GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
In the Presidency’s conclusions from the Seville European Council in June 2002, the Council called upon the Commission to carry out a study into the apportionment of responsibilities between the Member States and the EU in the management of the external borders. This was to take place before June 2003, which is why the results of this study have still not been implemented. In the resolution, the European Parliament chooses, in spite of this, to anticipate the study and to ask the Convention to look into the possibilities of finding a legal basis for a European Corps of Border Guards, and the Council to set up such a force. We can see that there is a need for closer cooperation in this area but believe that, legally, democratically, financially and in terms of constitutional law, a proposal as far-reaching as this requires a proper study to be carried out as a basis for its being possible to deal with the matter at all. A Corps of Border Guards, however temporary the mandate it is given, is, in spite of everything, a new institution and entails a new legal competence for the EU. - Andria report (A5-0431/2002)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the human tragedy and the facts of these cases are well known and, as Mrs Boudjenah quite rightly pointed out, they were well known long before the Dover tragedy. The political will has been made clear, indicating that it is time to pass a legislative act for identifying, arresting and punishing the culprits. Minister, Commissioner, you have truly disappointed me. You are not even following the line taken at the Tampere Council. The Tampere conclusions make a clear call for the Commission to submit a report on the implementation of the conclusions of the High Level Working Group on Asylum and Immigration for the consideration of the European Council in December 2000. This means that, in six months, you will have to draw up a report on what you have achieved. Listening to your speech, I have the feeling that I have been invited not to a Parliamentary sitting, but to a rather posh get-together. I had hoped that the Commission would go further, that it would have the courage, for once, to submit proposals, and that it would be able to do what the Council of Ministers is asking it to. Minister, the French Presidency may be content to make the point at the next summit, without any real desire to study the Commission’s report or to tell us whether the Commission is fulfilling its contract with regard to Eurodac. If, however, the French Presidency is not able to establish a concrete schedule for legislative procedures to be implemented at European level and to be transposed to Member State level, we will once again face failure, which will lead to another debate like today’s, following further deaths. Everyone will complain and Europe will not have made any progress. What I am really asking for is for the Commission to show that it is up to the task, and, in line with what President Chirac and Mr Queyranne said, for it to feel sufficiently chastised so that the work requested of it is sufficiently detailed for the politicians, Ministers and the Council finally to be able to take some decisions.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to make it clear that the unusual response given by the Commissioner and Vice-President of the Commission to Question No 93 in the corridor was made worse by the fact that she was accompanied, and her words – which she uttered as a representative of the Commission – clarified, by two MEPs, the Member from the Group of the who tabled the question and a Member from the Group of the . I hope that this kind of manipulation, regardless of our political positions, which are all respectable, will not happen again in this Chamber. In my opinion this is absolutely disgraceful. I was waiting for Question No 2 from ‘Further questions’. I consulted you, Mr President, with a gesture, and, when you told me that Question No 2 would not be answered, naturally I left. This kind of behaviour should not take place. If Mrs de Palacio wishes to express her personal political opinion, she can do so at any time, with no need for recourse to this kind of manipulation, which I consider thoroughly deplorable.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, it seems to me that we need to distinguish two aspirations which are contained in the Galeote report and which to some extent lead in different directions. I refer on the one hand to the need to improve the Commission's efficiency in achieving its priority tasks and on the other hand the ambition to create some sort of EU diplomatic service. The emphasis should be on the first of these, and this is reflected very much in paragraph 1 of the Galeote report which, and I quote: 'Insists that the overriding priority for the external service of the Commission must be the efficient organisation and management of EU external assistance programmes'. At a time when enlargement of the Union is a priority – and we have large-scale pre-accession aid programmes to assist this process – it is essential that we have the right number of staff with the right qualifications delivering and monitoring this assistance. The Commission obviously recognises the priority of reforming external assistance management, as we have seen over the last year or so. But according to some estimates, there is a shortfall of something like 1 254 posts dealing with priority policy areas. The Commission does not require more generalists and diplomats in its delegation, it needs competent managers, particularly those with expertise in tendering, contracting and, above all, project implementation; personnel with business experience perhaps. I wonder if the Commission's recruitment and retirement procedures reflect this priority? The draft Council regulation on the early retirement of some 600 officials is under consideration at the moment. I would like to know what steps the Commission is taking to recruit the right sort of people to replace those officials who will be retiring early.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck, ladies and gentlemen, corruption is an issue of significance in some countries desirous of joining the EU, and we are currently engaging in accession negotiations with them. Funds gained by privatisation have often disappeared from these countries in a questionable manner. Do you believe it would be possible to resolve these issues within the framework of accession negotiations, or at least to apply unambiguous legal provisions in this area?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, firstly, I too would like to congratulate Mr Corrie on the quality of his report, which appropriately reflects the tenor of the debates in the Joint Assembly he so effectively co-chaired. The eradication of poverty was central to our work and many speakers highlighted the need to preserve an essential tool for achieving that ambitious aim, to whit, preferential agreements between the European Union and the ACP countries within the framework of the Lomé Conventions. The challenge was immense. Globalisation, free trade, and the hegemony of the WTO with its internationalist philosophy, were imperilling the very essence of the North-South dialogue. So we can only applaud the conclusion of a new partnership agreement for development, and personally I am convinced that the work of the last Joint Assembly did have a decisive influence on breaking the deadlock in the negotiations, as did the new climate created by the events at Seattle. However, while I welcome the renewal of the agreements, what I find most interesting is the new wind blowing through our relationships and finding expression in the balanced nature of the negotiations now drawing to a close. The European Union seems to me to have finally emerged from the old paternalist, or frankly neo-colonialist, logic where those giving aid are all too eager to start giving lessons, following a formula our friend Michel Rocard is so keen on. The Union has finally accepted the idea that dialogue cannot be genuine or effective unless it is the expression of a contract which respects the dignity of the partners. By refusing to allow the idea of good governance to become a tool, in the hands of technocrats, for imposing new sets of conditions, the European Union is demonstrating wisdom and modesty. We have spent two centuries laying the foundations of a democracy whose fragility is constantly brought home to us by events. What right have we to try to impose our model on people whose history, values and identity are sometimes so profoundly different from our own? Personally, I prefer the willingness that is clearly flagged up in these agreements to extend the partnership to new agents – local authorities, non-governmental organisations – which seems to me to represent the only possible way the people of these countries can progressively achieve ownership cooperation. In short, this is the only way they can emerge from humiliating and childlike dependence on aid and take responsibility for themselves, the proof of success.

Political group: PSE
I wish to congratulate Mr Asensio on the report he has drawn up on the Parliament and Council proposal aiming to lay down common standards for the compiling of Community statistics on the rail transport of goods and passengers, including information on safety, which I fully support. Since this proposal has achieved the broad consensus of the various actors involved, I simply wish to emphasise that adopting this legislative instrument will facilitate, in the framework of common transport policy, the evaluation of the common rail sector, thereby making informed decision-making possible, specifically on providing a greater incentive in the future for rapid, comfortable and safe rail traffic within and between Member States and between Member States and third countries, as an alternative to today’s excessive surface and air congestion, to the benefit of users and, doubtless, of the environment itself.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as far as the Council Presidency is concerned, I for one am delighted that we are currently cultivating extremely positive contacts, especially as regards cooperation in the domestic policy area. We have all managed very well to really work together with you, and the same applies of course to Commissioner Vitorino. But when it comes to EURODAC, we have a problem. We here in Parliament have passed a resolution and have made clear why we cannot accept EURODAC in the form which the Council and the Commission wish it to take. And we have given our reasons. We have humane reasons, we have reasons when it comes to children, as far as the age limit is concerned; for example we cannot accept the age limit of 14. We highlighted all these problems in a resolution by Parliament. For this reason, it is of course most important for us, for my group, to see how seriously you take Parliament, how you deal with our proposals and, in the final analysis, we hope that we will continue to be able to report gladly and proudly on how well we are cooperating together. The question is whether you are willing to lend us an ear when something gives us cause for concern and we urgently need your support.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I really am quite astonished at Mr Barón Crespo’s behaviour and the fact that he is now asking for this item to be put on Wednesday's agenda. Mr Barón Crespo, you were unable to attend the Conference of Presidents last Thursday. I am not criticising this; it happens from time to time that people send someone to represent them. Mr Hänsch represented you on this occasion. In the Conference of Presidents, we had an in-depth discussion. Your Group was alone in advocating what you are saying now. We then put it to a vote. As you know, each chairman has the same number of votes as his Group has Members. There was a vote on this matter. As I recall, the outcome of this vote was 422 votes to 180 with a few abstentions. This means that all the Groups with the exception of the non-attached Members – but, of course, they are not a Group – were in agreement; only your Group thought that we should proceed as you have proposed here. All of the others were of a different opinion. That was the decision. I should now like to comment on the issue itself. We have confidence in the Commission and in Romano Prodi and, after a difficult procedure, as everyone knows, the vast majority of our Group supported the vote of confidence in Romano Prodi and the Commission. We believe, however, that the Commission's strategic plan needs to be debated within a proper procedural framework, not only on the basis of an oral statement here in the European Parliament, but also on the basis of a document which is adopted in the Commission and which describes this programme over the five-year period. There is no such document! (Applause) The Commission will present its programme for the year 2000 in February. We have said, very well, if the Commission does not wish to introduce the 2000 programme as early as January then we will do it in February. We have agreed to this. After all, we do not wish to quarrel with the Commission; if at all possible, we believe that the Commission and Parliament need to tread the same path. However, we in Parliament also have a supervisory role with regard to the Commission and we do not have to agree with everything which comes out of the Commission. I should like us to be able to do a reasonable amount of preparation for the debate on the five-year programme in our Groups. You cannot prepare if you hear a statement in this House and have no idea of its content. That is why we would recommend – and it is my impression that the Commission is also open to this idea – that we hold the debate on the Commission's long-term programme up to the year 2005 in February – and I hope that the Commission will agree on a programme before then which it will propose to us – and that, at the same time, in February we also hold the debate on the Commission's legislative programme for the year 2000. The fact that the subjects are connected also suggests that we should hold the debate on both programmes together. That is why my Group firmly rejects the proposal made by the Socialist Group. (Applause from the Group)

Political group: PPE-DE
Thank you very much, Commissioner, for your reply to the question of my colleague, Mr Fruteau, who has asked me to convey his apologies, since he is unable to get to Strasbourg until tonight as a result of force majeure. I am also very grateful for your reply myself. I note that we share the Commission’s concern about the fact that an agreement between the ACP countries and the European Union, which is so positive for other reasons, nevertheless has an impact in those outermost regions which have similar production and are geographically close to the ACP countries. Having seen that the Commission is concerned about this and having received a very satisfactory response, does the Commission nevertheless intend to implement any measure to lessen the impact of this presumably negative effect before the final date indicated? Does it intend to implement any urgent measure?

Political group: PSE
It is obviously a good thing if the Commission has re-thought this issue. It would be devastating if support for the work on combating child sex tourism were to be withdrawn. That cannot reasonably be the EU’s policy. Every year, more than one million children are forced into prostitution. These children are increasingly exploited by tourists and businessmen who, remarkably often, come from Europe. The fact that the major paedophile scandal in Belgium is now no longer making the headlines in the media does not, of course, mean that the child sex trade has disappeared. Support for ECPAT is incredibly important. It is completely in line with the Council’s 1999 decision concerning efforts to combat child sex tourism and with the resolution adopted by Parliament as late as March of this year. To withdraw support for this work would therefore be to go both against the Council’s and Parliament’s demand for priority to be given to the fight against the child sex trade. How the Commission is to solve the problem technically is, I think, a matter still to be resolved, but the main thing is that this important work should continue to receive support from the European Union.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have spent over twenty-five years working on protection for European consumers, and not a Parliamentary sitting goes by without consumer issues being discussed. I know I am disagreeing with some of those who have spoken today when I say that the rules that have worked for years have proved their worth and that their effects live on, even though they ended up as a legal package of which nobody could get an overview, and there are still some loopholes. The Commission is therefore right, by means of the proposals on consumer protection, to seek ways out of the confusion and suggest what some of those ways might be. I want to put the case for a framework directive with a comprehensive clause founded on the principles of sound business practice. More and more frequently, the internal market ends up being handicapped as a result of the lack of regulations or the leeway left by the directives. It is particularly in view of enlargement that measures need to be taken to remedy this as soon as possible, and there is a need to combat not only unfair business practices that affect consumers, but also those used by all participants in the internal market on each other. This latter category would include the attempts made by some Member States to use the protection of consumers or their health as a shield with which to protect national markets and industries from competition. There are also those who call themselves campaigners for consumers' rights who allow themselves to be engaged in this cause and help to drive competitors from the market. That is why I believe it necessary to make greater use of the legal form of a Regulation in order to achieve greater legal certainty. That will also lead to harmonisation, and that is what we need in the internal market. The Commission has drawn up a comprehensive list and appended it as an annex. All the points in it are important, but the new priorities in the Whitehead Report introduce a succession of others, ranging from important to less important. What Mr Whitehead has said today has actually contradicted this order of priorities. Consumers can avail themselves of their rights only when they know what those are. Work on consumer protection should make information policy a priority. Consumers' associations have an important part to play in this, and governments must support them in it. It is because of their failure to do this that we have to set up these consumer centres in our Member States if we are to make progress in this area.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it should be noted that, though the institutions of the European Union happily preach to the smaller countries of Europe if they do not meet the convergence criteria, they take a much more moderate tone in addressing two of the European powerhouses, namely France and Germany! Maastricht criteria or not, these two Member States have taken it on themselves to increase their deficits in order to support capitalist ventures in their countries. The attitude of the French Government demonstrates how France and Germany will respond to the injunctions of the European institutions, if they do so at all. They may perhaps reduce their budgetary deficits, but they will not do so by reducing the considerable sums of money they give to employers. In France, this amounts to at least 10% of the budget. There is certainly scope for making good a 3.4% deficit. In order to avoid reducing the money allocated to business, however, the French Government is cutting public spending. In truth, this means taking money away from public services. The requirement to balance the budget will mean less money for hospitals and schools. The population as a whole will suffer so that the wealthy can get away scot-free. Although it is in fact the Member States, rather than the European institutions, who decide on their budget, we shall vote against this report as it serves as a cover and a justification for austerity measures and assaults on public services.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I am pleased to speak on this report on the transboundary movement of GMOs in which the Committee on the Environment has adopted a more stringent and more comprehensive position than that proposed by the Commission, following the lead given by the rapporteur. I would like to add to what colleagues have said in thanking him for his work. I also welcome the fact that the Committee on the Environment expanded the regulation to cover food and feed which have been produced from or with the aid of GMOs, as well as GMOs intended for contained use. The report shows that whilst the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is a good basic framework for regulating the transboundary movement of GMOs, this is a minimum, a base line from which parties can and should be proactive in aiming for ever higher standards of control to meet the demands of the consumer. This includes, as many colleagues have already mentioned, the right of freedom of choice. We are only too aware of the recent examples of food aid to developing countries being cynically used to force GM food on people, to promote GM food and to force countries that have declared themselves GM-free to accept GM grain. This includes countries such as Zambia, Mozambique and Zimbabwe which have all taken a stand against the untested and unproven nature of GMOs and it is totally unacceptable that these are being forced upon them by countries such as the United States. The European Union, in cases such as this, buys local non-GM food, adhering to the principles and the rules of the recipient countries in a manner in keeping with the ethos of the Cartagena Protocol. On the other hand, in the past two years Bolivia, Colombia, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Ecuador have all been forced to accept GM food aid even though this was contrary to their national regulations. I welcome the committee's report which clearly allows for countries to take more proactive steps to ensure international biosafety. It is an important step forward in the whole GM debate and the report has my full support.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I may not look like Mr Schulz but I am deputising for him. The Socialist Group is deeply concerned by the continuing civil war that has claimed around two million casualties over the last 19 years. Of course we welcome the signing on 15 October of the peace agreement between the government in Sudan and the SPLA. We will be looking very closely at whether the government's pledge to respect human rights and the rule of law is met and whether there are moves towards democratisation that will result in the establishment of a democratically elected executive and legislature. We ask the Commission to provide us with a report on the possible involvement of European oil companies in abuses committed against local communities in the oil- producing areas. We certainly do not support the idea that the ACP-EU Parliamentary assembly should meet in Sudan next year. It may be possible in the future but we will have to see how things develop in Sudan. We need a dialogue between Sudan and the European Union, but before we resume normal relations we would want to see progress towards ending terrorism and support for terrorist groups, religious tolerance, human rights and of course an end to the civil war.

Political group: PSE