GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would like to start by congratulating Mr Langen on the quality of his report. I feel that he has produced an excellent X-ray of the shipbuilding industry in Europe, a true X-ray. And a summary would be that the shipbuilding industry is being threatened from all sides. There is a crisis in the fishing industry, and we Spaniards and Galicians know that only too well. Furthermore, we have flags of convenience in the merchant navy, and ships flying Community flags are being built, or are in danger of being built, outside Europe. And that is due to the fact that we are incapable of condemning a situation of unfair competition. It has been said already here; Korea, Japan, or the threat of China are involved. Mr President, I therefore wonder whether the European Union is opting for a shipbuilding industry which is strong, dynamic and competitive. Of course, the shipbuilding industry also has to achieve the objectives of the European Union, specifically the rationalisation of the industry, an increase in productivity, an improvement in the competitiveness of the existing shipyards and the defence of the environment. But in order to achieve that, so that the process may consolidate the shipbuilding industry and its jobs and calm the fears of the families which depend on it, aid will still be necessary beyond 31 December 2000, because the market situation is not one of equality, but of unfairness and of dumping. We expect decisions from the Commission and the Council which are profoundly political, courageous and decisive, and which, in cases such as Spain, allow the integration of civil and military shipbuilding, and reassign the different areas of the industry in accordance with the needs of each country. It is necessary to provide new stimulus in terms of a sufficient quantity of research and development and also to maintain the operating aid in a way that is legally possible. Our shipyards can survive, but support is necessary and, in the European context, now is the time to appeal to the solidarity and understanding of the countries which do not have shipyards and for which, in many cases, the sea, and its shipbuilding industry, perhaps have less importance. Finally, we have to make decisions which will allow us to confirm and maintain a strong position for the European shipbuilding sector. It will be of little use to us to pursue an objective if, in pursuit of it, shipyards disappear in Europe, suffocating on the way. The example not to follow would be that of Buridan’s ass which, while trying to decide whether to eat rye or barley, ended up dying as a result of its doubts. I therefore call for the defence of the sector, combining the objectives demanded by the European Union with the survival of the industry, making it stronger, more dynamic and more competitive, thereby creating jobs and wealth.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you have not commented because clearly, as you said, the Spanish State has still not made any formal proposal. I would like to refer to an objective fact: Spain has always had a great maritime vocation and enjoys a privileged situation in terms of both Atlantic and Mediterranean maritime traffic, and I believe that some of those Spanish coastal territories meet all the appropriate conditions for being the location for the headquarters of this European agency.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to insist that the seriousness of the events taking place in Cuba requires an in-depth debate, and I would therefore be delighted if we could pursue the idea of an oral question with an in-depth debate on the issue. I would also like to insist, however, that one issue does not cancel out the other. I therefore believe that the seriousness of the summary trials which have taken place, the seriousness of the arrests suffered by people who have simply exercised their right to free expression, or the right to employ the law in force to create areas of freedom, requires that this House immediately speak out in order to send a message of hope to these people who are currently experiencing great suffering and worry and I believe it would be very positive if on Thursday we can condemn what is taking place in Cuba.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am pleased to hear such sensible words emanating from the Group. I must take issue with the Commissioner. She says that my assertion that this policy area is sidelined is not true and then gives a number of examples of recent progress. I would remind the Commissioner that the dossiers on optical radiation fields and waves, vibration and noise all date back ten years. They were part of the original physical agents proposal. I am glad that there has been movement in Council, but these are very old proposals. I would say to Mr Bushill-Matthews that there are new and emerging risks in the health and safety field. In my report on the strategy I said that guidance, training, information and a whole range of options could be adopted as a response, but I believe that legislation also has to be considered as part of the mix. Finally, it looks as though I am probably in line for a mention in his next book as well, so I would just give these words of comfort to Mr Bushill-Matthews: I am sure that if you simply agreed with me more often, the feeling of stress in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs would evaporate.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, employment is the key instrument in counteracting social exclusion. That is why this is, in my view, such an important item on the EU's agenda. I should like to thank Mr Schmid and Mr Mann warmly for the critical eye they have cast over five years of European employment strategy. It is of crucial importance to us in Parliament to have our voices heard now, particularly because it is reported that the Commission will be producing a proposal for employment guidelines in 2003. I, for my part, should like to make the following observations. In its report, the Commission admits unhesitatingly that the European employment strategy cannot take all the credit for the increase in employment over the past couple of years. This worries me greatly, because at present, we are clearly heading for a recession, and this is exactly a time when we need an effective strategy. If, therefore, it is not clear whether the policy works, is it useful to retain this strategy? The question also arises as to what exactly the European Union's role is. Is it a matter of subsidiarity? It is therefore high time sound indicators were developed and the statistics were updated more effectively. Only then can we really discern what works and what does not. In the meantime, it is a fateful sign that the Court of Auditors will, on Friday, have very critical things to say about the EU's local employment projects in terms of the objectives, how they are monitored, and the inspection of financial resources. And then there are women. From the Commission communication, it appears that older employees and women still get a rough deal in the area of employment. Although over the past five years, employment for women has increased by 4.3% to 54.9% – a very minor increase after all – the jobs involved are mainly part-time and without any real prospects. The glass ceiling may have become a little more fragile, but it is still in place. However, it is of course completely unacceptable that wage differences still amount to an average of 16%. In addition, one of the main headaches for the working woman is combining family with work. Although Member States have paid increasing attention to parental leave and childcare over the past few years, I think that more is needed. In many Member States, the public is struggling with the notion that the husband can also apply for parental leave. The househusband is viewed with suspicion. I think it is up to the Union to try to change this. In terms of best practices, I believe that a country such as Sweden can certainly be held up as an example. Finally, the older employee too is still given too little consideration. Lifelong learning often passes them by, while this is, in fact, very important. It is extremely important, in my view, to develop a sound, effective and verifiable strategy, certainly in the light of the pending enlargement.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, thank you for the condolences which you sent on behalf of the European Parliament; you spoke for all of us. Unfortunately, these 79 or 80 victims fell foul of large, profit-seeking shipowners. However much some people are trying to blame the crew, the fact remains that the vessel was over 35 years old, that it should not, in fact, have been sailing and that it sank extremely quickly, preventing more people from being saved. The unaccountability of shipowners is and always has been defended by successive Greek governments. This is not the first time, it is the umpteenth time that victims have died and not one Greek government has taken steps to prevent further accidents. Finally, I should like to say that I was impressed by the Socialist Group’s refusal to discuss the matter in an urgent debate. Apart from the fact that we cannot go into the issue in depth in an urgent debate, this accident was too serious, 80 people lost their lives, and I think that the European Parliament in particular is obliged to take an immediate position.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I just want to explain why I voted in favour of Amendment No 1 to the Gill report. I think at a time when so many of our citizens are facing such uncertainty about pensions and other work-related benefits, it would be quite wrong of Members of this House to vote themselves extra privileges and would send out all the wrong signals. I am very pleased that on this side of the House at least the majority of colleagues voted against the proposal to extend health benefits to retired Members.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would rather like to take a slightly different approach to the one I adopted during the debate on Afghanistan. I am afraid to say that I am very pessimistic, as I have the very clear feeling that we are heading towards a fresh crisis. In Afghanistan, which is a multi-ethnic state, there is an increasingly strong feeling amongst the largest national group, the Pashtuns, and whether it is justified or not I cannot say, that they are being neglected as compared with the peoples who lead the Northern Alliance, such as the Tadzhiks and the Uzbeks. This feeling is giving rise to an increasing potential for conflict, which the surviving Taliban are exploiting. People talk about the Taliban withdrawal area in eastern Afghanistan as if it were just a military or police problem. Unfortunately this is a nationality problem, since as I have said the largest group in this multi-ethnic state feels that it is being treated as second class, and that is something that could be explosively dangerous in the long run. That is why we need a clever strategy for Afghanistan, in order to integrate all the ethnic groups more or less uniformly, which up to now clearly has not been the case. Despite all the humanitarian successes and all the progress made on paper there is still a time bomb ticking away in Afghanistan.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I welcome much of what is in the report, particularly the need for transparency, the issue dealing with the end use of weapons and the illegal trade in arms. As Mr Titley mentioned, the control of small arms is important. It is a major problem, as we have seen from the tragic events in Switzerland. There needs to be a mechanism to control non-military security and police equipment. But I do not support the idea of a European defence industry and we need to look at getting rid of the defence industry. The recent tragic events in the United States have actually given a shot in the arm to the arms industries. I will mention one in particular because it is relevant to Ireland, and that is Raytheon. This company has seen a 40% jump in share prices as a result of the events of 11 September and thereafter. We must look at the whole issue of arms production in the first place. I mentioned Raytheon because it is ironic that, in spite of the peace process in Northern Ireland, Nobel peace prize winners stood on a platform welcoming into Derry Raytheon, one of the world's biggest arms manufacturing companies. It is appalling to encourage manufacturers of weapons, or their components, into a place where people are killing each other every day with weapons so that these products can then be transported to other parts of the world to cause havoc and deprivation. We do not want peace here and wars in other parts of the world. We should look at ending the trade in weapons completely and the idea of government support for an industry that is responsible for death and destruction around the world is unacceptable. As regards torture weapons, we have a situation where these weapons are being sent to certain parts of the world with an EU stamp on them. This is completely unacceptable. In my own country, Ireland, there has in recent times been an increase in the arms industry, mainly involving US-based arms manufacturing. This manufacturing comprises mainly components, but irrespective of whether components or end-use weapons are concerned, we should not accept the production of weapons. There are far more beneficial ways of creating employment for people in a given area than the production of something that is used to kill another human being.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I am as disappointed as my colleagues at the response. It was always possible for the Swedish Presidency itself to put the item on the agenda. It seems to me to be another example of politicians being out of touch with ordinary people, who are well aware of the enormous support for such a tax. Although perhaps unfeasible, it enjoys enormous support, and I find the resistance of the Council and the Commission to discussion of this tax staggering. If it could be implemented it would end the evils of global speculation that destroy so many jobs, communities and families, while promoting a good in the form of large amounts of aid and assistance to the Third World. Perhaps the President-in-Office could respond to my concern and tell me why the Council is so afraid of commissioning a study itself or of encouraging the Commission to do so? At least we would have an answer if we could say that we had an independent study and it will not work. I suspect that would not come up with such a result but, nevertheless, can I ask you whether you will look into the possibility of commissioning a study or encouraging the Commission itself to study the Tobin-type taxes, so as to see whether they are feasible and under what conditions they could work?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in 1999, the turnover in the European Union for vitamins and minerals alone was over EUR 1 600 million, even without taking other food supplements into account. That just shows how fashionable these products have become, which is quite natural, when all is said and done. The wish to be and to stay healthy is probably the most widely shared one. Every day, then, millions of European citizens take thousands of pills, capsules and tablets. It also shows how urgent is the need for regulation of this market in Europe, a market which is expanding rapidly, lacks transparency, and, above all, varies greatly from one Member State to another, as has been noted. The differences are sometimes quite considerable and concern areas such as product composition, dosage, and criteria relating to purity, labelling or the required approval procedure. We must, therefore, fill these gaps so that we can protect consumers, so that they are extremely well briefed and as clearly informed as is possible, while enabling the free movement of goods within the European Union, as, I am sure, everyone will agree. When voting on Mrs Müller’s excellent report, on which we must congratulate her, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy included vitamins and minerals in the definition of food supplements, as well as other substances listed in the annexes. We welcome this contribution. Our aim was to ensure that, in the long term, the directive would cover all the food supplements already on the European market, so that European consumers can enjoy the same safety guarantees. In the same spirit, our group tabled three additional amendments, Amendments Nos 33, 34 and 35. Amendments with the same effect were also tabled by the Group of the , seeking to ensure that the scope of the directive includes substances that have physiological effects, i.e. non-nutritional substances which are nonetheless vital to a person’s well-being. Fibre, which is known to aid digestion, in the same way as plant extracts, is included. I would like to point out that this proposal was already included in the text of the French Presidency and is currently in that of the Swedish Presidency. The very reason that we are here today is to create a legal framework in order to harmonise the sale of these food supplements. We should not create a legal void in Europe with regard to ingredients which have physiological functions. There are millions of consumers who would find that incomprehensible.

Political group: ELDR
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. – Madam President, I welcome the fact that in committee we managed to achieve a balanced compromise on this issue and I hope that Parliament will adopt that position in substance tomorrow. In response to Mr Ferber and his contention that postal companies do not have an obligation to create jobs, I agree with him, but believe that we have a responsibility to create an environment where companies like postal companies can deliver a good, efficient, universal postal service and to ensure that the jobs thereby provided are good-quality jobs. That is our responsibility. No one is arguing that there should be no change in relation to postal services. Technology and changing markets will drive change, in any event. I agree with the generally declared objective that there should be gradual and controlled change; but I disagree that the Commission's proposal is in any way controlled or in any way gradual. It seems to me that the Commission's proposal goes too far, too quickly, and that, in fact, it would devastate some national universal service providers. I know from my own experience in Ireland that the Irish postal company would indeed be devastated. Forty-six per cent of its revenue would be opened to competition. It would not be able to survive in such an environment, it could not deliver universal services in Ireland, it could not maintain the current level of local post offices in Ireland as a result of such competition. I urge the Commission to reconsider its position and accept Parliament's position. But, in particular, I urge the Member States in Council to consider their position; and I am quite concerned that despite the fact that Members of the governing party in Ireland are supporting the compromise position here in Parliament, the Irish Government is not supporting that position.

Political group: PSE
This report is supposed to justify putting in place a common foreign policy and military force in Europe, the claim being that this will guarantee European security. The only recent wars in which one or more European countries have been involved – those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Côte-d’Ivoire – have all been bandit wars against countries that it would be ridiculous to claim threatened European security. Whether the European powers conducted them together or separately, these wars were not at all intended to defend the EU’s population but to protect the interests of its propertied classes. Moreover, the report may decline the word ‘multilateralism’ in every European language, but it remains no less the case that these are the mutterings of small imperialist powers to whom the main power, the United States, leaves no other choice but to fall into line behind Washington or take refuge in impotent sulking. The near break-up of the European Union in connection with the war in Iraq is no accident. It shows to what point the European Union is a motley collection of states with conflicting interests in a great many areas. We reject the ‘basic choices’ described by this report and to be implemented not in the interests of the people but in opposition to those interests.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the original purpose of this directive was to simplify matters, to ensure as part of the ‘SLIM’ programme that the number of European legal texts should be reduced as far as possible and that they should be made easier for the citizen to understand. I have massive doubts as to whether we have really succeeded with this proposal for a directive. As we all know, the European Union has for decades had workable sectoral directives for a whole series of skilled occupations, which were developed specifically to create suitable conditions for recognition in those occupations. If we are now approaching them on the principle that they should all be lumped together and there should be one directive applying as much to master carpenters as to medical consultants and surgeons, then I am convinced that nothing sensible can come of it in the end. That is why the majority of my group wanted to keep the sectoral directives. The fact is that most of the complaints received were not about the regulated areas but about those areas that were not regulated, that is to say, the areas not covered by the sectoral directives. We were unable to get the Committee to accept this view. The result now is obviously that there will have to be a large number of amendments taking more and more elements from the sectoral directives into the general directive. The outcome cannot be described as something that has produced a simplification of legislation in Europe, quite the opposite, it has all become more bureaucratic, more complicated, harder to understand and more inefficient, the opposite of ‘slim’, I would call the directive ‘thick’, to borrow the English word. Not to mention that I do not of course believe it is a good way of legislating to adopt a directive on medical consultants that is then not even implemented in the Member States but rescinded again and finally incorporated into this directive. In short, the consultations were in the end about preventing something worse rather than achieving something good. What the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has come up with has prevented something worse, but it has not done any good. We will vote in favour of this outcome given that nothing else could be achieved.

Political group: PPE-DE