GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Heralded as ‘a stage further in the opening of postal services to competition’, the Council wants the European Parliament to approve a directive which constitutes another step towards doing away with the public postal service. The policy of the national governments and the European institutions is a reactionary policy that is harmful both to users and to workers of this sector, which is faced with further job losses. We reject the Council’s draft text, which serves the interests of private companies that will share between themselves the profitable sectors of the postal services and leave the public sector with the scraps that are incapable of properly fulfilling social needs. We also reject the compromise amendments that are designed to mask the hypocrisy and our capitulation before private interests. We would like to reiterate that postal services must remain a public service, to which everyone has access under the same conditions, whatever their location and whatever their social situation. We are against a two-tiered postal system, we are against private profit gained from users and we call for a stop to opening up the postal service to private providers.

Political group: GUE-NGL
This debate on air quality concerns the particular problem of ozone in ambient air, as set out in the Davies report. All the experts agree that it is essential to raise standards of air quality so that people throughout the European Union are protected effectively against health risks posed by ozone in ambient air. The various health effects of ozone include irritation to eyes, nose and throat, difficulty in breathing, coughs and headaches. Ozone also contributes to asthmatic attacks, impaired lung function and increased bronchial reactivity. In the long term, this can even cause premature ageing of lungs. These facts are frightening to say the least, which is why I warmly welcome this proposed directive. It aims to amend the existing Community legislation on ozone in accordance with the requirements of Council Directive 96/62/EC on ambient air quality assessment and management. It sets long-term objectives and interim target values for ozone in ambient air. It also introduces a framework of standards to protect human health and the environment. Finally, it requires Member States to monitor ozone concentrations and to report the results to the public. The directive will therefore provide a benchmark for the levels of ozone in ambient air. In setting long-term objectives, the Commission proposes to use the 1997 World Health Organisation air quality guidelines. The ultimate aim is to prevent these long-term objectives being exceeded and thereby avoid harmful effects on human health and the environment. However, the Commission’s proposals do not set a deadline for this to be achieved. This is to be regretted. As a first interim step, target values are set. The aim is to achieve these, as far as possible, by 2010. These are also based on the WHO guidelines, but it is accepted that these will be exceeded on a number of days each year. It must be pointed out that the Commission proposal does not take account of any changes which may result from the Community’s climate change commitments. These currently call for an 8% reduction in a range of greenhouse gases. Success in meeting these commitments should enable Member States to be more ambitious regarding target values for the reduction of ozone levels. To conclude, I am fairly satisfied with the text of this proposed directive as it takes an important step towards attaining the ultimate goal set out in the fifth Environmental Action Programme of never exceeding critical levels of ozone in ambient air. – Myller report (A5-0063/2000)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, a society that calls itself civilised and that prides itself on its defence of human rights cannot accept as inevitable the high maternal and child mortality rates of the developing countries and the suffering of so many women. Therefore, within the framework of a global policy to combat poverty, the aspects relating to sexual and reproductive health demand special attention. Hence the need for a proposed regulation of the type we are debating, in the understanding that, when we talk about the right to sexual and reproductive health, we are talking about the right to health services which ensure safe pregnancy and birth, for both mother and child. We are talking about the right to information and guidance on family planning methods which are safe and acceptable to everyone, the right to an education which teaches people to live their sexuality in a responsible manner and to combat sexually-transmitted diseases, particularly AIDS. Under no circumstances must this Regulation – and this is what I believe – open the door to the practice of abortion in the developing countries, and this is not for religious or moral reasons and far less for sectarian reasons. It is a question of prioritising the right to life, particularly the lives of the most vulnerable beings, because this right is more important than any other and is the basis and the principle on which all other rights stand. Therefore, within the framework of the fight against poverty, it is very important that the Community commit itself to carrying out actions in the field of sexual and reproductive health in line with the proposals of the Sandbæk report, because these actions are instruments intended to drastically reduce maternal and child mortality and to prevent, as a consequence, the resort to abortion, since they are also instruments intended to protect the right to life and health. And I would hope, Commissioner, that you also share this approach. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I can only agree with Mr Lehne. Cooperation between the European Union and the Russian Federation is of enormous importance, and important matters were discussed at the summit, too. I really cannot, however, to be honest, share the optimistic account Mr Sasi has just given of present circumstances and future development within the Russian Federation. (Applause) When I examine the Joint Declaration of the Summit on Chechnya – the most important matter at the moment in our cooperation with Russia – I see that it says that the European Union and the Russian Federation exchanged viewpoints about the situation in the North Caucasus. In fact, that really cannot be all there is to say. Any cooperation with Russia is at present overshadowed by the war in Chechnya. There are already 180 000 refugees in Ingushetia and Dagestan. Aid organisations cannot work there. Thousands of refugees are no longer permitted to leave the country, and the Russian government is not prepared to talk. We need a political solution. I am of the view that the European Union must attach more weight to discussions. We have an interest in cooperating with Russia. Naturally, we need Russia, for example in Kosovo. But Russia in turn needs us, that is to say it needs the European Union. I think that consideration might be given to whether, in negotiations, the following might be said: we must consider whether, if no political solution is sought and found in Chechnya, we ought in fact to block credits or cancel aid – other than forms of humanitarian aid – for Russia. (Applause) In the European Parliament, we did not ratify the partnership agreement in the case of the first war in Chechnya. Now, at a summit which has become significantly more explosive politically, we are still only talking about exchanging opinions. In its efforts to achieve greater weight for its foreign policy, the European Union should not permit this. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, if Europe is to grow, attract capital and create jobs, the single market for financial services must be turned into a reality. Up until now, it has mostly been a matter of words and all too few concrete measures. At present, the financial services market and, through this, Europe’s power to grow have been impeded by countless national regulations and administrative complications. These are detrimental not only to companies but also, of course, to Europe’s citizens. The development of the Internet is, and will be, of great importance to the provision of financial services across national borders. Above all, it is consumers who will benefit from this development because they will have greater choice and access to lower prices. We Liberals do not regard tax harmonisation as a prerequisite for bringing the single market for financial services to fruition, even if a degree of harmonisation may prove to be necessary to avoid harmful competition over taxes. The euro has stabilised economic development and provided better opportunities to reduce the costs of acquiring capital, something which benefits both companies and private households. It is my conviction that, if the EU is to be able to provide Europe’s citizens with growth and strength, then all Member States must participate fully in the EU project, that is to say, be members of EMU. Mr Romano Prodi’s statement today in a Swedish newspaper to the effect that Sweden could stay outside EMU is therefore both surprising from an economic point of view and doubtful in terms of the Treaties. The Commission’s Green Paper on liberalising complementary forms of pension protection is something we welcome. It is nonetheless important to emphasise that pension cover in Europe is characterised by national diversity and that there is no need to harmonise the various systems in order to create a single market. It is important that a large number of systems should exist side by side. This increases choice and diversity. However, it is desirable, in order to avoid double taxation, to introduce a minimum degree of harmonisation in regard to the Member States’ treatment of supplementary pensions for tax purposes. I also consider that the Member States themselves should be able to determine what the system should look like, for example whether or not the care of relatives should be covered by pensions. This is an issue which can be resolved better at national level. In committee there was lively discussion on biometric risks. Views were put forward to the effect that only those systems which cover risks of this kind are to be included under the directive. We do not believe that this should be the case, especially in view of the need for small and medium-sized companies to be able to do business. Freedom of choice is emphatically a good thing. Finally, I want to congratulate Mr García-Margallo y Marfil and Mr Kuckelkorn for two important reports designed to create a competitive Europe.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner Byrne, I welcome the fact that recognition will be given to Community law. Legal awareness of Community law must be increased in the Member States. However, I would like to ask you whether we are looking at a long time period if you initiate treaty infringement proceedings. In the meantime, will the Commission ensure in negotiations and in any compromise decisions that what you announced during the hearings at your installation, by which I mean testing, will be applied and that beef labelling, which will become obligatory on 1 January 2000 unless other regulations are passed, will take effect in connection with the lifting of the import ban and its enforcement in the States which have adopted import bans?

Political group: Verts-ALE
My group also regrets the Council’s obstinacy in finalising legislation concerning the establishment of common rules for security in aviation. Everyone is agreed that it is of great importance that this matter should be brought to a prompt close. The events of 11 September represented a very pressing reason for this. The same strict rules must now apply across the Union. It is therefore beyond belief that the Council should be reluctant to accommodate the wishes of the co-legislator, the European Parliament, and that as a result, we should be forced to table so many amendments at second reading. My group supports the rapporteur, Mrs Foster, and we too believe that the central issue concerns a transparent and coordinated system that funds the necessary security measures. Distortion of competition must be avoided. There are at the moment still too many discrepancies between the Member States where security measures are concerned, particularly the funding thereof. The Commission should promptly develop proposals in this respect. In these proposals, it should aim for the highest possible level of security. Additional expenses which the new rules entail, if they put the operation of certain airports at risk, should be reimbursed, whereby, however, the principle applies that in the medium term, the costs must be borne by the users and the sector. The measures to be drafted should be based on the ECAC recommendations. In our view, following existing practice will promote streamlining. We also support the principle of random inspections. These have a preventive effect. And this is in line with the view that, with regard to security, as few compromises as possible should be made. Exceptions should be kept to a minimum. This is why we support the rapporteur’s proposal to delete item 4 in Annex 3.2, where it is made possible not to screen all staff. Needless to say, we do not consent to the creation of this exception. So far, the Council has appeared unsympathetic to our requests to strike better deals on security as well as security measures with third countries too. This is rather strange, for leaks in the new system can be sprung in precisely those areas. In Europe too, countries can be found where it is possible to escape security measures in flights to the EU. It happened to me twice that I stepped onto a plane in an Eastern European country without any security or bomb control. Finally, a point that we have mentioned many times and also have to repeat on this occasion, is that we fail to grasp why the Council is opposed to granting the competition authority the possibility to carry out evaluations. It is, in our view, important that an amendment is once again tabled on this subject.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, without doubt the fifth UN Conference on women held in Beijing was an important step on the road towards equality of the sexes, culminating as it did with the surprising agreement by the representatives of all the UN countries to a joint worldwide platform for action. Five years on, we need to take stock, evaluate any progress or reversals which have been made in the twelve areas of action, take any corrective action needed and lay down policies which will allow us to achieve the objectives established in Beijing. The European Union, or rather the European Parliament, must not just be present during this procedure; it must make a decisive contribution, both to the evaluation of the five years of action and to future plans. It is a fact that, in comparison with other parts of the world, such as Afghanistan and Kuwait, where millions of women are still deprived of fundamental human rights, women in Europe lead a privileged existence. It is true that a great deal of progress has been made in all areas in the Union and, if we look back at our achievements during the 20th century, we should perhaps be celebrating the huge victories which women have achieved. To mention just one of the many victories: education, where women surpass men, both in numbers and in achievement, at almost every university in the European Union. The European Parliament and the Union have made a decisive contribution in promoting equal opportunities. The application of the Amsterdam Treaty, action programmes and mainstreaming have strengthened European policy significantly. However, despite the progress made, serious problems of inequality and discrimination against women still need to be resolved: higher unemployment, violence, sexual exploitation and, above all, the exclusion of women from the centres of policy and decision making. In view of the forthcoming UN Conference in New York, we need to speed up the European Union’s preparations if we really want to make a fundamental contribution to pre-conference planning and to the conference itself which is commensurate with the prestige of the Union. I was pleased to hear the Commissioner and the Presidency representative this morning express their intention and commitment with regard to the organisation of the European conference and participation in the pre-conference planning for the Beijing plus five Conference in New York.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to offer General Morillon my warmest congratulations on his report, in which he has combined perceptiveness with clarity. In addition to explaining how far Turkey is from complying with the Copenhagen criteria, Mr Morillon also lists and enumerates what additional conditions Turkey must meet. They include the Cyprus question, the role of the Turkish army, especially the national security council, the all-powerful position of which is out of keeping with the principle of democracy, the Kurdish question, which is of paramount importance, and last but not least, the virulent conflict with Greece which Turkey must endeavour to defuse. Commissioner Verheugen has explained to the House that, first and foremost, the political criteria must be met. As you all know, our group was highly sceptical about Turkey's candidate status but we are delighted, now that Turkey has candidate status, that it is on the ball and has decided to engage in a process of reform in order to meet the demands of the European Union. Turkey is being responsible. I should like to mention a number of economic criteria, such as the high rate of inflation which was over 100% and which is still over 50%, the high national debt as the result of the strain on the national budget from military expenditure and the military conflict with the PKK, high real interest rates, the continuing predominance of the public sector, huge regional differences in Turkey, a prosperity differential within Turkey of 1:10, which the European Union will never be able to bring under control, different educational qualifications, illiteracy, which still affects 27.6% of women, i.e. problems which Turkey itself must resolve. The optimism of people such as deputy prime minister Mesut Yilmaz, who believes that the Maastricht criteria will be met as early as 2002, is to my mind exaggerated. Turkey must know that it has embarked on a difficult journey, that it will have to give up its sovereignty and will have to exert itself. We want to support it on this journey, not obstruct it and, above all, we want to keep our financial promises.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too should like to start by warmly congratulating the rapporteur on the excellent standard of her report, as the Commissioner acknowledged earlier, and I should also like to say how pleased I am that the Greek Presidency managed, after long consultations, to close – it did not start but it closed – this chapter on reuniting the families of legal immigrants, which had been pending before the Council for several years. However, Commissioner, it is my opinion that you should take also serious account of the proposals of the European Parliament. As chairman of Parliament's Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities, I think this initiative on family reunification is important, because it will be especially helpful to the women and children who are often not in a position to follow their husbands in their attempt to emigrate to the countries of the European Union in search of a better fate for themselves and their families. Let me give you an example. Three years ago, I was invited to a general assembly of the Bangladeshi community in Athens. I entered a room where there were thousands of people, but only a few women. It was when I asked why the women were not taking part in the assembly that I realised for the first time the extent of the problem. They replied that their women and children were back home, in their countries, because they did not have the right to bring them here. I am highly satisfied, therefore, that – even with this decision by the Council which does not fully satisfy Parliament – a serious decision has been taken on this matter. Similarly, one particularly positive point of the directive is that the rights of the members of the reunited family are defined, rights relating to education and employment, in order both to ensure that they are smoothly integrated into the society of the Member State and to safeguard their employment rights, so that they do not turn into cheap labour on the job market. Finally, I must stress that family reunification does not just form part of efforts to achieve a cohesive immigration policy; it is also a means of strengthening the Community's own social policy.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, we are particularly concerned because the decision that has been taken does not appear to be an adequate proper response to the anxiety of the consumers. The testing is not systematic or is limited to sick animals or dead-on-farm animals, and so we are in no way giving the impression of adopting a quasi-systematic, and hence reliable, approach with regard to meat quality and to the epidemiological policy which might be implemented. You have just said that public health takes priority over employment and economic considerations. Do you not think that, in this instance, considerations of the costs of vaccines and money have taken precedence over consumer interests?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, too often we have to come to this Chamber on a Thursday afternoon to make speeches we would rather not have to make. That is certainly true today. I have been to Kyrgyzstan several times in recent years, as it emerged from those dark days of the Soviet empire and set the pace for the region in terms of political, economic and health reforms. I paid tribute then, as I have done since, to those periods of progress. But in the last couple of years we have become worried about progress in that country. President Akayev, who came from a background of the Academy of Sciences, was elected in a free vote in 1991 and re-elected in 1995, has subsequently become more of an oppressive president than a democratic one. Both parliamentary and presidential elections in 2000 sadly highlighted the flawed nature of the electoral process. We were concerned about candidates being banned on technicalities not least because of their knowledge of the Kyrgyz language; about the press being suppressed and repressed; about community groups being prevented from playing their part in the process. Symbolic of all this has been the arrest of Azimbek Beknazarov, chairman of the parliamentary committee on judicial and legal reforms. He was arrested in January and brought to trial in February. The trial was then postponed until this month. This is a country with many problems within its borders, including a lack of natural resources, racial tensions and incursions from abroad. Eighty-eight per cent of its population lives on an income of under USD 4 a day. It does not need the opprobrium that will come from world opinion if it makes a mess of its democratic processes, its independent judiciary and its freedom of speech. That is why we move this motion today, asking them to listen. We will be watching for results.

Political group: PPE-DE