GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I am interested first and foremost in how relations with Parliament actually stand? Do you envisage the possibility of allowing Parliament to inspect all Coreper and Council documents on the Intranet?

Political group: PPE-DE
We want a strong health programme as early as January 2002. It is in Europe’s interest. This is why we do not understand the attitude of the Council which, by not wanting to fill in the details of this programme, is in fact leaving the Commission with all the powers, while Members of the European Parliament will be deprived of any right of review for the next six years. The European Parliament must be consulted about the annual priorities, and I hope that our fellow Members will support us on this point. Far from being innovative, this programme restricts itself mainly to the setting up of an epidemiological monitoring network. As far as we are concerned, this is not the main priority; we already have comparable data from other countries. The Community added value should appear upstream, in the form of a reduction in the health risks emanating, for the most part, from our environment in the broadest sense of the word: transport, pollution, chemicals, food etc., but also from our behaviour and from social, economic and environmental inequalities. We recommend prevention throughout the world, but we have to start by applying it ourselves in our health programme. This programme should also give greater consideration to the risks arising from transmissible diseases, including in the candidate countries. AIDS remains a scourge in Europe, and tuberculosis is resurfacing everywhere. We also need to think about the therapeutic technologies that we wish to give priority to. The ‘all-drug’ approach has revealed its limitations with the increasing levels of resistance to antibiotics and vaccines. It is time to take other methods and replacement treatments into consideration, but this should also be done on the basis of relevant evaluations. Finally, we cannot give in on this matter of the budget. Even EUR 380 million over a period of six years is not enough. By sticking at EUR 280 million, the Council would be demonstrating a desire to restrict the actions of the European Union on public health issues, which is something that we cannot comprehend. That is why we support Mr Trakatellis’ report, which is the result of numerous exchanges between us and which enables us to demonstrate to the Council that the European Parliament’s opinions on health matters must be taken into consideration. They are reasonable and they are essential to the health of all Europeans.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I should like to thank the President-in-Office for his answer. I am reasonably familiar with, and approve of, the Irish Government's strong position on Zimbabwe. My question is about the rollover of the common position. I wonder whether the presidency anticipates any difficulties in securing the rollover of the existing sanctions against Zimbabwe. Am I right to understand that there are Member States – and one in particular – which have a problem with the rollover that the presidency and others in the Council would like to see? Therefore, I am asking if you can tell me whether Member States are likely to be of one mind on the rollover. Second, would the President-in-Office consider it appropriate for the Council to now press for the extension of the list of banned individuals – a list of people who have sanctions against them and are not given visas – to include family members, people who have died or changed office and so on? In my view and in Parliament's view – it is in our resolution on the subject – the list should be extended and reviewed. I should very much like your opinion on this. It is something of great importance to the European Parliament and I look forward to your response.

Political group: PSE
The purpose of this proposal is to update the implementing regulation for the EU’s own resources following the Council Decision of 29 February 2000, which increased the contribution of the ‘GNP resource’ to the financing of the Community budget and codified the so-called ‘British cheque’ with adjustments in its financing for the main net contributors – Germany, Sweden, Austria and the Netherlands – with a consequent increase in the contributions from the remaining Member States, including Portugal, which is unacceptable. We always advocate that imbalances in terms of net transfers cannot be resolved on the income side of the equation and that the principle of ‘juste retour’ should not be regarded as sacrosanct. National contributions to Community financing should, at the very least, be equivalent to the share of each country in the Community GNP, or else there should be a harmonisation of effort per inhabitant in the Member States for this financing. The central issue in the report is the inclusion of a revision clause for a general review of the system, with a view to introducing European taxes to replace the present system of national contributions, before the approval of the Financial Perspectives. Indeed, this idea is supported in the Commission proposal. This aim of gradually giving the EU fiscal sovereignty would not only reinforce, in a non-explicit way, the federal approach to European integration, it would also have an impact on national fiscal policies and on the tax burden of taxpayers, while not contributing to the equity of budget financing.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I should like to express my satisfaction with the content of this report. Let me remind you that in presenting this proposal for a regulation, the Commission is fulfilling the undertaking it gave in 1997 to the European Parliament’s Temporary Committee of Inquiry to put forward measures for effectively monitoring transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs). This proposal seeks to create a standard legal basis for the monitoring and prevention of TSEs, of whatever type, and for all animal-based products. It incorporates all Community regulations in force in the field of TSEs. Like the rapporteur, I endorse the general strategy adopted by the European Commission, but I think the text before us needs tightening up in order to guarantee maximum consumer safety. I have therefore supported the amendments tabled by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. These amendments were intended to introduce the possibility of systematically implementing rapid diagnostic tests, and to reintroduce the European Parliament’s request in the context of the follow-up to the recommendations on BSE, i.e. withdrawing the entire herd from the food chain, banning any movement of animals defined as at risk, and advocating the slaughter and destruction of such animals, with the exception of animals intended for scientific research. The proposal also had to be extended by inviting the Commission to present proposals for the inclusion of some cosmetic products and medicines, and to draw up a procedure for determining the epidemiological status of countries or regions in relation to BSE, i.e. a classification of countries according to contamination levels. I shall conclude by stressing the fact that the European Parliament must continue to be involved, under the codecision procedure, in fundamental decisions on the prevention of TSEs.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner Patten, it is important that the issue of human rights and democracy is once again brought to the centre of the debate on relations between the European Union and the Mediterranean countries. Almost ten years on from the Barcelona process we note that there is still a serious lack of democracy in these countries, which has also been pointed out in numerous United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) reports. Indeed, we must ask ourselves if the policy that we have implemented to date and, above all, the instruments put forward in this area, were adequate given the ambitious objectives of the Barcelona strategy. Article 2 of the clause of the bilateral association agreements has turned out to be broadly insufficient. I am, however, asking a more complex question: are bilateral agreements adequate instruments for promoting the development of human rights? I believe that these agreements have helped to give international recognition to regimes that would otherwise have had no legitimacy. We need to be very careful about this, and I believe that the Commission communication poses this question. I support the ten points; the Initiative for Democracy that the European Parliament wants is an interesting instrument because it is one of the few instruments which allows measures to be carried out independent of governments. Indeed, all the others fall within the intergovernmental sphere, even if you are right, Commissioner, when you state that we need to remember that part of this dialogue must also involve the ruling classes. Nevertheless, I would like this instrument to be more consistent with the rest of our policies, otherwise there is a risk that it will be a way to legitimise the other policies, which are essentially realpolitik. This incentive is, therefore, excellent, it is good for countries prepared to go down this road and it is just as excellent regarding the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly, which could have interesting potential. It is extremely important for the Sana’a Conference, which has brought the issue to the attention of governments and civil society. I ask myself, however, if there should not be a permanent and unequivocal push for democracy from the European institutions, which is also based on new instruments. For example, Commissioner, why not try, with these countries, to have a multilateral convention on human rights, which is also based on institutions that are able to guarantee these rights? Compared to the current situation, this would give rise to a different dynamic. Finally, I tabled an amendment to Article 11, because I think that farming out this policy to an external agency somewhat contradicts the debate that we have had up until now, since it should be the European institutions that have the power to implement this policy. Therefore, as regards financial procedures, should the Commission not have instruments that are adapted to implementing these objectives?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, we support and we consider very positive the Commission’s efforts to integrate the developing countries and the least developed countries into these negotiations, access without customs duties or quotas for those countries and the creation of a food security box, but we also believe that in some proposals we could have gone further, such as in the proposal relating to the reduction in export refunds, on which I trust we can make progress during the negotiations. I would also like to say that the commitment to greater openness must be accompanied by a fair distribution of responsibilities amongst the developed countries. In this regard, we must condemn the unilateral nature of the United States’ agricultural policy. Commissioner, I am concerned, however, that the model of agricultural multifunctionality may be jeopardised. I must tell you that in the proposal for negotiation multifunctional considerations are mentioned just once when the Commission refers to access to the market for the poorest countries. With regard to Community agriculture, it is true that we are now referring to social objectives such as the protection of the environment, public health, obligatory labelling or the need to compensate for the additional costs of animal welfare. But European agricultural multifunctionality no longer plays an important role in this offer for negotiation and the main focus has passed to the decoupling of aid, the principle which the Commission is going to concentrate the negotiation on, in the internal support chapter. Commissioner, I believe that, if we allow our entire negotiating strategy to rest on the principle of decoupling, we may find ourselves without any room for manoeuvre in terms of guaranteeing elements which are essential to European agriculture, such as the stability of markets, with the maintenance of stable and economically viable prices which allow producers to earn an income.

Political group: PSE
Mr Goebbels’ report stresses the importance of the international monetary system for those who use money to attempt to boost their economy. I voted for the report but I was unsure about one thing: I remembered that Neapolitan shoeshine, that penniless Neapolitan boy who, when he met a wealthy old industrialist in Ischia, was told: “When I was your age, I used to clean shoes instead of sitting here sunbathing. Then I bought a taxi, then a public transport firm and then an airline, and then I became the owner of a satellite network.” “And what are you doing now?” asked the boy. “Now I am sitting here, sunbathing in the sun of Italy and Ischia. “And I,” replied the boy, “what am I doing?!”

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too wish to thank Mr Herman Schmid for his constructive work on this report. For the benefit of Commissioner Vitorino, I wish to mention a couple of amendments that we , including myself, have been involved in wording. It is a question of the demographic challenge which, in Stockholm in March 2001, was identified as one of the Union’s most important issues for the future. It is estimated that, by 2050, the European Union will have 40 million more pensioners than at present and, thus, 40 million fewer people of working age. This is stated in Amendment No 1, as an important part of Mr Herman Schmid’s report. I want to ask Mr Vitorino how he regards the crisis in the pensions system in relation to economic development and the survival of whole districts within the European Union against the background of the serious demographic trend. It is encouraging that a number of amendments, including Amendments Nos 28 and 38 concerned with the reconciliation of family and professional life, are now part of Mr Herman Schmid’s report. This is an incredibly important issue, but it is not good that Amendment No 43 states that work and family life will be reconciled notably through commitments to develop childcare services. It should be more a question of children having the right to more time with their parents than of our necessarily having to develop a form of childcare that gives children less time with their parents. Amendment No 9 is also important. It is about the need to strengthen the taxpaying ethic, about competition on equal terms between companies and about stepping up the fight against undeclared working. Allow me in conclusion to put in a good word for Amendment No 60, which emphasises the value of families, family enterprises and the transition from one generation to the next. If we are to do anything towards creating long-term jobs, the issue of how such transitions are carried out needs to be resolved.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I want to concentrate on the Solomon Islands, but first just a word on Fiji. My ACP-EU Vice-President is one of those held hostage and I would ask you to send a letter of support to his family. The ACP-EU delegation went to the Solomon Islands to study the ethnic tension. It was quite clear after talks that a coup was imminent. Why did it happen? When we arrived we found a complete vacuum. There was no dialogue between the warring parties. The parliament was not functioning. There was no law and order, as those who were police by day were Malaitan militants by night and they opened their armouries to the Malaitans on the morning of the coup. 99.9% of Guadalcanal is held by the IMF group and only Honiara City is held by the Malaitans. This situation is unsustainable. The ethnic conflict is all about the expulsion from Guadalcanal of 40 000 Malaitans back to their own island, to severe hardship, without any compensation. As they did all the work, Guadalcanal is now at a standstill in both rural and urban areas. The presence of Mrs Kinnock and myself did influence the situation for the better. We created dialogue. We had the 48-hour resignation demand on the prime minister withdrawn. We advised them to recall Parliament and have a debate on the situation and this has now happened. Amazingly the leader of the opposition is now the prime minister. All this happened because we pointed out the European Union could withdraw aid if the coup took place at the point of a gun. That aid is 25% of their GDP. But the country is bankrupt and the new prime minister will face the same problems as the last. He must make the parliamentary structure more active, work towards a cease-fire and then have talks on compensation with outside assistance. Outside help will also be needed to regain law and order. I should like to finish by thanking the members of the delegation office there who were so helpful to us.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, in January and last month, we were able to congratulate the Portuguese Presidency on its initiative to hold this special Council and on the thorough and conscientious way in which the Council had been prepared. And today, now that the Council has taken place, we would like to offer our congratulations on its conclusions and to congratulate President Prodi on the way in which the Commission, under his leadership, contributed to the Council’s success through the timely presentation of its own paper. However, Mr Gama, all such conclusions have one drawback in common: they cannot change the world overnight. Today, we have heard several speeches by Members who would like the Portuguese Presidency to come here and say “before the summit we had 15 million people unemployed and today we only have 10 million; before the summit we had 40 million people living in poverty and today there are only 30 million”. We know how difficult the real world is and how difficult it is to get the European Union to agree on a strategic objective. I would like to express a deep-felt concern here: whilst the presidency, the 15 Member States, the President of the Commission, the Commission itself, the President of the European Parliament and a substantial part of this European Parliament are agreed on an objective and on a strategic plan, the main group in Parliament is deeply divided over what it wants and over which path it should follow in the European Union. We confirm once again that we agree with this objective and that we are fully behind it, but we also wish to reiterate that the only part of the American model we are interested in pursuing is that of growth, since we do not want Europe to be a carbon copy of the American model. Nor do we want to copy the social aspects of the American model. We urge the Portuguese Presidency and the Commission to continue in their determination to fight for us to be able to create our own model from the opportunities offered by globalisation, so that the wealth generated can be used to combat poverty and can be more evenly distributed to ensure that social cohesion, full employment and sustainable development will be the outcome – in ten years’ time, but things should steadily improve up to then – of this meeting in Lisbon. Congratulations, Mr President.

Political group: PSE
I congratulate Mr Olsson on the excellent report he has produced on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000. I fully support this report, especially with regard to the need to help establish conditions for developing farming in the EU regions that are the weakest and which face the greatest problems. This will enable us to prevent the exodus of these communities from the countryside, and support the preservation of the landscape and consequently of the environment, whilst attempting to improve the standard of living of the communities in those regions. I also wish to emphasise that the European Parliament must always support the development of a farming policy that respects the environment, making support a priority only for farmers who comply with Community rules, and for young people wishing to become farmers. It should be emphasised that this is also a means of promoting employment in Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, since the Bush administration has taken up office, the entire world is being shaken up by his highly conservative policy. His first action, abolishing aid to third-world countries in the field of birth control, was promptly followed by the transfer of social security in America to the churches. You cannot get any food in America unless you say your prayers. Subsequently, we witnessed America’s withdrawal from the Middle East peace process. That is literally a life-threatening development. And now, to cap it all, Kyoto. Bush thinks he can afford not to adhere to the worldwide agreements on CO2 reduction. The interests of the American oil industry thus apparently outweigh the environmental interest. All these retrograde steps surprise progressive Europeans and people worldwide. Our group is of the opinion, therefore, that it is of the utmost importance for all European institutions, but also the European Member States, to continue to take a firm stand against this development.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I have been listening to this debate, especially to Minister Roche, and it has been something of a surreal experience. I have been increasingly puzzled as it has gone on. Mr Roche, you concluded your remarks by saying that this process was at its beginning. This rather begs the question: what is the coordination between the presidencies of the European Union? You referred to the framework document produced, in February 2003, by the Greek Government, because it was a Greek initiative. I was the rapporteur for this Parliament on the framework document, and the Greek Government was very anxious to get it through during its presidency in the first half of last year. The process is far from its beginning; in fact, this time last year we were hoping it was near its end. Some governments – perhaps the Italians, the Irish, and certainly some of the Scandinavian ones – were putting a spanner in the works and stalling on this. My report was adopted by 420 votes to nil in the European Parliament. Are you aware of that report on trafficking in human organs? Have you read it? Mr Coelho referred to it earlier on. Certainly, my report would answer some of the problems that you raised. I could tell you a great deal about this situation – over 1000 European Union citizens a year, allegedly, going to poorer countries in the world to seek human organs, whether it be India, Pakistan, Albania or some of the other countries that have been referred to. There is much information already in the market; we are not starting from scratch. What chance is there of real progress? Indeed, what point is there in this debate? What is the research that has gone into your statement, if you have not taken account of all that has gone through this Parliament already, if you have not read in depth the work that has been done and the reports that have gone through this Parliament, in consultation with the Commission and other governments? The danger is that all the good work and good intentions that colleagues have spoken about here will come to nothing if presidency after presidency does not build on what has happened already.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on the basis of the observations which the Commissioner has just made, I should like to know what the rapporteur’s position is, because it is rather important. I believe that the Commissioner is wrong. As soon as we in this Parliament object, those objections have to be taken into consideration. Otherwise we should be denied the power to object, which I could quite understand. However, the idea that we can object but that our objections can be ignored seems to me to be a serious matter. I should like to know what the rapporteur’s attitude is, and whether or not he intends to ask for a referral to committee.

Political group: PPE-DE