GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Directive 93/104 was already very restrictive as far as worker production is concerned. It does not harmonise social legislation upwards, quite the opposite. It establishes a European framework which falls a long way short of workers’ expectations: an 11-hour daily rest period, a 48-hour working week, a 24-hour weekly break. What is more, a number of categories were excluded from its field of competence. We find the compromise, which Parliament is to vote on today following the meetings of the Conciliation Committee, unsatisfactory in terms of both the health and the safety of workers. It makes flexibility more widespread, particularly for sea fishermen, establishing the systematic annualisation of reference periods. It will permit further exemptions to the already excessive legislation of 48 hours per week. Finally, it will take nine years, in the best possible case, for the working week of doctors in training to be reduced from 58 hours to 48. In fact, the proposed working time organisation institutes social deregulation at the very time when, in France, doctors in training are campaigning for decent working conditions and genuine safety for service-users. Proper organisation of working time would entail, we reiterate, a real reduction in working hours accompanied by moves to create a sufficient number of jobs. We cannot support this report as it stands.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, the new attitude adopted recently by the Commission on this important economic activity is striking to those of us who, in recent years, have kept an eye on tourism and its place in the Community framework. We all know that this change of heart is basically due to the close cause-effect relationship between tourism and employment. It is also due to the recognition by the European Union, since the 1997 conference on these issues, of the enormous potential, represented by tourism, for employment. In this respect the Commission communication before us today is opportune, as is the report by Mr Viceconte whom I congratulate. This report contains 34 conclusions, including 15 calls to the Commission to adopt specific measures and actions without forgetting the environmental dimension and cultural protection, particularly in outermost and island regions. It also contains four calls to the Member States which highlight the need to coordinate actions with the regional authorities and the establishment of measures favourable to tourist-oriented SMEs, particularly in the tax sector and in access to financial instruments. These would encourage the growth of employment in sectors which use labour intensively, such as the tourist sector. Finally, once this legal basis to which many of us aspire has been established so that a common tourism policy can be developed, we must be realistic and prepare a strategy on tourism and its relationship with employment, as proposed by the Commission with the support of this House. In this strategy, young people and women, training and quality and the new information society must receive preferential attention.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, firstly I wish to express my satisfaction with the fact that the entire budget has been tightened up and the increase in appropriations amounts to 1.07% of total GNP for the Member States, while the corresponding figure in the budget for 2000 was 1.11%. In addition, I am pleased with the increase in the appropriation for youth organisations to EUR 1.5 million. However, I would particularly like to explain why I supported the proposals for amendments tabled by Mr Virrankoski and Mr Mulder. I base my opinion in the notion that strict budgetary discipline should be continued and that the prevailing financial frameworks should be respected. Regarding funds for the Western Balkans, we must take account of the real needs of the regions, the prevailing political situation and the possibility of obtaining funds from other quarters. For this reason, I do not support an amendment to the financial perspectives in the area of appropriations under External Action.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to congratulate our rapporteur on the report which he has presented to us. The fact that Mr van Velzen’s political approach differs from mine does not prevent me from recognising a serious piece of work, such as the report which he has presented to us here today. The aim of the European Union’s policy in the telecommunications sector is to fully liberalise the markets, develop competition and privatise public-sector corporations. The Communist Party of Greece is fundamentally opposed to such policies. We take the view that basic sectors, especially sectors of strategic importance to the economy and to the very existence of a country, should be under government control. This ensures that the necessary investments are made in order to develop these sectors and provide services even to the most remote areas, such as islands, and, at the same time, it guarantees low prices, because there is no corporate super profit motive involved. The European Commission’s report endeavours to evaluate the application of this policy to date and proposes measures for the future. The Commission should recognise that the number one problem which needs to be addressed is the fact that the market is monopolised by a few extremely strong players. This is proof positive of the fact that the European Union is guilty of hypocrisy when it maintains that it wants to impose equal and fair operating and profit rules, since its very policy takes us in the opposite direction. In truth, not only do the various agreements, alliances, acquisitions, mergers, etc. not want competition; they indirectly abolish it by creating extremely powerful groups which crush small- and medium-sized businesses or force them into submission. Even yesterday’s competitors are coming to private agreements and arrangements, thereby adulterating the competition. Under these circumstances, it is idealistic to believe that measures to strengthen competition further will prevent the market from being control by a handful of monopolies.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Terrorism must always be fought on the basis of legal certainty. We support every improvement along those lines. There must be an improvement in the right of citizens to go to court in order to have their cases tried. That right should also apply to human rights issues. Our vote is an expression of our desire to combat terrorism and does not relate to improvements in legal certainty which, we believe, should go further and be reviewed in a national and European perspective.

Political group: PPE-DE
Parliamentary immunity appears to be very important to many MEPs, for it is constantly being discussed in this Parliament. MEPs are subject to the national rules of their Member States, and these differ considerably. In one country, this means that during their mandate, MEPs cannot be prosecuted without their own cooperation or without the decision to lift their immunity for punishable offences, and that they are therefore put at an advantage compared to other citizens. This benefits criminals who want to protect themselves. In other countries, like the Netherlands, this merely means that an MEP cannot be prosecuted on the grounds of statements made in the parliamentary debate or in questions as an MEP. For the time being, I am in favour of this restricted definition of immunity, for it ensures that MEPs and their electorate are, and remain, on an equal footing, without the MEPs being hindered in their work. I can understand that there is more need for immunity in states where attempts have often been made to seriously hamper MEPs, who are considered political enemies, in their work by constantly instituting legal proceedings against them. But let us keep this to a minimum and not extend it to separate European law.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Commissioner, you have the melancholy satisfaction of being proved right and that never makes one popular or even happy. The very people and the very Member States who were shrugging off your warnings two years ago, who were denying you a qualified majority, as you said just a few months ago, are now clamouring for compensation and support as the beef market collapses and we face the prospect of millions of animals in store, unsellable, undisposable of over the next two years. In the United Kingdom we see this with some sympathy. People will say to me: Well, yes, you were first. We were first in the whole cycle from complacency to despair and back again. And if today the beef market is sound in Britain and beef consumption is rising, it is only because people have seen how draconian the measures need to be. Every question I now want to ask the Commission comes from that experience. Firstly, the extent of BSE. What are the tests showing? What do the Member States themselves say? We see reports that some countries which claimed a year ago to be BSE-free, now anticipate up 500 cases in the course of the next year. If Europe has fallen into line with the principle of culling animals over 30 months, is that in itself enough? What do the tests and the research findings say about the incidence of the disease in animals younger than 30 months. Thirdly, what capacity do the Member States have for destroying the materials that are now being removed? Which Member States have the incineration capacity? Are some still saying that they will put this material into landfill? These are all serious questions, which we know you will try to answer. We think you should go further and I would just like to echo what my friend Mr Garot said which is that Europe most of all owes you its solidarity.

Political group: PSE
In Seville, the Heads of Government allowed themselves to be somewhat carried away by the intoxicating spirit of flamenco. This is the only way I can explain their decision. The final declaration referred to ‘an’ accession treaty for all candidate countries, while in Laeken, treaties were still mentioned in the plural. For the ratification, this means that national parliaments have to like it or lump it. The universally adulated individual assessment suddenly does not apply to national people’s representatives. The Commission and the European Council are in this way taking a further swipe at democracy. The precedent of the previous limited enlargements is not relevant. After all, there are now no fewer than ten countries that have to meet a whole host of new requirements. I would appreciate an explanation from the President. By abolishing the Development Council, fighting poverty has become subordinate to foreign policy. This is precisely the wrong message we are sending to the developing world. It appears that the gentlemen have also choked on the paella of foreign policy. IN THE CHAIR: MR DAVID MARTINVice-president

Political group: ELDR
Yesterday, Mr President, while I was in the aeroplane flying me from Bergamo to Strasbourg, I shut my eyes for a moment and I saw the Italian theatrical character, Pantalone, who is famous for being penniless and poverty-stricken, talking to Mr Santini. Pantalone was asking Mr Santini: ‘Why do you not let me move throughout Europe in your report?’ ‘I?’ replied Mr Santini. ‘But you can move throughout Europe!’ And Pantalone insisted: ‘No, I can’t, because the report says that those who want to travel must have the financial resources to pay for the trip, for the flight, which means that one needs to be reasonably well-off. I am Pantalone, I am poor, I have no money, and so I cannot move throughout Europe. I am not happy about this, and so I advise Mr Fatuzzo to vote against the motion.’ And I did, in fact, vote against the motion.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr De Roo, in very many ways, this directive is unique, really, for the simple reason that noise and the disturbance it causes are actually being recognised for the first time as a social and ecological problem. In line with this directive, noise expressed in decibels is a measure of the standard of living. Credit should go to the rapporteur, in the first instance, and the support he has received in committee. The aim of this framework directive is to combat noise pollution on behalf of the European citizen. This directive contains a number of sound and important proposals: harmonisation, the use of common indicators and parameters, software and such like. But allow me to say a few words on the bickering and the battle which has taken place recently behind the scenes, in and around, above and below, the committee, and which we witnessed in this Chamber a moment ago. The rapporteur included a number of indicators and aims for airports in his proposal. I can understand why he did this. This is a very hot topic in my own country too, and it is also keeping the citizens of my own country awake. It is our duty as MEPs and as a European institution to do something about this. I too would like clear goals, no question about that, but the standards which the rapporteur is proposing are premature at this moment in time. Another group may claim that the proposal contains technical problems. Or you may put it down to other causes. They are quite simply premature. We must give the Commission the time to do something about this, providing it does not take too long. That is why, in my opinion, the amendments tabled by Mr Bernd Lange are so important. I do hope they will meet with support and that the Commission will issue well-founded standards within eight months from now, because that is what it is all about, and I hope that we can reach a compromise in this area too.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am sorry to take the floor again, but I am a little surprised that there is a report from Mr Van Buitenen of which I have been unaware. I should like to say here in the House – and this is something of which I am totally convinced – that that man should be removed from the Commission. He smashes and destroys European cooperation because his life’s work is to set himself up in opposition and to carry out assignments we cannot live with. I am very sorry to see something like this appear at the last minute, but I want to recommend to the Commission that it get rid of this man once and for all. He is a thorn in the side of all of us.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I am wondering whether these documents are morally right, especially as I think they are rather useless. The documents on the Caucasus and Chechnya contain the same elements found in the Council of Europe’s document that was dismissed two weeks ago. It therefore appears to be a mandatory exercise in rhetoric, with the usual array of fine principles and high hopes. The European Union expresses its concerns, stresses this and admonishes that, requests a dialogue that it knows is impossible and limits itself to condemning – and this is the first point I would like to talk about – just one thing: the disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force in Chechnya. So you could say then, that a little bit of war is alright, as long as it is not disproportionate. But tell me, what is a disproportionate war? The second point is the following: the bombing strategy following NATO’s example is supposedly a response to the terrorist bombs in various Russian cities. Is there any evidence, are there any suspicions that these bombs were planted by Chechens? What investigation confirms this? Is it reasonable to kill thousands of people and turn 200,000 people into refugees based on a mere suspicion of guilt? The European Union is asking for a negotiated solution – and if anyone really believes in the possibility of negotiations they are living in cloud cuckoo land – while the Russians in the Caucasus are making a distinction between the bad guys – those who are asking for independence – perhaps making them out to be Muslims, and the good guys, or rather only those people who are collaborating with them. So where is the dialogue?

Political group: PSE
With the European agriculture model, we have a common agricultural policy in mind. That does not, however, mean that we accept the shape of current agricultural policy, which is producer-driven, large-scale and based upon heavy subsidies. Nor can we support duties affording protection against the developing world. On the other hand, we should like to see a common agricultural policy. However, we think there would be risks in each nation’s devising its own agricultural subsidies. A new common agricultural policy must be small-scale and be based upon rural development and environmentally-minded agriculture. It is an area which must be characterised and permeated by long-term sustainable development, for example when it comes to the environment and the economy.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I understand the reasons you have just given, but, as Mrs Hautala said, Mrs Malliori is the draftsperson for the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy in this highly important debate on the advertising of tobacco and, as you are well aware, Mr President, issues relating to tobacco advertising are always controversial and there are differences of opinion between the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. That is why Mrs Hautala was asking to postpone the report for a while to allow the other Members to arrive. I do not know whether this is impossible, but, of course, if the rapporteur does not agree ... I understand the problem, but it would be important for Parliament if Mrs Malliori were present, since she is the draftsperson of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy on this matter.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mrs Maij-Weggen’s report refers to the list of documents to be made accessible to the public. Tell me, Mr President, which European Parliament document is most faithful and closest to reality out of all the documents issued by Parliament that we have to include in the register? You do not reply but I am sure you have guessed: the most faithful European Parliament document can only be a video recording of the plenary sittings. Do you realise, Mr President, how faithful the recording would be, showing the moment when Mr Fatuzzo delivers his explanation of vote and all the other Members gaily chat amongst themselves, with my blessing, of course? Indeed, Mr President, I would rather you did not call them to order!

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, it would appear that the general elections in Italy held last Sunday will result in a victory for the central right party, Forza Italia, and that Silvio Berlusconi will become the next prime minister of Italy. In his electoral campaign, Berlusconi promised his supporters massive tax reductions and, what is more, investment in public building projects. What is your opinion of these electoral promises? Do you think it is possible that the Commission would consider issuing this sort of warning with regard to Italy too, if that country takes an interest in or engages in an expansive economic policy in a situation in which the euro zone really does have inflation pressures, or do these intended warnings only concern the small Member States in the euro zone, such as Ireland?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, and I would have been very surprised if you had not been the one to chair this sitting again. After all, it is a good day for Europe’s seas, as it for you personally, Mr President, because I know you are a keen diver. We would all be delighted if you had even cleaner waters to dive in in Europe. But the sea is our primary concern. I believe we are in a position to congratulate each other today. We can congratulate both the rapporteur, Theo Bouwman, and the delegation, because we have succeeded in improving some crucial aspects of the directive, or should I say, the Council’s common position. It had been watered down, and I believe Parliament has secured coherent measures for all concerned Firstly, mention has been made of the fact that all ports will have to provide reception facilities for waste and cargo residues. This is an important step. Secondly, all ships will have to pay, irrespective of whether or not they use the facilities. That is the real principle that is being brought into play here for the first time. The sums involved will not be small; they will be considerable. It is true that we cannot be completely satisfied with 30%. That much is absolutely clear. Nevertheless, the 30% introduces and establishes the principle of a ‘no special fee system’. Naturally there is room for improvement, but with this principle in place, every one will have to pay their way. Thirdly, all Member States must carry out checks on at least 25% of shipping. I believe we should urge them to exceed the 25%. We should challenge them to increase the number of checks. After all, on so many occasions, we have been forced to recognise that, where ships docked at ports are concerned – take the ‘Erika’ for example, or other ships – monitoring is one of the crucial issues. If there is no monitoring, there is no point in having any regulations. On balance, the point of this directive is that the criminal discharge of waste on the high seas will no longer be as profitable as it used to be. I also feel that marine pollution should no longer be treated as a trivial offence. Europe’s seas are becoming cleaner, which will benefit the flora and fauna, and not least, the fishing industry. This directive will also have a very positive effect on tourism, in the long run, for it will scarcely be possible to sustain tourism if there are no clean beaches. So it is a good day for Europe’s seas and also a good day for you, Mr President. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I welcome Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf's report although I personally find it quite difficult to support in full. My view is that the common position by the Commission is excellent. Let me just go back to what Mr Pesälä has just said: what is the real problem facing the food industry today? It is usually fraud. If we look back over the recent food scares, if we look at the problem of foot-and-mouth, it was a misuse of swill feeding; if we look at the problems of dioxin, there are sufficient measures there to prevent it. It was the illegal use of an oil in a mixture. Then there was sewage sludge which we had in one other Member State, and BSE which was all to do with changing temperatures. But the legislation is present. The first and primary position of this House is to guarantee that the Commission does everything it possibly can to ensure that the present legislation and the common position are put in place and enforced. Therefore, I call upon the Commission, first of all, to promise us that the present legislation is enforced. Turning now to the protein situation, Commissioner Fischler would not be surprised to hear that I would slightly disagree with his position on whether or not we grow our own proteins or import them. But could he actually give me a guarantee: I understand that the European Union has regulations in place at the moment about the volume of GM crops allowed in and the percentage at present is – and I stand to be corrected on this – about 1% maximum of GM crops. Could the Commission now guarantee that none of the soya entering the Union in current and future imports will exceed the 1% maximum? The US has strict measures and regulations on imports. We in the European Union must follow these regulations and ensure that we follow the same patterns.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on a point of order I just want to ask you whether it is customary when the spokesman for a political group fails to turn up for the debate that the spokesman can then be inserted later. It seems to me that if a spokesman cannot take the trouble to be here for this entire debate and be here on time for his own speaking time he should not be allowed to speak at all.

Political group: PSE