GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive on public procurement now before us is supposed to reflect the outcome of intensive negotiations extending over a period of years. It appears from this debate that the opinion-forming process is not yet complete. In committee, too, we were constantly arguing whether it is possible to modify the Council’s Common Position, or whether, in order to improve it, we first have to reject it. This is a case in which I have to say that, for my own country, Austria, the advantages of this directive outweigh its disadvantages, not least because, on 1 September 2002, we implemented a new procurement law which owes much to the directive and to the draft directive. Whilst, on the one hand, the new rules modernise procurement legislation, the directives also incorporate important clarifications for their practical implementation, and the result is meant to be more transparent and fairer invitations to tender. I want, briefly, to consider four points. Firstly, the provision for the possible use of electronic media strikes me as being particularly important. The introduction of e-procurement is one of the new directive’s key elements, and from the new electronic procurement instruments we can expect sustained good progress. These instruments should, however, apply solely to standardised goods and services. My second point is that, in Austria, there is in fact opposition to the increase in threshold values, as this would go against the opening-up of central, regional and local markets for procurement and, even today, covers only a small percentage of the contracts awarded under the EU’s procurement system. We take the view that any further increase over and above what was proposed in the Common Position would restrict the scope of the directive, which is, after all, aimed at producing greater transparency and more fairness in invitations to tender. I would like to mention, thirdly, the newly introduced procurement procedures and rules for central procurement offices, which make it possible to have a system of procurement organised on modern lines. Fourthly, let me say something about the disagreement on secondary purposes. One reason why I have no problem with these is that Austrian procurement law takes secondary purposes into account, although there is no target set by law. I see it, however, as a requirement that all secondary purposes should be relevant to the contract, which means that they have a direct connection with it; any alternative is a recipe for arbitrariness on the part of the body awarding the contract and for the foreclosure of the market. If there are to be secondary purposes, they must be clearly defined, and that cannot be done anonymously. Although I do not know what the outcome of tomorrow’s vote will be, I do believe it to be important that we should get this procurement law, and as quickly as possible, as it will benefit the internal market, bring about greater transparency, and make for more fairness. IN THE CHAIR: MR PACHECO PEREIRAVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
Following recent reports that have called into question the reliability of the controls organised in various Member States, updating the rules on official controls of products of animal origin is crucial, particularly in the case of fresh meat, bivalve molluscs and milk. I welcome the proposal for a regulation and, of the new rules, I would highlight the role given to veterinarians, the increased intensity and frequency of controls, the sound scientific basis of controls and greater flexibility for small companies.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the EU is faced with enormous challenges. In just a few years’ time, the Union is to be enlarged to include almost double the number of Member States. The euro is to be introduced. We are to have a security policy worthy of the name, implement administrative reforms and, hopefully, win back some of the confidence our citizens have lost in the European project. The Intergovernmental Conference should prepare the EU for these changes. It provides us with the opportunity to adapt our work to the new Member States and to the new tasks we have before us. It is a question of finding a balance between democracy and efficiency and of maintaining the historic balance between small and large countries. These are the questions which remain following the conclusion of the Treaty of Amsterdam. It is important in these discussions not to become lost in technical details and lose sight of the goal – that of making the EU more open, more efficient and more intelligible. We must all make sacrifices in order to achieve this goal. Unfortunately, governments appear to have lost sight of this goal. The Intergovernmental Conference is making only limited progress, which is not the fault of the Portuguese Presidency. Probably what will happen is what usually happens: at five minutes to midnight on the last day, a compromise will be reached with which no-one is entirely satisfied. The talk is already of the next Intergovernmental Conference where the major questions will then be solved. We have heard this before. There is starting to be a surfeit of half-baked intergovernmental conferences. Our citizens have higher expectations than that, and we do not have much time. That is why we have to take the opportunity now. The EU must be changed in the way we Liberals have demanded, that is to say in the direction of transparency, public control, more explicit accountability, a clearer distribution of competences and a common constitution. Quite simply, the EU must become more liberal. The report includes many of our amendments, and I support these with few exceptions. The challenges faced by the EU are exciting and historic. They should inspire us all to roll up our shirt sleeves. We are in a position to create something unique: democratic, competitive and peaceful cooperation throughout the continent. Instead, however, of awakening hope and enthusiasm, present developments appear, rather, to be giving rise to anxiety among governments. One might well ask what has become of political leadership and vision.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, we are currently discussing an issue which Parliament has dealt with on previous occasions. It is the case of Equatorial Guinea, one of so many African countries which have undergone a very poor transition from the colonial era, during which former colonial relationships, on the one hand, and the ambitions of other Member States of the Union to extend their area of influence, on the other, have prevented the support necessary and conducive to the establishment of a genuine democratic system. In 1999 there were general elections to the Guinean Parliament, during which the international observers noted that human rights, democratic guarantees and freedom of information had been violated. The same situation may now reoccur during the elections on 28 May, which is why, as this resolution states, we demand the appropriate intervention of the European Union, in order to guarantee that democratic elections take place on this occasion.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I agree with what the rapporteur said and I congratulate her on her report. The issue of the creation of a European Public Prosecutor to combat fraud is an example of the problems, sluggishness and inadequacy of European Union integration. The scale and gravity of fraud prejudicial to Community financial interests is clear to all. Just as clear is the ineffectiveness of the efforts to combat this type of crime, which goes largely unpunished. The gravity of the situation was condemned by the European Parliament more than 12 years ago. Years of careful research have led to the drafting of a specific, feasible proposal for the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor to combat fraud, governed by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, with a corollary of criminal-law and procedural arrangements capable of fairly resolving the majority of issues raised by the need for a centralised criminal-law initiative and for criminal judgments reserved for national judges. The legal basis for this institution was proposed by the Commission at the Nice intergovernmental conference which, unfortunately, here too, failed for want of a common desire on the part of the governments and a European perspective on the issues. The launch of intergovernmental judicial cooperation under Eurojust has created more ambitious and less realistic expectations, while it has also created excuses for further delays. The time for delays has passed: we must implement initiatives which ensure a uniform level of protection of citizens’ fundamental rights in criminal-law proceedings and minimum rules for the admissibility of evidence, and the Convention on the Future of Europe must propose a suitable legal basis in the European Constitution which is sufficiently flexible to allow the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor to combat fraud, capable, in the future, of evolving within the context of Eurojust with wider objectives relating to the fight against cross-border crime.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I very much support the joint resolution which my group has signed up to in relation to the Summit and the Social Forum. The important thing is that once again it seeks to strike the essential balance that was established at Lisbon: the balanced policy mix combining economic, social and employment policies in an overall framework of sustainable development. I hope governments will not succumb to the temptation to try in any way to skew that policy mix at the forthcoming summit. There is one element in the resolution that causes me some concern: the second part of paragraph 10. My Group will request a separate vote on that point and many will be voting against it. Why would that be? Are we in favour of needless, additional regulation? No. The first part of paragraph 10 which we support makes that absolutely clear. It is equally true, however, that certain sections of this House, and local employers' organisations outside it, are increasingly calling for ever more stringent, narrowly-drawn business impact assessments as a way of blocking the Commission’s right of initiative on much-needed proposals. We cannot allow those calls for cost-benefit impact assessments to be used in that way. We on this side of the House support the idea of true and honest cost-benefit assessments that take account of all the costs and benefits. For example, in a debate on the revision of the working time directive last week in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, the point was made very forcibly by Liberal Members that we need a full business impact assessment. I make the point in reply that what we need is a true cost-benefit assessment that takes account of all the costs and benefits. What, for example, is the cost of a long-hours culture in terms of damage to family life, damage to children and marital dysfunction? A cost must be imputed to those things as well in such a calculation. We therefore urgently need to bring forward revisions of that sort. In relation to paragraph 9 of the resolution, which refers to opening up the market in postal and passenger services, it is important that a true cost-benefit assessment is applied there too. Finally, I would like to point out that in fact the Treaties are very clear. In the area of employment and social legislation, there is already a very clear requirement built into the Treaty: 'such directives shall avoid imposing administrative, financial and legal constraints in a way which would hold back the creation, and development of small and medium sized undertakings'. The Commission already applies those tests to every piece of legislation it brings forward in the employment and social field. That is right and proper. It is good that it takes place already, but we should not try to narrow it in order to needlessly block much-needed social and employment proposals that will help maintain that overall policy balance established at Lisbon. (Applause from the left)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr Prodi can indeed understand me, because I am sitting right beside him, so we can communicate fairly easily. I wanted to start by complimenting the Commission President on the excellent document that has been presented. I am also pleased that this document is so very much in keeping with Parliament's position and that it is also so much in tune with the Benelux Memorandum that has just come out. First of all I am pleased that Mr Prodi does not favour a President of the European Union as Mr Giscard d'Estaing has proposed. We mainly see the President of the European Union in the role of President of the Commission. These two positions must coincide as far as possible. If there is to be a President of the European Union, then it must be the President of the Commission. What seems a good idea to us, or at least what seems a good idea to me, is that the future Commission will certainly have three, if not four Vice-Presidents. For example, one for foreign policy, that could be Mr Solana’s role. One for internal security, Mr Vitorino’s range of responsibilities. One for socio-economic affairs and one for the more technical Commissioners. If you divide the work up in this way, then the President of the Commission will have rather more freedom to take on these presidential duties. We are also very pleased with the emphasis on the Community method and that there are proposals for legislative simplification. There are good proposals for this in the Convention, that go a little further than what the Commission has proposed. We think that in the future there should really only be talk of regulations, of directives, of decisions and of the implementing legislation and that will be enough. And that as far as possible everything must be done by way of codecision. Finally, we are also pleased that the Commission has not put forward the absurd idea of a Congress. We think this Congress a bad idea. What we do think important is that there should be greater involvement of citizens and that greater transparency should make citizens better aware of what is happening in the European Union. This is what the Commission is proposing. Consequently, Mr Prodi, you have our full support.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, no one underestimates the significance and scope of this summit, which has also been the lengthiest in the history of the European Union. That is exactly why we have a problem: this is an important summit and everything we say counts. I think hastily adopting a short resolution, as Mr Poettering proposes, would be a feeble, unimaginative solution. So I am in favour of postponing the resolution until January. Then we can discuss later whether this resolution should be based on a report from the Committee on Constitutional Affairs or simply on our own initiative, but, whichever, I am in favour of postponing the resolution until January.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner Fischler, the report now being debated is about simplifying the direct payments introduced in 1992 and then reviewed under Agenda 2000, at least at the bottom end of the scale. The Commission's proposal allows for global payments of up to EUR 1 000 and abolishes the complicated application procedure for small farms. We in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development support this proposal but feel that EUR 1 000 is rather low and have proposed that this limit be raised to EUR 1 500, thereby allowing about a third of all farms in Europe to apply for global payments. Of course, this varies from one country to another. I think Mr Cunha will be addressing this point. In Portugal the proportion is, of course, much higher. We also suggest that the provision in Articles 3 and 4 of Regulation No 1229/99 requiring environmental standards to be observed should also apply here. What we do not want is for global payments to small farms to be used to make savings. If a farm claims global payment, it is not entitled to increases to compensation payments under Agenda 2000 as years go by, because global payments are based on past payments. This means that these farms are not entitled to increases, which is why we suggest a 20% increase in global payments. It could be argued that this 20% increase would also be justified by revising payments directly in line with increases. We take the view that this is rather too complicated, but we do not want small farms to be punished by this regulation when payments are made. You know all about the arguments in connection with premium payments: large, rationalised farms in Europe, wherever they may be, receive a very large sum of money for their labour force. Given that such a small sum is paid to small farms, which also need a labour force, I think that the Commission should not be looking to make savings from this labour force and from these farms. Commissioner Fischler, you have proposed or rather considered that farms of this size could perhaps receive up to EUR 5,000 in future under the second pillar in that, because of how they are managed, these farms help to shape the countryside in the ecological and social sense, provided that they observe certain environmental standards. We should not therefore be looking to make savings with this regulation and from these small farms by excluding them. Otherwise we would have to advise these farms not to claim global payment, because they are of course entitled to full payment – this does not repeal the law – if they do not opt for global payment. This could lead to a situation in which this measure, which we feel is reasonable, is not taken up by small farms because they say, no, we want the full payment, even if it is only a very small amount. However, because it is such a small amount and because it only affects small farms, which basically do a good job in the countryside, you should reconsider.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I wholeheartedly welcome this sensible step to tackle one of the key problems hindering the potential boom in e-commerce across Europe, namely the difficulty in verifying the identity of users and consumers. This latest EU initiative, complementing others at the national level, will help create the right regulatory framework enabling European businesses to be at the cutting edge in developing electronic commercial services. In short, this e-commerce initiative makes A grade business sense. British business is already at the forefront in realising the potential of e-commerce in Europe. More than 13 million people now have Internet access in Britain and revenue from e-commerce is expected to top GBP 10 billion next year. The Labour Government is likewise at the forefront in creating the right environment for e-commerce to thrive. We are introducing a bill, hailed as a model across Europe, to modernise contract law to take account of e-commerce. We are improving educational standards, encouraging life-long learning and striving to ensure that our schools are on-line. Indeed, by 2002 we will have connected every school in Britain to the Internet. We will also be opening a network of IT learning centres, or ‘e-libr@ries’, right across the country. The great towns and cities of my own region, the North West of England, were built on the back of an earlier great economic revolution, the Industrial Revolution. What iron was to the 19th century, information technology will be to the 21st. And, just as the railways were the communications network that drove the Industrial Revolution, so the Internet will drive the new Knowledge Revolution. I want the north-west to regain its position at the forefront of technological progress. Through such far-sighted yet practical policies, I believe we can release the natural industriousness and imagination of the people of the north-west and once more turn the region into a powerhouse of economic prosperity for Britain, Europe and the world. - Recommendation for second reading of the Miller report (A5-0028/1999) - Huhne report (A5-0035/1999)

Political group: PSE
Madam President, the time for speaking is drawing to a close and the time to decide is at hand. From the outset of the recent period of crisis the Group has played a central role, leading from the front and insisting on greater parliamentary accountability on the part of the Commission as executive. All the trauma we have gone through will have been worthwhile if the correct lessons are learned and applied. We believe that the Commission, now to be voted, wishes to be more open, transparent, rigorous, reformist and accountable than any of its predecessors. We believe that the message is understood that such parliamentary accountability is both collegial and individual in nature. We believe the past nine months in and through the European Parliament represent a milestone in the democratisation of the politics of the European Union. Today we vote in two parts: a political resolution and on the Commission. The political resolution supported by more than 500 deputies foresees a new accord between Parliament and the Commission for the new millenium. We have promoted and support this idea. We have insisted on emphasising greater transparency, greater access to documentation and the necessity for individual responsibility and accountability of Commissioners. We are conscious of the delicate sensitivities and prerogatives surrounding these questions, but our bottom line is clear. In demanding these reforms we believe that they strengthen both our institutions in our common European vocation. The message should go loud and clear from this House today to the capital cities of the Union in particular, that the rules of engagement have changed utterly. Never again can the diktat or presumption of capitals with regard to preserving individual Commissioners be allowed to bring an entire Commission to its knees. (Applause) Collegiality cannot be a shield to cover all behaviour, including unacceptable behaviour. Reinvigorated by the crisis we have passed through I believe there is a new energy and that there shall be a new synergy between our institutions to put the Union to work. My group – the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Group – should vote unanimously for the Commission and its President. We are pledged to making a fresh start for Europe. Let the work begin. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR