GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, before my speaking time starts, I would just like to clarify that Mrs Stihler spoke as the draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. I am speaking on behalf of the Group of the , and would like to thank the House for the support given to Mrs Jöns’s report. The Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities calls in the report for the fight against breast cancer to become a health policy priority for the EU. High-quality screening, diagnosis, treatment and aftercare for breast cancer must form an integrated whole and be provided in Member States. With the Commission’s support, this can be done by 2008 in accordance with our proposal. In Europe, a woman dies of breast cancer every 20 minutes. In Germany, every year 46 000 women suffer from this disease and 19 000 die from it. Breast cancer affects women at the height of their professional and family responsibilities. In women between the ages of 35 and 55, breast cancer is still the most common cause of death. On behalf of my group, I should very much like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Jöns. Her work has a very positive influence, not only because of her own victory over breast cancer, but also because she is fighting for all women in the European Union to receive the best possible treatment. Our aims are high-quality national screening and the establishment of breast centres. The relevant guidelines have already been developed by the European Society for Mastology, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer and Europa Donna. Now it is a question of transposing them quickly. The multidisciplinary breast centres shall bring together radiologists, oncologists, pathologists, psychologists and surgeons, who will consult with the patient on the best method of treatment for her. In Sweden, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands a nation-wide screening programme has led to a 30% reduction in the mortality rate. We have now been allocated EUR 400 million in the sixth framework programme of research. At the earliest possible opportunity, national cancer registers should be set up so that we may finally have informative data about the possible influence of risk factors like tobacco, diet, life-style and environment on the development of cancer. This is particularly important with regard to breast cancer. We do of course clash with other interest groups. In my native state of Bavaria, for example, we are taking a different path because X-raying is going to be left to general practitioners. It is only in accordance with the EU guidelines, however, that optimal treatment can be attained. Only when the attending physician reads at least 5 000 mammograph screenings per year does he acquire enough training and experience to recognise breast cancer when it is between five and seven millimetres. Those who do not support this are concerned only with the interests of their professional groups and not with our goal of saving thousands of women’s lives. Every seventh or eighth woman will be affected. We can count through each row here and see how many of us that will be.

Political group: PSE
I should like to ask the President-in-Office of the Council whether she can confirm my belief that European citizens are entitled to benefit from this decision, whether or not the Member States have put provisions in place to interpret the decision? Am I correct in thinking that from the date the decision is made citizens are entitled to benefit from it?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, for the sake of compromise here, too, we would like to propose the following, which is submitted with the rapporteur’s cooperation and agreement. It should read: ' Urges Turkey to propose in the coming year a precise timetable ...', in other words we would insert: 'in the coming year'. (The President noted that there was no opposition to considering the oral amendment) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0366/2001) by Mr Gahrton, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the proposal for a Council decision establishing the Community's position in the Ministerial Conference set up by the accord creating the World Trade Organisation, with regard to the accession of the People's Republic of China to the World Trade Organisation (COM(2001) 517 – C5-0487/2001 – 2001/0218(CNS)) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0367/2001) by Mr Gahrton, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the proposal for a Council decision establishing the Community's position in the Ministerial Conference set up by the accord creating the World Trade Organisation, with regard to the accession of the separate Customs territory of Chinese Taipei (Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu) to the World Trade Organisation (COM(2001) 518 – C5-0488/2001 – 2001/0216(CNS)) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Motion for a resolution (B5-0695/2001), by Mr Wurtz, on behalf of the Confederal Group of the , on the conclusions of the Ghent European Council of 19 October

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, as chairman of this Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries, Mr Prodi, you are not making things easy for me at all. I feel duty bound to publicly denounce the fact that fishing is absent from the programme which you have presented to us. The next five years of the Prodi Commission – as you solemnly announce in the first of your conclusions – will mean great change. I hope that this change will not mean an even greater marginalisation of fishing, since the silence of your programme, with regard to fishing, is deafening. Not a single line, nor a single word, refers to fishing or the CFP. I am not asking for details or specific points, but I believe that a mention was required. How could you completely ignore a common – I repeat; common – policy with such an economic, social and regional impact, and which therefore affects the economic and social cohesion of Europe? This is all the more serious, if that is possible – as others have said – bearing in mind that your Commission, Mr Prodi, has to carry out nothing less than a revision or reform of the current common fisheries policy, which you are legally required to do in 2002. Does the Commission intend to do nothing – at least it has announced nothing – about this reform in 2000 either? What message can we send to the fishermen of Europe, and their families, and the fishing industries, both the extractive and processing and marketing industries, and the related and secondary industries which depend on fishing in so many European ports, in so many European regions, in most cases peripheral regions, who rightly demand that this problem be dealt with as a priority? You have made an explicit reference to the CAP for the coming years, but you have not done so for the CFP, with regard to the double adaptation of the internal market which is necessary to prevent exceptions – as has already been said – and in a global context, in the context of globalisation. This House has expressed its opinion on the first issue and it will also do so on the second. I would therefore ask you, Mr Prodi, to make an explicit reference to this problem in your reply today. Our parliamentary Group will table an amendment in this respect and we expect a positive message from you.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, it will come as no surprise to you that I am not satisfied. I have quite a few questions. Parliament has been calling for the BSE test to be made compulsory since the BSE control committee. I have asked you time and again for quite some time now: do you not consider that making the test compulsory as late as January 2001 is too little by a long chalk and much too late, given that the BSE tests were assessed a year ago? Do you also not consider, Mr Byrne, that taking dead animals and sick animals is not good enough and that you will only get a proper overview, i.e. carry out proper screening, by testing one animal in every five, six or ten thousand to be slaughtered, depending on the BSE status of the Member State? Mr Byrne, if the only reason for this weak Commission proposal is the Member States’ unwillingness to agree, are you prepared to tell the House which Member States refused to agree to a more ambitious proposal?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, allow me to begin by expressing my great disappointment at the fact that no minister from the presidency is present at this important debate. President of the Commission, as the mist clears following the Nice Summit, it is clear that the last-minute compromise behind closed doors has its obvious limitations. Now, sobriety has returned, and a broad civic debate has been promised on Europe’s goals, future and responsibilities. That is the way it should be. The promise is binding. But how is that to be arranged? If the citizens of Europe really are to take part in the discussion about the future of the common European project, they are also going to be able to exercise influence. Is the Commission prepared to take proposals and ideas on board and also put them into effect? In that case, the EU will be transformed, opened up and simplified. We know that many citizens want to see a clear constitution. When are they to obtain one? We also know that issues concerning the environment, asylum and cross-border crime are important issues in connection with which our citizens want the EU to be strong, vigorous and willing to act. Are the Commission and the Council prepared to give the EU these tools? The outcome of the Nice Summit puts people off, unfortunately. We know that there is a general feeling of irritation about the fact that the EU meddles in all too many questions of detail. Is the Commission prepared to give the celebrated subsidiarity principle real substance and to find a method of limiting the eagerness for regulating detail which characterises all of us in Brussels and Strasbourg? Citizens of the EU and of the candidate countries, as well as national parliaments and, of course, this Parliament, must be given real influence over the agenda for, the decisions about, and the method for shaping the EU’s future. But how? This is the major unresolved issue discussed by all my colleagues.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the enlargement reports are on the table. There is much to be said about them, but unfortunately I can only deal with a few points. As far as the Czech Republic is concerned, we should understand and respect the fact that history can be seen from two perspectives and that the Potsdam Agreement was international law too. On 4 December 1989, I apologised on behalf of the Government of the German Democratic Republic to the peoples of Czechoslovakia for the events of August 1968, but at the same time I did not forget the 9 May 1945. We need vision and the courage to let wisdom prevail and to resist any inclination to do what we know to be wrong by swimming against the tide of history and creating new divisions. As for the general historical context, consideration should be given to the post-war history of the whole of Europe, not only in its political dimensions, and all of us must act in full awareness of our historical legacy. There are calls for the enlarged Union to speak with one voice. These calls are certainly warranted, but that one voice must plead for peace; it must uphold the rights of the United Nations, speak out against a new arms race and rally support for the fight against hunger and poverty in the world. The historical dimensions of the present moment are beyond dispute. What is questionable, however, is the way in which the European Union is proceeding, whether it is proving equal to the historic mission with which it has now been entrusted in fulfilment of Europe’s historical destiny and whether it is taking a sufficiently balanced approach to that mission. If it fails to do these things, the future development of the Union will be more uncertain than many people are prepared to acknowledge today.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr Solana, Commissioner, I listened carefully to Mr Solana’s comments on Iraq. I was extremely surprised, however – since President Bush has not yet ruled out the threat of another war against Iraq, with or without the UN resolution – that the Brussels European Council found nothing to say about this. Moreover, the Union in its current form has hardly said anything about this highly sensitive issue. The only ones taking action are a few States that are members of the Security Council, and also some forces of peace which are working together. In this area, Mr Kucinich, a member of the US Congress and Chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus sends us this message: ‘We can still avoid this war. Let us work together for peace, cooperation, for a new era in human relations where war has no place. I welcome every opportunity to work with you to create this new world’. Mr President, I dream of a Europe, of a united Europe capable of taking up the challenge before it. Europe does not do this at the moment, this is the existential challenge that we must accept. In the Middle East, more than twenty years ago, there was the declaration from the Venice European Council, which called for an end to the Israeli occupation, which stressed that the settlements were illegal, which acknowledged the right to Palestinian self-rule and which insisted that the PLO must be involved in the negotiations. That was more than twenty years ago! Much more recently, in March 1999, the declaration of the Berlin Summit explicitly recognised the right of the Palestinians to a State. But today, when the situation is worsening dramatically day by day, when the Oslo Accords are cast aside and forgotten, when the radical elements of the occupiers responds to the radical elements of a part of the occupied, how can we interpret the silence of the European Union Member States? My group does not believe that this can go on, that the silence and the half-hearted measures can continue. We need firm initiatives which can demonstrate to the world, and more importantly to the peoples of the region, a political, clear will, encouraging the supporters of peace to take action. We need to kick-start this issue. For the time being, I shall put forward a practical proposal. The Thursday of our next sitting will be the eve of the 35th anniversary of the celebrated UN Security Council Resolution 242 which is one of the international community’s major reference points in the conflict. Well, I suggest we organise a formal occasion involving Parliament, the Council and the Commission in Strasbourg. I suggest we also involve young supporters of peace, young Europeans, young Palestinians, young Israelis, those who gathered en masse last Saturday in Tel Aviv to commemorate the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. Each of our institutions will therefore be able to state clearly what, in its view, in accordance with international law and our common values, is unacceptable and, conversely, what type of plan for fair and lasting peace we want to draft.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I am going to use the time allocated to Mr Andria and Mr Mantovani too, who have asked me to express their regret because they have been detained in Italy by strikes and other such serious matters. I shall briefly summarise their views too, insofar as I am able. The task of the European ruling class, and the European Parliament in particular, is to rewrite the model of the social market economy, to modernise it, to revise it without reducing the social undertaking. Job security must no longer be sought on the basis of acquired rights but through skills, hard work and lifelong learning. Wage differentiation, which has consistently been advocated in theory but has often been disregarded in practice, must become a genuine goal for Parliament, which must specify clearly and resolutely the process to be followed to achieve it. This commitment to reform must be upheld first and foremost by the active parties, in other words by all the social elements who will have to make responsible commitments to promoting training, innovation and flexibility, without, however, subsequently going back on them when the time comes to implement them. The dialogue on the bargaining structure will have to reinforce both the company level and wage differentiation; where the company level is reinforced, productivity is enhanced and individual contributions are appraised. Clearly, in order to achieve these goals, it is necessary to match bargaining at national level with bargaining at company level. In order to provide secure jobs, we need, however, above all, as has already been said, to boost investment, the real spearhead, especially in future initiatives targeting the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Joint ventures are another way of boosting SMEs, which, we must not forget, provide over 90% of jobs in Europe. When applying flexibility, care must be taken to ensure that it does not become an easy option for certain companies which would like to exploit this solution by creating atypical jobs such as collaboration contracts, which do not represent a secure future, especially for young people. If we abuse this instrument, we will be in danger of creating future generations of precarious, insecure workers, but also, above all, of creating low-income future pensioners, in other words poor future pensioners. We must therefore avoid giving way to populism in these major reforms and endeavour to take resolute, practical, achievable steps forward.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, we have already heard what we are to gain from the new Tempus programme and from its extension, which is thoroughly to be welcomed, both as regards the countries taking part and also the target groups. Great challenges and great opportunities are united here; I believe that the programme needs to have its funding increased in order to meet them. There are also particular considerations to be borne in mind when extending Tempus III to the partner countries around the Mediterranean, specifically in matters concerning policies on women and the opportunities open to them. In the countries south of the Mediterranean, there are still very few women who have received higher or university education, especially in rural areas. The reform and development of higher education structures associated with Tempus III is primarily, or among other things, to be seen as an opportunity for women. In Jordan, which along with Malta and Cyprus, sets an example in the Mediterranean region, the proportion of women in higher education is already over 50%, but that on the teaching staff of universities and colleges, and in decision-making positions in them is still very small, making the picture there similar to that in the European Union as far as the presence of women in leading positions in universities and colleges is concerned. One very ambitious objective is to highlight common cultural values through cooperation in higher education. Respect for other cultural values is of course very much worth striving for. It is further enriched by the fact that political decision-makers – and let me say, with reference to the error in the German translation, that ‘political decision-makers’ is the expression to use rather than ‘political representatives’ – are being included here as a second grouping with academic and civil society. I really would like to underline that, as it is very often said that it is political decision-makers that should have co-decision in these matters, and that is why the translation error needs to be corrected. It would also be encouraging if a ‘think tank’ could be created, consisting of members of NGOs, educators, administrators, and academics together with citizens from the participating countries. The involvement of the widest possible range of fora is intended to create a local dimension in addition to the supranational and national ones, in order to make it possible to consider citizens' needs at an earlier stage. I believe that the most important thing is that we can get many problems out of the way through our ability to regain, over and over again, the sympathy of our fellow-citizens.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I read the Turmes report on electricity very carefully and I voted for it. How could anybody fail to support any initiative which stresses the importance of electricity, of which we are all aware? However, I have taken the floor to explain my reasons for voting in this way because I wish to say that, once again, there is something missing. The Turmes report lacks a recommendation to provide the most vulnerable citizens of our Union, who have the lowest economic means, not with electricity at a reduced price, but with free electricity. Nowadays, it is impossible to live without electricity. Electricity is like the water we drink and the air we breathe. Do we pay for the air we breathe? Then we should not have to pay for electricity either if we do not have the means to do so.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Europe is, after all, about unity in diversity, and so I would like to put the following question. How do you think the right of veto will develop? This is a major and very important area for the smaller States. Do you believe – and this also relates to the Convention – that the Council will in future consider the retention of the right of veto in certain areas indispensable?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, a system of own resources gives rise to four questions: who must pay, what are the bases for payment, what must be paid and who must decide to enforce payment? Neither the Commission nor Parliament have the power to provide an answer to these four questions. In this affair, we are the imaginary actors in a play written by someone else. Mrs Haug with her report has the great merit of doing this, by setting out a number of problems and heading in the right direction. Who must pay? States or individuals and economic operators? Current evolution is towards States and not towards individuals and economic operators. It is a dangerous tendency, going towards intergovernmentalism, towards the UN-isation of our system of resources. What are the bases for payment? Proportionality, progressive increase? We may well hesitate. Something that we can observe today is that if there is a step in the right direction, towards proportionality, we are in the process of inventing a new system, which involves making the contribution fit the expenditure. I pay, therefore I receive. I receive, therefore I pay. I give you subsidies, on condition that you pay for them. It is absurd! The situation is completely surreal. What must be paid? Is anyone considering how much longer we can continue with such a limited collection rate at a time when the European Union is taking on more and more new responsibilities relating to the continuation of monetary union and enlargement of the Union, and to the assumption of foreign and security policy responsibilities? In this respect, our schizophrenia is rampant. Finally, who decides who must pay? At the moment, it is the States, and States only. This mechanism must absolutely be reformed. It is essential for the matter of own resources to be the focus of the next Intergovernmental Conference.

Political group: PPE-DE
We Swedish Social Democrats agree with large parts of the report but wish to point out our attitude towards a common tax policy. We support the idea of minimum levels for certain taxes, for example corporate income tax and tax on capital, because it would facilitate the implementation of a policy on the internal market. By means of a partly common tax policy, we could, for example, make environmentally damaging activities more expensive. We wish, however, to emphasise that we are opposed to the harmonisation of income tax. In the future too, it should be the national parliaments that legislate on income taxes.

Political group: PSE