GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. – Mr President, I am not going to speak about lobsters, but I share the interests of the two previous speakers. Mr President, you know everything by definition, so you already know the opinion of the Industry Committee. In case there are any colleagues here who do not know, it is my role to report it. There was a broad spread of opinions in the Industry Committee, as I shall briefly describe. I will summarise a number of key points which our discussions centred around. First of all, perhaps most importantly, should the scheme be compulsory or should there be opt-outs or exemptions? There were a number of voices from certain national quarters asking for exemptions. Other committee members believed that if we allowed exemptions, everyone would ask for one and there would be no directive, so there was a dilemma there. There was also a concern that the benefits that the cutbacks already achieved in certain Member States will not necessarily be rewarded adequately. This should be taken care of. There was general agreement that from 2008 the directive should be compulsory. Regarding allocation of allowances, the Committee is against auctioning. It seems to be a waste of resources when the industry should be using it to cut back. The Committee is interested in including other sectors, even perhaps in transport and private housing, although this will be difficult to achieve. We are in favour of including the other five greenhouse gases, although measurement is an important question. On comitology and whether the Commission should be allowed to decide the future details, we are firmly, unanimously against. We want full co-decision for the next directive when it is proposed. We want the other parts of the world to pay attention because what we do is useless unless the Americans, Russians and Asians are involved as well. Finally, a personal point, the public should be allowed to buy quotas because we want to involve the citizens in European activities and in saving the world. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
I am going to deal specifically with whole-body vibration. As has already been said, there is evidence that whitefinger can be caused by hand-arm vibration, but I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence that whole body vibration causes tremendous health risks for workers. There is a slight health risk, but even the ISO standards say that there is no quantitative health risk, and so without further scientific evidence, I think it would be crazy for us to put more burdens on industry. I am glad that the rapporteur has eventually agreed that we need a compromise on agriculture, so I urge you all to vote for Amendment No 11. This would exclude agriculture and forestry for five years and then it would come back to Parliament after further research and scientific evidence has been provided. If we do not vote for the compromise in Amendment No 11, I believe that the harvest across the whole of the EU will not be able to take place. If we do not vote for it, tractor drivers, for instance, will be able to drive their tractor for between 2 to 4 hours in any 8 hour period and that is if we get the 0.8 m/s2 that the rapporteur is suggesting. Even if agriculture and forestry is taken back, we need to go back to the common position of 1.15 m/s2 instead of the 0.8 that the rapporteur is proposing, because if we do not go back to that, other parts of the industry such as engineering, mining, construction will have tremendous problems, so I urge you to make sure that you do not vote to put more restrictions on industry when we do not have a quantitative health risk demonstrated. I hereby beg you not to vote for the rapporteur's position on this and to go back to the common position and vote for Amendment No 11 and against Amendments Nos 2, 4, 12 and 9.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs has prepared an important report on the Commission communication. As the markets are only interested in young people and their purchasing power, it falls to politicians to attend to the issue of older people. In many EU countries it is being discussed whether existing pension rights and benefits can be safeguarded in the future. In many countries pensions have been promised although there are not the corresponding funds to pay them. When the single currency is introduced in the form of the euro and monetary policy is the same in all countries, those countries will be subjected to an enormous amount of pressure to cut pensions. Promises regarding pensions must be kept, but pensions must be secured with those countries’ own funds without payment of the pension being protected at the expense of the EU’s common monetary policy. It is a guaranteed income that will give older and elderly aged people the greatest sense of security. Employment is also one of the basic human rights, and Mrs Sbarbati’s report has rightly brought attention to age-based discrimination and ageism in working life. It is politicians who must safeguard the notion of equality in employment: the markets cannot.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I should naturally like to say a big ‘thank you’ to the rapporteur, Mr Herzog, for the quality of his work and for the opportunity he has given us to debate the issue of services of general interest today. Even if it is not taking place within the framework of a legislative process, our debate today is fundamental, because it deals with the borderline between the world of the market, where competition has to prevail, and that other world where solidarity, equality and democracy – in short, social cohesion – must be paramount. It is fundamental, because our European model, the envy of the world, and the most elementary civil rights, chiefly enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, are at stake. Within the European population, among associations, trade unions and local authorities, there is grave concern, because the various experiences of liberalisation or privatisation – and I need only cite the British experience – have had rather adverse consequences. This is why we propose that the report, which is totally unacceptable in its present form, should undergo substantial amendment. First of all, we propose a thorough public, pluralist and open evaluation of the development of services of general interest, perhaps through an observatory of services of general interest. In actual fact, we find it difficult to understand the opposition of the Right to this proposal if, as its adherents loudly and proudly proclaim, the effects of liberalisation have all been beneficial. Because of the ambiguity of the criteria used to distinguish between economic and non-economic activities and to guarantee the subsidiarity that everyone is demanding, certain areas of activity – education, health care and social housing – will have to be explicitly excluded from the application of the competition rules. By the same token, there is a need to protect the right of municipalities and other local authorities to choose democratically the way in which they manage certain services – water and refuse disposal, for example – in accordance with local needs. Lastly, the Member States and their territorial subdivisions and local authorities are, of course, responsible for services of general interest, hence the need for a framework directive which could truly establish a set of common principles for services of general interest. It is surely a matter of summoning up the will, at a given moment, to protect the citizenry of our countries. This is how one vision of Europe can be understood.

Political group: PSE
The Interinstitutional Agreement of 1999, for which I was rapporteur, created the Flexibility Instrument, a ‘light’ revision of the Financial Perspectives of less inconvenience to the Council. In the two previous budgetary years, we rather forced the interpretation of that mechanism, since it was applied by us in order to meet the needs of Kosovo and Serbia, with regard to the fact that the Council refused to keep its word and agree to the revision of the Financial Perspectives which it promised in its Declaration of 6 May 1999. This year, the European Commission presented a proposal to mobilise the Flexibility Instrument which, for the first time, respected the letter and the spirit of the Agreement. But once again it has not been possible and the responsibility for that falls to Parliament. It was a question of providing EUR 197 million of the EUR 281 million it will cost to convert the fleet which previously fished in Moroccan waters, a fleet and an industry which provides employment in the least-favoured regions of the current EU: Galicia, Andalusia and the Algarve. All of these are Objective 1 regions. On the afternoon of the conciliation of 21 November, the Council and the Commission sounded out formulae which did not represent a reduction for anybody, but it seems it was not enough for some people to obtain resources which were difficult to justify, but that it had to be at the expense of everybody else. The result is that the Objective 1 regions of Spain and Portugal will have to pay for 40% of the conversion of their fleet by means of the reprogramming of the FIFG. My colleague Barbara Dührkop Dührkop will continue with the explanation of vote.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, unlike three of the Parliamentary groups, we did not sign this resolution because we believe it does not tell the whole truth about what is happening in Argentina – although this is difficult to do through a resolution, I admit – and it seems rather weak. The best example is recital H, which states: 'whereas the violent incidents in Argentina that have claimed victims stem from the serious economic and social plight of the country [...], and from the fact that over 40% of the population is out of work'. This is true, but it is not the whole truth, because the victims were caused by military suppression and two real people, with first names and surnames, have died, while more than 90 have been injured, and, moreover, the police shot their way into the headquarters of the Party. In other words, poverty, unemployment and the serious crisis situation are not the whole story. The resolution calls on the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to provide aid to help Argentina weather the crisis, but says nothing about the conditions required for this to happen. Our amendments point out that Joseph E Stiglitz, former Vice-President of the World Bank, states that market deregulation, financial speculation and flight of capital are contributing factors to this crisis, in addition to any errors that might have been made by the Argentineans. Mr President, a country as wealthy as Argentina has no right to leave the majority of its population in poverty. We must therefore help it to overcome its crisis, but only insofar as this is necessary.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the prophets of doom, such as myself, you, Mrs Frahm, and many others, unfortunately seem, at present, to have been right during the debate on possible intervention. Following the attack on the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad and the attack on the sacred Shiite sites in Najaf, the faint hopes of a lull that would make it possible to gradually legitimise the authorities established by the coalition are disappearing, and with them the prospect of a more or less short-term transfer of the coalition’s current responsibilities. I do not believe that it is sufficient to catch Saddam Hussein, which needs to happen soon, in order to put an end to the chaos that the dictator on the run is so keen to maintain, but that many others with him and, if need be, after him have decided to magnify further. I am thinking, of course, of the religious extremists who are prepared to die in order to fight the United States under the banner of Al Qaeda and other fundamentalist organisations. I am also thinking of its large neighbour, Iran, which cannot remain unaffected by the situation in Iraq. I am thinking, above all, of the Iraqi people themselves who, rightly or wrongly – as many have said here – consider the occupation of their country to be unacceptable, regardless of the justification. In this latter, mainly psychological field, in my view the international community, which quite rightly hopes to end this chaos as soon as possible, has no option but to legitimise its action by voting on a new Security Council resolution that entrusts the United Nations with the task of restoring order in the country and preparing the necessary transition to a legitimate Iraqi Government. This was your objective, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, and I welcome the fact that the latest known US proposals seem to be moving in that direction.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too would like to congratulate Mr Collins on his excellent report and indeed for accepting my amendments on the health aspects of air travel. Brenda Wilson is a Greater Manchester constituent of mine who is an active campaigner for the Aviation Health Institute, an organisation working internationally to improve air passenger health. Tragically her son Neil died of a deep-vein thrombosis after a short flight to Benidorm. He is one of an alleged 2000 air travellers who, according to some in the medical profession, die each year from deep-vein thrombosis, not just long haul, not just economy class, and therefore there is growing concern about the potential link between air travel and blood clots. The research is ambiguous. The World Health Organisation is putting GBP 7 million into research and I am asking you tonight to give your commitment to a European Union study to look at potential links between DVT and air travel and preventative action. I am also asking the Commission to take up the idea in my amendment on improved health briefings and health warnings on tickets in advance of flying. This will allow passengers, as consumers, to exercise the choice perhaps not to drink alcohol, perhaps to take aspirin three or four days before flying or to wear these new compression socks which help regulate blood flow in the legs. There is no need to be an alarmist. We know that air travel is safe but there is nonetheless a small risk for some passengers that they may develop blood clots. We owe it to our European passengers to increase our knowledge and science in this area. I would like your assurance that you will now respond to our call for research and meet as a matter of priority with the aviation industry to look at improved health warnings on tickets. We are in favour of voluntary action but if it is true that the airlines have known for 30 years about the risks of DVT then maybe we need legislation.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I was a huge fan of the Commission’s attempt to put a check on the present transfer system which has, in my view, resulted in absurd situations. That is also why, unlike my fellow MEPs, I am disappointed about the outcome of the negotiations which is now before us. Of course, the proposal contains some sound points, such as compensation for training costs. I am still left wondering about this, because the Commissioner’s response to my previous question was, in my opinion, not satisfactory. If the cost of training is paid, even at the end of a contract, even at the time when a club wants to be rid of its player, this will be at odds with the Bosman judgment. After all, either the compensation will be too low, in which case it is not a true reflection of the actual cost of training, or it will be very high and will clash with the Bosman judgment which stipulates that, at the end of a contract, no remuneration of any kind may be paid to the club. However, Commissioner, my biggest disappointment concerns the very essence of the present transfer system, namely the existence of transfer fees. You have to admit that the Commission has not been able to change this aspect. It will be possible, in future too, for the club and player to agree in their joint contracts on transfer fees which are unlimited and which can rise to the same absurd heights as they do at the moment. I think that you should be generous enough to admit that the Commission has suffered a huge defeat in this respect, and that the essence of the present system remains intact. In my opinion, FIFA’s proposal is nothing but a cosmetic change to, and, in some respects, an improvement on, the current system, but the essence of that system, the existence of transfer fees, remains in place.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to know whether the Commissioner has anything to say on the issue, which also relates to nuclear submarines, of the Tireless in Gibraltar. It has been raised by five Members in this House and he has not said anything about it. I am concerned: is it that he is deaf? Is it that he does not know what to do?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, rapporteur, I welcome any initiative that aims to improve data protection for the people of the European Union. However, there are serious problems with the EUROPOL and Schengen Conventions, and as regards customs cooperation. One of these is the inadequate level of protection for data collated and processed in the institutions. As far as I am concerned, it goes without saying that the proposed secretariat must be independent of the institutions requiring monitoring, as is borne out by the fact that it has its own budget. Yet still I cannot vote in favour of Mr Hernández Mollar’s report. I ask myself this: why should bringing all those who have been responsible for data protection hitherto, together in one secretariat headed by one General Secretary, lead to improvements in data protection merely because it is certain to lead to savings in this sphere? Bringing these officials together under one roof will not guarantee better data protection. Taking an overall political view, I see Portugal’s initiative, together with the report, as being one more step along the way towards improving coordination between Schengen and EUROPOL. When it comes to the problems associated with the aforesaid conventions, inadequate data protection is the least of our worries. Both EUROPOL and Schengen will add hugely to the construction of fortress Europe. Fundamental human rights such as the right to freedom of movement, the right to asylum, or in many cases, even the simple right to human dignity, will be compromised, and these institutions will support and control this. Therefore, I cannot vote in favour of an initiative that may bring about a mild improvement, when it will also help legitimise these institutions as a result. Since I am basically critical of EUROPOL, and Schengen in general, and I believe that having one General Secretary instead of three does not equal better data protection, I intend to abstain.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the International Labour Organisation has found it necessary to behave in a regulatory way in respect of port labour, precisely because port labour has so much to do with safety and because this is an area where social dumping has occurred. Many countries have signed these conventions, and you will naturally say: ‘We are not opposed to it either, and we also allow these countries to organise themselves further.’ My country also wants to be able to retain its ‘Major Law’, but that is naturally not what it is about. What the dock workers are afraid of, and this is an area in which I share their anxiety, is the fact that safety in the ports will go out of the window in favour of cheap prices. The Prestige accident has already been mentioned by many people. Are we going to see serious accidents like this in the future when goods are loaded and unloaded? The other great risk is that of social dumping on account of self-handling. Commissioner, is that really what you are aiming for, competition through social dumping? I do not think that we should go down that route. We must ensure that compulsory licensing is introduced. I therefore really do not agree with what you are advocating, as I am sure that anyone subject to strict licensing laws will also experience distortion of competition. They will be priced out of the market, and cowboy ports will develop, just as we already see ships sailing under a flag of convenience that are the terror of the seas. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I understand that over the next few days, the Bureau will be discussing the question of languages and interpretation following the accession of the candidate countries. Because, as you know, we are all a little touchy on this subject which is, above all, a political issue and cannot be resolved by purely administrative measures, I should like to ask you to tell us what the Bureau's thoughts are on this and how you think we can all take part in this debate, which is absolutely vital.

Political group: PSE
I am grateful for the Council’s reply since it demonstrates that the Council cannot violate the principle of institutional autonomy by which we are governed. Secondly, I would like to point out that Spain has been a Member of the European Union since 1986 and since then this institutional framework has been respected. And also throughout the period of Socialist government. Thirdly, I will say that there are no homogenous positions in relation to this debate, even in the academic field, in the views that the different Autonomous Communities advocate. Therefore, I would like to ask you whether you think that it would be more fruitful to improve the role of the Committee of the Regions in the Union’s work.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am glad to see the tradition of speaking to the Commissioner is still alive and well. I am particularly pleased with the comments she has made. I hope that Parliament’s amendments will be adopted tomorrow as I am sure they will be, despite the elements in this Parliament which do not seem to want to join in and that we will have an interesting discussion with the Council. I wonder if the Commissioner would join me in deploring the way in which this report has been treated, with parts – notably the ladders – being isolated and suggestions made – by Mr Bushill-Matthews for one – that this is something that is futile if not childish. Commissioner, I hope you will agree that this is a Treaty obligation for us all to look at. The basis is Article 138, which was previously Article 118a – and if I am right, we must look into the costs – administrative and otherwise – for small-to-medium-sized businesses, as laid down in the Treaty already. This is a small-to-medium-sized-business-friendly piece of legislation, but more importantly it is friendly to the workers who have to use this equipment. That is why the legislation is there and is to be applied across the European Union. If only Mr Bushill-Matthews had been here when I first started, he would have heard some of the arguments which I wish to place before this House as to why it is important to have EU legislation. It is a great problem when you do not hear the arguments, but you merely come in with your own loaded thoughts. Indeed, it is a great shame, and I hope that Mrs Villiers will come back some time and perhaps pay a visit to our committee so she can hear some of the debate about this report as well – because I noticed that she disappeared soon after she made her point – maybe we will read about that in the papers as well. Finally, I would like to say to Mr Bushill-Matthews, who is here, that the journalist on the Daily Mail, to which you sent your press releases on this report, rang me back and asked me about a specific amendment that contained your phraseology and your words, which he said was the nonsense part of this whole directive. Perhaps you can correct him instead of correcting us.

Political group: PSE