GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, we have latterly been discussing technical regulations, technical details, regarding which one might ask whether such details are actually the concern of Parliament. Transport safety in all transport operators has always been an important matter of concern to Parliament, particularly, of course, in the transportation of dangerous goods. The annoying thing about the matter before us is that the CEN, the European Committee for Standardisation, is extremely dilatory. We therefore find ourselves in the situation of having to concede an extension to the time limit for, as the rapporteur said, it would be senseless if all Member States were now going to have to issue further individual regulations for a set period of time. We therefore need common regulations which are as strict as possible, also for the transportation of dangerous goods. Consequently, one can only fully endorse the proposal of the rapporteur, our committee chairman, and also thank him for the work which he inevitably took on himself. This would have been superfluous if the other authorities had completed their work in good time.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to thank all those involved in the conciliation. As Mr Zappalà pointed out, we were not always in agreement, but we did eventually reach a decision. These two directives are a step forward – not a huge step, as Mrs Schörling said, but at least some progress has been made. Comparing what was there originally with what we have today shows considerable progress. But why is this? We have talked tonight about the huge market involved in the whole area of public procurement. The Commissioner himself mentioned the huge figures involved. But too often when we talk about that market and about public procurement we talk purely about an economic market. These two directives change all that: social and environmental criteria have now been introduced. This means that the tendering authority does not have to accept the lowest tender. Tendering authorities can also take into account recent case-law and I am glad that the Commissioner highlighted the 4 December judgment. We also have the July court decision on the Altmark bus case and, as Mrs Thors pointed out, the Helsinki bus case. This Parliament has added a social dimension to economic legislation. We must never forget that while we strive for a competitive economy by 2010, this has to be accompanied by social progress. That is why I will support tomorrow's vote: even though I voted against this conciliation I will actually now vote in favour.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I want to speak on an issue which Parliament identified before Qatar as vital, indeed we called it 'make or break' as did the Commissioner – that is the link between environment and trade. In Qatar, we saw a breakthrough. For the first time, and against fierce and widespread opposition, we will have negotiations on some key environmental issues. Of course, much more remains to be done, but a process has been started and a taboo broken. The key to further progress must be to demonstrate, above all, to developing countries that their fears of green protectionism on our side are groundless. Qatar, frankly, did not produce the progress that we in the Group wanted, and asked for beforehand on labour rights, on democracy and transparency in WTO decision-making. But it did leave the way open to progress on both. We know there was intense pressure from many countries, including developing countries, for a declaration that labour rights were a matter for the ILO alone. That pressure was resisted quite rightly and the principle of WTO cooperation with the ILO restated. The EU must now push hard to translate this principle into practice, seizing the opportunity given by the ILO's launch of a commission on the social aspects of globalisation in which the WTO and other international organisations will be participating. The ministerial meeting also agreed to negotiations on reform of the dispute settlement procedure with an open agenda covering whatever proposals WTO members choose to table. The EU must take this opportunity for openness and transparency. Commissioner, we would really like to know what your ideas are for reform and we shall not be slow in letting you know what our ideas are either. We would like to put on record today our recognition of the key role played by you, Commissioner Lamy, in the success of the meeting. You had a very difficult role and you displayed skill and tenacity. I emphasise, in particular, your insistence that you need the political support of this House in order to pursue the round in the way it was launched. We shall be marking our support in a resolution to be voted tomorrow. Many people went to Qatar hoping for a fiasco, hoping for a re-run of Seattle, hoping for something to denounce, in a mood of populism. They are disappointed in that hope and they need to be honest with themselves and to respect the views of developing countries not to indulge in paternalism as some of our colleagues have unfortunately done. The Qatar Declaration contains almost everything that developing countries wanted on the agenda. The agenda is not the outcome and we will need to be vigilant for a good result, but when developing.... (The President cut off the speaker)

Political group: PSE
Madam President, we do not wish to re-open a debate which was concluded yesterday. I would merely like to clarify one point. There was not a unanimous opinion at the Conference of Presidents in favour of removing the reference to Michelin in the debate. There was a majority consensus, which we had to bow to, naturally, that the word Michelin should not be included in the wording. As far as I am concerned, I spoke at the Conference of Presidents to say that, of course, everyone would be free to speak in the debate as they saw fit and that, for my own part, I considered Michelin to be at the very centre of this debate on the restructuring of firms. On that basis, I do not see what objection there could be to Groups discussing a text considering that the Michelin question should be included in the resolution. I would like furthermore to specify that my group did not sign this compromise which it did not, in any case, consider satisfactory.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I wish to ask your advice on raising this particular issue with the Petitions Committee: I wonder whether that would be in order. It is about my constituent, Mark Forrester, who was arrested on alleged football hooliganism during the EURO 2000 championships. He was subjected, and I say subjected with good reason, to the fast-track trial procedure last year, and was convicted: it was then deemed to be unfair and he went for retrial last month. The conviction was upheld last week. I believe this fast track trial and the conviction being upheld is contrary to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is contrary to Articles 47 and 48, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which you, Madam President, signed. Every EU citizen has the right to a fair trial and should be deemed innocent until proven guilty. The video evidence that we saw in Court showed that my constituent, Mark Forrester, was not involved in any way, shape or form with any violence. A further video was offered to the Belgian authorities by the UK police. The Belgian police refused to take that further evidence. I believe the decision by the Court was more about propping up the fast-track trial procedure than about justice. Mark Forrester is innocent and we will carry on that fight to prove that he is innocent and to clear his name. I hope, Madam President, you will help us in that endeavour.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, most of what I had in mind to say has already been said and I endorse the speech made by Mr Poettering, who unfortunately has left. I should like to focus our attention on the following: the rules we freely accept and subscribe to, big and small, weak and strong, must be respected by everyone, whether we like it or not. Woe betide if the principles and regulations of the European Union were considered to apply à la carte and that, if they were in our interest we respected them and, if we did not like them, we ignored them. The most fundamental principle of democracy is respect for the law by everyone. If it does not satisfy us, we change it. If the Stability Pact does not satisfy, let it be abolished or amended. However, under no circumstances is it allowed for us to consider that it applies, but is not adhered to by those who do not like it, as is happening now. When it was discovered that the terms of the pact were being infringed by small Member States of the European Union, such as Portugal, they were obliged to proceed to apply harsh measures and spending cuts in order to reduce their deficit to below 3%, and none of the big Member States now in violation asked for the pact not to be applied. Now that the problem has unexpectedly hit their economy, they have discovered that the pact is anything from unsuitable or unacceptable. Dual standards. The reaction is therefore reasonable on the part of the small countries, who see that ‘some are more equal than others’, as George Orwell said. Thus their lack of faith in the new arrangements of the draft Constitution is being reinforced, with the possible danger of it not being ratified and of the European Union finding itself in a terrible impasse.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to say the following: this Council position on social dialogue is contradictory. On the one hand it claims to be interested but on the other, it continues to obstruct its implementation, as is clear from its postponement of the formal creation of the Tripartite Social Summit. The Commissioner has already provided important information, for which I thank her and which allows us to draw this conclusion. Unfortunately, this demonstrates the little importance attached to social issues by most Member State governments. I would emphasise the case of Portugal, with which, being Portuguese, I am most familiar. In addition to the questions that other speakers have already raised about Parliament’s participation and also about the significance of postponing the creation of the Tripartite Social Summit, I should also like to ask the President-in-Office of the Council the following: what measures are you planning to adopt in order at least to increase the participation of women in the social dialogue, in terms of the decision-making bodies, in terms of legal bases and also in terms of the content to be addressed in this entire process? What measures are you intending to adopt to ensure that priority is given to social issues, specifically in the field of employment, social inclusion, equal rights and opportunities and compliance with the social agenda in general? What measures are you planning to take in order to effectively protect social and labour rights and to ensure that they are complied with in practice?

Political group: GUE-NGL
What could be more important than humanitarian emergency aid? In other words, saving the lives of numerous human beings by taking swift and effective action, making funds immediately available and ensuring that they are well-spent, whilst eliminating political deliberations and bureaucratic rigmarole. Needless to say, the European Union has its work cut out in this respect. More to the point, it can, and must, take a leading role in this field in view of the added value it offers compared with the individual States. ECHO must become the central coordination platform for all Member States. It must be equipped to this end, so that it can operate to best advantage, for this is about life and death and so only the very best is good enough. This will entail extending and improving the staffing capacity, decentralising competences, formulating quantifiable objectives, systematic monitoring of the results, continuing to learn from past mistakes, and above all, improving coordination with the other offices of the Commission and the Member States. In order to mobilise the necessary public support for emergency aid, it would be a good idea to give greater publicity to what Europe does and why. Moreover, increased transparency would create an additional incentive to meet the highest demands. The relationship between emergency aid, reconstruction and development is the same as that between the seed, the stems, and the leaves of a plant; one evolves naturally from the other. And what this means in terms of ECHO, which is the seed, is that although it does not have to handle all the reconstruction work itself, it does have to make all the necessary preparations. When it comes to the reconstruction and development phases, the Commission needs to bring its own staffing levels up to standard with all haste, and drastically reduce the procedures. A number of speakers have already said as much this evening. Only then will Europe be able to make a virtue of need.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, on a point of order and by way of follow-up to Mr Newton Dunn's point of order, I have been sitting here listening with great interest to what Mr Nielson has said, but had a specific question to put forward in part three. Since you invite oral questions for Commissioners for parts one, two and three, why is it that after the second half hour we did not revert to the first question of part three? Why is it that those of us with questions one, two and three in part three will not receive oral answers? I find it a discourtesy to colleagues. If our turn is never to be reached, we should be told to put down a written question to the Commissioners. If we can only have answers from the Commissioners who are available on the day – Mr Monti and Mr Nielson in this case – then why invite questions to any Commissioner? Why have a section, under other questions – part three – which should have had half an hour, and then ignore it? I fail to understand this, and with respect find it a discourtesy to colleagues.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I believe the document that is before us today is a very significant document. I have taken steps to try to inform myself as to the equivalence that exists among governments and among national parliaments. Exceptionally, there may be one state of the 15 where more things that are conceded by way of openness to its parliament than in other states. But in the large majority of cases, there is no near equivalent and that is a significant element in this document. Secondly, we had a major debate in this House last year that centred among other things on the question of commissioners accepting individual and personal responsibility for the exercise of their high office. In this document there are significant clauses interpreting the mutual relationship between our institutions that also constitute significant progress. There are two points of criticism that my colleagues and my Group have asked to seek clarification on today. Article 1.4 in annex 3 regulates which persons or bodies within this House may request of the Commission access to confidential documents. Many of my colleagues are upset that no explicit reference is made to the rights of rapporteurs. We have brought the document as far as we can with the Commission, but I would say that, if we vote for it today, you must immediately instruct our Committee on Constitutional Affairs to take up the question of delineating the rules in the House that will make it easier for rapporteurs to make requests either of their chairmen or of the other bodies named in this document. If we include this, then many of my colleagues who have reservations, will vote yes. One final comment: this House has now begun its work on the question of transparency and the regulation on access to documents. Many of my colleagues have said to me – without anticipating the outcome of that work – that, should we ultimately need to review our framework in the light of any emerging trends in this regulation, the Commission President, Mr Prodi, should declare on the record, before the vote, that the Commission will be open to the idea of reviewing the document in the light of any evolving policy on transparency. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I am very sorry that Commissioner Patten had to leave. In his absence I am delighted to direct my questions to the Development Commissioner, Mr Nielson. I am delighted to hear of new innovations and reorganisations which the Commission is going to put into place. EuropeAid would be a very important attribute of the European Union as far as our external relations are concerned. It has been extremely embarrassing so far that some of our promises have not been kept. Not keeping promises to the poorest people in the world is not the nicest way to go about – as a rich part of the world – trying to help them. Consolidating the RELEX Commissioners and increasing the management support staff and resources have my fullest support. I am also delighted to hear that they are planning to create a board very much like the World Bank. But I should like to ask Commissioner Nielson if he has thought about something which is very important to this side of the House – the IFC in the World Bank has the ability to help in the private sector with funding. Micro-credits and various other mechanisms are key to helping people to help themselves. Have they considered extending, in EuropeAid, some element of helping people to help themselves through an investment arm where the European Union becomes a partner in venture and enterprise?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on the issue which Mr Nogueira has just mentioned, I would like to refer to an issue which affects this House even more directly. As the House knows, a few days ago a special representative of the European Union – the institution to which this Parliament belongs – Mr Moratinos, was detained against his will for some minutes at the residence of President Arafat, due to the bombing of that residence by Israeli troops. Mr President, I would ask you to communicate this Parliament’s indignation to the Spanish Presidency of the Council at this blatant aggression against a diplomatic representative of the European Union in the fulfilment of his duties, while he was in Palestine with the President of the Palestinian Authority, something which the Israeli authorities had prior knowledge of, as the honourable Members and the President know.

Political group: PSE
I have today voted in favour of Mr Herzog’s report on services of general interest and have, in that connection, also supported a list of amendments that support the idea of a framework directive in this area. In this connection, it must be made clear that we only want a framework directive that respects the principle of subsidiarity and that is confined to regulating services of a general economic character and does not therefore seek to regulate areas such as education, public health and services of general social interest. Report: Sandbaek (A5-0474/2003)

Political group: PSE
I voted against the Trakatellis report, my reasons, which also apply to my fellow CSU members from Bavaria, being as follows: the European Community is still not responsible for health policy and can therefore only coordinate. Parliament calls in its text for a 'Health Coordination and Monitoring Centre' (HCMC) to be set up, operated and extended. We vehemently rejected this because this is a matter for the Member States. In addition, there is a series of calls which go against the principle of subsidiarity, such as recommendations for school education programmes, quality standards applicable to health and training and further training. The text adopted by Parliament also contains no specification that the limited funds available should be used in a sensible and targeted manner. - Stauner report (A5-0112/2001) . – (IT) Mr President, I voted for the Stauner report, although I would have liked to have been able to be more whole-hearted about it. Why is that? Because, when I meet the pensioner, Mr Rossi, in Bergamo, he always asks me: 'What do you do at the European Parliament?', and the pensioner, Mr Verdi, asks me every afternoon: 'You spend so much money: where does it all go to?', and so on and so forth all day long. My life is one continual question from citizens and pensioners, in particular, asking what we spend Europe's money on. What I want, therefore, is for us to ensure, in future, that we monitor all this money we spend as well. Of course, we do spend it wisely, but what on? Let us therefore verify whether this money is used to bring practical benefit to the European citizens. - Blak report (A5-0113/001) . – (IT) Mr President, I voted against the discharge to the Commission for the 1999 financial year. Why is that? Because I hope that the Commission will make much, much greater efforts. But to do what? To resolve the problems of pensioners and elderly people in Europe. And how? In totally the opposite way to that which I regret to say is continuously advocated, not just by the Commission, but also in this House and by the Council. I should like to make it clear in this explanation of vote that workers do not want to work forever: they want to reach the point where they can receive a pension soon, a good pension which is enough to live on, in order to make way for young people. The Pensioners' Party is totally against any attempt by the European governments or Europe to extend the length of citizens' working lives. Rather, we are calling for the length of time spent working to be reduced and the length of time spent at leisure, when it is not obligatory for citizens to work, to be increased.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have just come to an understanding on a few more points with a view to making the voting procedure easier for you. By agreement with my honourable colleagues, I should therefore like to propose that, beginning with the Committee’s Amendment No 10, we consolidate the votes into four blocks. I have already indicated to the Bureau how these blocks can be arranged so that we can deal with the whole proposal fairly quickly, and I should like to ask your permission, Mr President, to present a brief oral proposal for a compromise before the vote on Article 3(2)(a) and before the vote on Article 16.

Political group: PPE-DE
I would like to report my great satisfaction at having been able to participate in the great democratic event we have just experienced, which is unparalleled on the European political scene. The European institutions, particularly the European Commission and the European Parliament, emerge with increased statures from the hearings of the Commissioners-designate, and the European citizens who followed them (in the press) may find in them, I hope, good reasons to become more interested in the building of Europe. For these reasons, taking account of the generally acknowledged competence of the Commissioners and the intention expressed by the majority of them to work in close collaboration with Parliament, I voted in favour of the appointment of the European Commission. It was all the easier for me since the procedure selected for these hearings provided an opportunity to remind the Commission of its undertaking to present, by the end of 1999, a raft of proposals intended to finally give substance to Article 299(2) of the Treaty of Amsterdam which establishes the specificity of the most remote regions, and their right to specific conditions of exemption, to enable them to deal with their structural problems. In addition, with regard to the OCT associated to the European Union, Commissioner Nielson acknowledged the need to present as quickly as possible a wide range of proposals intended to give these countries a status appropriate to their current situation, with a view to the forthcoming Association Agreement and, in particular, the consequent renewal of the financial instrument allocated to their development. On both these subjects, which I attach particular importance to, the proposals of the competent Commissioners seemed to me to augur well for the future collaboration between Commission and Parliament.

Political group: PSE