GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too should like to begin by congratulating my fellow MEP, Mrs Jöns, on the value of her work and the quality of her report. It is a very comprehensive report. Her description of the situation, of the problems and of what is at stake is particularly exhaustive, and the rapporteur’s analyses are completely relevant. We are very pleased, particularly with the fact that the report calls upon the Member States to do away with inequalities in the area of health, especially those linked to socio-economic factors, gender or age. We support the criticism that patients have to bear an ever greater portion of the cost of health care, which penalises people on low incomes. We support the call for a detailed charter of patients’ rights, designed to bring about a high-quality health system in the short, medium and long term, based on solidarity. Like the rapporteur, we request special measures for the new Member States which, for the most part, experience situations more critical than those in the Fifteen. Finally, I am, like the members of the Confederal Group of the in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, hostile to any further privatisation of health care. As far as I am concerned, I wish, by way of summary, to say some very simple things. Where health is concerned, it is perhaps necessary, in a number of sectors, to spend better by spending differently. That is something I do not deny. If, however, the desire is to treat and cure serious illnesses that are rapidly becoming more widespread, particularly cancer; to deal much better too with rare, orphan diseases, as they are termed; to confront the needs arising from the ageing of our societies’ populations; to provide better psychological and human support to patients; and to be better at developing all public research, including research into surplus embryonic stem cells, which raises new hopes, particularly in connection with illnesses linked to ageing; then, yes, if the desire is to attain all these objectives, more budgetary resources are needed. It is a need no doubt opposed to other state and European priorities and, above all, to the rigour of the monetary stability criteria. Finally, I would draw attention to the fact that the poor in our societies, who are too often excluded from care, must never be forgotten. Nor must we forget the poor countries of the world, which do not even have the minimum of health care and whose people, as a consequence, have much shorter life expectancies than ourselves. I shall conclude with a saying that, familiar though its sentiments undoubtedly are, needs constantly to be recalled if it is to be put into practice. If I remember rightly, it is to the effect that quality, not length, of life is what really matters in the end.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, this report deals with the balanced participation of men and women in the decision-making process by analysing the different situations and the lack of participation of women. We always point out that we women make up half of the population and therefore we need greater participation so that women can feel duly represented. However, it is important to point out that the incorporation of women into public life and the labour market in prominent positions is very recent. And we should also point out that it has happened thanks to the efforts of women themselves, who have had to overcome enormous difficulties. It is a long road along which we must continue to make progress, until such time as it is so normal to find women in the positions which have always been occupied by men that reports such as this are no longer necessary. Women need support, they need more training, more convenient hours of work and sufficient help so that they can reconcile their professional lives with their family lives. Greater participation by women means improvements in democracy and the full recognition of their rights on equal terms with men. We agree with the majority of the report – and we would like to support it totally – with the exception of the specific reference to establishing fixed obligatory quotas, because that could create added problems for women themselves. We argue for more balanced and higher-level participation by women than there is at present, particularly in certain countries of the European Union. The European network of equality committees of the national parliaments, which already exists, should be strengthened, because it is a very appropriate forum for the exchange of experiences and of good practice. Women must be involved in all areas – not just in the defence of their own rights – by participating in the resolution of everyday problems, in the institutions and on company management boards, in unions and in social and cultural organisations.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I would like to come back to a less amusing issue than the exchange which we have heard during the last five minutes. I wish to ask whether there have been any further developments concerning the application for the removal of Mr Dell'Utri's immunity since the last Parliamentary session. After all, since 8.30 this morning, we have been deprived of the other case, to the great regret of our colleagues in the , so I am told. I would like to ask you this: since the last Parliamentary session, have you received any documentation from the Spanish authorities concerning the application for the removal of Mr Dell'Utri's immunity? If so, have you already forwarded this documentation to the committee responsible? If not, do you intend – now that a further month has passed since May – to take any initiatives to request the Spanish authorities no longer to block the process initiated by the Spanish judiciary?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, today, we are debating the vitamin directive at second reading. I must say that I am pro-European and in favour of harmonisation, but not in this manner. I am pleased that the majority of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy are willing to grant producers of vitamin tables 36 months instead of 18 months in order to prove that their products are safe. While this is not a problem for large pharmaceutical producers, it does cause problems for small businesses, especially financially. In principle, it is wrong that they should have to prove that their products are safe while these may have been on the Dutch, British and Irish markets for dozens of years. I am in favour of proving the safety of new vitamin tablets, but not of the old tablets. The Commission, the majority of the Council and Mrs Roth-Behrendt are saying, in fact, that all the old tablets are unsafe. This is why I shall be voting for rejection of the common position. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
It is good to hear that Africa is on the Portuguese Presidency’s list of priorities. Indeed, Europe carries considerable historical responsibility in this respect and it would be really irresponsible to leave the black continent in the care of the Americans. I hope that the Euro-African Summit will take place and that the Union will, at last, manage to adopt a common position regarding the conflict in Central Africa. It is only logical that Portugal’s attention should be mainly focused on Angola. I would, however, like to make some comments concerning the statement on the Angola war, in which the rebel movement UNITA is held to be the main culprit. It is indeed correct that Savimbi wrecked the first peace agreement when he lost the elections in 1992. It is also correct that UNITA has used the period of demilitarisation to re-arm itself and is responsible for gross human rights violations in the current war. We need to continue to come down hard on this. But this does not put Angola’s leaders in the clear. After all, it was the government that, in late 1998, declared all-out war on the rebels and did not spare the citizens in this war either. It is also a fact that the government also re-armed itself on a massive scale during this period of peace. Human rights organisations such as Human Rights Watch and Global Witness have accused the government of large-scale corruption, the use of billions of oil dollars for military deals, involving – would you believe it – Portugal among others, and of repressing the opposition and the press. Africa's second largest oil-producing country has one of the world’s worst socio-economic indicators with undernourished children and cholera epidemics reaching the very heart of the capital. Europe must continue to demand a dialogue without starting to think along military lines. Portugal could play a key role in this, not by taking a unilateral stance but by reminding both parties of their responsibilities. In this way, a ray of light can finally reach the dark Angolan tunnel.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should first like to thank the rapporteur for his work and also for his efforts to reconcile diverse positions, about which we have heard today. I think that the White Paper gives European transport policy a great opportunity to draw the right conclusions from the ruthless analysis that it contains. This must not be to do nothing; we cannot hide our heads in the sand, as this might well make a transport policy meltdown inevitable. The analysis is harsh and cruel and, Mrs Peijs, we have to take it on board: every day there are 7 500 km of traffic jams on Europe's roads; between 1990 and 1998, CO2 emissions increased by 15%; the amount of freight transported by rail has declined in recent years from 21% to 8.5% and between 1990 and 1996 alone, ten football fields' worth of new motorways were constructed every day. We simply cannot go on like this and a sea change in transport policy is the only answer. That is why I say that the analysis in the White Paper no longer has anything to do with genuine mobility, which we want, or with a more environmentally friendly transport policy. That is why we need a radical rethink, above all on freight transport, where we need a move to rail and waterways. This is therefore about a shift to environmentally friendly modes of transport and about making sustainability our basis and our yardstick. Economic growth and transport growth must not be taken as givens either, because as transport politicians we actually also need to consider whether it is also possible to cut some traffic out altogether. In my view the White Paper tends to neglect this aspect. I believe that the Commission has drawn the right conclusions from this analysis and that it has initiated many good measures. We have made substantial progress in rail policy and we have also made progress on maritime safety, not least – unfortunately – thanks to the Erika and the Prestige. One further very complicated area is still missing and that is internalising external costs. Put into plain language, this means that not all of those who travel on the roads, by rail or on water pay the same price for what they actually use. That is why I hope that a serious proposal will be forthcoming from the Commission very soon – that we will then discuss in detail – so that we can guarantee that all modes of transport bear a fair cost burden, based on true and transparent costs. My final point, Commissioner, is one that you addressed in your speech earlier. Enlargement is nearly upon us and I think that we need to do all we can to avoid repeating the same mistakes or again adopting the same unfortunate transport policies that we have seen implemented in the Member States over the last 30 or 40 years. We must not repeat these mistakes with the new Member States. That is why I believe that you have a very considerable responsibility to avoid these mistakes with the new Member States and also to work with them to put in place, at an early date, a good and fair European transport policy. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as there is so little time, two very short questions. First, the reservation of the British and Dutch Governments up to now has already been referred to. I know how convincing Mr Patten and Mr Verheugen can be, so I assume that the people in The Hague and in London also listen to them. May I assume for the time being that negotiations with Croatia will not start as long as the Stabilisation and Association Agreement has not been ratified? To be certain, I would like to put this question to the Commission. Second, I am pleased that the chief prosecutor, Mrs Del Ponte, is positive now, but it seems to me important that she also remains so in the future. Is the Commission willing to recommend that this very specific tribunal, the chief prosecutor herself, continues to be involved in the future with monitoring Croatia's cooperation with this tribunal?

Political group: Verts-ALE
The European Union has succeeded in one aspect. In the consciousness of the inhabitants of the 15 Member States, every citizen of a Member State is free to visit the territory of another Member State and to stay there for a long period of time or even undertake paid work there. Virtually nobody believes that there are still rules which seriously restrict that right. It is therefore quite ridiculous that we are today still discussing the circumstances under which such stays can be permitted and for how long, and what the rights of same-sex partners or unmarried cohabitees of a different nationality are. What we seem to be doing today is restricting freedoms that already exist instead of broadening them, mainly in order to exclude people from social security for the first four years. We are constantly arguing for greater mobility of labour, which would entail Europeans, like Americans, being willing to move thousands of kilometres for paid work. People do not want this kind of pressure at all; what they want is the freedom they thought they already had to make the decision themselves to live and work abroad. I am voting for this regulation because it reduces existing restrictions and excludes the expulsion of people on account of illness or an accident.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Wynn for an excellent report and say that I fully support his ideas on amending the Financial Regulation. The Supplementary and Amending Budget before us includes two important matters: the new basis for collecting the own resources, and carrying over last year’s surplus to cover this year’s budget. The collection cost for Traditional Own Resources is increasing from 10% to 25% and the value added charge is falling from 1% to around half a per cent. The change is based on the new Council decision, which has only just been ratified. It will particularly benefit the EU’s net contributors. Germany’s annual contribution will fall by around EUR 847 million, that of the Netherlands by EUR 505 million, and that of Sweden and Austria by around EUR 140 million. Italy’s contribution will increase by approximately EUR 757 million and that of France by EUR 458 million. The decision shows how sensitive an issue EU contributions are in terms of internal policy, because they only represent around 1% of GDP. A politically harder question is last year’s unused appropriations, which, according to the explanatory statement, amount to the enormous sum of EUR 18 billion, or 20% of the entire budget. Unused appropriations for Structural Funds alone amounted to EUR 10.5 billion, or 32% of the total. Last year EUR 6.5 billion of these funds remained unused. The reason for this underutilization is first and foremost Commission bureaucracy. It is difficult to put decisions into effect. The procedure whereby decisions are taken is confused and vague. The entire process lacks any clear approach or personal accountability. Documents lie around buried under the official machinery and nobody cares about, or takes the responsibility for, delays with regard to decisions. If the budget were so poorly implemented in any Member State the government would fall straightaway. The Commission must therefore really make more of an effort.

Political group: ELDR
I thank the honourable Council representative for that unusually clear reply. I am happy with this answer, as I think it is important. I would still like to ask, perhaps with my Swedish hat on, why the Swedish Security Police has systematically videoed peaceful anti-EU demonstrators in demonstrations where no incidents whatsoever occur. Is this in line with the usual freedom of speech and right to demonstrate?

Political group: GUE-NGL
I am alarmed to hear the Commissioner's conclusions because it certainly does not seem that the trophy hunting to which I referred is being done with the aim of conservation at all. I logged on to a website this afternoon, which would have given me the opportunity to go to Tanzania. It offers the 'discerning sportsman' the ultimate hunting experience: large buffalo, lion, water buck, very rare East African sitatunga, leopards, antelopes, etc. My information is that in the last six years British people have been abroad and shot at least 40 African elephants, 32 leopards, 18 polar bears, six hippos – I could go on. Worldwide, this is something like over 3 800 African elephants, over 2 600 rare leopards and 9 000 bears. These are not being slaughtered in the interests of conservation, or with any reference to conversation in the areas. It is trophy hunting: people who go out and shoot big game and come home proudly but sickeningly with a trophy of the head of a rare animal. Would the Commissioner think again, and would she agree to meet me to go through some of these statistics, to see some of the evidence and to put in place a ban on the import of CITES-listed animals into the European Union?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I must congratulate the organisers of today's debate on their inventiveness. Having failed to find any other excuse to regurgitate their slander of the Cuban people, they remembered the anniversary of the decisions by the courts which sentenced agents of US imperialism and decided to celebrate it. However loud you attack Cuba, my dear fellow Members, you cannot deny the fact that Cuba is the only free country on the American continent, the only country where the people take authority into their own hands. That is why it has endured exclusion, threats and invasion. That is why the United States of America and the European Union want to overturn the Cuban revolution. If, therefore, you are truly interested in the people of Cuba and in human rights, organise a debate on its long-term exclusion or on the five Cuban patriots who are rotting in gaol in Miami, without even being able to see their families, because they acted against the terrorism which is striking their country.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, naturally we are very concerned about the situation in Kosovo. You will understand that we are keen to keep this text. The European Union is spending an enormous amount of money on the situation in the Solomon Islands and Fiji, and even Papua New Guinea. We hope that these countries will retain their political stability but unfortunately, the situation over there is taking a turn for the worse. This is why we think, due to the topicality and not on account of the content per se, it is necessary for the European Parliament to send out a signal. We have always stressed prevention. The entire region is in a state of disarray, which requires the greatest care and concern from the entire European Parliament. This is why I would like to call on the MEPs to continue caring about Kosovo and Serbia. We can return to this at some later stage, but for the sake of topicality, let us focus on Fiji, the Solomon Islands and the Pacific Ocean region for now and say something of significance about them.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Mr Cashman, let there be no mistake, my group also feels that your report is a major step forwards in comparison with the Commission’s report. There are fewer exceptions and it gives Member States the option of retaining their own national, more far-reaching legislation. But there are also points of criticism and I would like to highlight one of them. It relates to the announcement in our report of the so-called ‘select committee’, the committee of inquiry. And just remember, what we are talking about here is a ‘select committee’ of the European Parliament. A small group of MEPs who may be able to gain access in the future to secret military documents. My problem, and that of my group, is that this provision for parliamentarians is incorporated in a provision which should be about accessibility to the public, i.e. to the citizens. It is totally unacceptable, Mr Cashman, for us to get a good deal out of all this ourselves where access to documents is concerned, but to then leave the citizens out in the cold on that very point. I would remind you that this is not an imagined danger because Parliament has decided to lodge an appeal against the Solana decision. But at the same time, it has said that whether or not we go ahead with this case depends on the progress of the negotiations as regards the select committee. In other words, as I see it, a link has been established – erroneously so – between the rights of parliamentarians and the rights of the public. I would therefore urge the rapporteurs to delete any reference to the rights of parliamentarians from the provision concerning public access to documents, and I call upon all my fellow delegates to make very sure that their interests are not played off against those of the public. IN THE CHAIR: MR WIEBENGAVice-President

Political group: Verts-ALE
The explanatory statement sets out our justified concerns regarding this important issue, which affects the health of soldiers involved in operations in difficult areas. The local populations involved naturally have a vested interest in this, especially in relation to the necessary criteria for the social, economic and environmental reconstruction of the affected areas. In its entirety, therefore, the resolution is fair and I fully support it. However, as it stands, paragraph 6 goes too far, as it stands, in calling upon NATO member states to propose a moratorium, as the precautionary principle is included in the draft which urges NATO to consider other types of weapons until the results of the enquiry on depleted uranium are published. Since I am unable to support paragraph 6, I have therefore decided to abstain from voting on the whole text.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I thank you for your answer which supplements what Commissioner Patten said yesterday on the subject. Yet, the sum of EUR 378 million you mentioned had been given in 1999, was proved by the facts to be quite insufficient to create even rudimentary civilised conditions in Kosovo, especially where the provision of health services is concerned. Mr President-in-Office, do you not think that the very fact of increased child mortality is an abomination for the continent of Europe, a shameful thing, which should motivate us all, so that the aid we provide becomes more effective and more generous? Of course, the situation was not idyllic, even before the bombardments, anything but, I should say. However, since NATO’s intervention, there has been a very clear deterioration in the natural and human environment. So, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, is it not a moral obligation that we should try to create civilised conditions for the long-suffering inhabitants of Kosovo, and above all, keep our promises to them?

Political group: PSE