GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I wish to congratulate Mr Brok on the remarkable piece of work that he has produced. His report clearly sets out the issues and the objectives of enlargement in the field of regional policy and he does so in both political as well as financial terms. I would say that this is both a forward-looking and realistic report. Enlargement with the addition of thirteen countries changes not only the geopolitical framework of the European Union, but also its structure, because the total population will increase (by 28%), but so will the number of ‘disadvantaged’ regions. We must be aware of this! The rapporteur tells us that out of the 50 regions in the candidate countries, 48 have a per capita GDP that is less than 75% of the average in the Europe of Fifteen for the period 1995-1997. The only regions to have higher levels are Prague (119%) and Bratislava (96%). This shows us once again that the disparities between rich and poor regions are also enormous in these countries, and that these disparities will not cease to exist after these countries have joined the Union. We must therefore try to ensure that the administrative structures of these countries are able effectively to absorb Structural Fund appropriations. In order for this to happen, candidate countries need aid, particularly through the PHARE programme. They must have a sound and responsible administration, staffed by men and women who are trained in Community procedures and in budgetary rules. Furthermore, the report reminds us of the need to devise new criteria for regional policy for the period 2006-2013, because once enlargement has taken place, the approach to a regional policy for 25 countries will not be the same as it was for 15! We need to devise a new strategy based on the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP). A global vision of Community territory would therefore seem essential for better regional development. This report forces us to face our responsibilities and that is why I voted in favour of it.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, during yesterday evening’s sitting, Mr Krarup tried to refer the Commission proposal, the directive and the report back to committee and to block them. I regret this very much because the Group for a Europe of Democracies and Diversities was not involved in the early phases of the work on the report, either in committee or through the tabling of amendments. Secondly, I would like to point out that we are not dealing with Article 152 here, on health, but with Article 153, which concerns consumer protection. For this reason, I ask that we vote on this report today and that we do not refer it back to committee. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the closure and the reduction of the status and the staff of twenty-odd delegations in ACP countries, recently decided by the Commission, deals a harsh blow to the commitments to development given in the Cotonou Agreements. If there is one lesson that we have learnt about monitoring the Community’s external action for development, it is that the key to its success is the existence of a strong, responsible, independent and credible presence in the recipient countries. The arguments of budgetary neutrality used by the Commission are fallacious, because opening a delegation in countries such as Saudi Arabia cannot be compared with the overall costs of maintaining a European presence in those countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific. Furthermore this is not only a question of looking at the cost of a delegation, but of looking at the very real damage done to the effectiveness of public spending as a result of not monitoring such spending. The European Union cannot do without an autonomous and meaningful policy for the less developed world and replace it with a form of regionalisation undertaken in agreement with some of the former colonial powers. I hope that the Commission rethinks this course of action and treats the ACP countries and the management of the EDF with the importance that they deserve.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as high a priority as possible ought to be given to transparency and to keeping EU citizens informed of the work being done in the EU. Providing factual and objective information about cooperation in Europe has become very important in recent years as we face considerable challenges with the extension of the EU into Central and Eastern Europe. It is especially important to explain what the common agricultural policy is about and to provide information about objectives, resources and potential for development. There are many target groups – farmers, first and foremost, but also people generally, as well as everyone directly or indirectly affected. If this work is to succeed, it is important that cooperation should be established with the farming organisations and also with consumers. The common agricultural policy was the first, and is also the most extensive, of the Community’s integrated policies and it accounts for a very large proportion of the EU’s budget. It is, therefore, also important to make it clear that the subsidy arrangements ensure that consumers obtain food at prices which, as a result of the subsidy, are lower than they would be without the subsidy. This means that the EU’s agricultural arrangements are of benefit to all EU citizens. The common agricultural policy is always undergoing change and development. It demands a great deal in terms of the supply of information and, especially, in terms of the coordination which is needed if cooperation is to succeed, both within the Member States and independently of the Member States. Circumstances are very different from one country to another, and it ought, therefore, to be farming organisations which are among the main players, because these organisations focus primarily upon farmers.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I have a message for you concerning my colleague Mrs Lucas. She was arrested today at 9.30 a.m. while she was in Scotland taking part in a demonstration against a nuclear weapons base. She said she was taking part because recently such weapons of mass destruction have on many occasions been deemed to be against international law. It should not be able to happen that a Member of the European Parliament is arrested en route to a parliamentary sitting and we request that you take action in this matter. In fact, a Member’s immunity from arrest may only be waived after Parliament has debated the matter, and if that were to be the case now Parliament, for the first time, would have to discuss whether nuclear weapons are in violation of international law.

Political group: Verts-ALE
As an avid but critical supporter of the enlargement process, I felt the need to vote against the Brok report on the progress of the applicant countries. Firstly, the Brok report incorrectly states that the applicant countries continue to fulfil the political criteria set in Copenhagen in 1993. That is incorrect. If Parliament took the Commission's country reports seriously, we could not ignore the numerous examples of corruption, discrimination against minorities, lack of human rights protection and weak judicial systems in some applicant countries. I believe that human rights and the rule of law need to be the top priority for Parliament in the enlargement debate. Therefore I regard the report, which explicitly denies the problems that still exist in this area, as unacceptable. I am delighted that amendments underlining the absolute priority of the political criteria have been adopted along the lines of my own amendments adopted by the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to its opinion. Parliament must now take its own words seriously and look in detail at the human rights situation in the applicant countries. (Abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure) - Böge report (A5-0178/2002)

Political group: ELDR
I would just like to underline that this is an issue that has the support of all parties in my own country. It concerns not just British citizens but also Dutch citizens. It has massive public interest and raises questions at a time when we are proceeding in the field of Justice and Home Affairs at European level on the basis of mutual recognition. That implies that we need to be confident that every country's legal system is up to scratch and meets the minimum standards set down in the European Convention on Human Rights. It is important and I am glad you have announced that the President will take this up.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, please allow me briefly to explain our reasons for withdrawing the resolution. We are withdrawing the resolution since its content has been reproduced almost in full and to the letter in the joint resolution signed by the Chairmen of the main political groups. I note with satisfaction that this acknowledges the high quality of the end-result arrived at on 21 November by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs on the basis of a transparent and balanced compromise between the various positions. While withdrawing the resolution, however, I express the conviction that this Parliament would have made its voice heard better if, in anticipation of the Council of Nice, it had devoted a specific and separate resolution to these important and difficult topics of the Intergovernmental Conference, instead of dealing with them in a single resolution that also embraces all the other points on the Council agenda. That was what the Committee over which I currently preside had proposed in carrying out its mandate, consistent with Parliament’s action on the eve of the Amsterdam Council in 1997 and on other similar occasions before that. I believe, Madam President, that the powers and initiatives of our parliamentary committees ought not to be constrained. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, when we discuss the excellent reports by my colleagues Mr Varela, Mr Cunha, Mr Poignant and Mr Gallagher, it is against a background of crisis in the EU fisheries sector. As we contemplate the radical reforms of the CFP, which are clearly necessary and long overdue and which are highlighted in these reports, we do so in the knowledge that fish stocks are in spiral decline. Too many fishermen are chasing too few fish. As a result, EU fishing fleets are shrinking and many thousands of jobs are being lost at sea and on shore. The situation in the North Sea is of particular concern. Savage cuts in the total allowable catches and quotas were announced in December by the Council. Now the Commission is seeking to implement emergency interim measures to aid the recovery of cod stocks, which have fallen to unsustainable levels in that sector. I am extremely grateful, like my colleagues, the other Scottish MEPs, to Commissioner Fischler for agreeing to meet us earlier this evening to discuss these dramatic emergency measures. We welcome Mr Fischler's generous offer to meet with leaders of the industry to discuss alternatives to the draconian proposals which have been widely publicised by the Fisheries DG in the last few days. A sensible, multiannual cod recovery plan embracing realistic technical conservation measures, the closure of cod spawning grounds and the decommissioning of the larger new fishing vessels will surely be more sensible than the pursuit of a plan which would allow industrial fishing to continue in vast restricted zones and which would potentially lead to the bankruptcy of half the Scottish fleet. The Poignant and Gallagher reports have attracted some amendments, which seek to do away with the 6/12 mile limits and break open the Shetland Box and gain free access to the North Sea. Clearly there are some Member States that still regard the resources of the North Sea as a rich prize. I hope that this debate may bring them to their senses.

Political group: PPE-DE
At this time when we are about to vote on the resolution on the rights of the child, I wish to declare the importance which I attach to this legislation. This vote has nothing to do with any others in which I have participated during this session. It reminds me of my motive for taking up politics, which may be summed up as follows: to improve, as far as may be possible, the daily lot of human beings! This may seem presumptuous, given the scope of the task, but it is my profound conviction. And even though I know that this vote will not radically change the tragic situation of thousands of children here or elsewhere, it does testify to the political will of this Parliament to make progress! Declaring that it is intolerable for children to be forced to go to work instead of to school, for children not to be able to eat their fill, for children to be sold as if they were marketable goods, for children to be the victims of adult physical or moral violence, already represents a great step forward, one which must of course be put into effect in our policies and our daily life! Let us act like responsible men and women (politicians)! The Convention whose anniversary we are celebrating today has made it possible to achieve considerable progress since it places the child at the centre of the debate! Children are human beings; they are people with rights. We must respect them, protect them, educate them and love them!

Political group: PSE
We support this proposal for a resolution in general, taking account of the difficulties that beekeepers in the European Union have been facing for years, with the decline in the bee population and the resulting loss of income, aggravated by climate-related constraints, the presence of diseases such as varroasis, and difficult market conditions. In addition, the bee population has been declining in certain places at the same time, one cause being the use of systemic neurotoxic pesticides to treat the seeds of certain crops. Hence it is necessary to find a solution to compensate beekeepers who are suffering major losses of bees. These difficulties were aggravated this year in Portugal as a result of the severe forest fires that swept through the country. It is estimated that more than 5 000 hives, especially in the Algarve, the Beiras and Trás-os-Montes, were destroyed by the fires. The direct losses come to roughly EUR 500 000. This does not include the damage arising from the loss of future earnings and the destruction of the surrounding areas, which affects the foraging of the surviving populations. I am therefore delighted at the adoption of our proposal for the Commission to carry out an overall assessment of the damage and to devise the requisite Community support measures.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, there are some points I would like to underline in supporting what Mr Lehne said at the beginning of this debate. First, and most importantly, we are dealing with a matter of great public concern, but a matter that has been in the public domain for a long time. We are dealing with a course of events which Mr Cohn-Bendit has not merely not denied but has also publicly avowed. We are dealing with a course of events in respect of which Mr Cohn-Bendit was specifically praised by the trial court involved in the trial of Mr Klein some years ago, where the court drew attention to the courage and public spirit of the people who had assisted in getting that particular accused person to come out of hiding and give himself up to the public authorities. So this is not a case of somebody seeking surreptitiously to hide from accusations or from public justice, but of somebody who has openly avowed his actions. Mr Lehne was absolutely right to say that there can be no question of the public prosecutors in Frankfurt being themselves in any way deviously motivated. They have a public duty to take up a complaint that has been laid before them on ostensibly justifiable grounds. However, it does not follow that those who laid the accusation before the public prosecutors, thereby triggering that public duty, were themselves wholly lacking in any deviousness of motive. When account is taken of two aspects of the public interest here today – firstly, that there ought not to be unreasonable protection of MEPs or anybody else from public prosecution where circumstances warrant it and, secondly and importantly, that electoral debate and discussion should be able to go forward without unreasonable impediment or harassment of leading figures in it – the balance of the public interest in this case seems to be absolutely clear: the public prosecutors are doing their duty and we should do ours. In this case, that duty points clearly in the direction indicated by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market to decline waiving the immunity.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, cures for cancer are still being sought, but year by year we see progress. The formerly unmentionable disease has, to some extent, overcome the stigma, not least because of advances in medical science, giving hope to patients and families. These depend on early diagnosis, which comes from screening. The extension of screening needs, as Mr Mussa said, to be based on science. I and my colleagues very much welcome his report. There are so many questions about cancer. Concerning breast cancer, screening is well advanced. We must look at how we can extend that to other age groups. We must investigate how we can persuade more men to be aware that breast cancer is a matter for men as well as women and come forward to be screened as well. Bowel cancer is a new area for screening, with new tests available. Again, the issue will be how we can educate people – especially men – to come forward to be screened. For cervical cancer, the pap smear has proved its worth. Now we need the HPV alongside it. I very much support Mr Mussa's amendments in this regard. Lung cancer is the most deadly. Worldwide, 1.3 million people have lung cancer; 80% of these people die within a year of diagnosis. We need more PET scanners. We only have five in the United Kingdom. I understand that there are 60 in Germany and 150 in the United States. We need to highlight these disparities. For prostate cancer, there is screening and the PSA test. There is a demand for these, as we have heard. We should do these tests if and when the evaluation shows its worth. We need the cancer networks. We need the information campaigns highlighted in the amendments that Mrs Oomen-Ruijten and I have tabled. Screening means diagnosis. Diagnosis means lives saved.

Political group: PPE-DE
The social fabric of many coastal zones has been altered over recent years by the restructuring of the fisheries and traditional agriculture sectors. Although certain regions have been faced with an exodus of their endogenous population, most of the coastal zones are experiencing an increase in overall demographic pressure, as well as significant seasonal variations in employment, essentially linked to tourism. Major works required for urbanisation and development can threaten the coastal environment if carried out without sufficient knowledge of the coastal dynamic, by accelerating the erosion of the seashore. Furthermore, pollution of marine or terrestrial origin is increasingly contaminating soil and drinking water resources. The coastal territories are the focus of constant antagonism and conflict. Lack of integrated management of maritime and terrestrial resources causes serious tension between the various sectors of activity, namely fisheries, agriculture and services, with the consequence that the sustainable development of the coastal areas is put on hold. The strategy proposed by the Commission is an interesting approach intended to resolve the fundamental problems facing the coast: lack of information, insufficient participation by the population in projects, weak coordination between the various planning authorities and absence of real partnership which involves the economic sectors concerned, the regional and local authorities and the interregional organisations, in decision-making. However, it is essential for the strategy for coastal zones to constitute one of the first examples of implementation of the guidelines developed under the European Spatial Development Perspective, because the principles set out in it are obviously valuable for the Union’s coastal zones. This could even be an excellent occasion to restore vigour to a particularly inert ESDP, whose true impact still remains very limited. Finally, I would like to express my agreement with those who regret that the Commission’s proposal does not take account of climate change, when that appears to have an influence on rising sea levels and increasing storm frequency, contributing decisively to risks of flooding, coastal erosion and loss of seashore. Although we are only now beginning to recognise the new challenges that will face the coastal regions in the decades to come, the integrated coastal zone management strategy cannot decently ignore them. - Callanan report (A5-0218/2001)

Political group: PPE-DE
I voted against this directive because three crucial amendments were rejected that were aimed at ensuring that the workers of both the bidding company and the target company were fully informed and consulted in good time in the event of a takeover bid. Some claim this is already guaranteed by other directives and that there is therefore no point in dealing with the matter in this directive. That view is shared by Commissioner Bolkestein. I am not convinced and it is hard to understand why the introduction of a minimum amount of social dialogue into this directive should meet with such opposition. But I do agree entirely with Mr Bolkestein that this directive, as it has been adopted with the Commission’s and the Council’s agreement, is not a social directive, it is even a clearly antisocial directive! After more than 15 years of debates, I regret to note, like the ESC, that neither the Council, nor the Commission, nor the majority of Parliament have been able to understand something so simple and obvious as that workers are just as important as shareholders and that they have in particular the right to be informed and consulted over mergers. It is a sad day for the European social model. Report: Olle Schmidt (A5-0467/2003)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on a point of order. I refer to the comments made in a statement this morning by Mrs Fontaine regarding certain logistical problems in the building. In the interests of transparency and information to Members, we need to know the extent of the problem of legionella. Could you provide us with information on that? What procedures have been put in place? Has the air-conditioning system now been switched off? Can we therefore assume that an operation has been undertaken to disinfect the system? Could you confirm this and, indeed, could Parliament’s presidency confirm that there is no problem with asbestosis which, of course, would be in breach of our own EU directive passed over a decade ago.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I have asked for the floor, when you have given it to the Commission, to say that what we have just rejected in this House is Mr Oostlander’s report, not the Commission’s proposal. We do not have the power to vote on the Commission’s proposal. We have rejected the report by Mr Oostlander, together with his opinion of the Commission’s proposal. (Applause)

Political group: PSE