GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I want to address primarily the trainee doctors issue. But I want to make a few points before I deal with that. First of all, the original directive excluded six million workers from its remit. It seems to me that was excessive and unfair. I cannot see how you can make a distinction between trainee doctors who are fatigued, truck drivers who are fatigued or fishermen who are fatigued. They all are a risk either to themselves, to those who work with them, their patients or other road users. I do not see how Mr Crowley can make the distinction he has made. I hope he is not reflecting the Irish Government’s position in relation to these proposals. It is scandalous and unacceptable that trainee doctors in Irish hospitals are expected to work sometimes in excess of 80 hours a week. It is scandalous and disgraceful that we have truck drivers who are falling asleep at the wheel, putting the lives of those who are working with them and other road users at risk. We know that there is a fairly high rate of road accidents as a result of truck drivers who are driving hours too long. For Mr Crowley to claim that the tachograph legislation is rigorously applied in Ireland or anywhere else is simply not true. I do not know why that is the case. I do not know why it is not rigorously applied but it is not. We need to take steps to protect the public at large and patients. It is not good enough for any Member State in the Council to say that it would be costly to implement these proposals. Of course it will be costly but what price do you put on the life of a child who may be knocked down on the road, or a patient in hospital who may receive wrong treatment as a result of the fatigue of a doctor? It is just not acceptable. It is necessary that tomorrow we adopt the position as proposed by the rapporteurs and as proposed by the ESOC Committee and put it to the Council that it must finally come to grips with this issue and ensure that nobody has to work the inhuman hours that we are expecting our trainee doctors to work. In relation to truck drivers, it seems to me that the only way to regulate this is to put it into law. Own-account truck drivers will work all the hours that they get because they are not sure when they will get another job. So it is necessary to apply the law so that they will be forced to take rest and forced not to be on the road when they are simply too tired to drive.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, my colleague Mr Bowis has played a fine hand with the cards which he has been dealt. But I intend to ask whether those cards should have been dealt at all. Over and over in this House we discuss the details of proposals which have been put before us but we fail to ask whether those proposals should be there at all. We already have food safety agencies in most Member States. We have scientific committees advising the Commission. We have the World Health Organisation in Geneva. What will a European Food Safety Agency add? It will largely duplicate the activities of existing agencies. Its main function is public relations. It is driven by the desperate need to persuade a sceptical public that the European institutions are delivering something – anything – of value. Would the new agency have prevented the British BSE crisis or the Belgian dioxin crisis? As Mr Blokland rightly says, almost certainly not. We need to recognise the law of diminishing returns. As we create new levels of bureaucracy and spend ever more money we get less and less in return. We are told we cannot question the value of money spent on human health. Yet, as politicians allocating finite resources, we must ask these questions. Would the vast cost of this new agency be better spent on cancer research or smoking prevention or road safety? Almost certainly these areas would deliver better value in terms of lives saved, yet no one is prepared to ask the question. I turn to the question of location for the agency. In my view its main task should be to coordinate better the work of existing agencies. The heads of national agencies should constitute its board. These people should continue to sit at their own desks, in front of their own computers. The location of the agency should therefore be not in Barcelona, Helsinki or Italy, but on the Internet, in cyberspace. It would be efficient, transparent and accessible. This would be a truly twenty-first century solution.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in Seattle we learned that the world is changing. I believe we have to accept that certain decisions of the past require revision. The European Parliament is responsible for monitoring the common trade policy. We have co-decision rights on matters relating to the single market. But on important international trade issues, the Union is not such a model of democratic transparency. I believe that Sweden, which is itself a model of transparency, is called upon as the present incumbent of the presidency to take us another step along this road. It is quite simply imperative to guarantee an open and transparent decision-making process on the basis of Article 133. We know that the European Union, after enlargement and the forthcoming final stage of the switch to the euro, will be the world’s foremost trading bloc by a considerable margin. In the United States, it is apparent that cooperation between the Government, the President and Congress actually works very well and that information flows freely between them. Cooperation between the Council and the Commission is very good at the present time; Mr Lamy must be complimented for this. I do wish, however, that the Council would also take joint initiatives with the European Parliament on the international stage, because these issues are of the utmost importance to our future. One day, when our membership has risen from 15 to a greater number of States, our clout will increase, and I believe that the link with the roots of the Union’s legitimacy in its Member States is an essential democratic requirement. If we want to develop a global market for our goods, such an effort will ultimately affect all of us. In other words, we must stand shoulder to shoulder as equal partners and strive for success.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the discharge procedure is one of the most important rights and duties of the European Parliament. Parliament must acquaint itself with how finances are being managed and establish whether the Commission has been doing its job properly. Parliament cannot therefore grant discharge without justification. Granting discharge means that the information received and obtained by Parliament indicates that the Commission has functioned properly. If there are points that need clarification that emerge later on, we can always return to them, even if discharge has been granted. The report proposes that a deadline be given for discharge. This is a good thing. A situation where discharge is still pending from one year to the next, as has been the case here in recent years, does not show a businesslike or responsible approach to administration. One problem is refusal to grant discharge. If discharge is not granted and a decision is taken on this, the reason is either malpractice or political distrust. Malpractice necessitates bringing charges against the authority or authorities concerned. If malpractice is not indicated, the accounts must be closed. If the reason for refusal of discharge is political, I think the Commission in that case should be forced to resign. The system that has now been outlined, according to which refusal of discharge would be followed by a vote on a motion for censure, is good but unclear. If there is a motion for censure against the Commission or a Commissioner but discharge is not granted, there is a contradiction in the system. The contradiction may be due to the fact that discharge can be refused by a simple majority but a motion for censure only by a qualified majority. For that reason this conflict should not in any sense be made possible.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the Salafranca report comes at an opportune moment. The implementation of a global partnership and common strategy with Latin America, driven by Europe, is something that has always been worthwhile, but now more than ever, since 11 September, when international relations are clearly in a state of upheaval. This strategy and partnership driven by Europe comes at a time when a partner, in a different region, is going through difficult times, of which we are all aware. However, as Europeans, we should have clearly defined ideas. The partner to which I am referring will get through its bad patch over time and will once again turn its attention to Latin America. It has a right to do this, but Europe has values and interests that are not always the same as those of the United States. We only have to mention the mere existence of Mercosur or Alca or, simply, the different positions we maintain with regard to areas such as the death penalty or the Permanent Court of International Justice. With regard to the objectives of the common strategy that have been mentioned, it is laudable, of course, to aim for the implementation of a Euro-Latin American area of peace and stability, in addition to the signing of a peace charter, a task that in my opinion would be difficult to achieve, but not as difficult as reaching equivalent objectives, such as those sought by the Barcelona process for Euro-Mediterranean cooperation, whose execution has not so far made it possible to solve the Middle East conflict. On the other hand, I applaud the intention of sharing prosperity through the creation of a free trade area by 2010, or thereabouts. However, I would like to allude once more to the Barcelona process in order to warn that the process that we are hoping to achieve for Latin America should take account of inequalities, that is to say, the different economic weight of the partners, because this could lead to trade being free for all, in theory, but, in practice, being subjected to the most onerous of burdens, that is to say, true inequality that as we all know can be widespread throughout Latin America. This could mean that our supposed free trade will become nothing more than a slogan. So, if our intention is to create a partnership between members who are supposed to be equal, when it is obvious that they are not, it is important that we can resort to a fundamental instrument. I am referring to a genuine development cooperation policy, which is the only thing that can minimise, although I fear this will not happen before 2010, the enormous socioeconomic differences that exist today between the European Union and Latin America and even between Latin American partners themselves. Lastly, I would like to remind the ultra-liberals that not only is development aid compatible with free trade, but that it requires it, except when free trade is understood to be solely based upon cynical and even cruel inequalities. On occasions, decent trade is not possible without efficient and transparent development cooperation providing the basis for a free, but fair, game.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as the rapporteur, Mr Kuckelkorn said, state pension schemes, as the first pillar, must be supplemented by supplementary company pension schemes which are efficient and therefore also increase legal certainty, and which actually do justice to one’s entitlement to a pension. A directive must not be used to make a name for a particular form of insurance and what is more, to equate provisions for old age with capital building processes, because at the end of the day, supplementary pensions products are no ordinary investment products. That is why I really think it is very important for us to have different taxation systems in the Member States, particularly for those products that also cover biometric risks. That is why today’s debate has in fact enabled us to embark on the further deepening of the single market, for in the single market and the euro we have, for the first time, the environment we need to get the financial service providers in the EU to operate in a truly efficient manner, and to enable us to take account of the idea of financial legislation and financial supervision. Of course we would not wish to deter the market participants from making good use of improved business opportunities. On the other hand though, we also want to safeguard financial stability and consumer protection interests. The European Summit in Lisbon was right to emphasise again the importance of having integrated and efficient financial markets, and this House will also be in favour of keeping to a strict timetable. At the same time though, we must do all we can, in view of the single market and the introduction of the euro, to improve the capital base for small and medium-sized enterprises and high technology companies in particular. We must also do all we can to take account of measures favouring effective, cross-border consumer protection in the process. It will also be necessary, to this end, to improve cooperation between the regulatory and supervisory authorities at European level. There is also a need for financial stability, and it has to be said at this point, that the increase in company mergers in the financial sector constitutes a serious problem at present. We would also do well to refer to the OECD reports, which make clear reference to the risks posed by megamergers in this sector. At the end of the day, when financial conglomerates that are too big to fail come into being, not only does this increase the moral hazard of the institutes concerned, but the economic and financial policies of the States concerned are also faced with new risks. We must do everything we can to prevent any weakening of financial stability, for this would lead to companies making use of the profits and tax payers having to sustain any losses. It is regrettable that there is no direct consideration of consumer protection in the Lisbon Conclusions. Unless we establish a reliable legal framework which is as informative and transparent as it could possibly be, not to mention liability for the benefit of the consumer, it will not be possible to complete the single market... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, the speech we just heard was in fact an excellent bridge to mine. Mrs Lulling represents my older female colleagues here, whereas I am the youngest female member of the Group. I can fully endorse what Mrs Lulling said in her speech just now. This shows that there is no generation gap in the European Parliament at least. If the post of EU liaison officer for senior citizens were to be created the rapporteur, our colleague, Carlo Fatuzzo, would be the most likely candidate for the job. I am sure that young people in Finland, at least, would support his election. The way in which he devotes himself to his work is unequalled. Pleasantries aside, however, Mr Fatuzzo has focused his efforts on defending the interests of senior citizens in Europe. For several decades he has had professional experience of elderly people’s issues, which is also evident from this thorough and very professionally prepared report. The report is based on significant social phenomena. The growth in the number of pensioners, which is due to increased life expectancy and relatively early retirement, will eat away at the funding of the present pension schemes unless essential and sufficiently radical reforms are implemented in good time. We need solutions at both national and Union level. There are such considerable differences between pension systems in the various Member States that the responsibility for regulating the organisation and funding of statutory pensions must be that of the Member States alone in the future also. At Union level we can participate, instead, in defusing the pensions bomb by promoting the development of cross-border personal pension and savings schemes. Firstly, these will be sustainable in terms of their financing; secondly, they will provide the capital companies need in the form of investments; and thirdly, they will serve the changing needs of individuals better than universal statutory schemes. Unfortunately, the Member States are shrinking from making the decisions necessary for all this to come about. The drafting of the directives on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision in particular has been painfully slow. It is hardly far-sighted to bury one’s head in the sand. Like my colleagues, I too urge the Council to face up to the challenges of our population growth at long last and take the necessary decisions, while Spain still holds the Presidency, that would enable institutions that offer supplementary occupational pensions to operate constructively in our internal market. The guarantee of a secure old age has played a key role in different cultures throughout the ages and all over the world. Care of the elderly is a yardstick of a civilised society. Making the decisions in good time is above all in the interests of the younger generation as every wasted day increases the costs of reform and aggravates the problem.

Political group: PPE-DE
Thank you for your reply; however, I have the following comments to make: I was debating the Budget 2001 in Parliament before you and the problem again arose of where to find the money to finance the Stability Pact. In this sense, my question meant exactly that, given that we are dealing with economies which, because of the economic system in place, used to function along different trading, or rather bartering lines. The question which I am basically asking is what can be done to ensure that products from these regions reach the markets of the Member States of the European Union? That is the question. In other words, what policies will strengthen production in these regions without the European Union's having to pay out money which, due in part to internal problems, it is having trouble finding anyway. That is the nub of the problem. My question is: exactly what steps can the European Union take in order to create these networks, which did not previously exist, so that these people can sell their products?

Political group: PSE
I am sorry to have to make a point of order again about smoking in the workplace. As I was about to make a speech on harassment at work during last night's plenary session, the people in the booth behind me were smoking with the door open. I had an asthma attack just before I was due to speak. That is a case of harassment at the workplace.

Political group: ELDR
The report deals with working-environment problems at workplaces in the EU and expresses concern that the situation is deteriorating instead of improving. The rapporteur proposes a long list of measures, including better application of the existing legislation in the area. This proposal has our full support. He also calls for new legislation regarding workplace harassment, on the one hand, and requirements for workplace ergonomics on the other. We oppose regulation by directives, both on principle and for practical reasons. Existing directives on the working environment are not working well, principally because employers oppose them and because trade unions are too weak, and often set minimum levels that tend to commit the social partners to agreements affording levels of protection which are far too low. If, on the other hand, we had strong trade unions, and national governments with social ambitions, we could bring in legislation at national level which was more precise, afforded higher levels of protection and could be implemented more effectively. We have voted in favour of the report, however, as we agree with its political ambition of improving working conditions in the Member States.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, before turning to congratulate you, I should firstly like to say that the whole House was honoured by having such a distinguished European and unflinching democrat as Mr Soares chairing our presidential elections. It was delightful to see him here. (Applause) I offer you my warmest congratulations. It is a victory that was well deserved. You had to campaign hard for it. You did so. You fought your corner robustly and you demonstrated throughout the campaign all the qualities you will need to be a first-class President of this House. I look forward to working with you. Given what you said, and your whole record in this House, I know you will work to defend every Member's rights and interests; that you will be fair across the political spectrum; that you will be articulate in defending the rights of this Parliament externally and robust with the other institutions, when necessary. I offer you my unfailing support and my loyalty over your two-and-a-half years. I look forward to working with you. I would like to say thank you to my own political group, firstly for allowing me to stand and secondly for giving me so much support during the last three or four months. Perhaps even more importantly I would like to thank those who did not vote for me. I reckon I have spoken to between 300 and 400 Members. I have spoken to every group in this House. I have spoken to committees and intergroups. Wherever I have gone I have met unfailing courtesy and politeness. Even when people disagreed with me they were prepared to give me a hearing. That is democracy in action. I thank the whole House for behaving in that manner. (Applause) Again, in that spirit, I would like to thank Mr Poettering for what he said, which falls into that category. This is not the time for long speeches, Mr President, but you deserve your victory. I wish you well. You said at some point during the campaign that whatever happened, a week or two after the election we would have a bloody good drink. I am looking forward to it! (Laughter and sustained applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, all the political strategies presented are certainly very attractive, but, in many cases, they could come up against obstacles of varying size if they are not supported by a completely reliable organisational and administrative system. The accession of the new countries, which we planned, promoted and achieved all together, must take place within a solid, transparent framework in order to avoid creating major problems for the Community staff, who are already being called upon to take on more work, or damaging the image and credibility of the European Parliament. Therefore, the priorities and major decisions must have the necessary support of a Europe which works, which is transparent and, most importantly, which can account for how Community funds are spent and used. The Eurostat affair does nothing to further that cause. It pained me to hear Mr Procacci, who had not read the OLAF reports or the audit, describing this as a minor incident; if we were to read the reports he would realise that they are extremely disturbing. It is therefore the responsibility of the Commission to step up the controls that have proved to be as watertight as sieves thus far, improving the system in such a way as to distinguish between monitoring and controls, on the one hand, and operational management – officials granting authorisations – on the other. Furthermore, the Consultative Committee for market operations, which operated under the previous Financial Regulation, has been abolished, and yet it has become clear that many transactions were not made subject to any requirement of economic benefit, transparency or contractual legitimacy, creating a kind of free zone, in which, even after 1999, or maybe especially after 1999, orders could be assigned with only one firm taking part, often where there was a conflict of interests and with unsigned contracts, leading to damage to Community finances, the extent of which it is difficult to assess.

Political group: PPE-DE