GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the overall aim in amending Directive 90/313/EEC on access to information on the environment is to enable the Community and Member States to comply with certain provisions of the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation and decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters. In Ireland, we have already incorporated the general provisions including, of course, the original Directive 90/313/EEC, in our national regulations and our freedom of information legislation. I should like to raise a few points with which we might have difficulty. In general I agree with the provisions of Amendment No 15, relating to Article 2(2) and the definition of 'public authority'. I have no substantive problems with that amendment, but I am concerned that some parties might attempt to revert to the original proposal from the Commission on 2(2)(c), which refers to 'the operation of services of general economic interest which affect or are likely to affect ...'. If this were to be agreed – if, in other words, we revert to the original Commission position – it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to transpose into national regulations. It would probably result in bodies which are not public authorities being brought in to have a level playing field, competitively speaking. In Ireland, for example, Telecom Éireann, which is now eircom, would be included as a former public authority. We would then have to bring in private-sector telecoms and other telecom operations. This does not fit in with the interpretation of Aarhus, so it could present problems. The time limit proposed in Amendment No 16 on Article 3(2)(a) is unreasonable. As this directive applies to all documents in the environment area, in many cases the files might be in storage off-site and perhaps not computerised. The Commission proposal to deliver 'as soon as possible or, at the latest, within one month' is reasonable. It is a 50% reduction on the current position and is in line with existing Irish freedom of information provisions. Finally, I have problems with Amendment No 24. There must be discretion on the provision for charges, subject, of course, to publication and including time for searches, particularly when there are repeated requests for information. I would urge that we go down that road, leaving discretion on the publication of charges.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs for their work. As many colleagues have said, pharmaceutical products are like no other. We must guarantee that these products are all safe and effective. Therefore, on the debate on the centralised procedure, I believe we must have flexibility. We should not restrict choice but allow for choice and support flexibility between the two routes. On the renewal of authorisation, I oppose the Commission's proposal to remove five-year renewal of marketing authorisation and rely on enhanced pharmaco-vigilance to ensure product safety and, indeed, exclusivity. I think the compromise which has been reached is a fair one. I am delighted that the Committee on the Environment has rejected direct consumer advertising. We must be very clear that we all want patients to be informed. We all want patients to make informed decisions – no one can argue with this. But we cannot have what happens in the US, where the ten most advertised drugs are the ten best selling drugs. This is where the amendments adopted in committee requesting a report and the question of how information to patients is used and enhanced are so important. Information to patients from the industry varies from excellent approaches and partnership with patients to situations where some patient organisations are being accused of being mere fronts for the industry. We must get the balance right. We have an opportunity in the review to do this, to improve research, to secure jobs, to improve availability of products to patients and improve information given to patients. It is an exciting time, and I look forward to the review returning for second reading.

Political group: PSE
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you have acknowledged that the Roadmap is in serious crisis. Everybody seems to acknowledge this. And this is helping the radicals on both sides to achieve their objective, which is that the Roadmap be broken, and we want the Council now to establish something which you have mentioned: the specific repercussions which have to be applied to those who do not comply with the Roadmap. We would like you to explain to us what these repercussions would be.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I believe I am expressing the feeling of a great number of Members of Parliament in most of the political groups when I say that the message which the President of the Commission sent to the new Austrian Chancellor a week ago created some unease. Was it in fact necessary in this message to specifically offer his best wishes for success, or to say, “I am sure that you will demonstrate the same commitment as shown by your predecessors to liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms”, or indeed that he awaited productive and constructive cooperation? This is why, Madam President, I should like to see Mr Prodi clarify tomorrow exactly what significance he meant to give these words, so that nobody, absolutely nobody, can use this message, which is unusual and unwise, to say the least, to contribute, and that includes counter to the intentions of Mr Prodi, towards making the dangerous political operation taking place in Austria a commonplace.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, every single pronouncement by the European Parliament expresses our faith in democracy, transparency and efficiency. And quite rightly so. However, it is not enough. These general principles only acquire substance and translate into practice if they permeate the organisational structure of the entire European Union. Which is precisely why we should welcome Jacques Poos' motion for a resolution. It is one of the most important texts to pass through the European Parliament. The rapporteur demonstrates that a great deal can be done in the area of both democracy and efficiency without revising the Treaties, merely by applying them more accurately. Taking the report as my starting point, I should at least like to highlight the following: first, the way in which the Council is organised is so complicated, with its 27 sectoral formations which have a fragmentary effect on its work. It addresses individual trees, but rarely the wood as a whole. The General Affairs Council should meet more frequently, but with the ministers present, not just in Brussels but, if possible, at the meetings too. If the Council is to work, national administrations and governments need to adapt to the European institutional attitude and modus operandi. As for relations between the Council and the European Parliament, there is good cause to increase the numbers of days' presence, although personal appearances in Parliament by the President-in-Office of the Council and transparency do not necessarily mean that the Council has to be reformed. Finally, I note that the Europe issue has increased the volume of work and deserves greater attention. The members of the Council need to make a reasonable division between their national and European duties if they are to make a more effective contribution.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as the Commissioner said, because Poland is the largest accession country, it obviously has the most problems and the most serious concerns. Would it be fair to say, as many people in Poland say, that – in some cases at least – part of the problem concerning the integrated administration and control system lies with Brussels delaying the spending on the final requirements for the system? Would it be fair to say that?

Political group: PPE-DE
I am pleased that the proposed resolution contained in the report, on behalf of the Legal Affairs Committee, on monitoring the application of Community law in 1998, which I presented as rapporteur, was adopted in plenary in Strasbourg. In doing so, the European Parliament sends a positive signal to Europe’s citizens, who have the right to expect a high level of protection through Community law. This Assembly has also demonstrated its vigilance faced with the difficulties of application that exist in several Member States and in many spheres of activity. It has remembered the importance of the infringement procedure, which must not become subject to opportune reform by the Commission. It has highlighted the position of the preliminary question in the European system and the need to step up training in Community law within the Member States. While nobody would deny the importance of petitions, I did not wish to go along with the amendments tabled by the members of the Committee on Petitions, in particular the request to set up a ‘European administrative law’. Account must be taken of the current state of progress in the construction of Europe and of the principle of subsidiarity. I should stress, however, that the intention is to ask the Commission to intensify its relations with national administrations when there is a problem, in order that it can be resolved beforehand. Taken as a whole, the resolution adopted serves to improve transparency and effectiveness, which is to the benefit of Europe’s citizens.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is certainly not often the case that we have such a consensus here in this House on such a complex issue. I would therefore also like to thank Mr Menrad for incorporating the ideas, proposals and wishes of the Socialist Group, as well as my own as shadow rapporteur. Employee participation in the ownership of productive wealth was actually a far more topical issue fifty years ago than it is today. For this reason too, I think it is a good thing that in Europe, we are reviving this concept and these opportunities, and now that the internal market has been created, are giving employees this opportunity. Nowadays, however, we are perhaps in a more difficult situation because we are in competition with other models for which state incentives must be provided, such as company and private pension schemes. However, one thing must be clear to us all: models of employee part-ownership of productive wealth can only be implemented in practice if state incentives are provided. These, of course, are more difficult to achieve at present. The aim of this proposal, these ideas, the drafts and, perhaps at a later stage, a directive, is not only to create new jobs – although that is important. Nor is the aim simply to raise productivity – although we naturally expect this as well. No, the aim is also to achieve a more just distribution of added value. We can only expect workers to show consideration for companies' profit levels or, indeed, exercise wage restraint if the distribution ratio between labour and capital is not shifted to their disadvantage. We also agree with Mr Menrad that the primary task is not harmonisation but better coordination, more information and – as part of a directive, of course – a voluntary approach. We expect employees to be protected from the risks associated with bankruptcies. We expect the more problematic groups to be included as well, such as the small and medium enterprises – SMEs. We expect low-wage workers and women who have a different working career, a different work situation, to be included too. I am convinced that the Commission will take up all our ideas and, on that basis, will work with us to produce a more far-reaching initiative, perhaps next year, which can then lead to a more just distribution of productive wealth.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, this debate is a consequence of the Commission’s proposed reform of three regulations: on fruit and vegetables, products derived from fruit and vegetables, and the aid scheme for producers of certain citrus fruits. As has been pointed out, the Commission has acted without awaiting the report on the operation of Regulation (EC) No 2020/1996, which, according to the Commission, will be available by the end of this year. The fact that it has not waited for this document – as would have seemed more natural – and has initiated the reform reveals that the Commission either has little interest in the results of its report or could not care less about its contents. With this action, one cannot help feeling that the Commission is determined to reform these regulations at any price. Is the reform that urgent? In my view, if the question is whether or not the regulations need reforming, the answer is yes; but, on the other hand, if the question is whether the reform they need is that contained in the Commission’s proposal, then the answer is clearly no, because improvements in the operating mechanisms of the sector must not be achieved at the expense of precisely one of the sectors that receives least support in Community budgets. Since the details given in the report are not known, they cannot grab our attention. The fruit and vegetable sector accounts for an important share of final agricultural production of some 15%, while the financial effort is small and getting even smaller. Whereas, in 1995, it accounted for 5.3% of all spending under the EAGGF guarantee, in 1999 it was down to 3.6%. Added to this are two important details: first the importance of this sector for employment, and, secondly, the frequent concessions affecting the fruit and vegetable sector made under trade agreements with third countries. We do not intend to oppose these agreements or criticise them, because they are an exercise in solidarity with third-world and developing countries, but it does not seem sensible that the price of solidarity should be paid exclusively by a sector that has never been treated well in Community budgets. We are going to support Mr Jové Peres’s report without any hesitation. It is an excellent report – for which we congratulate the rapporteur – which provides a balanced reflection of the various interests and agreements involved. Its proposals, such as those that correct the most unfair aspects of the Commission’s proposal, may have favourable consequences. Our support will be unconditional and unqualified. Moreover, I give this support in the belief that the Council will be more sensitive than the Commission to the reasoned and reasonable proposals of the European Parliament.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to concentrate on the threat posed by the Commission's proposals in terms of the privatisation of the independent meat inspectorate in the United Kingdom. This issue has been raised, not only by the Consumers' Association, but also by the UK trade union Unison, which represents meat inspectors. The feeling is that the Commission's proposal would allow privatisation through the back door by placing the responsibility for hygiene in abattoirs on the meat plants themselves. Therefore the independence of meat inspectors would be compromised, as those paying their wages would then be the companies they are in charge of inspecting. Consumer protection should be our Number One priority and no consumer should be put at risk of consuming unsafe meat. Just last week we saw the issue of chicken on sale which, according to the Consumers' Association, had incorrect sell-by dates on the packets. On top of this we have the backdrop of BSE, the tragedy of foot-and-mouth, and E.coli scares. In fact, the situation that happened many years ago to which Mr Bowe referred involved the butchers my family used in Wishaw in Scotland. There has never been such a need to reassure consumers that the meat they are consuming is safe to eat. It is in the interest of the consumer, but it should also be in the interest of the industry. When visiting a meat plant some months ago I was reassured that the quality of meat was of the highest standard and that the meat inspectors played an important role in securing quality and safety. We should not put at risk the independence of the meat inspectorate. There are 1200 independent meat inspectors in the United Kingdom and I hope they will be able to continue the work that reassures us as consumers that the meat we eat is safe.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner Schreyer, Mr Fischler, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by welcoming the fact that we are holding this new budgetary debate, which has already shown itself to be a useful and profitable experience for the Commission and Parliament. It is a good opportunity which we Members of the European Parliament are grateful for and take a very positive view of. From a general point of view, this is the year in which we should avoid the conflict between national and Community interests. The principles of budgetary austerity in national budgets, which are at the root of the Stability Pact, must be reconciled more than ever with the complete implementation of the Community policies contained in the objectives of the Community budget. It is perhaps we, as Members of the European Parliament, who have the greatest interest in the Stability Pact being complied with and respected. Compliance with it must not be an excuse to interfere in the development of the great areas of expenditure of the Union’s budget, but it must be another incentive to improve its implementation. Providing our budget with sufficient payment appropriations does not mean failing to comply with the austerity objectives, but to help the European Union’s growth by means of its policies. Otherwise we would be preventing the correct absorption of the leftovers or hindering the efficient implementation of the structural policies. The Union’s best budgetary policy is not one that allows for a high budgetary expenditure, but one which implements the commitments in the Budget well. We would therefore like to ask the Commissioner whether she agrees with this approach and whether the Commission believes that the level of payment appropriations in the Council’s draft budget is sufficient. On the other hand, our group has no particular reasons to disagree with the Council on this Budget. We would like, and this will be agreed in the sectoral debate, to go further into certain questions of agricultural or internal policy. In external policy we are still seeking a more active role for the Union in the world, because that is also part of the programmed objectives of the Group of the European People’s Party . This must be seen not only in relation to the strengthening of the common foreign and security policy – both its objectives and its budgetary appropriations – but to particular reconstruction actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, as part of the European Union’s moral commitment to promote peace, security and human rights. We would therefore like to know, Commissioner, whether there is really sufficient room in the budget to be able to take account of the approach taken by the PPE by means of its amendment.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, according to the International Labour Organisation, whether we like it or not, we are indirectly responsible for the fate of 250 million children aged 5 to 14 years. They make carpets in Nepal and luxury shoes in Thailand, they work in the coffee and cocoa plantations in Africa, and all for export, for us to enjoy. In Europe it takes more underhand forms: apprenticeships give rise to abuses of working time. Child models are used. We have child sports stars to entertain us as we watch television. On top of that are the things no one can tolerate: sexual abuse which destroys whole lives, pornography and prostitution. I think our position should therefore be implacable. Forcing children to work restricts their intellectual, physical and psychological development, so I do not think it is any good continuing to have countries signing conventions to get rid of labels, knowing they are doing it as if they were buying a pair of shoes. The minimum to be demanded at the Conference in September is every child’s right to education, every child’s right to leisure, and every child’s right to be informed of his or her rights. We must secure that, at least. If we do not do so, it will effectively mean that children’s rights are like a pair of shoes. When they are dirty and full of holes, they end up in the bin.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, we are monitoring this reform with justifiably high expectations. I regret the fact that it took the resignation of the Commission in March 1999, due to dubious practices and maladministration, to initiate this reform. The European public’s confidence was shaken and it is much more difficult to regain this now. The Commission’s problems in implementing various programmes are clear to see. Delays in payment are mounting up and the bureaucratic obstacles are well known. The Commission’s new duties have multiplied, the complexity and the slowness of its procedures have grown worse and its structures, methods and formal constraints have not changed. We are all familiar with the consequences of this situation and it has tested the dedication and skill of the many people working in the Commission and in its administration. It is crucial that the Commission makes the best use of existing human resources and promotes new recruitment. This is not enough, however, to improve the implementation of actions and of available appropriations. We hope to see a thorough reorganisation of structures and working methods, and clarification of the distribution of powers between Parliament, the Council and the Commission is essential. The first two institutions are responsible for defining policies and priorities and making financial resources available. The Commission is responsible for ensuring that all the conditions are met in order to implement the financial management of Community programmes. With regard to this last aspect, the executive role of the Commission must be strengthened, above all, by a reform of commitology. Let us be clear on this matter: if, under the terms of Article 274 of the Treaty, the Commission alone is responsible for implementing the budget, then some interventions by Member States through management and regulatory committees, which have basically been put forward to express national interests, must be seen as hampering the Commission's ability to manage efficiently. This is what also needs to be changed in the procedure known as commitology. I am sure of the success of this reform and therefore congratulate the four rapporteurs, especially Mrs Guy­Quint, whose work I have followed most closely.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, whilst I always admire the commitment that the esteemed Mr Cohn-Bendit brings to what he has to say here, I have to ask that we stick to logic and bear in mind the way this issue has historically developed in this House. After all, Wednesday's debate, which will be a thorough one, will not be the first we have had on the terrible way the Iraq crisis is developing, and our group has always taken a stand in favour of action within the bounds set by the international community. I say this so that this may not be in doubt. Mr Cohn-Bendit, though, knows as well as any other Member of this House that we voted on this in December. There is now no occasion for us to have a new vote every time we meet here in order to introduce new emphases; on the contrary, Parliament's position is unambiguous, as is that of our Group of the , and I believe that the other groups – most of them, at any rate – want this House's position, once decided upon, to be binding, and for us not to have to make much ado about exchanging views every time. On Wednesday, everyone will have the opportunity to give an opinion, and I recommend that we do so with the gravity and seriousness of purpose that this crisis merits. That is why we oppose a new resolution. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE