GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Secretary of State, you referred to the reply you gave in this House to Mrs Miguélez Ramos and I, who at that time also spoke in relation to this issue, have not received the same reply. I would like to ask you firstly whether you can send me a copy of the reply you gave to Mr Miguélez Ramos. Secondly, I would like you to tell me whether or not it is true that the Treaty on European Union indicates that Ministers of the regional governments can participate in European Councils of Ministers.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have visited Turkey three times in the last six months, once before and twice after the Helsinki resolution. I experienced surprise after surprise and also disappointment after disappointment. The situation is in fact as a number of fellow Members have described it. There are forces which are fighting strongly to move closer to the European Union and there are other forces which reverse all their efforts by carrying out attacks and by putting Akin Birdal back in jail, thereby provoking the pro-European forces. It is of course a good sign that the Turkish Government now has a written programme setting out the action which Turkey must take on the basis of the demands of the European Union. And it must take it, because paper alone is cheap. Changes need to be made here. The changes also affect the national security council which, according to this proposal, now needs to be reorganised as an advisory council and is no longer the final supreme instance of Turkish democracy or Turkish relations. It is, of course, a bad sign that there is one incident after another, such as the arrest of Akin Birdal who, as Mr Schori said, has such a positive attitude to the changes in Turkey itself. It is also a bad sign that no gradual solution has been found to the Kurdish question, the prerequisites for which are much improved today although, Mrs Stenzel, I am unaware of any statement by Ecevit that Kurdish is a Turkish dialect. What Ecevit said to us was that there were several Kurdish dialects and that he could even imagine Kurdish being used as an official language in Turkey under certain conditions. I should like to urge you, Mr President-in-Office, to work together with the other fourteen Member States of the European Union to ensure that the European Investment Bank is finally authorised to give Turkey financial support. It is not easy to ward off criticism in connection with the financial protocol to the effect that we have not kept our promises to support the modernisation and the restructuring of Turkey financially. My last point is this: of course we are also aware in this House that the question of Turkey, including its relations with Greece, is bound up with the Cyprus issue. If we could manage to make Turkey more open and more cooperative on the Cyprus question, that would be a very positive development. However, I should like to say quite clearly on behalf of our Group and, I believe, on behalf of many others, that unless Turkey itself does what it has to on the question of human rights and democracy, even if is cooperative on the issue of Cyprus, and unless Turkey shows that it is willing to change its internal democratic system, there can be no accession to Europe. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I do not think it is yet entirely clear how long what the Commission has proposed actually is. I have read a document running to 23 pages. Mrs Kaufmann thought just now that there were more than a hundred, so I do not know how things are precisely, but those 23 pages are very interesting. They contain relatively little on socio-economic issues, and, as for what they do contain, I do rather wonder whether we might agree with it. I would just like to say a word about open coordination. This is a particularly thorny problem in the Treaty at the moment and it is actually poorly provided for. And what does the Commission say? It says that it must be decided by the Council, having been prepared by the Commission, and then in brackets we have 'where appropriate after consulting the European Parliament'. This is of course quite impossible. If the Commission wants to crush open coordination at some time, then I think this is how they must do it. One of the three institutions on which this Community is based cannot simply be disregarded in this way on such an important issue. That is the principal message. The second message is that in general the social element in the Convention has so far had rather too little attention paid to it. It is very fortunate that a working group has now been set up with particular concern for the social issue. I think it is possible for the major parties in particular to reach agreement on this, based on the experiences we have acquired in the European social model; it is possible, but we must be careful. There is one major difference between the two parties, the on the one hand and the s on the other, and this difference is where you start. Do you start with the economic or do you start with the social? This is important if we are to bring this to a successful conclusion.

Political group: PPE-DE
This amending budget is inadequate and provides only temporary measures, although it does respond to the urgent need to finance the costs of the BSE crisis. I therefore voted in favour of it. It must be noted, however, that, in the words of Commissioner Fischler himself, ‘the crisis may run deeper than we think’, and that estimates presented by farmers’ organisations of total costs, which may reach EUR three thousand million, indicate that the consequences of the BSE crisis have been underestimated, at budgetary level too. Since the farmers should not be the ones to pay for a crisis for which they are not responsible – it is common agricultural policy which is responsible – budgetary constraints cannot be used as an excuse to prevent all the necessary decisions being adopted to contain the BSE crisis and to protect farmers’ interests. The Financial Perspective must be revised. The purpose of a reform of the CAP, which I have maintained has been greatly needed for some time, must not be to make savings in the budget. The purpose of such a reform must be to protect agricultural production, in full respect for food safety, to protect food quality, to promote the specific nature of the various regions and to promote economic and social cohesion. This will guarantee farmers’ incomes through fair prices for production and safe, high-quality produce for consumers. In any event, I voted against the amendment that sought to place the issue of cofinancing, in other words, the renationalisation of CAP costs, onto the agenda, because I disagree with the adoption of such a measure.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, when, on 9 November 1989, freedom-loving people climbed over the Iron Curtain, history was changed dramatically. It finally became possible to unify Europe and to create a broad, pan-European partnership, founded upon freedom and democracy. A week ago, we commemorated the fall of the Berlin Wall. The tenth anniversary reminded us that it is high time that we got to grips with the enlargement of the European Union and sped up the process. It has already taken far too long. For us liberals, there is nothing more important than creating a unified Europe in which we solve problems together in a civilised way. Enlargement of the EU is a moral imperative. Enlargement, but also the fact that our citizens have a crisis of confidence in the EU, are factors which demand reforms of, and changes to, the European institutions. All too many people feel that the EU does not engage hearts and minds. The mistrust is sometimes almost palpable. We need to take this state of affairs very seriously. The Intergovernmental Conference ought therefore to have the ambition of thoroughly reforming the EU institutions. Simplification, openness, clarity and public scrutiny must be the watchwords. If a Union of 30 members is going to be able to function, it must concentrate on the genuinely cross-border questions and only act in those areas where European cooperation produces the best results. A careful review of the division of labour is required, and this will require courage and a willingness to roll up our sleeves and set to work, in other words vision but also pragmatism. The debate ought not however to be carried on in isolation behind closed doors. All democratic forces must be involved and citizens must have the opportunity to participate and say their piece. They are entitled to expect results and also to demand that they be achieved. If we fail in this, they may perhaps turn away from the European project, which would be a major catastrophe.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the directive on the incineration of waste is well intended but I think those responsible for preparing it have gone into too much detail. I am mainly worried about the so-called coincineration of waste. Sorted community waste and, for example, the fibrous pulp sludge that is produced in forest industry processes serve as good fuel supplements for many heating plants. The draft, however, calls for ongoing, expensive, to some extent impossible, and environmentally unnecessary monitoring of plants that are engaged in harmless coincineration. The end result will run counter to the original aim: non-hazardous sorted waste, which is a valid form of fuel for heating plants, will have to be driven to a landfill site to add to methane emissions or it will have to be transported hundreds of kilometres to large incinerators, all the while polluting the environment. There are many amendments in the report that are problematic. I think the matter should either go back to the Committee or the Council’s common position, at least its main features, should be adhered to.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I must admit that I am pleased to hear Mr Byrne side with consumers against the pharmaceutical industry. We had the feeling, when addressing the pharmaceutical industry dossier and pharmaceutical legislation at the same time, that it was actually the European Parliament that was defending consumers, through far-reaching amendments, in particular on marketing authorisations, on centralised procedure and on consumer protection. The Commission’s answers to these questions, let us remember, were not what the European Parliament had hoped to hear. Fortunately, I have the impression today that the Council has reintroduced a number of items, such as the five-year renewal, marketing authorisations, the centralised procedure and stopping direct advertising to patients. All of this leads me to ask you whether your communication will accept a good number of the amendments to pharmaceutical legislation that Parliament has adopted by a large majority, particularly in the fields of direct advertising, consumer participation in the EMEA, centralised procedure and modifying marketing authorisation dossiers, as real proof of your concern to protect consumers and patients?

Political group: Verts-ALE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on petitions. – Mr President, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak for the Committee on Petitions. This is not the only issue concerning legally resident third-country nationals where we have a problem concerning the appropriate legal base. I am thinking, for example, of the extensions of the 1408/71 Regulation concerning the coordination of social security systems. The Tampere Summit in 1999 spoke of according similar rights to third-country nationals as those enjoyed by EU citizens. Yet we still have those who wish to view them as short-term travellers, rather than as people who have much contribute to the Union. Otherwise why would our governments be so keen to encourage inward investment from American and Asian companies? We believe we need political coherence in our policy-making in this area. The lack of such coherence partly explains the argument over the legal base. The Committee on Petitions supports the view taken by the rapporteur, Mr Deprez, and thanks him for his diligence in this matter. It was our committee's view that we could reduce the number of such disagreements with the Council in future by reducing the number of individual national initiatives in this area and looking instead for Commission proposals which go through an initial vetting procedure. I know that the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs has already raised this with the Swedish presidency and we must hope it bears fruit. On the substantive issue, while being aware that not all Member States are involved in the Schengen Agreement, of course, it seemed to our committee that we should bring the rights of third-country nationals into line with those of citizens. This is particularly important where partners, not parents as it says in my explanatory statement for some very strange reason, are affected by a different legal status, and we have had a number of petitions on these issues which we added to our opinion. We felt it was also important to support the position of Mr Deprez, as the need for this proposal itself is more the result of bureaucratic delay than decision-making. It is our hope and expectation also that the Committee on Petitions will automatically be asked for an opinion in good time on such issues in future.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Referring to the second rail package we have just voted on, Commissioner de Palacio said this morning that without liberalisation, we would soon be left with nothing but a railway museum. It is my belief that liberalisation would leave us with nothing but a cemetery filled with passengers! The Jarzembowski report advocates speeding up the liberalisation of both freight and passenger services. The report’s lack of realism and its relentless pursuit of ideas despite the evidence are frightening. In outlining his vision of liberalisation, the author has overlooked the time needed to alter structures and has totally neglected both the social and the human factors. Dreams outlined on paper, especially those concerning liberalisation, often turn into nightmares for those who have to implement them. The Sterckx report presents a vision of a standardised safety system achieved through harmonising rules and procedures and so on. Although this would be useful, unfortunately the report makes safety standards subject to profit imperatives and completely neglects the issue of working conditions. To prevent the liberalisation process leading to communication problems, railwaymen must communicate in terms everyone can understand, as is the case for air transport. I would have no objection to this if railwaymen were selected and paid in the same way as pilots are. This would actually be good news for all rail workers, but I doubt it could really happen. This being the case, I cannot support these two reports. I therefore voted against them. - Ainardi report (A5-0418/2002)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive we are debating this evening is desperately needed, as it forms the coda of the telecommunications package that we adopted last year. We must ensure that our citizens and businesses do not receive unsolicited e-mail, that their personal details are not included in telephone directories without their permission, and that their surfing behaviour is not secretly registered via cookies. All these areas are covered very effectively in the proposal – in fact in a harmonised manner – the only correct way in our digital, cross-border world. However, I am unable to support the proposal on data storage. In fact, I cannot understand how the Commission can back the Council proposal. Has the Commissioner ever considered how much it would cost telecom operators and surf providers to store all this data for years on behalf of businesses, how much storage this would require and how much it would cost altogether? In times of war, a state is always inclined to prioritise state security over the privacy of the citizens. But there is no war. We must protect the privacy of our citizens and stick our necks out for this. And this is exactly what we are doing today.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, as I am sure you are aware, next Wednesday the world will commemorate the tenth anniversary of the Rwandan genocide. Nearly one million people were slaughtered, and international intervention came only too late. Even now, we have to ask if there is the political will to put in place the measures likely to prevent future suffering on this scale. You will, I know, agree that there must never be a 'next time', and I would therefore request that tomorrow we remember the events in Rwanda ten years ago and that we have a minute's silence in support of the need to never stand aside again.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although the outermost regions were fully acknowledged in Article 299(2) of the Treaty of Amsterdam, we are still awaiting the first far-reaching measures. This is why I welcome today’s debate and the structural and agricultural packages proposed by the Commission, because they undeniably seek to take better account of the realities of the overseas territories. I would also like to congratulate the rapporteurs and particularly Mr Martínez Martínez and Mr Poignant on their excellent work. Overall, the Commission’s proposals can be considered as a step in the right direction and they are a satisfactory response to local needs. First of all, on the structural measures, we can only welcome the alignment of intervention levels to 85% for all outermost regions. In practice, this means that we are giving the same opportunities to people who have to deal with basically identical constraints. On the agricultural measures, since I am from Réunion, I welcome the measures to assist traditional farming and, in particular, transport aid for sugar cane, which our farmers have long been waiting for. I have a few comments, however, to make with regard to some of the points. First of all, I deplore the fact that the retroactivity of the measures has not been explicitly worded and I welcome the fact that many of Parliament’s amendments forcefully emphasise the importance of this point for all types of farming, as we must think of the thousands of farmers who are waiting for these measures. Next, I am sorry that the Commission did not automatically retain Article 299(2) as a legal basis, which, in my view, runs absolutely counter to the spirit advocated by the Heads of State and Government. I therefore welcome the fact that this omission was partially restored by the Council, because by limiting the scope of this article, we are undermining the very concept of what outermost regions are. Lastly, I would like to end with a wish. I would like the reforms that have been proposed here to lay solid foundations for an even more ambitious policy for our regions, so that equal opportunities and the acceptance of differences become a reality for all the citizens of the European Union.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, the aim of this report is to assess the Commission’s implementation of the European Parliament’s recommendations. This is a useful exercise that will add effectiveness and credibility to our work and on which I congratulate the Commission and also our rapporteur. I should therefore like to review the main issues concerning the common agricultural policy that I raised in the discharge of the 2000 Budget, whilst reminding you, as required by Rule 9(1) of our Rules of Procedure, of the fact that I am an olive-grower. The high risk and even the practical impossibility of effectively monitoring the operation of the export refunds system was our overriding concern at the time. We are pleased to note that, in his first annual report on the general activities of the European Union, the Director-General for agriculture has corroborated our viewpoint, in expressing his two main reservations about the Budget for this mechanism: firstly, that the Commission has reduced and simplified the system of refunds in the beef and veal sector and, secondly, that it is committed to gradually reducing the use of these mechanisms in line with negotiations at the World Trade Organisation. We feel bound, nevertheless, to regret the maintenance of export refunds for sugar for European countries from which we import sugar freely, because this seems clearly to be asking for further instances of the same roundabout fraud already detected in the field of butter. We note the Commission’s intention to invest in the research and development of means to detect the falsification of oil, but we are unhappy that we are still spending absurdly high sums and imposing extremely expensive schemes on national and regional administrations, and also on oil producers, to monitor the number of olive trees, without any concern to prevent fraud, in total contrast with the lack of means to prevent and combat the large-scale fraud against the Community Budget, consumers and farmers that the falsification of oil represents. The same scenario or worse can be seen, incidentally, in the wine, dairy and most livestock product sectors. I still find it unacceptable that farmers who exceed their milk quotas are heavily fined and yet nothing is done to penalise dishonest companies and criminal networks that produce dairy products without milk. To conclude, I must state that the Commission’s refusal to name companies who are given export refunds and other subsidies on the pretext that this would contravene the provisions on the protection of the individual is totally unacceptable. This is a concept of citizens’ rights that operates only in the interests of multinationals and large business concerns and which does not exist to protect consumers or even farmers, who are frequently the victims of a diabolical and destructive bureaucratic machine.

Political group: PSE
A month ago, the Lamfalussy Committee of Wise Men presented its final report on the regulation of the European securities markets. Apart from the many advantages that an integrated internal market for securities would bring, the report also contains a proposal for reform of the legislative process in securities matters which I consider to be a major step in the right direction. The present legislative process is much too long-winded and inflexible to be able to adapt to the much more rapidly changing securities markets. We simply cannot always be lagging behind market trends while at the same time setting ourselves such ambitious targets as the one decided in Lisbon, of becoming the world’s largest and most dynamic economic area within ten years. I agree with the broad outlines of the Lamfalussy Committee’s proposal, but I must insist on the ‘call-back’ mechanism proposed in Parliament’s resolution, which allows the European Parliament to call on the Commission to withdraw the proposals put before the Securities Committee concerning implementing measures in the event of a negative position being taken by itself or the Council. The Commission would have to comply with such a request and put forward a legislative proposal as part of the codecision procedure. But the most important thing in all the squabbling about power sharing between Council and Parliament is that we should not lose sight of the objective of an integrated European securities market. We have set ourselves the year 2005 as a target date for an integrated internal market in financial services. Time is ticking by and rival markets and economies are not asleep. – von Wogau Report (A5–0082/2001)

Political group: PPE-DE