GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, I too, on behalf of my group, would like to warmly welcome Mr Stockmann's report, as it is an excellent one, and one which deals with its subject very much in depth. I speak for the majority of my group when I say that my colleague Mrs Foster, for whom I have very high regard, has this evening put forward an opinion held by a minority in our group. The majority in my group, just as in the committee, supports the Commission proposal to unambiguously clarify the legal nature of slots and to finally make clear that trading in slots between one airline and another is illegal and will remain so. As rights of usage, the slots belong neither to the air carriers nor to the airports, and have only an ancillary role. They enable air space to be used efficiently, economically, and in a way that treats the environment with respect, and so my group will be voting against Mrs Foster's three amendments tomorrow, believing as we do that the Commission is very much in the right. Secondly, I believe that the new version of the slot regulation aims at formulating the rules for the allocation of slots in a way that is more transparent and more favourable to competition. Of course, the ‘grandfather rights’ of the existing airlines are to be safeguarded, but only to some extent. We need competition, and I hope that my British colleagues will agree with me on that. We need competition, and so we also need new slots for new air carriers, in order to better organise competition in air travel and for the passengers' benefit. The end result is that the coordinators' roles and independence are strengthened. This is to enhance the possibility of taking unused times from the existing airlines and allocating them to others, thus improving the efficiency with which airspace is used in an economical and environmentally friendly way. That is the objective. Mr President, Madam Vice-President, please let us conclude by pointing out that I hope that the Council will, under Spanish Presidency, take a significant step in June. We have done our homework. We have, admittedly, produced 52 amendments in committee, but they are in the interests of greater precision. I hope that the Commission will work a miraculous transformation and support most of them. In any case, it strikes me as important that the Council should reach a decision quickly, as we want the revised slots regulation to benefit air carriers, and we want it without delay. Airlines have found themselves in difficulties as a result of the general economic recession and of the events of 11 September. We believe that a revised slots regulation will help airlines, airports and passengers, and so we ask you to support the Stockmann report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this is a little reminiscent of a Greek tragedy: whichever option you take, it always has a bad ending. I think we are facing one such tragedy. The goal, on which we are all agreed, is clear. Consumers must have the choice: either with GMO or without, and the label must guide them in a clear and reliable manner. In that respect, we have to make a judgment to some extent on the basis of evidence on paper. We must develop a system which we can rely on, which does not necessarily involve scientific tests alone. Our group does not want to label processing aids. We are still in discussion about products from animals that were fed GMOs at some stage. However, if we include these two aspects, then we will have to label just about everything, and I wonder whether we are helping the consumer in this way. Will he still be able to see the wood for the trees? This is why we call for a system of non-GMOs, which is, in fact, already being used as a sales point by a number of distribution chains. The key problem we will be facing in respect of paper evidence will be fraud. In my view, if we do not set up a sound and reliable system – since we are mainly dealing with countries outside of the Union – then we had better brace ourselves for the first scandal. As for the threshold value, my group will be endorsing 0.5% or lower for accidental presence. The Eurostat figures clearly show that most consumers want effective labelling. Should we, however, follow the Commission’s system? Does it provide the necessary guarantees for checking paper evidence in a number of products in total trade? Are we then certain that we will have a really good label? My second question is, if we introduce maximum labelling, so including enzymes and animal products, will we not start labelling nearly every single product, and does this benefit the consumer at all? In my view, the best combination is a non-GMO label along with a label which features a GMO for products in which these are present. This system is not watertight either, nor perfect, but I think that my version of the Greek tragedy will claim the least number of victims.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would also like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Nicholson, on his report. Members have highlighted the reasons why this regulation is required in the aftermath of the events of 11 September 2001 in the United States, so I will not go any further on that point. I should just like to say that we believe it is a necessary regulation because it creates legal certainty and because it establishes minimum insurance requirements for liability in respect of passengers, luggage, cargo, mail and third parties. On the whole, we believe that the Commission did a reasonable job. However, we also believe our committee has improved the text by bringing it closer to reality and by clarifying certain aspects of it. I support the call from the rapporteur with regard to an economic impact assessment of this legislation before the second reading. The main points I would like to raise on behalf of the Group are as follows: The Commission's categories regarding the minimum insurance requirements cover too wide a spectrum of aircraft and would have constituted a burden which is too high or even unbearable for smaller aircraft in general aviation. I believe we have found a good compromise in the committee by lowering and changing the categories and by using more or less the categories of resolution ECAC/25-1. My group has tabled two amendments again for plenary. The first is to ensure that the person of the party liable in respect of an aircraft is identical to the person required to take out the insurance. This amendment is necessary in order to avoid duplication of insurance, gaps in the insurance cover, or insurance without liability. The second amendment is about the consequences if the conditions of this regulation are not met, in particular as it applies to an air carrier or aircraft operators from third countries, who must be refused access to routes to or within the Community or the right to overfly the territory if they fail to comply. We must remember that Community air carriers and keepers of aircraft registered in the Community shall forfeit their operating license where the prescribed insurance cover is not maintained. Therefore we must make this distinction between third country and Community carriers or operators. We believe that refusal or access to routes is the appropriate sanction for non-EU air carriers and aircraft operators, and that the only sanction we can impose is the denial of access to routes. These two amendments are reasonable and I hope colleagues will support them.

Political group: PSE
I give my total support to the regulation under examination which, taking account of the specific characteristics of the outermost regions, will allow the continuation of the scheme to compensate for the additional costs generated by their isolation in the production, processing and marketing of fishery products, by providing it with a budget of EUR 15 million per year for the seven outermost regions. This is an attempt to ensure that the regional economic players operating in the fisheries sector enjoy production and competition conditions similar to those that exist in the continental market. The European Parliament also supports making this compensation scheme permanent, in line with the permanent nature of the constraints associated with the specific character of the outermost regions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioners, this is an extraordinarily interesting time for agriculture. Two events are particularly important. The first is, of course, enlargement as the overarching consideration. The second is the draft mid-term review. An absolute distinction must be drawn between these events. They must not be merged together, as was done by Mr Goodwill a little while ago. Nor is that the aim. The 2003 budget is not influenced by the mid-term review. Nor is it intended that the mid-term review should have a particularly great influence upon the budget subsequently. What is interesting, rather, is that we are beginning a process of discussing the future of agricultural policy. I was delighted to see that Mr Färm’s report demands a fair and sustainable agricultural policy and praises the Commission’s proposal. I share that perspective and I wish, on behalf of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, to explain that we fully support that assessment. I was alarmed, as was Mr Goodwill, to read in the Financial Times yesterday that seven agricultural ministers clearly defend the agricultural policy in its present form. It is as if they are on a different planet. I hope that the European Parliament is able to support the Commission in its efforts to change and reform the policy in the future. I believe this is necessary and, even though we do not have any formal influence, our support is badly needed as a matter of urgency.

Political group: ELDR
Closer European cultural cooperation is a welcome and desirable aim. I voted for the Ruffolo report because I firmly believe that closer cultural cooperation will be mutually enriching. Familiarisation with other cultures helps nations and peoples to understand each other and fosters peace. The culture and language of the migrant communities in Europe must not go unmentioned in this context, and I call on the European Union to ensure that some of its financial aid is used to support the cultural activity of these ethnic groups. Cultural cooperation in Europe is a fundamental aspect of closer European integration. By learning about each other’s cultures, the people of our countries can undoubtedly develop a sense of European identity. I consider this particularly important, because Europe is still remote from its people, for whom it is something situated in distant Brussels. Besides its unity, Europe is also characterised by its cultural diversity. That is of inestimable value and helps peoples to live together in peace. I am determined to work for a Europe whose inhabitants do not merely coexist but, above all, engage in fruitful interaction. - Schmitt Report (A5-0279/2001)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, I would like to confine myself to a small number of questions. How honest are we, in fact, when we claim that we mainly fight poverty in the least developed countries? Our fellow MEPs have illustrated this amply. Furthermore, we find that our aid does not even reach the poorest in the poor countries – and surely that is what all this is about – for they remain in poverty. How coherent is our own policy? How honest are we when we claim that we are quite willing to import everything, except weapons, from the poor countries? Is this not, in the first instance, an act of goodwill to include the southern countries in a new WTO round? I wonder about that, for I note that we remain caught up in our own incoherence. I would like to quote the delay of imports of sugar as a case in point: that is nothing but a disgrace! Must we really continue to support our own sugar production? Surely there is no reason for doing that!

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the dependence of the Member States of the Union on imported energy is massive and is growing all the time. Reliance on fossil fuels is reliance on imported energy and the political decisions of foreign powers. Using renewable energy sources will increase the freedom and independence of nations and is in harmony with the principles of ecologically and socially sustainable development. In preparing the report, a definition of what renewables actually are has been put forward. Without taking a stand on whether peat is a renewable energy resource, it must be able to be used as a fuel in the production of energy, preferably in the combined production of electricity and heat. Peat is important in the Nordic countries, and we must have the opportunity there to burn peat, as it is our own source of energy and it reduces the EU’s dependence on imports. Burning it produces carbon dioxide, but that is produced when fossil fuels are burned anyway. Those countries that burn oil or gas themselves should not prohibit us from burning peat. If we do not, we will burn oil or gas. We are not trying to deceive others into believing that carbon dioxide is reduced by burning peat, but it is our own fuel, while oil and gas are imported goods. Waste is not a renewable natural resource, although there is more and more of it produced every day. Landfill site gas can be burned, but the volume of waste should not be increased just so that more gas can be burned than before.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, it is impossible to say something meaningful in two minutes about such a challenging report as the one written by Mrs Plooij without getting very frustrated, because one could say so much more and, more to the point, would want to say so much more. I would like to congratulate the Commissioner on his ambition, which is considerable. Trying to create a European research area is an ambitious plan, because this research space is currently lacking and we only have ourselves to blame. We make insufficient resources available, although we all – and Mrs McNally underlined this a moment ago – acknowledge the link between progress, development, and creating prosperity and jobs. This is evident to all of us, yet our governments fail to set aside sufficient funds. This is true for the Member States and regions, some of whose percentage levels are shamefully low. We should, as it were, sound the praises of certain Member States and regions, but should not work on averages. This is why it is good to emphasise cooperation. Pyramids and hierarchies are not really of much use here, because we know that talent bubbles up from below and from all those regions and all those milieus where talent breeds, both male and female, although female talent – and this has been pointed out many times before here – can only ascend to the very pinnacle of academia very slowly. Cooperation, however, requires organisation. And really, the absence of this is something we only have ourselves to blame for. If our organisation of the scientific environment lags behind, we will not achieve a European research area. After all, it is exactly this area, where people can communicate a lot more freely with each other than before, which has to ensure that scientists feel at home in Europe.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Once again we have been served a balanced menu which is nothing of the sort. A pinch of good intentions regarding the position of women in research, a nod of acknowledgement towards the social sciences, a handful of allusions to the role of cooperation in scientific matters between the Member States, or the role of research in the development of culture and even of employment for all, before coming to the main course, the only real meat of the matter: a substantial package of subsidies for businesses. For that is the main if not the only motivation of the European Commission, the Council and the author of this report. What we are being asked to support is a move to strengthen the private sector’s grip on public sector research, facilitating the exploitation of the results of public sector research by private capital, and the “dramatic reduction”, written in black and white, “in the red tape that obstructs” it. The rapporteur claims that, “It would be an advantage for companies to have better access to research results.” An advantage only for the business owners and shareholders who have been promised further subsidies disguised as aid to research. No one is fooled by the fact that the report only makes reference to SMEs. All major corporations have small and medium-sized enterprises as subsidiaries, particularly in the field of research. Public monies should remain in the public sector and should be used for research that is of benefit to the population. We voted against this report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, at the moment, some 40 million people speak a regional or minority language in addition to one of the Union's official languages. With the enlargement in 2004, some 6 million people will be added to this. In the Netherlands too, we have the phenomenon of a minority language, Friesian, which enjoys official recognition as such. As has been said before, linguistic diversity is a heritage of which we Europeans are proud, and so we should be. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union rightly recognises the cultural and linguistic diversity. In future, this will also form an inherent part of the European Constitution. The European Parliament has always made a case for protecting linguistic diversity and regional and minority languages. Various resolutions have been adopted in this respect. A budget line was created for this purpose as early as 1980. In 2001, the European year of languages was particularly intended to draw attention to the importance of languages, to language diversity, and to stimulating language teaching. This involved not only the major languages, but also lesser-used regional and minority languages. It was a sound initiative. Nevertheless, there is still a great deal left to be done in this area. I am therefore pleased that a plan of action is now being drafted in order to hammer this point home once more. I myself have spoken in favour of greater attention being given to sign language. We know that about 1 in 1 000 people – some 15 000 people in the Netherlands alone – are born deaf or become deaf before they reach the age of three. To them, sign language is an essential means of communication, so I am pleased that this component has been included in the present report. It would be good if sign language could be considered a minority language. Deaf people are often excluded from many areas of society on account of their disability. Their language deserves as much attention and support as do spoken minority languages. I sincerely hope that the Commission will manage to present a legislative proposal on language diversity by the end of this year. Peace in Europe is not only about effective economic cooperation. It is, above all, about demonstrating an interest in, respect for, and understanding of, people from a different culture. Language is an important key in this. Finally, I should like to congratulate Mr Ebner on the result of his work and thank him for the particularly pleasant working relationship.

Political group: PPE-DE
I welcome Mr Brok's report, which shows that real progress has been made in the enlargement process. There is now a real possibility of ten new Member States joining in 2004 and taking part in that year's European elections. It now also looks possible that Romania and Bulgaria could join in 2007. What is now required is a display of real political will and compromise on all sides to ensure that the momentum is sustained. Copenhagen has the potential to be a truly historic summit.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, metaphorically-speaking, what we have in the new I+C technologies is new fuel for our economic locomotive to re-heat our eco-system. However, I should like to raise three points which perhaps merit our attention. First: Article 6 of the Treaty of Amsterdam clearly calls for the principle of sustainability to be integrated into all policies. To be honest, Commissioner, on reading the communication, I find too little account has been taken of sustainability, the question of ecological products, incentives for an ecological lifestyle or the question of the impact which I+C technologies have on environmental protection. Improvements are therefore needed here. Secondly: how will our working life and employment relations change? Will people be able to influence how they are organised? We need to consider if we need new joint-decision structures in the face of these revolutionary developments, new structures for listening to employees and making decisions. Greater account needs to be taken of this. Thirdly: the Fifth Framework Programme on research contains a great deal of socio-economic research, the purpose of which is to analyse what holds Europe together in the area of I+C technologies. We cannot fill and heat our locomotive with ordinary fuel and, at the same time, carry out socio-economic flanking research under the framework programme which makes no reference to this communication. In short, we need to heat the locomotive but not to allow it to travel anywhere it pleases. This locomotive needs rails.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, the rapporteur, Mr Stevenson, has done some very thorough work and I particularly want to thank him for his ability to cooperate and communicate with various groups and parties. This proved invaluable and certainly helped us achieve this excellent result. The Commission has thrown a very simple solution into the debate and I also think that it is indeed meant to be a way of getting the discussion started. Imports will make up the shortfall; it is a childishly simple proposition. But the answer contained in this report is exceptionally good. It raises the issues of new plants, the Blair House negotiations, oil plant production aid in the United States of America, the fishmeal problem, and others. These are matters that have to be, and can be, resolved. The most crucial question, however, is whether to support the production of plant proteins in the EU Member States or not. That is the question we first have to tackle and then make the very profound and fundamental decision that it must be supported. We cannot embark on a programme of unprofitable production, and with that in mind Mr Garot has submitted the proposal that we should carry out research and move forward on the basis of that. Research brings with it the possibility that there will actually be a demand for our own plant proteins. Demand will raise prices and prices give a boost to cultivation. These problems must be resolved and we hold the key to the solution. Why can we not provide solutions? Why is that? Everyone is a little wary: everyone is out to safeguard their own interests a bit too much. We need to have a broader view and provide a comprehensive solution instead of hiding behind excuses the whole time. With regard to bioenergy and plant proteins, for example, the solution is very simple. All we need to do is pass resolutions and resolve problems of taxation. These sorts of procedures will result in a comprehensive solution leading to our own plant protein energy programme in Europe, one that is not dependent on the United States, Brazil or Argentina.

Political group: ELDR