GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
This proposal for a Regulation follows on from a Court of Justice ruling arising from an action brought by the Commission against Member States that had signed bilateral ‘open sky’ agreements, for having infringed the Community’s external competence and the freedom of establishment. The Commission proposed that the Member States should initiate procedures to terminate the agreements that they had concluded and asked the Council for permission to open Community negotiations with all the bilateral partners. As regards matters lying partly within Community competence and partly within the competence of the Member States, the Commission proposed a common approach, in other words, close cooperation. In its Common Position, the Council accepted the positions of the EP. The Member States will thus still have the right to negotiate and conclude bilateral air service agreements, without need for prior authorisation from the Commission, even if the subject matter of these lies partly within Community competence, provided that they include certain types of clause defined jointly by the Commission and by the Member States. This approach will continue to guarantee the Member States freedom of action, and so we voted in favour.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the previous speaker, Mr Garot, said that the disease is gradually starting to be brought under control. I hope it is. We therefore have to look to the future. Animal diseases spread with animal transportation, and so for this reason animal transport across borders should generally be avoided. At least there should not be any kind of financial incentive for it. Moreover, animal transportation must be properly monitored in each EU Member State and candidate country. One problem concerns animal auctions, especially those involving bull calves. I think these should be abolished altogether. Animal sales should be carried out, in this age of modern technology, directly between one farm and another, or between farm and abattoir. I would also like to stress the importance of a policy of prevention. Strict adherence to legal provisions on hygiene and transport is the undisputed basis for all agricultural trade and, consequently, for the production chain. The EU should embark on an eventual vaccination programme so that countries free of infection and disease do not have to unduly suffer.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, generally, when we have to deal here with proposals on the compilation of statistics, the Members of this House are not particularly enraptured – as is apparent this evening – because they regard it as a technical matter which is essentially of little concern to politicians. Our electors are surely unlikely to be interested either in the work and effort we devote to these proposals. I am often the rapporteur on proposals concerning the compiling of statistics by Eurostat, and I am forever preaching to my fellow Members that ill-informed citizens or politicians – yes, even female politicians – will misjudge situations and take unwise decisions, and that is dangerous. When it comes to statistics, there are certainly some people who delight in citing the quotation about there being three kinds of lies – lies, damned lies and statistics – on the grounds that quoting statistics is the most devious form of lying. Be that as it may, we still must not forget that reliable and comparable statistics are a necessity. Eurostat does excellent work in this domain and will continue to do so, provided that we politicians furnish it with a legal base and the financial resources it requires to perform its task. Having said this, now that we all have the single currency in our pockets, I should like to emphasise the need to have statistics on labour costs at our disposal, because they are part of the indispensable information that makes it possible to evaluate what is actually happening on the ground in terms of inflation within the euro area, to evaluate developments that are crucial to the stability of our currency, which is now the currency of all our countries apart from the three that have not adopted it. It is wrong to say – and I disagree with the rapporteur here – that the cost of labour is not a source of inflation, because it is simply not true that increases in labour costs are always justified by the rising cost of living or by improvements in the productivity of the workforce. Think of what is happening in Germany, where, contrary to all common sense, the trade unions are demanding pay rises which would threaten thousands of jobs and increase inflation at a time when the largest Member State of the European Union is already causing us enough concern over its compliance or non-compliance with the Stability Pact. Mr Solbes can tell us something of what went on in the Council of Ministers, because many people believe that the Stability Pact has already died a natural death. This is why every effort must be made to ensure that we obtain as quickly as possible a common framework for the production, communication and evaluation of comparable labour-cost indices of the sort that will result from this proposed regulation, which must be adopted as soon as possible. My group, by the way, does not agree with the amendments tabled by the rapporteur on behalf of his group, because he is asking for things that are impracticable and counterproductive – and this, incidentally, is also the view of the Commission and Eurostat. We shall therefore reject these amendments.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, whenever a debate draws to its close and as important a package as this one on telecommunications is adopted, one should be, indeed must be, permitted to look into the future. In this instance there are a number of questions that present themselves at the same time. Is the Commission already able to assess how much the market will now change – not only in the direction of more competition? What effects can we expect to see on jobs? Can you, on the basis of the package about to be adopted, already estimate whether the digital divide really will be reduced? Would what is currently going on not be an ideal opportunity to actually put transparency into practice, both as regards costs and at the consumer end? We are indeed currently finding that the new directives mean that we will have to deal with a flood of confusing information about telecommunications charges, and transparency should surely be at least as important in economics as in politics.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, the English translation of the question refers not to 'less-favoured agricultural areas' but to 'highly depressed agricultural areas'. There are many depressed agricultural areas – and highly depressed farmers – in the West Midlands, my home region in the UK. I would like to ask the Commissioner one question in two halves. Does the Commission agree that some Member States, including the UK, have not taken the fullest advantage of the flexibility allowed under existing CAP rules? Would he encourage all Member States to take the fullest advantage now under the new rules, which offer greater flexibility, and to listen to their farmers and their agricultural community in the process? A one-word answer will suffice.

Political group: PPE-DE
Thank you for your reply, Commissioner. I more or less agree with what you said, except for your comment that if the rate of growth increases, poverty can be reduced. In Greece, as in other countries, I think, we have seen that it is precisely when there is growth that the gap between the incomes of 20% of the population and the other 80% widens and that is where the problem lies. It is perhaps a good thing that you, rather than the Commissioner for social affairs replied, because this is indeed a question of growth. I think that this is where the Commission needs a more joined-up position. Of course, as the Greek government has not sent you its plan, we cannot comment on it. But I would remind you, Commissioner, that its previous plan to combat poverty had a very low take-up rate and very little impact. I therefore hope that we shall discuss this again on the basis of the plan because you too have an important role to play. I imagine that, over and above what you said, the question of taxation and the question of social security also play a very important part in reducing the gap between poverty and wealth, to put it one way. And what worries me – although perhaps I misunderstood – is that the Commission’s view is not very clear cut.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I am very pleased with this first reading and with the work that has been achieved by our Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, with the commitment of our rapporteur and, above all, with the skill and constancy demonstrated on so many occasions by Brian Simpson, our shadow rapporteur in the Group of the . The liberalisation of postal services is one of the fundamental dossiers connected with the concept of services of general interest and, more generally, with preserving the European Union’s social and territorial cohesion. In addition to the technical but necessary vision of what we wish to preserve in the field of universal service and of what we would like to open up to competition, there is the implementation of the “European social model”. How far must liberalisation be taken? Why should we try to speed up the process, which is what the executive Commission and Commissioner Bolkestein wanted? Why should we try to dismantle services which are useful and appreciated by our citizens, by denying them adequate financial resources and by making them dependent on an obsolete and punishing system of subsidies? We cannot, of course, undermine the principle of the adaptability of public services, which is what the Commission suggested, since this lies at the very heart of the history of most of our countries and which we consider to be very important. I do not think that this is at all reasonable and, fortunately, we were to put things right during the vote in the parliamentary committee. This is why I voted for this report as adopted in committee.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, my group is also against a resolution, probably for slightly different reasons from Mr Poettering, because – not in December, Mr Poettering, but on 30 January – we adopted a resolution stating quite clearly that the majority of Parliament is opposed to military action without a UN resolution. It is that Parliamentary resolution, therefore, that is still valid today. If the situation were to change, it would clearly also change as far as we are concerned. What is more, according to our information, the Security Council vote will, in any case, take place before we have had time to act in this regard.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, it is Christmas time, which means it is the time for goodwill throughout Europe. From the platform of this House, I would like to call on the government of the Federal Republic of Germany to give a present to the Italian ex-military internees, the ex-prisoners condemned to forced labour who have not yet received any compensation for this non-voluntary work. I would like to point out that the German Foundation ‘Memory, Responsibility and Future – a direct expression of the German Government and German industry – has decided to exclude Italian ex-military internees alone from this compensation, in conflict with both European Parliament resolution B2-0147/1985 and, most importantly, with all the equal opportunities legislation being developed by Parliament. These prisoners, these internees, are no different from the others. Even the Austrian Government decided to make good this debt in 2000. The deadline for submitting applications is 31 December. Mr President, I would like to ask you a question: in view of the fact that there is a resolution on this matter drafted by Mr Borghezio but that the timeframes will be very long, why does the German Government not act immediately? Seventy thousand of these internees are still alive. The harsh statistics tell us that the numbers fall by 10% each year. We cannot accept this resolution.

Political group: PPE-DE
I should to take the opportunity offered by this debate and this resolution to reiterate my firm conviction on the important question of ageing in general, which I believe is the positive consequence of longer life expectancy and the ageing of developed society rather than of a fall in the birth rate. We have to move beyond the idea of ageing as a handicap and look on it as a valuable resource to society. Obviously this means we need more social action and solidarity and benefits tailored to all ages and we need to safeguard pension schemes, but the importance of the elderly to society goes far beyond that. It takes account of their experience, what they have lived through, their voluntary help and what young people can learn from them. It imposes a different attitude towards ageing. We need a real ‘cultural revolution’ if we want to prevent an ageing society from being seen as a society in regression. So-called modern society would do well to take a leaf out of the book of traditional societies here.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, our guiding objective is the creation of a great European area of freedom, security and justice, in which it is vital that we strengthen the security of European citizens and the fight against organised crime. Following what was agreed in Tampere, it is crucial that we harmonise national legislation on criminal offences and the applicable sanctions in the field of organised crime. In other words, it is essential that we focus our efforts on adopting common definitions, incriminations and sanctions with regard to the approximation of legislation in criminal matters. This evaluation mechanism, which Mr Ferri has just mentioned and which forms the basis of the excellent report that he presented to the Committee on Citizens’ Freedom and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, was instituted on the basis of the action plan against organised crime approved in Amsterdam in June 1997. This can already be considered, per se, as a significant step forward, reinforced by the establishment of the European Judicial Network and other initiatives to modernise and increase the effectiveness of systems to prevent and combat crime. Under this evaluation system, although it is envisaged that the Council will adopt the necessary measures after one complete round of evaluations – in other words, three years, with five countries being evaluated per year – we should welcome the decisions taken by some Member States to determine in advance the reforms and improvements considered to be most urgent within their own legal systems, bearing in mind the results of these evaluations. We are all keen to have the results of the evaluations of the remaining countries, one of which is my own country, Portugal, conveyed to us quickly. I welcome the fact that the matter that has been chosen for the first round of evaluations is that of delays in the operation of the system for mutual legal assistance and in the treatment of urgent requests for the confiscation of property, with particular regard to procedures used in cases of organised crime. The emphasis on the problem of delays is particularly positive. Indeed, we are concerned to see an increase in overall delays in trials and we are fully aware of how damaging this is. Justice which is delayed or which comes too late is, ultimately, always a negation of Justice itself.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Europe does not believe in war, it only believes in peace, and therefore in a political solution. This means that we all shoulder our responsibilities. One of the Arab countries, Saudi Arabia – an influential country – has recently taken a major step by proposing a peace plan for the whole region. Let us, therefore, shoulder our responsibilities, and I hope that tomorrow in Madrid, Mr Solana, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, you will be able to convince President Bush’s envoy that the time has come to become involved in this conflict to find the solution, and this can only be a political solution. This also assumes that, in the future, when the ceasefire is in place and the withdrawal from the occupied territories has been accomplished, the Security Council will be able to send an intervention and observation force to the area. Its task will never be to enforce peace but will be to remind each party of its responsibilities within the Security Council. The majority of French Socialists is in favour of suspending the Association Agreement, but we must ensure that we find a solution where we are still able to address all parties and that we do not put in place mechanisms which might be overturned, which would strengthen support for those whom we wish to punish. Lastly, nothing that happens in the Middle East can ever justify acts of anti-Semitism being committed in any of our countries, whether ad hoc or organised, acts which take us back to the darkest hours of the previous century and revive our memories. I hope that everyone here will be able to make every effort to make others aware and that, in all our countries, we maintain a spirit of tolerance, mutual respect and secularity.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, my point of order is not as serious as some of the previous ones. It has been brought to my attention that a Union Jack is flying out of a window between the sixth and seventh floors of the Louise Weiss building. This might be a rash of patriotic enthusiasm or the flag might be just hanging out to dry. We cannot tell from looking at it from the outside who is responsible for this; I have my suspicions though. Could we ask whoever has hung out this Union Jack to perhaps remove it, unless we are all to hang our flags outside the windows. As you know, Mr President, this is against the rules.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the report on the Commission’s second report to the Council and the European Parliament on progress in liberalising energy markets only takes account of two aspects, namely competition and the deepening of the internal energy market. In order to justify this strategy of the full liberalisation of the electricity and gas markets, the report sings the praises of the supposed positive effects of competition, namely, reduced production costs, increased job opportunities and even goes as far as to praise its positive macroeconomic effects on the job market. By what mechanism does he hope this will be achieved, or rather by what mysterious means? In fact, the liberalisation that has been carried out to date or is in progress has not generated employment and, in some public utilities, personnel levels have even dropped as a result. According to the trade unions in the ETUC, 300 000 jobs have already been lost and a further 200 000 are threatened. Everywhere you look employees rights are under threat. I take issue with another assertion made in the report concerning the reduction in energy prices. Who will benefit from this and how exactly? It is commonly known that tariff reductions all too often only benefit large industrial users. As far as ordinary users are concerned, gas and electricity have become goods that one can either afford or not. Will users in the not too distant future be asked to pay for their electricity in advance, as is the case in Great Britain, and be forced to go without when their card runs out? Energy is a basic need. Access to it must therefore be considered a fundamental right. In our view, only genuine public and democratic regulation would make it possible to rationalise both the production and use of energy while ensuring respect for the environment and basic equalisation. This would constitute the first step towards a European public service that met the needs of today’s users and employees. However, such concerns seem far removed from this report, which is why I cannot vote in favour of it as it stands.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I should like to revisit briefly the problems which have typified the animal products sector for the past couple of months and years. We are faced with two problems: BSE, for which better tests can be developed, and foot-and-mouth disease, for which a marker vaccine can be developed. I should like to find out from the Commissioner what specific contingency measures he intends to put in place in this connection. I believe that public opinion can no longer accept the massive slaughtering of healthy animals. We, in Europe, will need to do something about this as soon as possible, and I would like a clear response from the Commissioner to the question when the European Union intends to contribute to developments in that area.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, on the face of it, the Nice Summit is all about making the necessary adaptations and dealing with the leftovers in the light of enlargement. But there is far more than that at stake. The Nice Summit will not just address the issue as to whether the Member States are prepared to give up their Commissioner, it will mainly be concerned with their willingness to give shape to the type of European political cooperation that promotes the interests of the European citizen, transcending national interests. It has frequently come to our notice of late that this political cooperation is totally absent. A brilliant example is, of course, the nationally motivated measures, and the reaction to the unrest over the high diesel and petrol prices; where concerted action could have given a huge boost to the credibility of European political cooperation in the eyes of the citizens. Bearing in mind the need to deepen the Union, the Heads of Government must change tack and extend qualified majority voting to a substantial degree. If we are serious about deepening European cooperation then it is absolutely vital to exercise effective democratic control over the European decision-making process. That is why qualified majority voting must always go hand in hand with Parliament’s right of codecision. Eighty per cent of all amendments tabled by Parliament in past months were adopted by the Council. So we evidently make an enormous contribution in qualitative terms. As Mrs Berès said, it is of course untenable to draw a distinction and give us codecision rights in consumer affairs on the one hand, but at the same time, only give us consultation rights in agricultural matters. Let us just think back to the recent BSE-crisis. Just what are we supposed to tell our citizens? Mr Méndez de Vigo has just made reference to the Charter, and rightly so. This is a subject that is, of course, very dear to Parliament’s heart. It is the embodiment of the citizen’s Europe, this Charter of Fundamental Rights. But now that this Charter is to be incorporated in the Treaties in Nice, certain governments have evidently given vent to their opposition. We consider this to be unacceptable, because by incorporating this document into the Treaties of the European Union, fundamental standards and values of the constitutional state and the social welfare state are being embedded in the European structures. I would warn our Heads of Government against taking an over-minimalist stance in Nice. As the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, said, qualified majority voting, together with codecision – Article 62 linking the Charter with the Treaties – is to be the litmus test for our Heads of Government. We have a saying in the Netherlands that goes: ‘if you set the standard too low you will trip over it’. Our European project must not be allowed to trip up in this way. Should we falter, this will provoke Parliament’s condemnation. So we are banking on success, but it is up to you to make it happen.

Political group: PSE