GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
There is a grave risk that the aviation industry is facing chaos. As various companies charging different rates and offering different levels of service vie for the same busy connections, the chance of carelessness and risk-taking is greater than in public transport on the ground, which has been reasonably well regulated, so far. Moreover, airspace is becoming increasingly crowded, leading to many near misses. The fact that aviation is not only dangerous but also unhealthy is evident from the incidence of thrombosis which occurs in passengers who are cooped up in very confined spaces for long periods of time. That is why I would welcome a body that can unambiguously implement the best possible safety rules in Europe. If we consider twelve years of a ‘Joint Aviation Authority’ to be too non-committal and wish to set up a new body which, in agreement with EU legislation, must achieve the highest security level possible, the question is raised whether this new European agency for safety in aviation should be independent of the European Commission. It is certainly unjustifiable to deregulate aviation traffic in the short term for the benefit of what we call a ‘single sky’, where air safety functions are given to competing companies, existing control services are dismantled and airline companies are in a position to reduce their staffing levels further.

Political group: GUE-NGL
As a Member of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, I have voted for the Lynne report, because I believe that it is important for the European Parliament to support the UN initiative and signal the view that a comprehensive EU directive on disabled people's rights should be progressed by the Commission. Real progress should also be made in mainstreaming disabled people's rights within our development cooperation policy. MEPs in the committee have stressed that the outcome of the UN process must be a legally binding convention with an effective monitoring mechanism.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Belgian Presidency has played a major role in completing some of the groundwork for the Union’s enlargement. One is indeed struck by the optimism which is taking possession of those involved: the naming of the date 2004 suggests that the work is nearly finished. There is even talk of a big bang of ten countries acceding simultaneously. Commissioner Verheugen is sensible enough to state that it is possible that up to ten new countries will join in 2004. After all, it is not up to us to determine an accession date for the candidate countries. The year 2004 is an assumption and a hope, but holds no guarantees for any Member State whatsoever. We, and they, should therefore continue to make every effort to achieve a sound and credible result. A great deal needs to be done within the current Union in order to clarify the significance of enlargement. Naturally, many are right to be truly enthusiastic about this fantastic, historic process. But under the influence of those who believe they can secure political gain from xenophobic sentiments, a climate of uncertainty has emerged. False representations of the costs involved in the enlargement are doing the rounds. They are designed to instil fear and are based on worst-case scenarios: as if it has not been clear for a very long time that the cost of this whole enlargement process would be covered by the EU budget. Far more important is greater awareness of the need for anchoring more firmly the character of the Union as a union of democratic constitutional states. The events of 11 September have illustrated this more clearly than ever. The fight against serious crime and terrorism is a common cause, and reticence in this connection will jeopardise the safety of citizens. It is actually very strange that our union of constitutional states, as such, has not resulted in greater trust among the Member States and their legal systems. A great deal will need to be done about this in the coming years.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I must insist on this issue, since in October the President-in-Office of the Council promised us that he would reply in writing to all the questions we presented, and this has not happened. So far we have not received any reply. I would like – also with regard to this issue – to table a supplementary question, since when there has been a situation of insufficient respect for rights, you have quite rightly acted as the Council in relation to Cuba, but nevertheless, in relation to this other very serious violation of the rights of families, the Council has taken no action. My supplementary question is this: have you put this specific issue which we raised a month ago on the families of the five Cuban prisoners who are in Miami to the Council?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to express my personal admiration for rapporteurs Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen. I would like them to know that my scepticism, and any decision on my part to reject this report, is no reflection on them, but on this House, which does not have the backbone to confront the European Council with its own vision of what the future should hold for European integration. In terms of power politics, or following a constitutional line of thought, it is quite clear what the Council wants. It wants Europe to be run by the executive, to be under the leadership of national governments, a bring-and-buy for national interests. It wants the basic model for European integration to be intergovernmental cooperation. The European Council wants Europe to be under the leadership of a handful of States, it wants Europe to be run by a board of directors, and to pursue a nineteenth century style policy aimed at striking a balance amongst the States of Central Europe. The Council does not see a democratic deficit; it sees a lack of efficiency at worst. Separation of powers, public scrutiny of legislation, parliamentarianism, unrestricted legal supervision on the part of the European Court of Justice, binding fundamental rights, strengthening of the original European institutions – the Commission, Parliament and the European Court of Justice – none of these matters are of concern to the Council. It is the task of Parliament to stand up to the Council and to present it with its own vision. Parliament must pluck up the courage to vie with the Council when it comes to determining the future of European integration. This is about nothing less than the rediscovery of democracy in the supranational sphere. It is about nothing less – and this is, or would be Parliament’s task – than making European unification public property. We have a long way to go before we achieve this. If you demand a constitutional process but satisfy yourself with the division of the Treaties into two parts, then this constitutional process is already at an end! If you accept without criticism that not only does the Council see itself as a legitimate representative of the States, it also claims to represent the people by virtue of the double majority, thereby depriving Parliament of its legitimacy, then we still have a long way to go before...... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, concerns about the effects of GMOs on human health are in the minds of many of us overshadowed by doubts about their effects upon other species of plants or animal life and about the control of the world's seed bank by a handful of companies. But it is animal and human health which is the issue before us and the Group is united in its belief that products need to be clearly labelled so that consumers can make proper choices. We are, however, divided about the clearest way of achieving this result. A majority accept the Commission proposals but want products with more than 0.5% of GMOs or less if practicable, to be labelled as such. Traceability rules should be established so that this is done even when the presence of GMO DNA cannot be identified. But we risk overwhelming the consumer if we label every foodstuff made from products derived from animals fed on GMOs. I am opposed to steps being taken which will eventually lead only to GMO-free or to non-GMO products being labelled if such a thing is possible, because this will result in normal foods being classified as special and transfer the burden of proof and costs away from GMO producers. We may have to do this eventually but not yet. GM crops have the potential to bring major benefits, but they also pose threats to the environment. Rules for trade are needed, but I will not be sorry if consumer preference slows the pace of GMO development and allows us more time to assess the full consequences of their use.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I want to say that I fully support the report prepared by Mr Cunha. While I have reservations, I do not see any other way forward. It is interesting to think that those Member States that have the great fleets today built up those fleets in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In Ireland, we feel thoroughly aggrieved at the size of our quotas and the capacity of our fleet. We must remember that when the other maritime nations – Britain, Spain and Holland – were building up their fleets in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, there was actually a law which forbade the transport of fish in Irish ships. So we arrived in this century with the same sort of boat, the little curragh, in which St Brendan sailed to America in the eighth century. That is why the fishermen I represent feel very aggrieved. Today, the Dutch have seven times as many ships over 24 metres as Ireland, even though we have much more by way of resources in the ocean. I want to record the fact that we are not satisfied and to say that if we exploit the seas the way we should and if we conserve and manage our fisheries the way we ought, we could probably take twice as much fish from European waters as we do. We would not have any more jobs, as the capacity is already there to do it, but we would make more than double the profits we make at the moment. A sensible system of conservation and restraint for the present will guarantee the resource for generations to come. I sincerely hope that, when we have done this and despite the fact that 'relative stability' has become a sacred principle here, a country like Ireland on the edge of the Atlantic with vast resources will one day enjoy a more equitable share.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I would firstly like to express my group’s agreement with the text of the reports we are discussing, but not with some of the statements which have been made on presenting them to this plenary session. The immediate aim of this debate is essentially to prepare for the Spring Council and it is intended to respond to the corresponding assessment of the so-called ‘Lisbon process’, complemented by the decisions of the Gothenburg and Barcelona Councils. Within this context, I would firstly like to express my concern and that of my group at the fact that the aim established for 2010 of being a more competitive economy with higher quality and greater levels of employment has not been achieved. When assessing these three years, despite the difficulties of the American economy, we find that, in terms of growth, productivity levels and employment levels, we are further behind than three years ago. It is therefore clear that there is a very worrying difference between what is preached in the Councils and what is practiced in the Member States, and this prejudices the Union’s overall result. We in the believe that the main problems principally stem from the lack of compliance with the liberalisation processes agreed, since, as the report by Mr García-Margallo y Marfil points out, there are still significant structural reforms to be carried out and certain basic markets, such as the labour market, must be made even more flexible. In the current situation, which is not exactly one of the best economic situations the European Union has been in in recent years, there are three key aspects which particular attention must also be paid to. Firstly, we must improve the level not just of research and development but of its application within the productive system. Let us hope that this historic agreement on the European patent, as Commissioner Solbes has mentioned, will provide promotion in this area, but that it will also pay special attention to the creation and development of small and medium-sized businesses based on the application of new technologies, because, as was demonstrated in the 1990s, they are significant sources of work. I do not have the time to mention other issues, Mr President, but I would like to end as I began: rather than making grand statements in Spring Councils, we must comply with what has been agreed.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, there is a lot of uncertainty surrounding the Cancun conference and the preparatory talks are far from being completed, especially in the sectors thought to be favourable to the developing countries. The fact that the dismantling of agricultural subsidies remains very limited shows the lack of enthusiasm on the part of the rich countries for giving up their privileges; the US is the worst offender, despite having joined in the development round. The European Union, obsessed by its own interests, has also revised CAP reform downwards. Revising the TRIPS agreement to ban the patenting of living things ought to be a priority at Cancun. If intellectual property rights are applied to all forms of life, they violate the sovereign rights of states and populations to protect their resources and skills and deny the very existence of public good. Negotiators, if you want Cancun to be a success, then listen to the call from the Africa group and drop the Singapore issues. The absence of solutions to the famous paragraph 6 of the Doha declaration on access to medicines proves that our governments are under pressure from the pharmaceuticals firms and are afraid to adopt a bold and truly humane stance. Once again, there is a great risk that in the outcome a compromise solution will be vaunted that would have been considered unacceptable at the outset. In Egypt last week, the US seemed to take a step forward by dropping a restrictive list of diseases. There then remains the problem of which countries are eligible. What is meant by sufficient manufacturing capacity? Rather than accept a second-rate compromise, should we not rather start again with a new basis for negotiations that will result in an economic and practical solution for the developing countries? Let us not forget the spirit of Doha. Nothing must prevent countries from protecting their population’s health. In particular, nothing must prevent any member from taking part in the WTO talks fairly and transparently. We will be particularly vigilant about this when we are in Cancun. Commissioner, I am asking you not to go back on our commitments. The Doha round must be the round of the developing countries. Nature and human beings are not commodities. The environment and health are more important than the WTO rules. Do not undermine the European Union’s credibility and good faith. Work for sustainable and fair solutions in Cancun.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I do not wish to make a request regarding the urgent subjects, but I would like to draw the attention of the House to a point relating to respect for the objectives of the Kyoto conference, which took on a new dimension some days ago, following President Bush’s comments, which were untimely, to say the least. I think that at this debate, which is unfortunately scheduled for Thursday afternoon, in other words, when few Members are present, it would be crucial for the Commission and the Council to be represented at the appropriate level and for Parliament to be aware that President Bush’s comments are not only important in relation to the Kyoto protocol, but that they call into question the very nature of the privileged relationship between the European Union and the United States. Given such an astounding unilateral position, which, it has to be said, completely alters the political climate between Europe and the United States, I believe that it is the duty of the European institutions to give a response which should be a strong political reaction rather than an escalating verbal conflict. I think that the nature of the transatlantic economic partnership and the transatlantic dialogue that we have with the United States risks being compromised if the U.S. does not change its attitude. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, allow me to make a brief remark. Various speakers have observed that it would be statutorily impossible to change the 70/30 proportion to 50/50. That is not the view of the legal affairs service of Parliament, which has told me that it quite definitely is possible.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, in the absence of a clear legal framework, the rise of the abusive and opportunistic exploitation of legal provisions designed to protect patents, with the aim of profiting from advances made in information technology to do business, constitutes an unacceptable way of privatising human knowledge. Privatising knowledge in a field which cannot, even in the broadest terms, be confused with that of technical and industrial inventions simply means creating new business opportunities. Progress in information technology results, by definition, in advances which are as a rule unpatented, or which cannot be patented by anyone in particular, being added to the sum of knowledge. The right to make a profit of those who are most assiduous in appropriating common property should not be protected by law, much less should their interests take precedence over the interests of the general public, the interests of the economic and scientific communities, and the interests of civilisation, in knowledge not being commercialised. The application of true software inventions, resulting from investments, to the process of production should, of course, be protected. There is a world of difference, however, between protecting these legitimate interests and using that protection as a pretext to patent software indiscriminately. The proposal on the table today, with the compromise amendments suggested by the Group of the , manages to reconcile these different concerns in an acceptable way.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, before the summer break the Parliament's Bureau finally decided that it would publish the names of all the assistants of Members paid under Article 14 secretarial allowances, but since then we find that the Bureau and the Quaestors have qualified their decision and are requiring the individual consent, of both the Members and the assistants, before they appear upon the list. Surely, this makes a mockery of transparency and transgresses the principle that the names of all those who are paid from public funds should be published. Can I ask you to request the Bureau and the Quaestors to review their decision?

Political group: ELDR
I understand the need to provide better information and more quality guarantees for breast implants. It is, however, going too far for Europe to say that women should protect themselves. We should not regulate ‘self-esteem and other conceptual alternatives to breast implants’ in Europe. Nor should Parliament urge Member States to ‘concentrate on promoting and securing acceptance of the image of women as they actually are’. Europe must not prescribe a ‘national breast-implant register’ or annual ‘compulsory aftercare examinations’. This reinforces the patronising image that the European Union already has. It would be much better for Member States to issue their own legislation in this regard. I believe that women are perfectly capable of taking decisions for themselves and can be advised very well by their doctors, and that a ban on advertising is therefore not necessary. We are always getting bogged down in details. Is this Europe’s business? Sometimes you wonder which bureaucrat sitting behind his desk thought this one up. I have therefore voted against the resolution.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I do not think this amendment is something we can vote on, as the Treaty of Amsterdam makes express provision for the relationship between the institutions and the procedures to be framed differently. In this respect, this report forms part of the implementation of the Treaty of Amsterdam, and one cannot vote on erroneous, legal proposed amendments, one can only reject them! (Laughter and applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, you say that neither the Treaty nor the directive on the internal electricity market stipulate any exemptions regarding subsidies to the nuclear sector. On what part of the Treaty, then, is the exemption that you are still allowing the nuclear industry based? Articles 87 and 88 make no reference to nuclear energy. So it is not very clear what your legal basis is for exemptions for electricity generated using nuclear energy.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Air transport provides one of the many examples of the fact that the so-called European Union is, more than anything else, the cobbling together of the conflicting interests of Member States and their trust companies and major industrial groups. The European authorities would like Europe to be a bloc in worldwide competition. They have been no more able to achieve this in the air-transport sector than they have elsewhere, because the big European companies are also in competition with one another. When it is in their interests to associate with or sign agreements with non-European companies, and in particular American companies, the opinion of the European institutions will not be able to prevent them from doing so. The author of the report, a supporter of free competition, seeks to reconcile the desire to achieve added value for the Community’s airlines with the desire to tame the savage nature of their rivalries. Let the defenders of capitalist Europe shift for themselves in seeking to square the circle. We, on the other hand, are voting against this report, because we are against this system based on competition which, whether regulated or not, makes an enormous mess of things.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, could you please pass this message on to the authorities in Azerbaijan. That would be very useful because they listen to us in Europe – they want to be a part of Europe.

Political group: ELDR