kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
i also think that we should make it easier to apply green innovative and social procurement.
i would also like to stress that we fully share the views of the report when pointing at the huge benefits that digitisation of procurement could bring.
we are developing a european competence framework for public buyers to make sure that the skills competences they require are clearly identified. these are the main points.
thank you very much for taking this subject on board.
it is undeniable that there are many work related risks both traditional and emerging but i strongly believe that the focus should not be on adding new pieces of legislation to the pile of existing ones thereby overloading the employers and resulting in the end in a very low level of compliance.
therefore investing in safety and health at the workplace is a win win situation for both the employers and the employees.
to achieve this we need clear and simple legislation and its enforcement.
we need a simplified legal framework that helps smes to comply.
so action at eu level must be based on clearly identified risk and must be proportionate to that risk.
in the uk the health and safety executive claims that simplification could help lift the admin burden on two hundred and twenty zero smes with no impact on health and safety protection.
we cannot eliminate risk altogether but we can manage it.
mr president we have to simplify european health and safety legislation and we have to find a way to remove administrative burdens while maintaining protection for workers.
i share your sense of urgency on the fight against work related cancer.
one of the priority actions foreseen in the european osh strategic framework is the identification and dissemination of good practice on preventing mental health problems.
report after report points to stress and depression as a growing cause of absenteeism and of what one has started to call presentism' a physical presence at work but sub optimal output because of stress related factors.
the report draws attention to a number of issues and formulates a number of recommendations on which i would like to comment in particular.
as parliament's report on health and safety recalls undeclared work unfortunately often brings with it also precarious health and safety conditions.
our ambition is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the european legislative framework for protecting workers while making the rules simpler and reducing regulatory burden and red tape in particular for small and micro enterprises.
the report highlights the role of the ec senior labour inspectors committee as a platform for the exchange of information and collaboration between member states and the importance of sufficient resources for labour inspectorates but effective implementation and workplace compliance with osh regulation and legislation
we will pay particular attention to this in the context of our ongoing ex post evaluation of the european legislative acquis and possible subsequent initiatives. as i have underlined before my aim is to provide maximum protection on the ground in the most sensitive and sensible way.
mid next year i intend to table a legislative proposal to extend the list of substances for which there are occupational exposure limits in place.
the european agency for safety and health at work is active in this area for example with its pan european awareness campaign on stress and psychosocial risks carried out in two thousand.
in this area also the bilbao agency promotes the identification and exchange of good practice on ways to improve osh conditions for women.
the european strategic framework acknowledges that specific risks affecting women deserve particular attention and require targeted action.
thirdly i share your concerns about psychosocial risks in the workplace including stress and depression.
secondly i endorse the impetus that the report gives for more awareness of gender issues in health and safety in line with the ilo decent work agenda.
in the commission work programme for two thousand and sixteen adopted on twenty seven october we committed to reviewing the existing occupational health and safety legislation based on a detailed ex post evaluation.
is not only a responsibility of enforcement bodies. it is in the first place a common responsibility of employers and employees and social partners too have an important role to play in the design and implementation of preventive measures. the tripartite european occupational safety and health agency is in bilbao and is doing excellent work in promoting health and safety campaigns and supporting implementation through user friendly tools in particular for smes.
the commission shares parliament's views on the importance of strengthening risk prevention policies and promoting a culture of prevention in all companies across europe irrespective of their size or area of activity.
i welcome the agreement found by the co legislators and i do hope that the platform can start its work as soon as possible next year.
in addition we need to enhance the protection of workers' health and safety and reflect recent scientific advances.
first i do share parliament's view on the importance of improving the implementation record of european and national occupational health and safety legislation as only effective results on the ground can make a real difference for people in their daily working life.
two thousand and fourteen two thousand and twenty in particular i would like to thank the rapporteur mr christensen for putting forward such a rich and balanced report.
the commission has recently published a new study on mental health in the workplace which provides practical guidance for workers and employers on how to deal with this issue.
that is the kind of concrete common sense politics that i think these institutions are good at.
but i would also like to slightly chide my conservative colleagues for always talking when they talk about health and safety about the burden on business as though the one and the other go hand in hand and are the same things.
health and safety is not red tape it is life and death. that is what we need to be stressing over and over again and not every time the subject comes up saying that we must ensure health and safety while also reducing burdens on business.
healthier safer and more sustainable working lives but will also have a positive impact on the european union's productivity and competitiveness and indeed on the sustainability of our social security systems.
the commission will carefully analyse your suggestions on old and new risks and take them into consideration for its future work.
this is about the effective protection of workers while where possible making the rules more user friendly and less burdensome for enterprises and specifically for smes and micro enterprises.
these varied causes need a concerted and coherent foreign policy response by the countries of nato and the west if we are to do anything to alleviate them.
we only have to look at the chaos and anarchy in calais where thousands of illegal immigrants daily fight to gain entry to britain after having travelled across europe to do so. we need genuine cooperation among nation states to address the root causes of mass migration and to police our borders but while we still have an open borders policy in europe these efforts will be in vain.
one of the main reasons that migrants flood to europe from all corners of the world is the eu's open borders policy because once in one european country it is easy for them to make their way to their european country of choice and in many cases the migrants' country of choice is the united kingdom.
also i do not understand why you would not want me to condemn a form of islamic fundamentalism which is butchering people and persecuting people of all religions and driving them out of the middle east. are you in favour of that?
we cannot on the one hand be outraged that people are dying in the mediterranean and on the other hand criticise europe when we start operations to fight the traffickers.
of course border police need to check the borders the external borders of the european union and of course we need to interview the migrants too because they might have relevant information to combat the perpetrators to identify them the roots the methods how they are paid.
police need to share information with each other because otherwise they will not be able to be effective in combating international crimes. but they should fully respect data protection rules.
any act of discrimination based on nationality or ethnicity is in violation of european values and laws and it should be treated as such by the member states.
but we cannot put everything in the same box.
this is not about migration policy.
we have a dramatic humanitarian situation.
we need to implement the asylum package we need to have sharing of responsibility among the member states we need to create more legal ways to the european union.
but this goes hand in hand with combating organised crime.
as a result highly polluting fuels such as tar sands oil will now be reported with the same emission values as conventional fuel stocks.
the revised proposal ignores several recommendations of the european parliament including a differentiation between different fuel feedstocks.
if the eu is serious about leading the global fight against climate change it must show it is serious about reducing emissions from the transport sector.
the commission has also failed to recognise the results of its own impact assessments.
and companies will be prevented from being able to report even voluntarily on real fuel emissions. rather than investing in cleaner fuels the eu is opening up its market to dirty tar sands oil. this could mean nearly seven of transport fuels in the eu are likely to come from canadian tar sands by.
the aim of the directive is not to discourage the use of any specific type of fuel but to ensure that appropriate mitigation measures are put in place to achieve the six greenhouse gas reduction target by.
the new commission proposal agreed by the council is thus a balanced and workable compromise as it delivers the objectives of the basic act while addressing key stakeholder concerns in an adequate manner.
two thousand and twenty all options will be analysed to bring down greenhouse gas emissions from transport fuels in line with the overall target of achieving a reduction of at least forty by. two thousand and thirty all stakeholders including parliament will be invited to bring forward their views among others at the conference to be organised in the course of.
however i understand that some members of this parliament consider the proposal unambitious claiming that it will not prevent unconventional sources of oil such as tar sands coming onto the eu market.
we must now ensure that the member states can put mitigation measures in place to achieve the six greenhouse gas reduction target in fuels by.
the commission would like to recall that the purpose of article seven a of the fuel quality directive is to reduce the carbon content of fuel used for road transport.
however the commission will be evaluating the experience with article seven a of the directive as part of its better regulation programme for the period after.
two thousand and twenty the commission is convinced that the fuel quality directive's greenhouse gas reduction target can be implemented effectively both domestically and abroad through the proposal.
i hope this long discussion on the calculation methods and reporting requirements pursuant to article seven a of the fuel quality directive can come to an end so that member states can start to transpose these elements of the two thousand and twenty climate and energy package.
in order to be meaningful a life cycle approach has to be based on accounting that is accurate and possible.
considering the fact that two thousand and twenty is already almost round the corner and that we are approaching the paris conference next year europe needs a swift and strong implementation of this directive in order to be able to move forward towards the leading low carbon society it intends to be.
the aim of the fuel quality directive is not to discourage the use of any specific type of fuel but to ensure the appropriate accounting of greenhouse gas emissions.
the objective of the fuel quality directive is to reduce the carbon content of fuel used for road transport.
the proposal requires major fuel suppliers to disclose the trade names and volumes of the crude oils they import.
as trade names are generally associated with crude oil types the tracking of this information will allow for a simpler updating of the eu fossil fuel mix's carbon intensity in the future.
the proposers of the objection have chosen ground number three that it is incompatible with the aim and content of the basic act.
the objection must be justified on one of three grounds.
this suggests that the measure is inappropriate for accurate estimating and reporting of the volume type origin and lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of the fuels supplied.
this is a positive step and will provide a level of transparency to the public that does not currently exist in the eu.
i think there is much to recommend the commission's proposal.
furthermore with the fuel quality directive currently not included in the commission's post two thousand and twenty energy and climate framework the adoption of this objection will only serve to undermine the credibility of the fqd by forcing additional institutional delay on a piece of legislation set to expire in six years.
this is a consequence of the canadian lobby.
so if you really are concerned about the methodology then we should really fight for the proposal that was on the table in two thousand and eleven which does differentiate between different fuel types and which is even supported by epure not always my friends when they do their biofuel lobbying but they also see that they
we think that theoretically this can be a very efficient tool. but that is the problem we say theoretically because with this proposal the commission is deliberately weakening the proposal.
this is really going against the core of the fuel quality directive.
how is the commission going to make sure that after two thousand and twenty we will have a proposal that takes into account the differentiation between different fuel types so that the good ones are rewarded and the bad ones are not rewarded?
two thousand and eleven that is in the emissions impact assessment.
we just want to have differentiation between different fuel types.
so this is literally taking away the efficiency of one of these measures and that is what we are against.
two thousand and eleven has the world changed? no if you read the impact assessment all the values are the same as in.
and i think that is also important for my christian democrat colleagues.
that is what we are aiming for.
two thousand and eleven so we can only start to guess what happened and indeed i come to the same conclusion as my colleague matthias groote.
so therefore we object and unfortunately commission you do not allow us to do anything other than to vote against this proposal to object to this proposal with pain in our hearts.
let me be very clear we are strong defenders of the fuel quality directive.
and let me say to the canadians who are probably listening this is not against canada.
sorry we really want to hear more.
so why is the commission not following its own impact assessment not following its own proposal of?
if the canadians can show they can produce a clean fuel type even cleaner than just normal oil then they should also get the credit for that.
that is what we call better regulation and that is not in the proposal.
the bigger picture of energy security in europe and independence from russia also needs to be looked at.
this is why investments have been made to restructure the sector and reduce its ecological footprint.
i am strongly in favour of a greener transport sector but i do not think that rejecting the commission's proposal this week will achieve this.
it is a polluting industry.
rejecting the proposal could have the impact of a shift of production and thus employment from north east estonia to russia and the risk of political instability would then be high.
rejecting the proposal of the commission would endanger the investments made and will likely lead to more pollution rather than less.
i really do not understand after seeing your two thousand and eleven proposal how you can defend a completely contradictory proposal after the council rejected your first proposal.
but the lima outcome also made it clear that we still have a very difficult battle against climate change ahead of us.
for that reason it is crucial that public policy pushes investments towards a low carbon economy.
so highly polluting nigerian crude or tar sand oils from other parts of the world are treated equally with much cleaner feedstock oils.
madam president it was this weekend that i returned from lima where the climate summit took place and i must say that i was impressed by the broadly shared determination to fight climate change.
that is against the objectives of the fuel quality directive and for that reason i tabled together with a few other groups the objection.
i really do not understand how you can defend both. it is absolutely clear that we have to steer investments and we can only steer investments in the right direction if we encourage them in the right direction and discourage them from taking the wrong direction.
i expected a much stronger commitment to the objectives of the fuel quality directive.
concerning recital forty four of the fuel quality directive how can it possibly be argued that strengthening what is on the table is not part of the objective of the directive which is about ensuring respect for minimum levels of environmental protection in relation to fuel.
for one thing we are putting a lot more investment into research and technology for alternative fuel development and yet we fight over progressive measures such as this.
madam president i think there is a vast amount of hypocrisy in this debate. i find it absolutely astonishing that ninety four of the transport sector in the eu is dependent on fuel from oil and yet the commission is making arguments here about how this measure is not legally sound and is not appropriate.
we are not prohibiting different kinds of fuels;
what we will probably hear tomorrow is that several items of great importance for the environment will be withdrawn. i do hope mr commissioner that i am wrong and that you will prove me wrong by doing better for the environment and for the future.
this is happening because friendly countries like the usa and canada are opening up new fuel sources bringing down energy costs.
one result is that we become less dependent upon unstable countries and unfriendly regimes. another is that fuel costs come down for hard pressed working people living through austerity.
good news for a new year but not of course if you are a green.
they want to do all they can to torpedo these developments.
the commission must not press for any agreement or sets of targets which will reduce or even reverse financial relief for hard pressed taxpayers.
it is after all the eu which created a currency full of structural flaws with disastrous consequences for the standard of living of millions.
his last recipe was to impose a two day working week for public servants to save energy.
this goes beyond ideologies and political systems.
a country faced with so many challenges needs first and foremost functioning institutions at the service of their people.
this is not about interfering in venezuela's domestic affairs but we have a duty to offer our venezuelan friends all the help they might need and want towards a peaceful solution of the crisis.
as you know the clash between the government and the parliament is blocking any serious attempt to tackle the crisis and address the citizens' needs;
with no dialogue at all among different forces the situation can only get worse.
many european companies which have invested in the country generating jobs and growth although they struggle to hold on in the current situation are there. many are owed large debts by the states. i also want to add that we have an interest in avoiding a spillover of tensions into neighbouring countries and here i immediately think of colombia
and political leaders all of them have a duty to answer their call.
the economy is contracting at an impressive pace. beyond the economic situation we are all aware and i know how important this is for this chamber of the restrictions on civil liberties the media situation the situation of many of the opposition leaders some of them in prison awaiting trial.
it has the potential to be among the leading nations in latin america and in spite of that the people of venezuela are suffering from violence a world record in daily murders and random kidnappings.
these are the solutions the voters asked for and these are the solutions that the people of venezuela need.
this is something that no one can afford either inside or outside of the country.
even electricity is subject to frequent rationing while venezuela is as we all know the fifth largest exporter of petroleum in the world.
we are not a distant observer.
so. we have been discussing the situation in the country with many international and regional partners from the un to the organization of american states to unasur with neighbouring countries with vatican diplomacy and the message we are all passing on is that both the government and the parliament should move towards a more cooperative attitude.
i really hope that the country's leaders will accept a helping friendly hand because in extraordinary times like these it would be only natural and normal to do
we do so as friends.
venezuela is a country with rich human and natural resources.
the european union is obviously distant geographically but not politically.
neither the majority nor the opposition government nor parliament.
they are suffering permanent shortages of food basic goods most medicines and medical care. water is scarce and no longer guarantees the former sanitary standards.
on the contrary hundreds of thousands of venezuelans hold a european passport as dual nationals.
and the stalemates cannot curb violence or slow down the inflation.
they deserve a country that can guarantee them a normal life.
mr president the political and economic situation in venezuela is becoming more difficult by the day.
this is about serving the people of venezuela the only source of legitimacy of all elected institutions in the country.
which could soon come out of a long painful conflict;
we at the level of the european union are always ready to support and i am sure that this parliament will support our efforts in this respect. and on this particular issue let me tell you that i look forward to listening to your comments and views because this is one of the issues where parliaments can help the most.
inflation rates are among the highest in the world.
whatever the solution to the crisis will be the people of venezuela need their institutions to address the security situation and to put the economy back on track.
so the question is how can we help venezuela and its citizens?
our institutions and i personally have regularly highlighted the violations of fundamental freedoms and urged respect for due process of law.
this is the story that venezuela should have been able to boast about but unfortunately the reality today is dramatically different.
as supermarket shelves lie empty a two day week for the public sector workers has been imposed to conserve energy and government hand outs grind to a halt the situation in venezuela is dire.
in this respect venezuela has become a poster child for the populist corrupt crony socialist ideology of mr chvez.
hugo chvez's mix of government giveaways and bloating of the public sector in a bid to cling to power for nearly two decades whilst enriching himself and those around him has clearly been an unmitigated disaster for that south american country.
today we catch on as a successor maduro seeks to build on that legacy only this time lacking both the oil market high prices and the charisma.