory to various amendments on this report. I would like to assure the House that I have signed no amendments. I have not joined the Italian delegation for this occasion.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President-in-Office, thank you for such a comprehensive answer to seven questions. I would like just briefly to follow up one aspect, which I do not think you really touched on. What ideas and proposals have you got to continue the process of integration into subsequent EU presidencies? Given the momentum of the Cardiff process and the fact that this is all beginning to happen now, it is going to be quite a lengthy process and is not going to happen overnight. I would be interested to know what provisions you are making for the future.

Political group: PSE
Thank you, Mr President. My question relates to the Media Plus Programme 2001-2006. The elections for the European Parliament had a turnout, unfortunately, of less than 50%. This programme should make provision for a focus on information and, more importantly, for a focus on training for journalists on the subject of the European Union. I think that there is an increasingly urgent need to maintain good contacts with the public. We have seen from the example of the WTO that European broadcasters could have been represented much more intensively and that it is important for us to be up to date in media reporting if we want to play a leading role in the world. Which is why I am interested in knowing if it would be possible to invite journalists here from Europe and the rest of the world in order to explain our work to them and show them the advantages of European Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
The MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece voted against the resolution, not of course because we are against aid to Iran, but because the text combines it in an undisguised and vulgar manner with political coercion. The imperialists of the ΕU hold nothing sacred; they have no compassion in the face of human suffering and misfortune. However well we know this, we cannot but get angry when we read texts like today’s, especially when signed by all the political groups. In return for the EUR 2.3 million which the ΕU is giving (crumbs compared with the 31.3 million dollars needed for the first three months), it is asking for everything from Iran: implementation of the additional protocol to the NPT, a dialogue on respect for human rights, faster reforms etc. We refer all those deluding themselves about the humane face of the ΕU to point 12 of the resolution, which states that 'the solidarity shown by the international community is also an expression of support for those in Iran who are committed to keeping the country on the path towards further democratisation'. Nor does the resolution fail to advertise the 'generosity' of the American President. We are the last to support the Iranian regime. However, solidarity should be in the direction which the people of Iran want and not in the direction the imperialists want. ***

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy deplores the fact that the action plan for the financial markets does not take into account the problems which industry, small and medium-sized businesses in particular, is facing with regard to financing cross-border activities. Many businesses, ranging from small businesses in border areas to large multinationals, would like to treat their accounts as one national account. For example, they would like to use funds in their euro account in country A to settle an account in debit in country B. In this way, they would pay less interest. Existing legislation, however, prohibits or hinders this type of cash management technique. The world of banking has already driven this problem home to you on numerous occasions. On behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, I would now like to ask the Commissioner whether it would be possible to set up a forum group which carries out market research into the legal and fiscal obstacles for businesses, SMBs, in particular, when they finance their cross-border transactions within the euro zone, in order to solve this problem. I would appreciate a reply to this.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, no one, particularly not the Group of the , is calling into question the historic opportunities linked to enlargement. It is exciting, it is fantastic, but this window of opportunity also implies a need to carry out reforms. If we do not do so for enlargement, we shall be placing Europe at risk. We shall run the risk of producing a chaotic Europe which will place enlargement at risk. In addition, Mr President, do not tell us that the principle of direct payments to agriculture is fair, because it is an unjust principle and it must be reformed. That does not mean that it is not necessary to help farmers, but it means that we must have structural aid for rural development, that we must follow a policy of sustainable agriculture, something which we have not done for years. We failed to reform agriculture in Berlin. We failed. We failed to carry out the reforms. That does not mean that we are against enlargement, quite the contrary, but we must make the granting of aid subject to certain social and ecological conditions, which we are not doing. That does not mean that we should spend less money. We had a financial framework in Berlin, and we reduced it. We could invest in the countries which are applying for accession, but we have not done so, because of the selfishness of the rich countries of the European Union such as Germany, France or Spain. Everyone says that they are in favour of enlargement, but when it comes to paying the price of solidarity, political selfishness rears its head. We are not telling lies here. These are the difficulties which you will come up against in Seville, the same difficulties that we encountered in Berlin on the subject of fisheries. The thing that annoys me, frankly, is that everyone says yes to enlargement, but when it comes to paying the necessary price of solidarity, in other words the price of implementing reforms to the way in which the European Union functions, then we are much more pedestrian than in our historic, Sunday-best speeches. I do not want enlargement to be a political undertaking reserved for Sunday-best speeches, while on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday we pursue a policy which is opposed to enlargement. That is why I say, and why I defend the idea, that in the window of opportunity described by the Commissioner, there is no mention of the need to complete the necessary reforms of the European Union so that the enlargement of the Union to twenty-seven countries can be made to work. That is what we, the , are defending, because we are keen supporters of enlargement, and keen supporters of internal reforms to the European Union, so that enlargement can work. That is our task, and we have not yet completed it.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, President Lincoln said you can fool some of the people all the time, all the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. What is currently happening in the aftermath of the Irish vote on the Nice Treaty is unacceptable by any standards of Western democracy. A Member State, under the provisions of the Treaty, has sounded out its people on the conclusion of Treaty changes. They have for a number of reasons declined these changes. This result cannot be ignored, either on the basis of a lower-than-normal turnout – what price legitimacy? – or because some people feel that the only good referendum result is a positive one. As the EU moves towards enlargement, we must not suggest to countries waiting at the door of the European Union that democracy and the rule of law can simply be overruled, by tacitly encouraging the Irish Government to hold another referendum sometime in the future. No tinkering around with additional protocols will convince the sceptical public to vote in favour of Treaty changes which are difficult to explain and bring nothing of real benefit to improve the effective operation of the European Union. There is only one way to reassure public opinion and maintain the vital goal of EU enlargement. The Nice Treaty must in time cease to exist. In these circumstances no treaty in these circumstances is better than a bad treaty. Instead we now urgently need to hold a genuine, substantial debate about the future of the European Union. The idea of a non-binding convention, to which other speakers have referred, is an idea whose time has now come. This process will only be successful, however, if all European citizens are involved and consulted on these essential issues. By the end of 2003 at the latest, the national parliaments should then be able to ratify either the relevant provisions of the Nice Treaty or those of the convention. Should the European Council not follow this course and be seen to be trampling on the democratic procedures in small Member States, this will only serve to further alienate a European public which is genuinely in search of more information. Europe and its institutions can only be built with the long-lasting support of its peoples.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, one other brief point. I must respect the fact that we have just deferred the report by Mr Hernandez Mollar by a majority, but I would ask that we refrain in the future from simply changing the agenda between two reports during the vote without any speakers for or against and without thinking through the consequences. It violates the Rules of Procedure and should not happen again. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Outwardly, Mr Galeote Quecedo's report seems very reasonable, but on closer examination, we get a rather different picture. If the proposals were pursued, we would have another building block in the construction of a European State. There are many points of detail in the report which are particularly controversial, not least the idea of European Union embassies and the suggestion that the European Union should have 'coordinated representation in international bodies such as the UN'. The implication of this is that the United Kingdom and France should give up their seats in the Security Council and make way for an EU representative. I am alarmed at the anti-United States rhetoric which we have heard from a number of speakers, and at some of the other outbursts from other Members. This is hardly the moment for the Commission to be encouraged to embark on yet another ambitious development of its role. The Commission's external assistance programmes account for nearly EUR 10 billion this year, and the priority task of the Community delegations is to administer these programmes properly and efficiently. Mr Patten has just made reference to this. In his communication on the reform of external assistance, Mr Patten recognised, and I quote, 'acute staff shortages have had a direct and negative impact on the speediness and quality of EC aid delivery'. He said that there is an urgent need to focus activities on core tasks and that additional staff needs will be concentrated in the area of project and programme implementation, in particular within delegations. The clear conclusion is that the most important role of delegations is the administration of external assistance, not to try and run some additional diplomatic tasks. Management personnel is what we need in the delegations. There is no recognition of this in the Galeote Quecedo report. Yes, the Commission needs to recruit a different sort of personnel. Yes, it needs to give them improved, specialist training, but not for some new-fangled diplomatic service, but to get the external assistance programmes on the right footing.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I advocate here the position adopted by Parliament at first reading. We wanted to safeguard the voluntary and unpaid donation of cells and tissues and ban the trade in unmodified cells and tissues, while at the same time protecting industrial activity in this area. The Council wanted to abrogate Parliament’s position on non-payment, suggesting it was an ethical question outside the competence of the EU. In my opinion it would be a big mistake to exclude ethical issues from EU decision-making, especially when we talk about a Community which likes to call itself a community of values. Besides, ethical issues rarely arise in isolation in some moral vacuum. They are ethical for the very reason that they have an effect on people’s health, for example, as in this case. Here we arrive at a key policy issue in which Parliament’s work, under the leadership of my colleague, Peter Liese, is extremely important. A certain Italian film director – if in honour of Italy’s presidential term, coming to its end as it is, I may return once again in this House to the subject of Italian films – said that the way you define the angle of view is an ethical choice. Ethical issues cannot be passed over, because that in itself is an ethical choice. I, who had an education in philosophy, feel compelled to say this. We also have a responsibility for how the rest of the world imitates our practices. If we allow trade in human body parts we have to bear in mind that the developing countries will follow Europe’s example. This sort of commercialisation will lead to exploitation, and, moreover, to increased risk. The approach chosen by the Council also risks accusations of inconsistency. Several Member States of the European Union have signed a Convention on bioethics which categorically prohibits the financial exploitation of the human body and its parts. Our rapporteur’s conclusion is well argued. The legal basis of the Directive is Article 152 of the Treaty on European Union, which deals with health matters, but all the ‘ethical issues’ addressed by Parliament are also linked to protecting the health of donors and recipients. Any donation made in dubious circumstances, for example in response to financial pressure, is also a danger for the recipient of cells and tissues. This view is also widely shared within the Council.

Political group: PPE-DE