GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, there are many areas in which the Convention is meant to move European policy into a new stage. This topic, the position of the municipalities and regions and their involvement in European policy, is one of them. It is my belief that both local self-government and regional identity are fundamental principles, and must be reflected as such in the European constitution. I also wish to thank Mr Napolitano, whose task was a difficult one in view of the concepts involved being very much a matter of dispute. In many respects, this report advances the position of the municipalities and regions and their involvement in European policy, but I am surprised that such impassioned controversy has been unleashed by the right of municipalities and regions to go to the Court of Justice. I do think that the constitution has to give everyone who possesses a right, the additional right to approach the ECJ in Luxembourg, a right that 380 million Europeans are meant to be given by the Charter of Fundamental Rights. To that, we all say ‘yes’, yet there is division in this House when it comes to the regions. I think that further thought needs to be given to this. No attempt whatever is made to tamper with the way states are organised internally, something that does, indeed, vary a very great deal, in that many regions possess competences, while others have merely administrative responsibilities or simply the name of ‘region’. This diversity must also be reflected when it comes to the right to appeal to the Court of Justice. Commissioner Barnier has proposed the application of Article 203 in the event of us not succeeding in this. That may perhaps be a way ahead, albeit only the second best. It may be that a further stage is needed to enable us to find the best way forward. There is something else of great importance that I would like to mention. Commissioner Barnier, you have been to the border region that is my home. The lives of those of us who live on the borders are still made more difficult by bureaucratic and legal obstacles, and a European statute on cross-border cooperation would be a help to many millions of people. Reality has already burst the bounds of the legal framework, and to a substantial extent. That is what European added value actually amounts to. There must be room in the constitution for this sort of statute on cross-border cooperation, which will then benefit many millions of people. I hope that a large majority will endorse the Napolitano report. Rather than being in competition with them, Parliament exists to be the regions' and municipalities' natural partner. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
I thank the Minister for her general reply, but my question was specifically about Greece. I wanted to say that the statistics in my question were compiled a long time before her answer and that things are changing for the better. However, according to the latest EUROSTAT figures, there is a growing fear that a lot of people will use this opportunity to increase the prices of goods and services and that this will mainly hit the most vulnerable groups of consumers such as the elderly, the young, the poorly educated, immigrants and the mentally handicapped. Especially as, in Greece at least, 1 euro is worth 340.75 drachmas, meaning that it is very hard to make the sort of quick calculation needed every hour of every day. That is why I want to know if, even at the eleventh hour, the Council is giving any thought to the easiest solution all round, i.e. for each Member State to order and distribute cheap pocket calculators which convert each country’s currency into euros, so that even the most poorly informed or disabled citizen can immediately calculate what they are paying, what they are being paid and who is trying to rob them.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am concerned. We were aware of the cases of Legionnaire’s disease in Strasbourg, but we are now seeing a particularly nasty outbreak of liberalism. I am referring to the Jarzembowski report and I am astonished that the vote went in favour of the rapid liberalisation not only of freight but also of passenger transport, despite the warnings of the Commission and the Council and despite the fact that most rail companies are not ready for such changes. We would be acting without having seen the evaluation asked for by the Commission and in the knowledge that this action will have significant consequences in terms of safety, social conditions and the quality of service provided to the citizens. I believe that Parliament has today voted quite irresponsibly and that it has been dictated to by national self-interest and by forthcoming elections. We have allowed election dates to influence our votes.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, a French-owned company is able to sell electricity to the British Prime Minister. I would like to ask the Commissioner when we are likely to see a situation when an English-owned company will be able to sell electricity to the French Prime Minister. Until that situation is reached, the idea of an internal market in energy is a political mirage. There has been a lot of comment about the pressure under which this debate is taking place. When the Commission's proposals first came out, it was the view of the British Government that they could be accepted as they stood. We have managed to bring in hundreds of amendments, which says a lot for the fertile imagination of Parliament. We make a bit of a rod for our own backs at times. By trying to bring in issues such as energy efficiency, renewable energy and social issues we complicate the matter further, these are better left for other types of legislation. I should like to make two points. On independent regulation, we regard this as essential if an internal market is to develop, because it provides the predictability and stability which consumers and new entrants need; but it should be for the Member State to reflect the different structures of national markets. On the question of third-party access to infrastructure, market entrants need to know that they can access infrastructure on the same terms as those that already exist. And they should be approved by the national regulator, rather than be the subject of one-sided negotiations between a monopoly infrastructure operator and a potential user.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for years, and in vain, Parliament has been calling on the Commission to produce proposals for binding legal instruments that would compel the automobile industry to reduce the risk of injury to pedestrians in the event of a crash by means of passive safety measures on the front of motor vehicles. Instead of doing so, the Commission presented a communication on an agreement negotiated with the automobile industry, which, however, incorporates not only passive safety measures, but active ones as well. As substantial parts of it can become effective at once, it is very much to be considered as a useful means of realising the policy objective of reducing by 50% the annual total of those killed or gravely injured in accidents by 2010. However, I expect all the parties concerned to regard the agreement thus negotiated as a contract by which they must abide. No doubt the Commission is able to confirm to us that it is not the case that – as we have been informed – motor manufacturers are already questioning their obligations on one point. The motion for a resolution before us now will motivate the automobile industry to step up its research into passive and active safety for pedestrians, rather than – as individual lobbyists fear – contributing to the crippling of development. The protection of pedestrians is at last becoming a matter of public interest. The two-phase improvement of pedestrian safety envisaged is acceptably close to the aim of the White Paper on European Transport Policy. Phase A, which commences at once and will end in 2005, will already contain essential measures, including, among others, the equipping of all new vehicles with ABS anti-skid equipment with effect from 2003, the immediate installation of daytime running lights on new vehicles, the requirement that new vehicles should cease to be supplied with bullbars, and the carrying out of modified tests by the European Enhanced Vehicle-Safety Committee (EEVC) to examine impacts on pedestrians. Whilst reference is made to the importance of the EEVC's research and development programme, we call for the quality of the four systematic tests in phase B to be further developed. In order to truly guarantee phase B's legal certainty, we call on the Commission to draft a framework directive, primarily to stipulate a clear timeframe for further measures and details of the monitoring process. We furthermore expect such a directive to prescribe coherent and practicable test methods, dealing with more aspects than do the EEVC's testing areas and take the interplay of the tested objects into account. The result of this is a challenge across the board to the automobile industry's capacity for innovation and research. Consumers are coming of age and will increasingly value the cars of the future in terms of their safety for their occupants and for pedestrians, and will choose which to buy on that basis. Safety is being used more and more in marketing and sales, which brings advantages for consumers and advances in road safety. I recommend the adoption of the text as voted on by the Committee.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to welcome the stand taken by Mr Patten and Mr Sasi and compliment Mr Morillon, Mr Cohn-Bendit and others on this very strong motion we put together yesterday. It is important to underline what we say in the motion for a resolution, namely that we are committed to strengthening the partnership with Russia because we realise that there will be no stable, peaceful Europe without a stable and democratic Russia. We also underline the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation. But it is the strategic partnership agreement that also gives us formal grounds, apart from our reactions as human beings, to question what is going on. The Tacis agreement states specifically that Tacis assistance is provided on the basis of certain shared economic and political values and practices. This is why we have also raised the issue of Tacis here. We do it against the background that some weeks ago the Russian Duma gave Mr Putin an increase of USD 1 billion for the war effort in Chechnya. Therefore we also demand the highest degree of transparency on the part of any financial institutions or donors of funds to Russia. We also urge the Council and the Commission to consider freezing all new contracts under the Tacis programme, except the democracy line. This is a warning. We are not only concerned about the question of Chechnya; we are outraged, horrified. We want to add our voice and express our strong concern about what is going on and use the weight we have in Parliament, which we can do, among other things, through the Tacis programme.

Political group: PSE
Barbaric military intervention – ostensibly for the sake of peace -, dirty ‘peace-making’ agreements signed manu militari, followed by dirty, suspicious financial ‘help’ for the purpose of ‘restoring peace’: such are the EU's achievements in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and the Balkans in general, which have been commiserating for years now as the result of the huge military and political imperialist interests being played out in this region. This parliamentary report reveals exactly how the above funding is managed and shows how the EU taxpayers' money is being squandered, with no controls or transparency, in order to consolidate the expansion of the huge interests of the EU in the NATO protectorate of Bosnia, declarations of ‘humanitarian and peace-making’ motives notwithstanding. References to mismanagement, delays, late payment, millions of ΕCU being granted for non-subsidisable equipment, waste and irregularities abound both in the Staes report and the opinions. They describe the prevailing situation in the strongest of terms and reveal the tremendous hypocrisy about support for the civil society and the restoration of democracy. What could be more damning than the reference in the report to 'conflicts of interest' in the office of the High Representative himself? We are not surprised that those who ‘promote’ peace with depleted uranium bombs, spreading death and destruction, cannot and will not play the role of peacemaker. We are not surprised that the golden goose is being squeezed dry by the major economic interests which created, cultivated and fomented the hatred between the peoples of this region and by the employees and servants of those interests, such as the famous Mr Kounser. But we are surprised by the cynicism and hypocrisy of leaders who continue to talk of efforts to ‘clean up’ and improve the uptake of funds and restore the rule of law. The gloomy facts speak for themselves and leave no room for doubt, let alone complacency. People are not accounts; their consciences cannot be bought off and however much you try to embellish the facts, you still have to contend with the people. We shall not be voting in favour of the Staes report, despite the fact that it contains numerous accurate findings and proposals, because its general perception is bereft of any notion of resistance to the presence of imperialist forces and its only concern is how to embellish that presence so that it is easier for the people to swallow. - Dell'Alba report (A5-0359/2000)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to present the House with a point of order. Yesterday afternoon, during Questions to the Commission, there was a Question No 91 from the Spanish People’s Party MEP, Mrs García-Orcoyen. The last question answered during those Questions to the Commission was Question No 61. Today, certain sections of the Spanish press are publishing the ‘question’ and the supposed reply from Commissioner Wallström. This morning, after becoming aware of this information, the Socialist Group made a written request to the Parliamentary services to issue that reply. At 11.28 this morning we received the following written reply from the services of this House: ‘I must inform you that the reply to the said question from Mrs García-Orcoyen, which was communicated to us when Question Time had ended, is awaiting translation. Once translated and sent officially to the author you will be sent a copy by e-mail. Signed: João Correa’. How is it possible, Mr President, that we MEPs do not have the reply – and nor did the author of the question – when it is already in the hands of the press, not only the supposed reply, but also an explanatory communication of the response from the Spanish People’s Party, explaining it? Mr President, this is the second time in one month that something like this has happened and supposed replies are being leaked to the Spanish media before the MEPs themselves – and, I repeat, even the authors of the questions – have heard the reply. How can this happen? Is it pure chance that on these two occasions the supposed reply supports the positions of the Spanish Government? Does the Spanish Government have a mole somewhere in the Commission or in Parliament? Mr President, as an MEP, I would ask you for protection for Parliament and respect for MEPs. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
I do not need to remind you how hard we had to fight to maintain the necessary funds for supplying milk to schools. In April 1999, the draft budget submitted by the European Commission provided for a 50% reduction in that budget line! That reduction made it clear that this financial assistance would eventually disappear, which provoked intense reactions within the European Parliament and elsewhere. According to experts and specialists in child nutrition, milk is indeed essential to the proper intellectual and physical development of children, of all children. Therefore, children of poorer families, who do not have access to certain milk products having essential nutritional benefits, can make up the shortfall thanks to the meals offered in their school canteens. A proposal such as this represented a threat to the health of our children. This was unacceptable, given that public health had been enshrined in the new Title XIII of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Furthermore, it totally contradicted the conclusions of the Agriculture Council of 14 and 15 June 1999. Our Ministers had stressed the importance of encouraging milk consumption because of its high nutritional value, especially for children and young people. It was only after long, intense discussions that the Commission proposed to increase the budget line by EUR 31 million, with the total amount committed to aid for providing schools with milk then rising to EUR 84 million. This is the situation in 2000. For the future, the European Commission has proposed to implement a cofinancing system. A maximum of 50% of subsidies for the provision of milk to schools would be financed by the European Union, with the Member States remaining responsible for the other half. This is an unacceptable proposal! It was obvious that the Commission’s long-term intention was to dismantle the system of aid for supplying milk to schools. The European Parliament’s proposal, which I wholeheartedly support, is to make the Community pay 95% of the cost of European subsidies for milk supplied to schools. This is the only way to ensure that this system survives. I also welcome the decision to also include drinking yoghurt and milk-based beverages in the regulation. This must be done to take account of changes in habits and food preferences and to make this programme more attractive to consumers. I can, today, express my satisfaction at having committed myself to this fight and at seeing that the countless letters to the relevant ministers, the countless questions to the European Commission and the countless press releases have paid off!

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to start by congratulating the rapporteur. Next, I would like to point out, in a spirit of realism, that the Member States have often chosen to forget a very simple but obvious fact: that throughout history, no matter what the geographical circumstances, no barrier has been able to prevent people in search of refuge finding a way to cross the border or the barrier itself. I feel, however, that this report does justice to the problem and seeks, first and foremost, to find a sufficiently sound solution, not least with a view to finding a better alternative to the Dublin Convention itself. This is therefore an important contribution which will undeniably improve on the regulation. I have to say that, with regard to the current situation, the report seeks to find a balance between two conflicting requirements: on the one hand, it attempts to prevent abuse of asylum procedures and, on the other, it attempts to provide effective access to the procedures for determining the refugee status of those who genuinely need it. At the same time, there are new criteria and new derogations that we welcome, aimed particularly at preserving family group unity in one Member State. The same applies to the responsibility placed on a Member State which does not take effective action against the illegal presence of third-country citizens on its territory, making liability equivalent to that of a Member State which fails to control its borders properly. We therefore feel that the Council must introduce a ‘fair and efficient’ asylum procedure and a ‘clear and workable’ method including these new provisions on the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application. Lastly, we welcome, in particular, the fact that Article 27 of the regulation, Mr President, bans any discrimination based on sex, race, skin colour or even age, a criterion whose introduction we feel to be necessary and particularly progressive.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it was in 1999, at Tampere, that, for the first time in the history of European integration, the Heads of State and Government of the 15 Member States of the Union put justice-related issues at the top of their political agenda and gave the commitment that an area of freedom, security and justice would be established within a maximum of five years. One of the Union’s major objectives is, therefore, to enable its citizens to live in this area of freedom, security and justice, which must be an area in which freedom goes hand in hand with a high level of security, and it is in this framework that the creation and operation of joint investigation teams are being planned. The call for the rapid creation of joint investigation teams was made at Tampere as the first stage in the fight against trafficking in human beings and drugs and against terrorism. In the wake of the appalling events of 11 September, this initiative has come to the fore as part of a framework of measures to be adopted in the fight against terrorism and seeks to secure the adoption of a framework decision that will provide a legal framework to enable us to set up joint investigation teams made up of members of the police and judges who are specially trained in the fight against terrorism and of representatives of the Provisional Judicial Cooperation (Pro-Eurojust) unit and Europol, in order to coordinate investigations undertaken in this field. I share the rapporteur, Mr Kirkhope’s, enthusiasm for this initiative and I congratulate him on the work he has carried out, which seeks to speed up the entry into force of the provisions of the Convention, still not ratified to date, that are considered to be most urgent by the Member States. I must draw your attention, however, to the need for this Convention to be ratified quickly so as to prevent the risk of any potential fragmentation of this legal mechanism. Furthermore, we must also welcome the extension of Europol’s sphere of action to all serious forms of international crime, which are listed in the annex to the Convention, for this will help to make cooperation under the Europol Convention more effective. Priority areas for action must, nevertheless, be identified according to trends in crime in the Union. You will all agree that, now more than ever, we must devote particular attention to terrorism.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, number 18 is only a reordering. It is followed by Amendment No 9 and I would like to say a brief word about that. Firstly, this amendment is tabled not by the group but by myself, as rapporteur. The purpose of the amendment is to make the text more logical and also to make the content of what it says about regulatory agencies coherent. I discussed it with the various groups yesterday and obtained their agreement. That therefore means that Amendment No 9 refers to item 19, and, in particular, to the deletion of the second part of the paragraph. At the same time, the shortened paragraph is to be inserted before item 16, immediately after the heading ‘Autonomous regulatory authorities’. The word ‘only’ must then be inserted in the fifth line of item 16 so that it then reads ‘... only be approved if...’. As I have the floor now, there is a translation error in the Swedish version of Paragraph 27. It should read ‘Committee of the Regions’ and not ‘Economic and Social Committee’.

Political group: GUE-NGL