GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party welcomes the Commission’s proposal, which will lead to increased public scrutiny of public undertakings and to increased competition. We want to thank Mrs Randzio-Plath for cooperating so well. State aid distorts competition and is unfair to both consumers and companies. In principle, the Treaty prohibits all types of state aid, including cross-subsidies. The Treaty does not, however, prohibit the existence of public undertakings providing services in the public interest. Whatever one may think about this, it is for the Member States themselves to define what is meant by services in the public interest. The Member States should not, however, themselves decide what kinds of aid they will be granting these undertakings. The Court of First Instance in Luxembourg stated as late as last week that state support for TV and radio companies may only be provided once the Commission has said that this is compatible with the Treaty. The rules must be applied in the same way to all parties. All aid which is not used to finance services in the public interest is prohibited and is to be opposed. State radio stations and TV companies now often provide services which are outside the scope of what we call services in the public interest. An example is Internet connection. Those resources which the State has injected into companies to finance their basic activities ought not, of course, to be used to finance the provision of Internet connections. In that case, competition is distorted, to the disadvantage both of consumers and of private companies. The Commission’s proposal requires companies to openly account for the resources provided to them as public undertakings and for how these have been used. Companies must also show what costs they have, where their income comes from and how this is derived from their various activities. These are very reasonable demands. Both these obligations are simple means of upholding the rules governing relations between private and public undertakings. This is important for the purpose of maintaining proper rules in the internal market.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I am sorry that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Mrs Kauppi are so negative towards the Commission’s proposal. I naturally respect the fact that many are opposed to tax harmonisation on principle. There is of course a value in countries’ determining their own taxes because these fund a significant proportion of welfare provision which, as is known, differs from one Member State to another. Even if it is important as a matter of principle to stand up for the right of individual nations to determine their taxes, this principle should not, however, be honoured to the point at which it becomes counterproductive. In certain areas, common tax rates have a clear added value. Diesel fuel tax is one such area. There are a number of drawbacks to having different tax rates on diesel fuel in the Member States. Firstly, different tax rates militate against fair competition between EU companies, for which it costs more in one country than in another to transport their products. It creates an imbalance in competition between companies. Secondly, this difference encourages what is known as fuel tourism. I have myself worked in the transport industry, driving heavy lorries. I know that drivers travel hundreds of extra kilometres to buy cheap diesel fuel. Not only that, but they attach additional tanks to their lorries so as to be able to fill up with enough fuel to make their journeys that much more profitable. Naturally, this fuel tourism also contributes to further destroying the environment. We work an unnecessary number of hours on the roads, and the number of accidents is increasing. That is the price we have to pay for the large discrepancies that currently prevail in the tax area. Thirdly, this situation, involving big differences in taxation, creates scope for social dumping. The gap between different transport costs in different countries is widening, and this makes room for social dumping. The environment, road safety, employees’ conditions and fair conditions of competition will be the overall losers if we retain an arrangement within the EU involving large differences in fuel costs.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, securing the future has always been a difficult issue, irrespective of whether it takes the form of a White Paper, deregulation, partnership or structural adjustment. It is the financial situation which dictates future development. The major topics are correctly positioned in the main report, but the report lacks content. Fighting unemployment through economic growth is the greatest challenge facing Europe. The Lisbon Summit announced the direction to be taken up to the year 2010. We must therefore expect future intergovernmental conferences to substantiate how this is to be done. Farmers and cooperatives expect the European Commission to reduce the amount of red tape in the agricultural economy and adopt budgetary guidelines based on calculation, reliability and progressive structures. The Berlin resolutions set out agricultural policy up to the year 2006. Farmers and politicians fought hard for this position. If a premature review should be necessary, because the social analysis uses different standards, then let it only be in comparison with facts and figures, and let us retain what was successful, i.e. reliability, rather than dismantling Agenda 2000 piece by piece until what is left is hardly recognisable. The ink was barely dry on the budget 2000 when Mrs Schreyer demanded a financial review and financial perspective for the priorities, together with action on negative expenditure. Unless these funds are channelled back into the agricultural budget, Agenda 2000 will be jeopardised, especially as further technical inconsistencies are to be expected. This is a policy based on rough estimates and founded on pure observation. Of course, the Balkans must be reconstructed but, overall, in a spirit of social solidarity. Then, and I am convinced of this, the farmers and cooperatives will also make their contribution.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, it is good that we now have a couple of directives aimed at labelling genetically modified organisms. However, I believe that they have come too late by around 10-15 years, as GMOs are already being used in the production of a very large proportion of our food. When people started to grow crops and domesticate animals around ten thousand years ago, they also started refining natural properties. Now we are able not only to choose between different types of plant and individual plants but also to choose the characteristics of the individual plant. It is the same aim we have had for thousands of years, but we have new methods. I profess that I believe in science, I believe in this technology and I believe that we should use our knowledge, but we must be aware that new knowledge always means new risks and requires increased caution. These are two important areas to be considered in this context, public health and possible threats to the environment. Many people are concerned. We have reason to take these concerns seriously. The consumer requires labelling, and the consumer is always right. We as politicians must take our responsibility. If one takes the environmental aspect seriously, which, in contrast to Mr Trakatellis, I do, all food must be labelled, including in those cases where GMOs cannot be detected and where they have only been used to assist production. I therefore fully support the proposal of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. I also support a number of the amendments proposed by the Group of the and the Group of the which go one step further. I believe it is extremely important that we who believe in the technology are also honest.

Political group: ELDR
At a forthcoming review of these programmes, it ought to be established that the EU’s efforts are to be concentrated upon cross-border tasks and adapted to the possible enlargement of the EU.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Minister, the Council of the European Union certainly did handle matters relating to the Austrian boycott. It is quite amazing that the country to hold the presidency of the Council, which was also a member of the Council when these matters were being handled, is unaware of what was paid to the people given the task of ending sanctions. I would like to ask the representative from Sweden, the country to hold the presidency, who was on the team made up of representatives from fourteen countries engaged in this work: do you mean you really do not know what these people were paid? If you, as a representative of the Council do not know, then perhaps you know as a representative of Sweden?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, this week – as other honourable Members have mentioned – Sara Mendez was here in the European Parliament. It is sometimes good in a wide-ranging resolution and in a broad framework to zoom in for a moment on something very concrete. Someone who over 24 years after the event is still searching for her son Simon. The military in her country took life in absolute freedom away from her, but they themselves still enjoy that freedom. I believe that it is right – and I appreciate the fact that our President, Mrs Fontaine, also lent her support – that we should support her, because it makes something clear about who these people are. Because if we eventually see the day when in the pandemonium of lawlessness the international rule of law prevails, it will be because of such brave individuals who have persevered for so long. That is why I hope that we, standing above the parties and quite apart from arguments with each other, will shortly support the amendments made on that point. A second point on the optional protocol. I should like to ask the Commissioner something about this. So 29 countries have signed up to it. That includes all fifteen European Member States. The protocol provides for children in armed conflicts to be as it were kept out of the sphere of child exploitation and child soldiery. Only four countries have ratified it. At least ten are required for it to come into force. So there is a great need on our part to say: exert pressure in the Council too, on the various organisations in Europe and on the countries to get them to sign, so that we can achieve a success. In conclusion I should like to say that I differ on one point from the honourable Members of the People’s Party. Not on the content of their amendments on the family. I very much appreciate them. There is no disagreement between us on that. However, in the context of the rights of the child we felt that the treatment of the subject deserves separate attention and as such does not belong here. We shall not vote against. We shall abstain, because we have no substantive objections to the texts you have submitted.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I share and express my sympathy for the United States and for the other victims of this terrible incident. As a former Northern Ireland minister, I have been a terrorist target and I have faced the TV cameras surrounded by the wreckage of a terrorist incident. I know, therefore, how important it is to get both the response right and also to protect the general public as far as is possible in a democracy. Like my colleague, Mr Jarzembowski, I am chiefly concerned about aviation and the mostly ordinary people who rely on it. As a member of the Committee on Transport, I have written to the chairman of that committee asking for early consideration of the implications for this important industry. First of all, security at airports and on aircraft; secondly, the control of congested airspace in view of the likely increase in military activity, the dangers of hostile incursion into European civil airspace and, of course, as he said, about the continued viability of European airlines. It is vital that we are consistent in our approach to public safety and to the collective peace of mind throughout the Union. We must not overreact, exacerbating the understandable fears of the traveller and threatening their civil liberties, but we must get it right and we must do so immediately. We must act alongside our friends and allies within the United States of America and in international organisations such as the ICAO. To get it right will require work and effort and a commitment: As Mr Van Orden said, we want to make certain that we are saying and doing the same things in six months' time as we profess to do now. In conclusion, the message is quite simple: Terrorism must not be allowed to win.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, first of all, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, I would like to thank you for your praise of the committee’s work just now and, of course, to applaud Mr Esteve for pointing out that this report was unanimously adopted and that it is the first time this has happened in our committee’s history. I would also like to support the proposals that Mr Esteve, our rapporteur, has just made regarding the amendments, and to tell you why there is unanimity. In my view, it was due to the quality of the work, but also to the realisation, since 11 September, that the European Union must not be content to sit back and watch, from afar, what is happening on the other side of the Mediterranean. This unanimity is also the result of the realisation that it is in the EU’s interest to help the African continent to escape from the chaos and poverty that makes it a breeding ground for some of the recruits to Islamic fundamentalism. We have furthermore become aware that it is now impossible for Europe to enclose itself in a fortress, which is certain to be attacked, as all fortresses are – and which has, in fact, already started to be attacked with the growing phenomenon of illegal immigration. Consequently, there is also a need, as you have said, to relaunch the Barcelona Process. I was appointed rapporteur by my fellow Members of a joint resolution for the Euro-Mediterranean Forum, held on 6 November in Brussels, and I could see that the cooperation which had developed between our Palestinian and Israeli colleagues within the drafting committee could serve as an extremely valuable symbol of hope, despite the tragedy that is unfolding in Palestine today. Therefore, I too firmly support the conclusions of the report which call for the talks that were launched by the Barcelona Process to be recommenced. These talks were intended to lead not only to joint economic and political efforts but also to intercultural and even inter-faith cooperation. I hope that they will also bring restoration, throughout the Mediterranean region, of this dimension of understanding and mutual respect which, once the difficult phase of decolonisation has been completed and the wounds accompanying this stage have begun to heal, must restore to the Mediterranean that sense of Mare Nostrum, that sense that we have of sharing with our colleagues values which are the basis of our civilisation. I therefore believe that it is not only the duty, but it is also in the interest of Europe, currently the leading global economic power, to help establish privileged partnerships with our Euro-Mediterranean partners. It is on this basis that we shall continue our work within the framework of the own-initiative reports on the union of the North African Arab countries which will be submitted to the House at the May part-session.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in the vote I registered an abstention. My reason for doing so was that the case for the appointment of this Commission needed to be proved “beyond reasonable doubt” and in my view, and that of my colleague Mr Hudghton, the correct verdict would have been “not proven”. I recognise the quality and ability of many of the Commissioners and acknowledge that the majority in this Parliament has, on balance, decided to confirm the whole Commission. We shall therefore work with them gladly. However, I am still of the opinion that there are too many doubts about particular individuals and about the leadership of the Commission as a whole. These have persisted. I cannot, in all conscience, justify to my constituents in Scotland the casting of an affirmative vote today. On the other hand there is not yet compelling evidence to justify the total rejection of the Commission. In these circumstances a positive abstention seemed to be the right vote.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The report under discussion today concerns relations between Switzerland and the European Union. Let us remember that Switzerland participated in the negotiations that led to the signing of the agreement on the European Economic Area. In a referendum held in 1992, however, the people of Switzerland voted against this agreement, thus making it impossible for Switzerland to participate in the agreement on the EEA and with the result that Switzerland’s application for European Union membership, submitted in May 1992, was put on hold. It was therefore necessary to find some means of maintaining links between Switzerland and the EU. This led to the signing of bilateral agreements. Since 1993, Switzerland has submitted a series of requests to participate in the internal market in specific sectors. Following these requests, negotiations between Switzerland and the European Union resulted in a package of sectoral agreements. This ‘package’ is made up of seven agreements on road and air transport, the free movement of persons, public procurement, research and development, mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment, and agriculture. In order to anticipate a situation in which any one of these agreements could be cancelled by referendum after the conclusion of the negotiations, the European Union decided to link these agreements together by including a standard clause in each of them to the effect that the agreements could only come into effect simultaneously and could only be applied in full. This represented a minimum guarantee of coherence. The procedure has undergone some delays in the Council due, in particular, to differences of opinion regarding the free movement of persons. In April 2000, under pressure from the European Parliament, the Council presented the single, consolidated legislative instrument to approve the seven agreements between the Community and its Member States, on the one hand, and the Swiss Confederation, on the other. This proposal for a decision combines the seven proposals, previously submitted by the Commission in a single legal instrument, with some amendments. Shortly thereafter, the Council referred the matter to the European Parliament. Only then did we have an opportunity to state our views and to decide whether or not we were going to give our assent to this package of agreements. As it happens, our rapporteur is urging us to do so, and I shall follow his lead. This is all the more important since a referendum on the agreement on the free movement of persons is due to be held in Switzerland on 21 May. We must send out a positive political message by giving our assent. I should, however, like to add a few minor points. Switzerland must indeed clarify its position in relation to the European Union. It must not be allowed to carry on picking and choosing the European policies it wishes to implement.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, as you know, I believe transitional phases should be as few, as short and as flexible as possible, and in that respect I very much welcome your reply. However, I should still like to ask you about two specific points. Firstly, do you consider it conceivable that there might be no transitional phases at all for these two countries in the three areas in question? Secondly, may I ask whether you find it conceivable that, if there are such transitional phases, one side’s temporary derogation from freedom of movement in respect of certain groups of people will be balanced by the other side’s derogation from freedom of establishment for particular groups of people?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, last Monday the Socialist Group tried to include a motion for a resolution in the agenda of this plenary sitting which would have highlighted the 50th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions, demonstrated the commitment of the European Parliament to the principles of international humanitarian law and expressed our support for the International Committee of the Red Cross. As a result of a mix-up amongst the Groups in this Parliament, and we think that this was more a matter of procedure than a disagreement over the content of the motion, it was not included in this debate. In later sittings, however, we will insist on attention being given to the importance of this issue, which has been well highlighted in the reply of the representative of the Council. In fact, the basic principles of international humanitarian law, which are contained in the Geneva Conventions, are values which must be maintained as a basis for European construction and promoted through institutional activities. In any event, the European Union must be an agent for peace and international humanitarian law and it must assist the ICRC in its task of guaranteeing that this law is upheld. Furthermore, the European Union must provide as much aid as possible to relieve the suffering of victims and we must, at last, contribute to the education of our citizens in terms of respect for peace. For all these reasons, on the 50th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions, at a time when we must all commit ourselves – Parliament, Commission and Council – to promoting awareness of international humanitarian law and supporting the organisations responsible for its protection, does the Council propose any specific initiative to promote the knowledge of international humanitarian law amongst the citizens of the Union?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, my group has drawn up this request not just in view of the development of events, but essentially in view of the fact that the President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Simitis, has called an extraordinary summit, which may be held next Monday. And we believe it is very important at this moment – and this is the approach my group has taken throughout this debate and we believe it must continue – to try to achieve a united and decisive European position in order to ensure, essentially, that the war is not inevitable and in order to achieve a disarmament process – in relation to weapons of mass destruction, in the case of Iraq – which takes place under international pressure under the auspices of the United Nations. This is our objective and we believe it is important that Parliament can hold a debate so that you can speak for us at the summit next Monday.

Political group: PSE
Thank you Commissioner for acknowledging that you understand that there are these perceptions on the part of the ACP negotiators. They could be based upon the fact that your representative said in a recent meeting that the EPA negotiations were not about development, but about negotiating new trading arrangements, and that was the mandate. That might be at the root of the kind of perception they have. The South Africans managed to get agreement that their trade negotiations would be renamed 'trade and development' negotiations. That was a key element in the success of those negotiations. Would you consider renaming? Would that not be an act of good faith with the ACP? There also seems to be resistance to making development an agenda item of the negotiations. Would you confirm whether this is, or is not, the case? Is it then the case that because you are not prepared to have it as an agenda item, that again confirms the perception that you are not willing to consider development as an integral part of these negotiations because you see it as giving the ACP more leverage in the negotiations as they go on.

Political group: PSE