kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
that easy. the more divisions there are the more difficult it will be when the three institutions hold discussions.
the definition that we propose is much wider than the notion of official documents often used in national legislation. it comes very close to the concept of information in the uk freedom of information act and in the dutch law on transparency for example.
i find it staggering that when we are trying to reconnect to our citizens people do not support transparency and openness.
some members have raised doubts about whether all the amendments that my report proposes are within the scope of the legal basis of the regulation article two hundred and fifty five of the treaty.
i wish to begin by thanking the seven ministers from the eu who have declared their support for my report.
that right of public access to the documents of the institution is related to the democratic nature of those institutions.
these rules which are carefully modelled on the rules the council and the commission already apply define limits on the public's right to access to documents just as article two hundred and fifty five requires and there is nothing in the treaty to prevent the institutions adopting these in the regulation.
if you read our amendment twenty nine for example you will see that the regulation applies only to documents held by the institutions although it does set the standards that agencies will be expected to follow in adopting their own rules on public access to their documents in accordance i might add with the joint declaration adopted by the council the commission and parliament on thirty may.
that will not happen and cannot happen under my report.
i know some of you were also concerned that we went too far in seeking to ensure that member states did not undermine the level of transparency the regulation aims at.
take our amendment forty four on classified documents. it is simply disingenuous to say as the commission has that the classification of documents as confidential has no link with public access to such documents. under the present version of regulation no one thousand and forty nine two thousand and one documents may only be classified in order to safeguard the essential interests protected under article.
two thousand and one let me also point out for those who cannot witness it the sadness that the council is not here to attach the due importance to this extremely important report.
i believe i have come a long way to meet concerns as you will see from compromise amendments that remind the member states of their duties under article ten of the treaty not to stand in the way of the achievement of the community's objectives including transparency and democracy.
there is still the space to think that personal and private data will remain protected so i will listen with great interest as to why those who oppose this regulation do so.
what we have done is to draw the logical consequences from that link and incorporate rules on the classification of documents into the regulation itself.
take our amendment twenty four which refers to agencies and bodies created by the institution. regulation no one thousand and forty nine two thousand and one as amended will lay down the principles conditions and limits of public access to the documents of those agencies but it will not in itself create obligations for agencies.
mr president i look forward to this debate and particularly to hearing from those who are not so keen on enhancing transparency and public access to documents.
i should like to set their minds at rest the object of regulation no one thousand and forty nine two thousand and one is to give the public a right of access to documents of the institution which is as wide as possible.
i find it equally staggering that when we are trying to connect the institutions back to the public there is a lack of willingness to enhance public scrutiny and accountability.
our policies. we need to lead
regulation. the use of the recast technique meets the objective of better
to citizens. we need an active policy of informing citizens and making them aware of how europe wide policies affect their
text. however the commission prefers to come forward with an amended proposal when the two co legislators have stated their
legal text. the recast technique does not tie the hands of the legislator more than the traditional way of amending legislation.
triangle. i look forward to an interesting and thought provoking discussion
issue. regulation no one thousand and forty nine two thousand and one will then apply to all institutions bodies agencies and offices of the european union albeit to a limited extent for the court of justice the european central bank and the european investment bank. for citizens the lisbon treaty will mean real progress when all eu bodies will apply a common set of rules on access to documents. such a single set of rules ensures consistency but at the same time it must be tailored to fit the great number of bodies with very different mandates and
of the treaty. there are other amendments we cannot accept because they go beyond the scope of the commission's proposed changes but in some cases such amendments nevertheless point to important issues that may well be addressed in another
value. for this reason a complete overhaul is not necessary.
action plan. improved registers greater user friendliness and accessibility active dissemination and quicker publishing of documents are some examples of what i want to address in this action plan and of course continue to discuss with the other eu
the legal base we have as our starting point is article two hundred and fifty five of the treaty as has already been mentioned by the rapporteur. following that the regulation shall define principles and the limits governing the citizen's right of access to documents. as regards the report at hand i note that some amendments go beyond the scope of article two hundred and fifty five of the treaty and therefore these amendments cannot be accepted. but and this is an important but' they point to important issues that may well be addressed in another context. the commission will certainly look at that with a constructive pragmatic and open mind. it is good practice to assess from time to time whether legislation works well and achieves its
competences. i would also like to repeat what i have said on previous occasions in this house
institutions. this is a pragmatic and efficient way to mainstream transparency into all
objectives and it is in this spirit that the commission drafted its proposal for a recast of the
the following. there are some amendments the commission cannot accept because they go beyond the legal base of article two hundred and fifty five
proposal. we are committed to continuing to enhance transparency and openness and i firmly believe that this is a good way
context. also the commission is always willing to take on board good ideas in whatever context
irrespective of the choice of legislative technique the community legislator may not go beyond the aim of the
to amend. we are not in a position to accept them because they go beyond the scope of the commission's
it may be. once we have parliament's and the council's positions you will have the position from the third corner in the institutional
by example. in this spirit we should also look at ways to make our institutions and the way they operate more understandable
lawmaking. since this regulation touches upon a fundamental right of citizens it is of the utmost importance to adopt a single clear and readable
the use of documents and information is key and one of the big problems we have and we acknowledge it and the commissioner in the chamber currently is one of the best practised is to get knowledge of the eu's decision making process out there because people do not understand the process.
they thought i was the commissioner perish the thought! it is not enough to say that we give people loads of information because in one sense that would lead to a lack of transparency it just covers things up with mountains of paper but no clarity.
i would prefer that people fully understood how this place works and therefore could engage with it.
i dare say that there are many in this house who do not fully know how this place works.
all in all more than twenty million pakistanis have been affected by the floods across the whole country.
in these conditions our aid is focusing on the obvious immediate priorities food clean water sanitation health assistance and shelter.
the eu. i see three. first the pakistani floods are only one of many reminders that the impact of climate change is
there are reports of diarrhoea and cholera outbreaks.
commitment to helping people
to be left out if they are not targeted consciously. so this is exactly what the commission aims to do working with our twenty six partners.
it is also a matter of preserving the stability of a country which faces significant security challenges.
september. because of the upward trend in the number and intensity of disasters there is a widening gap in our humanitarian budget which must be taken into account as we prepare for the next financial perspective so we can match our resources to our citizens'
more than.
popular discontent can easily grow out of desperation and therefore we have to be absolutely determined to try to help people as quickly as possible as much as possible.
this is the fist time that in kind aid from member states has been delivered using civil strategic airlift capacity in coordination with the eu military staff.
now. in terms of early recovery there are two very important
in the face of a disaster of such massive proportions massive international relief assistance is necessary. so let me move straight to the next point. what has the eu done and what do we intend to do next?
profound. looking at the resulting cost it is very important to focus on disaster preparedness and also on rebuilding a highly vulnerable country devastated by a disaster in a way that is resilient to the risk of climate
in pakistan. we got twelve member states to provide in kind
thirdly the eu's disaster response capacity and what we are currently doing to make sure that it is stronger in the future.
or because of conflicts.
of course helping pakistan is also a matter of political stability in a country that is so very important for its own region and for the rest of the
about that. obviously we need to get our twenty seven plus one to
your voice'. hopefully you will see from the commission a very determined and ambitious way of approaching what it means to have a strong eu disaster response
four points. with regard to scenario planning we need to be much better prepared in anticipating the types of disasters that
i share the concerns she has voiced about long term funding for such disasters.
france and germany are important bilateral donors.
madam president as has been said what is happening in pakistan at the moment is a real tragedy and will require long term commitment on behalf of the people of pakistan and its democratically elected government for some time to come.
it could release more of pakistan's own money by taking action to relieve pakistan's international debt much of which was incurred under military regimes.
i very much welcome the commissioner's response and indeed her longer term perspective not least the link to climate resilience.
in our view the international community could go further.
it is very saddening to note that whilst the people of pakistan were facing this catastrophe their president was enjoying the best and finest that europe had to offer.
whilst he was doing that we started to mobilise and stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of pakistan.
as the civil infrastructure crumbled it was the military that had to step in.
the fact that we have been working to provide the emergency relief required is very commendable. however the emergency is still under way as we meet here today.
whilst it is ongoing we are doing what we can but we must start to plan our response for the medium to long term.
the unprecedented scale of the floods warrants an unprecedented international response.
we have a development agenda but we must also tie into this a trade related agenda to allow the people of pakistan to rebuild their country themselves as well.
colleagues i am asking really for us to be ambitious and to come forward with an eu plan rather like the marshal plan which helped to rebuild parts of europe.
that is the scale of the challenge.
please rise to it.
madam president firstly i would like to convey my sympathy to the people of pakistan over the tragic loss of lives. i would also like to thank commissioner georgieva for her devoted work in making pakistan an urgent priority on her agenda.
it took the world and the eu some time to comprehend the full scale of the disaster.
now as we understand better the needs of the affected people our response should be urgent and match those needs.
we need to provide more financial and material assistance while ensuring that help will reach everyone including minorities according to their needs.
we must also not forget that pakistan is a frontline country in the international war on extremism and terrorism.
it should be combined with help to rebuild the country's infrastructure roads bridges schools etc. we also need to take urgent measures to help pakistan in reviving its economy and trade.
enhanced market access for pakistani exports and new debt arrangements could turn the tide.
at the same time as somebody who is opposed to the european union in principle i have concerns about eu money about nation states' rights about the direction of travel for more europe.
i agree that water must be a natural monopoly personally.
works and services concerning drinking water and sanitation have been excluded from the scope of the concessions directive and the subsidiarity principle regarding the choice of method of water management has been fully recognised.
no eu trade deal has ever restricted eu member states' freedom to organise their public services including water the way they choose.
firstly the commission recognises the importance of water as a public good.
eu water policies and activities over the past decades have allowed access to adequate sanitation and drinking water services for the large majority of eu citizens.
the sdgs are at the core of the post two thousand and fifteen agenda. the eu stands ready to play its full part in its implementation both through its external action as well as its internal policies and actions and i hope that we will be able to gather momentum with all partners to achieve universal access in the not too distant future.
the initiators of the citizens' initiative on benchmarking water quality and services.
member states play a big role in the implementation of eu legislation while further targeted action by the commission is under
access to it cannot be taken for granted although many people in europe do so. the commission has always underlined that an important condition for providing access to water is the preservation and protection of water resources.
we welcome your numerous calls on the commission for action.
as your report states globally access to water and sanitation is a global issue of huge importance. fifteen years on from the un millennium declaration the statistics are still challenging seven hundred and forty eight million people still do not have access to safe drinking water
let me now emphasise again the positive impact the citizens' initiative has had on putting water issues high on the political agenda.
eu. we welcome the strong support and additional calls from this house for more ambitious action in particular to involve citizens and to provide more transparency.
treaty rules require the eu to remain neutral in relation to national decisions governing the ownership regime for water undertakings be it public or private.
it. the commission is now awaiting input from stakeholders in particular the own initiative report of the european parliament on
thirdly i re confirm the commission's commitment to a number of actions which will ensure that these principles remain at the heart of its policies and i welcome the emphasis placed in the committee's report on the importance of member states implementing eu legislation.
the commission is looking forward to further cooperation with parliament on both these important issues the follow up of the right two water initiative and the evolution of the tool.
also the call for access to safe drinking water and sanitation is much welcomed and will be taken into account in future commission work. as regards the european citizens' initiative tool itself i am pleased to note that this major innovation introduced by the lisbon treaty is now up and running and involving citizens more closely in eu agenda setting.
secondly the commission has clarified the principle of neutrality.
the report identified a number of issues in the current functioning of the instrument as a basis for further discussion and reflection on how to improve
ttip the transatlantic trade and investment partnership will be no different.
eci. this report will feed into the commission's analysis on how to improve the functioning of the european citizens' initiative and make the tool as effective as possible.
way. we all have to play together in ensuring full compliance with eu water legislation thus helping to ensure access to clean water and sanitation for all citizens throughout the
this is a cornerstone of eu environment policy. the eu directives on drinking water and urban wastewater treatment as well as the water framework directive set the standards for water and sanitation and provide the basis for integrated water resource management.
the commission is carefully considering them in the context of a number of actions for example in the evaluation of the drinking water directive the preparation of the water re use initiative and the upcoming review of the water framework directive and the ongoing dialogue with the stakeholders including
and. two five billion people lack access to basic levels of sanitation. therefore i welcome sustainable development goal six which aims to ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.
the commission will build on existing legislation and policies to continue to increase and improve access to safe drinking water and sanitation for the whole population through environmental policies and infrastructure funding.
as the commission has made clear in its response to the initiative water is not a commercial product like any other but rather a heritage which must be protected defended and treated as such.
challenges remain.
i wish to reaffirm the commission's position on the importance of the human rights dimension of access to safe drinking water and sanitation including within the eu itself.
to conclude i would like to add an important element.
however there is still clearly room for improvement.
this also applies to trade deals.
the provision of water services is in general the responsibility of the local authorities as they are closest to the citizens.
given that this was meant to be parliament's opportunity to respond to the right two water eci it will reflect incredibly poorly on us as the supposed voice of european citizens if this alternative motion is passed which is not supported by the right two water campaign.
they have deleted so many positive aspects of the report that it has gone from thirty seven pages to a nine page document which reads more like an epp position paper supported by the tories than an honest response to the almost two million citizens who signed this
in my home country ireland which you will be familiar with yourself madam president the introduction of flat rate regressive charges has resulted in some of the largest protests the country has ever seen.
it is critical that the commission respect the member states' right to organise their water services as they see fit.
irish people should not have to submit to an unjust double taxation which will also affect the poor the hardest.
in other words water services previously run by private companies are being brought back under public management due to the abject failures of privatisation in the water sector.
madam president. the right two water european citizens' initiative was the first successful example of this democratic mechanism and it reached almost double the minimum requirements with a staggering. one eight million signatures. it is clear that the human right to water is an issue of great importance for citizens across europe.
profits should not be made on public goods such as water.
in this report i have tried to better answer the citizens who are still waiting for proper action from the eu.
i can see that they have worked very hard to disguise their sham but if anyone reads the two reports it is clear where their ambitions lie.
gone is the call for the human right to water to be enshrined in legislation and gone is any criticism of the privatisation of water services.
gone is any criticism of the commission's failure to respond to the campaign.
this was a key demand of the right two water eci and it has been roundly ignored by the commission so far.
they have removed the call for the commission to remain neutral on the question of ownership and not to promote privatisation of water services. indeed the whole motion is very private sector friendly so much so that the original call for water services to be removed from ttip is completely missing.
they have worked wormholes through the report to weaken it beyond any recognition.
i have called on it in this report to rectify the situation. i have recognised that the provision of water services is a natural monopoly where competition amongst private operators has not worked does not work and will never work.
ownership and management of water services are clearly key concerns for citizens and cannot be ignored.
water is a public good and should never be commodified.
it is pitiful that the commission had not come forward with legislative proposals enshrining water as a human right and a legal requirement across the european union.
i would like to express my thanks for the support from the right two water campaign itself and the support of meps in the more progressive groups but i am extremely disappointed with the epp group which along with the ecr has produced an alternative resolution which strips the strong and progressive aspects from my report.
given that ireland previously had what was considered one of the most progressive forms of paying for water through general taxation this anger is understandable.
all revenues must be reinvested into improving infrastructure of water service and not go to shareholders or executives' pay.
indeed across the world we have experienced a growing rise in the remunicipalisation of water services.
the eci was meant to show citizens that the eu is willing to re engage with them on matters which are important to them.
ask you to join me in apologising to all of those people who were stuck on that train?
it wastes our time it wastes money and it brings this institution into disrepute.
mr president please can we ask you to talk to the president of this house and ask him to bring it up again with president tusk and look again at the treaties to reflect the will of this house and give us a single seat in which to work?
but it's not just that train.
i think she's living in another world on another planet.
it was one of my top priorities. president juncker mandated me and i want to thank him for this to come forward with concrete proposals next month on how together with our member states we can do
support is subject to fulfilling two conditions.
i would like to be very sincere sometimes it was too little and too late.
october. for the recent fires in spain notably in galicia the damage has not been fully assessed
the truth is that national capacities alone are not enough.
southern europe has been very exposed.
helping member states affected to fight forest fires has been a priority for the european union.
climate change makes weather conditions more extreme in natural disasters more often.
in the last decade;
the proposals will be on the table before the end of november.