GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, while I appreciate the Commission's proposals are an attempt to find best standards and establish common best standards across Europe, that will have to be done on the basis of Member States agreeing to cooperate in this area. It will require political commitment in many countries going far beyond the current commitment in terms of political will and financial investment in cancer testing and treatment. Reports have shown that up to 90% of the people diagnosed with breast cancer can be cured if they are diagnosed early enough. It has been established that up to 100% of cervical cancers can be cured and prevented if proper testing is carried out in the correct age group along with FPV testing. Clearly this is an area where huge progress can be made in preventing mortality and also a lot of pain and suffering for the individuals concerned and for their families. It is important to have this debate. I just want to give some statistics on the Irish situation specifically, not because I want to criticise the Irish Government but because, if we are to get cooperation across the board in this area, it is necessary to show how bad the situation is in some countries. For instance, less than 4 000 of the 12 000 patients who require radiotherapy in the Republic of Ireland each year receive it. Public patients face a three-month delay for radiation treatment they have been told is both necessary and urgent. The first five-year analysis of cancer trends in the Irish National Cancer Registry, published in February 2002, showed that 50% of patients with lung cancer received no cancer-specific treatment; 7% of those with leukaemia were not offered chemotherapy; two-thirds of patients in the Republic with last-stage stomach cancer received no cancer-specific treatment. Regional variations and the availability of radiotherapy have a particular impact on poorer patients, since many cancer sufferers have to travel long distances and stay away from home for long periods. The Republic's two radiotherapy units are based in Dublin and Cork, so, while 39% of patients nationally have radiotherapy for breast cancer, only 24% living in the west of Ireland have it. Unfortunately things are not getting any better, because funding for those services has been cut. That is the kind of situation we are faced with. I appeal to the House to support the report before us and for the Commissioner to make it clear to all Member States where these appalling statistics apply that they must get to grips with this issue and save lives.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, you will not be surprised to learn that my view of this differs from that of the Group of the , and that I am at one with Mr Kirkhope in believing that this proposal for a directive is absolutely necessary as part of a policy on removals. If the European Union is to establish and implement, in a credible way, a policy on legal immigration and an effective asylum policy, it must ensure that illegal immigration and the abuse of asylum meet with consequences and that those whose applications for asylum have been rejected, who have gone right through the legal system and have not been recognised as refugees, must leave the country. This means, quite simply, that a common removals policy must form part of an EU immigration policy. The proposal that Mr Kirkhope has submitted is a very balanced one, demonstrating due appreciation of the concerns that individuals have and taking them into account, whilst, however, guaranteeing that the rules imposed by immigration policy are actually complied with in the way that they must be. A removal policy is an essential component of immigration policy and the proposal put forward today adds a piece to that jigsaw, enabling it to be properly implemented. Mr Kirkhope and his excellent proposal therefore have my wholehearted support.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, our Confederal Group of the is not the group of a left-wing European party. The parties represented in our group have differing positions on the political proposal on European political parties. Some colleagues wonder, not without good reason, how meaningful it is and to what extent they actually can represent a European public. The direct link to the people is not actually forged through Europe; it exists at national and regional level. That is where the parties have their grass roots; that is where they have their members and electors. I should like to ask Messrs Poettering and Barón Crespo to reconsider their words. Mr Barón Crespo has just said that those who are against parties are against democracy. I do not think that this is the case. Rather I think that parties often tend to take themselves particularly seriously. The public, for example in Germany, are very sceptical – not without reason – about membership of political parties. I think that it is only 3% in the Federal Republic who take an interest in politics by joining a political party. Nevertheless they are still democrats. They get involved in society through other organisations of civil society, such as citizens' action groups and non-governmental organisations. I want to say that the European party should not be denied the right to exist. Those political forces which consider mergers of this kind to be right and necessary should also be able to proceed with them. Quite apart from that, I am convinced, personally, that European parties, as it states in Article 191 of the Treaty, do actually constitute an important factor for integration. That is why I support Mrs Schleicher's report and would also thank the Commission for its initiative. Against the background of the criticisms made by the Court of Auditors, I think it is necessary for clear conditions to be established. Legal certainty, financial discipline and transparency are indispensable, and I think that in particular the proposals on the statute, and especially the requirement for complete transparency of finances and any donations, should definitely be included in the Regulation.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The gravity of the European Commission’s plans in this field have been made all too clear by the large mobilisation of information technology users, inventors and innovators. Some progress has certainly been made and this has been turned into amendments but Mr Bolkestein’s stubbornness and the weight of the lobbies promoting the interests of huge economic empires make the final result too uncertain and potentially dangerous. This is why I voted against the directive.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I have already had occasion to express my concerns to this House regarding the ineffectiveness of fisheries controls. Illegal, illicit and undeclared fishing is a daily reality in Portugal. This initiative allows Member States to request a Community contribution to the financing of certain projects that aim at improving fishing controls. It is just one more brick for constructing a sustainable fisheries policy. In this context, I support the establishment of cross-border exchange of information, as this is a simple, useful way of imposing sanctions across the EU that are effective, proportionate and, most of all, dissuasive. Moreover, the varying levels of sanctions imposed across the EU for the same infringements are also of great concern. The problem is even more serious because there are no indicators for assessing the controls that have been carried out. The EU has, in fact, no information on numbers of inspections, infringements detected, infringement procedures opened, etc. I also agree with the rapporteur that monitoring should be performed not only on board vessels but also on land. Lastly, Community incentives for Member States to acquire fisheries control heavy equipment should be strengthened. At the same time, the initiative to simplify and tighten up the allocation of funding is commendable.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I join with others in thanking the rapporteur for giving us an excellent basis for our debate on this very sensitive subject this morning. I would also like to thank Commissioner Verheugen for having come from Switzerland late yesterday evening to inform us of the situation regarding the talks with Cyprus, which is intimately linked with our debate this morning. Two weeks ago I attended the EU-Cyprus Joint Parliamentary Committee, and while there was little optimism, there was a real desire for the two communities to be united on 1 May. We hope very much that this will take place. On Turkish accession to the Union, Mr Verheugen gave us a very detailed analysis of the political and economic reforms that have been made. I welcome, as others have, his belief that a clear objective assessment should be made on the basis of the Copenhagen criteria. I have a copy of the Copenhagen criteria of 21-22 June 1993 in front of me. It states that: 'Membership requires that the candidate country has achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities, the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union.' However, then it states: 'The Union's capacity to absorb new members, while maintaining the momentum of European integration, is also an important consideration in the general interest of both the Union and the candidate countries.' Much has been said in this debate about the great progress Turkey is making, but very little has been said about the Union's capacity to absorb a country of the size and nature of Turkey. Therefore, we need now to look not only at Turkey's ability to join the Union, but also at our ability to absorb it. When coming to the question of the big picture – which Mr Duff mentioned – many in my political group believe that this involves the ability of the Union to absorb Turkey on the one side and the Turkish ability to meet those criteria on the other. We believe, therefore, that there should be a fundamental assessment of the institutional capacity of the Union to absorb Turkey and that this should be part of the Commission's report in October. So we should have the courage to look at the situation in a very clear and reasonable manner. Therefore, with 25 Member States from 1 May, 21 languages, no post-2006 financial perspective in view until 2005 at the earliest, and doubts about whether a Constitutional Treaty will be agreed and ratified, the most sensible thing would be to say that there is real uncertainty in the Union's current political situation, and to be extremely cautious before giving Turkey the green light at this stage.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, the report by Mrs Gutiérrez Cortines, who is much respected and who is a colleague of mine twice over, is timely and of a high quality. She deserves the congratulations she has received and of course I would like to add my own. It is timely because its description of the university situation and its interesting proposals put an end to what has been several years of slow progress in terms of European construction in the education field, during which we have seen little more than passivity and rhetoric. On issues such as the unification of quality standards, the mutual and automatic recognition of qualifications, the convergence of degrees and programmes and the employment of graduates, the achievement of a European dimension, and the objectives set for 2010 in general, are almost as far away as they were on the day following the end of the Bologna process, more than three years ago now. The most competitive knowledge-based economy in the world is still waiting for us to be able to create a European area of higher education. Meanwhile, the universities’ response to European employment demands is inadequate and furthermore, in a context of globalisation, the European universities are still losing the battle against the American universities, both in terms of their leadership of the knowledge-based society and in terms of their external attractiveness to third-country teachers, researchers and students. The fact that the European university sector, with its fifteen million students and 600 000 teachers, is the most dynamic sector in our society, and the fact that we are adopting reports such as these, are hopeful signs which lead us to believe that, despite nationalist resistance in the Council, the autocratic attitude of some of our universities and the apathy of the Commission and Parliament in this sector, we will finally achieve the stated objective of a European area of higher education which is worthy of the name. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Indonesia is a product of 350 years of Dutch colonialism. For the sake of foreign economic interests, different peoples were forced to coexist under one authority. Little changed during more than 30 years of the Suharto regime. Out of economic self-interest, Europe, the United States and Australia wanted to remain on a friendly footing with the Indonesian regime, so that their companies could benefit from the exploitation of natural resources and from the low cost of labour. A Dutch rapporteur is now starting her proposal by emphasising that the European Parliament should recognise the sovereignty and integrity of the Indonesian borders. The PRD, the left opposition party, which is in contact with my party, the Dutch Socialist Party, is taking a more balanced view. It, too, would prefer Indonesia to remain one country, but it denounces the state violence which is deployed time and again to this end against the peoples of Aceh, the Moluccas and Western Papua. Following the wave of democratisation, the power of the army, authoritarian rulers and large companies in Indonesia is once again on the increase. The murder of the Dutch journalist, Sander Thoenes, on East Timor, occupied by Indonesia at the time, remains unsolved. Mrs Maij-Weggen’s conclusions are too optimistic and too much geared towards serving economic interests.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, this is a request from the Generalstaatsanwalt of the Landgericht of Berlin to lift the immunity of Mr André Brie, a Member of this House. The Legal Affairs Committee recommends to the House that we decide not to waive immunity in this case. It would be helpful if I say a few brief words about the grounds for our recommendations. The case concerns a demonstration mounted by Mr Brie and supporters in September 1998 when he, with eight others, unrolled and exhibited a placard at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin protesting against the gap in society between the haves and the have-nots. This was repeated on other occasions. The local prosecutor characterised this as a breach of Article 26(2) of the German Assembly Law, because it was held to be an assembly conducted without prior authorisation by, or information to, the appropriate authorities. This gives rise to a question of immunity because, as Members of the House are aware, they enjoy immunity in their own Member States on the same terms as if they were members of their own parliament. Under Article 46(2) of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic, Members of the Bundestag may not be called to account or arrested for a punishable offence, except by permission of the Bundestag, unless they are apprehended in the course of committing the offence or on the following day. Under these circumstances, it is clear that were Mr Brie a Member of the Bundestag he would enjoy immunity from prosecution which has been launched against him. Therefore, under European law he, as a Member of this House, enjoys immunity but Parliament may choose to waive that immunity. Our recommendation is that we should not waive immunity. This is a case of the conduct of political activity and the expression of political opinion. The tenor of decisions of Parliament in such cases has always been that immunity is not waived. There has been only one exception to this, where speeches directly and deliberately express holocaust denial or other forms of xenophobic attack on persons. This is by no means such a case and it follows all the precedents in which Parliament has held that political activity should be protected. This is not a matter of a benefit conferred on individual Members as politicians. It is a matter of sustaining the conditions of a democratic assembly with free, open and frank public debate. I have great pleasure in proposing to the House the report of the Legal Affairs Committee.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Should the oral amendment not be taken after the vote on the amendment, because they are amending the paragraph, rather than the amendment I tabled?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, because of the various discussions that have taken place the rapporteur has had an unusually long time to work on this report and she is to be warmly thanked for the efforts that she has made. I was interested to discover that the United Kingdom appears to be the second largest producer of ethyl alcohol and, along with other producers, is of course concerned at increasing imports but rather static Community demand. We know that imports into the Community have tariff concessions which have been agreed by the Council of Ministers. The industry tells me that there are subsidy regimes in the exporting countries which naturally they do not view very favourably. Our producers are also concerned about the prospect of duty-free entry from the 48 least-developed countries. We understand these concerns, but I do not believe that removing the prohibition on state aid provisions, which are provided for in Amendments Nos 7 and 19, is a solution to the problem. I would certainly hope that these will be opposed and I will be voting against them. On the positive side, the specific measures proposed by the Commission are welcome. They are certainly preferable to an interventionist organisation and I welcome the change in nomenclature that the rapporteur has introduced. I hope that the provisions are non-discriminatory, that they will provide for the continuance of the trade without any great hindrance, and that our competitiveness will not be too much affected by imports. The proposals do involve a minimum degree of administration and documentation. I hope that Parliament will reject Amendments Nos 7 and 19, in which case I will be able to support the report. I cannot say that this is the view of all the Members of the Group, but it is certainly the view of some of us.

Political group: PSE
As the Commission itself says, the topic in this case is integrated management of the Member States’ external borders. Even if the motion for a resolution in this report is adopted, moreover, it will, of course, in itself have no direct legal effects. Rather, the motion and the Commission’s communication will acquire significance in the light of a series of other decisions concerning the development of police cooperation. In this context, the proposal signifies a development that, in my view, is a threat to democratic control and the rule of law. This is a policy that would considerably weaken the national authorities in favour of the EU authorities. The unmistakeable ambition is to develop a supranational border police force in the longer term, one of several steps on the road towards an actual federal police force. This expansion of the police service is, at one and the same time, about unthinking EU integration and the securing of Fortress Europe. The latter is an obvious consequence of that outside pressure that is due to the prosperity of the EU countries as compared with the wretched social conditions endured by our neighbours, a contrast basically due to the EU countries’ policy, pursued for many years, of exploiting our neighbours. So much for the motion’s real background. The content of the motion is no less alarming. The common legislative body, the system of coordination and operational cooperation, the interoperational facilities and the permanent exchange of information and data, in short the overall development of the police service, does nothing less than dismember that rule of law which, on the basis of experience in the Nordic countries, I see democratic activists as having sought to establish over the years. What does the Commission have to say about democratic and judicial control? What we have is a non-binding and ill thought-out policy to the effect that control must be ensured. How? No answer. What does the report have to say? Not a word. EU border police and a common body for external borders? No thank you.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Poettering spoke here as a group chairman and not as a German. I am speaking here as a German and as the acting chairman of my group. Commissioner Patten has already outlined the Commission's views on Mr Verheugen's comments. For me, that would actually suffice as a Commission position. My group has always believed that not only the Commission as a whole but also all of the individual Commissioners must justify themselves before this Parliament, and this regardless of their nationality and regardless of any affiliation to a political party. That is why we would welcome Mr Verheugen's being given the opportunity this week to clarify his remarks here before the European Parliament and, if necessary, also to amend them.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to say very briefly that it was a great pleasure for me to vote for the amendments to the common position on food safety, for which Mr Whitehead was rapporteur. I wanted to express gratitude for his major efforts, for thanks to his work, we have managed to reach clear and sound agreements across the political divide, and that is why we are now where we are. Today, we only adopted those amendments which met with complete approval by the Commission. In addition, agreements have already been concluded with the Council. This means that the Food Authority can become operational in 2002, which suggests that we are completely on schedule. In my view, we can safely say that this is thanks to effective cooperation, across all groups of this House. We have created a framework which should work. If the right people are now also deployed in the right places, and the Authority is accorded a location which will give it the opportunity of establishing external contacts easily, then I believe that all conditions are in place to turn this Food Authority into a success. It is now down to the Authority itself, and I wish it every success.

Political group: PPE-DE