GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, we are talking today about the implementation of the regulation on public access to documents: the famous Act on the public nature of Government. We had a nice compromise, the best result we could have achieved this spring, a reasonable improvement on the Commission’s original proposals and the existing Rules of Procedure. We have essentially brought together the best practices of our Member States to form a new European standard. What we now have to do is to implement it, of course, and we must do all we can to really make it a success. As the European Parliament, we naturally want to keep a very close eye on how this will be done in practice, and my colleagues Mr Cashman and Mrs Maij-Weggen have put forward a series of in-depth questions and comments which I wholeheartedly support. We attach a great deal of importance to the annual report which will be issued about the implementation of the public access regulation and it is very significant for us that we have heard the Council’s and the Commission’s explanation here today. When I hear the comments about the institutional tale of the Secretaries-General, I am of the same opinion as my colleagues; namely that it sounds as if we are putting it on an official institutional level instead of on a political one. If you say general and policy criteria, then I would rather speak on a political level. The 3 December deadline came around very quickly, of course, and we ourselves were only ready in November. We now have to put our money where our mouth is. But then I look at the Council and I notice that the documents relating to the Justice and Home Affairs Council have not yet been released, or that not all documents have been included in the register. Then things start getting tricky again, because then I think: let’s make giving access to our citizens our number one priority, otherwise it sounds as if we are being contemptuous. I have two specific questions for the Commission and the Council in addition to my colleagues’ questions. How many sensitive documents have been included in the register so far? How are the Commission and the Council informing citizens about the possibilities offered by the Act on the public nature of Government, apart from the guide which Commissioner Barnier announced? The Act on the public nature of Government is to be evaluated in 2004. If it then turns out that the regulation does not guarantee sufficient public access, it will be our duty as Parliament to make sure that it does, because we must never lose sight of the fact that the picture that our citizens have of us sitting working in little closed rooms must never be accurate. This regulation is a fantastic way of doing this differently, but we will have to ensure that it is not just a series of fine words and that it can actually be implemented in practice. I am greatly looking forward to hearing the answers, particularly to my colleagues’ critical questions.

Political group: PSE
I support the proposals and initiatives intended to improve friendly relations between the European Union and Macau following that territory’s integration into the People’s Republic of China, of which it has become a Special Administrative Region following a handover that I consider to be successful. All the conditions are now in place for closer economic and cultural relations, on the basis of cooperation and mutual benefit between the People’s Republic of China, specifically through the Special Administrative Region of Macao and the European Union and its Member States. Nevertheless, with regard to the report, for which I voted, I still take a critical view of certain aspects that appear to reveal a degree of suspicion, specifically concerning compliance with agreements, since I consider that the reality of the situation shows that there is no reason for such suspicion.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I should like to concur with Mr Bernié, who stated that this is an ideological debate. However, and this is meant for the Commissioner's ears, it transpires that the Commission does not share Parliament's ideology which has been approved here many times. It therefore breaks the law – if I may put it that way – by flouting the rules that we have laid down several times. In other words, the Commission's ideology is not in line with Parliament's wishes. This strikes me as a dangerous situation, not only because Parliament is thus rendered a plaything, but also because the responsibility of Parliament – which has not always been undivided in this very complex matter, but has always acted responsibly – is being eroded at the very moment that we are discussing the conciliation procedure relating to the seventh amendment. I would therefore once again ask the Commission to take account of what Parliament has always stated, namely that animal testing for the purpose of cosmetics is unacceptable, that safety should always come first and that we are willing to help consider all the possible alternatives, and help weigh these up. This is, in fact, something we have always pointed out for every amendment to this directive. I would now ask the Commission not to frustrate Parliament, to withdraw its plans and implement what we jointly agreed on.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, the Commission communication actually takes up a proposal which Parliament has debated time and again in this Chamber since the second stage of monetary union, namely the need to try and coordinate and interlink the various political areas much more closely. We have always taken the view that this will only work once all the political areas have been put on an equal footing and all the Councils are considered equal under a guiding General Council. Unfortunately it took the Lisbon process, some six years later, to grab this opportunity and I am delighted that we have now moved from theory into practice. Commissioner, we have great expectations of the Commission; we expect an agreement to be reached. Europe is sorely in need of one. And that applies not just to economic and employment policy; it also applies to social and environmental policy. Europe is sorely in need of one because we cannot afford the luxury of uncoordinated policies. The Delors Commission concluded at one point that uncoordinated policies were costing us growth, which automatically means they are costing us jobs in the European Union. We are counting on an end to this situation and from that point of view this new paper really is most welcome. But it is only most welcome if it can rely on a more secure data situation than is presently the case and we can explain to our citizens that the coordination process is not just yet another euro-word or instrument which will not stand up in practice. What do I mean by that? We need to be able to show that certain economic or employment or environmental policy decisions in one Member State also harm or benefit the national economy or the job market or the environment in another Member State and can halt, freeze or foster growth, and we need statistics that can provide us with the relevant data. Unfortunately, to the disappointment of European economic researchers, this is still not the case. What we need is a coordination profile and this profile may become clear in the question of how we bundle investments, investments in research and development for example, where Europe unfortunately still has a great deal of catching up to do. The main thing is that Parliament should be involved under an interinstitutional agreement, at the very latest by the time the Convention completes its reforms and the Treaty is amended.

Political group: PSE
I would like to highlight some important points regarding my report on the European Commission’s Annual Report on the Cohesion Fund for 2001. In its Agenda 2000 Communication, the Commission retained the priority policy goal of promoting economic and social cohesion. The main aim of the Cohesion Fund was to help countries with the greatest structural disadvantages; the beneficiaries of the Fund having a per capita GNP lower than 90% of the Community average and committing to adopt a convergence programme. The Annual Report is an essential tool in assessing the activities of the Cohesion Fund. The financial execution of the fund in 2001 was generally acceptable. However, the issue of outstanding commitments to be paid (R.A.L.) remains a serious weakness and there is still an urgent need for rigorous checks to ensure that the rules of transparency are observed in relation to public contracts. The control of the Fund’s activities on the ground still needs to be intensified. I welcome the Commission's efforts to tackle the problem, in particular through the establishment of a task force in DG Regio in April 2002 and I reiterate our call to the Commission, when it submits future reports, to give more detailed information about the projects financed. (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1).) - Recommendation Lisi (A5-0198/2003)

Political group: PPE-DE
Just two more brief supplementary questions: firstly, does the Commission check to see that all the organisations that are promoted or supported do not, in fact, fund abortions? Secondly, does development aid comply under all circumstances with the laws of developing countries on abortion, or is the attempt being made here to exert influence on legislation in those countries?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, at a meeting a few days ago of Portuguese and Spanish Socialists in Santiago de Compostela, we said that European Union policies must always be judged in terms of the added value they contribute in the field of social cohesion. We thereby insisted that our Union must be, amongst other things but, for us, essentially, a great framework for intra-European solidarity. Naturally, this approach also goes for the actions of the united Europe in its relations with other countries, in particular the developing countries. So the policies of the European Union relating to these countries must also be judged in terms of the added value they contribute in relation to social cohesion, in other words, in terms of their contribution to progress towards a more balanced world with fewer inequalities. Therefore, while agreeing with the excellent and – in my opinion – not utopian report by Mr Lannoye, and speaking for the Parliament’s Committee on Development and Cooperation, we Socialists believe that we must take this criterion into account in assessing our fisheries policies and the agreements with third countries which make up these policies. I will not say that these agreements must be seen fundamentally as instruments of our development cooperation policy. We understand that there are other legitimate objectives, including the defence of the interests of the fisheries sectors in the Member States of the Union. But we would say that this fisheries policy must not contradict what we do in the field of cooperation and, above all, it must not contradict, either in the immediate, medium or long terms, the priority strategic objective we have set in the field of development cooperation, that is, the eradication of poverty in the countries of the South. In summary, we aspire to a fisheries policy which is coherent with what we are doing in relation to development cooperation. A fisheries policy which, at least as a collateral effect, contributes to the eradication of poverty in the countries with which we sign agreements so that we may fish in their waters. As well as respecting our partners and their rights as owners of those waters, we must learn the necessary lessons from our experience, which led us to exhaust the fish stocks off our coasts. It would be intolerable to repeat the same mistake in the fishing grounds of people for whom fishing may provide resources which are important for their own future. This respect and coherence with our goal of sustainable development for all must prevent egotistical and conceited actions by us, and by others who, equally irresponsible, through fishing activity in the third world, brought to reality the Spanish saying which says that we ‘brought these people bread for today and hunger for tomorrow’.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this is only the fourth point of order I have raised in nearly eleven years as an MEP, so I hope you will listen. I want to ask you and those others who preside over these sessions to be much more strict about points of order. We lost nearly half-an-hour this morning and many of the points of order that were raised then, and are often raised here, are things that Members have just thought of that they would like to share with others. That hardly constitutes a point of order. I suppose I feel particularly peeved because my own report on e-Europe, which is the only thing from this Parliament before the Lisbon Summit, has been squeezed off to a time when there will be a relatively poor attendance. I ask you – and I echo Mr Watson's point of order – to take those points back to your President and co-Vice-Presidents and ask them to be much tougher. It might make you unpopular in the short-run but I think it would make you loved and admired in the long-run. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
I just wanted to check whether there will be an opportunity to discuss this issue later in the week because one of the things that has not been discussed in this Parliament is the role the arms industries are playing in the peace process in Northern Ireland. Some years ago in this Parliament, when a report was put forward in committee, I tried to get amendments through to say that the arms industry should not have a role in the peace process. Yet the only job opportunity that has been provided in Derry so far on foot of the peace process has been by Raytheon, the third-biggest arms manufacturing company in the US. So I think it is a contradiction in terms to talk about a peace process and to provide jobs in the arms industry for people who have been decimated by violence.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, there is certainly no lack of suggestions when it comes to asylum policy, suggestions which can provoke feelings either of fear or of excessive generosity and tolerance. It has, of course, been pointed out here – and I agree – that what we need instead is good sense, wisdom and, above all, a great ability to recognise the complex nature of issues. I would therefore like to ask the Commissioner whether the position of minors, in particular, is being addressed, with regard to the right to asylum and migration issues, and if so how, and whether a huge problem known as ‘Eurocracy’ – in other words the fact that waiting times for both the rejection and the acceptance of certain applications relating to what are still extremely lengthy, complex procedures are excessively long and certainly do not respect what we call human rights – is being addressed, Commissioner, and if so how. Lastly, a fundamental question. You talked about harmonising asylum laws and thus of the need for a clear legal framework and, I would go so far as to say, constitutional framework for all the European countries, for our credibility depends on this. I agree with you on this point and I hope that you will work towards this goal.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Erika Mann has given a good – if rather brief – summary of the Group of the ’ current position on the Millennium Round, so I shall not dwell on it any further. I just have two observations which I would like to share with the Council and with the Commission – and they are two sides of the same coin. These are, to be precise, the need to include our citizens in this important exercise, and to deal with their legitimate concerns. My first observation concerns the need to include the European Parliament in the forthcoming negotiations. This is not simply a matter of making a claim for this institution, and nor is it a childish desire to be in the limelight. It is a question above all, of ensuring that the problems that this round poses for our citizens can reach the European Union’s negotiator at all times, as we have seen from what previous speakers have said, as well as the solutions that these citizens expect of the negotiators. This is the only way to ensure that these demands reach the Union’s representatives. And these demands will have all the more force if Parliament presents a united front with the Commission and with the Council. This therefore, is my first observation. My second observation justifies my first request and that is that our citizens’ main concerns are heading in an apparently opposing direction. On the one hand, we are perfectly aware that this round should not result in empty words, but should instead provide a net benefit for everyone, especially for the developing countries. On the other hand, our society has legitimate concerns about the challenges that the phenomenon of globalisation poses for us: respect for human rights and of fundamental social liberties, the protection of the environment and the preservation of nature, as well as the protection of our consumers’ health. My question to the Council and to the Commission is this: how can we reconcile these two apparently contradictory issues?

Political group: PSE
There is no doubt that the proposal contained in the report represents a type of progress. On the basis, however, of the current arrangements, it has to be said that the rules surrounding the regulation on the freezing of funds and economic resources, involving the entry of names on terrorism lists, is without any form of legal certainty. The fact is that this is legislation that defines specific persons and organisations in advance as terrorists, and the content of the report is a type of humanisation of these rules. The situation, roughly speaking, is that the EU’s rules have come about on the basis of the UN’s resolutions, but the UN Sanctions Committee acts, in general, on the dictates of the United States, where the principle applies that that it is better to risk having ten innocent victims than to see one guilty person go free. That is in actual fact the principle that generally applies. What is happening now is an improvement in the legal position in certain respects, but there is a fundamental lack of elementary legal certainty in as much as someone suspected of terrorism should also be entitled to a defence and to be informed of the basis of the accusation. That is what the amendment by the Confederal Group of the is, in the first place, designed to remedy and improve. It is a question of our moving from a position of absolutely no legal certainty towards something resembling legal certainty, and our proposal is aimed at extending such legal certainty by, firstly, entitling people to contest accusations and to be given access to a basic defence and by, principally, resisting a situation in which specific designated groups are branded as terrorists, without having recourse to the due processes of law.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, may I request, if the Members agree, that we vote en bloc on all the proposed amendments to the resolution on Nicaragua, given that they all go in the same direction. I should like to say two words about why this is not a joint resolution and why the has tabled proposed amendments to its own resolution. The reason is that we held a meeting on Tuesday with a view to finding a joint resolution and the other groups, especially the Liberals and the Social Democrats, warned us that they would be unable to support certain clauses in the resolution. So we said, let us take the controversial points out and just leave the essentials in. We therefore only have things in it which are unanimously supported by Parliament. Commissioner Verheugen also clearly stated that Parliament should express a view on this matter. As the Liberals and Social Democrats were still unable to sign the joint resolution which we negotiated, we said we will table proposed amendments which water down our own resolution somewhat, in order to give Members the possibility in the end of voting in favour.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I, too, would like to thank the rapporteurs and I would like to concentrate on one question, in fact on the area of culture and Mrs Pack’s report. It goes without saying that we are emphatically in favour of a transparent and secure legal basis, but we must ask ourselves the question here as to what extent a common European cultural policy will in fact still be possible with this procedure, or are we concentrating exclusively on a procedure and the citizens are no longer so important? Take the action programme to promote bodies active at European level in the field of culture, for example. There are two funding structures, two sets of rules, one for so-called permanent organisations and one for the second area, which operates by calls. There is no question but that we want to promote as many new initiatives as possible from the existing budget allocations. But the way proposed here and which was in particular decided by the Council at the first reading makes it impossible any longer to include European initiatives that actually deserve such support as permanent bodies. As the report mentions, there is the European Bureau for Lesser-Used Languages, which is supposed to be one of these permanent bodies, but it cannot be the only one in the whole of Europe to have the right to be a permanent body of this kind. The European Youth Orchestra, the Institute in Florence, the Institute in Trier, the College in Bruges: what sort of a proposal are they supposed to make? How many European Youth Orchestras must there be to ensure sufficient support? If there is any doubt, we must join with the Commission in entering into litigation with the Council to really make support for these possible.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to join the Members who have already spoken in congratulating our friend, Mr Lamassoure. My position is similar to theirs. I feel that the report is a major political document and will be a point of reference for the Convention in its work. For that very reason, I will focus in my speech on a desire I was nurturing. I feel that this could have been an appropriate time to introduce greater focus on the issue of the regions in the future European architecture than in the latest version, which will be put to the vote tomorrow. Indeed, there has been a great deal of discussion and a lengthy debate on the role of the regions in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. In my opinion, as the volume of the Convention’s work grows, so the range of communication processes used will expand and the regions will increasingly start to take on a leading role in Europe’s development. Anything else would be a step backwards, a mere integration process. At present, we must be wary, above all, of developments which place the Union’s political vision and its relationship with its citizens in serious jeopardy, for when the citizens look at the institution of the Union, I am sure they see the regional institutions as the bodies controlling their own situations and their own wishes. We, who want to build a Union for the citizens at the level of the citizens, would certainly be doing both ourselves and the future of Europe a great service in reflecting precisely on the role of the regional institutions and on an institutional architecture in which all the legislative institutions are part of the Union’s future.

Political group: PPE-DE