GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak about this report, which was drafted in response to a request by the European Parliament in the framework of negotiations on the revision of the budget for the first phase of Socrates, in 1998. This socio-economic investigation, which was carried out during the latter part of 1998, is based on the answers sent in by around 10 000 students who participated in “mobility actions” during 1997-98. The Erasmus programme was set up in 1987 as part of the Socrates programme, and absorbs 40% of the total Socrates budget. Erasmus seeks to encourage the mobility of students by developing the European dimension of education and by enabling young people to carry out part of their studies in another Member State. The Socrates programme entered its second phase with the decision of 24 January 2000. It is, moreover, a pity that this report took so long after the Socrates II programme was formally adopted to publish its conclusions, which, as a result, could not be taken into consideration. Everyone is agreed on welcoming this initiative, thanks to which 90 000 students every year take up the opportunity to study abroad. More than nine out of ten of those students claimed to be very satisfied with their stay abroad, both from the educational and the socio-cultural points of view. It must be admitted, however, that the participation rate is still low, given that this programme involves 18 Member States. This is what the Commission inquiry has shown: only 1% of students took part in Erasmus mobility programmes in 1998. We therefore still have a great deal to do if we are to achieve the target of 10%, which the programme is aiming for. We must therefore try to discover the reasons for such a low participation rate. The survey does provide us with some answers. We see that more than 57% of Erasmus students encounter financial difficulties. It is nevertheless young people from privileged backgrounds who go abroad, which is an unacceptable form of discrimination, which we must combat by allocating special aid to the less well-off socio-economic categories. Many problems remain in the field of the recognition of qualifications. As Member for a border area, I regularly meet graduates who are distraught because the courses they have studied in another Member State are not recognised. I shall conclude by appealing to the French Presidency to include all of these factors in the study paper that it has asked the Vision group to undertake on transnational mobility in education. This study paper should lead to the presentation, at the Nice Summit, of an action plan which seeks to overcome the obstacles to this mobility.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the original draft of Mr Rocard's report contained proposals which could have destroyed the health insurance market in Europe. It is fundamental to the insurance business that premiums are related to predictable risks. This applies in all kinds of insurance including life, car and home protection insurance. If the original proposals had been carried to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of medical history, then premiums would have been attractive to the chronically sick and unattractive to the fit and healthy. As a result it would have been predominantly the chronically sick who would buy insurance. This in turn would have created a vicious circle of higher and higher premiums and fewer and sicker policyholders. It could have destroyed the industry and put new burdens on state systems. It is a classic example of interventionism. By trying to eliminate discrimination on the grounds of health status, Mr Rocard would have killed the goose that laid the golden egg. I am reminded of the story of the representative of the government who went to a businessman and said 'how can the government help you?' and the answer was 'you can help us best by leaving us alone.' When will we learn that lesson? Of course, we should promote a vigorous and vibrant market for health insurance in Europe. We must also support state provision, at least for those with difficult health problems who would be uninsurable in the private sector. The best way to achieve these objectives is for the state to leave the private sector to get on with its job. The new proposal before us is for a Green Paper. This is better than the original proposal but even this is a step too far. Today's Green Paper becomes tomorrow's intrusive and damaging legislation. The best way we can help this industry, and the patients it serves, is to leave it alone.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, since the plenary session held in Parliament a few weeks ago, the bodies of 12 immigrants from African countries have appeared on the Spanish coast, specifically in Andalusia. This is a further occurrence of something that has been happening for some time, every week and every month, and young people and even pregnant women continue to die. I could send you photos which have appeared in the Spanish press so that you could see how serious this situation, this tragedy, really is. Years ago – and with this I shall end, Madam President – we in Europe believed very hypocritically that these unfortunate events only happened on the Rio Grande, which separates Mexico from the United States; these days they are happening on the Spanish coast and nobody is doing anything about it. I believe that this Parliament should put this issue to the Spanish Government and should acknowledge that this is a European problem. It is unacceptable to turn a blind eye to this grave problem.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, as a member of Parliament's Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China, I welcome the statement and reassurances given by Mr Byrne. The Commission statement and our debate today highlight a very important problem that the whole world – indeed mankind globally – should take an interest in. We should be alert to and aware of the dangers of sudden outbreaks of highly infectious and dangerous diseases which can suddenly spread on a global basis. Given modern transport systems, we should all be aware of the potential problems. It can be very difficult – especially in the early stages in remote areas – to identify a dangerous outbreak that has global implications. Nevertheless, we should congratulate the Chinese authorities on cooperating with an international organisation, the WHO, in its investigations into the specific characteristics of the disease and the particular modes of transmission. We look forward to further enhanced cooperation by the Chinese authorities with regard to this matter. As with all outbreaks of this kind, lessons must be learned. We would call in particular on the Chinese authorities to set an example to the world and hold a full, public and transparent inquiry into the outbreak of this disease and its means of transmission. We hope they will involve fully, where appropriate, international bodies, in particular the WHO, and ensure that the whole world learns lessons from China's experiences in dealing with this incident. We can expect to see further incidents of this type in future. Sudden and rapidly spreading epidemics of poorly understood diseases are certain to occur elsewhere and at other times. It is in Europe's interest and the whole world's interest that China shows the world what must be done in these circumstances.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, for the , decentralised cooperation is an essential element of cooperation and development policy. In fact, it is one of the only constituents of that policy which guarantees the real use of funds by the nations of the South. Mr Zimmerling’s report is a step in the right direction, in that he has created a real instrument which guarantees the participation of citizens in developing countries. The Howitt report had already opened up some interesting lines of action, and this new report improves even further the collaboration with non-governmental organisations. We welcome the development of the list of potential partners. It is particularly important to us that account should be taken of the organisations of the indigenous populations. They are in many cases minorities and suffer opposition from the public authorities, which more often than not represent authoritarian powers. As far as those who are actually involved are concerned, however, the question of the churches gives rise to problems. Although it seems obvious to everyone that charitable organisations, including those of a religious nature, can benefit from funds for decentralised cooperation, on the other hand it seems inconceivable to me that the European Union should, under this heading, be funding the churches themselves, since by definition their aim is proselytisation. Are we going to finance Catholic churches or Protestant chapels in Moslem countries, or the building of mosques in Christian countries? We discussed this with the rapporteur, who seemed to have understood the problem that was raised. The fact that this viewpoint was retained before the vote in committee may have looked like an oversight. Now, however, when the Committee on Development and Cooperation has rejected this word, and by a large majority, its re-insertion through the intervention of the Council Presidency, which has used a version of the Treaty of Amsterdam – minus its philosophical elements – leaves me somewhat puzzled as to the final objective of this text. In the absence of any clarification on this point, we shall not be able to vote in favour of this report. I would therefore strongly urge my fellow Members to return to the amendment adopted at the committee stage, whereby the list was restricted to charitable organisations. It is vital that as many representatives of civil society as possible can make their opinions known, and can have recourse to funding which is independent of their state authorities, so as to strengthen the independence of social movements which are campaigning for sustainable development, for human rights and for social rights, for democratisation or for cultural pluralism. This is why we are asking that the overall funding should be increased from EUR 18 million to EUR 36 million. This appears to us to be vitally important if all those involved are to take part in the debate. In other words, it is not enough to create a good policy: it is even more important to provide it with adequate financial resources.

Political group: Verts-ALE
My group supports the report by Mr Turco, who has done good work. The Structural and Cohesion Funds are European Union instruments of extreme importance for bringing the EU's less-favoured regions up to the level of development of the prosperous ones. We take the view that these instruments of European incentive policy enable EU policy to have the greatest direct and visible effects on people's quality of life and must therefore at all costs remain part of future policy after enlargement. Support given by stronger regions to the weaker ones, in a spirit of solidarity and without reference to national boundaries, is symbolic of European unity. We therefore oppose any discussion of even the partial renationalisation of regional and structural policy, as this would undermine the principle of solidarity and it is not foreseeable where such a policy might lead. We are of course aware of the serious problems involved in realising structural and regional policy, and see the Commission and the Member States as sharing responsibility. The poor implementation rates and constantly increasing backlogs, totalling – incredibly – EUR 112 billion in 2000, give grave cause to consider the possibility of a radical re-examination of the procedures and structures that have been in place to date. (Abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: GUE-NGL
The opinion on this report revolves around Articles 15 and 17. I now speak on behalf of my group, in respect of the amendments tabled by them and other political groups. The shared aim of all of us is to try to find a balanced way of protecting consumers and shielding SMEs from differing Member State jurisdictions. This problem has been exaggerated totally out of proportion. From the evidence available, such cross border B to C disputes are few and far between and the hope is that most of them will now be weeded out by ADR systems. But, where they go beyond that, it is the consumer who is most disadvantaged. The bigger businesses will be able to afford legal assistance. The astute and sensible SME can insure for a modest premium. That leaves the residue of unsuspecting businesses that may get involved in a transaction outside their Member State. In these circumstances it is not unreasonable to build on the previous content of Article 15, use the concept of “directed at”, acknowledge that this is a concept also found in American jurisprudence and utilised by WIPO. It is not simple but it has been used and there is no simple solution here. This, in combination with a modification to Article 17, which allows freedom of contract to choose ADR but respects existing consumer rights in the form of the unfair contract terms directive, presents a much more workable, legally certain package that will promote confidence. It is a mark of the balance that we have achieved in these amendments that they have won the support of the CBI in my own country and more than partial support from consumer organisations. They certainly prefer this package to the committee one. What I did not refer to when I spoke previously was Parliament’s role in this legislative process. We are consultees. We know from what has been said on this subject by Commissioner Byrne that he will not accept the type of formulation proposed by the committee at Article 17a. I believe that Commissioner Vitorino shares his view. From the Council’s perspective, the UK Government expressed a similar view. It seems unlikely that a French Presidency, which is highlighting consumer affairs, will take a different view. We could say that, because we are only consultees, we can say what we like. We are merely signalling a political direction but it is important that we should signal a legally certain and workable solution, not one that will create as many problems as it seeks to solve. Parliament should behave responsibly as a grown-up legislator, not as a petulant child. We have the opportunity to build on the already substantial achievements in the committee’s final report. I hope that we will go further.

Political group: ELDR
I too should like to thank the President-in-Office for his answer. I refer to the Transport Council and in particular to the latest report on the concrete implementation of the strategy, which showed a distinct lack of progress on many fronts in the transport field. The strategy raises serious concerns about the transport implications of enlargement, but the report did not suggest much in the way of concrete measures. What concrete measures does the presidency propose? Such measures are essential if transport is to be fully taken into account in the enlargement process which, it is to be hoped, will result in environmentally sustainable policies.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I have voted in favour of this report whereby the European Union sets about combating sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. I should add that I associate with many older people as national secretary of the Italian Pensioners Party, and my mother is also one of them. She looks and moves as if she were much younger but she passed 65 some time ago. Well, she told me she has lots of spare time and could accompany her grandchildren to school – and even her great-grandchildren, if she had any. Many older people have told me the same: they are willing to keep an eye on children wherever they go. I hope Mrs Karamanou and Parliament will propose facilitating the use of older people to take care of children in the next report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to express my appreciation of both reports, which I feel complement each other well, although I am not fully satisfied for I feel that the grand declarations they contain are extremely hypocritical: while progress in the world is advancing at an exponential rate, we have to admit that violence, oppression and barbarism are increasing and human rights are being violated at the same exponential rate. However, I do welcome the fact that human rights are among the priorities of our foreign policy, that new forms of slavery are being highlighted such as terrorism, in particular, and the slavery of forced child labour and the slavery of forced prostitution; moreover, there are common positions relating to a capacity for cooperation within the World Trade Organisation and the International Labour Organisation to combat these forms of slavery: this is therefore a fight against the exploitation of man by man in all fields and all areas, especially where minors and child abuse are concerned. It is important that these two reports have stressed positive actions promoting human rights, for this is the first time that has been done. This is not just a question of condemnation, therefore, it is not just a matter of identifying these violations: it is the promotion of human rights. This is achieved through two innovations: firstly, an ambassador for human rights, the expression of Parliament, and secondly, a European agency for the promotion of human rights. To achieve these two innovations we need a responsible foreign policy made up of practical proposals: that is what we will be calling for and we will make sure we are involved in their development.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the policy of the Group of the is for every female citizen of the EU to have access to decision-making processes at local, regional, national and European level. Equal participation for women in political and social decision making is not only our legitimate right, but a social necessity. We do not just enrich a man’s world; we are participating in all areas of this supposedly male world. As the new millennium dawns, we are continuing to fight alongside our colleague Mrs Karamanou, who I would like to thank sincerely for her persistence and hard work, in order to move closer to the objective of equality in the distribution of power between men and women. It has been a long haul from the first women's suffrage, in Finland in 1904, to gender-balanced political lists in France, and we still have a long way to go before we can take women presidents, mayors, ministers and party chairs for granted as a part of everyday life. The European Union has made considerable progress in this regard. We have now been able to increase the proportion of women in the European Parliament to 30%, and it is, incidentally, markedly higher in the left-wing groups than in the Conservative and more right-wing groups. 25% of the Commission is made up of women, and the figure is 24.8% in the governments of the Member States and 22.5% in national parliaments. I am pleased to bear glad tidings from my own country. Since the last government reshuffle in Germany, women now make up 37.5% of the Federal German Government, and this has been achieved by my party, by my political family. We are therefore confident about our own role and can act as a driving force for equal rights and the demands arising from the Karamanou report. I must call upon the House to support the rapporteur, Mrs Karamanou, as regards the three issues just raised by Mr Mann, and stick to the original text presented by the committee. It would be a mistake to reject quotas, as the parties are being urged to do. Furthermore, we also supported quotas as advocated in the report to the World Conference on Women in Beijing. The right thing is to keep all mechanisms open.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, many of today’s speakers have called this a historic occasion – and rightly so – and I do not want to fall into the trap of repeating them. However, as a European citizen, the son of a Polish father, and as rapporteur for Poland, I would like to greet and welcome all the members of the Polish parliament who are seated in the visitors’ gallery, both those who are going to become part of our group and all those who will join other groups as well. (Applause) The report on Poland emerged from the vote in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy in exactly the form I would have wished, in that all the amendments I supported were adopted and all those to which I was opposed were rejected. It is a well-balanced report which acknowledges the considerable progress made but expresses a number of reservations regarding the self-interested move of members of the civil service, which is evidence of a rather exaggerated interpretation of the spoil system, and the issue of state control of the press and television. Some progress had been made in this area but the situation is now once again at a standstill, if not regressing, and so I have tabled an amendment on the matter which I hope will be adopted tomorrow. I have to say that, throughout my work as rapporteur for Poland, I have constantly borne in mind something which Pope John Paul II said – and I am pleased to be able to mention his name here; I have not heard it spoken this morning despite the fact that he has been at the forefront of European reunification – something he said during an interview he granted me. When I asked His Holiness who would benefit most from the reconciliation he so longed for between the two Europes, he replied that the Europe of the former communist countries would be able to bring most to the other Europe because these countries’ experiences under the communist system had taught them wisdom. This morning’s debate gives me the hope, expressed by President Cox and Commissioner Verheugen too, that this prophecy will come true. I would like to see more conviction on the part of the Polish Members of the European Parliament – I have to say that we heard some Polish speakers this morning who were not representative – and I would like to see them share with us that strength, that drive which led the Poles to pull down walls, to form Solidarnosc and to pave the way for the fall of communism, which was a decisive factor in the building of our common future. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
With all due respect for the opinion of Mr Oreja Arburúa, I bring here any issues that affect European citizens. The Basque and Catalan citizens who were at risk from the overflying B-52 bombers, and also the Andalusian citizens who were at risk from four bombs which fell on them, are European citizens and, therefore, responding that this is an internal affair is simply an attempt to avoid taking the bull by the horns, when it is a matter that affects European citizens.

Political group: Verts-ALE
On amendments which were submitted by the Green Party, I would like to make the following explanation for my vote against. Where amendments proposed incorporating GMO and nuclear issues inside the scope of the directive, I voted against. This is because nuclear liability covered by the Vienna and Paris Conventions is currently being reviewed. Any attempt here would be presumptuous as to that review's outcome. On GMOs it is clear that liability still has to be worked out, as legislation dealing with GMOs has only just come on to the statute books. Let us see how that works first. All else undermines conventions or existing law. Recommendation for second reading: Grossetête (A5-0446/2003)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to have an explanation of what you meant when you said 'wir checken', as that word is not part of my German vocabulary. (Applause) Yesterday, Mrs Roth-Behrendt spoke about people who were 'eingesqueezed' in a lift, that is 'squeezed in'. As we are talking about our citizens' rights, I would like to know if we have ever adopted any amendments on the German language. (Laughter, applause)

Political group: ELDR