GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, in my opinion, Parliament should not waste this opportunity of issuing a statement on the mandate for the round of talks with the World Trade Organisation, because the Council of Ministers will give this mandate to the Commission on 13 October, and it would be completely wrong if this mandate were given without knowing the European Parliament’s opinion. I would also like to remind you all that only a few weeks ago, when approving the Commission, the Parliament approved a declaration in which it stressed its desire to be involved in influencing the negotiation of international agreements, at the different stages of the negotiations, so it would truly be a shame if Parliament neglected to take advantage of this opportunity.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank Mrs de Palacio for her introduction. I will confine myself to the issue of flight data and the relationship with the United States. I should like to point out that, at present, the United States still receives unfiltered information. Article 6 of Regulation (EEC) 2299/89 and Article 26 of Directive 95/46/EC are still not being complied with. Meanwhile, as the Commissioner did point out, various flights have been cancelled on the basis of unfiltered information and in addition, the United States have asked for permission for the presence of armed security agents on flights. Furthermore, as the Commissioner stated, this last request, in particular, has met with very mixed reactions from various countries. I have to say, Commissioner, that all of this has not, in any case, resulted in a joint approach and that this is very confusing for passengers and airline companies alike. I therefore take the view that there is still neither adequate protection by the United States nor protection of the interests of air travellers and airline companies. Nor am I convinced that the agreement will offer sufficient guarantees. This is why I reiterate my desire for a permanent solution by means of an international agreement between the United States and Europe, with full involvement from the European Parliament and the US Congress, which would therefore be a weightier formula. I would also repeat my proposal with regard to the Commission, on the basis of Article 300(6) of the Treaty of Nice, to ask the ECJ to give advice on this agreement. If you fail to do so, I believe that Parliament itself should take on this responsibility. After all, this is about an international world standard, and we will need to maintain very high standards. I still fail to grasp, for example, how these decisions were taken on the basis of elements from the briefing, namely: the wider EU-US relationship, the safety and confidence of air travellers and the cost aspect of airline companies. Even following consultation with a Foreign Affairs Minister, or various Foreign Affairs Ministers, a unilateral decision was taken to cancel flights. How does this relate, for example, to international trade agreements? In general, before we discuss the final agreement, which is in six weeks' time, I should also like to be told in what way cooperation between the European and American security authorities has been achieved. In short, I think that the signals that were given over the past month are an example of precisely how things should not be done, and I therefore hope to receive a clear answer now, or at least in response to my written questions.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Europe’s new role in the world will be conditioned by external and security policy, but also by the tensions between social, economic and political needs. The world trade round is therefore exceptionally important in Europe speaking with a single voice in world trade negotiations so that social and environmentally-friendly growth can also gather pace through the contribution of world trade. Since 1990 there has been a worldwide increase in mergers and also the market power of transnational concerns. It is therefore very important that the Millennium Round creates multilateral rules against private restrictions in competition. An international competition system must create minimum norms so as to prevent anti-competitive behaviour such as the forming of price and area cartels, the misuse of a market-dominant position or vertical and horizontal competitive restrictions which distort competition. Part of these minimum norms must be the obligation for WTO Member States to bring their domestic competition law into line with multilateral agreements and minimum norms. This means that the Millennium Round must not create a global cartel authority. It must, however, subject domestic competition rules to monitoring. It would be contrary to the rules of GATT, CFSP and WTO if free and fair world trade between states were valid, but not for private economic players. Monopolies and cartels damage consumers and societies. The Microsoft case in the USA clearly demonstrated this. The increasing willingness for mergers between transnational companies and the impotence of the national state with regard to the formation of monopolies, oligopolies and cartels endanger the objectives of world trade to contribute to prosperity and peace worldwide. Furthermore, it is also particularly important that we realise that the decrease in growth in the world economy is also linked to the instability of the international finance system, which is characterised by vast, rapid and worldwide financial transactions and which has detached itself from the real economy, yet still affects investments, growth and employment. For this reason, the Millennium Round must contribute to coherence in the world economy between trade, economic, currency and financial policies.

Political group: PSE
When the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities was given permission to draw up an own-initiative report on women and fundamentalism, we had reason to hope that this report would serve not only to reiterate our condemnation of the fact that millions of women in the world are deprived of elementary human and civil rights, which we know only too well. We also nurtured the hope that this report might provide a valuable contribution that would push things in the right direction wherever a push was needed. Regrettably, our rapporteur and those who followed her lead have squandered a great opportunity; this is illustrated, incidentally, by the fact that the report was adopted by only 15 votes to 7 in the Committee on Women’s Rights, while the opinion of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs was adopted by 18 votes with 11 abstentions. The two women rapporteurs are members of the Socialist Group in this Parliament. The uncooperative approach of the rapporteur for the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and indeed her obstinate determination not to listen to reason and to throw everything into the one pot, if I may say so, means that I cannot vote in favour of this report; for one thing, it indiscriminately accuses all religions for practising a pernicious form of fundamentalism, and another, more important reason is that it seeks to manipulate this resolution to define details of the asylum and immigration policies of the European Union. This is unacceptable and I am afraid that, through her obstinacy and the tone of her report, the rapporteur has done a great disservice to the women who are victims of fundamentalism and, hence, to this House too.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like you to join with me in welcoming the 'Responsible consumption' week that is taking place in Brussels this week, and which is being promoted throughout the European Parliament's buildings. Responsible consumption means that consumers are able to exercise choice in favour of ethically produced or fair-trade products, where the rights of workers are respected and where a social premium is paid to aid poor farmers and other producers in developing countries where goods are sourced. This Parliament has played a major role in forcing the issue of corporate social responsibility onto the European agenda, and fair-trade is a very important part of that. President, would you please thank the Quaestors for agreeing that this should take place in the Parliament this week, Oxfam World shops for running the stalls around Parliament and also other organisations such as the Fairtrade Foundation and Tradecraft Exchange from my own country who are supporting it. Would you please join with me in encouraging all Members of this House to choose fair-trade coffee and other food and goods that are temptingly available to us in the bars and restaurants of this Parliament throughout this week. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on behalf of my group and all my colleagues I would like to welcome Mr Monti to the House today for what is a very timely discussion on the regulatory regime for telecom, bearing in mind that we are now moving into the very important consideration of the telecom package. I want to briefly pick up on some of the crucial points that he made. It is quite clear to all of us that the whole world of electronic communications is presenting us with a regulatory challenge, but it is clearly presenting you, Commissioner, and the competition authority with unprecedented challenges, given the speed with which technology is advancing. Many of the ideas related to market share are also changing very rapidly. In the telecom field, it is clear that market share can change hands much more quickly than in some of the major industries that have been regulated in the past. I was delighted that your approach is to try and avoid putting a brake on innovation by excessively firm controls. That is extremely important. I would like your assurance that you will be developing the expert capability to what is undoubtedly going to be an increasing workload in looking at future mergers. We understand from the Peers Group report that you are going to be awarded an extra 92 posts. It will be interesting to hear how you envisage your service developing in this direction. The second point which will come through in our consideration of the telecom package, is that in this very fast-moving world there is concern within the industry and amongst investors that excessively rigid targets in terms of market share thresholds for investigation – and that can be too much or too little in many cases – should not be allowed to inhibit your consideration of areas where there is a genuine competitive issue at stake. Could you perhaps address these points when you respond to our debate later on?

Political group: PPE-DE
Will the Cotonou Agreement yield more results than its Lomé predecessors? The new cooperation agreement with the ACP countries has drawn on the experience gathered to date, and bears witness to new insights in the field of trade, good governance, aid and the role of civil organisations. There is naturally room for criticism but, in my view, Mr Rod is taking things too far in his comprehensive report. In his analysis, Europe is the devil personified while the ACP countries have been elevated to the status of saints. The disastrous, violent conflicts are caused by poverty, and poverty is caused by the rich West. Unfortunately, things are not as simple as that. It is unfair to claim that Cotonou will only lead to unbridled liberalism. However, the agreement does stress with good reason the importance of the participation of players other than the local government, such as NGOs and the private sector. Not only donors have to draw lessons, but also the developing countries themselves. It is therefore to be welcomed that Cotonou reminds the ACP countries of their own responsibilities. It is right that aid should be provided according to the achievements of the receiving countries. Success in the longer term does not only depend on us but also, and above all, on the partners’ own continuous efforts. Would Commissioner Nielsen agree with me on this? Administrative capacity is crucial if results are to be achieved. At least as important is preventing the abuse of power and human rights violations. I therefore consider the planned, broad dialogue to be at the heart of the Cotonou Agreement. It is vital that the EU and the ACP partners should not stop at good intentions. Europe must drastically reform its own development, trade and agricultural policy and the ACP countries must put all their efforts into democratisation, political stability and conflict prevention so as to allow their countries to develop socially and to make them fully-fledged trading partners.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I know you hope all the voting machines were working. I am afraid mine did not, so that made the majority “two”, not “one”.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, following the first plan to recover cod stocks, the Commission decided to propose a new initiative, this time on Northern hake. There is a further initiative in the pipeline covering Southern hake. While the sustainable management of fish stocks clearly justifies the conservation of species deemed under threat, measures aimed at limiting fishing must be properly based on accurate and up-to-date scientific opinions, and must take on board the first-hand observations of fishermen. The deficiencies in scientific research are well known. Parliament has had the opportunity this week to express its opinion on the matter by means of the Lage report. In this context, the Souchet report is excellent, drawing attention to the need to keep data up-to-date, based on information provided by international bodies in the fisheries sector. These limitations have had a devastating socio-economic impact on sea professionals, restricting already limited fishing activity still further. The figures presented by the Commission for limiting the hake catch are such that if they were implemented they would be socially devastating, economically untenable and commercially unmanageable. It appears obvious to state that socio-economic impact should be assessed prior to presenting any recovery plan. This, however, did not occur in this case. Such measures are therefore only acceptable if strictly commensurate with the aims of sustainable exploitation of stocks and if their economic impact is taken into account. Great variations in total allowable catches (TACs) may in some cases lead to companies converting fishing activity from one species to another, thereby indirectly causing imbalances. On various occasions, Parliament has drawn the Commission’s attention to the excessive inflexibility of the recovery plans. Consequently, a multiannual, flexible and gradual approach would certainly be more suitable, in that it would lead to fishing effort perfectly suited to the state of stocks, which will not be achieved by implementing inflexible plans, with irreversible and socially devastating consequences.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I will not conceal from you that my question was designed first and foremost to elicit a list of projects and a calendar from you. You have presented these, and I thank you for that, but I also wanted to see if you could give us any information on, or your assessment of, whether the Council could perhaps progress towards closer cooperation, towards a sort of communitisation of energy policy given that, as we saw during the recent crisis, Member States are moving forward in a disorganised array and are competing amongst themselves in terms of both supplies and prices, and that the result for Europe as a whole is rather pathetic. Nor will I conceal that I was looking for, perhaps, some ideas. Some of my fellow Members have suggested an idea, which I too endorse, of investigating or drawing up plans towards, for example, a policy imposing the euro as the sole means of paying for oil in certain countries. It is these questions above all which interest me and which, I think, are of special interest to all the citizens of Europe, because this dependence is not just quantitative but also economic and financial.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I am pleased to have this opportunity to address Parliament on this very important issue. The main thing to stress is that misuse of funds in one place should not prevent innovation continuing in other areas. Excellent schemes are already being developed and should be supported. In an unstable agricultural industry, the opportunities offered by flax and hemp in a developing market for natural fibres should not be lost. It will provide farmers with the opportunity to diversify – something that they have continually been urged to do by respective Member State governments and by the European Parliament – to produce new employment possibilities. In my own nation, Wales, flax processing plants are already being established using European Union aid. The report from our Agricultural Committee also includes amendments to extend grant aid for producing flax and hemp to non-arable land, thus providing opportunities to diversify areas of the European Union unable to obtain monetary support under the present regime. This is a crucial matter as it affects thousands of hectares of European land with low productive possibilities. For example, 80% of the land mass of my nation, Wales, is non-arable. The higher than average incidence of rainfall there makes it ideal terrain for growing short-fibre flax and yet it could not apply for European Union support under prior regulations. Its peripheral location, something which has already been stressed here from other areas, and its small family farm units having to compete in a wider market, coupled with the high value of sterling, has meant that it has lost 80% of its income in less than three years. The importance of flax production being subsidised in such areas of the European Union cannot be overemphasised. I would like to thank the rapporteur for accepting our amendments in this regard. We also reject quotas and a ceiling for this production, as this would limit the possibilities to develop diversification and employment possibilities in disadvantaged regions. We also believe there should be a balance of support between farmers and processors. The rapporteur, Mrs Schierhuber, has agreed to put a limit of EUR 600 per hectare to farmers directly, provided that the farmer proves to the competent authorities, within 18 months after having applied for the subsidy, that he has delivered the fibre to a processor. We also agreed if this proof could not be provided to the competent authorities within that period, the subsidy should stay at the level of the premia for set-aside land. I congratulate the rapporteur and call on the European Parliament to support the Agriculture Committee's report.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The Spanish delegation of the Group of the voted against Amendment No 7 to paragraph 11. This delegation cannot accept this text’s mention of an agricultural product – cotton – and its recommendation that assistance to that sector be reviewed and restricted. It would have a direct impact on more than 10 000 Spanish farmers and their families, and would generate an unjustifiable and intractable socio-economic problem.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Council was quite convincing. The question is why the Commission proposed this. I would ask the Commissioner whether it is feasible for the Commission to propose another legal basis. Under Article 308, for instance, which is very often used in situations like these, Parliament has a direct right to give its advice. Was that why the Commission did not specify Article 308?

Political group: PPE-DE
The commitment made in Lisbon to a European future characterised by a quantitative and qualitative improvement in employment and greater social cohesion seems to be highly threatened by this report, if it is amended today in the ways proposed by Mr Mann. Those amendments, which have been reinserted for the plenary sitting, entirely undermine the work done by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs to restore balance to the rapporteur’s text in favour of an employment policy that it not only concerned with increased flexibility and reducing tax pressure, but also and above all with establishing quality employment for all as quickly as possible: training and education must therefore be the pivots of our policy, and second-rate jobs and other unqualified jobs must disappear. The report thus amended ignores the principles of solidarity and social cohesion, which are essential and objective principles to achieve for anyone seriously seeking to establish a new employment strategy, a generous strategy that places the person at the centre of all its concerns. I can therefore only oppose the report amended in this way, as it adopts neo-liberal principles in advocating an employment policy that ignores the person.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, despite the threat of a no-confidence motion, I hope that the Commissioner will not cancel her airline tickets to Moscow. Lobbying has been intensive and persuasive over this issue. I must admit that my views on points of detail have changed many times, but I have come to the conclusion that, while backing a closed-loop recycling system for cadmium batteries in the medium term, we should be looking in the long term for the replacement of such batteries because of their toxicity. The many exemptions I shall be supporting show that I consider this approach to be a measured and balanced one. We must be careful not to set a level of lead so low that it will effectively prohibit the use of batteries containing even trace elements of lead for important purposes, notably in hearing aids. I have no doubt that we will, in practice, be able to resolve these questions as we consider the legislation further. I should like to touch upon the issue of collection targets for portable batteries. I am deeply cynical about these. I have been lobbied by the British Local Government Association, which wants me to support proposals for much higher targets – this from an association representing local authorities that currently only collect 12% of household waste. It all seems ridiculous. As we know, Member States all too often agree to what should be legally-binding targets in the certain knowledge that the pathetically cumbersome enforcement procedures that the Commission has at its disposal will mean that they never actually have to meet those targets within anything like the timescales proposed. As I have been saying for the last five years, we have to find better ways of getting ministers who sign up to these agreements to keep to their word.

Political group: ELDR