GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Whilst agreeing that there is a need to protect passengers, I voted against the Lisi report due to a number of serious concerns, centred around Articles 5 and 6 in the final text, which had been agreed by both Parliament and Council. In the final draft of Article 6 referring to 'delays', the exclusion of 'extraordinary circumstances' places an unacceptable financial burden on the carrier. Situations outside an airline's control cannot be foreseen. Therefore, to include full reimbursement as well as a return flight to the first point of departure is wholly unacceptable. Also, to suggest that airlines will be able to obtain compensation from third party providers is fanciful. Referring to Article 5.3 on cancellations, this only applies in the case of compensation but does not apply to matters such as re-routing. The Commission failed to provide a financial impact assessment. An estimated GBP 1 billion of extra costs for the airlines will not benefit passengers but will penalise them by increasing the price of tickets and reducing choice. None of these rules will apply to third country airlines flying into the EU, rather, they will damage competition.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, for how long will workers be forced to sacrifice one-third of their salary to government and state pension funds, in the hope of receiving a pension in their old age, while those government and state funds are so designed that they make pensions vanish faster than Houdini himself could have done? Mrs Laguiller, the people trusted the states and the governments, especially the pledges made by left-wing governments, but they have been left with peanuts. Every day, thousands upon thousands of elderly people reach retirement age and ask their governments, “Where are our pensions?” And the governments reply, “You are living too long and there is no more money left to give you”, concealing the truth. And what is the truth? The governments have squandered the funds and made off with the workers’ salaries. Shame on the Socialist governments for failing to provide for workers in their old age! Despite the fact that there may now be a way of safeguarding this capital – the sweat of the brows of the workers – by capitalising pension funds, we are told that we must not do this, because the national governments want to get their hands on private pension funds as well. It is time to change the tune. We must give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.

Political group: PPE-DE
I have to express amazement at the two speeches we have just heard, one from Mr Bushill-Matthews and the other from Mrs Villiers. They seem to be engaging in a self-fulfilling prophecy. They deplore the fact that the European Parliament is regarded as involving itself in trivia and generating red tape and yet they spend their time issuing press releases describing very important pieces of health and safety legislation as nothing but trivia and red tape. It is hardly surprising that the British media project the sort of image that they describe. This is a very important piece of health and safety legislation, building upon the corpus of such legislation that we have adopted at European level over the last twenty years. It is not trivial for the families of the 500 000 people who fall from heights at work every year. 300 000 of those accidents are serious enough to cause the employees to be absent from work more than three days. 40 000 of those falls are very serious and 1 000 result in deaths. Try to explain to the families concerned that this is a trivial issue. It is not. It is a very important issue and survey after survey, including those in Eurobarometer, and surveys of SMEs including by the last British Government have shown that SMEs themselves recognise the importance of good health and safety legislation. I deplore the fact that the consensus we have had in this important area of policy has been broken in this way by a small minority in the EPP. It really is absolutely deplorable and we should all – right across the political spectrum – make it clear that we will not tolerate that sort of behaviour from that minority. It is described as bureaucratic. But read the directive itself, read the proposal. Is it onerous? Is it burdensome? Does it require detailed voluminous risk assessments before work is carried out a height? No, it does not, it is a very easily understood, readable, implementable directive and it should be described in that way. It should be described as making a valuable contribution to preventing injury and deaths within the European Union. Please do not engage in this trivialisation and then come along here and hypocritically express surprise that this institution is being held in ridicule. You are the people who are causing that. Stop it now, please. IN THE CHAIR: MR VIDAL-QUADRAS ROCAVice-President

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on a point of order, the matter came before the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market earlier this year. Against my own advice the Legal Affairs Committee held that further and clearer information was required and a letter was sent requesting such information, to which I understand no reply has yet been received. However, about a couple of weeks ago I raised this at the coordinators' meeting of the Legal Affairs Committee, saying that I hoped that a further inquiry might be made in order to clarify this matter one way or the other, as we ought, as speedily as we reasonably can. Mr President, a little while ago you very vigorously wrote to Air France protesting at conditions in which people travel to this Parliament. You received a very emollient reply from Air France assuring you that no such untoward thing would occur ever again. I should like to report to Members of the House, who I am sure will feel an agony of sympathy for me, that today, for the second successive occasion, on turning up at Edinburgh Airport in good time for my check-in for the Air France flight from Edinburgh to Paris to catch the Strasbourg plane, I was told the plane was overbooked and I should re-route myself via Brussels in order to arrive here for 5 o'clock. This is a pretty poor show and I have written a letter drawing attention to this shabby state of affairs – which will, no doubt, not receive as emollient a reply as yours did. I am sorry because I had hoped to raise a point about the agenda, which we have now adopted. Perhaps I will have a chance tomorrow morning.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I am very happy to be here today to support the work carried out by the rapporteur, Mr Rothley, and I would like to join Mr Lehne in thanking Mr Rothley for his work. As Mr Lehne has said, Mr Rothley’s proposal is balanced and received the support of a broad majority of the Parliamentary Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. I believe it should be adopted in plenary. A total of 36 amendments have been tabled in plenary. Mr Lehne has referred to them. There are not too many for a subject such as this, but the Group of the has decided to support the rapporteur’s direction as a whole, with some of the amendments which the rapporteur has also suggested to us in plenary today, so that we might remedy some of the flaws that were still present in the final version of the proposal. As the rapporteur has said, the aim here is essentially to create a Statute that allows Members of the European Parliament to be recognised, not as an extension of the various national parliaments, but as representatives of the peoples of the European Union as a whole. Mr Rothley said that the European Union is more than simply an international organisation and that, consequently, the Statute for Members of the European Parliament should be based within a Community framework rather than a national framework. That is what we are currently addressing. It is not a simple decision on remuneration. Our current, somewhat flawed, system supplements the flaws in national legislation with Community legislation on allowances, which has been the subject of a great deal of criticism. I believe that if we adopt the rapporteur’s proposal, if the Commission also adopts it and, in particular, as Mr Lehne has said, if the Council adopts Parliament’s proposal, we could soon have a Statute which would effectively allow Members of the European Parliament to be differentiated from members of national parliaments, with their own status, which would be appropriate for the kind of European Union that we are currently trying to create.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Members such as myself have complained over the last five years that when the Council holds debates, purportedly about asylum and immigration as a whole, it only ever talks about combating illegal immigration. I am pleased to say that Mr Pirker's report turns that tendency on its head. In a report responding to a Commission communication specifically on illegal immigration, he pays a great deal of attention to how opening up legal migration channels can help combat smuggling and trafficking. Indeed, in his report, on which I also congratulate him, there are 15 references to illegal immigration. That is nearly matched by 11 references to legal migration. This is truly welcome. Like Mr Sørensen, I cannot share Mr Pirker's enthusiasm for a European corps of border guards. No-one seems to be clear what this means. Mr Pirker says it would just be a unit in support of national border guards and not a supranational body replacing them, but some Commission documents suggest that the ultimate aim is indeed some sort of supranational force with power over national authorities. It is dangerous to start going down this route without having a clear idea about the final destination. Obviously we need to have maximum coordination and exchanges to provide a more uniform level of security at external borders, but there is plenty more we can do about that before rushing into a centrally managed EU body that would raise all kinds of legal difficulties regarding border guards exercising power outside their own jurisdiction. There could be very practical problems. Imagine, for example, the case of Euro-guards stationed on a border where local pay rates were lower than elsewhere, and the resentment that would create among lower-paid local staff. We are already seeing that sort of thing in the Balkans. Finally, I urge the British Government to recognise the contradictions in its own approach. It constantly lectures other Member States on the need to strengthen external border controls, but refuses to make any constructive contribution to Schengen or to support the common immigration policy. This ambivalence cannot continue.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I thank the Commissioner for the statement. I look forward to reading the communication. It is one of the most important debates we need to have. I have a couple of questions. There is indeed a major demographic shift under way within the Union, and we must try to ensure that we retain older people in the labour market. However, there is a big problem: those older people will be the people with outdated skills. Does the Commissioner agree that this will lead to the revolution we have been pressing for, with a shift away from a concentration on initial education and training towards continuing training and lifelong learning? This will become essential. There are some contradictions and difficulties: for example, there is a tendency everywhere in the Union to raise retirement ages, and yet at the same time there are widespread public subsidies for early retirement. Is there not a danger that the finger of blame will be pointed at the Union, because these difficult issues are being forced upon Member States for decision at this stage?

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like firstly to express warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Stenmarck. He has managed to enshrine our desire for a WTO parliamentary assembly in the budget. This is, I believe, a historic act. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is deeply proud that this has been achieved, at least in this reading. Secondly, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, I should also like to thank Mr Färm very much for his understanding of the problems facing small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly in border regions, where I believe that this initiative will be very well received and to which it will offer huge benefits for the future, particularly with a view to enlargement. I see a further problem. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy adopted the sixth framework programme of research unanimously. Since this was agreed with the Commission and the Council, however, a new problem has arisen. On the one hand, we have a development on Basle II that poses a serious threat to the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises, and at the same time enlargement is imminent and the economy is currently in a very poor state. Mr Walter has already said, quite rightly, that we need to strike a balance and that at present things are out of balance. We are losing revenue. So, what do we need to do to improve tax revenue? We need to prevent even more companies from going bankrupt because bankruptcies threaten to cause a huge increase in unemployment. This trend could be exacerbated if we do not prepare for the introduction of Basel II in good time. I myself am an economist, but I believe that the sixth framework programme really does need a Basle II-related research priority – creditworthiness for small and medium-sized enterprises. I would strongly urge Mr Färm to support us on this important matter, because we need new instruments so as to continue to guarantee the stability of Europe, and what we need is a stability pact for SMEs.

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner Wallström knows full well that hunting raises a lot of passion in France, but I do not want to catch her off guard. I would like to ask an additional question about hunting as it is currently practised in the future Member States, the Eastern countries. Are you aware that hunters from the West, from the Fifteen, go in great numbers to hunt in these countries, because the fauna is still very interesting and there are still major trophies – bears and wolves – to bring back? In terms of the Community acquis and the implementation of Natura 2000, do you not think that Western hunters are damaging the wild fauna there, before its time, in search of trophies?

Political group: Verts-ALE
I would like to point out to the Commissioner that it is not an electoral question. As members of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, we have followed the creation of that institution and it is clear that it was established for electioneering reasons. A year later, it is still not functioning, which means that the Commission spent money on a false opening. We should ask ourselves to what extent this spending of funds was justified.

Political group: PSE
In spite of some sound efforts, current fisheries policy still means that the EU is buying the right to misuse the natural resources of the poor. It is a modern form of colonialism. What is required is genuine reform of fisheries policy and a totally altered view of our relations with poor countries. I have therefore chosen to vote against the aforesaid report in its entirety.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I think we all agree how completely absurd it is that many of the world’s poorest countries sometimes pay more in interest and for debt management than they receive in aid. There are at least two questions which I think must be answered. The first is: how can the EU and the G7 nations, together with other Western countries, comply with their commitments so that these do not merely become empty promises? In spite of what the Council and the Commission have said, it is, of course, a fact that, notwithstanding the praiseworthy initiative that has been taken, the G7 countries have not so far, unfortunately, taken measures to comply with that initiative. All that has happened so far is that the debts of a mere three developing countries have been written off to the tune of 0.25 per cent. That is naturally not enough. Even those EU countries which have said that they wish to write off the debts have not appropriated funds in their budgets for this purpose. On occasions, the funds concerned have been taken from the areas of cooperation and development. The most important question of all is: how can it be ensured that the resources are properly used in developing countries? The Council responded by saying that it was not in favour of that kind of control. However, the EU, the IMF and the World Bank have, of course, established criteria in other contexts, so why should we not be able to establish criteria to ensure that, for the people, the result of debt cancellation really will be... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I rather liked the introduction from the Commissioner on this. I thought he got it right, with one exception: he was misreading paragraph 3. It is not as negative as he suggests. The original text from Mrs Breyer, which welcomes the Commission's suggestion that the current list be regarded, has now become 'notes the Commission's suggestion that the current list could be regarded'. That has been changed quite significantly. You need to look at all the changes that took place in committee. After all, food has been treated with ionising radiation for some 50 years, as the rapporteur rightly said. In my country, the UK, products include vegetables, fruit, cereals, poultry, fish, shellfish – not too many frogs’ legs! All that range, to a certain degree, is given this treatment. Different countries have different lists. The common ground between us is that it must not pose a health hazard, is of benefit to consumers and is labelled. If there is a need and if it is safe, then why not? That is the committee's broad view. Well, it is safe. The WHO says so. The EU Scientific Committee on Food says so, and it therefore is an element of consumer protection in itself. There is a need, for instance, in hospitals, to protect the food of some very vulnerable patients from dangerous bacteria. It can protect food from contamination. What it cannot do is to reverse contamination or putrefaction in food. The Commission came forward with a perfectly sensible communication – a discussion paper – with its options of the current EU list, plus shrimps and frogs’ legs, of the current wider Member States' list, or of the current EU list alone. I suspect the answer is somewhere around the first and second options, but we are not at this stage dealing with the legislative proposal. The Commission is in listening mode. We needed cool, calm reflection on this. That is a thousand miles from the threat of Armageddon that we saw in the original report, with spectres of dangers, such as the long journeys that are actually of benefit to the developing countries in exporting their goods. The picture of the radioactive sources posing safety risks and risks to security through the acquisition of radioactive materials by terrorists seeking to make dirty bombs has been banished from the committee's view. We are looking for something a little more measured. The report in its original form was more like the description of the Merovingian dynasty as despotism tempered by assassination. The reality is that we have a process that is safe if used properly. It can bring benefits and it should be considered carefully with proper risk assessment and risk management, but without scaremongering. The amendments that Mrs Grossetête and I proposed and the committee supported bring this report back to where the Commission might prefer it to be.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I do not wish to go into any more detail, but it has already been explained why the European limited liability company is so important. That is why the circumstances in which this form of company arose and the problems with which we must deal here are all the more regrettable. We all know that the Nice Summit was not exactly a raging success and, instead, produced a meagre result as far as the treaty negotiations are concerned. With this limited liability company, the Heads of State and Government intended to be able to offer us, as a minor success of this summit as it were, something which would at least take Europe a step further. In principle, this is of course to be welcomed. However, it is regrettable – absolutely regrettable – that the Heads of State and Government have disregarded the law and the Treaty by actually changing the legal base on the basis of the motto ‘we have now come to the agreement that, as regards this matter, Parliament is not to interfere’. They have replaced Article 95, which was clearly the legal base for one part of the process, with Article 308, which they have also used to replace Article 137 which clearly would have been the legal base for the other part of the process according to the text of the Treaty. The result is no co-decision making; the result is unanimity in the Council, with decision-making resting solely with the government. Personally, I do not think that Parliament can accept this. Therefore, by a large majority in the Committee on Legal Affairs, we have amended the legal base and re-established the correct legal base, in other words Article 95 and Article 137. It is also interesting that this has been expressly established in the recitals to the original proposal and that the legal services have given their support to this. We have proceeded with consultations as with a co-decision procedure. I would like to warn the Council of the following: If they amend the legal base for this important process again in its second reading, then they are running the very serious risk of legal action from Parliament in this matter. I believe that we will win this action in the Court of Justice. The practical value of the process is, in our experience, rather limited anyway. I am referring to the letter from the president of UNICE. We have already referred to this within the committee. We have requested that fiscal regulations be revised, and I hope that this revision is carried out soon.

Political group: PPE-DE