GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Thank you, Mr President, for your reactions and your keen-sighted ability to notice that I am present in the House. I would like to remind the illustrious rapporteur, Mr Dell'Alba, that above and beyond differences of opinion, which are always legitimate, there must be parliamentary courtesy and the individual right of Members to carry out their work, which includes the presentation of amendments should they deem it necessary. In any event, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, I believe that we should be pleased, firstly because we are dealing with the first broad legislative proposal on the financial regulation of the Union, which runs in partnership with the administrative reform of management and human resources procedures and which must be the undeniable political objectives of Parliament and the Commission. It was decided – correctly, in my view – not to correct the defects in the legislative framework employed until now and, instead, to implement a new administrative culture on control and spending efficiency in the quest for the common objective of the better and more transparent management of public money. The rules on decision-making in this field, however, show very little political logic. We should therefore be pleased with the strategy which the rapporteur is suggesting: to vote for amendments which reflect good work and a good departure point for the discussion of the more delicate aspects of the proposal, and to force the Council to take account of the opinion of the European Parliament when the Commission presents its amended proposal. During the desirable and possible interinstitutional dialogue, we must try to negotiate a financial regulation which is intended to be permanent, which substantially takes account of this Parliament’s often repeated priorities in this field. In order to achieve this permanence there are some very controversial aspects, such as the removal of ex ante control, which may distract us from other deficiencies with broader repercussions. I am referring to the regulation of the public markets and to subsidies. The current situation is not only bad, but chaotic. Throughout these recent years, we have not been able to harmonise the multi-coloured situation of public contracts. With regard to the information which Parliament requires for the purposes of the discharge of the budget – and I would ask you to be benevolent, Mr President – I believe that the Commission’s position is coherent insofar as it respects the basic elements of the framework Interinstitutional Agreement on the application of Article 206 of the Treaty. I believe that in this field we can and must agree a text based on a consensus in the future, safeguarding the principles which are essential to this Parliament, such as human rights, fundamental freedoms and non-interference in sub judice procedures.

Political group: PPE-DE
I welcome this report and will vote for it. European citizens are worried about the protection of their privacy, and those worries are not unjustified. Every day, enormous amounts of personal data are captured, sorted and processed. Such is the case in connection with credit card payments, tracing the movement of mobile telephones, storing telephone connections, surfing on the internet, processing other data taken, for instance, from forms previously filled in etc. On the EU level, the threat of possible abuse of personal data is being countered by two directives, namely Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data and Directive 97/66/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector. Neither of them applies to the EU institutions. And yet there is a need for a set of data protection rules, for the institutions not only process internal data (such as data relating to their autonomous activities, budget and staff reports) but also data collected from citizens in the performance of EU duties (e.g. granting subsidies, investigating competition cases, public tenders, statistical research and studies, data relating to the preparation and implementation of legislation). This report should go some way to filling this vacuum. - Duff/Voggenhuber recommendation (A5-0325/2000)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this may well look like a fight over a tiny paragraph somewhere in the EU's great system of treaties, but I believe that what we are dealing with is a quite fundamental question and not just a cultural contrast. Again we see that the world has not yet managed to allow the principles of the Enlightenment, which have found their way into American case law via the Constitution and the Freedom of Information Act, to travel to Europe, because the Enlightenment unfortunately made no inroads into the French administrative tradition. That is again how one experiences these various speeches. It is a bitter experience to find that the EU is still where it was on 17 December 1992, when dealing with the draft on the Ombudsman. In any case, however, here we are, and I believe that this time we will win. The many complaints from citizens having problems with EU institutions are essentially to do with so much still being withheld or suppressed. What is now being proposed in the Garrett Report, which in my opinion can only be supported, is only the first step. At first it should be the Ombudsman who is actually given access to all documents, but then it should also be the citizens themselves. We urgently need here a reversal of the burden of proof; I would, indeed, demand of the Ombudsman that he should tell us in future what documents he has still not received where regulations on confidentiality have been invoked, and that we should, by means of this reversal of the burden of proof, reach the point where we really are living out a democracy and, as far as possible, have access to all documents and also to public sittings of the Council. For I am firmly convinced that a democracy cannot exist without transparency. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Madam President, between 3 October 2000 and yesterday, at least seven memorials were desecrated, eight people were subjected to racist attacks, four hostels for asylum seekers were set upon, and seven synagogues, Jewish cemeteries or memorials were desecrated in the Federal Republic of Germany.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I have noticed with some degree of satisfaction that the subversive action staged by some of the Members with a view to sabotaging procedures has ground to a halt. This will probably be because they have come to realise that they cannot count on the support of at least 32 delegates. I would just like to say, Mr President, that some strange selectivity is being practised here, that certain Members stage little acts and, after the act is finished, they leave and the game is over. I did want to point this out because Parliament should not be mistaken for a kindergarten, and this is the feeling I will have when I leave this Chamber today.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I rise to give my voice to this injustice that we have heard about, an injustice, as we have also heard, that has been going on now for 12 years. It has taken not one, not two but three court cases and it still has not been resolved. So why are we back here today debating this injustice in this Chamber? It is because of our failure to resolve the issue that we are back here. We have to continue to publicise this issue until it is resolved. What is this injustice? Mr Wieland started to highlight it when he spoke on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs. The injustice is about two people doing the same job, working side by side, but on different pay and under different conditions. If we truly believe in the single market and the free movement of people, that should not happen. I disagree with my colleague, Mr Lisi, who spoke earlier. He talked about these people wanting a 'privileged' position. They are not asking for a privileged position, they are just asking for the same. Until they get the same as their equivalents in Italy this matter will rumble on. I listened carefully to what Mr Busquin said on behalf of the Commission. Some people say there is a whiff of hypocrisy from the Commission. Some even go further and say there is a stench of hypocrisy from the Commission. I will go as far so to say there is a small smell of hypocrisy coming from the Commission. If the Commission were truly serious about resolving this issue it would have been resolved years ago. We can perhaps accept that the previous Commission under Mr Santer was not the best, so that is why it went. But I have to say we are looking at this Commission: the President of this Commission is fully aware of this case, is fully aware of the facts, and yet nothing has been done to resolve it. We have to ask why. That is why this Parliament today is again debating this issue, highlighting this issue, to put it back before the Commission and say: get this sorted out.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the rapporteur. Personally, I find sweeteners a difficult subject. In my opinion, the Commission’s proposal does have the scientific rigour required when dealing with such issues. I shall comment first on the most controversial aspect of the report, namely cyclamates. The Commission’s initial proposal was to set the maximum dose at 350 mg/l, in line with the ruling by the Scientific Committee on Food. The Commission did however change its view regarding the maximum dose. It revised its initial proposal of 350 mg/l and supported the proposal of 250 mg/l. Commissioner, we are all wondering why that was so. We were told that a compromise had been reached in the Council, resulting in agreement on the figure of 250 mg/l. That suggests both political and scientific arguments were invoked. We cannot endorse this figure for political reasons. We must be rigorous and support the Commission’s original figure. I therefore call for Amendments Nos 8 and 9 to be rejected. I believe they lack sound scientific basis. Parliament cannot and must not take political opinions or compromises into account when dealing with as technical a subject as additives. If the Commission really believes that a maximum permitted dose of cyclamates of 250 mg/l is more appropriate it should withdraw its initial proposal. It should then present us with a new one, giving a scientific explanation of why it is now proposing a lower dose. The reasons for reducing the dose still further are inconsistent. Reference is made to a study carried out in Denmark in 2001. This study was based on a particularly small sample of children who consumed sweeteners. Crucially, it had not been designed as a study of the intake of sweeteners. It had been intended as an assessment of the use of sweeteners in soft drinks in Denmark. Simply extrapolating from the results of such a study cannot be a sound basis for reducing the maximum permitted level of cyclamates in soft drinks in the European Union. Furthermore, the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration stated in a press release on the publication of this study that the RDA study was based on safe lifetime intake. It went on to state that consequently there would be no harmful effects on the health of children aged between one and three who might temporarily exceed the RDA.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, which of the mothers or fathers present does not know that feeling of embarrassment that comes from sitting next to your own child or a schoolchild at a computer? Even since my twins – who are now nine – were at pre-school, they have been showing me again and again how to use a computer, so I think I would need the eLearning Programme more than my children do. Leaving such personal matters to one side, I congratulate this programme, and also the rapporteur, especially on his calls for European software, for more European content and for European services. This is a responsibility for the Fifteen and for the European Union. It is one from which the Council, too, cannot be discharged. I also welcome all the amendments that are intended to foster a critical engagement with the instrument of the Internet, not only on the part of school pupils, but also on the part of their teachers. Whilst much of this is good, there is one point on which, unfortunately, I am unable to agree with you. The digital divide between the Member States is something that the Fifteen – who will soon be joined by another Ten! – must sort out among themselves, but the digital divide in our societies is a matter of concern for all of us. I do think that, in order to be consistent with your Amendment No 10, we should stick to the Commission proposal as to how the funds are to be divided up. We consider that to be a more equal and more balanced allocation of funding. I am sorry, but with so little time available to me, I cannot go into greater detail.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I have in front of me the English text. The oral amendment is that where the English text says, ‘qualified majority is unworkable’, the word ‘unworkable’ should be replaced by the phrase ‘it is difficult to work’.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I speak here today on behalf of the colleagues in whose name the second motion on the order paper is before the House. They apologise for being unable to be present themselves. Although I have less expertise, I am happy for this opportunity to speak on their behalf and on behalf of the Green/ . As Parliamentarians we are often guilty of complaining about the privations of our life, travelling between two, three or four cities, occupying cramped offices and so forth. So it is a humbling moment to rise in this House to speak on this topic and contemplate the problems and dangers faced by brave people who go out as humanitarian workers in Third World countries. We can only pause and reflect upon the conditions of their lives and sometimes, alas, of their deaths. That said, my Group and I are disappointed that our colleagues in the Socialist Party – although rightly saying that this is a general problem – seem to be losing sight – in our opinion – of the need to concentrate on Columbia. It is important to recall that President Pastrana visited this place as recently as October and gave assurances about safeguarding human rights and about the prosecution of crime and the dismantling of the paramilitary forces. These assurances have turned out to be almost worthless. Not enough has been done. The motion on behalf of my Group says that the Commission should insist, as a condition of its presence and its work in the country, on the enforcement of laws relating to the protection of displaced workers and on the provision of guarantees from the Colombian Government relating to their physical safety and material wellbeing. It is right that the Commission should insist on these requirements. In the next clause the motion says that we oppose the continuing of aid to the Colombian Government, but not to the Colombian people because the next clause says that we should continue aid through other channels and direct it to make sure that the paramilitary forces are discountenanced and that civil order returns as fast as reasonably possible to Columbia. Human rights workers are a critical part of the problem, but not the whole problem. The only way to stop the killing will be by dismantling the paramilitary troops and providing adequate bodyguards for human rights workers. ECHO and the Commission have to put pressure on the governments to do this.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, since the trans-European networks came into existence, I have been championing waterways and shipping, so you will not be surprised if I now express a slightly different point of view. Where competition is concerned, the market plays the key role in the development of seaports. That much we are all agreed upon, and we should not interfere with that base. I therefore request as a matter of urgency, even if Georg Jarzembowski is sitting next to me, that Parliament should reconsider its decision of March last year. Parliament wants the criterion to be an annual freight traffic volume of 1.5 million tonnes, but it is ridiculous to ignore the potential of ports with a volume of at least 1 million tonnes, especially if they meet the strategic requirements of the trans-European networks. We should therefore have faith in market forces and give smaller ports a chance too. We want to promote short sea shipping, but that means we also need smaller ports, which have a valuable role to play here. They act as interconnection points, small ones perhaps but important interconnection points. And are you telling me that you want to argue about half a million tonnes and exclude smaller ports? What would a minimum traffic volume of 1.5 million tonnes achieve? According to the documents I have it would mean excluding 30 European ports, above all those in peripheral areas or coastal areas that are structurally weak. That cannot be in our interest. Investment in the trans-European network only makes sense if we create genuine networks covering wide areas and bringing advantages for the public throughout the European Union. A forward-looking maritime strategy should not be exclusive, it should be inclusive. I therefore ask the rapporteur and the others who have spoken to give this their learned support.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mr Belder on his sound report which deals with the fight against racism, xenophobia and antisemitism in the candidate countries. This all revolves around the kind of philosophy on man and society people take their inspiration from, and Mr Belder has presented his in no uncertain terms. The report is based on the notion of the unity of the human species, a Christian teaching which forms a firm barrier against any lapses of a racist nature. Man could be seen as being created in the image of God. This should make it impossible to see one’s fellow man as a threat or to harm his dignity. Mr Belder quite clearly does not pursue the ideology, which is termed conservative by some, which defends the identity of communities against cultural influences from outside. An ideology of this kind, which overestimates the sense of community, contains insufficient guarantees against tendencies towards discrimination. I condemn such a conservative ideology. The candidate Member States expect the European Union to be a constitutional community based on the common acceptance of values which are mostly of a Jewish-Christian origin. It is only logical that we should observe these values. This does not always accord with their and our gut reactions but that is – like it or not – the trademark of sound principles. They do not always turn out to be to our advantage. People have to overcome their fears and short-term interests. We need to help the candidate Member States in a critical, yet constructive, way and not be afraid to call a spade a spade. The Belder report contains a few concrete pointers in this respect. Churches, trade unions, women’s organisations, occupational training courses and other educational institutions, in particular, play a decisive role in this. My Group did not have any reason to table any more amendments. With regard to Mrs Ludford’s report, I belong to a minority in my Group who do not consider the report’s shortcomings serious enough to vote against it. It is true that proposals on voting rights for foreigners do not fit in at all in a report on xenophobia, but we do agree on the principle of drafting a recommendation in this respect. I have subscribed to this practice in the Netherlands for some 25 years, starting with the South Moluccans. I have no problem at all with providing them with government jobs. This may not be an ideological issue for me, but if you have a look at the EU delegations abroad, they are teeming with foreigners in EU service, even in sensitive functions. Governments do well to give ethnic minorities a visible presence in police forces, for example. In my opinion, it is extremely impractical to restrict the options in this respect, and I certainly do not want to see this become a requirement. What interest would be served in doing so? If the Ludford report is not changed for the worse by amendments, the minority which I represent here will vote for this report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on this side of the House we are not trying to stop restructuring but we want it to be done in a socially responsible way. We want a pro-active approach to industrial restructuring and change. We want to see a corporate code of social responsibility but we can see that this will be achieved only when we have an updated and completed legal framework in this area. We want to see true partnership at work and the real benefits that this can bring to the European Union. But the latest spate of restructuring in the United Kingdom and throughout the European Union shows that we are far from achieving those things. To the Corus workers in the north-east of England or Wales, to the Vauxhall workers in Luton – or, for that matter, the Danone workers in France and Holland – the idea of a corporate code of responsibility – as I said in an earlier debate – is a sick joke, quite frankly. The promise of a Green Paper in the middle of this year is not an adequate response to the anguish that those workers, their families and entire communities have felt. We want to see a review of the law on collective redundancies, a review on transfers, a review of the European Works Council Directive, to make sure it is a directive that is observed rather than being systematically avoided by business. We also want to see the general framework on information and consultation adopted as a matter of urgency. This is absolutely essential if we are going to introduce an ongoing day-by-day flow of consultation and information and, in that way, build a true partnership at work: a partnership that can deliver improved innovation, competitiveness and productivity. We want to see that true partnership. We are tired of the linkage of various directives in this package, with the excuse that we cannot look for a review of the European Works Council Directive until it has been further bedded-in and the European company statute is in place. Yes, we need to establish linkage, but in taking this package now and taking a holistic approach to the need to improve information and consultation for workers. We believe that if this framework of legislation can be updated in this way, coupled with the new observatory on industrial change, it can give us the tools for a more pro-active approach to industrial change within the European Union. I would also like to make an appeal to the . We were given a mandate by this House in January to look at this issue of restructuring in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. We have done that. We have come up with an oral question and a resolution in a spirit of cooperation. I would ask the Liberals, in the spirit of cooperation, to withdraw their highly destructive resolution. It would be helpful. (Applause)

Political group: PSE