GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent report. Our health is, quite rightly, the responsibility of the Member States and I would not like to see a change in that practice. I would like to see more exchange of best practice at European level. I am delighted that all but one of my amendments were accepted in committee, but I would like to point out that the text in recital K is not quite correct. My amendment talked about long-term care, not long-term intensive care. I have taken it up with the services and they said that the mistake could be rectified at plenary. I hope that is going to be the case, because long-term care is not the same as long-term intensive care. I still think there is a problem in the last sentence, but I am sure the services can also rectify that. I was particularly pleased also that my amendment regarding the use of cage beds in psychiatric institutions and social care homes was passed, and that it was recognised that this was in contravention of all international standards regarding the care of people with mental health problems and/or intellectual disabilities. Let us hope now that this practice can be discontinued completely, across the EU and in the accession countries. There has been improvement since the Mental Disability Advocacy Centre report on this subject last year. Another of my amendments that was accepted – which I was pleased about –concerned the need to undertake more research projects at European level on various conditions that affect European citizens and, perhaps more importantly, for any information to be disseminated across the European Union. I hope the Commission might now look at the possibility of helping in that exchange of information, especially if the research has been funded by the EU, in fields such as age-related macular degeneration, for instance, which is the main cause of loss of sight in the elderly in the EU. There is much good work taking place, but no clear system set up to exchange research information. I have talked to the Commission already about the possibility of publishing results on the Internet, but I am sure the Commission could come up with some other ideas. I have only touched on a couple of issues of concern to me because of time constraints; Mrs Jöns' report has gone into many other areas. On behalf of the Group, I congratulate her on her work and commend the report to the House.

Political group: ELDR
I would like to congratulate Mrs Haug on her excellent work and say that I agree with her when she highlights job creation as a priority for the Union. The Committee on Fisheries does not want more money. We simply wish to be named in the guidelines, because what is not named does not exist, and fishing exists, and is even a common policy. Fishing is crucial to maintaining employment and the economy in the peripheral European regions which depend on it. This industry also generates numerous land-based jobs, in the processing industry and in the dockyards. The cheapest jobs are those which do not have to be created because they have not already disappeared. It is better to support activities that already create employment than to have to invest huge amounts, later on, in the creation of new industries. We in the Committee on Fisheries believe that the international fisheries agreements deserve explicit budgetary support, so that the Community fleet may continue its activities and the economies of the fishing regions do not reach crisis point. In the process of reaching an agreement we will therefore see to it that the Union’s support for fishing is consolidated and increased. During the current budgetary procedure we will also highlight our concern that fishing resources be conserved and working and safety conditions in that industry improved.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I think we have a huge responsibility after what has happened and our response needs to reflect the seriousness of these events. And that, I think, applies not just to us but to the Heads of State who have applied to become members of the European Union. That is why I should like, albeit reluctantly, to refer to the statements made by Mr Ecevit, who is trying to cash in on the terrorist incidents by levying accusations of terrorism against the Republic of Cyprus at a time when he, himself, is illegally occupying Northern Cyprus, as you quite rightly said during your visit to Athens.

Political group: PSE
A parliament can only function well if at least the following three conditions are met. First of all, it must be a recognisable reflection, constantly nourished by society, of the clashing views and interests in that society. Secondly, there must be sufficient opportunity to make this clash visible in the public debate, which is achieved most effectively if, before the decisions are taken, the Members can react to each other or can ask for clarifications by means of interruptions and a second round of debate. Thirdly, the electorate must have the certainty that Parliament itself can take initiatives, and takes the final decisions on legislation, budget and coalition forming by simple majority. Unfortunately, the European Parliament meets none of these criteria, a fact that is not altered by the proposed amendments to the Rules of Procedure. These amendments mainly relate to restricting speaking time, to time-consuming procedures for selecting more rigorously the amendments to be voted on and to opportunities for presidents, on their own initiative, to give the floor to backbenchers sympathetic to them. These changes benefit the two largest groups, but are disadvantageous to anyone who wants to show what alternative decisions are desirable and possible. As a result, the European Parliament remains a kind of senate that is far removed from the people, where the tenor of the meetings is the explanations of vote and the communication of faits accomplis.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr Secretary-General Annan, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr High Representative, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, this is a significant day in the history of the European Parliament, and the Group of the European People’s Party , extends a very warm welcome to you, Mr Annan. When, in the Conference of Presidents and in this House, we voted that you should receive the Sakharov Prize for 2003, we did so gladly and not merely as a matter of political judgment. Now, as we offer you our heartfelt gratitude, we remember Sérgio Vieira de Mello and the many who were killed by a murderous terrorist act in Baghdad, we remember the many who have laid down their lives in the service of the United Nations, and, to those members of their families who are here today, we extend our sympathy and express our solidarity. Those who work for the United Nations dedicate themselves to human rights and democracy, and so it is only right that the Sakharov Prize should be awarded to the United Nations. Today, we remember Andrei Sakharov, whose great intellectual and moral strength can be felt to this day by those who visit his simple grave in the Novodevichy cemetery outside Moscow, and our desire is that the Russian people may follow his example; that, in Russia and around the world, people may bring to life the ideals of Andrei Sakharov, that great physicist, philosopher and campaigner for human rights. Today, our thoughts are also with his widow, Yelena Bonner, who shared decades of exile with him and to whom our group awarded the Schuman Medal, and today we greet her in her simple and modest home in Moscow’s Ulitsa Skalova. We would have been glad of the presence of the Sakharov Prize laureates Leyla Zana und Oswaldo José Paya Sardiñas, who, along with others, are unable to be with us today. (Applause) Andrei Sakharov once said that the most important voice is the one that cannot be heard, and my hope for the people of Cuba is that they may be enabled to speak clearly. Although, Mr Secretary-General, there is much that could be said about immigration, which involves integration, we share the same values of human dignity, democracy and the rule of law, so, all things considered, we are taking the same road, and I hope that you will, as Secretary-General, see the day when the European Union, with a seat of its own, can defend these values in the Security Council and in the United Nations. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, on a point of order. I wish to inform the House of the news of the closure of a car factory in Luton in the United Kingdom, with the loss of many thousands of jobs. I am sure the House will be concerned to hear of this latest example of decline in industry in Europe.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Madam Commissioner, first may I express my regret at the delays in working on this portfolio last year because the Commission declined to accept our advice of splitting the proposals into two separate proposals for gas and electricity. I also regret that the timetable has now been compressed from May to March because of the Council's desire to have this proposal before it at Barcelona. I hope this will not be a case of 'legislate in haste and repent at leisure'. We strongly support the aims of the directive and the regulation. The present situation is a flawed and inequitable market. French and German utilities are able to buy UK power companies, yet it is impossible to have reciprocal opportunities to buy into EDF or acquire whole companies. The German market is almost as difficult to enter, despite so-called full competition. This must change. I recognise that the step-by-step approach is a realistic one: first all non-domestic consumers then domestic later, as a progressive opening, is a more orderly process. I have to regret that one rapporteur has chosen to introduce too much detail in amendments and tried to over-elaborate some of the measures, for example, the question of the detail demanded on energy bills. This is an unnecessary amount of detail. Finally, I would like to commend the proposed amendments on establishing a committee of European energy regulators so as to improve cooperation and coordination in implementing the regulation on cross-border trading.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President in Office of the Council, given your familiarity with the text of the Convention, I would like you to tell me if, in all honesty, you are aware of a more complete, more appropriate text serving as a basis for a successful conclusion than the text of the Draft Convention? I ask this question as you, like me, are well acquainted with the Draft Convention. I should also be grateful if you could enlighten me with regard to a question before us today – and not only here today, but also elsewhere – the famous Naples text of which so much is spoken and written. What exactly do we mean by ‘the Naples text’? Is it the text of the Council of Naples that was on the table in Naples or what remains of it after being sifted through the Brussels Summit? I should like you to clarify these two points for us with frankness and honesty.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I welcomed the timeliness and the quality of the action plan presented to us for implementing the European space policy. This policy was re-launched when the United States reworked its strategy and when the ESA and NASA reported exceptional successes that excited the world. Space policy is crucial for international cooperation in research, for the Lisbon strategy and for guaranteeing Europe’s independent access to space. The plan that we are discussing is of a horizontal nature in that it concerns many Community policies, from agriculture to communications. After the Galileo project we are awaiting the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security project. I share the desire to pool investment resources to achieve objectives that no country can achieve on its own, and I agree with the intention to take a more determined approach towards coordinating research, technological innovation and industrial policy. There are two issues, however, that I urge the Commissioner to take note of. The first concerns the repercussions, for the European programme, of the new strategy established by the most important space power in the world, with which we have strong ties in terms of collaboration. The second concerns the discrepancies between Europe’s ambitions and the resources needed to implement the most important part of the space programme, and this seems to be the issue that the White Paper has left open. The complex issues influencing this programme do indeed concern the constituent process as regards the competences for space and common defence, but also the political decisions, both national and Community, that are called for to make the European economy more competitive.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to welcome the Commissioner – I am sure that, as a Dane, he finds it particularly difficult to have his work held up by a very small amount of snow. I want to focus this morning particularly on the Economic Partnership Agreement negotiations which are now taking place between the EU and the ACP. 40 out of the 78 ACP countries are least-developed countries, 38 have very serious levels of poverty and several others are particularly vulnerable as small island and land-locked states. As you are well aware Commissioner, the ACP perceive these negotiations as involving not just the pursuit of neo-liberal ideologies in respect of trade but the importance, in addition, of having a clear understanding that the economic partnership agreement negotiations are as much about development as about the promotion of trade liberalisation. The structural transformation of ACP states into competitive economies capable of exploiting the opportunities which the relationship with Europe offers will require, as I know you acknowledged to us in the committee last week, a huge investment in capacity building, particularly in trade capacity building. I know there is an investment being made in that area now, but I would urge you, Commissioner, to monitor that very closely because I suspect that, as the negotiations go on, it will be necessary to devote extra resources to the ability of the ACP to deal with the regional trade arrangements and other aspects of the negotiations. As you know, there are severe supply-side restraints that they face as well. Eastern European countries are receiving billions of euros to upgrade food-processing standards before they join the EU. You know very well that the ACP will have great difficulty in meeting the phytosanitary and sanitary conditions that will be a necessary part of the future relationship. I trust that they will get at least as much support for their efforts to upgrade the processes that they have. Also, Commissioner, you are aware of the potential cost of reciprocity and the fact that, under their economic partnership agreement, the same level of commitment will be expected from the ACP as from the European side. I hope that you will take into account the difficulties that this will cause and that you will ensure that there are rigorous impact studies of the costs and the implications of reciprocity for ACP countries. (The President cut off the speaker)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, I am very grateful to the two introductory speakers for their references to the great vision and also to the problems that remain to be solved. There are still a number of stumbling blocks that we have to remove, and not all the forces in the Member States, or in the candidate countries – to whom reference has already been made – have been very helpful in this. The discussion of the Beneš decrees is certainly one of the stumbling blocks. Historians certainly judge these decrees in different ways, but I am obliged to the Commissioner for pointing out that the only issue of relevance to accession is that of whether they still to this day have discriminatory effects, that is, whether the legal systems contain provisions that go against the acquis communautaire and are still of relevance to negotiations today. Provisions of this nature must be removed along with their effects; I am very glad that this is something on which the Czech and Slovak governments now agree. We will not be helped to build a new Europe either by revising the Beneš decrees or by cementing them into the EU's treaties. Rather than getting bogged down in nationalistic squabbles, we should not lose sight of the vision of a great Europe. The 2004-2005 enlargement round will be the cause of much satisfaction in many of the candidate countries, but there will be disappointment in those that remain outside. It is worth considering whether we ought to give these countries not only greater financial help with the implementation of their reforms, but also a realistic – and I emphasise realistic – provisional date for their accession, subject to their making progress in the relevant areas. There is great fear, particularly on the part of Romania and Bulgaria, of being put on the shelf. Consideration will have to be given at the same time to adding new countries to the list of candidates, and I am at present thinking only of Croatia. With Turkey, on the other hand, we have to consider how to grant what it has asked for, describing this as a compensation for its help with the Cyprus issue, help that has, though, not yet made itself clearly visible. Here, too, it must be clear that a date for the beginning of negotiations with Turkey cannot be named in isolation from fulfilment of the Copenhagen political criteria. In light of the fact that the borders of a future Europe will become ever more visible, we must also, I believe, even now slowly start thinking about how even closer political and organisational ties can be forged with those states that I believe will remain outside the European Union – Russia, for example, or many of the Mediterranean states. For Europe does not consist of the European Union alone; there are other states with which we want to build up new and strong cooperation, with potential for the future, in order to maintain a strong European Union. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mrs President, Commissioner, in the current political situation there is no political alternative to enlargement supported by the Group of the , as our group chairman has already stated. The future of the European Union is not and should not be enlargement, contrary to what the President-in-Office of the Council said in his introductory speech. The future after 2004 of an enlarged Union is uncharted territory. The Union could be a consolidated free trade area, or else a supranational Union where objectives of sustainable development and social cohesion are the fundamental objectives of a reformed policy. If we fight for this second option, then the next Intergovernmental Conference in 2003–2004 will be the last chance for the Fifteen to correct the failures of Nice and assume their responsibilities so that a Union of 27 Member States can be governed democratically and effectively. The question is not, however, of a purely institutional nature: it is also a budgetary issue. If a policy of solidarity between the Member States is pursued, this means that, in the future, the Union’s financial resources will have to be increased for, in economic terms, the integration of the markets of the candidate countries with those of the Union has been taking place for 10 years at the cost of increasing territorial and social inequalities in the candidate countries. Current European aid is essential and alleviates the cost of the transition, but if we really want to preserve a model of European society based upon solidarity and negotiation between all players in a 27-State European Union, there needs to be a clear commitment from both sides to this objective that exceeds the commitment to incorporating the Community acquis and will oblige each of the 15 current members to provide additional aid. If we want enlargement to be a success whilst preserving our chances of an interdependent Europe, we must not, as Mr Verheugen rightly said, bury our heads in the sand. From this point of view, I am very shocked by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy’s rejection of the majority of the amendments tabled by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, after 11 September, we have every reason to redouble our commitment to multilateralism. Persisting with the Doha meeting and making it a success are, therefore, of considerable political importance. Of course, we cannot at this stage hope for the sea change that is required, but adapting, improving and consolidating the WTO system would at least be a good start. As supporters of the multilateral approach, we must fulfil this commitment. The criminals who destroyed the twin towers of the World Trade Center know the value of symbols. Making trade the focus of coexistence with other countries is a deeply reductive approach and directing world trade centrally is unacceptable. Multilateralism must be neither asymmetrical nor imperialist. Doha will not be Seattle, however. Civil movements have helped to make their leaders think, the southern countries are, with the welcome support of the Commission, playing an increasingly important role and the time when Carla Hills wanted to use a crowbar to open up other countries’ markets to her own will will soon be a thing of the past. Doha is not a sign of a new wave of liberalisations, but nor is it an agenda for development. It will be something vague between the two. An agenda will be negotiated there whose objectives will remain general. There has been no prior negotiation of the outcome, fortunately, and we approve of the principle of the Union’s mandate: to set a broad agenda, but more than just balancing liberalisation by means of rules, there is no getting away from the fact that we must try to resolve the contradictions between society’s choices and trade rules. The social issue is symbolic. The main front on which we need to fight is finance, and a Union which allows tax havens to flourish within its borders must put its own house in order. Nobody can claim, though, that trade has nothing to do with fundamental rights. The WTO may not be the place to produce social conventions, but it certainly does have a responsibility to ensure coherence. The implementation of the Marrakech agreements and the incorporated agenda on agriculture and services will be at the centre of the forthcoming round. The legitimacy of the trade interests of the South must be recognised but the problem will lie in preventing negotiations boiling down to a process of tough haggling over their interests and our own. The concerns of northern societies as of those of the South must lead to a change in trade rules and to break their monopoly that favours one group. With this in mind, we must accept that we will have to open the door to the renegotiation of certain rules, in particular, those concerning intellectual property. Lastly, although the democratisation of the WTO will certainly not be on the agenda, it is nevertheless clear that this round will not succeed if it is nothing more than a diplomatic battle between countries, even if the European Union is happy to play the honest mediator. Civil society must be involved; we must consult our citizens and take account of their criticism and their demands. This is the only way to ensure that democracy will penetrate the WTO.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as a Member representing the Balearic islands, I must acknowledge that what Mr Sturdy has said is true and, therefore, given that this is the Parliament that represents all European citizens, I would request that protection be afforded to these citizens, who are just as much citizens of the Balearics as the rest of us who were born there, who live there and who have Spanish nationality. I therefore ask the Presidency to send a written request to the regional authorities to help all these citizens to register, before 31 March, so that all European citizens are able to participate in these elections.

Political group: PPE-DE