GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, in common with other speakers, I should like to begin by emphasising the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and to reduce the effect upon the climate. The present resolution is a good one but, following the discussion by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, two flaws have become apparent. Firstly, there is a reference to nuclear power which is not directly connected to the resolution’s main purpose. In my opinion, it would have been better to leave out completely the lines about nuclear power in the resolution but, since this has not been done, I would ask to support Mr Liese’s amendment. Secondly, the resolution is deficient when it recommends general energy taxes and carbon dioxide taxes. The majority of the Group of the European People’s Party and have their doubts about an EU tax of this kind and, on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, voted against the proposal in this part of the resolution. General taxes on industry are a blunt instrument for obtaining measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. To present energy taxes as the most important measure is simply to engage in empty rhetoric. I believe instead that we should be encouraging the individual EU States to take responsibility for achieving the required level of reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. It is therefore up to the individual Member States to find the most effective tools, best suited to their own national circumstances, for achieving the objectives in question. Specifically targeted charges on carbon dioxide emissions should be more effective than general taxes, but there are also other options for individual Member States. If need be, general EU taxes can be given an overarching dimension. In my opinion, the prerequisites for devising tax instruments and tax legislation differ very considerably from one EU country to the next. By supporting the proposal for EU taxes in the energy sphere, I do not want to be a party to adopting a principle which limits the individual EU countries’ autonomy in tax matters. There are members of the Group of the European People’s Party and who, because of the above-mentioned contents of the text of the resolution, intend to vote against the resolution in its entirety. I personally am going to vote in favour of the resolution, but with the reservations I have just mentioned.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the problem which needs to be addressed is the violation of existing provisions relating to working conditions in the field of freight transport and our objective, of course, is to stamp out and drastically reduce these violations. We all recognised in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism that the European Commission's proposal was generally positive, but that there was room for improvement. Our rapporteur handled the subject extremely well, demonstrating how close he is to transport workers. He knows and understands their problems which, in this case, relate directly to road safety and concern us all. The combination of this awareness and a sense of moderation mean that the proposed measures have been addressed realistically and without overreacting. In our opinion, the volume of controls required needs to stand in logical proportion to the volume of results anticipated. Our committee took precisely this approach to the proposed amendments. We also took account of the need for maximum possible harmonisation between social provisions in the field of road transport in the Member States, the opportunities offered by modern technology in connection with the subject of controls, the statistics available to us, the views already expressed by the European Parliament about better application of current social provisions and the views of the social partners. Of course, we must remember that we still expect the Council to submit a common position on the regulation harmonising social provisions in the field of road transport. Congratulations once again to both the European Commission and Mrs de Palacio and our rapporteur Mr Markov.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am sorry that Graham Watson is not present, because I wish to begin by paying tribute to his work on these two reports, in his capacity as chairman of the Committee on Public Freedoms, Citizens’ Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. As I have inherited this position, I feel, if possible, even more obliged to acknowledge the work that has been undertaken. I agree fully with what he has said, but with one important difference. We are talking about minimum guarantees of procedure as if there were none. There are, and although they are not common, which is the case in many areas, they are equivalent. They are also adequate for the time being. Not having – as European citizens who wish to establish a common area of justice – to become involved in discussing how to improve these guarantees is another matter altogether. We must make a clear distinction between the two issues. The Group of the European People’s Party , together with the Socialist Group, will vote against these amendments, not because we are against the issues, as some speakers have claimed, but because we must make it clear that all Member States have minimum guarantees of procedure which are adequate and equivalent. We must, therefore, act on the basis of this trust. We all want to be more ambitious for the future, however. The European Union flies the flag of human rights and guarantees and, therefore, when we establish this area of justice, we shall do so resolutely, in the committee that I chair and in this Parliament, as far as we can in this legislature. We will never consider it to be enough.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, the recent statement by the American representative in the WTO is without a doubt the only new piece of information that we have learnt since our last discussion. I think it is an interesting statement, because it seems to indicate a change of attitude on the part of the United States and suggest that it will be possible to relaunch the negotiations in the WTO. It also comes on top of the initiatives that the Commission itself has taken with a view to relaunching these negotiations. But relaunching them does not mean letting go, facilitating does not mean abandoning everything, and I have to confess that after listening to this morning’s interventions I am a little concerned at the attitude expressed by a number of our Members, in particular on the Singapore issues. We have always said here in the European Parliament that we are in favour of regulated trade facilitation. We are in favour of liberalising trade subject to certain standards and rules, and it is clear that the Singapore issues will force the World Trade Organisation to lay down a number of rules. It is regrettable that they omit certain aspects. Personally, I would have liked social issues to have been taken into account in this context, but in Doha we were obliged, under pressure, to abandon the corresponding standards. What worries me is that we now seem to want to abandon the Singapore issues too. What chance do we have, if we adopt this position, of seeing social issues and the like reappearing on the negotiating table, if the few areas that had been accepted as a potential basis for negotiation are abandoned today? I believe that the European Union has, through you, taken a series of initiatives with a view to facilitating matters. I think that we should leave it at that. The purpose of today’s debate is not to reopen the Doha negotiations but to apply all of the agreements, including those on the issues that concern us and that affect the kind of globalisation that we want to develop.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has considered this dossier in very great depth, having been privileged to follow the development of postal services in the past, and having the hope of being able to do so in the future as well. It was for this reason that we examined the possibility of introducing VAT in the liberalised working conditions for which we are all striving, and I hope that we will have completed this important task by the end of the decade. Let me start by saying that the proposal that the Commission has put forward is a serious attempt at resolving this problem, but that, at the same time, it is true that good things can still be improved. That was the approach that the Committee on Regional Policy took, and there are, essentially, three things that I would like to address. The first is that, in principle, we wanted the minimum VAT rate of 5% to apply to postal services. We are aware of the legal problem involved in certain Member States being required to introduce what would be their fourth rate of VAT. We also take the view that this needs to be handled with particular care. Secondly, consideration should be given to what upper weight limit would apply to a reduced rate of VAT. The Commissioner was right to refer to the obligation to provide a universal service, but there is also the Universal Postal Union Convention, which also describes the consumers’ rights, and we therefore propose, taking the Convention as our guide, the provision of reduced rates of VAT on the sending through the post of items up to 10 kg. Thirdly, we propose that the entry into force of the directive should be harmonised with the further liberalisation of postal services scheduled for 2006. The Commission should, following a study of this issue, draft and submit proposals on the subject to Parliament and the Council of Ministers for their consideration. I would be glad if these proposals by the Committee on Regional Policy could be taken on board.

Political group: PPE-DE
I wish to record my support for this report, which contains a sombre assessment of the economic situation facing us and seeks to prioritise responses to that situation. I also regret the failure to date to achieve the targets set by the Lisbon European Council for sustainable growth, full employment and social inclusion. It is vitally urgent that every single Member State takes real steps, now, towards achieving the Lisbon targets. Their performance so far is absolutely unacceptable. I refer to the Commission findings 'Delivering Lisbon' published only last month, showing that Member States' average transposition rate for the 40 directives which should have been transposed by the end of 2003 was only 58.3%. Only 7 out of the 40 directives had been transposed by all Member States! So there can be no doubt that we badly need the Member States to address the demands in this report – particularly those related to the need for more jobs, especially better quality jobs, social cohesion (as a key objective of the European Employment guidelines) and more investment in research and development.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, yesterday, the European Parliament decided by democratic majority no longer to convene in Strasbourg on Fridays. You subsequently issued a press release in which you expressed your regret about this. You have, of course, every right to do so. Everyone has their own personal and political responsibility. It is, however, somewhat confusing if the President of the European Parliament expresses regret regarding one of Parliament’s democratic decisions and if she does so on Parliament’s official letter-headed paper, with a reference to the services of Parliament. I would ask you not to cause any confusion when you have to carry out your personal responsibilities vis-à-vis your electorate – which is something we all understand – and to do so on your own letter-headed paper.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to draw your attention to something regarding which the Member States here in the European Parliament do not enjoy equal status. Parliament’s Visitors Service is its calling card for the public. Each Member State should have its own permanent official working in the service, who speaks the language of that Member State and can explain to visitors how Parliament works. Parliament has now taken the decision not to have a permanent official who speaks Finnish. Finnish will be the only language not used by any permanent official to give explanations to groups of visitors regarding the work of Parliament. This, I believe, is discrimination against one Member State and one language. It is not in the interests of Parliament if all languages do not have equal status and if one language is merely catered for by temporary assistants or officers, instead of having senior officials telling visitors what happens in Parliament. I hope you will be able to do something about this situation and that the Finnish language will enjoy equal status with the other languages.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, I too would like to express my gratitude to Mrs Paulsen for the good cooperation. The outcome is a respectable one. I believe that what have before us is a good regulation, one that meets Parliament's requirements arising from the committee of inquiry into BSE. The main reason why this is important is that we are not just talking about feeding methods or about the authorisation of feed subject to certain conditions; it is also being made clear what happens to those things that cannot be used in feed. Rules are therefore laid down on destruction. That is what we must also achieve when it comes to the area of food waste. A simple prohibition will not suffice, as it is not known what will then become of the stuff. As I have always said, you can't just chuck the stuff in a ditch. It is precisely then that it becomes hazardous, when, unsterilised and unmonitored, it can find its way to animals, possibly leading to the spreading of plague and foot and mouth disease. But not if it is sterilised. I am glad the Commission has acceded to this proposal and said that it will, by 2004, present a directive – and yes, Mrs Keppelhoff-Wiechert, I too think it should be a regulation – on biowaste, in which it will lay down rules on all the possible uses of food waste, including its use as feed. It is unfortunate that the compromise we reached has not been minuted. As it will be the next Parliament that will have to negotiate about it – and things are forgotten very quickly – I will be distributing a note for the records which you can have a look at. We may be able to sign it, and then give this a permanent place as what we want as regards the handling of this issue in the next Parliament.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the predominantly Romanian-speaking region that was previously known as Bessarabia and is now called Moldova was part of Romania between the two world wars, but belonged to Russia before and afterwards. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the same national colours were chosen as those of the Romanian flag, and many thought about a return to Romania. Since then, the country has been torn apart by diverging opinions on its political future. Many within the two conflicting population groups support an old-fashioned kind of authoritarian communist, in whom they see their best chance of survival despite their low incomes. That is the only thing they do agree on, however. The minority who speak a Slavonic language, principally in the narrow strip of land on the eastern bank of the river Dniester, want to preserve the traditional strong bond with Ukraine, Russia and Belarus. The Romanian-speaking majority in the rest of the country would probably have joined Romania long ago if that country did not lag so far behind western Europe. The way that Romania is now, few consider joining that much larger country a matter of urgency. Within Romania, too, endeavours to regain Moldova have become less urgent. When I visited Romania last year, I even heard a Romanian member of parliament state proudly that Romania is the only country that is still adhering properly to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, which established the new western borders of the Soviet Union on the eve of the Second World War. The European Union must be careful that it does not appoint itself guardian of that short-lived agreement between Stalin and Hitler for eternity. The two conflicting population groups within Moldova once agreed to part company peacefully if the majority were to join Romania. It would therefore be prudent to take account of the possibility of the river Dniester becoming the frontier between Romania and Ukraine again in the future. That is another eventuality that we should keep in mind.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, a shadow is passing over Europe, in whose darkness is hidden a mixture of stale chauvinism, racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and classic European nationalism. Europe has seen it before, but all too often reacted too late. What has happened in quite a few of our Member States should give us established politicians pause for thought. What responsibility do we bear for the fact that xenophobic parties are growing in strength in country after country? This has a very great deal of bearing upon Mr Hernández Mollar’s report. The EU, which places a high value upon fundamental human rights, must also be able to conduct a refugee and asylum policy based on precisely the same principles. Lanzarote is not the only example. There are many more. The refugee policy conducted at present by the Member States is inhumane. The latter are tightening up policy in a vain belief that this should ease the problems, make integration a smoother process and lead to fewer people reaching our borders. I believe that the Commission’s proposal on minimum standards for the reception of refugees is very significant. I am also pleased that it was possible for the committee to accept a number of improvements from the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, such as better access to education and work and a situation in which greater account is taken of the conditions under which children and families live. Of particular importance is the committee’s proposing that the scope of the directive be extended beyond the requirements of the Geneva Convention. That does not, however, mean, as Mr Pirker maintains, that we are undermining the right of asylum. Precisely the opposite is the case. I wish to thank Mr Hernández for his constructive cooperation. I had hoped that he might have been able to support the report in its entirety today. In conclusion, I want to emphasise that it is especially important for us to show today that we are not following the Member States’ stricter line. If we obtain broad agreement today, the message to Le Pen and his kind is clear: you will never be victorious.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I too welcome with great satisfaction the measure being debated today, precisely because it satisfies a series of requirements which are known, I see, to all the MEPs who have decided to discuss it in the Chamber this morning. The first ground for satisfaction is the fact that this report marks a return to research in sectors such as the pharmaceutical sector, where Europe does too little. In my opinion, the Sixth Framework Programme and the resources which have been made available under this programme bear witness to Europe’s desire to commit substantial resources to research in this sector, which not only has economic value but social and political value too. It is not by chance that holding patents and having the possibility to produce medicines and being able to influence their cost, particularly in developing countries, means being able, on the one hand, to press ahead with a development policy for us, and on the other, an aid policy for developing countries. Many of the Members have stressed how this research, which proposes to help combat diseases by increasing knowledge in order to produce new drugs and to improve existing ones, combines with other policies which we, as Europe, must press ahead with in the education and employment sectors, because education, employment and health are the only factors which can contribute to the achievement of democracy in those countries which see Europe as an increasingly firm point of reference.

Political group: PPE-DE
The report deals only with those distortions of competition that are liable to be detrimental to the private enterprises that are taking over the postal sector; in no way does it reflect the interests either of users or of postal workers. For over a century, the European states have established public postal services that worked in more or less acceptable fashion until criteria of public service began to give way to those of profitability. The efficient running of public services, and of the postal services in particular, has for some considerable time been one of the most reliable indicators of a country’s level of development, and, dare I say it, of its level of civilisation. It was precisely because the postal services were to some degree sheltered from competition and from the pursuit of profit that they were able to perform their role; it was because they did not exist to be profit-making but to provide a service that they served the most secluded villages and criss-crossed the land with a dense network of post offices. Such is the progress that both the nation-states and the European institutions are engaged in systematically demolishing. We are absolutely opposed to this exercise in the destruction of public services, which is both regressive and socially unjust. To this fundamental reason for voting against this report, we would add another, namely that we are indeed opposed to VAT and hence to it being applied, as also to the price increases that it will entail, and from which users on lower incomes will suffer most. (Applause) IN THE CHAIR: MR PACHECO PEREIRAVice-President

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we agree with the need to strengthen the Commission's external service and support Mr Galeote's evaluation of the Commission's communication. This report is in line with the priority shared by the majority of my group and of Parliament: to improve the European Union's presence on the international scene. We see the development of an external service as an instrument to strengthen the EU's foreign policy, although of course we still have to educate our national services in some respects. Among the most embarrassing experiences I have had as an MEP travelling outside the European Union were those very funny meetings with the ambassadors of Member States where the Union delegate is still seen as an external element or, at best, as a sort of trade or economic attaché. We are happy that the Galeote report includes our amendment asking the presidency-in-office to take some responsibility for verifying the willingness of Member States' embassies to cooperate with the EU delegations and enhance their role for creating a real common European voice. An improved Commission external service will bring the greatest benefits if we manage to set up a real common foreign and political service at European level. The first step in this direction would be to make Mr CFSP part of the Commission: this is necessary if we are to have a common voice in the world.

Political group: Verts-ALE