GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the content of the Charter could have been better. The issue of its legal status could have been resolved now rather than in the dim and distant future. What prevented the achievement of both results is, Minister, the same thing that will prevent the achievement of a satisfactory outcome in terms of democracy and effectiveness at Nice: the obligation to reach unanimity on every single part of the text. Those who are more backward and more reactionary have, once again, triumphed over those who are fighting to see fundamental rights applied to all people and for an effective, legally binding response to new issues such as the risks of science, the rights of the new citizens, the right to a healthy environment etc. Consequently, we are once again left disappointed and dissatisfied. We will, of course, vote for the Charter, but we will do so with the feeling that it will not succeed in arousing that enthusiasm and that sense of participation by the citizens of Europe which are so necessary and, as usual, it will be the governments – and some governments more than others – who will have to bear the historical responsibility.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, e-commerce offers the European Union a unique chance to stimulate economic growth, strengthen the industry’s competitiveness and create new jobs. The legal framework of the internal market plays a crucial role in this. The present proposal removes a whole raft of obstacles and uncertainties which businesses are still having to negotiate in the field of e-commerce. These uncertainties have been there for far too long because the Council needed nearly a year to determine its positions. Similarly, the copyright directive has been with the Council since February 1999, i.e. for over a year now. In the light of the speed of developments, neither industry nor consumers benefit from such delays. Parliament works significantly faster. The country of origin principle is one of the internal market’s cornerstones. It is therefore obvious that this should be extended to cross-border e-commerce. One cause for concern in this respect, however, is that this principle will only apply to trade between businesses for the time being. Revisions of private international law for the benefit of on-line trade with consumers are in the pipeline. It is crucial in this respect that disputes are settled out of court as much as possible. After all, court proceedings are drawn-out and costly. I would therefore call on the Commission to support initiatives to this effect. It is unfortunate that the present directive is not being dealt with in conjunction with, and at the same time as, the copyright directive, because there are inconsistencies in terms of liability of service providers. How does the Commissioner intend to create unambiguous and legally secure positions for service providers? I would like a reply to this question.

Political group: ELDR
The same objections apply even more to this directive than to Mr Zappalà's report on public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, which was discussed at the same time. This time, it is about large and long-term contracts and concerns tasks regarded, for a century or longer, as forming part of the core tasks of the government itself. It is about products and services that are essential to society as a whole, households and industry, and which, at one time, were intentionally taken away from private companies, which had failed to offer continuity, a quality service, acceptable prices and a reasonable treatment of the consumer. A government monopoly under democratic control was seen as the only acceptable solution that could guarantee the required product and consumer protection. This choice was, at the time, scarcely contentious even among advocates of capitalism. For deliveries and services in these areas, private companies preferred to depend on a reliable government monopoly than on the uncertainty and lack of continuity that characterises the free market. Meanwhile, governments wishing to reduce taxes and suffering from a lack of funds have sold such companies to internationally operating concerns that wish to make a profit from them. If this is what they choose to do, then it is true that rules are desperately needed. However, it is then wrong to give much consideration to company secrets and other company interests. - Scheele report (A5-0202/2003)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, it is a fact of life that directives must be evaluated and modified from time to time, and in fact this occurs all too seldom. As far as we are concerned, the Commission deserves to be complimented on the way it has handled matters on this occasion. The procedure it followed was first-rate and also very inclusive. This directive gives rise to a certain tension between what can reasonably be expected of producers, on the one hand, and consumer protection on the other. In that respect, I would, in a sense, concur with Mr Lehne when he said that recent statements by the Court indicated that this is a rather nebulous area, when it comes to what the Union can, and cannot, do. In particular, the aspect concerning the definition of exports is something we must look into very closely. As matters stand, my group is inclined to support the proposals now on the table, but I would appreciate it if the Commissioner could go into this aspect again in a little more depth. Incidentally, we support the Commission’s proposals concerning the extension of the directive's scope of application to include services, and also the incorporation of migrated products, even though there is certainly still a lot more that could be done in these areas, which will no doubt fall to us in the future. We concur with the rapporteur where he has highlighted the importance of providing consumers with information about the risks, and the need for transparency, especially in the sphere of health and safety. That must indeed be the general principle. Two final remarks, the first of which relates specifically to a particular amendment concerning the Commission’s proposal that producers should inform the competent authorities immediately when they discover that a product is dangerous. We believe this to be a very important element. There is a proposal to scrap this idea, one of the considerations being that producers should not have to incriminate themselves, and also in the light of professional secrecy. We feel that the emphasis really must be on consumer protection here, and that a producer who discovers that his product is actually dangerous should not be allowed to sit on his hands. Finally, a brief question for the Commission about Article 4, which concerns European standards and the question as to whether they must be disclosed. I would be grateful if the Commission could go into this in a little more depth.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, after so much criticism, I should like to offer Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf my warmest thanks for his oral question to the Commission. It is not just on the mind of my group, it is, of course, also on Mrs Sommer's mind. As she said, we worked together with an overwhelming majority in the Committee on the Environment on this issue, precisely because we have the impression that our right of codetermination is being curtailed, whatever the legal situation here; I think we all know that, Mrs Sommer. We have asked the Commission and various representatives working on this directive for a deferment on several occasions, because the message we keep getting is that the idea is to railroad these legal provisions through before the end of the year. The legislation in this area, which is currently being dealt with by the Council but which was dealt with by Parliament at first reading up to July, signals that we are taking this seriously. I shall resist the temptation to rehash the debate we held up to July, but I should like to comment on one point which is, of course, also addressed in the legislation and which, as rapporteur, I am familiar with, namely the regulation on genetically modified food and feedingstuffs. What we want to know is: what is being done to prevent technically unavoidable, unwanted contamination? What proposals does the Commission have for investigating this question? Word is spreading that we are in fact regulating something at European level. We are regulating limit values, threshold values for technically unavoidable, adventitious contamination. We all agree here that we need these limit values and that there is no such thing as completely 'GM-free'. At the same time, we are not saying that there are laws in the pipeline, there are recommendations in the pipeline tackling how this can be avoided in future. If the objective – and here too we agree with the Commission – is to deny this contamination and if the objective is the coexistence of various types of farming, such as traditional and organic farming, then this is a question we really should be asking ourselves. If the Commissioner says that there are no clear-cut replies to these questions, which is perfectly understandable, then I understand even less why this is now being railroaded through here under the comitology procedure.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in view of the short time available, I want to speak only on the Gebhardt report. I appreciate the efforts that the rapporteur and the Commission have made in their desire to do the right thing in terms of cross-border cooperation. Although the usefulness of this is not a matter of doubt, I do wonder whether the proposal put before us by the Irish presidency really does represent an acceptable position and whether we might be creating a bureaucratic monster. Firstly, I think it is quite wrong that we should now, for the first time in the history of the European Union’s lawmaking, be seeking to interfere in the Member States’ right to organise the way in which they, within their own borders, transpose regulations and directives. In this instance, we prescribe that Member States may not transfer certain functions to private bodies, but that these functions must be performed by the authorities, and so that is precisely what we are doing – tampering with matters that are for the Member States to organise – which may well mean that the whole Regulation contravenes the Treaty. My second worry is about the bureaucratic monstrosity of decision-making in the event of dispute. This I can describe only as real-life satire. The situation is that the Member State delegating the function has to consent to the Member State that accepts it entrusting the performance of the tasks to a private body. If neither that, nor the re-examination of the criteria by mutual agreement, is possible, a comitology procedure is set in motion, in which the decision rests with the Commission, so people travel to Brussels from 25 national capitals in order to decide whether or not the matter can, under the directive or a regulation, be referred to private bodies. I see that is quite disproportionate to the matter in hand. We should respect the Member States’ exercise of their powers and acknowledge the efficient way in which they perform their functions. I therefore propose that we should stick to what was decided by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. The Council will do likewise when it has come to its senses. Earlier on, Mrs Thyssen pointed out that we have no reason to give way on this; it is the Council that must give way to us, and then this can be adopted quickly, in one reading, but on the basis of the motion for a resolution produced by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market rather than on the compromise proposed by the Irish presidency.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my heartfelt thanks go to Mr Rocard for bringing up the issue of the assistants’ statute again in his oral question. He was right to raise the matter again, authoritatively, clearly and incontrovertibly, since Parliament has repeatedly made commitments on the issue. I would also stress, in addition to the indisputable nature of these commitments, the role of the s who, particularly within the Committee on Budgets, have fought on the front line every year to ensure that these commitments are included in the budget lines, and they will do so on this occasion with regard to this operation too. This evening, the Bureau and the Vice-President and Commissioner Liikanen have made somewhat significant commitments. These commitments are a step in the right direction although they are still not a full response. We need to provide a definitive, comprehensive response dealing with national insurance contributions, tax and salaries, and the rights and responsibilities associated with an – albeit temporary – position. There is a need for swift action, for it is our duty to ensure the greatest possible transparency and total legality of a relationship, certain aspects of which still make a mockery of respect for workers’ rights and the principles which we desire to uphold for all and which we must protect, especially for those who work with us. It is our duty to guarantee respect for the dignity of these professionals who, moreover, make a valuable, high-quality contribution to our work.

Political group: PSE
The proposal for a directive on high standards of quality and safety in connection with human tissues and cells fills a huge gap in Community legislation to safeguard a high level of quality and safety for tissues and cells intended for transplants or any other uses which need to be accurately defined. Similarly, it will result in comparable levels of quality and safety in all the Member States. On the basis of the positions of my group, the , I voted against block Amendments Nos 1, 3 and 4 and Amendment No 38 and I voted in favour of block Amendment No 2 and Amendment No 58. The European Parliament should not restrict the operational breadth of the directive for reasons of conservatism but should safeguard high levels of safety and quality.

Political group: GUE-NGL
This report seeks to improve the Commission’s proposal, which, despite its name, effectively seeks to privatise passenger transport. Although important proposals have been approved, and we voted for them, the fact is that the introduction of competition may jeopardise established rights for users, such as travel passes, and for staff, something that has not been sufficiently safeguarded in this report and will certainly be even less so in Commission and Council practice. Thus, even greater obstacles to user mobility may be created, although certain proposals approved by Parliament along different lines are to be welcomed. Furthermore, there is no proper guarantee of coordination between the various means of transport, and adequate answers are not given to those users located in less profitable areas: private companies may consider them unprofitable and then cancel services there. Lastly, the vote against the legislative resolution is also justified on account of our fears regarding the implementation of the Commission’s position and the consequences for staff and users, which may jeopardise a quality, low-price service. It should also be noted that, although the Commission is backing the privatisation of transport services, part of these services will continue to be supported by public money, which is unacceptable.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I should like to make a point about the recommended voting list. There was a mistake in Amendment No 8 as a result of a mistake in the original draft, which has now been corrected. So Amendment No 8 should be supported by the Group as a recommendation. Similarly, Amendments Nos 57, 13, 46 and 47 have a mistake in the English language translation which renders it nonsensical. The word ‘by’ should be replaced by ‘to’ in the relevant paragraph (c). The rapporteur, Mr Berenguer Fuster, supports me on both counts.

Political group: PPE-DE
I welcome the Commissioner's statement and particularly its measured and considered nature. The resolution that has been tabled takes the same view. We do not want a quick, ill-conceived reaction to events that have taken place in my country and the announcement made by the British Government. These are serious matters and reflect our citizens' deep concerns but we should appreciate the full context of the UK announcement, acknowledging the subsidiarity principle to which the Commissioner referred. It is only a proposal, not a decision, and it follows a very careful and considered report by the chief medical officer's expert group on cloning. The matter has been under consideration for two years – too long, say some commentators, when measured against the lives of people with cancer, Parkinson's disease or organ failure who might be aided by this research. The experts' group merely proposes an extension to existing UK rules on the purposes for which embryos can be used in research. I emphasise this is an extension to existing rules and controls in this very, very delicate area. We must respect the there are deep and genuine public concerns on both sides of this argument and this is what our resolution tries to do. The British Government has recognised that in its proposal because it will be the subject of a free vote, possibly later this year. I believe, although it is not my party's government, that the British Government has been measured and considered in its response. I ask this Parliament to be measured and considered in the way it deals with this important issue.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, we are grateful that the Secretary of State made a report on the first session of the IGC. I have to say that, like Mr Barón Crespo, I greatly regret the suppression of the notion of the Legislative Council, a decision which will not foster the separation of powers within the European Union. The more serious problem appears to be caused by Spain and Poland, on the grounds that they are to lose the blocking minority they enjoy beneath the Treaty of Nice. I have to say that these are spurious grounds for complaint. The facts are that Spain and Poland need several more partners to join with them to reach the 38% of the population needed to block a decision. The Convention proposes to lower the QMV threshold from 62% to 60%: a mere 9 million people. This is at best a marginal question of bruised self-esteem for Spain and Poland. On Thursday, I trust the true friends of Spain and Poland will explain to Mr Aznar and Mr Miller that they should drop their complaint and assist the IGC in reaching a speedy political agreement to respect the first and second parts of the Constitution. The IGC will then be free to proceed to refurbish and modernise Part III, which is its proper responsibility.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, one of the complaints most frequently made by the citizens concerns their limited role in representative democracy. It is precisely in the area of the environment that people’s dissatisfaction has been most deeply felt. We are all aware of cases in which, when confronted with certain projects or installations, the citizens feel compelled to express their right to be indignant in the streets or in the courts. This indignation increases exponentially when many of these projects with unacceptable environmental impacts are funded under the common agricultural policy and the Structural Funds. It was therefore very important that, in the wake of the Aarhus Convention, the Commission has legislated on public participation and public access to information. I therefore congratulate the Commissioner for the Environment. Greater public participation will not only give greater legitimacy to the decisions taken by our institutions but also enhance the quality of these decisions. This proposal for a directive on public participation in drawing up certain environmental plans and programmes is a good example of how the citizens’ participation in politics can be made more democratic. I also congratulate our rapporteur on the work she has done in Parliament and also in the Conciliation Committee. I should like to highlight three main results of this Conciliation. Firstly, the fact that NGOs should participate fully in the debate on access to information in this process; secondly, the fact that all Community legislation has to explicitly define conditions for public participation; and thirdly the mandatory participation of the public in cases considered to be significant. Lastly, I welcome the announcement made by the Commissioner that we will have legislation on citizens’ access to justice before the end of 2003.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, what you see before you is one happy man, one happy rapporteur, because the Commission has adopted the lion’s share of the amendments put forward by the Committee on Budgetary Control, on their merits. Of course this is only to be welcomed. Our work has borne fruit. But I am also happy because I feel that Parliament has succeeded, by keeping the pressure on, in turning round a situation that originally left a great deal to be desired. Rapporteur Lagendijk rightly pointed out that, if truth be known, the Commission’s original proposal drew no lessons from the past, from the comments already made by the Court of Auditors, or from the experiences of the European Agency for Reconstruction. Nor did it take on board the comments in Mrs Pack’s report, which was available to us back in 1999, or the feedback from the ad hoc delegation that we sent to Kosovo, and which submitted some very important recommendations under the leadership of Doris Pack and Terry Wynn. When I drafted my report in July, I saw at once that that this original proposal was lacking. I then asked the Commission to withdraw the proposal. I am delighted that they did so and went on to submit a new proposal. There has been a new proposal on the table since 4 October, and we are working on it now. I feel this is to be welcomed, thanks to the pressure exerted by Parliament. What is it about? We must ensure that the regulations now on the table make provision for EU aid to the Western Balkans to be delivered quickly, flexibly and unbureaucratically, in cooperation with the local population and local bodies. There has been all too little of this in previous years. We need a flexible system to this end, a lightweight structure free of red tape. It is a pity that the President-in-Office of the Council is absent today. It is mainly the Council and the Member States who have, as it were, put a spoke in this large wheel in recent years. They have put paid to things that might have been possible. Therefore I welcome the proposal now on the table. On behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control, I am able to tell you that we support all the amendments. Naturally we are also delighted that the amendment regarding OLAF has been adopted. It is indeed the case that the anti-fraud unit must also be free to carry out its full range of tasks in the Western Balkans. Finally, I would like to say a brief word, speaking in a personal capacity rather than on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control. I am currently working on a report on how funds are being spent in Bosnia Herzegovina. It is a follow-up report to a special report by the Court of Auditors. We will need to ensure that sufficient funds are earmarked for Bosnia Herzegovina in the CARDs regulation. Our task will not end there, as we will still have quite some way to go. It is a fragile and unstable state. That, more than anything is what we must keep in mind in the years to come.

Political group: Verts-ALE