GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the Cashman report can be summarised in four words: citizens' power over bureaucracy. The general public's right of access to the EU institutions' documents is one of the mainstays in the establishment of an open and democratic EU. Access to information also stimulates increased efficiency. This is a significant step towards a more open and more democratic EU. It is gratifying that Parliament has succeeded in producing a large majority in favour of more openness. I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Cashman and also Mrs Maij-Weggen for an excellent collaboration, which has in fact created a good basis for the continued negotiations. There are no block exemptions relating to foreign affairs or security, and neither must there be any block exemptions in these areas in the future. The principle of access to documents must of course include all the institutions and bodies of the EU. It is therefore extremely important that we keep a record, a register, so that citizens have a reasonable chance of seeing what documents exist. Public access to documents must be all-embracing and the main and basic principle, but it must naturally be supplemented with certain well-defined exceptions. Citizens must of course be protected. The Commission suggested 16 exceptions, which we felt was far too many. We have therefore reduced them to six. Justification for a document being classified as confidential must be required in each individual case. Furthermore, confidentiality may not be assigned permanently. As soon as confidentiality is no longer justified, the document must naturally be made publicly accessible. There may, of course, be negotiation strategies whereby a document may need to be kept secret before a meeting, but once decisions have been taken there may no longer be a need to maintain confidentiality. The document should then be made available. In addition, it must be possible to appeal against all decisions relating to confidentiality. It must be possible to appeal to the European Court of Justice, the Ombudsman or the relevant EU authority, and Parliament must always be able to question the grounds for confidentiality. Another important principle, which has been one of my hobbyhorses since the debate on openness began, is that, as far as possible, documents must be made available in electronic form on the Internet. This is something that Parliament has supported and will probably also emphasise again today, which is important. I regard this as a very good example of Swedish and Nordic influence on the system of the EU.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on a point of order. During the debate late last night there were at least ten speakers who all raised points very critical of the Commission. I felt very sorry for Commissioner Nielson who had to respond as duty Commissioner and who read out about half a page prepared by Commissioner Liikanen. Clearly this is very complex subject and Mr Nielson did not appear to really know what the Commission position was. That is why we are now in this situation of sending this back to committee. This a very unsatisfactory way of doing business. It was like a dialogue of the deaf last night. It is not a satisfactory way of proceeding for Members to be here late at night, making very critical points and receiving a non-response of this nature. (Applause) (Parliament approved the request) *** Report (A5-0253/2000) by Mrs Wallis on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market on a proposal for a Council regulation (EC) on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (COM(1999) 348 – C5-0169/1999 – 1999/0154(CNS)) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0220/2000) by Mr Glase on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs on the Commission Communication on undeclared work (COM(1998) 219 – C4-0566/1998 – 1998/2082(COS)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0217/2000) by Mr J. Evans on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on the competition rules relating to horizontal cooperation agreements (C5-0304/2000 – 2000/2154(COS)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0227/2000) by Mrs Ferrer on behalf of the Committee on Development and Cooperation on communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on complementarity between Community and Member State policies on development cooperation (COM(1999) 218 – C5-0179/1999 – 1999/2156(COS)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Motion for a resolution (B5-0766/2000) by Baroness Ludford on behalf of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs on the European Union’s position at the 2001 World Conference Against Racism On Amendment No 12

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is true that we were to have a discussion with the Council, but, as we are quite aware, we are partly to blame, for we extended our previous work. The fact remains – and I, too, agree with the Members who have made this point – that it is a pity that this opportunity cannot be fully exploited. There is not much point in holding the debate if the Commission and the Council are not here, but let us, at least, use it to discuss the matter amongst ourselves; in any case, there are very few of us left in the Chamber. Before I go any further, I would say to Mrs Frassoni that I, too, am concerned that sustainability should be placed at the heart of the project and that it should, so to speak, be one of the screening criteria for what we want to do. However, I am much more concerned at the unsustainable nature of the present situation. As the Socialist Member, Mr Goebbels, said – I do not know if you heard him, Madam President – in actual fact, our citizens are already playing an enormous price in terms of quality of life and quality of the environment now, precisely because of the situation in our continent of malfunctions, traffic jams, traffic overloads and the impossibility of smooth traffic flow. That said, however, I, too, believe that, at this juncture, we, too, as Parliament, should launch an ‘Operation truth’ if we do not want the Van Miert report to be just another pipe dream or set of low priorities, for when we start to call priorities 10, 20 or 25 projects involving, as we all know, such huge costs, the likelihood is that none of the projects on our list are actually going to be treated as a priority. I am sure Parliament is capable of carrying out this ‘Operation truth’, starting by making people shoulder their responsibilities and by asking ourselves, if we want a European transport policy and if we want a large-scale infrastructure policy, what price we are prepared to pay for this policy and, in particular, which choices we are prepared to make. Otherwise, we will continue to hold virtually useless debates like this and, above all, we will continue to raise the expectations of our citizens and of some of our political leaders too, and it would and will be more damaging to fail to meet those expectations than to fail to implement a project. I therefore feel that, while we are waiting for the Commission and, above all, the Council, to explain to us what the actual possibilities are behind the intentions expressed so clearly by the Italian Presidency at the start of its mandate, we can start to lay down this challenge. If we are to do it, let us get on with it, but we must do it properly and sit down round a table to work out what it is actually possible to achieve.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I think we should subject everything that happened last weekend to a very sober analysis. We may perhaps then come to the conclusion that we have, in recent years, not engaged very seriously with the question of whether the EU can be made both deeper and wider at the same time. Let me put that question in very graphic terms. The reason why the Convention was so very successful was that this issue was the cement holding the whole thing together. It was because there was a common interest – on the part of the actors, but not on the part of the Member States – and hence it is now important that we give some thought to what really are the common interests of the 25 Member States that will be joined together in this European Union from 1 May onwards. That needs to be analysed in a very matter-of-fact way. What are the tasks that we have to perform at the European level? What are the tools, what are the procedures, that we need in order to perform them? What kind of financial framework does this Europe need if it is to be able to perform the tasks allotted to it? Only when we have come up with serious answers to these questions will we be in a position to draw the necessary conclusions, and learn the necessary lessons, from what was completed at the weekend, and that means that we also have to ask ourselves whether, at the moment, a deeper EU is perhaps more important than its enlargement over and above the twenty-five – which will mean discussing what a Europe of 25 Member States has in common. I think we must start by fulfilling the fourth Copenhagen criterion – that was indeed laid down at Copenhagen. We must be able to concentrate on what we have in common. What is within the EU must be made capable of sustaining enlargement. That is the task we have to tackle in the coming year, and with a great deal of commitment, and then we will be able to draw from it the helpful conclusions that we need. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am one of those who would very much like to thank you, Mr Priestley, the ancillary and administrative staff. There have been problems but we have been treated with extreme kindness and courtesy. I would like to register my thanks for that. When problems arise they get solved. Like other colleagues I should like to say that the energy efficiency issue is terribly important and ought to be concentrated on. I should like to mention just two minor areas that need improvement. Even though I have something like six doctorates from five countries - most of them honorary, I have to admit - the instructions on how to use the telephones and how to set up the voice mail are nearly unintelligible. Office supplies - staplers, paper clips and little things like that - are very hard to come by. If those who have got the franchise for the newspaper shops could be encouraged to stock up with the kinds of things that efficient offices need. That would help us all.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I am advised that the figures that we have just voted on do not make sense unless we vote on the Wynn report which is about the financial perspective. We need to vote on that to make sure that we have the figures before we accept that the vote we have just had is complete.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, most of us agree that we achieved a very good result in the Conciliation Committee. I therefore wish, on behalf of the Group of the , to congratulate, above all, the rapporteur on his commitment to the matter in hand and, most of all, warmly thank him for cooperating so well with his other colleagues, too. If the result is confirmed by this House as a whole, it will represent a further significant step towards greater transparency and safety in the production of feedingstuffs. In addition to this proposal for a regulation, though, there are other reports which also deal with feedingstuffs and with regard to which negotiations are currently in progress between Parliament, the Council and, above all, the Commission. I am thinking here only of the draft regulation on animal by-products not intended for human consumption – especially Category III, but also of the future use of leftovers from meals and waste from the production of foodstuffs. I do think that it should continue to be possible to use these by-products, processed under secure conditions and subject to strict controls and, above all, with the stages in processing being effectively monitored, as high-quality feedingstuffs in pig and poultry production, unless the results of future scientific research suggest otherwise. I look forward to the same willingness to compromise, not only on the part of Parliament, but also on the part of the Commission and of the Council, as was demonstrated in the process that we are discussing this evening.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, first of all the title of the resolution should be 'Freedom of Expression' rather than 'Freedom of Religion' because, as was mentioned earlier, Falun Gong is not a religion but rather a practice comparable to yoga in the West. Secondly, the repression against Falun Gong is totally absurd. Can you imagine repression against all the people who ever follow yoga classes in Europe? The Chinese Government goes so far as to imprison cyber-dissidents meaning people who create or manage websites whose content does not please the government like Mr Huan Qi who is being tried now. Finally, you should stop supporting the EU/China human rights dialogue as long as it does not yield any result. Its only concrete outcome so far has been to prevent a resolution condemning China in Geneva.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I cannot myself claim intimate familiarity with circumstances in Cameroon, but together with other colleagues in this House I have been approached by friends and acquaintances whom we trust in non-governmental organisations, notably the International Federation for Christian Action Against Torture, drawing to our attention matters of the gravest concern, which merit the attention of the institutions of the Union and in particular of this Parliament. We have well-attested reports of the discovery of 2000 mass graves, of the arrest of senior officers of the gendarmerie, of inquiries into an organisation known as the Operational Command and generally matters of real concern. It has been put to us that what is required is: an independent commission of inquiry to shed light on human rights violations, acts of torture, disappearances and extrajudicial executions, a commitment to protect adequately human rights defenders and local organisations working on this issue and the appointment of some special rapporteur on extrajudicial summary and arbitrary executions, with the working group on forced or involuntary disappearances being invited as soon as possible to inquire into matters in Cameroon. By coincidence, today's Le Monde has a special supplement on Cameroon, the opening sentence of which tells us that all the evils of Africa are to be found in Cameroon and yet also all the reasons for hope for the better. What has been revealed to us here suggests that both of these propositions are true: both the reasons for hope and the present evils. Also, this week in Le Monde in relation to General Aussaresses we have been reminded that torture, disappearance and evil-doing and the use of humans as means and not as ends in themselves have terribly scarred the history of our own continent, both during the war of 1939 to 1945 and afterwards. We are not in a position to hold ourselves up as being somehow superior but we can, as concerned human beings, share the concern of our fellows in Cameroon who are raising these points and members of international non-governmental human rights organisations who have been drawing it to our attention. I strongly commend this resolution to the House and hope it will be adopted unanimously this evening.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, our former Belgian Socialist colleague, Mr De Coene, and I led the group of 30 MEPs who took the case to the High Court in Paris last year. The tribunal there found in our favour. They found that the European law had been broken by the CFO. They dismissed our case on a technicality, finding that we were inadmissible as litigants. But we took action because we were not convinced that the European Commission was standing up for the rights of the European citizen. As a result of our action, we were assured by Commissioner Van Miert that the Commission would prosecute this to the very end. That action, as Mr Perry has pointed out, cost us individually more than EUR 1000 each. Members of this House are sick at the fine that has been imposed by the European Commission on the CFO. I can well imagine why Commissioner Van Miert did not want to come here personally to make this statement today. This is not the first time that the World Cup organisers have rigged the sales of tickets against the ordinary football fan. But it is the first time that they have trumpeted their tournament as the first billion-dollar World Cup. They have made millions out of discriminatory sales arrangements. If the Commission had pursued this abuse of Article 82 as rigorously as it pursues abuses in other areas of industry then this fine would have been not £600 but £6m or more. The Commissioner tells us that the interests of consumers were harmed but that this had no serious effect on the market. I suggest to the Commissioner that it has a very serious effect on the European Union's reputation. He tells us that there was nothing to guide the CFO. What about the fine that the Commission imposed on the Italian organisers of the World Cup in 1990, a fine which was, in fact, larger than the fine that is imposed on the CFO this year? What about the exchange of correspondence between the CFO and the European Commission which started the previous July? Unlike Mr Ford, who represents the Southwest but supports Manchester City, I do not support any football club, but I do support the right of the European citizen to be protected from discriminatory practices and the abuse of a dominant market position. I support the European Union in developing its role to protect those citizens. To me, this fine sends to the European citizen the message that Europe is on the side of big business and not on the side of the ordinary man or woman in the street. In my view, this is a sad-and-sorry ending to a sad-and-sorry Commission. I hope that our new Commissioners, when they have been approved in September, will have rather more backbone in taking up this kind of case on behalf of the people of Europe. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I, too, would like to congratulate Mr Wijkman and thank him for being so open to dialogue and willing to listen to the amendments put forward in the Committee on Development and Cooperation. The Johannesburg Summit rightly affirmed that access to energy for the poor has become a priority, since it is so very true that the populations’ vital needs in this respect are far from being satisfied and the trend is still away from equality; the main reason for this is the developed countries’ fossil fuel consumption, in particular US consumption, which is excessive and very much out of proportion to that of the developing countries. Life expectancy and development are closely linked to access to energy, to the point that many see it as a real basic human right. That right must be recognised, guaranteed and protected. How can we contribute to the existence and development of an efficient energy sector in the developing countries without policies that encourage close cooperation for the exchange of know-how, the primary objective being to meet the vital needs of the populations? The need for finance is evident. The creation of a Sustainable Energy Fund and much more consistent participation by the European Union could be a first response. In particular, as the report rightly says, the existence of a strong public sector in the energy sector is particularly important in the first phase of development. More than that, as the majority of the Committee on Development and Cooperation has said, I remain convinced that the Commission’s options for privatisation of the energy sector are more than dangerous. The Commission’s role is not to promote privatisation in the developing countries. The exploitation and distribution of primary energy, which is essential for development, must be handled by public or private companies committed to public service and general interest goals. Such public control is all the more vital because the trans-national corporations that operate in the developing countries are all too often concerned only with short-term profitability, to the detriment of the needs of the local populations and at the risk of plundering their energy resources. Effective machinery must be deployed to monitor the activities of European undertakings in particular. I also support the call on the Commission to review deregulation of the energy sector from a human development perspective and to work towards international trade norms which abide by human rights and peoples' rights. Finally, seeing that next September’s WTO Summit in Cancun is not far away, we must refuse to allow the energy sector to be included in the general agreement on trade in services, which would make energy a commodity like any other. The aim of universal access to energy in the service of development will not be achieved by following a model imposed by the liberal thinking of multilateral bodies like the WTO, but by expanding and guaranteeing the public service to meet the needs of the populations.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Bolkestein for his reply. I recognise that he has reiterated what he said in a very full statement to the Committee on Petitions. He informed the Petitions Committee back in July that the Commission would be ready at the end of the summer to give its response. When I look outside the Chamber today, with the pouring rain, I think we are very close to the end of the summer. I guess I am not going to get any clearer statement other than 'as quickly as possible'. Could I perhaps also ask Mr Bolkestein whether he is aware of the failure of Independent Insurance in the United Kingdom over recent months and the appointment by the British Government of an inquiry into the Equitable Life insurance company? Are his services looking at both of those insurance undertakings to satisfy themselves that in those respects the British Government has been properly applying European insurance directives?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Members of the House need no telling how useful to us the publication Recent and Forthcoming Work in Committee is. It gives us a way to plan forward. A week ago I was asked by a colleague who works as an advisor to the Scottish Parliament if there was anyway I could help her with the problem of foreseeing business coming forward in the European Parliament in order that committees of that other parliament should be aware of our work and able to plan in relation to it. I said that there was a marvellous publication and I would get it for her. My staff asked for it in Parliament this week and I asked the Parliament office in Edinburgh if they could provide it. I was informed that this is a rare work of which Members of Parliament get one copy each and which may not be copied for anyone else, and no further copies can be obtained. In these days of transparency in the conduct of our business, it seems to me that is a provision which ought to be re-examined. This very useful publication should be made widely available. A second point: Yesterday, we approved minutes which drew attention to Mrs Doyle's statement of Thursday, 7 February, that in respect of the Watson report the PPE-ED Group by mistake failed to vote in favour of the habeas corpus amendment. Had they not made that mistake because of a late change in numbering, that amendment would have been carried in Parliament. This is a momentous fact which I hope will be drawn to the attention of Commissioner Vitorino, the President-in-Office of the Council and Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi as chair of the relevant committee of this House.

Political group: Verts-ALE