GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, firstly I would like to thank my colleague, Mr Schmitt, for all his hard work concerning this proposal. It has been nearly four years since we completed our report on the single market worldwide challenge in Parliament which favoured general support for a transatlantic common aviation area. I support the granting of a mandate to the Commission to negotiate an open aviation area with the US, replacing the current bilateral agreements and the ownership restrictions which prevent the industry from developing on a global basis. However, we should not underestimate the difficulties which may arise. I welcome therefore the Commission's comments on the following points. Although Mrs Palacio is not here today, I would be grateful for a response Firstly I should like to begin by asking the Commissioner for an assurance that current bilateral aviation agreements with third countries will neither be renounced nor frozen for an indefinite period while Community agreements are hammered out. It is vital that normal business be allowed to continue. Secondly, can the Commission give us its assurance that during the negotiations it will not be lured by the US negotiators into agreeing, as a first step, to a so-called 'early harvest' which, whilst satisfying the current US negotiating requirements, would make the achievement of full liberalisation much less likely? Thirdly, how will the Commission address the major issue of the massive cash injection to the US industry of USD 11 billion since 11 September and in addition the Fly America and CRAF programmes with a combined value of USD 775 million? These schemes distort competition and are incompatible both with existing bilateral regimes and any future liberalisation between Europe and the US. Fourthly, can the Commissioner also assure us that the airline industry will have a direct role to play in these negotiations, as is the current international practice? Finally, given that a successful EU-US agreement would be a template for further liberalisation on a global basis, can the Commission assure us that no further mandates will be sought by it until a successful agreement is reached with the United States?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a look at the topics for the forthcoming summit with Russia reveals among them such important and honourable projects as support for independent media at national, regional and local level, the integration of Russia into a common European economic and social area, cooperation in the fight against international crime and illegal migration, cooperation in the field of nuclear safety, the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and a number of other things. I recall, in this context, an article by the Russian chess grand master Garry Kasparov on the eve of President Putin’s visit to the USA, an article that is equally relevant to the imminent summit between Russia and Europe. Its opening line went something like this: ‘Vladimir Putin comes to the USA as a great friend of democracy, of the rule of law, and of human rights. True?’, whereupon Kasparov promptly answered the rhetorical question with a polemical ‘No, false!’. He followed this up with a veritable tirade enumerating incidences of negligence and wrongdoing, arguing, for example, that Russian democracy is only a front; that the press and media are in fact made to toe the line, that liberalisation of the economy is not in fact being implemented, that potential contenders in the forthcoming presidential elections were interned on spurious charges of economic crime, and that the elections in Chechnya were a charade. I have no wish to promote Mr Kasparov from chess grand master to being the yardstick by which we judge everything, but, even if one regards it as exaggerated – which was his intention – his article has to make us prick our ears up. We must not blot out unpleasant issues. Chechnya is a running sore and the grossly manipulated elections did nothing to heal it. What, then, should we be calling for? We should be calling, firstly, for an end to the lawlessness of Russian army personnel, or else it will never be possible to win the public’s confidence. Secondly, democracy must be put on a broad basis. It would be desirable if the Kremlin were, at the EU-Russia summit, to be reminded, on this point, of its most fundamental responsibility, for it is in any case President Putin who is required by the Russian constitution to guarantee human rights in the Russian Federation as a whole.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am preparing myself in case, on Wednesday, the House should adopt Amendment No 74 to the Rules of Procedure, which radically reduces Mr Fatuzzo’s opportunities for delivering explanations of vote. I am in training in case the House, in its wisdom, decides that it would be better for me to speak less.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Costa, for his excellent work on what is a very difficult, detailed but important dossier. Congestion, pollution, gridlock, global warming, floods, freak weather. Is it the end of the world? No, it is just rush-hour in my region. The same problems are occurring in regions and Member States across the European Union. We all have the same transport crisis and there may be common solutions to these common problems. We must all accept the fact, for example, that the fastest growing source of global warming gases is the transport sector. Something surely, colleagues, must be done. However, as we all know, everyone wants someone else to do it. That is our challenge. I hope Mr Costa's work, his report and the conclusions we will reach tomorrow will provide a framework within which we can begin to tackle these problems. We must promote better understanding of our common problems and, indeed, find common solutions to them across the European Union, but on the basis of consensus and mutual understanding. Secondly, we must promote an exchange of ideas. Many localities and regions have excellent ideas, and that knowledge and information must be disseminated throughout the European Union. Indeed, that is my third point: Europe has a key role to play here in disseminating best practice as to how best we tackle the transport challenge. Fourthly and finally, in terms of what Europe's contribution can be within the framework of this particular initiative, I hope that governments, local authorities and those implementing taxes and charges can do so within a framework that is developed and integrated at a European level, and do it together. However, I want to say that there is great concern and anxiety about this particular Commission initiative and, indeed, about Mr Costa's report, although I personally feel that many of those concerns were fully addressed in committee where, I know, there was widespread cross-party support for Mr Costa's work. There were concerns, for example, about subsidiarity. But that was more than adequately addressed when we said to the Commission: you have a key role to play in trying to pull this research together. But, clearly, Member States and their role will be fully respected in terms of their rights to determine their own taxation levels. Indeed, the work we have done has already gained and secured widespread support. I can refer to a letter from the organisation that represents the motoring clubs across Europe, including, for example, the AA and RAC, who are broadly sympathetic and supportive of our work, because they know that unless Europe takes a lead on this issue, unless we begin pulling together the best of the ideas from across the European Union, then the cities, towns and rural areas, will continue to suffer from unacceptable levels of congestion and pollution. I commend Mr Costa's report, his work and, above all, his ability to bring us all together in a single common objective of trying to tackle the transport crisis.

Political group: PSE
The object of the proposal for a regulation before us amending Council Regulation (EEC) 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code is to create a harmonised legal framework with identical customs controls in all the Member States, based on commonly agreed standards and risk criteria for the selection of goods and economic operators in order to fight terrorism, organised crime and trade in dangerous goods. With a view to tightening security around goods crossing international borders, traders will be required to provide customs authorities with information on goods being imported into or exported from the European Union. This information will be in electronic form and will be exchanged between the authorities of the various Member States. Once again, we must reaffirm that the fight against terrorism cannot be allowed to threaten respect for our citizens' rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to privacy, of which the protection of personal data forms a part, as laid down in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The protection of personal data should not be viewed as an obstacle to effectively fighting terrorism, which means that we have certain reservations about the changes proposed to the regulation, in spite of the European Parliament's amendments, which specifically refer to these rights.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to congratulate three ladies this evening. First of all, I congratulate Mrs Rothe, who successfully negotiated on behalf of all Members of Parliament. Next, Mrs Zackari, who ensured there was flexibility during the Swedish presidency and who, in fact, steered the Council towards a compromise that was acceptable to Parliament, and finally, Mrs De Palacio, who represented all those in the Commission who fully support the cause of renewable energy sources, without whom Parliament would not have been able to reach the compromises made with the Council. Tomorrow, we will take an historic step towards renewable energy sources in Europe, which will provide 22% of electricity in 2010. This is a large proportion. I am very optimistic, even though I am aware that the first steps taken towards a new technology are always the most difficult. This is because, on the one hand, production costs have yet to be optimised, but the costs will fall as soon as mass production is reached. There is another aspect that we are very familiar with, as politicians – relations involving power. The lobbies change sides once the technologies assume a greater economic significance in our societies, and the example of Germany is a wonderful illustration of this. The unions in Germany, which were against renewable energy sources and in favour of nuclear energy some five years ago, have changed sides because there are now more supporters for renewable energy sources than for nuclear energy. I believe that this directive has also ensured that our industries are world leaders in areas that still have greater potential than we ourselves do in terms of renewable energy sources. Think of countries such as Brazil or India where we will gain market share. I would also like to announce that I am going to nominate certain members of certain governments for the Nobel Prize in Chemistry and in Physics. When they manage to prove scientifically how a tonne of tomatoes burns all by itself, thereby producing renewable energy, I feel that they certainly will deserve the Nobel Prize. If I understand matters scientific correctly, you need plastic to burn tomatoes. In order to avoid these sorts of exceptions, I feel that the Commission has a large part to play in preventing public funds being spent on incineration. Public funds must be used to develop the right technologies, particularly methanisation.

Political group: Verts-ALE
One thousand and fifty passengers are denied boarding in Europe every year despite having a valid ticket in their pockets. Flight cancellations and delays are also increasing, especially in the tourist season. That is not in the consumer’s interests. My group therefore welcomes the regulation. It will give us a uniform European legal framework, probably from 2005. I am sure we have succeeded in achieving a fair balance between the interests of consumers and carriers. The excessive level of compensation sought by the Commission has been cut back to a realistic amount. The reference to extraordinary circumstances reduces carriers’ responsibility to a reasonable level. I therefore anticipate that the Council will follow Parliament in agreeing to the outcome of conciliation. This represents an advance over the existing arrangements because we now have a list of benefits to which passengers are legally entitled, not just in cases of overbooking as before, but also when flights are cancelled or delayed. At the heart of the improvement are the compensation payments, which are twice as high as was hitherto the norm in Europe under the voluntary arrangements. For example, if I get to Tegel before finding out that my flight from Berlin to Mallorca has been cancelled, I not only get my ticket replaced, but I also get EUR 400 compensation. I get the same amount if I am left behind because of overbooking. This also places a measure of pressure on airlines to be more sensitive in their use of the overbooking system, necessary as it is. Of course, we also hope that greater efforts will be made to reduce delays and the occasional abusive cancellation of flights when they are not quite full. One side effect of the regulation will be to reduce the gap in the terms of competition between budget and traditional airlines. We are now setting standards for passenger rights in aviation which sooner or later ought to apply for other modes of transport as well.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this report was adopted unanimously in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. Its aim is to improve traceability in the event of an outbreak of disease, such as the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. The committee believes that batch control systems should be allowed as well as the individual control system proposed by the Commission. This is the main point of difference with the Commission. The committee's proposal means that Member States will be able to adopt systems that are in keeping with their own sheep farming methods. During the debate last night, Commissioner Byrne did not move any closer to the committee's viewpoint. We agree on the need to improve traceability, but the issue dividing us is that harmonisation of the objective does not necessarily mean harmonisation of the method. By contrast, the Italian presidency has been extremely helpful, and the Council is now very close to the committee's position. For these reasons, after intensive procedural discussions this morning, involving the political groups and especially Mr Parish, the Group's shadow rapporteur, we agreed that we should now conclude this matter during the Italian presidency. The strongest political signal we can give is that we should follow the unanimous vote in committee by a unanimous vote for the report this morning.

Political group: PSE
We wish to emphasise that including funding of the EU budget under the EU’s own areas of competence should not, even in the long term, lead to the EU’s being given its own right of taxation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, the adoption of both directives today is a welcome development. For a start, I am glad that the acceptance of the directives in this form means that two directives that are significant in terms of the Financial Services Action Plan have been adopted before this Parliament has run its course. It is important that we have managed, in the life of this Parliament, before the elections, and before enlargement, to lay the foundation stone of an integrated financial market that will add to Europe’s appeal, all the more so in comparison with the US. Secondly, I am glad that we have got this far, primarily largely thanks to Parliament, along with the Commission. The compromises and guidelines arrived at by Parliament at first reading demonstrated the goodwill of everyone concerned, among whom I would particularly single out Mrs Villiers, who succeeded, by means of a dialogue that disregarded party and national divisions, in finding a way forward that ended up being acceptable to the Member States. I regret the way in which the Member States repeatedly showed, right to the end, how little they are willing and able to pursue a shared objective. One of the things the investment services directive is about is more competition between the systems, which differ within the EU. This is about more competition, along with transparency, pricing, and protection for consumers. If we are to build Europe, the Heads of State or Government must come to realise that this cannot be a matter of one system prevailing over another. On one side there are the big investment banks; on the other, the smaller banks, the savings banks and cooperative banks. I think we in this House have done a good job, both in terms of its substance and of the time it has taken. I want to say something brief about the transparency directive, namely that I am glad – although I take a rather different line from the Commission on this – that we have not got the rules on quarterly reporting that had been proposed, which I believe would have added little value in relation to the extra effort and additional bureaucracy. I therefore believe that adopting these two directives this week, and within the life of this Parliament, will add up to a good piece of work on our part for Europe as a financial marketplace.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, what are the issues at stake in this Intergovernmental Conference? Manifestly, the first and main issue is the quality of the decision-making process in the Union. Here we attach the utmost importance to extending the scope of qualified majority voting. If we were certain that tomorrow every decision could be taken by a qualified majority in the European Union, we would not have raised the question of closer cooperation. But we have to acknowledge that undoubtedly we will also need this instrument. That is what this Parliament said when it first stated its position and I think that in a way we have helped persuade the community of Heads of State and Government to listen to our refrain. Of course we can only be delighted at this. But today I want to address those MEPs who see, behind this closer cooperation, the risk of too far-reaching consultation between the large countries. It seems to me that at present it is in the interest of all the members of the Union that any closer cooperation within the Union should be established on a basis of respect for the Union’s legal system and institutions. To that end, let us authorise closer cooperation when one third of the Member States takes part or is involved, and let us authorise this closer cooperation by a qualified majority, after obtaining Parliament’s assent. Tomorrow we will certainly have to consider the question of the democratic scrutiny of this closer cooperation, an area where our Parliament will have to play a major role. So I understand why the Intergovernmental Conference will look into these questions and I am glad the discussions are thus going to the heart of the matter. But you will find these same questions coming up again in other discussions you will be holding during the Intergovernmental Conference. Let me make one more point before concluding, Madam President. I want to sound the alarm about the progress in drafting the Charter of Fundamental Rights we want to see incorporated in the Treaty. It is most important to incorporate that Charter. At a time when the values of the Union are at times being overturned or seem undermined, that Charter is coming at just the right moment; but it will be meaningful only if it is incorporated in the Treaty and has real substance, based on the Cologne mandate, the entire Cologne mandate, i.e. only if it includes economic and social rights.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I had prepared a speech, which I decided to put aside after listening to the comments made by some Members from the Right. I believe that as long as criticism is bandied around in this House – as if we were putting Galileo on trial – every time that we deal with the issue of women’s rights, and as long as we use the word ‘obsession’ when talking about rights, our debates will do no more than give work to the stenographers. We would have expected greater severity and more passion from some right-wing Members when, for example, denouncing the legal gap that exists – which runs counter to all the rules of international law – on the status of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners. We would have expected passion and severity in denouncing the arbitrary use that is, unfortunately, often made of the fight against terrorism to repress dissidents. Mr President, we believe that the defence of rights should be sought and guaranteed, above all, in everyday life in order to stop the rights of the just becoming the rights of the few, and we really feel that such silence on this issue is obsessive.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the aim of the IGC is to reconcile enlargement with deepening. In particular, we need to review the interinstitutional balance, representation within the Commission and the other institutions, the weighting of votes and the areas covered by qualified majority voting. Unanimity voting must apply to decisions of a constitutional and fundamental nature. Closer cooperation must make it possible to manage diversity and avoid getting bogged down, without calling the fundamental structure of the Union into question. The report by our fellow Members, whom I want to congratulate, has been substantially improved over the course of the discussions. Nonetheless, the outlined reform will hit the small Member States hardest. That applies in particular to the provisions on the composition and operation of the institutions. A Parliament in which the ceiling of four seats per Member State, which does not allow for a balanced representation of the political forces, is unacceptable. The same is true of a Council in which the qualified majority rules have to be readjusted and whose proposed method of operation will inevitably lead to deadlock and inconsistency, and of a Commission in which the rule must be one member per Member State. Lastly, let me bring up the question of the seat of Parliament and call for the promise made to be respected. I am always surprised to see our Parliament, which sets itself up as the committed champion of respect for minority rights when it comes to others, go against this approach when it comes to deciding on the institutional architecture of our own House.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I should like to bring an entirely different matter to your attention, namely the special expropriation act in Valencia regulating urban development activities – the LRAU – which, in my view, is an outright violation of various international treaties, including the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights. It appears as if the Valencian authorities have designed this Stalinist law in order to achieve their plans cheaply. The law stipulates that expropriations can take place in the general interest, but, in practice, has the effect that project developers have a licence for carrying out their lucrative plans. Compensation for house owners who are evicted is ridiculously low; there is no means of recourse against it and the residents, often retired foreigners from across the EU, are not even informed. This seems to be a mediaeval situation. I would therefore call for one of Parliament's committees of enquiry to examine whether this law violates international treaties and also for this law to be rendered inoperative during the enquiry.

Political group: ELDR