GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, the European Union’s information service has all too often seemed like propaganda passed down to the masses from above. The language of communication is also often cumbersome and not enough attention is paid to cultural differences. However, now it would appear that there is hope for better things to come. In the plans drafted under the guidance of Commissioner Vitorino we can read of the aim to base communications on the public’s need for information. That is how it should be too. The Commission’s four priorities concerning information – enlargement, the future of the Union, establishing the area of freedom, security and justice, and the EU’s role in the world, are absolutely crucial. That is why it is unthinkable that the Council should make cuts in its own draft budget in the area of appropriations for the information service. The Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which supports Commissioner Vitorino’s information policy, has unanimously proposed there should be additional resources for the budget headings concerned with information. The social democrats in the Committee on Budgets adhere to the same policy. We cannot ask the people to become interested in our work if they do not know what is going on here.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I think that in this final debate, before voting on this regulation, the following points must be stressed: My country, Spain, fully enters into the spirit of the Montreal Protocol and is committed to fulfilling its terms in a completely responsible and active way. It accepts, in general terms therefore, the common position and in this sense, I fully agree with the intervention by my colleague Mrs Flemming. Nevertheless, this is no obstacle to Spain, with its firm desire to carry out the eradication of the use of specific toxic substances that damage the ozone layer, which regards itself as being particularly affected by the banning of one of them, methyl bromide, which was referred to a while ago. This substance, which is used as an agricultural disinfectant mainly in clearly defined farming zones in the Mediterranean regions is already strictly limited in my country in terms of its marketing and use and has already been replaced in all cases for which suitable alternatives have been found. Work has been done for quite a while on investigating replacement substances in order to meet the deadline laid down in the Protocol. Precisely because we want to comply with the standard, we have to be very careful when it comes to weighing up our ability to do so, if Parliament approves a regulation that makes the conditions and the time-scales tougher. It would be more honest and above all more practical to state clearly that we see that there is a possibility that we will not be able to comply where methyl bromide is concerned. At the very least this will cause us to suffer serious financial and social consequences and the competitiveness of some of our agricultural products will be damaged in relation to other countries that do not apply the same restrictions. We will not be able to ensure that the use of methyl bromide stops by shortening the time-scales. Instead, we run the risk of unwillingly failing to comply and the possibility of fraud which will produce the opposite result to the one we all want to see. Therefore, the Spanish delegation of the European People’s Party feels that it is necessary to uphold in the plenary sitting the amendments relating to the first paragraph of Article 3(2) and the last paragraph of Article 21 in which the exceptions and conditions for the use of methyl bromide after 2006 are specified. We think that Parliament must set standards that all Member States should be able to fulfil without experiencing serious damage to their economic, social and environmental conditions. It is this spirit, not an emotionally praiseworthy but unrealistic environmental good will, which leads us to put forward these amendments today.

Political group: PPE-DE
I wish to table an oral amendment to Amendments Nos 10 and 16, which are identical. This is to do with the original text's stipulation that the Joint Undertaking's registered office should be located somewhere where it would be exempted from taxation. For reasons of competitiveness, and other comparable reasons, this is of course not feasible. In consultation with the groups, the text should be replaced by: ... 'subject to the existing tax regimes and negotiations with the potential country of location'. (Parliament gave its assent to the tabling of the oral amendment) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr Watson’s report confirms that the European Union is powerless and has painted itself into a corner in its fight against the ever-increasing phenomenon of terrorism. It is powerless both because terrorism has changed shape and is now backed up by modern technology and funds and because there is little judicial and police collaboration on the part of the Member States and no common legislative framework. In Greece, a new anti-terrorism law was passed in May 2001 in a bid to systemise and up the ante in the fight against terrorism without violating fundamental rights and the principles of the rule of law. However, combating terrorism, be it in Greece or Spain, is a matter for the European Union as a whole. The Charter of Fundamental Rights should be used as a reference point for any new initiative. In other words, under no circumstances should increased criminal activities by terrorist groups be used as an alibi, be it at national or European level, for taking measures which are incompatible with the rule of law and democratic principles. However, in the case of terrorist offences, the Council should immediately abolish formal extradition procedures and adopt the principle of mutual recognition of decisions on criminal matters, including pre-judgment decisions, as proposed in the report. In addition to these measures, it also makes a great deal of sense to prevent terrorism through education, social and other policies to encourage citizens, especially young people, to value dialogue and reject all forms of violence.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, yesterday, at the Euro 2000 final between France and Italy, an unfortunate and extremely serious incident occurred. As some disabled people entered the Rotterdam stadium, they were searched and subjected to a series of humiliating manoeuvres by the security guards. This situation caused some Italian cameramen to film the treatment of the disabled people. As a result, a considerable number of journalists were attacked and beaten up by the police, and pictures of this scene were transmitted by all the television companies. Some of the journalists were arrested simply because they were doing their duty. I believe that the Rotterdam police were not acting on higher orders. Indeed, I am convinced that the Dutch Government and the heads of the Dutch forces of law and order have disclaimed any association with the actions of the police, but I certainly believe that the treatment reserved for these European disabled people who are Italian and therefore European citizens and some Italian journalists who were lawfully carrying out their duty of reporting incidents should be strongly condemned by Parliament and, moreover, the other European institutions as well. I would also like to declare my disapproval on another matter in which you have taken a great interest, Madam President: the sentence passed on the 13 Iranian Jews who were sentenced to flogging a few days ago. Fortunately, they were not sentenced to death, and that may be due to the intervention of Parliament which monitored the proceedings to ensure that the defendants received a fair trial in Iran. At the dawn of the third millennium, more or less regular trials are still ending with the sentence of corporal punishment, and this does not seem worthy of either democracy or the civilisation of the third millennium. In my opinion, whatever crime a person may have committed, it is uncivilised to sentence them to flogging. I therefore call once again upon Parliament, the Council and the Commission to ensure that this Iranian Jewish minority is not subjected to further oppression at the Court of Appeal, for a certain element is already rejoicing that the Jews have been found guilty. Anti-Semitism must cease to be part of the history of the European Union and the world, for the Jewish people have already suffered far too much.

Political group: PPE-DE
The Representative of the Council is quite right to say that we may well face a civil war or perhaps a more widespread Balkan war unless developments are contained. As regards the name and Greece's responsibility, which Mr Oostlander touched on, the only thing I have to say, yet again, is that the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia only exists thanks to continuous material and moral support from Greece. Leaving aside the name, without this support, you can be sure that Milosevic's Yugoslavia would have broken it up long ago. As far as the present situation in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is concerned, we have a clash of two political philosophies: the political philosophy expounded by the Representative of the Council, whereby two different nations live within the same borders, cooperate and live in friendship, and the philosophy which says that the rights of the Albanian nation can only be secured by armed struggle and bloodshed. May I say to the Council representative that this is a philosophy – and I know because I come from these parts and I have lived through a civil war – which is deep rooted in the psyche of a nation which still has various atavistic responses. If we want to avoid civil war, someone has to gainsay this philosophy of armed struggle, but not, of course, the government of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, because if it undertakes to disarm the KLA, there will definitely be civil war. It is our duty to disarm the KLA, it is our duty to prohibit the KLA from using the security zone, it is our duty to tell the leadership in Kosovo not to incite the KLA to do these things, especially as we hold their purse strings – by the way, you could say the same to Turkey, that we shall stop all payments until they do something about the disgraceful state of their prisons – and, finally, we must use policing measures to prevent money from being collected in western Europe and sent to the KLA. Unless we do these things, the whole civilised approach argued by the Council representative – which of course we want – will be a waste of time. It is not just the responsibility of the Macedonians. Unless we do these things, we too shall be responsible for what happens.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to refer again to the vote, in which, alas, we lost the chance to vote on item 62. I have again consulted the documents: item 62 is an addition to item 58, and we should in fact have voted on it by roll call. Both my points of order were, unfortunately, ignored by your two assistants. What is at issue here is that we make it simply and convincingly clear that the opening-up of competition in the water market cannot be achieved by means of general competition law. I therefore want to reiterate this. I stated in my opening statements that we reject this, and I ask that this be noted in the Minutes and that, if possible, Members' requests to speak should not be ignored in future.

Political group: PPE-DE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. – I can only endorse what my colleague Mrs Buitenweg has said, on behalf of the Legal Affairs Committee. I have to say that it is rather disappointing that the two opinions from the committees have been largely ignored in the Committee of Citizens' Freedoms. It is important that we say here and now that the mere fact that we strongly approve of the principles of protecting data and that we want to move forward, and also the fact that this needs to be done quickly, does not absolve us from the job of scrutinising this proposal properly. Normally, as he knows, I am very supportive of what Mr Bolkestein does, but in this case I do not feel that the Commission has in any way justified to us the salary and status of the staff that it proposes to administer this work. I very much echo what Mrs Buitenweg has said. If this goes through as proposed, to carry out the task that we have set down here, we will be appointing someone who is substantially higher graded and better paid than someone running a major Community institution such as the Trade Mark Protection Office in Alicante – a major autonomous institution. As Mrs Buitenweg said, we do not yet know how many staff will be engaged in this process. I asked the Commission to give me more details about the establishment, the organisation, and the responsibilities and particularly the role of the assistant. Yet the Commission is proposing that we should appoint an assistant on the basis of someone who manages 1 000 staff in the European Court of Justice – now that does not make sense. Frankly, I have to say to Mr Bolkestein, if this goes through tomorrow – and I hope that we will actually have the opportunity to discuss in more detail and look at some amendments that you will accept – the fact we have come in at the end of the process has made it very difficult for those of us who want change to put forward acceptable amendments. If this goes through, you will have got off pretty lightly and I hope you will give us assurances, firstly that you will properly justify this grade and position, and secondly, that we will be scrutinising every move you make when you put it in place, to make sure that it is done properly.

Political group: PPE-DE
You have told me that there are directives, but to our mind they are probably not applied, since accidents are increasing in number and becoming more and more dangerous, now that these factories have replaced old production crafts with industrial methods. It appears perfectly obvious to me that factories such as this, companies such as this, really should not be located near residential areas. The tragedy in Enschede, in the Netherlands, illustrates this all too clearly and in Portugal, which I referred to in my question, 159 houses in the village of Lanhelas in the province of Minho were hit by the explosion. Some were completely destroyed, others were partially destroyed and the victims’ protection association that has been set up has estimated the damage at over EUR 1 billion. I think that we urgently need to get these directives applied and to introduce others prohibiting firework factories near residential areas.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, esteemed Commissioners, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, the debate on EURODAC and the implementation of this system is something of a never ending story. It started back in Dublin in 1990. In November 1999, we here in Parliament, and I assume you too Commissioner, believed that we were on the home stretch and were finally going to be able to implement EURODAC. Set targets were tabled on several occasions and, on balance, we welcomed the fact, and I personally was pleased, and that’s a rare occurrence, when you said, following the vote in Parliament, that you would not accept the proposals adopted by a majority in Parliament which we, I should add, had voted against. That too was a very positive aspect. All in all, I would have been pleased to see this system implemented for the simple reason that it is this system alone which makes Dublin enforceable and because it allows the jurisdiction of the Member State responsible for the asylum procedure to be established unequivocally, thereby indirectly dividing the burden to a certain extent. Plus, we could then prevent multiple applications for asylum and abuse of the asylum system and this, in turn, would allow us, as it were, to fight illegal immigration indirectly. In other words, it is, as a whole, a system which must be seen as very positive and absolutely necessary in the context of asylum and immigration policy and the responsibility of the Member States. What filled me with consternation was the fact that the Council then upset the whole applecart at its meeting on 2 December by refusing to accept that implementing powers should remain with the Commission, i.e. that the competent regulatory committee should be able to act under the chairmanship of the Commission. The upshot of this was that we failed to achieve what we wanted to do, i.e. to communitise the system; on the contrary, the Council upset our plans by more or less announcing yet again that it was staking its claim. As a result, it is not the Commission which controls this instrument in the interests of the Community; on the contrary the initiative is again with the Council and, as a result, the Commission and, in the final analysis, Parliament too are excluded. We will not and cannot accept this because it involves consequences which are so far-reaching that, in the end, there will be no control over the efficiency of the system, it will no longer be possible to collate statistics for the purposes of analysis and action and a delay has been caused which is absolutely unacceptable on account of the fact that we need this system. My question to you is this: when can we really expect to see the EURODAC system which we have waited so long for up and running? How will the system actually be configured? Will it comply with the rules and with our requests for the Commission to be fully responsible for implementation, because then we would have achieved our own necessary goal; we would have re-Europeanised one part, because it makes sense here to actually implement this communitisation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, others have talked about the issue of dispute settlement specifically. I would like to focus on the wider issue of democracy and accountability more generally. This specific case demonstrates precisely the absence of democratic accountability in EU trade policy. That is a huge indictment of the largest trading block in the world which prides itself on standing up for those very values. The Nice Treaty could have been an opportunity to begin to improve the democracy and transparency of EU trade policy but in fact the Treaty makes these matters worse by increasing the powers of the Commission but not balancing that by increasing the powers of Parliament via the codecision procedure. Meanwhile at Council level the 133 Committee meets behind closed doors. As parliamentarians we are not even allowed as observers much less as participants. We receive no minutes of these meetings. There is no formal dialogue between us. We thank you for the informal receptions which are very nice but they are no real substitute for a formal dialogue. Furthermore in spite of all the rhetoric about trade policy supporting sustainable development, when you look at who attends the 133 meetings, it is usually simply the representatives from the trade and finance ministries alone. But if we are serious about integrating international trade and sustainable development, then the very minimum we need to do is to ensure that representatives from social affairs, from environment, from development ministries have their voices heard at 133 meetings as well. If sustainability really is a key issue for the EU and if the Swedish Presidency is really serious about openness, could the Presidency tell us if first of all it envisages a formalised dialogue between Parliament and the 133 Committee, and secondly if it is ready to propose revisions to the composition of that committee. Ultimately, in order to make it more likely that trade policy enjoys the support of both parliamentarians and the wider public, Parliament should in the longer term have codecision powers, not only on the final outcome of any new trade agreement but also crucially on the Commission's mandate for negotiations. The EU says it is committed to reforming the World Trade Organisation but a first place to start would be to reform the decision-making machinery of the EU itself.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, when, during the Swedish Presidency one and a half years ago, difficult negotiations between Parliament, the Council and the Commission resulted in agreement on Article 255, or Regulation 1049, this was a major step forward. Common legislation on the rules for citizens’ access to documents was an important step towards increasing scrutiny of, and confidence in, the European institutions. Transparency is the basis of a democracy and the precondition for citizens’ being able to follow and participate in public decisions. We can therefore increase confidence in, and the legitimacy of, EU cooperation as a whole, two things that we unfortunately know are both in short supply. We liberals always push for maximum transparency. We were not entirely satisfied with a number of sections of the legislation, and we believe that there was an exaggerated fear of releasing documents. When it comes to the Common Security and Foreign Policy, this is an area in the course of development. There is major interest in these issues among citizens and journalists. Naturally, certain documents cannot be made public. Such documents must be kept confidential. We also realise this. Having a small group of members who have access to these highly sensitive documents is, however, one way of ensuring a certain degree of, admittedly limited, parliamentary control in this area, which thus puts pressure on the Council. In this way, Mr Brok’s proposal is a wholly reasonable agreement. The Group of the European Liberal, Democratic and Reform Party believes, however, that it is necessary to make sure that it does not become too common for documents to be automatically referred to this small committee. Most documents should, of course, be made available to everyone else, the general public, journalists and every other interested party. There should be a few absolutely vital and sensitive documents which are made available to this smaller circle. I was pleased that Mr Brok said that we should have a careful evaluation of this agreement. We could have this in conjunction with a general review of the transparency regulations. In this way, we will hopefully come to realise that transparency as a principle is not dangerous.

Political group: ELDR