GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Despite its very limited nature and the fact that it is clearly inadequate with regard to the problem, we shall vote in favour of the directive on “minimum requirements for improving the safety and health protection of workers potentially at risk from explosive atmospheres”, inasmuch as it could represent progress in countries where workers are least protected. However, in view of the fact that there is no provision either for real control – that is to say, carried out by the at risk workers themselves and more widely, by the population – or a sanction against employers guilty of negligence, the directive is likely to go unheeded. The resolution, however, while claiming to place the safety and health of workers above considerations of a purely economic nature in Article 3, contradicts itself in Article 2 by refusing to impose constraints that would thwart the creation and development of small and medium-sized undertakings. It will therefore remain up to the workers themselves to impose this minimum protection to which they should be entitled and which the directive does not even pretend to impose. - Morillon report (A5-0070/1999 and A5-0071/1999)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, I wish to begin by thanking the rapporteur for the work and efforts made in achieving a recommendation for second reading which is balanced and flexible and which may lead to the success of a conciliation which will probably not be easy. Neither is it easy to achieve the general objective of organising working time for people who carry out professional mobile road transport activities, because it is necessary to take account of the health and safety of drivers, as well as road safety and, therefore, collective safety. And because another objective must be to prevent unfair competition. I believe that the Directive must include self-employed workers. Article 31 of the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights says, ‘Every worker has the right to working conditions which respect his or her health, safety and dignity’. And self-employed are workers in every sense of the definition. And the second paragraph of this Article says, ‘Every worker has the right to limitation of maximum working hours, to daily and weekly rest periods and to an annual period of paid leave’. I believe that the text, in the terms in which it provides for inclusion, is intended to achieve both the elimination of unfair competition and the granting of a prudent time limit for the self-employed to adapt to the new situation and to ensure their protection. At the same time, the prudence of the time limit is not going to encourage companies to dismantle themselves and resort to pseudo self-employment. In summary, I believe that the recommendation must guide us and contribute to creating a more just and transparent society, where it is difficult for unfair competition to take place, and where due attention is paid to the health, safety and dignity of workers whether they be self-employed or salaried.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the new rule the Bureau adopted last week stipulates that only travel costs actually incurred will be reimbursed. That is good news, and is also largely thanks to you. There is a fly in the ointment, however. The new rules will only enter into force when the Statute does. The chance of that ever happening is very small. The draft Statute provides for a common salary for all MEPs, but the proposal also stipulates that MEPs will pay European income tax from now on. That is unacceptable to many Members, myself included. I live in the Netherlands, I was elected by Dutch people, I use Dutch public services, and I therefore wish to pay Dutch taxes. Two years ago, there was a consensus on that point between the Council and Parliament. Member States would be given the freedom to supplement European taxes with national taxation. The rapporteur has swept that compromise off the table, however. Thus, the proposal does not stand a ghost of a chance, and everyone in this Chamber knows that. Last week’s decision by the Bureau will not enter into force, therefore, and we will be back to square one. At a time in which budgets are under pressure and citizens are having to tighten their belts, we are opting to live it up, with outdated expenses rules. Although it may have been naïve of me to think that it would indeed be possible and that the political will existed, I sincerely hoped that within my own group, of all groups, a majority would opt in favour of the public interest and against self-interest. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, last week, at the Etaples cemetery, the graves of British and Irish soldiers were desecrated in response to the instigation of war in Iraq. Mr President, I hope you will be able to associate yourself with the feelings of horror and concern that this desecration has already inspired, coming as it does at a time when British soldiers are fighting a war which, whatever the controversy over its instigation, sets democracies against totalitarian fascism. I am not speaking solely as a Frenchman and an anglophile, but as a European militant who, one year away from the centenary of the Entente Cordiale, would like you, Mr President, to associate our institution with the commemoration of an event that led to a century of community, blood and glory and which is thereby a founding event of the European Union. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
The market is merciless, because whoever produces and sells cheapest always wins – even if this winner is cheap only because of low pay, poor working conditions, animal cruelty, child labour and the absence of measures for the control of environmental pollution. In an ever larger-scale market, the production of age-old regional food and drink products is at risk. They can lose out to competition from a place where production costs are lower. If the free market strikes, cheese, wine, mustard, vinegar and cake will soon no longer come from the region of origin. It is therefore good, in the midst of the prevailing liberalisation of the economy, that the logic of the market is defeated by protecting these products and their areas of origin from imitation. Yet we have to be careful that no new injustice arises. Under this arrangement old EU Member States are at an advantage compared with new ones. I have recently put questions to the Commission about Bulgarian feta cheese that can no longer be exported now that the name feta is given only to Greek products. The Bulgarian cheese now has to be sold under an unknown name and is therefore less in demand. It must therefore always be possible for protected names already assigned to be opened up to prevent the neglect of a traditional agricultural product in other more neglected regions or regions that have acceded later.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the report deals mainly with formalities, in other words, the manner in which additives will be authorised. It is less concerned with the types of additives and how they work. I should like to take this opportunity to stress how important it is that, in future, all the directives are dealt with under Article 152, since both food safety and environmental issues require a coherent policy and a comprehensive overview. We cannot carry on as we have done up until now, that is to say dealing with each detail on its own, often only after the harm has already been done. The rapporteur places the emphasis on the testing and labelling of GMOs in feed additives. However, I should like once again to raise the issue of antibiotics. Certainly, five of the nine antibiotics that were originally permitted in animal feed have now been banned. It is nevertheless extremely important to ban the remaining four, both in the interests of human health and for the sake of the animals themselves. We now know that resistance to antibiotics poses a very serious threat to people's health, particularly in the case of small children. A number of Member States are already able to show conclusively that improper practices in connection with the keeping of livestock are totally unnecessary. Several countries phased out antibiotics in animal feedingstuffs a long time ago and others are in the process of successfully doing the same. We talk a great deal about the precautionary principle but, in the case of antibiotics, it has long since been forgotten. However, there is another environmental principle at stake, namely the exchange principle. I should like to say a few words about coccidiostats. They are a zootechnical product which is not totally necessary. There is a substitute, which is used to vaccinate chickens. Although it is a little more expensive, it does not harm the environment. Coccidiostats now accompany the manure that is spread on the fields. In that way, they end up in our water supplies which, as we all know, are our most vital resource.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, my group welcomes the decision. We regret, in fact, the delay of four months now in Parliament bringing the report to a conclusion. A failure or further delay would be catastrophic for Parliament’s reputation with its public. The centrepiece of the decision is Article 2. This will avoid a potential van Buitenen affair emerging from inside Parliament’s own ranks. The final clause of Article 2 is slightly cryptic, and questions will arise about its meaning. It is important for us to recognise that under the Rules of Procedure of Parliament the information acquired inside a temporary Committee of Inquiry is to remain secret only if it contributes to the writing of the inquiry report. We must acknowledge that any knowledge acquired that is superfluous to the inquiry or gratuitous should be disclosed immediately.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have to admit that within my group there are two arguments being disputed in relation to the Community railways. Though we unanimously agree to finally and genuinely develop rail transport and, though we unanimously agree to make every effort to facilitate the transfer from road to rail, some think that that this will be achieved most speedily via liberalisation whereas others, including myself, believe that the maximum number of guarantees should be created before liberalisation goes ahead, particularly with regard to passenger transport. In my view, the present state of the railways in the various Member States does not make it viable to open them up to competition. They are all in need of considerable modernisation in order to offer identical conditions of competition. The reason for this is that in order to achieve genuine and equitable competition, the right conditions need to be created, they are not simply acquired and excesses must be avoided. Companies, particularly public companies, need to be granted enough time to modernise their networks before opening them up to competition. With regard to the guarantees, be they in relation to the harmonisation of working conditions or vital safety regulations, they are also something that cannot simply be acquired. The disaster in Great Britain is still fresh in our minds and continues to warrant examination of rail safety requirements. The compromise reached on 10 December by the Transport Council marked a step in the right direction. Let us therefore go ahead and set up the rail transport network. It is not a matter of going too far, too fast in terms of passenger transport, what we firstly need to achieve is a rail network that offers the public the chance to get around without causing pollution.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the backdrop of the debate on the development of pensions systems is the new demographic context in Europe, a true challenge which has arisen due to the constant increase in the number of people reaching retiring age, which is linked to rising longevity. In this context, the Commission and the Council have often called for pensions system reform in the name of the Stability and Growth Pact and combating state deficits. Whilst national competence with regard to pensions is not called into question, the open method of coordination, an integrated approach serving national strategies aiming to ensure safe and sustainable pensions, is being proposed and this is the subject of Mr Fatuzzo’s report. We must find out the reason for this type of cooperation and how the objective of safe and sustainable pensions will be achieved. The issues of retirement age, guaranteed rights, the payment of pensions, in other words, retirement conditions, are all the more sensitive as they arise at the end of a lifetime of professional and human endeavours and are a guarantee of positive relations of mutual support between generations. It is good that Mr Fatuzzo’s report recognises that the debate on pensions must not be restricted to financing problems, but that rights must also be guaranteed. It is also good that he proposes to strengthen the open coordination method by democratic will, involving NGOs, the social partners, the candidate countries and the European Parliament in defining effective indicators and mechanisms with a view to assessing reforms and achieving modernisation. However, the report does support the Commission’s basic plan for a universal pensions system, although it waters them down by asking for collective systems of funded pensions to be promoted over individual financial pension and savings schemes. I do not know whether that will answer Mrs Van Lancker’s question, but the report basically supports the Commission’s desire to move towards more ad hoc reserve pension funds and not to use state spending within the framework of compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact. Nevertheless, we are all thinking about the Barcelona European Council which called for Member States to raise the retirement age by five years by 2010. Clearly, the question of financing arises. The development of the contributory system cannot be considered in the new demographic context without an increase in funds. That would be irresponsible. New resources must therefore be found. We believe that there should be greater focus in two areas: the development and creation of quality employment for new contributors, and alongside that, making financial income subject to social security contributions at the same rate as wages and salaries, as advocated by an amendment tabled by my group.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, let me first say a few words regarding the quality of the work of our rapporteur Mrs Stauner. She has been criticised, particularly in the Committee on Budgetary Control, yet she has produced an outstanding piece of work, and I wished to make that point today. Let me also say a few words regarding the speeches made by the Socialist Members. In all sincerity, without adding to the controversy, I feel that we have nothing to learn from the European Socialists regarding the use of funds. Let me say a few words on the Rühle report. We were all extremely shocked both by the massive misappropriation of European Development Fund resources and also by the Commission’s attitude, which was to carefully conceal its dealings from the Court of Auditors, the former UCLAF (unit for the coordination of fraud prevention) and the European Parliament. In spite of this particularly scandalous state of affairs, we have nonetheless adopted a positive attitude and have attempted, along with the new Commission, to provide valid and practical solutions to the underlying problem. The purpose of the agreements between the European Union and a good number of third world countries is to enable the latter to have balanced and sustainable development but, in order to do so, the funds allocated would actually have to get to the end-users and, as we have known for a long time, corruption and fraud are depriving entire regions of the greater part of these sums. To take just one example, the medical aid granted the Ivory Coast, particularly to combat AIDS, we are talking about some 38% of the aid being misappropriated, or almost EUR 30 million! Mrs Rühle’s report represents, then, the very last warning issued to the administration of the European Development Fund, who have until October to implement radical reforms in order to fulfil the expectations of Parliament, all the citizens of the European Union and, most especially, the populations of the countries concerned, who still have a vital need for European aid. So, until October, when we shall meet again.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, if this proposal actually becomes law at second reading, this will lead to companies’ freedom being curtailed somewhat, and to a slight improvement in the protection of public health. The strength of this proposal resides in the fact that it is not concerned with the behaviour of individual consumers of tobacco products, but is aimed at making it compulsory for companies to provide all consumers with information, and having the addition of addictive ammonia banned. This would make it less easy for the impression to be created that you can smoke without risking premature death. It would be more difficult to spread reassuring lies. The weakness of the proposal resides in the fact that it places heavy emphasis on the promotion of free competition. The imposition of uniform standards in all Member States seems calculated to give the various tobacco companies the same opportunities to earn money throughout the EU. This liberal basic principle does not have my group’s blessing. Our main concern is to protect people against the damage that tobacco products do to their health. My group would rather the proposal had taken an all-encompassing approach. Taking public health as the starting point, this would entail a complete ban on advertising and sponsorship and reducing to a minimum the number of young people who take up smoking. We would also need to look at what impact a reduction in the production and consumption of tobacco would have in terms of alternative employment for tobacco farmers and tobacco industry workers, how to put an end to the current EU subsidy regime for tobacco cultivation, and what we need to do to oppose international trade in this unwholesome product. As long as we fail to do this, each and every European measure can be counteracted by increased exports of American tobacco. All we can adopt at second reading is a watered-down version of the most far-reaching proposals that we voted on six months ago after the first reading. A watered-down text was adopted back then too, but the Council of Ministers still thinks that Parliament’s opinion goes too far. I represent those members of the Confederal Group of the – who supported the rapporteur’s proposals at first reading, and who will also support his watered-down proposal at second reading. The proposal is too weak, but without a decision of this kind tobacco products will be able to destroy even more lives.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as long as the mover agrees, I would like to make a suggestion to you, namely that the word ‘welcomes’ should be replaced by the word ‘notes’. There is a simple reason for this: the Lithuanian authorities and the Lithuanian Parliament have not yet given this their approval. However, I believe that it is important for the European Parliament that the Lithuanians should give their approval to this agreement, which is why we should use the word ‘notes’. I hope that the mover can accept this. I would also like to suggest that we should take the first sentence from Amendment No 52 from the Group of the , which was originally withdrawn, and add it to paragraph 18. That way we will have overcome the technical problems and incorporated the essential message. I would be pleased if the members of the Group of the could agree to this. The President established that there was no objection to the oral amendment. Before the vote on paragraph 30:

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this is a procedural motion. Yesterday, when we debated this issue, I asked the President whether we might hold the debate in another way and perhaps obtain a more lively debate by my talking for four minutes and subsequently rounding off the debate with a further minute of my speaking time. The President was very obliging and said that we were perfectly entitled to do that, and the whole matter passed off splendidly. My question to you, Mr President, is as to whether you will instruct the Sittings Directorate that this is in actual fact a procedure that can be used here in Parliament and that it is supported by the College of Presidents with a view to bringing about a more lively debate. When I asked the Sittings Directorate whether this could be done, they in fact said that the debate could not be conducted in this way. I would therefore ask you to instruct the Sittings Directorate that this is a method of proceeding that we use here in Parliament. It gives rise to livelier debates, and there is nothing in the Rules of Procedure to prevent this approach from being used.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on his report and I am pleased that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, which is to negotiate, for the first time, with the troika of EU Finance Ministers on the broad outlines of economic policy, will enter into these negotiations with a report that will attract a broad consensus. We all know that Lisbon brought a fresh wind of change, and it would only be to the good if the broad outlines of economic policy were to exude more of the spirit of the Lisbon EU Summit. The main issue facing the European Union, combating unemployment that is, is still not being treated as the most important aspect of the broad outlines of economic policies. After all, the cost of unemployment in the European Union is estimated to be 12% of European GDP. Therefore, the European Union is right to make full employment its goal. What concerns me most is that the broad outlines of economic policy are still lacking in commitment when it comes to taking advantage of increased investment activity. We are certainly doing the right thing in aiming for structural reform of the goods, services, capital and labour markets. However, whilst we do not yet know what effects structural reforms of this kind will have on employment, we do know what the effects of investment-backed growth are. We know that public investment can boost growth and employment as well. That is why we should welcome the introduction of quantitative targets for growth and employment quotas, for they supplement quantitative targets and benchmarking for investments. I also regret the fact that the targets set at Lisbon – and consequently, those set in relation to the broad outlines of economic policy as well – are not qualitative in nature. Surely this could only benefit Europe, which wants to be the most competitive zone in the whole world. Nor is there any indication whatsoever as to what level of investment as a share of GDP we need to aim for in what time frame, in order to produce a sustainable upturn. The current upward trend is encouraging, especially since the German and Italian economies, which account for half of the net product in euroland, are at last starting to move. This is a perfect illustration of how interdependent and interwoven the European national economies are, for they have not exactly acted as engines of growth on the European economy as a whole. Consequently, we are aware that we need a form of economic government in Europe. Europe must sing from the same hymn sheet when it comes to economic policy. We therefore need better coordination than we have had hitherto. Hence, I hope that the broad outlines of economic policy will be given substance, so as to render the language of the Lisbon decisions more comprehensible, and enable a timetable to be set. Of course, we must support the rapporteur in his desire for something we have repeatedly called for ourselves: what we need is an interinstitutional agreement between the Council, the Commission and Parliament, so as to overcome the democratic deficit in Economic and Monetary Union.

Political group: PSE