GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, in making our decisions on the aviation industry in Europe we have to take account of the interconnectedness of our economies and politics in Europe and globally as well. The fact is that Aer Lingus in Ireland had already been hit by the downturn in the high-tech industries where much of the lucrative business travel for Aer Lingus had already been badly hit because businessmen and women were simply not travelling back and forth across the Atlantic. Clearly, 11 September virtually wiped out that business. Tourism is also a major linchpin in the economy of Ireland. Our airline is an important asset in that area of the industry. If we allow that to go down the drain, who is going to service the Irish tourist economy? The Council and the Commission are, I am afraid, confused. They are minimalist and grudging in their response to this crisis for the Irish airline. That is perceived to be so by the workers of Aer Lingus and the Irish people in general. We will pay the price in Europe for that perception. It is important that we recognise that the national carrier in every Member State in Europe is as important as the national anthem or the national flag. You can shake your head, but that is the reality. We have to take that into account. We may regret it, but we must take it into account in dealing with this crisis. Finally, there are four things I would ask the Commission and the Council to address. There is an urgent need for a reply to the Irish Government's request to the Commission for permission to assist the Irish airline with the compensation that is due as a result of 11 September. There is an urgent need for the reform of the competition rules. There is an urgent need for assistance to help companies create alliances at a European level, which will ensure that the national carriers are not annihilated. Finally, we need firm proposals for the social fund package that has been talked about here today. Parliament should be discussing those proposals when we next meet in Strasbourg in December, not next June.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am dreadfully sorry, but I did not invent the procedure. The proposed amendment arrived very late last night. Just so that Mr Cohn-Bendit also understands: the two which were accepted were relatively straightforward. The others, as the rapporteur himself explained, are very complicated amendments which run through the entire text and I would be more than happy to explain them to you in detail if you cannot follow them. In any event, we are opposed.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, after all the misery they have endured, the liberated Iraqi people are now falling victim as we debate who is allowed to help them. Does the reconstruction have to remain in the hands of the Americans with a supporting role for the UN or will it be a truly international enterprise? Bush and Blair of course are disinclined to give the members of the anti-war coalition a leading role and to allow them to benefit from juicy reconstruction contracts. But only the UN can end the sanctions and in particular open the door to substantial international contributions and judge with authority whether the new Iraqi Government is truly representative. It is very important that the oil revenues should benefit the Iraqi people rather than ending up in the pockets of the President’s Texan friends. Commissioner Nielson appears to share my fear in this regard. Can he explain his statement that America is well on the way to becoming a member of OPEC? The European Union can and must make a humanitarian contribution, a very important one in fact: special attention to women and children, but also to the construction of a democratic constitutional state. If we keep arguing about the role of the EU and the UN, in the end there will only be one victim and that is the Iraqi people. IN THE CHAIR: MR DIMITRAKOPOULOSVice-President

Political group: ELDR
The basic problems concerning what is termed enlargement towards the east have not been solved. There is therefore no doubt that, given the economic realities, the tradition, going back many years, of Western European exploitation of our Eastern European neighbours, in the light of the different situation where wages and capital etc. are concerned, will continue into the future. The adjustments they will make in order to comply with existing Community law will cause the new countries quite a few problems, but that fact is not examined in detail in Mr Brok’s report. The People’s Movement Against the EU cannot support Mr Brok’s paternalistic exposition and conclusions, but at the same time is refraining from voting against the report out of respect for the candidate countries’ right to decide for themselves – through fair and impartial referendums (we hope for the best but fear the worst) – whether they desire EU membership.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, it is difficult to understand why those who are against harmonising income tax should be in favour of this directive. Those of us in the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party were very critical at first reading, and we still are. We believe that there would be damaging consequences for the European market if this directive were to be implemented before international harmonisation had taken place in this legal area. We do not believe that the deadlines for implementation should be shortened in the way proposed by the rapporteur. Nor do we believe there is proof that national minimum regulations concerning resale right are required in order to improve the internal market. As a previous speaker said, flourishing galleries and good systems of grants are important for young artists.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, as time is short I shall only refer to the directive on fruit juice. The Commission’s proposal is sound and does not require amendment. In particular, I welcome the double definition of juice from concentrate and fruit juice. It helps to keep the consumer better informed. Consequently I cannot support Amendment No 39, deleting the Commission’s text. I do support Amendment No 30 dealing with the subject in greater depth and referring back to Annex 1. Further, I totally reject Amendments Nos 18, 19, 23 and 25. The first of these concerns a ban on the use of fungicides in treatments after gathering. It has to be borne in mind that fruit gathered in Europe is in principle destined for the fresh fruit trade. The decision on which fruit will be sold fresh and which will be processed is only taken following selection by quantity and size. Directive 97/41/EC has already set a maximum limit for residue in the case of fresh fruit, based on detailed studies to ensure consumer safety. I believe this Directive applies equally to juice, fresh fruit, juice produced in the home, or packaged juice. Treatment after gathering is required to guarantee optimum storage, transport and distribution conditions. I should like to reiterate what I said earlier. A substance may not be harmful in itself, it depends on the amount used. Regarding the quality of the water added to concentrates, Directive 98/93/EC refers to the quality of water for human consumption, including water used by the food industry. Finally, Amendment No 23 calls for a list of authorised substances to be drawn up. It does not make sense to specify additional substances over and above those referred to in Directives 89/109/EEC and 90/128/EEC on materials and objects liable to come into contact with foodstuffs. This would restrict the juice industry’s capacity to adjust quickly to technological developments.

Political group: PPE-DE
UK Conservatives believe in the principle of works councils. But we also consider that it is for companies and their employees to decide what best works for them rather than for the EU to set out one-size-fits-all legislation. Works councils should provide a bridge between employers and employees. Over-prescriptive legislation can turn them into a barrier. Flexibility, not rigidity, is required. The one area where there is a need for greater legal certainty is the issue of confidentiality at a time of mergers and take-overs. We are no further forward on this.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, once again, the House is going to deliver its opinion on the banana issue, and I congratulate Michel Dary on his remarkable work. Today, at the end of negotiations which looked like some sort of mug’s game and having accepted compromises devoid of substance, the Commission has, however, remained inflexible. I hope that it will listen to our arguments today, for this system proposed by the Commission, this tariff preference, even if it were to amount to EUR 300, is in danger of proving completely useless in practice, for the ACP producers will be wiped out by the so-called ‘first come, first served’ system. This procedure is rightly termed a boat race since, as in such a race, it is the boat which makes all the difference. We already know which competitors will cross the line first: the multinationals with their high-performance equipment and refrigerated ships. Today, the United States and the majority of South American countries themselves reject this system. Why, then, does the Commission continue to defend such an unfair arrangement? Why not consider returning to the ‘historic references’ system to which the United States and the South American countries are now giving their overwhelming support? Otherwise, the ground rules could at least be modified in such a way as not to effectively exclude African producers. A two-round organisation, with the first round reserved for ACP producers when it comes to granting import licences for rating quota ‘C’, would therefore enable a balance to be restored. Where this issue is concerned, our ACP partners do not need charity, Commissioner. They just need us to join forces in order to defend our interests together. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as representative of the Pensioners’ Party, whose members include a large number of pensioners and elderly people who, having a lot of free time, watch the films and other products of world film-making either directly in cinemas or sitting comfortably at home in front of the television – a huge number of films are broadcast on television – I support Mr Vander Taelen’s document, which, like the Commission, calls for more support for European film-making. I would stress, Mr President, the importance, as this document points out, of deciding to promote the circulation of European films, not just in Europe as it is today but also in the Europe of the future, in the enlarged Europe which includes the candidate countries. If we really want to create a greater European culture than the one we have today, which, I regret to say, leaves something to be desired, it is vital that we dedicate even more funds to the circulation of European films within Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Mr Byrne reminded us just now about the fact that we are meeting today after two years of emotional and controversial work on this important issue of GMOs, an issue on which Parliament needs to decide without delay. We should show that we are rational, consistent and coordinated on what represents, in spite of everything, considerable progress. However, our debates here today show that opinion remains very divided. While ensuring the proper functioning of the internal market, we should assist our farmers in making their choices and, above all, we should ensure a high level of protection for the consumer. Even more importantly, we must convince the consumer that our decisions are well-founded. This means that we shall have to adopt strict rules governing authorisation and control procedures – which means that the scientific criteria for authorisation must be harmonised at European level – and there must be total traceability of products in order to guarantee the safety of animal feeds and foods for human consumption. It also means communication without ideology. Consumers are often worried because they do not have accurate information. The need for credible information for the public at large is consequently even more important. Labelling must be clear and legible, so as to allow consumers to be free to make the right choices. Consumers must be able to be certain that all the GMOs that are present in the products that they buy will have been strictly evaluated from the point of view of safety. They will then be able to choose to buy the products that they want. These texts propose lifting the moratorium. As soon as all the safety and traceability guarantees exist, the lifting of the moratorium must follow. If we do not lift it, we run the risk of holding back research in Europe yet again, and of causing our best research scientists to leave and go to the United States or Asia.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, we cannot just keep repeating the number which several previous speakers have quoted; we must also mention the fact, Commissioner, that 80% of these huge, daily foreign exchange sales have an investment term of no more than eight days. We cannot maintain a situation in which investments and the creation of jobs are less lucrative than short-term sales of foreign currency and shares. We cannot maintain a situation in which we allow ourselves to destroy the opportunity to take political action. We cannot maintain a situation in which income from non-economic activities increases more and more quickly. It has been demonstrated in Germany that income from monetary assets has almost doubled from 7.6% of overall economic income since Tobin developed his idea. We cannot maintain a situation in which the poorest countries of the world are most exposed to the speculative arguments surrounding short-term currency fluctuations. Nor do I believe that this is impracticable. Why should it not be possible for the G7 countries, the other EU Member States, China, Singapore and Switzerland to come to an agreement on the introduction of the Tobin tax? There must be an overriding economic interest. Why should it be impracticable, and it can be differentiated, to impose this tax on spot foreign exchange transactions, all the so-called cash transactions, currency futures and options? Why should it be impracticable to set this tax at a rate which does not jeopardise the long-term investments needed by the economy but which finally makes short-term and speculative investments unattractive. Numerous very difficult questions are bound to arise, but the only real problem which I can see so far is one of political will and the St. Florian principle of shifting responsibility from one agency to another which has now taken hold.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to emphasise the importance of the aim to use efficient, alternative transport, in place of short flights, which was mentioned in this report. For example, high speed trains, and, in some cases, short sea crossings offer a more environment-friendly alternative to short flights. This will be vital to ease congestion at airports and for environmental reasons too. Replacing short flights with alternative forms of transport will make room for long haul flights, for which there is no alternative. In Parliament we discussed several reports before the summer recess that aimed at improving the competitiveness of railways and sea transport. In addition to improving rail and sea transport competitiveness, we also need to take other action. One possibility is an environmental charge specially designed for air traffic. It should be introduced in such a way that the charge would be less for the unavoidable long haul journeys than it would for short flights for which there is a more environment-friendly alternative.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, please permit me to address a question to the Commission before the vote is taken. The text that the Commission originally submitted for a resolution envisaged the formation of an expert group on radio spectrum policy to continually discuss radio spectrum matters. The European Parliament was to be involved in these discussions. Legal and institutional considerations make it impossible to embed the founding of this group in the Frequency Decision, but I would ask the Commission whether they are holding to their original intention and establishing such a group by a Commission decision, that is to say on a voluntary basis. If so, will Parliament be involved in the work of this Group?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, after Mr Barón Crespo’s speech, there remains very little for me to say on this matter. I am going to refer to the Commission White Paper, and also to the mysterious Council document, the Mandelkern report, to which reference has been made, but of which we have no knowledge. The two documents deal with the legislative powers of Parliament. Mr Prodi has made a commitment not to put forward any proposal to the Laeken European Council, and it seems right, in fact, that these issues will not be discussed at Laeken, because, in short, these are issues that affect the very essence of the process of drafting a new European Constitution and which should, therefore, be in the Convention itself, and, possibly, at the Intergovernmental Conference. What we have to do here is to establish the legislative competences of the European Institutions, and make it clear that, of all the European Institutions, it is the organ of popular representation, the European Parliament, that holds the mandate for this popular representation. The wording of the White Paper, relating to the powers of enforcement, to self-regulation and coregulation procedures, and to the Lisbon strategy, are all aimed at cutting back Parliament’s limited legislative powers.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, my group, the Confederal Group of the , would like to add its voice to the expressions of sympathy for the families of the victims of the recent earthquake, and for the people of El Salvador, following this latest tragedy. In fact, I had the honour and gratifying responsibility of presenting a report to this House, on behalf of the Committee on External Affairs, on aid for the reconstruction of Central America following Hurricane Mitch, which was adopted unanimously. The truth is that I feel frustrated that our hopes and efforts have not been accompanied by efficiency on the part of the people responsible for the implementation of this programme. On that occasion, I pointed out that, when the hurricane struck, the Commission acted quickly in terms of initial aid. This has been the case this time as well, but we must continue to provide this aid. We must be more efficient. The scale of the earthquake was considerable. This region was beginning to recover and it is going to be essential that we make an immense effort to achieve levels of economic, social and democratic security. The European Union has to do some very hard work in this area and, amongst the problems to be faced, there is one I would like to highlight: the fraudulent diversions of the aid sent. The European Union – and the Commission in particular – must prevent this from happening, by guaranteeing that associations, NGOs and local authorities actively participate in the utilisation of the aid, for the sake of the efficiency and justice of the efforts made by the European Union.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I would like to follow up my colleague Mr Newton Dunn's inquiry by asking the Commissioner whether he has sought cooperation with the major Internet service providers in publicising these numbers. That would obviously be a major gateway of access for many Internet users. A linked point is the sort of cooperation he perceives is being offered by Internet service providers in being able to take down offensive sites that are reported through the hotline service. Also related is whether action can be taken on sites that are fed in from other Internet service providers from outside the European Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
Even from the perspective of the operation of the financial markets and the capitalist economy, the national fragmentation of the European Union is a handicap. Its entire history over past decades shows that it can only be overcome with great effort and difficulty. In financial terms, you would like to emulate the system currently in use in the United States. In order to create this system, however, we would need to apply restrictive regulatory measures to the Member States, which they refuse to accept. The funniest thing is seeing the rapporteur – a banker by trade – explaining that we would need to create a genuine, non-profit-making public service, which would make cross-border transactions easier and less costly! At a time when both the European institutions and the Member States are dismantling public services that are of use to the people, advocating a public service for the use of financiers and bankers is like vice praising virtue. We are for the enlargement of public services that are of use to the people. We could not care less, however, about the state of mind of financiers facing problems due to the very nature of their own system. By all means, try to solve your own problems, but, since they do not concern us, we abstained from this vote.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, in many ways it has been a rather grim year for the euro. I take a rather more pessimistic view than the previous speaker. We have seen the external value of the euro plummet. The interesting issue is to look at why that fall has happened. There are many reasons which have been explored today, but a big reason is that the markets do not believe in a currency without a country. They do not believe in a currency which is not backed by a political institution or a government. This is a very good illustration of the inherent link between economic and monetary union and political union. The one follows almost inevitably from the other. That is one of the many reasons why the United Kingdom should stay out of the euro. But what is vital is that the people across Europe have a debate about the future, a debate about political union. Too often in the past they have been told that changes in Europe are technical. Particularly the idea that a move to the euro was merely an economic choice is, quite frankly, a lie. Every time Mr Blair and Mr Brown say that it is a matter of economics whether the UK joins or not, they are deceiving the British public or they are deeply deluded about the future of Europe. It is only right that in Denmark we are seeing a debate on political union at the moment, as the Danes decide whether to join the euro or not. That is the decision that they are making and that is the decision that is faced by the United Kingdom. I trust that both of those countries will say no to political union and consequently no to economic union as well. It is about time that the European Union stopped intervening and spending taxpayers' money on one side of this type of political debate. It is unacceptable, in my view, for taxpayers' money – for public funds – to be spent promoting the euro in the ‘out’ countries, because they are engaged in a very important political process. To use government funding on one side of the debate would be an interference in this democratic process. I trust that we will vote in accordance with that in the Karas report at noon today.

Political group: PPE-DE