GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would like to congratulate you on your election, by a large majority, as Vice-President. I shall describe a case which relates to these Directives, and which concerns my home city of Helsinki. Some time ago the Helsinki public transport corporation, being the public procurement authority, put out to public tender certain bus routes and set criteria stipulating inter alia that the buses to be procured were to have the lowest possible emissions; in other words, that they had to be environmentally-friendly. And so the City of Helsinki consequently opted to procure buses which run on natural gas and whose emissions are very low. A competing bidder was not satisfied with this, but appealed to the national court, claiming inter alia that the City of Helsinki had selected a bid which was not the most advantageous one economically, in other words it was not the cheapest. The advocate-general of the European Court of Justice has recently issued his opinion on this matter, which may be adopted as the judgment of the Court. In fact the opinion of the advocate-general supports very strongly the view of the City of Helsinki that a public procurement authority should have the right to set environmentally-friendly criteria which it will use in its competitive tender, and also to select products in compliance with this. It is interesting that the position of the advocate-general is precisely the same as that of the Commission's Directorate-General which is responsible for environmental matters, and different from that of the Directorate-General which is responsible for the internal market. Now I would also like to draw the attention of Commissioner Bolkestein to this decision, which may well in fact become final; we do not of course know this as yet. These Directives are of great economic significance: our obligation is to enable the rules of the game to be as transparent and straightforward as possible, and competitive tenders to be as open as possible, and also to ensure that public authorities are able to promote solutions which are environmentally friendly and also socially favourable. To my esteemed and dear colleague Astrid Thors I would like to say that of course social legislation is different in the different countries, but perhaps this is the precise reason why we should also permit a public authority to comply with its own social criteria, and why we should find sustainable compromises between the political groups in these questions.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, along with many British Members of this House, I have received a large number of personal letters from constituents like the petitioners in this case. I welcome Mr Perry's dogged work on behalf of those petitioners, and confirm that my Group will support the report. However, there is a wider issue at play here, which affects the good functioning of Community law. I was a rapporteur for the last two years on the reports on the implementation and monitoring of Community law. As a Parliament we then called on the Commission to improve its infringement procedures and its dealings with complainants, calling in particular for correspondence passing between the Commission and the Member States to be made available. This is the area that any committee of inquiry should, and can, examine: the Commission's carrying out of its supervisory duty in implementing Community law. This need have nothing whatever to do with the current English High Court proceedings. It is about getting an answer for our citizens. Any committee of inquiry must get to grips with this central question about the efficiency of infringement proceedings. It must be said that this history goes back a long way to 1997. With the greatest respect to the Commissioner – and I have the utmost respect for his work – to say that everything is in order now is not entirely satisfactory. If the Commission cannot carry out its role as Guardian of the Treaties, this is really very serious and the whole legal framework of the Union can accordingly be brought into disrepute and called into question. We have to provide answers for our citizens.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, food safety gets people talking perhaps more than any other issue, and, for that reason, it is good that it also gets us talking here in Parliament. But the most important consideration is that it does not just get us talking, but that we should also do something about it. The work of Mr Papayannakis has already been praised here. I would like to express my thanks too: it is a good basis for better standards of consumer safety throughout the European Union. We have plenty of examples of consumers not having always been given priority when it comes to food production. The Single Market and the free movement of goods provide more freedom of choice for the public and better markets for producers. As the issue here is about food, it is even more important than ever to ensure that this freedom is also responsibly restricted, that consumers are protected, and that they have a right to know what they are eating. In this case, it is especially important that meat and processed meat products are among those products whose origin the consumer knows. Many have mentioned here that the EC label is not enough and that more precise information is needed. I agree with this. It is absolutely essential to know what country the products are from. In addition, the origin, not only of meat products, but of the ingredients used in processed meat, must be shown as clearly as possible. Labels must also be made compulsory as quickly as possible. The timetable that the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy is proposing is not too pressing. The Member States should have already prepared themselves for it.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I hope I have the Commissioner's attention, as he is in conversation with Mr Brok at the moment. Throughout this Parliament we have been calling for the Commission to introduce more efficient financial management and administrative procedures so that it can deliver external assistance and implement its programmes such as mine action urgently, in times of crisis or when lives are at stake. It seems to us that this was the underlying motive behind Mr Patten's proposal for the rapid reaction facility. I hope this is the case and I would ask for a reassurance on this point from the Commissioner. It is a pity that the term 'Rapid Reaction Facility' has been used for what after all should be a procedural matter, a financial management instrument. It is easily confused with 'Rapid Reaction Force'; it has been confused in the media and even in Parliament's own session news this week. Perhaps in the interest of clarity and to avoid confusion, the Commission could change the title to something like 'Urgent Financing Facility'. We support the principle as I have described it, but one or two unfortunate elements seem to have crept in. Firstly, instead of referring to the facility in the context of CFSP and the Commission's own first pillar external actions, it has been put into the context of the common security and defence policy. Now we have expressed our concerns about the EU meddling in military matters on many occasions and our reservations have not been eased by developments at Nice. This is a separate issue. The Commission's financial facility should not be mixed up with these defence issues. Secondly, there is a thread of political correctness running through the proposal. I am baffled for instance by the idea that the fight against gender discrimination would fall into the crisis management category, triggering the use of the rapid reaction facility. Thirdly, for us more importantly, Mr Newton Dunn, the rapporteur, has taken the opportunity to introduce an amendment in pursuit of one of his pet subjects, namely the establishment of a European public security force, in other words a European gendarmerie or armed police. This is the main reason why we cannot accept this report. We do not want a European army and we certainly to not want a European police force. We do want the Commission to carry out its external assistance with greater efficiency and we welcome measures to that effect.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I want to clarify my remarks of yesterday on my report to avoid any misunderstanding on inter-country adoption by Spanish families of Romanian children in the last ten years. I can say categorically that the vast majority of these cases have been processed fully and properly by the Spanish authorities and by the families in question. Indeed I know that they have resulted in many happy outcomes, some of which are known to my Spanish colleagues here in Parliament. I can add that the authorities in the European Union Member States have, of course, been acting with full propriety on this sensitive matter and that none have acted more rigorously than the Spanish authorities. I am grateful to Spanish colleagues here for drawing this need for clarification to my attention and in particular to Mr Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado and Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra. I look forward to continued fruitful cooperation with all of my Spanish colleagues in this Parliament in the future. (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0260/2001) by Mr Volcic, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, on Slovenia’s application for membership of the European Union and the state of negotiations [COM(2000)712 – C5-0612/2000 – 1997/2181(COS)] (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0261/2000) by Mr Poos, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, on Cyprus’s membership application to the European Union and the state of negotiations [COM(2000)702 – C5-0602/2000 – 1997/2171(COS)] - Before the vote on Amendment No 16 by the Group

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I should like to emphasise that I am in complete agreement with this compromise text on child labour in the football industry. I also hope that the European Union can give its stamp of approval, for it is up to Europe to put an end to this phenomenon. I do not want to discuss child labour in general, as we are all against this. Despite all previous agreements, conventions and codes of conduct, during this Football World Cup too, use was once again made of products which had been manufactured – under licence – by children, in an unacceptable manner. I should like to draw the attention of the Council and the Commission to the World Cup that, in 2006, will take place in Germany. I cannot imagine that the Commission and the Council would accept that children would once again be used for manufacturing products for this World Cup which will take place on European soil. I therefore expect from FIFA – the customer of industry – and from the European Commission not only a commitment in terms of effort but also a commitment in terms of result in the run-up to the World Cup in 2006. In this way, we can be certain that, in future, children only touch a football to play and to have fun with. This is also why we need to call for alternatives for these children who now have to work, not least in the interest of the developing countries. They too must fight these practices. They need to ensure that these children can learn and work – work at school, that is – and that they receive education. Why? Because these children are the economic future of the developing countries. This is why I think, and hope, that this resolution will find widespread support, certainly with a view to the future.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I did not want to make this point during my speech, but it is necessary that it should be made. In the ten years that I have been an MEP I have never encountered such a personal, aggressive and abusive campaign as I have with this particular directive. I have been bullied and harassed by lobbyists. My staff have been bullied to the extent that one of them had to take days off with a stress-related illness. I am now asking you, Mr President, to ensure that you conduct the vote tomorrow in an orderly way, to ensure that Parliament and its Members are permitted to vote as they are empowered to do by their democratic mandate to draft and make legislation.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, together with the other MEPs who were present during the moments after our colleague fell ill, I must say in all fairness that the time that passed between the incident occurring and the arrival of the doctor would be classed as admirable for any of the world’s institutions. And when the official doctor, who came equipped with all the appropriate resuscitation equipment – and in this respect I agree with my colleague – ordered the stretcher, the stretcher arrived. I am very satisfied with the time that was taken and the action of Parliament’s medical services. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
The Committee on Constitutional Affairs adopted an amendment seeking to add the following sentence to Article 289 of the EC Treaty: ‘In the case of the European Parliament, it shall decide, by an absolute majority of its members, on the location of its seat and of all its meetings’. I would like to point out that this issue is not on the agenda of the Intergovernmental Conference. The IGC’s principal aim is to reform the institutions in preparation for enlargement. Furthermore, the issue of the European Parliament’s seat is covered by a Court of Justice ruling of 1 October 1997 and laid down in the protocol on the seat of the institutions annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam. That ought to be enough to ensure that this question is never raised again. To those who envisage building a Europe where the places of work and decision making are concentrated on one site only, I say that today, more than ever, we must build a democratic Europe, close to all its citizens. The very identity of Parliament and the powers it claims depend on that. As a French Socialist Member, I am therefore very much opposed to any proposal that would call into question the Strasbourg seat of the European Parliament. Madam President, that is why I have voted against this motion.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we have just presented Mr Gusmão with the Sakharov prize in an atmosphere charged with emotion. I hope that Parliament will not stop at applause but that it will also actually follow up the promise of solidarity with the people of East Timor and those responsible. I would remind you – and Madam President has said this, something I am pleased about – how deeply ashamed I feel as a Member of this Parliament when I consider that former Sakharov prize-winners, including Mrs Leyla Zana, are still in Turkish prisons, whilst we make such a song and dance about welcoming Turkey as a candidate country. I find this unacceptable. (Applause) Parliament must ensure that winners of the Sakharov prize are not just honoured on the day itself but that their fate is monitored afterwards as well. It should be made absolutely clear that this needs to be done. I blame both the Council and the Commission for overlooking this when Turkey was admitted. (Loud applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I am in favour of research. We all want to find cures for illness and I am sure that in each of our families we have personally experienced the sadness of incurable disease. Over the past year in the Temporary Committee on Human Genetics and Other New Technologies we discussed various ways of finding answers to these medical problems. We voted last week to support the funding of uncontroversial stem-cell research using placenta, umbilical cord and adult stem cells. We voted with cross-party support to ban funding of research resulting in the destruction of human embryos, any kind of cloning, the use of surplus embryos and germline intervention. The majority, therefore, in the temporary committee, whose aim it was to draw up ethical guidelines for the European Union, rejects the research funding suggested in the Caudron report. EU funding should not be promoted for controversial research, banned in four Member States, my own country included. Respect for the dignity of the human person is a fundamental principle upheld in all European and international agreements. I urge that we do not desert this principle. Many citizens, myself included, believe that there is a more acceptable, ethical and moral way forward than the one which leads us to destroy one innocent human life in order to cure another. I urge you to reject the funding suggested in the Caudron report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank you all warmly for your remarks, but I should like to add something. The fact is that I am a little thrown by Commissioner Bolkestein’s statement. He said: ‘we are still negotiating and we will then determine whether what we are doing is adequate’. However, in my view, there was an adequacy finding before us, which you described as being in order. You have to make up your mind: either it is in order or it is not. To Mr Pirker, I should like to say that according to the Dutch Personal Data Board, there are 1 800 enforcement and law enforcement bodies in the United States that could retrieve this data. There are still a huge number of uncertainties and if even the European Commission is uncertain, why should Parliament give its approval at this moment in time? I am quite convinced that, if this continues, we will have to ask the EC Court of Justice to advise us whether, in its opinion, this agreement is adequate and whether a light agreement can be concluded which intrudes into the data of EU citizens so drastically. This is the only road that is open to us, and we have to take it because this light agreement has been decided on. Commissioner, I would ask you again to withdraw this agreement and present a better one.

Political group: ELDR
This regulation seeks to impose on the Member States a requirement to forward quarterly data concerning financial transactions and financial assets and liabilities in the general government sector. The main amendment aims to put back the first transmission of data to 31 December 2003, to allow for the delay in approving this proposal. It also ensures a derogation of two years for any government whose ‘national statistical system requires major adaptations’. Nevertheless, this regulation is clearly part and parcel of the guiding philosophy of the Ecofin Council of 18 January 1999. That philosophy seeks to gather statistical information in order to ascertain the best way of controlling and coordinating economic policies, a concept linked, over and above economic and monetary union (EMU), to the issue of the Stability Pact. In itself, however, having more statistical information is no bad thing. The way such information is gathered or used might be. - Report: Purvis (A5-0322/2003)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, Commissioner, President of the Court of Auditors and other members of the Court, let me join in congratulating the Court on the excellent work it has presented to us, but let me also highlight two special reports on export refunds which are indeed exemplary and speak highly of the quality of work that the Court of Auditors has produced in recent years. Written in clear language, which does not give way to hyperbole or the bureaucratic metaphysics that we unfortunately still find in some of the Court’s texts, they repeat a diagnosis originally made in 1990. The export refund system is extremely complex and highly open to fraud, as it does not follow the most elementary rules of transparency. In thirteen years, nothing has essentially changed in the way this scheme is run; it involves a very small number of interests and companies, which the Commission refuses to name. Commissioners come and go, reforms pass, but export refunds are still here and pose a challenge to everything and everybody. Three years after the network that falsified tens of thousands of tonnes of butter throughout Europe was exposed, and after it was called on to protect Europe’s financial interests as well as citizens’ and farmers’ rights, the Commission still refuses to take any action against any of the offenders and in fact affords privileged treatment to large dairy product companies involved in this scandal compared with the treatment it reserves for any farmers whose milk production exceeds their quota. These are the practices and the realities which it is essential to combat, and it is useful to see them effectively and diligently examined, as has happened with these Court of Auditors reports on export subsidies. My heartiest congratulations once again, therefore, to the Court of Auditors on the work it has done.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Group of the firmly supports the resolution which will be adopted tomorrow on the moratorium on the use of the death penalty. It was on 10 March 1992 that Mrs Adelaide Aglietta presented the first major report to the European Parliament calling for a moratorium on executions, to be decided upon by the UN. 8 years on, as our resolution also highlights, the situation is serious and gives cause for concern, but international interest in the moratorium is constantly on the rise. We must take this as a fresh starting point, despite the recent lull in UN activity and, for this reason, we must make good use of the resources available under the budget. Of course, a moratorium would not have been able to prevent the 4 000 arbitrary executions which have taken place in recent years in Iraq or the thousands of executions which have taken place in China, but in other countries, especially the United States, the only great democracy still to exercise the death penalty with stubborn pride, this long labouring to mobilise public opinion to call for a moratorium is having some, very slight, effect. Mr Bush, in whose State 144 executions have been carried out, succeeded in removing the issue of the death penalty from the electoral campaign and discreetly and hypocritically postponed the executions in his State until after the elections. Might this not be yet more proof of the cynical manipulation of people's lives – even though they are often guilty, of course – as a cynical political move? This is why we must continue along this road with the same conviction and tenacity that Mrs Aglietta had when she founded the association 'Hands Off Cain'. We may not get there immediately but we are confident that, with the available funds from the budget and the assistance of the Commission, we will succeed in achieving this objective. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE