GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, as the European Union assumes new powers we might expect that transparency in this matter and parliamentarian monitoring would increase at the same rate. Now, it would seem that the European security and defence identity is making dramatic progress in the wake of the Helsinki summit. It appears, however, that the Council has been resorting more and more to the intergovernmental process in this, so much so that it has threatened even to bypass the Commission, something quite unheard of, as far as I am concerned. The Commission must have a strong role to play in this process. Just like my colleague, Mr Cox, I too strongly condemn the fact that, during the summer recess, the Council produced very significant restrictions on the public’s right to gain access to documents relating to matters of security and defence. Obviously, nobody is claiming that confidentiality and even secrecy are not necessary from time to time, when it is a question, for example, of operational matters in defence policy. But the Council’s decision seems to be leading to a situation now where the whole development of the security and defence policy in the political sphere can no longer be properly monitored, being, as it were, beyond that. The public can no longer follow the development of security and defence policy, and neither can Parliament monitor it properly. We here in Parliament have discussed this situation, and the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, in which I am involved in the discussion of the issue, is looking into whether Parliament should possibly take the Council to court on account of this decision, which is a clear violation of Parliament’s rights, and weakens our citizens’ already barely attainable rights of access to documents. I demand a clear explanation from the representative of the Council, and I would be very grateful if the Commission were also to comment on the situation.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, my question does not relate either to the trial of the Cuban prisoners or to their current detention. My question essentially relates to respect for the rights of families, who are being prevented from seeing these prisoners, despite the fact that these rights are enshrined in international law and in the law of the United States. It relates specifically to two women, who for more than four years have not been authorised to visit their husbands, and to a very painful situation which is once again being reported on in the media: today one of the wives has once again been refused a visa to enter the United States in order to see her husband. What I want to know is whether the Council considers this to be an issue worthy of its attention or not.

Political group: PSE
I congratulate Mr Gil-Robles on his recommendation on the establishment of an International Fund for Compensation of Oil Pollution Damage. I share his opinion that maximum levels of compensation in this fund are insufficient to guarantee adequate protection for victims of any future large-scale oil spill. The Supplementary Fund will compensate victims provided that compensation claims are deemed justified and if the person is unable to obtain full and adequate compensation under the 1992 Fund Convention. I should also like to point out that raising the level of compensation can be no excuse for negligence in terms of prevention.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, with today’s vote, and thanks to the truly exceptional work of our rapporteur, we are taking a fundamental step towards responding to the expectations and, perhaps, the anguish of the European public. For many citizens, eating is not just nourishment, it is much more: a conscious choice, linked to quality of life, an act deeply rooted in the cultural and culinary traditions of the regions. The primary and absolute duty of the Union is assuredly to guarantee maximum food safety throughout every link of the production and distribution chains, but its duties also include the protection and promotion of typical regional products, as well as providing accurate information on foodstuffs present on the market, so that the consumer can exercise choice in full critical awareness. From this point of view, I feel it is important to stress the major improvements made to the Commission’s proposal by the amendments adopted in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. This applies both to the section on the general principles of the legislation and to that devoted to setting up the European Authority, highlighting the role small- and medium-sized enterprises should be able to play in the promotion of quality production. In conclusion, I want to mention the choice of location for the future Authority. We all have our own idea of the perfect location, and drawing up a set of more or less binding criteria is certainly not going to help us resolve the problem, far less deciding on the basis of a league table of good environmental practice. After ensuring the independence and logistic accessibility of the Authority, I think it is important for the location to be chosen on the basis of closer consultation, following the approach used for the European City of Culture. In voting for Amendment No 215, therefore, we call for the co-decision procedure to be applied.

Political group: PSE
I should, above all, like to congratulate Mr Titley, because just as the 1998 EU code was an important step towards more coherent and transparent European policy, so do the successive Titley Reports form a constructive and important contribution of this Parliament to reach a binding European code of conduct. The need for this code became apparent recently in my country, Belgium, where a minister resigned over an arms delivery to Nepal. Incidentally, I should like to note my regret at the fact that a number of Green MEPs have seized on this report for internal political purposes and I am surprised, Mr Staes, at their tabling amendments in which they condemn a decision made by the Belgian Government, while their Green colleagues endorsed this very decision in government. However, far more fundamental is that the Belgian Government has announced its willingness to include the provisions of the Code of Conduct in national legislation, as a result of which this code will become legally binding. I hope that other Member States will follow this example. In this way, we can prevent arms orders refused by one country from being accepted by another country. Moreover, Mr Titley is right in quoting existing Belgian law on arms trading as an example. This law indeed provides for tough sanctions on those who trade in weapons without a licence. The problem, however, does not only lie in the country of origin. It becomes a serious issue when the arms reach their final destination. A well-known Brussels research centre announced this week that half of all weapons transactions fail to meet the legal obligation of the arrival certificate. Consequently, there is an urgent need for an effective inspection system to monitor final destinations. It is of crucial importance to know in whose hands the weapons eventually end up. Otherwise, the European Code of Conduct, no matter how well intended, is completely futile.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the war in Congo has been raging since 1998 and has claimed 3.5 million victims in the process. Two-thirds of the territory is still being occupied. Recently, international opinion was once again startled by the report of a massacre of 200 people in Kisangani. This massacre occurred two years after 1 200 people were killed in the same town as a result of the fight between two rivalling military factions. The civilian population is naturally the victim, but those responsible have never been punished. Amnesty International is therefore linking the events of then to now. The war in Congo still receives far too little attention from international opinion. During the Belgian Presidency, the European Union made greater efforts than before to get the dialogue off the ground. But I am left with questions. Why is MONUC not being given any reinforcement? MONUC is even being humiliated, officials are being expelled by DRC-Goma. Why has Kisangani, despite resolutions by the Security Council, still not been demilitarised? What are we actually doing in order to help this peace process succeed, since the major parties are still not at the negotiating table? What are we actually doing in order to open up the Congo River? The population inland is denied any food or medicine. Nobody can reach these people because the Congo River is probably the only route to access them. In these circumstances, preparing for Congo’s reconstruction is wishful thinking. Such reconstruction will not take place. Quite the reverse, in fact: demilitarisation is not being maintained. Only Namibia has done something. I can understand that Rwanda wants to be safe, but why does international opinion not protect Rwanda and demand for everyone to leave the country, because they are, after all, only there to plunder the crops from the land. They do not fight each other, but they rob the civilian population of the little it has left.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, biotechnology is currently one of the most promising technologies which can bring about a breakthrough in the medical world. Putting an end to cloning techniques in Europe will only shift research elsewhere, for example to the United States or, in the worst case, to countries whose ethical standards are worse than those in the European Union. As a result, expertise, research activities and employment will drain away to overseas countries. Furthermore, the products will end up back on the market in the European Union anyway. What is this really about? Who are we to deny people the right to recovery? Would it not be too easy to ban promising technology with great potential on ethical grounds? Is not every person entitled to health and welfare? Who has the right to put the label of ethics on it? I can tell you that I, along with the , will be giving this resolution my wholehearted support.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner Patten, as you said, we have a consensus and a desire in this House to prevent the crisis that is looming, a crisis that has been triggered by the actions of Saddam Hussein. I would like to say to Mr Barón Crespo that no one knows better than the armed forces, both here and in the United States, that the use of force to prevent this crisis can never be clean. There is no such thing as a clean war. Despite progress in technology, man does not yet have the means to kill all evil people at the touch of a button, if only because it is impossible to separate the good people from the bad. In these circumstances, war or the use of armed force may be a lesser evil. In that case, all political and diplomatic avenues must have been thoroughly explored with a view to achieving the political objective otherwise to be pursued through the use of such force. That is why we fully endorse the Union’s current approach which is to maintain pressure on Saddam Hussein to allow weapons inspectors to return to do their work. Secondly, if this decision is taken, it must have a chance of achieving its aim, yet it has been made very clear to us that the objective now is to overturn the regime of Saddam Hussein. There are two questions being raised here. The first concerns the assessment of the threat. Mr Poettering and Mrs Maij-Weggen emphasised that we are eagerly awaiting the details promised by the British Prime Minister, which should arrive in the next few minutes. Commissioner Patten said in his speech that he doubted whether any evidence at all would be available. It is very important that we have this evidence. Secondly, we must have a chance of winning. In Afghanistan, we were sure that the Afghan people themselves were ready to bring down the Taliban regime. Is there any chance, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, that the Iraqi people will help, in the event of military action, to topple the regime? That is a genuine question.

Political group: PPE-DE
Here we are, engaged in a trial of strength with the Council, to defend the budgetary line for the environment within the European Union. It is with regret that we have supported the compromise reached during the conciliation procedure with the Council. I say with regret, because Parliament was expected to be satisfied with the few crumbs thrown at us by the Council. The bonus granted out of the EUR 850 million demanded is roughly the equivalent of about twenty kilometres of motorway in France! I only hope that the size of this budgetary line is not a pale reflection of the Union's environmental policy, not that I am questioning the considerable work carried out by the directorate-general for the environment or the Commissioner, who do the best they can with the means at their disposal. But we shall continue to repeat until we are blue in the face that a real European environmental policy can only be applied, or even constructed, with the necessary funds. The environment will never be taken seriously with a budgetary line of this size, compared with the budgets for agriculture or the Structural Funds which still often have an adverse impact on the environment. LIFE is just a drop in the ocean of European policy. That aside, is the environment not the only European sector to have shown no real improvement? With the explosion in road transport within the Union, we are also seeing an explosion of all sorts of pollution and emissions, especially of greenhouse gases. How much longer will we need to repeat this point before anything is done? When the Council and the Commission start taking environmental policy seriously, the budgetary line which they propose in the general budget will be commensurate with the challenges we have to face. This applies both to environmental policy projects and to the human resources which the DG for the environment needs in order to implement them. - Jarzembowski report (A5-0173/2000)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I will begin by responding to the comment from Mr Bushill-Matthews. Firstly, Birmingham City Council is a Labour council, not a council. More importantly, his comment raises many questions about the current employment practices of councils within the UK. A lot of the information we have received, for example from the low pay unit, indicates that many of the people working through agencies at the moment are poorly paid, poorly protected and very badly served. We need to look at this clearly. For example, the school where I used to work has now brought back in-house its cleaning staff because it can pay them more and it works out cheaper than employing them through an agency. So there is a win-win situation. But the question I particularly want to raise with the Council and Commission this morning is linked to the issue of sustainable development, which is an overarching and not just an additional concept, and the place of Göteborg and not just Lisbon within this whole process. Since Johannesburg, private companies have been seen as a means of delivering government policy. There is a need to think again about corporate social responsibility and a strong legal framework for this when examining how companies behave in emerging democracies or countries with repressive regimes, often backed by governments through export credit guarantees. We need to ask them to look at this and assess whether the present 'free for all' really encourages sustainability, democracy and openness in many of the regimes and countries within which they are operating.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ‘The states are the skeleton of Europe, and the regions its flesh and blood’. That is the view expressed by the Catalonian President, Mr Pujol. Certainly, it is the case that, for many citizens, not only regions but also districts – that is to say, the local administrative units – feel closer and perhaps more natural than, in particular, the European institutions. Moreover, it is regional and local authorities that implement a large portion of EU decisions. It is therefore only fair that they should be given a strengthened role to play now that we are reviewing European forms of governance. These bodies must be involved at an early stage in some form of consultation procedure when proposals are formulated. As proposed, for example, in the report, they can play an important role in terms of evaluation and follow-up, as well as seeing to it that the principle of subsidiarity is applied. We cannot solve internal constitutional conflicts in this Chamber, but we must give a clear signal that we attach great importance to local and regional levels and specify this in the treaty. It would therefore be excellent to incorporate, for example, the statute on local and regional authorities. I should like there to be as few changes as possible to this report. I am convinced that it will form an excellent basis for discussion in, for example, the Convention.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, we are all familiar with the historic entreaty ‘Sire, grant us the freedom to think!’ Today, and when voting on the Napolitano report, we would have to amend that and say, ‘Sire, grant us the freedom to vote!’ But who is the ‘Sire’ in this instance? The two gentlemen standing over there, Mr Corbett and Mr Wuermeling, Mr Corbett and Mr Méndez de Vigo, those who, even when something as central as nations' right to go to law is at stake, are trying to make a man out of a woman or the other way round, even though they know perfectly well that you cannot be just a little bit pregnant? It is not of course by chance that, happily, no compromise motion has so far been tabled by those who have again been away pondering these matters. Instead, the decision is a clear-cut one: vote yes to the Leinen/ motion, which was adopted by a majority on the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, and the regions get the right of appeal. I say this with an awareness of history and of the fact that the European Union's present constitutional arrangements have, to an enormous degree, come about as a matter of coincidence, so that, if I am from little Luxembourg, I can of course oppose the right of appeal – and quake in my boots when I do so – but am in a quite different position if I am from the Basque country or from some other region. Here we are, trying to move this great European project forwards, not by shoring up privileges that have come about by accidents of history, but by opening the door to the new. I urge any Members watching this on the television screens – and there are still a few in the building – to push for a free vote and see to it that they get one tomorrow or the day after, and to make sure that this House gets some sort of chance to vote on item 8 of the Napolitano report, so that we do not get another soft, lame pseudo-compromise put forward and end up with nothing, but only looking foolish. ‘Sire, grant us the freedom to vote!’ – and remember the ceterum censeo: there is no democracy without transparency and voting that is open and fair. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, everyone is congratulating the rapporteur, so I will do likewise, and I recognise the progress that has been made between what she referred to as the ‘Prodi amendment’ and the text that is on the table today, even if influences from outside the continent have had a significant bearing on our debate. We are all familiar with the directive's objectives: to ensure that the financial sector allocates our economy's financial resources in the best possible way. On this basis, I believe that the text that we have drafted is expected by all traders. All that remains is for me to make a few essential observations. To protect non-professional investors, financial companies need to take the trouble to check their level of knowledge and their resources. Execution only is not a continental practice and by suddenly imposing it we would run the risk of destabilising many investors. Secondly, for competition to be genuine, information must be made available to all players. Transparency is therefore essential. Pre-trade transparency should not admit of any exception and I can accept that it does not apply to limit price orders and is restricted to orders of a standard size, but the possibility of price improvement, already mentioned by Mr Jean-Louis Bourlanges, seems to me to be an extremely worrying development. Finally, in the vote on Thursday, I think that we should try to restate the position that we in Parliament adopted on the 'delivery' regulation, which is to say that we should ask the Commission to draft a directive on this point.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I also would to thank our rapporteur. We all know that this is subject on which he feels very strongly – at last he has got his five minutes on it. I would agree with much of what has already been said in this debate. When we are looking at safe and sustainable pensions, it is a particular problem for women. There is a very strong gender dimension to the pension issue. We see many severe disparities, especially in relation to occupational pensions and even State pension entitlements, where women are effectively penalised for taking on domestic responsibilities; for having worked part-time or flexibly. As new working patterns become more common, it is clear that we need to ensure that pension provision is guaranteed for both men and women in those different working environments. Perhaps, as is usually the case, once more men start working flexibly, we will suddenly see much more interest in pensions keeping up with different forms of work. That is maybe cynical if truthful. It is also, as Mr Van Lancker has said, an issue, which touches very strongly on poverty. We already see in far too many countries, pensioners with an inadequate basic pension unable to participate fully in society and often unable to meet their basic needs. The key, of course, is decent State pensions, and funding them is a political choice. My group does not believe that pension costs will necessarily destabilise economies or society, if such choices on spending are made carefully. Indeed, the cases of people playing by the rules and investing either in their companies – with the Enron example before us or indeed in Equitable Life in my own country – and making private pension provision, show that you cannot trust the markets any more than you can sometimes trust governments. The democratic deficit in open co-ordination is also becoming even clearer. This is obviously an issue we need to address extremely rapidly.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, as you may be aware, there were a series of disgraceful riots in Oldham in the summer of 2000, provoked by members of extreme right wing groups such as the British National Party, the National Front and Combat 18. Film footage that appears to be that compiled by the local police has got into the hands of the local British National Party who are distributing it. Apart from the understandable security concerns of those involved, the apparent collusion between members of the local police and the British National Party can only cause concern to those who hope that the perpetrators on both sides will be dealt with by a system of justice that is blind to politics. I hope you will raise the matter with the British authorities.

Political group: PSE