GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, in the small amount of time allotted to me, I would like to welcome the Mrs Lienemann’s report and remind the House of three principles, to which all other principles must be subordinate, which are clearly expressed in the rapporteur’s amendments: water is not a commercial product, but the property of all the peoples of the Union; the ultimate objective is to eliminate all pollutants in surface water and groundwater, and to inform the public so that it can participate in the recuperation of water and not use water excessively given that it is such a precious commodity. I know that this directive may have problems, given the differing situations of the various countries of the Union, as has already been mentioned. The situation in the north is different from that in the south, and different from the situation in those countries which have the problem of desert areas. I understand this. However, there are some amendments which attempt to help the countries of the south, specifically Amendment No 43 which, with regard to the recuperation of costs, also indicates that Member States must take into account the social and environmental conditions of the countries when it comes to decision making. There are also difficulties with the issue of transfers. In my country – I live in the north of Spain -, there is a considerable difference between the north and the south, and difficulties arise when we have to transfer water from one place to another. However, Mrs Lienemann’s report also says that the river basins receiving the transferred water must save and protect their water. I know that this is a difficult report and that the differing situations of countries cause difficulties, but we must move forward with a framework directive which will prevent a repetition of what is happening on the Danube and what happened in Doñana. We cannot allow our European water to be polluted, Mr President, and we must produce a directive which will strengthen the political will of governments to preserve the resource of water, which is so precious to all of us.

Political group: GUE-NGL
We have two reports concerning the treatment and transport of animals: that will be a very familiar subject for the Commissioner. I would like to say at the outset – and I am sure that the Chairman of the Committee will say the same – how much we regret the absence of Dagmar Roth-Behrendt tonight. She is one of the most energetic, enterprising and intelligent members of the committee. She is the coordinator for our group on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection Committee and, in her general enthusiasm, she is like a one-woman Congress of Berlin. She is in Berlin tonight and is to have an operation in the morning. I am sure the whole House, even at this late hour, would join with me in wishing Dagmar well, and believing that she will recover with her customary vigour in the very near future. Dagmar Roth-Behrendt intended to move one of the two amendments tonight. I would like to say briefly why I and my group now believe that it would be for the better passage of this directive if it goes through unamended. That would mean, therefore, that we would wish to vote against both Amendments No 1 and No 2: Amendment No 1 for the very simple reason that it smacks of a desire to scuttle back into a form of neo-protectionism, but certainly over-regulation, of animal imports, which is a desirable but unnecessary consequence of the many scares we have had in recent years. In my country we are particularly aware of that, but we believe that the OIE code covers trade in live animals and will protect countries which do not have BSE from introduction of the disease. Additional measures against imports are not justifiable on health grounds and I expect that the Commission will say the same thing. Even more briefly, on Amendment No 2, which did indeed come in my name: at that stage, we tabled this because we believed that if there was to be a vote through this Parliament for tests at twenty-four months in all the Member States quasi-imposed upon them by the Commission, this needed to be amended with a provision that those Member States which already have other forms of testing – or in the case of the United Kingdom, the over thirty-month cow – should not have to go through that procedure. Given that the principal amendment fell, it seems to me now that the second amendment should fall also. So, from the point of view of my group, we are not supporting any amendments.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, allow me first to congratulate my colleague on her first report. I should like to include a few thoughts in my contribution which, I believe, not only deal with a purely technical matter but also offer a basic starting point, in that I think we should take a much more global approach to agricultural policy from the outset. European agriculture, and we all support a European agricultural model, must be configured so that farmers throughout Europe have a chance of survival. Agriculture and the whole of rural society must be viable, so that the generations which follow us inherit a habitat that is intact. This means that farming must be possible both in favoured areas and in disadvantaged and climatically exposed regions and peripheral areas. One of the remarkable features of our agriculture is its multi-functionality in the rural society and it must be configured so that farmers find optimum conditions for all manner of crops. One of the outstanding features of Europe is its variety and I am referring here not only to the variety of regions and cultures but also to the variety of products and foodstuffs which make Europe unique. Farmers make a huge contribution to the cultural identity of a region or a country because the products cultivated, the primary production, colours not only the cuisine but also the customs and philosophy of life of the people down through the generations. It also gives us close ties with our homeland. Without regional roots from which to develop, there can be no foundation and no basis for the future. Traditional cuisine, which has developed from regional crops, and these crops must of course be suited to the climate, is a delight to the palate, both of the local people and of anyone who enjoys trying different foods. It is precisely this wealth of local and regional specialities which is unique to Europe and it must be preserved because it is a treasure trove which compares with no other region in the world. Europe, I say it again, is and must remain in the future distinctive, famous and loved. So I ask you: have you ever been to southern Europe and tasted the tomatoes which flourish there? They are distinctive. I think that we should ensure within the framework of European agricultural policy that these tomatoes can continue to be cultivated, harvested and processed in these regions. Suitable regulations must be laid down so that, when there are crop failures, there are also reasonable, flexible quota arrangements and a non-bureaucratic approach. One thing must be made clear at the same time, however, and that is that all these actions must go hand in glove with strict control and monitoring measures. I think that this would be a positive starting point for numerous sectors in the future.

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner Byrne stated that the European Parliament had not yet expressed an opinion on the Green Paper on consumer protection, but that he did not see this as a particular problem and that, moreover, the Commission had enough of a political mandate – if I understood correctly – to determine the broad outlines of future consumer policy. For my part, before asking my question, which will be quite straightforward, I should like to say that at this stage the European Parliament has not given any political mandate to the Commission to determine broad outlines of any kind. My question is therefore as follows: to what extent does the Commission intend to take account of the European Parliament’s opinion; is it still worth its even issuing an opinion when clearly the broad outlines have been defined and the major decisions made, whether it be on the choice of a framework directive as the preferred legal instrument or on legal principles, fair commercial practices, mutual recognition, or even to deregulate existing provisions?

Political group: PSE
chairman of the Committee on Fisheries – Mr President, I listened carefully to the Commissioner. Our Committee feels that this was not a good proposal, we had repeated visits from and consultation with the sector, particularly from Italy and France, where leaders of the fisheries sector explained that the Commission proposal would have destroyed their jobs and would have done little to save fish stocks. I would appeal to the Commission in these circumstances to think again. We are going into the election period and the Commission would have an ideal opportunity to conduct further consultations with the sector throughout the Mediterranean basin, and come back in the new mandate with a reworked, revised proposal, which this House may then find acceptable. It should not endeavour to send the proposal back to our committee, because under the Rules of Procedure, we would then be required to deal with it within a period of two months. Clearly, it is impossible for us to comply with those rules, given that the mandate is coming to an end.

Political group: PPE-DE
My party, the Socialist Party in the Netherlands, is in favour of a scheme whereby all MEPs would receive the same monthly income of, for example, EUR 2 000, only the essential expenses they actually incurred would be reimbursed, MEPs would pay taxes in their countries of residence, as is normal, and they would not enjoy any legal privileges denied to other citizens. Members of any parliament are not elected to give undue preference to themselves, but to represent the electorate. In response to the criticism of preferential treatment, a statute for MEPs was discussed in 1998 and in 2002. Such a statute is a good thing if it puts an end to privileges and excessive incomes, and ends all opportunities to pad out these incomes by taking advantage of the system to reimburse expenses. Unfortunately, some MEPs speak in favour of such a statute in order to validate and enhance their benefits. A few years ago, I was astounded to hear Mr Rothley and many Members say, during an exploratory debate in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, that it is beneath their dignity not to have a maximum income. Today, the two largest groups are trying to force this very contentious report through without any discussion or amendment, and to end the exploration of any better alternatives, maybe even in the hope that the Council will turn down such a statute. Sörensen report (A5-0397/2002)

Political group: GUE-NGL
This resolution is one of a range of initiatives responding to the recent escalation in the campaign of interference and aggression conducted against Cuba by the USA over the last 40 years. The actions of the new US representative in Havana, James Cason, stand out within this process. They openly violate Cuban sovereignty through their support and funding of ‘members of the opposition’. Their aim is to destabilise Cuban institutions and even propitiate conditions which could act as a pretext for a military attack on Cuba. The resolution does not say a single word about the terrorist acts and kidnappings which have been carried out as James Cason has continued with his exploits in Cuba. These represent a qualitative change in the process of intervention. The resolution does not condemn the US blockade of Cuba because it is illegitimate, illegal under international law and has serious consequences for the economy and quality of life of the people of Cuba. Rather, it condemns the blockade because it ‘is not a constructive approach to promoting change or reform of the Cuban regime’. The measures adopted by the EU represent a supine acceptance of the Bush Administration’s policy. ‘Cooperation’ should not be used as a means of interference. On the contrary, the EU should adopt and develop a mutually advantageous cooperation policy, one which respects Cuban sovereignty and independence.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I voted in favour of the Wuori report on European Union human rights policy. I welcome the call for a better EU human rights strategy towards third countries and candidate countries. Economic questions take centre stage during accession negotiations, while human rights issues are granted nowhere near the same importance. I voted against the rapporteur's Amendment No 10 because it deletes the passage calling for the Turkish government to guarantee the return of more than 3 million refugees. I have visited a number of refugee camps in south-east Turkey and seen the human misery for myself. Even human rights reports should not ignore refugees. I should also like to add, à propos the Wuori report, that there are not just Christian minorities in Turkey, as stated in Article 90, there are also the Yezidi, a religious community which is not recognised. On official documents such as birth certificates, instead of Yezidi, a cross is entered or they are left blank as a sign of non-recognition. Everyone has the right to worship freely and I therefore call for all religious communities in Turkey to be recognised.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, for my part, I can fully support the common position. The argument for further restrictions on food additives has more to do with political assessment of consumers' need of these additives. We should however try to avoid this type of assessment. In my opinion, we should instead base our assessments on scientifically substantiated risk assessments. In anticipation of the Council's discussion of the matter, the Commission has chosen to withdraw permission for the use of ethyl hydroxyethyl cellulose. Ethyl hydroxyethyl cellulose is used in Sweden and Finland almost exclusively by people with an allergy to gluten. These people have knowledge, accumulated over many years, about cellulose as a binding agent, particularly in bread. If they stop using it, they risk having a poorer diet. Poor diet increases the risk of stomach upsets and diarrhoea. There is also an increased risk of children suffering from stunted growth. Chronic dietary problems also increase the risk of cancer. Last weekend I met a number of dieticians who were concerned that the withdrawal of permission to use ethyl hydroxyethyl cellulose would lead to those with a gluten allergy having problems with their intake of nutrients. My question to the Commissioner is therefore: what opportunities do Swedes with a gluten allergy have for finding bread with this additive even after permission for use has been withdrawn, and does the Commission intend to speed up the consultation in the Scientific Committee on Foodstuffs which will allow the matter to be taken up and the decision changed? Mr President, I have a Christmas message from a 14 year-old boy in Sweden. The boy has a gluten allergy and really struggles with his diet. He has now found out that the European Parliament wants to ban the cellulose in his diet and also in his Christmas food. His Christmas message to you all is: ‘What are you playing at in the EU?’

Political group: PPE-DE
The Danish Social Democrats have today voted in favour of an improvement to maritime safety. We have voted in favour of a European monitoring and information system for maritime traffic, for a fund to provide compensation for oil pollution and for the setting up of a European maritime safety agency. Many pollution accidents could have been avoided if there had been better safety. We have seen all too many accidents during the last couple of years. There was the loss of the tanker, Erika off Brittany in December 1999, resulting in considerable oil pollution, and the loss of the Italian chemical tanker, Ievoli Sun. Most recently, we have seen an extensive oil spill in the Baltic, which could have been avoided if we had had better European rules. Ship owners do not think that a black box has anything to do with safety. However, that is not the case. A black box is very useful in the investigation after two ships have collided, as happened, for example, in the Baltic. If we become better at discovering the causes of accidents, we also become better at preventing them. We cannot wait for international rules in the IMO. The EU must take the lead in the IMO by adopting better rules. We cannot compromise on safety. We must have safety so that fish, birds and people can use the sea without being covered in oil and chemicals.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I refer to the common position on Directive 1998/242 and the capital requirements that it will impose on investment management firms. In Scotland, there is a long tradition of investment management going back to the opening of the American west in the 19th century. These investment managers were usually law firms, private partnerships, which managed the assets of their clients very successfully. To this day, there are investment firms of this type, private partnerships, sole proprietorships and other structures with limited capital. The interests of clients are fully safeguarded as their assets are held by independent and fully capitalised and regulated depositories. It is largely irrelevant to set capital requirements on the investment management firms themselves. I am relieved that the Council has reduced slightly the capital requirements set by this Parliament at first reading and has set a top limit of EUR 10 million. But this is still substantial for private partnerships and sole proprietorships. Incidentally, the largest and most successful firms in America and in the world – Fidelity is a good example – are exactly of this type. The requirements of this type will be a hurdle for new enterprising entrants into an industry which requires a regular injection of new blood. At the very least, it should provide for this capital to be available by means of guarantees from banks or by insurance policies to cover professional and operational risk. But the common position, for some not very apparent reason, restricts such cover to only 50% of the requirement. Why? The common position provides for the Commission to report on this matter within five years of entry into force of the directive. I should like to put on record now the request that such a report should specifically consider whether any capital requirement at all is necessary for investment management companies, and certainly that it should be greatly reduced. IN THE CHAIR: GERHARD SCHMIDVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would also like to begin my intervention by saying that my sentiments about the Dover catastrophe are deeply felt. Unfortunately they are nothing new. I live in an area of Europe where, every day, every week, the dead bodies of emigrants from the north and south of Africa appear. These victims do not appear in the news because, fortunately, they are yet to die on a massive scale, but rather they die in a trickle. Having said this, I am sure, as Commissioner Vitorino has said, that the European Union needs a common policy in order to manage the legal entry of immigrants – bearing in mind our economic, social and demographic situation – in a reasonable way, preventing arbitrary treatment and, above all, turning to legal immigration avenues instead of traffickers in human beings. I believe that we have the responsibility to establish a legal framework which will allow this to be done. We also have the responsibility – and I would like to highlight this – to apply laws which already exist in the whole of the European Union and which regulate our labour market. It is outrageous that some people import and use labour and then go unpunished. To this end, there is no need to create new immigration laws, but we simply have to use the ones we already have to regulate the labour market and punish employers of illegal workers. A year ago in October, the Tampere agreements were adopted. I hope that the Commission will do everything that the Commissioner has said and that the Council is up to the job. In that case they will have the support of this Parliament.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the key question remains: has Nice prepared the European Union for the pending historical enlargement to include Central and Eastern Europe? The answer is clearly no! Nice is too restricted as a step forward. We should not, however, throw away the baby with the bath water. The new Treaty also contains upbeat points, and it would be a serious political mistake simply to wipe this new Treaty off the table. What matters now is to look to the future, to a wider and, at the same time, deeper debate on the EU’s future. Everything seems to be focusing on the Belgian Presidency and the Declaration of Laeken. However, we should not create any false hope: Laeken will not bring a new treaty and cannot provide a solution for the shortcomings which Nice has left behind. Laeken must, however, outline a roadmap, the agenda, the method and timing, to reach a new Intergovernmental Conference which will need to rectify Nice. Let us hope that both the present and candidate Member Sates will then be ready for an unmitigated deepening of the European integration process.

Political group: ELDR
The only positive aspects of this report are that it calls for a ‘European definition of domestic work’ and a ‘clear limitation of the maximum number of hours to be worked’. However, dealing ostensibly with domestic workers, the report, in fact, chiefly deals with the interests of those who employ them, which would not be shocking if it concerned only the category of employers, in a minority what is more, that are ‘elderly people living alone and needing domestic help’. But the needs of this category of employers are only brought up in order to call for the introduction of measures to make ‘domestic services tax-deductible’ and to adjust ‘prices and costs to take account of individuals' financial resources’. If Parliament votes in favour of this clause, it will above all enable rich families to subsidise their expenditure on domestic services by money squeezed out of the community. I would like to add an extra touch of cynicism: the explanatory statement makes domestic workers responsible for the fact that their employers employ them illegally. As a result, although we are not voting against this report on account of the few basic rights which it does express, we will not be voting in favour of it either.

Political group: GUE-NGL