GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the proposals contained in this report simply relay the retrograde policy pursued by all of the European Union's Member States on pensions. In seeking to increase the effective retirement age, in wishing to extend time at work, in proposing even to replace pay-as-you-go pension schemes with funded pension provision, the rapporteur vindicates and harmonises the attacks on workers. The rapporteur is cynical enough to observe that the increase in the number of pensioners and their increased life expectancy will put considerable pressure on pay-as-you-go pension schemes. Should we therefore wish for lower life expectancy and for a fall in the number of pensioners so as to save money? If the fruits of productivity were distributed differently, with a little less being given to employers and the wealthiest members of society so as to enable workers who have spent their lives making them rich to grow old with dignity, there would be no problem in providing an increasing number of pensioners with a proper pension. However, your economy does not serve to satisfy the needs of a majority as best possible, but to make a minority rich more effectively.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I should like to begin by congratulating all those who made the agreement we are discussing this afternoon possible. Firstly the two rapporteurs, Mr Jarzembowski and Mr Swoboda, then the French Presidency and finally the Commission, more particularly the Commissioner, who is present this afternoon. She is to be congratulated amongst other reasons because, thanks to her presence on the Conciliation Committee, a number of significant factors were introduced allowing Parliament to emerge with the feeling of having won a specific victory, namely the document we are debating today, and not with the sense of having lost a battle over international passenger transport and national freight transport. Rather, it felt the decision had been postponed for strategic reasons. I therefore feel we are enjoying a very positive and constructive atmosphere, in which we can tackle tasks such as that before us today. Undoubtedly, the agreement represents a historic step forward in line with other developments we are currently involved in or are about to embark on and are going through Parliament, such as enlargement and the final introduction of the single currency. Mr President, this decision does indeed open up the network, and as soon as it is opened, its management and rationalisation will be within our grasp. We need not concern ourselves about the time-scale of events, because the logic of events will allow us to move forward. That independent authority is important in the agreement. We are of course referring to the railways, attempting to promote them. Mr Jarzembowski said that the objective was for the user to pay the cost. True, that is the strategic objective, but at the moment we need to promote trains and therefore we should not rush things. At the outset, we need to offer incentives for transporting freight by train. To date, trains have not proved a viable way of transporting freight. Our freight trains travel 50% slower than trains in the United States and we have not yet been able to make a competitive offer. We need to improve the freight network, and the companies themselves have to be competitive as regards overcoming the difficulties of rail transport. Companies must be enabled to find a solution to sending their products from the company to the railway and once the destination is reached, from the railway to the company. Unless this is achieved, we shall not move forward as we ought. We are all certainly aware that the proposals before us represent a net benefit to the environment. We must therefore express our appreciation to all those who have made this agreement possible and congratulate Parliament on its unanimity.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mrs Hautala really deserves the recognition she is receiving today. In spite of stubborn and, in certain cases, fairly uninterested and uncommitted ministers, Mrs Hautala succeeded in crafting an excellent agreement. The work on equality within the EU has taken a major step forwards. Both women and men can now call upon the law in avoiding sexual harassment. We know that it is women who all too commonly suffer harassment of this kind. Now, we are obtaining a legal definition in EC law, and the employer is being given a clear responsibility. Many European women have had their working days ruined by men who will not take no for an answer. Between 40% and 50% of professionally employed women in the EU have at some point been exposed to sexual advances. I am also particularly delighted that the right to parental leave is being strengthened, and for women as well as men. I should nonetheless have preferred clearer wording concerning people’s right to return to the jobs they had before taking parental leave. Finally, I would once again thank the Commissioner responsible for her assiduous work. I would also thank my fellow MEP, Mrs Hautala, for the characteristically Finnish refusal to give in that she has shown in the interests of European work on equality.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, we know that talking about a common security and defence policy at the moment is, for the followers of the realist or even hyper-realist school, a type of wishful thinking. It is, however, precisely in the current context that this report, with the dose of proactive thinking that it provides, becomes even more relevant. The substance of this report warrants our support, because it is based on fundamental points on which there is consensus in the European Parliament and amongst the Union’s citizens, specifically respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law, a framework of common external policy guidelines encompassing security and defence policy, the need to accept joint European responsibilities in the field of security and defence policy, starting with military support for humanitarian aid missions, conflict prevention and resolution and maintaining both transatlantic relations and a multilateral approach. I wish to sound a critical note, however, by stating that the report does, perhaps, go into too much detail, and even includes some details that are less than clear. Where item G discusses the laws of war, for example, it is not clear whether or not it is criticising the Geneva Convention. Furthermore, at this present initial stage, I would ask: should we not be attaching greater importance to streamlining existing resources, by combining efforts, avoiding duplication and promoting interoperability between the armed forces of our various countries? For example, the sectoral distribution of appropriations earmarked for defence in each country could be improved. Some countries are spending as much as 70% or more on personnel and maintenance. They could perhaps make a joint contribution to a priority such as scientific and technological research into sophisticated systems and which generally produces results that can benefit both industry and the economy. Nevertheless, this is a discussion about extremely practical matters, which can only really start now.

Political group: PSE
I would like to express my support for this own-initiative report, which urges Member States of the European Union to be better coordinated in the fight against terrorist acts. In recent years, there has been an increase in the number of terrorist activities within the European Union’s borders and every Member State has been affected by these activities. Traditional forms of judicial and police cooperation are often found to be inadequate in combating this new form of terrorism, which stems from the activities of networks operating at international level, which are based in several countries and exploit legal loopholes arising from the geographical limits of investigations, sometimes enjoying extensive logistical and financial support. We must, of course, condemn these acts, which traumatise whole families and create a climate of terror in the areas that are particularly affected. More importantly, however, we must make firm proposals that seek to put an end to these despicable acts. This is the aim of the report, which contains some interesting proposals, such as: – the creation of a ‘European search and arrest warrant’ with a view to combating terrorism in the context of action against crime, whether organised or not, trafficking in human beings and crimes against children, illegal trafficking in drugs and arms, and corruption and fraud, – establishing minimum rules at European level relating to the definition of criminal acts and to penalties in the field of terrorism, – abolishing formal extradition procedures and adopting the principle of mutual recognition of decisions on criminal matters relating to terrorist offences, – adopting the appropriate legal instruments for the approximation of national legislation concerning the compensation of victims of terrorist crimes. Like the rapporteur, I also believe it is essential to work on preventing terrorist acts. To achieve this, Member States must continue to conduct education and social policies that aim to combat all forms of social, economic and cultural exclusion. Poverty and a lack of education help to create a favourable hunting ground, which can be exploited by fundamentalists. We can no longer turn a blind eye to these acts, which threaten the democratic future of our societies.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, while I would like, on behalf of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, to thank the rapporteur for this report, I would also like to echo the previous speaker in drawing attention to the future. The Commission’s report states that the next report on the directive must also address issues which are important to the consumer, such as operational compatibility, conditional access and how the transition to digital broadcast technology will take place, but the world may already have moved on by the time the next report is drawn up. I would like to remind everyone that, when debating the ‘telecom package’, Parliament approved by a large majority the fact that we should demand an open, common standard for TV transmitters and receivers, the only one so far approved in Europe and known as the MHP standard. This standard would guarantee a situation in which all consumers knew what applied and one in which they had the confidence to acquire the necessary equipment. It would also guarantee that vertically divided markets did not arise. A large majority of Parliament backed this view. But what has happened since then? The Commission does not support this decision, and the Council has entirely ignored the issue, which I believe is of immense importance if we are to achieve what is known as Digital Update and promote digital technology in all TV markets. I therefore hope that the Commission in its entirety can start to support the demands which have been made by Parliament and which we in the Group would like to clarify a little. The rapporteur has already pointed out this requirement, but I would like to repeat it in order to make it clear to all the services of the Commission. Some have said that ‘Television without Frontiers’ is a loaded title for the directive. There is also a special set of problems in this context. In many cases we see that the directive has not functioned in the intended manner with regard to opinion-formers or individual consumers who wish to view TV from another country. The Commission has found that the way in which copyright is handled prevents it from doing so. I hope that this issue too will be debated in greater depth in the future.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Mr Goodwill, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this Parliament has been intensively dealing with the problem of climate change for the past five years. Fortunately, our work is becoming increasingly more specific; we are now also taking real measures. On behalf of my group, I would like to state that we are generally satisfied with the amendments approved by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. I would therefore like to thank Mr Goodwill very much for his work. What we have before us is a balanced result. In the battle against climate change, emissions of fluorinated greenhouse gases must be reduced as much as possible. We therefore wholeheartedly support the committee in its attempts to tackle the biggest sources of emissions. These are refrigeration and air-conditioning installations, mobile air-conditioning installations and foam products. Two things still require some attention. After much discussion, my group would like to be a little more flexible with regard to the gases in fire protection systems. The emissions from these are extremely low and are only released in the event of a fire. In our opinion, consumer safety is a very high priority. We would like to ban fluorinated greenhouse gases, but only in cases where this is actually possible and where there are alternatives. A large proportion of emissions of fluorinated greenhouse gases stems from the use of air-conditioning in cars. We have paid a great deal of attention to this, and rightly so, and in this regard I would like to thank Mr Goodwill again for his willingness to compromise. Many people are not aware of the negative impact air-conditioning can have on the environment and our climate. The fact that the use of air-conditioning increases fuel consumption in the car is far more widely known. In many countries, including my country, the Netherlands, it is actually unnecessary to have or to use air-conditioning. It is different in southern countries. In view of the negative effects of the fluorinated greenhouse gases in air-conditioning, I would like to call for them to be phased out as soon as possible. I personally would rather see this by 2009 than by 2011. What is certainly important is that we choose Article 175 as the legal basis. Member States must have the opportunity to take further-reaching measures, particularly in view of the geographical differences and the fact that air-conditioning is superfluous in northern countries. Member States must therefore have the opportunity to discourage air-conditioning in cars. Perhaps we should go even further in order to limit the installation of air-conditioning in cars. For example, the Commission could take a look at energy efficiency requirements for cars with all the on-board equipment switched on full, as these luxury accessories in particular cancel out any improvement in the energy efficiency of engines. That is definitely not a good example of sustainable development. In short, we would like the result achieved by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy to be accepted by the plenary session, with some amendments.

Political group: PSE
One further question: do you not think it is rather unusual that through this amendment to a bill, there has been intervention in a current procedure? Furthermore, even if the outcome is supposedly a European standard, what was the legal position before? Has the Authority’s independence been enhanced, in the Commission’s view, or has it been restricted instead?

Political group: PPE-DE
The viability of the fisheries sector depends on the sustainability of fish stocks, which must be treated as a public commodity. We therefore agree with the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, according to which measures should be introduced so that pollution, waste, discards and catch by lost gear or of non-target species are minimised. What is needed is the development and use of more selective and environmentally safe fishing gear and techniques, and effective protection for juvenile fish. The FAO has estimated the volume of fish discards within commercial fisheries at between 17.9 and 39.5 million tonnes per year, or between two and five times the EU’s fisheries production, which is quite unacceptable. We agree in general with the objectives of this report. We think, however, that the solution will only be found when there is effective decentralisation of the common fisheries policy, enabling fishermen, scientists and public authorities to play an active role. Initially, as the rapporteur states, this may be achieved through the involvement of the Regional Advisory Councils, as provided for by Regulation 2371/2002, in formulating a strategy on the elimination of discards.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there is absolutely no doubt that the promotion of electrical energy production by means of cogeneration is an objective which we should all share, and for various reasons. We are therefore going to support the Commission’s initiative, which deserves all our respect, and we congratulate the Commissioner on it. Production by means of cogeneration allows, firstly, energy savings and, as a consequence, achieves an environmental protection objective, since it reduces CO2 production. There are other reasons why this method deserves our support. Firstly, by producing heat and electricity in a combined fashion, costs can be reduced, and also, if required, users can be offered an alternative supply, which, in some cases, is a way of introducing competition, particularly in those markets – as is the case in the electricity market in my country – where there is a strong oligopolistic component. Support for the promotion of cogeneration has been ratified by this Parliament in its Resolution of 25 September and we will therefore be acting coherently by supporting this initiative. But the problem is that, when we talk about the concept of cogeneration, there are in fact very differing realities between cogeneration in the countries of the North of Europe and that in the South. It was therefore very difficult to combine such different realities in a single proposal. In the countries of the North cogeneration is essentially used to produce heating, while in the South, cogeneration is a system used by certain industrial sectors which require the production of intensive heat and also reduces the cost of electrical energy. Examples of this are the paper industry and the ceramics industry. It can be deduced from this that the cogeneration plants used in different countries differ radically. While in the plants dedicated to heating steam turbines are used, and it is only necessary to generate heat during the cold months of the year, in those intended for cogeneration production for industrial purposes the heat required is of greater intensity and is used throughout the year. This means that there are differing sizes and systems, and to encompass everything within a single directive has been difficult. I believe that the efforts made by the rapporteur to encompass and include such differing realities in the text of the directive have been remarkable to say the least, and I would therefore like to congratulate him warmly. I would like to say that, in general terms, we will support the text of the report with the amendments proposed.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, could you advise us before we vote as to whether there is any significance in the fact that the electorate on this issue will be different? Two weeks ago the European Parliament had a different composition from what it will have tomorrow. Is it right to re-run a vote with a different electorate? I would have thought that there is at least a question mark over that issue and I request that formal advice be provided on that point before we vote tomorrow. I agree with Mrs Buitenweg, and my Group opposed re-voting on this matter because it had already decided. The question is in the lap of the Court of Justice. It is important to know whether procedurally we are entitled to vote a second time.

Political group: ELDR
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, External trade, Research and Energy. – Madam President, our committee covers 120 budget lines, some very large indeed, including the research programmes Tacis, Phare and Meda. The implementation of those lines has been heavily criticised in the past. My first point is about the expenditure in 2000 of the Synergy programme, which is a programme to further international cooperation in the energy sector, and one strongly supported by the European Parliament. I am sure you can imagine, Commissioner, our astonishment and dismay when the Commission abandoned this programme in the year 2000, cancelled a call for tenders already published, causing huge inconvenience, and proceeded to spend no money at all throughout the year 2000. I cannot emphasise strongly enough that this is unacceptable behaviour and that the relevant Commissioner is well aware of our views. I am pleased to say that remedial action has been taken and we look forward to an enhanced programme in this very important sector. I turn now to the Tacis programme on nuclear safety in the former Soviet Union. This has regularly been severely – and rightly – criticised in the past. It is work which is carried out in difficult conditions, in an area where slackness and inefficiency in the implementation of budgets was traditional. We note with pleasure a marked improvement and look forward to reassurance about the safety of nuclear installations in the former Soviet Union. I would like to thank colleagues from the Committee on Budgetary Control for their cooperation in helping us to undertake the very important work of scrutiny on which our committee, could spend all its time on if we wished to.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it is a rare honour to be given a second opportunity to ask questions! Commissioner, I would like to come back again to my first question, when I asked about the other Commissioners, for it may have sounded as though I was in jest. Indeed you responded in kind, as I knew you would do. I would like to draw your attention to something Mr Goodwill asked, that is to the connections we make between the precautionary principle and the world beyond the European Union. I have good reason for asking this. As you rightly said, the precautionary principle is needed in precisely those areas where, as yet, there is no scientific evidence. How can we ensure that we will not be laying ourselves open to attack at any time, for example by our partners in the USA, on account of the bio safety protocol not being adequate to their purposes? How can we be sure that those of your colleagues responsible for industrial policy and foreign trade policy, will not, as they did on the last few occasions with your predecessors, keep pulling the carpet from underneath you? That is exactly what it is all about, otherwise we might as well not bother talking about the precautionary principle here, Commissioner!

Political group: PSE