GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
For ages, governments all over Europe have been closing rail services to the benefit of private companies throughout the road transport sector, leading to the tragic accidents in the Mont Blanc and Saint-Gothard tunnels and the tremendous human and social cost of all, more ‘normal’, accidents. Today, the road networks are at saturation point, so some private investors are turning to rail in order to make new profits there, aided and abetted by both the European authorities and national governments. Neither users nor the general population can expect to benefit from the privatisation of public services. Nor will workers in the sector, who are denouncing and fighting privatisation and its devastating effects on employment and working conditions. It is true that the rapporteur is concerned about the damage done by unbridled liberalisation and suggests the possibility of opposition by local communities. However, he is nonetheless among those who see privatisation as a fait accompli and the dismantling of public services as inevitable, and who are only trying to regulate the process somewhat. As we are in favour of the development of public transport both on international routes and in regional and local networks, we do not want to support the dismantling of public services directly or indirectly, since this dismantling, even if it is regulated, is detrimental to users and to workers in the sector, and constitutes a severe social decline. That is why we have not voted for this report, and we would say once more that public services everywhere must be designed and implemented to respond to the needs of the user, not to make money for private companies.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, my question is a specific one: as has been said, it is clear that it was the Council that decided that this agency should be created in Spain, that this decision was approved and that the democratically-elected Spanish Prime Minister, Mr Aznar, accepted that it had to be located in the city of Vigo. I believe that the Commission has also accepted this, since the Commissioner has been there himself. I therefore believe there is no doubt about this. What naturally worries the sector now is when this agency will begin to operate. I believe that Parliament will have to give its opinion on the Commission’s proposal and that, once the new Parliament is constituted in July – and this is what I want to ask the Commissioner – I believe that in September – as he has said – it may be in the operational stage. If in the Autumn – September or October – Parliament gives its opinion and it is in favour, does that mean that in 2005 the agency could be operational or that all the procedures for putting it into operation could be finished, if all the procedures can be carried out on the basis of the new membership of Parliament?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I have to admit that I prefer to discuss foreign policy with you, because that is where your heart lies. The fact is, though, that you have to take this opportunity too. What I did not like about the statement you had to deliver, I think, was its failure to acknowledge that the present European social model is supported by a majority of this House. A narrow majority perhaps, but still a majority. I believe it is also supported by the majority of the European population, who see services of general interest as something different from the other goods and services that are on offer. I believe that the basis for any consideration of services of general interest is the identification of the specific interests of the general public, and here I am certainly at one with Mr Karas. In contrast to many other services, people can also help to determine, by the way they vote in elections, the range of services of general interest available to them, especially if these services are provided by or on behalf of regional or local authorities. People want sufficient high-quality public services at a reasonable price. The market may well be an instrument with which this aim can be achieved – I certainly do not rule that out – if its activity is governed by proper guidelines. The basic guidelines would therefore have to be set by means of a legal act adopted jointly by the Council and Parliament. That goes without saying, in my view, and the Commission must surely agree. We can still discuss the precise details of the legal framework, but there must be a legal framework that takes account of the special nature of services of general interest and the needs they are designed to satisfy. Our preferred option is, of course, the framework envisaged in the draft constitution. Although we do not yet have a constitution, this is the direction in which we should be moving. Far too many of our citizens are discovering that liberalisation – which, admittedly, is often accompanied by privatisation – is resulting in fragmentation of services. I have heard, for example, that no fewer than 28 companies are operating on bus routes in the city of Manchester following deregulation. All too often, the price cuts resulting from liberalisation are short-lived, and new monopolies frequently emerge – private monopolies, which are no better than public monopolies. Indeed, they are worse, because they cannot be influenced at the ballot box. I also believe that, in full accordance with the principle of subsidiarity – of which you, in fact, wholeheartedly approve – the only thing we should ask of the Commission is that it create a legal framework for public services. In all other respects, just as the clamour was once for freedom of thought, I would now appeal for freedom of structure, for the right of local and regional communities and authorities, which know best how to provide the services that people actually need, to structure public services as they see fit. The Commission should commit itself to this approach.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the Council and the Commissioner for their response, but would particularly like to point out that there is still a lack of clarity. I have several questions to put to the Council and the Commission and if they do not wish to answer them today, then I would ask them to do so in writing in the very near future. It emerged during the hearing that two companies have reported missing out on orders on account of industrial espionage. My first question to the Council is this: is the Council familiar with a number of instances of companies complaining to the Member States about orders not going through on account of industrial espionage? My second question is addressed to both the Council and the Commission: we are all fussing about encryption. This is marvellous. What guarantees are there that the encryption technology currently being developed in Europe is secure and not liable to fall into the hands of third parties? You know only too well what I am driving at. My third question relates to Article 3. Mr Woolsey, the former Director of the CIA, writes in the Wall Street Journal of 22 March last that dual use technology is most definitely attracting increased attention from the United States. I would like to ask the Council how this additional security system relating to dual use technology and operating from the United States works? Can you give an insight into the kind of special role the American Security Services will have in this? My fourth question to the Commission is as follows: there is a directive on data protection. This directive imposes obligations on those who offer services to networks, but software does not appear to have been considered. My first question is this: is the European Commission prepared to close this software loophole in the course of a review of this directive? My second question to the Commission is: will the European Commission examine the proportionality of measures taken by the Member States in respect of the permitted exceptions in the European data protection directive, as part of its task to oversee the correct transposition of European directives in national legislation? What have your findings been in this sphere? IN THE CHAIR: MR IMBENIVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
The forest fires last summer in Portugal left a trail of death and devastation – 11% of forests and 5% of Portuguese territory caught fire. This clearly illustrates the need to fund forest fire prevention measures that will preserve the EU’s rich and extensive forest heritage, particularly in southern Member States and the Mediterranean fringe, which are affected by such fires every year. Appropriate measures are also required, however, at Community level. The new forest protection programme, Forest Focus, which was approved last year and which runs until 2006, includes measures for combating forest pollution. Measures required for preventing forest fires, however, are consigned to rural development, thereby undermining the continuity of measures funded thus far. It should not be forgotten that, in various resolutions, Parliament has asked for increased funds for the forest protection programme and for fire prevention measures to be included. We therefore regret that, when the reference amounts for the programme were being adapted, the opportunity was not taken to consider the needs of enlargement, in order to adjust aims and increase appropriations. In spite of the large increase in the forest area of the EU, only EUR 4 million for the ten new Member States has been added to the already paltry EUR 61 million for this period ... (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure) - Report: Böge and Colom I Naval (A5-0067/2004)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, the Finnish Presidency of the Council has a very great responsibility. Many are looking towards Tampere with great hopes and are expecting considerable steps towards a Europe for the citizens. Here, I believe that the Charter of Citizens’ Rights is a unique opportunity to say to people from Scandinavia to the Mediterranean that this Europe is not only a single market. It is not only a single currency. Rather, this Europe is a community of values designed to defend and promote the achievements in terms of civilisation which we in Europe have fought for over recent centuries. The Charter of Citizens’ Rights can only be of interest if the method behind its preparation is open and transparent. This should not therefore entail a traditional Intergovernmental Conference behind closed doors. This Charter must be drawn up openly in dialogue with the citizens. I believe that citizens’ rights is an original theme for the European Parliament and national parliaments alike. In this regard, I am of the opinion that the Tampere Summit should make considerable strides forward and allow the European Parliament a greater involvement than was agreed in Cologne. It is certainly a question of European citizens’ rights. In this respect, we should really ensure parity between representatives of this European Parliament and representatives at a national level. I believe that citizens will only take an interest in this Charter if it amounts to more than a solemn proclamation. Citizens’ rights must also be binding in law. I hope that this debate points the way ahead as to how these rights can be incorporated in the next treaties. Open debate and legal incorporation; then we will have the opportunity to get to know Europe’s citizens once again.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I agree with Mr Harbour; Captain Zappalà and Captain Berger have indeed ‘steered us into a safe harbour’ after we were forced to pass through what were sometimes very choppy seas during this conciliation process. Let me also say that I am very satisfied with the outcome that we have reached, although – like everyone else – we would obviously have liked to achieve more. Nonetheless, we have achieved a great deal, and as a Social Democrat, I must also make the point that we have also obtained the endorsement of both the Commission and the Council. It is very positive, in my view, that we have managed to establish these criteria – as regards sustainability, environmental and social award criteria, and, for example, the special provisions for people with disabilities – and ultimately managed to secure the approval of the Commission and the Council. I think we can proceed very satisfactorily on this basis. Yes, we would have liked to achieve more in this area, but we have at least established these criteria as a means of exercising control in the contract award procedures. We have thus ensured that it will not always be the cheapest tender that is awarded the contract, but the most favourable. As Mr Zappalà has said very clearly, the most favourable is not necessarily the cheapest, for quality is important as well. We have achieved something more in this context, something I felt was very important and have repeatedly mentioned. By ensuring that the public sector has the option of deciding for itself which criteria, if any, it wishes to apply to the contract award procedure, we have strengthened the hand of local authorities. In this way, a certain measure of freedom has been maintained for the public sector in the regions and at local level, which these authorities need to be able to implement their own economic policies, and I think that this is a positive achievement. I would like to thank Mrs Berger again for her very good work. We have secured a positive outcome and we can vote for it with a clear conscience, even though, as I said, it would have been good to have achieved more.

Political group: PSE
In its communication “Women and Science”, the European Commission informs us of its good intentions of enlisting the support of women to enrich research in Europe. This is very good, and we are pleased to see it. The fact is there are too few women involved in research work in the European Union. We know that we can change this situation, in which women are underrepresented in the science sector, only by means of a policy of educational guidance which will systematically encourage a greater range of career choices for girls and, when they have obtained their degrees, by means of positive measures at the professional level. Having said this, some of our fellow Members clearly have qualms because the report by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities which we have voted on contains one point which may lead to confusion and is interpreted by some as a quota stipulating that there must be 40% female participating in research in Europe. This is patently not the case, since such a quota would not be realistic. Indeed the report does not mention the time limit for this quota to be achieved. To set my fellow Members’ minds at ease and to reassure them, I have tabled an amendment to the resolution in which we simply take note of the fact that the Commission, in its communication, undertakes to make significant efforts to increase women’s participation in Community research programmes, which is, after all, a praiseworthy goal. And why should we not note that the Commission’s communication stipulates specifically that it considers a 40% minimum level to be a crucial goal for women’s participation at all levels in the implementation and management of research programmes? It is not a quota! It is a perfectly legitimate declaration of intent from the Commission, insofar as it concerns its own programmes and not those of Member States. The latter would be well advised, however, to follow the good example of the Commission, for once, and make the same efforts in their own research programmes. People must realise this!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I would like first to congratulate Mr Beazley on his report and thank him for his good cooperation. This topic is, as my predecessor on the floor has confirmed, close to all our hearts. There are many points on which we agree, such as trust being a better fundamental premise for this common endeavour than overall control or even censorship, neither of which would serve as a good basis for cooperation. We also agree that we must advertise the hotlines more extensively in order for them to be used, as we desire, right across the whole of Europe, and in order for us to be able to establish where protection is needed. We agree, too, that we have to provide parents with the right tools to enable them, together with their children, to assess which TV programmes, computer games, and films are the right ones for their children, and in order to support them in their judgment of the programmes. On this I agree with Mrs Sanders-ten Holte, who spoke before me. This is where moving closer on a European level to a uniform system of classification for the whole audio-visual sector seems to be of the greatest and most urgent importance, as that would be a tool facilitating control by parents and young people themselves, one that could also function on the basis of trust and not tend towards either excessive control or censorship. I now come to what I believe is at the moment the most important point in connection with this ‘box’, namely that the Internet strikes many as a sort of ‘wonderbox’; they stand in front of it and are simply overwhelmed by all the stuff that comes out of it, forgetting in the process what influences can come into play, especially on children and young people, if we do not consciously discern what is heading in our direction. Let me emphasise it three times, four times, ten times over: media literacy. Media literacy – we cannot start too soon on heightening awareness of it and on playing our part in developing it. To do this, we also need not only the political willingness; we also need more programmes. For them, we need money. Perhaps we will achieve some sort of collaboration with all the players at the European level, something which is, at the end of the day, in the interests of all. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, it has been quite an adventure producing this report. Like my fellow MEPs, I am of course very pleased that we are obtaining a directive that tightens up the rules on detergents, because this is something that is definitely needed. It might nonetheless be questioned, as it was by the previous speaker, whether it is sufficient. My answer is that a much more stringent statement than the one that has now emerged would of course have been desirable. It is mainly regarding two points that I think the amendments we have tabled may be of great benefit: environmental labelling, covered by Amendment No 48; and the threshold value for biodegradable substances, covered by Amendment No 55. The demand for biodegradability definitely constitutes an important part of this legislation, but the requirement should be for this to be laid down in an actual article rather than in an annex. That would also be appropriate in the light of the codecision procedure and the European Parliament’s influence on legislation. The Commission’s proposal states that if a surfactant passes the test for ultimate biodegradability, no further tests shall be required before the substance is released onto the market. I do not believe that that is enough. The fact that a detergent has passed the biodegradability test does not make it impossible for it to have generated other metabolites that are difficult to break down and that can cause very major problems for the environment. Swedish studies have shown that detergents contain more and more chemicals and other ingredients, such as they have not contained before. It is therefore not enough just to examine biodegradability. Just a few remarks on labelling, which is something I advocate. Consumers must be able to choose. Sound environmental choices, stoutly defended by the Swedish Association for the Protection of the Environment, have led to our having, I believe, absolutely the safest detergents now being bought and sold in the world. It is consumers who, through their choices, have given impetus to this development. I therefore want you to vote in favour of Amendment No 48.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, High Representative, there is an interesting debate going on in France at present about some of the things the Prime Minister said when he visited Israel. The debate is interesting in that one of the questions it addresses is: who is a terrorist? The debate is also interesting because it is about the relationship between the Prime Minister and the President. However, I certainly do not intend to become embroiled in this debate. It is just that I wonder, Mr Solana, why no one asks what the European position is? Why does it not actually occur to anyone to ask what stance Europe takes on this issue, for surely that ought to be the all-important question! Surely a point of controversy between a Prime Minister and a President about an issue as important as this, at a flash point so close to Europe, ought to be irrelevant in view of the fact that Europe as a whole should have a position in this regard. Therefore, I would also like to ask you in this connection, what you intend to do, for example, when it comes to the Middle East – unfortunately peace will be slower in coming than we would like it to be, particularly a lasting peace – in order to expound and assert a European position, and to make it plain for all to see in this important region. This is partly the task of the Commission, but it is also a task that you must surely take on board. This is also particularly relevant to the very important dialogue with the Arab world and the Islamic world, and to the various centres of conflict around the world, one example being the situation in western Sahara, which is by no means unimportant. I therefore believe that the European Union – in addition to the military aspects, which I would like to place great emphasis on, particularly when it comes to peace in this region, which is not a million miles away from us – should have a clear and unequivocal position. I hope that, once the other important issues have been dealt with, you will also find the time to see to it that a common European position is enunciated.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this report again demonstrates that liberalisation, the free market and competition are currently seen as the universal panacea to nearly every economic and other problem. Yes, I am aware of the few positive developments in European energy policy. Without doubt, electricity prices have fallen. However, the fact that the prices of some other forms of energy have spiralled is passed over in modest silence. Such facts do not fit in with liberalisation mania. On balance, I feel that a number of very serious problems and misdirected developments in EU energy policy have not been addressed. First, I would like a discussion on the current, completely non-liberal practice already referred to of massively subsidising nuclear and fossil-fuel energy in their many and varied forms. Secondly, the EU directive on the internal electricity market must be supplemented by an EU-wide supply directive which promotes an ecological and decentralised energy economy. Thirdly, a radical rethink of the EU's promotion policy is also needed so as to promote energy savings from renewable sources of energy and regionalised energy policies, rather than the construction of high-voltage lines for a centralised energy economy. Fourthly, I should like to warn against subverting local energy operations by liberalising right across the EU, as we are doing at present. Economic aspects and the democratic strength and power of local energy authorities to act, socially and otherwise, are at stake here and must not be sacrificed to liberalisation at any price.

Political group: GUE-NGL