GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
In my speech of yesterday – as can be seen from the verbatim report – I certainly did not say, Mr Dell’Alba, that there is a problem of legal base. I said the opposite: I said, rather, that in the matter of the legal base, in relation to the Treaties, of this Commission proposal – since we are discussing a Commission proposal and then Mrs Schleicher’s report – we had discussed it long and hard in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, and had also received an opinion from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, which did not come up with any observation on the legal base of the measure. As regards my proposal to convene the committee, that was a result of the confusion that Mr Poettering has mentioned. I unfortunately arrived in the Chamber – and I apologise for that – once the vote had already been taken and I was given some inaccurate information. Mr Berthu told me that he himself had thought of asking for a referral back to committee, but then in effect I realised that the vote had been taken under Rule 143 and not 144. Therefore my intention to get ready to rapidly convene the Committee on Constitutional Affairs no longer made any sense, once I had found out what had been the base in the Rules of the vote taken in the House. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
The Member States and the EU have got into the habit of giving lessons in democracy and defence of human rights all over the world. This generally accompanies demands for freedom of the market and competition. Reading the Swiebel report, you would think the Member States also needed to put their houses in order. The report does in fact reveal many violations of human rights in the EU. No country is spared! Sexual discrimination or discrimination against minorities like the Roma, police violence, deplorable conditions of detention in prisons and police stations, racist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic acts and violence, challenges to basic rights in the name of combating terrorism, the replacement of security policies and crackdowns on immigration and asylum, not to mention violations of social rights and frequent attacks on trade union rights. The report of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs is based on a large number of examples and is not content with levying criticism; it questions governments and puts forward precise proposals and recommendations in many fields. I and my group are glad that the majority of our Assembly has adopted the report, which was further enriched by the adoption of my group’s amendments. (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the chairman has already spoken about the adequacy of the responses given by the Commission. I will not give my opinion, I will just point out that it has confirmed its defensive position and unwillingness to enter into dialogue with the citizens, whom we merely represent. It does not, therefore, want to understand this message that we are continuing to send out: ‘Be reasonable and negotiate.’ I merely want to ask, in line with the Rules of Procedure, that is to say with Rule 68(3), that the proposal for a legislative resolution is not voted upon and that this text is referred back to committee. Then, in the time that this parliamentary term allows, we will tackle the issue as soon as possible.

Political group: PPE-DE
We Swedish Social Democrats voted against Amendment No 2 which is about increasing the number of translations of patents. Our reason for doing so is that we wish to keep down the costs of patent applications, and we therefore advocate a solution in terms of just one or two languages. Amendments Nos 3 and 9-17 propose that straightforward national courts should function as first instance courts for Community patent litigation. We believe that this would militate against the principle of a uniform Community patent. Our view is that the first instance court to be set up by virtue of Article 225a should have regional or local chambers. In that way, continued access to local expertise within the patent sphere is guaranteed in all Member States. It also means that the parties are closer to the court.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to welcome the Danish Presidency. Firstly, as regards Europe, here is an extremely clear message which it is a pleasure to hear. We too are pulling out all the stops to ensure that this goal is achieved. But what Europe, President-in-Office? At the end of this debate, the new form of which I too, for my part, have greatly appreciated, we have three messages for you. Firstly, in contrast with what you have said, in our opinion, your asylum and immigration policies are not an internal question. There must be correspondence and coherence between what you do and say in Denmark and what you do and say here. Such a wide discrepancy is unacceptable. We are extremely concerned because Denmark is now in danger of no longer being the beacon of welcome and integration that it was in the past. It is proving that rights and freedoms are never completely won and can change with every new government. You Danes even dare to mete out the love you give according to the nationality and age of the recipient, and that is something which is really extremely disturbing from a European point of view. We are convinced that the way you direct the Council will depend not least upon your behaviour in these matters at home. Secondly, Cyprus. We were quite concerned to hear your Minister for Foreign Affairs say “We do not have to do anything. We can leave it to the United States”. That is not so. As far as enlargement is concerned, the way the European Union manages these last months of negotiations is absolutely crucial. Despite the Helsinki declarations and the declarations of other major Councils, we can on no account allow a country which is divided by a wall or a Green Line to enter the European Union. We – and you – must do absolutely everything possible to resolve this matter. Thirdly, as regards Johannesburg, although the European Union has an absolute priority, President-in-Office, you did not say in your speech what that priority is for Johannesburg. In our opinion, there is only one priority: we must make it clear through our words and actions that trade and the market do not take precedence over every form of environmental undertaking or over environmental agreements. This is the message that must be sent out from Johannesburg, a message that is never, ever heard nowadays, apart from possibly in some of the phrases the Commission has used today in European Union documents. This is the strategic line that we must take at Johannesburg and this is what I would like to hear you say today.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I thank the Presidency for the clarification it has given and I can also clarify to the Presidency that, today, in this House, the opinion of the European Parliament on this matter has been adopted and that the Council will, therefore, be in a position to take a decision. I wish to emphasise, however, that this decision does not add a single litre of milk to the Azores’ milk quota and nor does it exempt any producer from fines. This must be made clear and there should be no attempt to cloud an issue which is crucial to the economy and agriculture of the Azores. The question I would like to ask you, however, Mr President, is whether, in this decision that you will be taking in December, you will uphold the principle of adapting the regional quota to the Azores’ self-sufficiency in milk and dairy products, as decided by the Nice Council in December 2000, since this is, I believe, a fundamental principle which, if upheld, could lead in future to the much-needed adaptation of the regional quota?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the year 2000 is coming to an end and we are still debating the main guidelines, that is to say, the priorities in terms of innovative actions financed through the European Regional Development Fund. If the Berlin reform for the 7 years dealt with by Agenda 2000, that is to say for the period 2000-2006, reduced the budgetary contributions for these actions by half in comparison with the previous period and, to that, we add the inevitable slowness with which we adopt decisions at a Community level, as a result of our complex institutional structure, it is not surprising that we are in a situation where we have not even been able to spend the budget laid down for the current year for innovative regional policy measures, and this is an example of political irresponsibility. It is also a mistake to reduce the budget in a chapter such as this which was being dedicated to pilot experiments, to new ideas in the field of local and urban development – with some more than satisfactory results – which have formed the basis of Community programmes as cherished at local level as URBAN and INTERREG. If we have still not realised, in this increasingly globalised world, that the progress of any country or region depends on its investment in research and innovation, we are providing our voters with a bad service. Furthermore, I would like to draw attention to another aspect of the new policy proposed by the Commission. Now, the local authorities, the municipalities and the mayors of the least-favoured urban areas can no longer go to Brussels to seek solidarity and aid from the European Union. The door is closed to them and we have lost that added value provided by the direct relationship between the European capital and the public institutions closest to the problems of the citizens. I have nothing against the regional authorities, which will channel the proposals and will take the decisions on the funding of the new programmes, but I believe that this a step backwards which destroys some of the freshness of the proposals born of the local bodies’ intimate knowledge of the real difficulties. Commissioner, I would like to know your views on this. But I must say that it is not all going to be negative and, in this respect, we are pleased that our proposal to also introduce measures relating to energy efficiency and the diversification of renewable energy sources, as well as measures relating to climatic and environmental protection, has been accepted.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, in the opinion submitted to the Committee on Budgets, the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs highlighted a number of priorities, almost all of which can also be found in Mr Costa Neves’ report, for which I would like to give him my thanks. First of all, I would reiterate that the creation of a genuine area of freedom, security and justice is of strategic importance to the whole of the European Union. This priority, which was formally confirmed at the Tampere Summit, generated a major work programme for the Commission with extremely tight deadlines. We therefore believe – and I direct this point in particular to the Commissioner – that the justice and home affairs sector must be allocated the manpower and administrative resources required to carry out the mountain of tasks before it, in an efficient manner and within the agreed time scales. One of these tasks – the asylum and immigration policy, including the fight against criminal networks – clearly occupies a central position and I should like to thank the general rapporteur for having taken this up expressly in his draft resolution. Lastly, I should like to draw the Commission’s attention to the difficult problem that the European Union will face in the future, which is the effective control of its external borders. The EU’s borders, which are already very extensive and difficult to control at the moment, will be even more so in the future, when the current applicant countries, from which immigrants heading for the EU originate, will then become gateways to the territory of the European Union. That is why, Commissioner, we believe that you must lay down strict guidelines in the 2002 budget that will enable us to face up to this challenge. The EU cannot become a fortress, but neither can it start to resemble a labyrinth of criminal immigration networks.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you, Mr President of the Commission, spoke of ‘turning words into action’. Indeed – the implementation of what has been resolved upon rather than announcements, and a move from enlargement to integration. Not only for the media, but also for many of us in this House, the summit was more about rhetoric than about substance. I cannot deny that I attribute that to the date on which it was held. Fourteen days after the gathering in Rome, what really new developments can one expect on the constitutional front? What sort of response did the Commission expect to its Growth Initiative in view of its inadequate preparation and the fact that the EU has no policy on either industry or the economy? Might it not be necessary to combine the Member States’ economic programmes and the Growth Initiative into a package with real financial capacity and to make a statement about who is to do what by when in Europe in order to achieve the objectives that we agreed together? I spoke in terms of announcements giving way to the implementation of what has been resolved upon. We do not need anything new. We want Europe to be strong on the world stage and, internally, to be structured on subsidiary lines. We want the Stability and Growth Pact; let us abide by it and implement it. We have the concept of the internal market; let us at last make it a reality. We have competition policy; let us see to it that barriers to competition are removed in every Member State. We have the targets set at Lisbon, Göteborg, and Barcelona; what we need is operational programmes to implement what has been resolved upon, not new announcements. (Applause) Secondly, we have before us a balanced basis for decision on the constitution. We all know what points remain to be resolved. While services of general interest are subject to the subsidiarity principle, they form part of the European social model, and so they need a derogation from competition law. Delays will do nothing to resolve these issues. We can achieve the timetable because the issues are still on the table. Thirdly we say both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to a referendum. By that we mean a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a national referendum on reform. I will conclude by putting a question to you. Why, then, do we not start by rethinking this issue too? I say ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide referendum, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide information campaign, ‘yes’ to a Europe-wide result. That means that the majority of the states and the majority of the votes decide instead of nationalising a European project. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the rapporteur has made every effort to reach consensus. She therefore deserves all credit for the emphatic result that is now before us. Many necessary improvements have been made to the measures against sexual intimidation and in connection with adoption leave and a woman’s right to return to her old job after maternity leave. If the Commission and the Council are serious about the equal treatment of men and women, they would do well to adopt all these amendments. I was astonished to find out from my Christian-Democratic counterparts that pregnancy is a purely female issue. On the contrary: it is of the utmost importance for men to be given the opportunity to be more involved in the new life that they have helped create. The joint amendment that is before us does not create new rights. We simply do not want men who wish to make use of their existing national rights, for example, to three –days’ leave, to be prevented from doing so. In the view of the liberal group, unlike that of the two major groups, it consequently seems hardly too much to ask for men and women to be able to make use of existing rights to combine work and care tasks without experiencing discrimination. We do live, after all, in the twenty-first century. Needless to say, the green-liberal-GUE amendment on mainstreaming is also an important addition. I therefore hope that the others will also support us in this and that we indeed face a more equal future backed by a broad majority.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I, and presumably also my fellow Swedish MEPs, have been presented with a number of comments on this report from concerned Swedish authorities. In Sweden, these authorities are used to being regarded as competent economic actors with quite extensive freedom of action. They believe that the Commission’s proposal would, in a number of respects, reduce their efficiency without increasing either competition or legal certainty. They refer to matters such as the right to enter into framework agreements, of which they often make use, concerning intellectual services and building contracts. They mention the new Article 41a, to the effect that award procedures can only be cancelled under very special circumstances. They wonder what would happen, for example, when there was a change in the political majority and wonder if it might not in those circumstances be possible to cancel an agreement entered into. They also refer to a number of other points on which Swedish practice is much more efficient than what is proposed in these directives. It is said that public authorities are bureaucratic and inefficient. If that is the case, then it is, in general, due to the fact that we politicians devise exaggeratedly detailed legislation. I think that the Commission’s proposal for a directive on the award of contracts is one such example – I am tempted to say nightmare example – of legislation that creates public sector inefficiency and that gives rise to more problems than it solves. I really do think that the whole proposal for a directive should be withdrawn. The closest I can get to bringing about such an outcome is probably to support an amendment by Mr Manders of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, in which the Commission is called upon to reflect on the situation and reconsider whether the proposal does not create more problems than it solves. I know that the situation is different in different countries, but I find it strange that the lowest possible price is a consideration with such a dominant role to play in the Commission’s proposal. When private businesses award contracts, they make an overall assessment of a number of factors, of which price is just one. Why cannot public bodies be viewed in the same way and be given the same freedom to make a complex assessment of tenders submitted? Why, in a legal text, should a list be drawn up of which capricious considerations should, or should not, be taken into account? These lists are arbitrary. Why is the Commission so restrictive when it comes to certain factors such as, for example, social needs and environmental and employment considerations, which have more to do with the quality of the products than with purely quantitative relations? I think that the Commission should consider tabling instead a directive laying down general principles and guidelines, that is to say one that does not go into details in this way but is instead more interested in how the public administrations are to be made more efficient and democratic in the Member States. It would then be possible to find significantly more flexible solutions to these problems.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, in my capacity as a Member of the European Parliament and Secretary-General of my party, Eusko Alkartasuna, and because of all it stands for in the Basque country, I want to support a peace process in Colombia. I will not, however, support just any kind of peace process but only one based, in the words of one of the NGOs most closely involved in helping Colombia, on respect for human rights and aimed at genuine sustainable development and social justice for Colombia and the surrounding region. Endorsing a programme as ill conceived as Plan Colombia will not resolve the conflicts, because it does not deal with their roots. Furthermore, it places us in the ridiculous position of having to draw on funds to cushion the effects of that very plan. Aside from my serious misgivings about plans such as Plan Colombia, I am bound to point out that parties such as Spain’s Partido Popular and the Spanish Socialist Party are totally inconsistent in their attitude. They are putting forward an anti-terrorist approach here today, which is quite contrary to that required to reach a negotiated end to conflicts. However, on the other side of the Atlantic they advocate precisely the opposite approach. Our Spanish neighbours -or at least those who are seeking solutions in Colombia whilst denying them on European soil – certainly seem to be adopting the ‘do as I say and not as I do’ approach.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the lawful object of the Charter of Rights is to protect the legitimate rights, expectations and aspirations of the citizen against the oppressive behaviour of government, business or other citizens; and it is, of course, right that people should be thus safeguarded in respect of the European institutions and their activities. However, having said that, the crucial matter is not the existence of a Charter but the proper safeguarding of the citizen, and the means by which the citizen achieves such protection today vary from Member State to Member State. In view of the Community’s normal legislative practice, I am somewhat surprised that it was not felt that this should be achieved by going with the grain of the established legal and administrative mechanisms of each Member State. In other words, policy should be implemented along the lines of a directive rather than a regulation. For example, I was speaking recently with some very senior judges in Germany who were clear, on the basis of the history and traditions of their country, that these matters should be contained in a justiciable charter. But my own country has a very different tradition in this respect, as our own Prime Minister has made clear, and it is not part of the United Kingdom’s tradition to safeguard the citizen in this way. We do it differently and no less effectively. I think it is very relevant that the present United Kingdom government is committed to ensuring that the Charter is non-justiciable and does not extend beyond existing rights to those not currently contained in the treaties. Mr President, for those countries which have a long tradition of directly, legally binding charters, a development of the kind proposed is not dramatic. But for those which do not, it is a very radical step; and in the meantime, I will keep a very close watch on the United Kingdom and what it may say and do about all this.

Political group: PPE-DE