GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Parliament’s major political groups reached a compromise within the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism on the Council’s common position on opening the Union’s postal services to competition and I congratulate Mr Ferber on this achievement. The postal system is a service of general interest as well as an economic activity. The performance of the postal services contributes to the performance of the national economies and certain sectors, particularly banking, insurance or distance selling. At a time when we are setting up, in tandem with the single currency, the internal market of financial services, where we are trying to provide a favourable framework for e-commerce in Europe, we cannot ignore the demands from these sectors to improve services and reduce the costs of postal services. A certain degree of competition, along with increased demands for quality services, encourages transparency of costs and contributes to the competitiveness of consumer or user activities of the postal services by giving them potential openings. I am, however, firmly against all types of full liberalisation, as the services of general economic interest play a role in the economic, social and territorial cohesion of the European Union. The European Charter of Fundamental Rights acknowledges the principle of access to the service of general economic interest as laid down in national legislation and practices. The importance of access to postal services is not the same in a country with 17 000 post offices and in a country that has barely one thousand. We must therefore guarantee that the opening up to competition will not have any negative consequences on the access to postal services in the most isolated or most remote regions. In other words, I think that the modernisation of the postal services under the guise of competition is now required in order to develop these services and, more broadly speaking, for the competitiveness of our businesses. This liberalisation must, however, be gradual and controlled in order to preserve adaptability, economic viability and guaranteed access to the universal postal service throughout the Union’s territory. I think that the compromise before us brings together both these aims and that is why I will vote in favour of it tomorrow. IN THE CHAIR: MR PROVANVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wish to inform the Bureau that, as a result of the initiative adopted by Parliament for the release of the Portuguese citizens being held hostage in Cabinda, one of these hostages was released yesterday. I wish to say, Mr President, that Parliament’s initiative played an important role in this hostage being released and that we must continue to do all that we can to ensure that the remaining Portuguese hostages in Cabinda are also finally released.

Political group: PPE-DE
I am abstaining on the compromise resolution on AIDS. The fact that the joint motion for resolution bears my name is an error. I was not made aware of the text in the form in which it has been presented, and I do not approve it. Precisely because I think that AIDS is an absolute catastrophe, particularly for Africa, I find it inadmissible to conceal the overwhelming responsibility of the governments of rich countries and pharmaceutical trusts in the spread of this disease.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, in his eloquent introduction the rapporteur referred to the importance of focus and reasserted the importance of the word 'safety' being in the title of this authority, which I very much support. I would like to stress a different word in the title and that is the word 'authority', because it is vital that this is a body to which the rest of the EU can look up. That is why I tabled an amendment in committee about the location of this new authority, saying that 'in order to encourage respect for EU law, it should only be located in a country within the top half of Member States in terms of the fewest cases outstanding in the ECJ for alleged breaches of EU law'. This went through committee without opposition and I am surprised and a little disappointed that some colleagues today should be upset about this amendment. The point is that certain countries vote for EU laws and then quite simply ignore them. This hypocrisy has to stop. By voting through this amendment now as part of Amendment No 188, Parliament would make clear that such Member States could not expect the benefits of hosting such new agencies if they are not prepared to exercise their responsibilities. This is not proposed out of malice. This is not proposed out of mischief. It is proposed out of principle. European agencies are there to be upholders of EU law and to be an example to others, to command respect and inspire confidence. This role would be undermined if the Member States themselves are not seen to be champions of the EU laws they are supposed to uphold. We have a chance today, and in the vote tomorrow, to give a very clear signal. What signal do we want to give? Do we want to say that upholding EU laws does not matter or do we want to say it actually matters a very great deal? I urge the House to give a very clear signal, a very positive signal, to vote 'yes' to this amendment and for this vote to be clear and unambiguous.

Political group: PPE-DE
Today, the European Parliament voted on a report regarding the state of human rights in Europe. The report should have concentrated on evaluating how the Member States have respected human rights, taking the EU’s Charter on Fundamental Rights as a starting point. This was unfortunately not the case. The report is sweeping and poorly formulated, which is exemplified by the fact that, in one and the same item, there are references to torture on the one hand, which of course must be condemned outright, and euthanasia on the other, which is not an EU issue and does not count as a human right, either. The report covers a series of issues that fall outside the area of competence of the EU and are not covered by the Charter. The report does, however, cover several important issues such as trafficking in human beings, women’s rights, asylum policy and the rule of law, to which I would like to lend my support. The whole assessment of the report will, however, be such that I have chosen to abstain in the final vote. - Baltas report (A5-0206/2004)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as you would expect, I voted in favour of the Turchi report, which increases European financing for cross-border networks to 20%. In my view, however, the Commission’s proposal falls a very long way short of the challenges and, in particular, of the new guidelines for its policy on sustainable mobility. First of all, if the level of support is increased but budgets stay the same, there is a strong risk of causing disappointment and of giving rise to extremely difficult negotiations when the documents are presented to us. Secondly, Europe cannot carry on indefinitely being a major prescriber and a bad payer. When we see the delays incurred in work on the projects approved at the Essen summit, when we see that today, when a new policy on sustainable mobility is being proposed which is extremely demanding in terms of public incentives, when we see that the Council has just withdrawn or deferred the six new projects that were absolutely essential for implementing the Commission’s new transport policy, projects which were included in the guideline proposals on European public networks, we can only appeal for the problem of financing trans-European networks to be tackled at last, and that our European transport policy is finally allocated the resources that match its ambitions.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this is an important piece of legislation which will really help to improve and consolidate the single market by ensuring that we do not have excessive cross-border differences about sales promotion rules. It is justifiably a regulation because it simply removes certain sorts of bans on sales promotions while leaving it to the states to pursue their own particular legal, economic and political preference in other cases. So in this sense it is an important contribution to the consolidation of the single market and my group will support it in much the same spirit and also support much the same amendments as Mrs McCarthy has just done on behalf of the . I would like to stress a few points. First of all, this is not an attack on consumer protection. Indeed some of the amendments make it absolutely clear that we want to see the maximum liberty of sales promotions that is consistent with proper consumer protection laws. Secondly, there is a degree of concern about the fate of small businesses faced with large retail organisations whose forms of sales promotion may be thought to encourage the closing down of the corner shop and the aggrandisation of the supermarket. We are certainly against that and we underline in the amendments we support and in those we supported in committee that the sales promotion laws must be seen to be wholly in conformity with competition law and with the avoidance of abuse of dominant position in markets. Given these safeguards, including the safeguards for minors, my group will with great goodwill vote for this measure today.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the fact that my seat is directly opposite yours has not helped me to attract your attention from the start, but never mind. The European Union is in need of structural reform, as we have heard, and reform of the labour market is a structural reform that will be included in the Spring Summit, preceded by Thessaloniki. However, Mr President, the labour market and welfare systems are two sides of the same coin: if one goes well – the labour market – then so does the other – welfare systems – given that the labour market finances welfare systems and vice versa: if the labour market does not go well, then neither do welfare systems, and Commissioner Solbes starts to have problems. If, on the other hand, the labour market changes – owing to either regulatory reasons or market reasons, or both – then the welfare systems must also change, because they must reflect the changes occurring in the labour market. This is why, Mr President, Mr Yiannitsis, we also need to launch a strategy for welfare systems, similar to the one we applied, some years back, to the labour market under the Luxembourg Process: national plans, consensus on common objectives, transparency, the so-called three pillars, what was not yet called open coordination but which is now referred to in this way, and so on. We have to synchronise the two systems, we have to synchronise the two reforms, we have to synchronise the labour market and welfare systems. Therefore, open coordination, obligations and evaluation of the Stability Pact are all aspects that must be clearly defined and quantified at the Spring Summit, if we want to meet the Lisbon Objectives.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is clear from the explanatory statement to the report that the Commission sees the ban on meat and bonemeal in fodder as a temporary measure and, as soon as the justifiable outcry surrounding the mad cow crisis dies down, it is considering gradually lifting any bans, never mind the tremendous problems which using animal protein as fodder creates for public health and livestock. This, coupled with the Commission's insistence on abiding to the letter by the GATT agreement and Agenda 2000, which ban any increase on plant protein crops, reveals in all its glory the hypocrisy of the Commission, which is using every environmental excuse it can under Agenda 2000 in a bid to reduce agricultural output. And the same time, it demonstrates just how far the Commission is prepared to kowtow to the interests of the fodder production and marketing industries. We believe there is an alternative to meat and bonemeal, which causes public health, livestock and the Community budget nothing but grief. Nor is imported soya meal, mainly from the USA, the answer, because it will cause even more public health problems and make Community livestock farmers even more dependent on the United States of America. The solution to the problem lies in plant proteins, which can be grown in abundance in the European Union, in Greece and in other countries in the south, and in increasing crops of legumes, beans, alfalfa, vetch and cotton cake which, along with several other products. provide some of the best fodder. But this means changing the system of prices and subsidies for both fodder legumes and competing crops. It means completely overhauling the budget and rethinking the development criteria of the agricultural economy, i.e. changing the present Common Agricultural Policy, which has caused the agricultural sector such misery, especially in the southern countries where, unfortunately, we have no alternative but to focus on certain crops, such as cotton, resulting in serious problems for cotton growers in Greece.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, first of all I too should like to thank Commissioner Busquin and the rapporteur, Mr Caudron, for the excellent work that has been done with a view to the approval of this Sixth Research Framework Programme. This document is, I believe, so excellent and innovative that it is almost a sin that the debate in Parliament should concentrate on ethics and the use of stem cells, important though that issue may be, while losing sight of all the novel, highly significant elements present in this Sixth Framework Programme. I believe that identifying the eight priority thematic areas for research is an innovative, important and positive idea; there is, however, a danger that small and medium-sized European enterprises might be excluded from the identification of areas structurally more suited to large businesses. Mr Caudron’s proposal of the instrument of the stairways of excellence seems to me to be a valid compromise, and I therefore agree with it, although I still ask the Commission and the Commissioner always to pay the greatest attention to the requirements of small and medium-sized enterprises. The danger that European research funds might end up being monopolised by large companies, which, by definition, are those that perhaps need them least since they patently already have the capacity to propose and run research programmes, is still very real. If, however, we wish to build that knowledge-based society that was sketched out in Lisbon, research must permeate our whole society and therefore impinge, first of all, on small and medium-sized European enterprises. Lastly, to conclude, a remark on the Euratom programme: I agree with the appropriations proposed in the report; we need to give the green light to the ER project, which must not, however, be confused with the nuclear power schemes we know today. Here we are talking about research and the future of clean energy.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would firstly like to state that the majority of Members in our Group are in favour of this excellent report by Mr Lagendijk. However, there is an issue which affects the very essence of this report: September 11. There is a ‘before’ and an ‘after’ September 11, which brings to light the weaknesses in this fundamentally important approach which the EU has taken towards conflict prevention. I think that we should make it very clear that we need more information on those secret services, which, taking as an example those of the United States, have been supporting a State, such as the Taliban in Afghanistan, which have later become a public enemy of the whole world. There is another issue of great importance, which also appears in the Lagendijk report, which has not been mentioned until now: that either the European Union chooses to give its wholehearted support to the United Nations and the efforts of the UN to use international law to resolve conflicts, or it will continue to be the world superpower, the United States, that makes the most important decisions and we Europeans will be virtually powerless, only able to put on tiny sticking plasters to cover the wounds that have been inflicted. This is the reason why it is important that we implement what is set out in the Lagendijk report. Another aspect I would like to mention is the importance of the economic dimension, which, there can be no doubt, is the cause of many conflicts, and we have to see this also in a global perspective. For this reason, we have to clarify certain statements, because sometimes wide-scale liberalisation can be a greater evil than the possibility of protection.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, on Wednesday of last week an aircraft of the Binter Mediterranean company, which flies between Málaga and Melilla, crashed near Málaga airport killing four and injuring seventeen. It is the second time in two years that the city of Melilla has suffered a tragedy of this nature. On this occasion, thanks to the skill and professionalism of the pilots – one of whom died – almost all the passengers survived. Madam President, I would ask you to communicate our feelings and our solidarity to the families of the victims and the injured, with the conviction that the European Commission and this Parliament are demonstrating their concern for the quality and maintenance of the safety of air transport, as the debate we are holding this very Tuesday will show, when the European Commission presents its reports on this subject.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the need to promote the development of sources of renewable energy becomes a crucial matter every time that issues such as the Kyoto protocol and meeting our commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions are raised or when we talk about sustainability in energy policy. Also, on everyone’s mind is the fact that supporting renewable energies is one of the most important ways of achieving effective results, particularly with regard to controlling carbon dioxide emissions and to attaining the objective proposed in the White Paper, to reach a level of 12% renewable energy by 2010. Since we are aware of this need, there is a set of relevant facts that we should consider. Firstly, it should be said that renewable energies currently have the disadvantage of being less efficient in economic terms, which means that, in the first phase, support mechanisms are needed which will make them viable from a business point of view. Secondly, any support mechanism that is considered must be realistic and consistent, but must, above all, fit into a stable and appropriate legal framework if it is to achieve the desired effect. In order for any action related to the development of new projects for investment in these technologies to be launched, it will require a legal basis which will ensure that the laws on which it is based are transparent. Thirdly, renewable energies are characterised by the different situations from which the various Member States are starting, which means that any solution will have to adapt to these differences. Fourthly, we must not place too many limits on the concept of renewable energy, although it does seem reasonable to impose certain restrictions on support actions for plants whose size and performance require them. I shall finish by saying that the report by Mr Turmes, on which this House is about to vote, addresses my main concerns sufficiently. Its content provides the necessary balance for us to be able to rate it positively, but our final position will depend on the outcome with regard to certain key points. I would not like to finish without congratulating the rapporteur on his willingness to enter into dialogue and for his vigorous and thorough work.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Kuckelkorn’s report deals with a very important and very sensitive issue, namely pensions. In almost all Member States the pension systems comprise three elements: statutory pension schemes, company pension schemes and supplementary private pension schemes. The point has already been made on numerous occasions that action is called for, in view of the falling birth rate within the European Union, to make pension schemes more efficient than they have been hitherto. Discussion is currently ongoing in all Member States as to how we can reform the pensions system. All Member States are also agreed that our goal must be to safeguard people’s standard of living in old age. Statutory pensions will no longer be able to fulfil this task on their own in the medium- to short-term. Consequently it is only right to extend pensions in the second pillar, i.e. company pensions, and private pension provisions. As has already been said repeatedly, the Kuckelkorn report concerns itself with pensions in the second pillar, i.e. company pensions. What do we understand pensions to mean? Again, as has already been said, opinions differ here. I intend to confine myself to this point in what I have to say. In many Member States, pensions are understood to mean the safeguarding of fundamental aspects of life. This entails covering what are known as the biometric risks, and providing financial security in old age, in the event of invalidity or for surviving dependants in the event of the death of the insured party. What this actually means, for example, is that an employee who has a car accident at the age of 35 and becomes an invalid, receives not only the capital he has paid in up to that point but also a proper company pension, because he is the same position as if he had worked until he was 60 years old. The same applies when a 35 year-old employee has a fatal car accident, leaving a wife and two children. If the biometric risks have been covered, then the surviving dependants will receive a proper company pension in this case as well, and not just the capital he had paid in up until his death. We must ensure that the concept of a pension is not just understood to mean a form of savings scheme, for a capital investment... (The President cut the speaker off.)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the news last Sunday about the death sentences issued against the four people involved in the student disturbances over the summer in Iran sent a wave of disgust and indignation among the Iranian people and throughout other countries. The shock was that much greater because many of us were delighted at the election of President Chatami and at the signals of openness, reforms and respect for human rights which he was giving out. The Iranian people could at last begin to hope for a new future and for a time when the period of killing and violence would be behind them. Following the student demonstrations in the summer, President Chatami promised open and just trials for those involved. It is therefore incomprehensible and deeply worrying that the legal process was held in secret and that the death sentences against four people were published almost en passant in a newspaper interview. The light and hope which were kindled among the Iranians following the election is now at risk of going out, and the improved relations between the EU and Iran are at risk of cooling. I nonetheless hope that the President can draw strength from the massive support he obtained from the voters in the election and that he will act to ensure that the revolutionary court repeals the death sentences so that Iran might continue along the road to reforms and the development of a civil society. This Chamber strongly condemns the death penalty wherever it is practised and will continue to do so. Offences against human rights can never be merely a matter of a country’s internal affairs. I hope that this message will also be conveyed by the Commission.

Political group: ELDR