GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, in 1994, ten years ago, the International Conference for Population and Development was held in Cairo, where a wide spectrum of population and development objectives were identified. The action programme was well balanced and proved to be a solid basis for action, predominantly on account of the broad basis that was created at the conference. This also gave a tremendous boost to the millennium development objectives that were subsequently formulated. The past decade has done nothing to make the Cairo objectives less important or less topical. Regrettably, the situation is still not what it should be. Less than half of the agreed financial objectives for donor countries have been met. The position of women has hardly improved in most countries. Participation in primary education, particularly for girls, is way behind the objectives. Far from AIDS being driven back, the progress of the epidemic has not been stemmed. Basic health care and reproductive health care still require major investments. I am pleased that the assessment of Cairo is on the agenda today. However, it is unfortunate, in my view, that this is not taking place in the same spirit as that in which the conclusion was reached ten years ago. The report as it is before us is only an assessment of part of Cairo, while there is still so much to be done in other areas. In my opinion, the report does not do any justice to the programme's generally supportive and broad scope. The report is far too much focused on the albeit very important and very urgent topic of reproductive health, but it is unfortunate that no attention has been given to other important topics which were explicitly addressed in Cairo, including sustainable development, research, education, particularly for women and girls, the role of the extended family and the combating of violence against women. The report also overlooks the agreement that was made in Cairo that every country, as a sovereign power, is responsible for the implementation of the recommendations, consistent with national legislation and development priorities. That is particularly important where ethical issues are concerned. That is why I believe that this is deserving of support.

Political group: PPE-DE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. – Mr President, as the Vienna Monitoring Centre showed last year, there is a need for a progressive policy and leadership in both areas under debate today. I welcome the recognition that a restrictive approach to immigration has not worked and is counter-productive. We have only to look at the increase in trafficking and the difficulty in recruiting skilled professionals to demonstrate this. It is obvious that there is work available in the European Union for people from third countries. In many of our countries they are crucial to agricultural production and many major companies employ third-country nationals in senior executive posts. Yet there is still an attitude around that we are doing such people a favour by allowing them to enter the EU to support our economy and our social security system. Let us be honest: we want them to help maintain our standard of living. If we get it right, it should be a mutual benefit. As part of that, we need to ensure equal treatment for third-country nationals, not least in the workplace. The implementation of the Article 13 directives on anti-discrimination is also crucial. Why work here, if you then face racism and xenophobia? Business tells us that recruitment needs to be made easier and more flexible at all skill levels. This calls into question work permits attached to a particular job and company. Unfortunately, the lead committee did not take this on board. Recruitment is also hampered by restrictions on family reunion, business tells us. My political group has tabled amendments relating to that human factor. The working rights of partners also need to be improved. We have also to recognise the fact that some migrants will wish to stay and settle. This is important in terms of continuity and stability for individuals, society and business. A constant turnover is problematic on many levels and we have to remember that we are human beings, not cogs in an economic wheel.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the Union’s earlier education programmes are success stories because they are programmes on a human scale. The e-Learning programme now under discussion will hopefully extend that series of success stories. The general aim of the programme is to improve the quality and accessibility of education and training systems by means of information and communication technologies. I hope that teachers and learners will have a major role to play in achieving this aim. If we succeed in this we will also be more likely to realise the programme’s aims. The e-Learning programme is a good example of how pilot projects can claim a place in European Union policy. Back in 2001 the European Parliament began to support the initiative to promote e-learning and now we hold in our hands a proposal for a five-year action programme. Although we have not managed to increase the programme’s budget to the level we wanted exactly, the rapporteur, Mario Mauro, can be very pleased with the work he has done. The main focus of the e-Learning programme will be the e-twinning of schools. If networking between twinned schools truly gets under way, schoolchildren in different parts of the EU can get to know other pupils of the same age and learn about their everyday lives. If it is successful in this way, the programme could reinforce the idea of EU citizenship. E-learning offers new pedagogical models for teaching and learning. According to a study by the European Schoolnet, the development of interschool learning environments is flourishing in Europe. Commercial learning environments are used by just one in three users of virtual education. It is very important that these individual endeavours are made visible and available for others to make use of. The e-Learning programme does not give direct support to this, but hopefully in future we can also invest in the development of content.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to start off by congratulating Mr Ferber on excellent guidelines. I welcome the clear orientation of the report to planning for enlargement. The drive towards efficiency is especially vital in the context of enlargement. It is important even at this early stage that we have a clear strategy on how the institutions will respond to the accession of new members. We need to be imaginative about how we address the issues of staffing and building requirements. The institutions cannot respond to enlargement by just adding an extra post here or an office there. We do not want a Lego approach to enlargement. What we need is a major rethink about management of operations and that involves all the institutions exploring alternative ways and embracing new information technologies wholeheartedly. This is especially important in relation to linguistic support. I am totally in support of the idea outlined by Mr Ferber regarding the setting up of an interinstitutional recruitment office because I believe it will help reduce costs and reduce competition between the institutions in attracting new personnel. As everybody here needs to recognise, there are major limitations in relation to resources that will be available as a result of enlargement and there are implications for the financial perspective in relation to Category 5 expenditure. However, these guidelines are not just about enlargement they are about policy direction for all the institutions next year. Therefore, greater accountability and transparency have to be top priority because the European citizen does not distinguish between the different institutions. All the other institutions have to undertake a fundamental review along similar lines to those proposed by the Commission’s reform agenda because what the European taxpayers want is the reassurance that they are getting value for money and that includes not just the institutions but also political parties, Members of Parliament and staff. Any changes have to be clearly justified and transparent. Improvements and efficiencies need to be demonstrated by every institution and I believe that this can only be achieved through tools such as activity-based budgeting and thorough examination of current policies and systems and procedures. One of the biggest inefficiencies that we have is the location of EU institutions and if we want to be taken seriously we need to focus our work on one seat. I appreciate we have obligations under the treaties to two different locations but we should make sure that these are not expanded. Many of you are aware that the UK is reluctant to expand the scope of qualified majority voting but this is one issue where the UK would gladly see majority voting take place. To conclude, our group’s priorities are that these guidelines are budgetary prudence, improving efficiency, more effective budgetary control, better use of resources and general improvements in services and management, so I call upon all the other institutions to take these on and implement these improvements vigorously.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Parliament's vote marks the end of this first stage of consultation on food safety issues. I just hope that it will not also mark the end of the will to intervene rapidly and effectively in a sector which affects the daily lives of the citizens so closely and which is one of the principle benchmarks of our capacity to restore their faith in politics and in the institutions. The impetus will be all the more necessary considering that the great expectations aroused by the White Paper are not, in my opinion, truly reflected in the report tabled by Mr Bowis, despite the considerable amount of work he has put in. Indeed, despite the fact that the creation of the European Food Safety Agency and the definition of its competencies are a fundamental point of the strategy proposed by the Commission, they are not the only point. A European food strategy cannot be reduced merely to the creation of a monitoring authority and the application of a few – albeit necessary – health and hygiene rules. There is an indissoluble relationship between eating healthily and eating well, a relationship of which consumers must be made more aware in order to promote quality and support the typical local products which are one of the great assets of the peoples of Europe. With the vote in the Committee on the Environment, we have succeeded in re-establishing a certain balance, including in the scope of the resolution nutrition issues and certain significant references to the role of small and medium-sized businesses in safeguarding diverse dietary habits. That is why I will vote for the report. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, if the premise is that there cannot be security in Europe without a stable Mediterranean, and whilst recalling all the sterling work done by the Commission in fostering and establishing a Mediterranean doctrine, I should like to ask how the Commission envisages establishing a less reactive but much more proactive approach to the thorny situation in the Middle East. How will it go about establishing a real Mediterranean policy, conscience and foreign policy for the European Union?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I apologise for taking up more time, but I did not receive an answer to my question. Has the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development transferred EUR two billion to EURATOM, yes or no? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, we, the British Conservative MEPs, are not happy with this proposal. We believe it is not necessary for the completion of the single market. In practice we do not believe it will help financially those who need it most. Indeed, there is some evidence it may actually make them worse off, as my colleague Mr Karas pointed out. It is going to drive a significant part of the contemporary art market out of the EU to Geneva and New York, and that will cost jobs in the trade itself and in supporting industries. Those jobs are our jobs – Europe's jobs – and our businesses. On balance, we believe it will damage rather than enhance Europe's economy and the position of its working artists. Moreover, it will make a global agreement on 'droit de suite' less rather than more likely because there is no incentive for the beneficiaries of this agreement – New York and Geneva – to strike a deal with the European Union. In short, we believe it is an ill-conceived project which is against the best interests of Europe in general and the single market in particular.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is a pleasure to hear Members from all groups who accept their responsibility regarding social policy and who are prepared to work towards a consensus. I would like to thank you Michel, as rapporteur, for your initiative in bringing the issue of supplementary health insurance to attention now, at the appropriate time. I have some general comments on this subject. We had never had it as good as now. This is reflected in the fact that our life expectancy is increasing by three years every ten years, and that is not because we are leading a healthier lifestyle. We are living to an older age because the body of medical knowledge is doubling every five years. However, medical treatment is costing more and more money! However, equal access to health care must be available to everyone, without exception. This is important if we want a social Europe that sets us apart from others. For example, although we often take the United States as a model for the free market economy, it would be a fatal mistake to follow their lead in health policy. For instance, we see that in the US system, health costs as measured against gross domestic product are nearly twice as high as the EU average, and that in the United States there are still some 40 million people who have inadequate health insurance. That is scarcely what you would call a responsible social policy. So, as far as the European Union is concerned, it is more a question of seeking to develop a combination of health insurance and supplementary health insurance that does not sacrifice quality and is not socially exclusive. The debate on health insurance in the EU must not end up going down a blind alley. Unless there are pan-European requirements for supplementary insurance, we will have to be extremely cautious about the existing systems. The risk that the less healthy and the elderly may not necessarily be able to secure full private insurance cover because they represent too high a risk is quite unacceptable in terms of social development. Flawed thinking of this kind has no place in the European Union. Therefore, during the first phase, we need to prepare a Green Paper on the situation of supplementary health insurance in the EU as soon as possible. Following on from that, we will have to define minimum standards for supplementary insurance in Europe if we wish to achieve and further develop a reasonably equitable and socially balanced health-care system in the EU worthy of the name of a social Union. After all, that is what we want, is it not?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, the draft recommendation presented by our rapporteur after the draft was amended and supplemented by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy is a document that I endorse and have no difficulty in voting for. I will not reiterate here all of the many points raised in the text. Mr Belder’s work was extremely thorough, in line with the Commission communications and Parliament’s previous resolutions on Russia. I will therefore limit myself to addressing two aspects contained in the report. The first is the lack of consistency between the governments of the Member States on this matter – a lack of consistency and a lack of coordination. When dealing with such a large and difficult partner as the Russian Federation, it is intolerable to hear EU ministers, even prime ministers or Council presidents, expressing differing opinions, for example on the painful war in Chechnya or on President Putin himself or on the elections. Such differing opinions, sometimes expressed only a few hours apart, weaken the Union and damage the credibility of its efforts to have a common foreign and security policy worthy of the name. The second aspect I wanted to mention is also a lack of consistency, but this time between the Union’s different actions with regard to Russia. Our partnership and our strategy have many facets, which are reviewed in the report, but it all needs to be put in perspective with priorities and much more consistency. It is true that the EU and Russia have set themselves the long-term aim of creating a common economic space, a common space of freedom, security and justice, a common space of cooperation in the field of external security and a space of research and education, including cultural aspects. That is all very well, but once again it needs to be done consistently, which will require a great deal of determination, organisation and know-how: in other words, we still have a long way to go.

Political group: PSE
The European Parliament must condemn the savagery of the Russian military attack on Chechnya, which does not strike a handful of terrorists; instead it strikes tens of thousands of women and children who have been forced from their homes in the harsh conditions of a Caucasian winter. The European Union should support efforts by the OSCE to stop the bombing, repatriate refugees and find a political solution. We should, however, stress that the European Union, together with the USA, are not without responsibility because they set the precedent in Kosovo, with their disdain for international organisations and for the peaceful settlement of differences and they gave cause for concern with aggressive enlargement to the east which is reflected in the rise of nationalism and violence within Russia. - Climate change

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, when, on 4 November, at the end of an important meeting I had held, in which I talked at length about Mr Cappato’s report – as you can see, Mr Cappato, like all the Members, is here in the Chamber to hear why I voted for his document, but I know that he usually watches me on the monitor in his office – I displayed his photograph, many young pensioners, instead of coming to ask for my autograph, which is what usually happens in large, important meetings held by important politicians, asked me to introduce them to Mr Cappato. ‘We want to meet him! He is a very good looking, extremely clever young man, and we congratulate him on this report! Does this mean, then, that, at last, no one will know how old we are? This is the sort of privacy we want!’ ‘Of course,’ I told them. This document will mean that no one will know how old a lady is.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as Mrs Fourtou said very clearly, this resolution stems from the Committee on Petitions and is motivated by the petitions of thousands of women who attended a hearing in the course of one morning at which they expressed their concern and anxiety about the consequences that certain implants had had in terms of their health. This gave rise to the STOA report, according to which there was apparently no evidence of a relationship between silicone implants and, for example, cancer. There was, however, a clear indication of the various kinds of inconvenience caused to women who wanted, or felt obliged, to undergo implant operations. I believe that Mrs Stihler’s proposal acknowledges the suggestions, with which we too agree, that were put forward both in the study made of the STOA report, as well as elsewhere, and that, in general, ask for special measures to be adopted as a matter of urgency, one of the most important being an improvement in the independent information provided to women who wish to undergo implants. It is also proposed that the information not come from the private clinics that are to carry out the implants; that the information be exhaustive; that there be a period of reflection so that the women concerned might consider the pros and cons of having the implants carried out; that prior consent be given; that there be follow-up and monitoring where the implants are concerned, as well as a basic investigation into the latter; and, above all, that the Member States subject all the clinics, especially the private ones, to rigorous controls. In my own country, there was a case, which gave rise to a national debate, of a hairdresser’s in the Canary Islands that had given implants to a large number of women without providing any medical guarantee. The problem became public knowledge because one of the women who had been given implants had to have both her breasts removed. I believe that this is an extreme case, and something which obviously does not usually happen, but it is vital that the Member States exercise rigorous control over all clinics and over all products that serve as implants, so improving the situation of those women who, for one reason or another, feel obliged to undergo implant operations.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, fisheries are only the subject of discussion in Parliament once every twenty years. We are reforming fisheries policy and today Parliament has adopted two very important reports, and I would like to express my gratitude to all the Members who supported me in this task. I do so, Mr President, as a Galician in particular, because Galicia is currently experiencing a great tragedy. I shall end by saying that I would like Mr Fischler to be present at this historic moment and he is not here. I would, however, like the Commissioner to kindly pass on the following: his colleague, Mr Barnier, told him in writing that his reform had neither legal nor moral basis and today, Parliament has taken away the political and budgetary basis and rejected the report. *** Report (A5-0389/2002) by Manuel Pérez Álvarez, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the proposal for a Council regulation on the conclusion of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the agreement between the European Economic Community and the Government of the Republic of Senegal on fishing off the coast of Senegal for the period from 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2006 (COM(2002) 497 – C5-0493/2002 – 2002/0238(CNS)) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Joint motion for a resolution(2) on the Statute of Members Before the vote:

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, our group suggests that this debate take place on Thursday afternoon to avoid disrupting the agenda that was already set. We therefore suggest postponing this debate until Thursday afternoon. Otherwise, we are against including it in the agenda for Tuesday because we do not want to disrupt the agenda for that day. (Parliament rejected the request)

Political group: PPE-DE