GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, from time to time a certain impetus is needed in order for an issue to be considered, and, in this case, Mrs Louise McVay has provided it. In this case, and in those like it, we see again and again how much cold-heartedness there is in this European Union of ours – of the need for which I am thoroughly convinced, and for which we are all working together. After all, it takes a certain optimism not to resort to the criticism, which is to some extent stereotypical, that Europe is only for those who are fast, big, rich, healthy and strong, but instead to believe that this Europe is there also for the vulnerable members of society, for those who are slow and cannot keep up the pace – and here I am not talking about ‘core Europe’, but about individuals who are slower and cannot keep up – for the sick, for the little people. We have no problems with travel. We move money, goods and cars from one Member State to another. We use them; we have a single drivers’ licence and a single set of road traffic regulations. Where common action in social matters is concerned, though, or common action in the cultural sphere, it is unfortunate that this Europe cannot demonstrate the rhythm and speed that it already possesses in other spheres, and for which we are grateful. It would surely make sense for us to be as quick about things in the social and cultural spheres as we are elsewhere. Members – among whom I particularly want to thank Mrs Aaltonen, the rapporteur – have already spoken at length about the need for, and importance of, measures to deal with multiple sclerosis. I therefore want to draw particular attention to the incongruousness of our having such a need to catch up in the social sphere. There is no single entitlement card for the disabled, Commissioner; a disabled person who lives in Germany cannot go to France, nor a disabled person from Italy to Germany and have his status, which is a disadvantage, recognised, not even when it comes to getting a parking space, let alone a seat on public transport and other similar things beside. This is where we urgently need to make up for lost time. I believe – indeed, I am convinced – that it is not enough to do no more than say ‘we have no responsibility for this’. We must do far more here, and be more consistent in doing it. I hope that this debate will make us more aware of these matters too. (Sustained applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, all of us here are aware that rail transport plays an important role in the proper development of human activities, protection of the environment and sustainable local planning. That is why I believe that we cannot be satisfied with the results of the conciliation between the European Parliament and the Council. This compromise perpetuates the race to open up the markets and introduce competition in rail transport services, for goods and passengers alike, in order to satisfy the economic rationale of profitability, instead of meeting the requirements of the users and employees in this sector. The report approves the plan to liberalise rail transport, and, more particularly, the plan to make infrastructure managers independent of the State. If this is adopted, there is a risk that rail safety will be jeopardised. However, there could have been other options. Even if historical and national differences exist, coordination of public rail transport services on a European level is not an insurmountable obstacle. Besides, that is what rail workers are calling for. We must move towards establishing public Europe-wide services within the framework of a common policy... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Thank you Mr President. We do not want to discuss the substance of the report; we have already had a debate about it in committee. Although we did indeed get the expert opinion to which Mr Florenz referred, it did not back up his arguments but those of my group and also Mr Kronberger’s approach. It makes sense to hold over the vote. We are at the end of a parliamentary term and want, if possible, to come to an agreement at first reading, so that we will not have to start from the beginning again when the House reconvenes, going through first reading again and then debating the common position. Having the vote itself at the next sitting will not take up much time, and so I ask you, Mr President, to put it to the vote. This is what my group will be asking for and thereby supporting Mr Kronberger in having just the debate this week. (Parliament agreed to the request) Wednesday President. I have received a request from the Group for Council and Commission statements on the lessons to be learned and the prospects for the European Union one year after the war in Iraq.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Lisi. It goes without saying that I, along with my colleagues, expect passengers travelling on European airlines to be treated in a fair and respectful manner. I also firmly believe that if their travel plans are disrupted and it is the fault of the airline, then that airline should take full responsibility. Sadly this regulation, in its present state, will badly damage our airline industry and, in particular, our regional and low-cost carriers, thereby threatening jobs and reducing the opportunities the consumer has come to expect in terms of choice and a competitive level of airfares. It is therefore with regret that I will be unable to support this regulation, for the following reasons. First, in the final draft of Article 6, referring to delays, the regulation is seriously flawed. The exclusion of extraordinary circumstances places an unacceptable financial burden on the carrier. Situations such as industrial disputes, air traffic delays, adverse weather conditions and possible terrorist threats cannot be foreseen by any airline. Therefore to include full reimbursement, as well as a return flight to the first point of departure, is wholly unacceptable. To suggest that the airlines will be able to obtain compensation from third party providers is a myth. Maybe they will apply to heaven if it is a weather problem. Secondly, referring to Article 5 on cancellations, I echo my previous points. The impact of this regulation has taken no account of Parliament's support in strengthening our regional airports. Nor has the Commission thought through the impact on charter carriers, which often have only one or two flights a week to particular destinations. In conclusion, at the beginning of this process I criticised the Commission on its ill-timed, badly drafted proposal. It ignored the new voluntary commitment and failed to provide a financial impact assessment. An extra GBP 1 billion of costs for the airlines will not benefit passengers but will penalise them by increasing the price of tickets and reducing choice. The irony is that none of these rules would apply to third country airlines flying into the EU. If the Commission wanted to give our business away to the rest of the world, then it has done a jolly good job.

Political group: PPE-DE
The reform of the CFP contained a proposal to set up RACs, and British Conservative MEPs today voted to support that proposal. We nevertheless believe that the EC has already relegated these bodies to the sidelines in respect of fisheries management by starving them of adequate funding and insisting that their role be purely 'advisory'. We fear that meaningful stakeholder involvement will therefore be restricted to the role of mere 'talking shops', with Brussels continuing to take all the management decisions. This is not good enough, and cannot resolve the problems which have resulted in the failure of the CFP. Thus, although we regard the creation of RACs as a tiny step in the right direction, we remain resolute in our view that UK withdrawal from the CFP, returning management to local and national control, remains the only real way to safeguard the future of the UK fisheries sector and fish stocks.

Political group: PPE-DE
Arlette Laguiller, Armonia Bordes and Chantal Cauquil voted against the Charter, being aware that charters afford no real protection for workers in this class-ridden society where the only thing that counts is the balance of power. This Charter refuses to include such basic rights as the right to a decent retirement pension, the right to a minimum wage, to decent housing, to health care. What is more, exemptions are possible to the article prohibiting children’s work before they have finished their compulsory schooling. This is a serious state of affairs when it is known that, in a number of European countries, an intolerable number of children are working, being exploited and being denied the right to a proper education. The text does not offer any additional protection and gives governments and the wealthy classes further arms to attack in these areas. The right to strike, for example, is acknowledged only with the proviso that it is limited “in accordance with national laws and practices”. The Charter therefore has no binding force upon countries whose legislation does not go quite so far as the minimum contained in the Charter. In countries whose legislation is more favourable to workers, however, the Charter may be cited to oppose the national legislation in courts of law. Instead of pulling human rights and social rights up to a higher level, the Charter will enable actions that will effectively reduce them to the lowest common denominator.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, education, education, education – the British Prime Minister once said this was his priority. I have some doubts about that and I really wonder whether this is our priority in Europe. Certainly not if you look at what we spend on it. In Europe we spend EUR 2.5 billion each year on olives, we spent less than EUR 2 billion over six years on the Socrates Programme. The rapporteur even had to fight to get a separate debate on education on our agenda this morning. For the single market to flourish and for Europe to flourish we need an educated and mobile workforce, confident about crossing national boundaries. The Socrates Programme is important for that and so making it more efficient as Ms Pack's report urges is really very important. Linguistic skills are certainly important for labour mobility. We all know that those students who participate in the Socrates Programme benefit tremendously from it; sadly, not enough students do. For students from my own country there is always an imbalance between the number of Continental students wanting to go to the United Kingdom and the very limited number of British students prepared are willing to go to Continental countries. What is the reason for that? It is very clear – the lack of linguistic skills among students in Britain. We must send a message to the British Government that they should reverse their appalling decision of the last few weeks to allow secondary students in Britain not to learn any foreign language at all. That is certainly not the way to ensure that Europe will flourish or that Britain will get the best benefits from its membership of the European Union. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, since the European Council in Lisbon, we have travelled a long way in a relatively short space of time. The three institutions, Council, Parliament and Commission, were aware that the time factor was vital in the case of one of the fastest-developing technologies. The directive on e-commerce has already been approved, we approved the directive on the unbundling of the local loop – which, by the way, the Member States have not yet fully complied with – but now the telecommunication business, which seemed secure, is encountering more and more problems, which is clearly not beneficial to users. A new framework is therefore necessary. And that is what this package of directives we are dealing with provides. It is not a question of more regulation. It is a question of regulating what is necessary, with a balance between consumers and operators. But, above all, it is a question of regulating in the same way, in an equal way, in order to prevent what was happening – a fragmentation of the internal market. That is why the European Parliament tried to resolve this problem, and the Council, in its common position, made a counter-offer, which I believe was insufficient, but now the Presidency has achieved a package which is more sufficient. What we are being offered is clearly not ideal, it is not what we would all like to achieve, but as the saying goes, the best is the enemy of the good, and, for the sake of the certainty of the operators, for the sake of the need to have a filter in the Commission to deal with the problems of the internal market, and also, it should be said, for the sake of the good image of the operation of our institutions, I recommend that we approve this package.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would thank the French presidency for its succinct answer. I nonetheless have two follow-up questions, because this is a very serious case of a very dubious character from a democratic point of view. Fourteen Member States are planning to ask experts from the Council of Europe to investigate certain states of affairs in Austria. My first question concerns whether the French presidency considers that this request for an investigation should also apply to the Pelinka case, which would be only reasonable. My second question concerns Articles 6 and 7 of the Treaty, concerning fundamental rights. I wonder whether the French presidency believes there is cause for examining this case on the basis of Articles 6 and 7 of the Treaty.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as you are aware, the news is spreading throughout the world of fish that I am promoting their cause. In fact, the fish are extremely concerned about the mad cow disease crisis and, having heard about Mr Jové Peres' report – which is rightly concerned with the fact that we are not able to monitor how many fishing boats go to fish in one area and how many in another – they have proposed that I put it to the Commission that it would be appropriate to fit these fishing boats with remote tracking devices – which are present on many cars – so that the European Union will be able to discover how many fishing boats fish in one area of the sea and how many in another. This would avoid there being too many fishermen in one place, for the fish would also like to be left to live their lives in peace and become pensioners as well.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, allow me to start by quoting the early German Romantic Novalis. As perhaps the first visionary of our present concept of a liberal and peaceful Europe, he coined the following expression about 200 years ago in his widely acclaimed treatise 'Christendom or Europe': 'Everything is good, but not necessarily all the time, not necessarily everywhere and not necessarily for all of the people.' He was quite right. This insight is something we come up against almost every day in the European decision-making process. Extended to self-employed drivers, the directive regulating the working time of persons occupied in mobile road-transport activities under discussion today is a perfectly typical example. From the point of view of small and medium-sized enterprises, and especially self-employed drivers, this directive, with its limit values on average, accurately-defined maximum working times, minimum breaks and rest periods and its provisions on night work, is an example of politics exerting an inadmissible and unnecessary influence on working times for which these drivers alone are responsible. From their point of view, it is even a compelling, authoritarian obstacle which stands in contradiction to the principles of a market economy and should therefore be rejected. However, social and competition policy and road safety experts take a different view. When it comes to more and more frequent shock headlines such as: 'Tired truck driver ploughs into carefully parked broken down car' and the need to avoid bogus self-employment and the unfair competition which it engenders, this directive is long overdue. Improved health protection and safety in the workplace for employees in the road haulage industry also deserves a mention. For me, as an ardent supporter of a social market economy, my motto is: people first, the economy second. So I would recommend that we tighten up the common position in the interests of everyone, including those of us who use the roads as pedestrians.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am sorry that my comments have to be directed at Commissioner Barnier, whom I hold in the highest regard, because my complaint applies to a different Commissioner. As a member of the Committee on Petitions, and to follow on from what Mr Perry has already said, I should point out that this is not the first time the Commission has refused to divulge the contents of documents and other records which we need to see if we are to draw the right conclusions and make the right decisions in cases where European citizens have taken recourse to the European Parliament. This refusal on the part of the Commission infringes, in my view, the principle of transparency and hampers the Committee on Petitions in its work. The main excuse for the Commission's refusal is that the information and documents requested would disclose sensitive personal data. The merits of this contention are contested both by the Committee on Petitions and the European Ombudsman. To give you an example, the Commission refuses to give us the names of the representatives of a professional organisation whom it consulted and who, it appeared, influenced its decision. We deny that this is how personal data is protected and are worried that a possibly less than transparent deal is being hushed up. Mr Perry also referred to the Lloyd ́s affair. I have to tell you that this hush-up conceals bankrupt companies, a great deal of human misery and several suicides, which is why the report by the chairman of the Committee on Petitions, Mr Gemelli, which Plenary adopted today, calls for the powers and efficiency of the Committee on Petitions to be enhanced so that petitioners can obtain justice promptly and avert irreparable damage, for example to the environment or cultural monuments.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I believe that the Commission proposal forms an excellent basis. Everyone must be involved and the initial allocation of rights is free. There is, however, one snag; the risk of distortion of competition within the EU. In other words, the playing field may become too uneven, and you were right, Commissioner, to point out that this is unacceptable among national allocation schemes. This is also why I am opposed to national exemptions, whereby a country can grant a company or a sector exemption. It is my conviction that everyone should take part. If necessary, exemptions may be granted at European level for one or other clear reason which can be objectively established. In addition, I am of the opinion that the allocation must also take account of the energy efficiency of the technology used in a company. A company that does not work efficiently should not be rewarded with an initial generous allocation of rights for free. Since it is impossible to sell because a high number of sectors must operate in a global market, and would therefore be disadvantaged by this sale, European allocation criteria should be put into place that are objective, transparent and stringent and that apply to everyone. We need a benchmark, the best available technology, and we need to prescribe compulsory criteria based on these for everyone and every Member State, since this scheme also affects the distribution of the burden across the Member States in one way or another. There is the chance therefore, and unfortunately the Member States that are experiencing difficulties are nearly all small Member States, which makes the discussion for us highly problematic, in that there is distortion of competition, which does not mean that we reject this scheme, because this scheme, for us who are finding it difficult to cope, makes the effort more bearable and cheaper, as the price of the effort is reduced. This is why we need an effective scheme. We will at any rate need to adjust this scheme along the way, and we will at any rate be facing climate problems, greenhouse gases, measures which we need to take long after 2012. We should be clear about one thing: it is impossible to build an ecological paradise on an economic graveyard.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I should like to thank the Court of Auditors for its report. We are looking at the reform of a massive multinational administration and it is not going to be easy to turn it around overnight. There is a recognition in the Court's report, however, that things are heading in the right direction and we are pleased to see that. There are still major problems with accountancy and we wish to see those efforts speeded up within the Commission. Since the publication of this report, we in the United Kingdom have been treated to screaming headlines about the fraud that goes on within the EU. It is the ninth time the Court of Auditors has not given the nod to the accuracy of the figures in the largest areas of expenditure. We must always remember that 80% of the money is spent within the Member States, and until there is more responsibility on the part of the Member States, the Commission cannot possibly account for every euro. The issue I should like to concentrate on is the massive amount spent on invalidity pensions to institution staff. EUR 74 000 million are spent every year on people who are sick within the institutions. Of course, we have a responsibility to look after people who are sick, but the efforts made to help staff back to work are absolutely pitiful, especially those suffering psychological problems. 50% of staff said that there was no enquiry about their state of health or the possibility of them returning to work while on sick leave. In grades C and D, 62% of people retired on invalidity pensions while 21% retired on retirement pensions. I want to ask both the Court and the Court of Auditors whether they will be pressing for Member States to sign declarations of assurance – both for the Structural Funds and in the agricultural domain – in the forthcoming reforms. Until we get that we are not going to see an improvement on the whole issue of accountancy, or of the Structural Funds, or of where the responsibility lies. If we stand firm on this issue we will try and hold up the process within the European Parliament until the Member States start taking their responsibility. Are you going to be pressing for the Member States to sign declarations of assurance?

Political group: PSE