GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the hierarchy of acts is a topic that under normal circumstances would drive any normal human being from the room, but I believe it is becoming evident how important this report by Mr Bourlanges is in terms of the EU's legal capacity and, of course, also in terms of the comprehensibility and – as we shall see – democratisation of the decision-making process. Back home, our acts are on three levels: the constitution, the laws and the implementing provisions subordinate to the laws. In the EU, we have thirty different instruments. The EU's box of instruments is therefore far too big and hence also far too confusing, as nobody can find their way around it and the terminology, too, is all over the place. We are dealing, then, with a system that is utterly lacking in transparency and is also to some degree undemocratic. What makes the Bourlanges Report so creditable is that it represents a quantum leap in this area. This really is a great leap forward in terms of clarity and democratisation. By dint of a great deal of effort, we have attempted to locate the three levels within the EU as well: the constitutional level, the legislative level and the subordinate acts. As regards the constitutional level, it is my view that there will have to be a less cumbersome review procedure for the second part of the constitution. If we are to require unanimity from 25 or more states in order to amend any of the provisions in the second part, we know perfectly well that we will have a blockade on our hands. This is, of course, a highly sensitive issue, though, as majority decisions obviously mean that someone can end up losing. But this leap must be made, and this inner will must be present, or else we will be vetoing each other, and the public does not want that. In terms of lawmaking, the first step is for us to call laws ‘laws’ and not – as we currently do – ‘regulations’, an expression that in German denotes an administrative act that is not a law. I would be very much in favour of the terms ‘Union law’ and ‘Union framework law’ being used and of codecision being the rule, which it must be in every kind of lawmaking. For legislation on the budget – and decisions on the budget are another very important prerogative of Parliament – there will surely be a need for a special procedure, but the principle of codecision should remain the same. The third issue, that of separating normal lawmaking by Parliament and the Council from the implementing provisions enacted by the Commission, is of great significance. We need to be clear in our own minds here about what is legislative and what is executive. We could make things easier for ourselves if we in Parliament were not to enact technical regulations, but only the acts underlying them. Mr President, I believe that what we have here is a great success; many thanks to Mr Bourlanges, who has made such an effort and presented a truly great report!

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I wish to speak about pensioners and elderly people who are not self-sufficient, who have disabilities. On Thursday 28 June, the German Provincial High Court and Court of Appeal upheld the appeal brought by a private German rest home for elderly people who are not self-sufficient, which is a member of an association of private European rest homes known as ECHO, ruling that the German law which grants funding and aid to public rest homes but not to private rest homes for elderly people with disabilities is illegal. I want all the elderly people who need to, to be able to find a public or private home where they can receive assistance, in a situation of free competition. I call upon you to make every effort to bring this about.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I, too, would like to congratulate those who have been responsible for getting the report to this stage. Quality, as we have been hearing, can be a problematic concept in education, especially when one looks at any form of assessment. There are certain areas, such as literacy and numeracy, where we can now gain some idea of what has been achieved. There are many international studies which have thrown up difficulties, however, when it comes to making straight comparisons, because of differences in curriculum, approach and the underlying assumptions about what constitutes a good education. It is essential not to confuse education with training. The primary purpose of education is not to prepare people for the job market but to prepare them for a life which is fulfilling in every way. In an increasingly flexible or precarious working environment people will be thrown back on their inner resources at many times in their lives and social cohesion is partly dependent on such personal resilience. We only have to look at what happens to those who are thrown out of work or who are excluded from the job market. So when we are assessing the quality of education, we want to see if we can develop people who have self-esteem and confidence, who can communicate effectively, who can look behind the information for the hidden message, who can question, who can work as part of a team and independently, and who are creative, resourceful and have an appreciation of the wider world and their responsibility to it. I also think that when we are looking at the quality of education we need to see if it is delivering real equality of opportunity for all of those within the system or whether it is doing, as society does, so much to exclude people on grounds of a poor background or their colour or whatever. So in our comparisons and benchmarking we have to look beyond narrow league table approaches. After all, every football team in a league depends upon the level of investment and the selection of the very best. It does not necessarily improve the performance of all. I am glad to see that we are recognising the importance of involving pupils themselves in the development and assessment of our educational system. We cannot expect to develop fully rounded and responsible individuals if they are not encouraged to be constructive and articulate about this major component of their lives. After all, education properly done is a collaborative adventure and we know we have a lot to learn from each other. That is why I welcome this report.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, from the outset, I would like first of all to thank the Commission and, more particularly, Commissioner Lamy for the way in which he involved the parliamentary delegation in the work. I think this is a first, and it certainly proved to be a positive experience for everyone concerned. There are, nonetheless, differences of opinion. In particular, I think that the proposal relating to the “biotechnology” working party was not the right one, but it would be truly boring if we always agreed on everything. Moreover, it is important that we examine the causes of the failure. Several of these have been mentioned. They seem accurate to me. I would add one more: I believe that developing countries can no longer accept being treated as they have until now. Having the representatives of the most industrialised countries meet in a conference room, at the end of the negotiations, while the others wait in the antechamber before having to sign a text prepared in advance seems to me an unacceptable process, and I believe that many of us here would agree with me on that. Our way of negotiating must therefore be reviewed. A whole raft of issues to do with the WTO must also be reviewed. In particular, I think that besides the problems with the decision-making and negotiation mechanisms, the basic principles of the WTO also are in need of a face-lift. Let us not forget, even so, that it was in the 1940s, after the war, that the first GATT negotiations took place, and that at the time people were still traumatised after the great depression of 1929 and the thirties, and that the priority then was to track down overcautious, dangerous protectionism. Fifty years on, I feel that priorities have changed. I believe that this is something which must be reviewed and, above all, the question must be asked as to whether generalised free trade is compatible with States, the European Union in particular, having the opportunity to respond to other requirements, primarily, in my opinion, the requirement for sustainable development throughout the world. A number of WTO mechanisms and principles run counter to this objective of sustainable development both socially and ecologically. I believe we must have the courage – now that we have time for this – to analyse these mechanisms seriously and to make proposals, establishing dialogue, as a priority, with developing countries. My impression is that the European Union is very fond of dialogue with the USA. I am not opposed to that, of course, but I believe that favouring dialogue with the USA is also likely to backfire on us when, at a later date, we have to discuss matters with developing countries, particularly ACP countries. I think this must be reviewed, and the legitimate claims of these countries must be taken more seriously.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I have no doubt that the existing arrangements for cooperation in the area of VAT fraud are inadequate in the context of the evolved single market. VAT fraud costs the EU and its Member States several hundred million euro each year. Although measures have been taken over the last few years to come to terms with it, VAT fraud is still a considerable problem today. I agree that the best way to tackle this ever-increasing fraud is to have close administrative cooperation between Member States. By allowing direct contacts between local offices, the fight against fraud will become less bureaucratic and more effective. However, let me sound a note of caution in relation to the efforts inherent in this Commission proposal to base this measure on Article 95 of the Treaty. Article 95 specifically states that it may not be used for fiscal provisions. The Commission's view is that this proposal is merely about administrative cooperation and that it does not relate to actual tax collection or tax measures. With respect, I do not agree – my country does not agree – that by stealth the present position should be eroded. I do not think that SCAC – the existing administrative committee in the tax area – should have more of these functions assigned to it. It is the thin end of the wedge. This proposal relates to fiscal instruments which Member States use and it should certainly be adopted, but it should be adopted with the correct legal basis, which is Article 93, providing for unanimity of voting at Council level. The regulation that this proposal aims to replace is based upon Article 93, and quite simply this proposal should be also. Mrs Kauppi has referred to the concerns regarding the legal basis in her attached explanatory memorandum. In the past where conflicts have arisen in relation to the legal basis, the Council has always rejected the Commission's view and has changed the legal basis to Article 93 or 94. As pointed out by my colleague, it did this most recently on the proposal for a directive on the mutual assistance for the recovery of claims. The Commission has decided to take the Council to the Court of Justice in this matter and Ireland will be joining the action on the side of the Council. While I welcome the substance of what this proposal aims to do, for the reasons I have outlined in relation to the legal basis, I and my Irish colleagues will be voting against the report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I think there is some ambiguity regarding the expression “single European sky”, because air traffic control is in fact, as you are well aware, already a European field of activity. There is already a European system for controlling the air space with Eurocontrol and there is already a body, the Central Flow Management Unit, based in Brussels. This is not perfect, of course, but they do already exist. The situation must therefore be improved starting with the statement, which is patently obvious, that delays have increased and that with traffic on the rise, they will become worse. It is recognised that there are many causes of delays but, in the end, I find that we are facing an offensive presenting air traffic control as the only reason for delays. I believe it would be sensible also to concentrate far more on the problems of types of plane, types of flow, stopovers and of course the continuing defence-related problems. I feel as if we are involved in a headlong pursuit to implement solutions that seem obvious, but that do not take account of the specificity of air traffic control. Mr Zimeray said this earlier: yes, a plane journey is divided into different areas and the denser the traffic, the more divisions there are. Why? Because dividing things into different areas is the human way of controlling or managing a number of aircraft. Therefore, in my opinion, thinking that there would be too many control centres is nonsense. Why not say in that case that there are too many aircraft? In addition, as far as I know, there are no specific air traffic control hold-ups at borders either. The great proposal that is put to us for improving traffic consists of separating regulatory and control functions. But what is the value of such a measure? It may well be necessary to consider more relevant divisions, why not? But that is not what is being proposed. The separation of functions would lead to the liberalisation of air traffic service provision, establishing, as indeed the Atkins report states, a liberalised internal market. Air traffic control is not an airline, nor is it a market sector. Let it not be forgotten that its main function is to ensure safety. I believe, however, that it is contrary to the interests of safety to subject aircraft control and monitoring bodies to market pressure. The ability to invest in new technological tools and training must therefore be safeguarded. In France – and I am not trying to make France a model – there is a general directorate that governs everything and, in the past few years, investments have been made and air traffic controllers have been recruited. The system is highly effective. On what grounds would you want to break... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the intention has always been for the spring European Council each year to be devoted to economic and social affairs, growth and development. There was very little of that this year. I admit that there were subjects to discuss that were important in themselves, but I wish to object to the almost total disregard for economic and social development. The Lisbon process is not at all functioning as intended, and the problems are great. Unemployment is high, investment is not what it could be, and so on and so forth. Vigorous policy efforts in the Member States would of course be required, as it is there that economic policy must be given tangible form. Instead, the only guidelines originating from Europe that carry real weight are found in the Stability and Growth Pact, which does the opposite and puts them in a straitjacket. I fully share Mr Prodi’s view that the Stability and Growth Pact is idiotic. It is high time that we did something about it and made economic development in Europe rather more dynamic. Nor is the social aspect of the Lisbon process functioning as it should. Everyone is talking about lifelong learning, but in reality the Member States are investing nothing at all in education; on the contrary, they are making cutbacks. Something should really be done, and the electorate is reacting. In both Germany and France, we are seeing how the electorate is protesting against an economic and social policy that is now being left to its own devices.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, in an effort to end the clashes which were plaguing the Peloponnese, the Delphi Oracle advised the warring sides in 776 B.C. to organise games, putting their differences to one side, so that athletes and citizens from all over Greece could take part in the games in safety. Thus the ancient Greek tradition of the Olympic truce was born and has lasted for over 1000 years. Greece promoted the revival of this tradition with the support of the UN, the European Council, UNESCO and the International Olympic Committee. In the run up to the Olympic Games in Greece in 2004, the International Olympic Truce Centre was set up and undertook to conduct a major campaign. Over 400 famous people in the world have signed the text of the Olympic truce. The Olympic Games, which return this year to the country in which they were born and to Europe, are a global reference point and, together with the message which emerges from the sporting performances, can send the message of the culture of peace. Peace and dialogue are two objectives which the European Parliament has always supported. They are values which we continue to hold at the centre of our efforts for as long and with as much effort as are needed to achieve them. Each of us, as members of the European Parliament, are called on to act as ambassadors of the good will of the Olympic truce, promoting the message and the culture of peace in all meetings, missions, parliamentary committees and international fora in all the corners of the planet which we frequently visit. We expect the support and encouragement of the Council and the Irish Presidency in this effort. The main message of the Olympic truce is: if we manage to have peace for 16 days, perhaps we can manage to have it forever.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, may I say to Mr Lipietz that I continue to hold the position on which the vote was taken with regard to these two parts. I am not absolutely sure, however, whether last week’s interest-rate cut was entirely consistent with this policy. I have to express my personal doubts on that. (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE - Kessler and Perry report (A5-0088/2001)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we are talking about nuclear safety, and I repeat what was said by my colleague, Mr Marset Campos: we hope that the Commissioner will say something about our problem, a problem in the European Union that is affecting citizens from two Member States.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, are we, the Members of the European Parliament, all fraudsters? Are we all thieves? Are we all idlers? Are we timewasters who do nothing from morning to night and spend our time enjoying ourselves and getting rich? I do not think so. Yet that is what is stated in a book by an Italian journalist, Mario Giordano, entitled ‘L’Unione fa la truffa’ [The Union is a swindler]. The title says it all. This journalist is also, I regret to say, the director of a major Italian television company. The book, which I found in a bookshop in Rome – where I had gone to meet my mother and sister as I often do – filled me with horror and sent shivers down my spine, for it describes all of us Members of Parliament as idlers who do nothing but plot frauds and robberies. Madam President, please would you examine this book and instigate legal proceedings for libel against Mario Giordano, who, it pains me to admit, is Italian.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur. This is a very important initiative and this is an opportune time for it to be brought forward. The existence of internment-without-trial camps in Guantanamo Bay has to unacceptable to anyone in a civilised society. Any prisoners captured during the invasion of Afghanistan should have been treated according to international law and, at the very least, should have been classified as prisoners of war. They have the right to a fair trial. They should also have the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, have access to legal representation and have the right either to be charged or released. The Irish presidency should be doing everything in its power to ensure that these people are not denied their basic human rights for a minute longer. I agree with what Mrs Ludford said concerning the failure of the Irish presidency to be here today, which is an appalling message to send out to the European Community and indeed to the international community. As Commissioner Patten said, it is up to the Council to raise this matter with the United States, and the EU Council has failed abysmally to do so on any occasion. I would also question why it is that the Irish presidency is not here today. Is it because that presidency is afraid of offending the United States by saying something at that country would take offence? The Irish presidency is also letting down the Irish public, which views this matter as an absolute scandal.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I want to give the explanation on behalf of the in respect of the Commission's legislative programme. We abstained as a group throughout this vote. The reason, as we made clear during the debate on Tuesday, is because we believe the process to be flawed, not because we necessarily have any quarrel with the content. Having put this marker down for this time, in the future we would like to see the process reviewed so that it amounts to more than just ourselves as a Parliament swapping lists with the Commission. We want something more substantial and meaningful.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, by tabling amendments to the chocolate directive, we have tried to offer better protection to those consumers who would like to know whether they are buying real chocolate or a product which, instead of cocoa butter, also contains fats of another origin. However, these amendments were not adopted, unfortunately. As a consequence, we remain concerned about the third-world cocoa producers. We predict that, despite any improvements for the benefit of producers of other vegetable fats, the overall outcome will, in any case, be harmful to the third world. It is regrettable that the study into the impact of the new directive for the countries in the South was not carried out earlier. From now on, chocolate is no longer a product which consists of nothing but cocoa butter. In some parts of the Union, the name ‘chocolate’ was already used, even if the product contained substitute products. We regret that the standardisation we have achieved is to the detriment of the consumer and the cocoa producer, and was dictated by the pursuit of profit.

Political group: Verts-ALE