GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I want to thank the rapporteur for the way in which he has approached this complex issue and his willingness to entertain a wide range of reservations across the Committee and where possible to approach these efficaciously; and also my colleague, Mrs Van Brempt, for her work on this. I have only time to deal with one specific area, and it does not in any sense detract from my belief that the effective regulation of dangerous pesticides must be a priority task of this Parliament, and, indeed, this Commission. My reservations lie in the section addressed by Paragraph 13 of Mr Lannoye's report, where we are calling on the Commission to notify us by the end of this year of the measures taken to ensure that useful substances which have low toxicity levels, and appear on Priority Lists 3 and 4, which have not been notified because of a limited commercial interest, or of high evaluation costs, may be so evaluated with the help of an appropriate restricted data package. Why am I so concerned about this? I am concerned because there is a danger that some products of high toxicity which have not yet been regulated or properly examined, are still remaining in the market, whilst others, which are of no conceivable danger and are very low on Lists 3 and 4, are going to be taken out of the market because those who produce them, and they do indeed in some cases come into the category of essential uses, are likely to be unable to produce the complex dossier needed to go through all of the processes initially set out in what, as the rapporteur says, has been an extraordinarily slow process. I just want to give the Committee one example of this: ad hominem arguments are always dangerous, but I have a producer in my own area who turned to a particular plant protection range of products because he was himself alarmed by the effect of dangerous pesticides as he had seen them. If I talk of things like Agent Orange, you will know exactly what I mean. Truly harmful substances. He has produced a product, which I use myself, called Armilatox which is the only effective way of treating plant diseases like Honey Fungus. There is no way he could pay the estimated cost for the assessment of that product which is in a low toxicity range. It would be two or three times his annual turnover. There has to be some way in which we could help people of this kind come up to the standard necessary, or at least present the relevant dossier over the period of time we now have. If we do not do that, we are flying in the face of all the statements in this House, not least by the rapporteur's party, that we should help small businesses. We should not just help the big battalions who can, of course, accept all of the high evaluation costs. If we do not do that in this very important area, we will have failed.

Political group: PSE
I wish to thank Mrs de Palacio for studying the situation and for saying that she was keeping a watching brief. However, I cannot agree that compliance with 3 out of 20 recommendations is progress. It certainly is not. In the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the chief inspector of the UK Nuclear Installations Inspectorate said quite clearly that he would shut the reprocessing facility if the recommendations were not complied with in full. Clearly they have not been complied with in full. We can argue about progress being swift or slow, but we have to see compliance in full. I hope Mrs de Palacio that you will state here today that you wish to see compliance in full with the recommendations and swiftly, because that is what I want to hear. I also referred to the adverse affects on other Member States, namely the Republic of Ireland, and would like to draw the Commissioner's attention to a report published by the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland in December 2000, which is critical of emissions from Sellafield and their adverse effect on the Republic of Ireland. I would ask you to study that in full also, Mrs de Palacio.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, our first report is from the Petitions Committee by the Earl of Stockton on the case of the Reverend Owen. It is unusual in that it is a report on the fate of a single individual within the European Union. Members may be interested to know that the Reverend Owen is with us today in the public gallery. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it is not difficult to express one’s support for the analysis that has been put forward in this report. The effects of environmental crime spread into the territory of many countries. The importation and exportation of crimes does not recognise the EU’s external borders. The crimes are often committed by a corporate body. The crimes are often perpetrated in a spirit of profit-making. The perpetrator makes the profit; external costs are left for others to pay. You analysed the situation quite correctly: the environment must be broadly interpreted as people’s health, biodiversity and artistic and cultural heritage. It is not hard to support a policy that makes it easier to combat environmental crime. These crimes must be made unprofitable; they cannot be allowed to have merely financial consequences. They have to be prevented. Publicity is also one way of combating environmental criminality. Why do we not start by publicising, or demanding publicity for, the fact that the Belgian Government allows unclean waste water to run into the river in the city of Brussels?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, two topics in one minute. First topic: there are still major deficiencies in the social sphere, including in the country I myself am monitoring, namely Latvia. I believe it is important to understand that a modern society is most successful if there is a partnership between politicians and the two sides of the labour market. That is why we must not forget the social dialogue. It is not merely the internal market which is important for enlargement. Second topic: there is a positive spirit at present, and this must continue. We must not believe that enlargement will be without its problems, and we cannot expect enlargement to be nice and easy. It will have its shortcomings; there will be untidiness and incoherence; there will be lengthy transitional arrangements; and there will be no thorough agricultural reform and no complete structural reform. I am not saying that we must accept everything. I believe, however, that we must contrive to show magnanimity and that we are obliged to accept that enlargement will be messy and untidy. Naturally, we must comply with the Copenhagen criteria, but we must count on enlargement’s not being as seamless as we perhaps might have hoped. I hope that we go for major enlargement, show magnanimity and obtain the ‘big bang’ in 2003.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we have in front of us a good report, and I should also like to underline that. It is extremely important that we have uniform rules and uniform monitoring procedures. That is very important if we are to have fair competition in Europe. I also think that it is important that the monitoring be organised at international level as far as possible, so that north, south, east and west all have the same feeling about the completion of the monitoring. I should like to emphasise that there are a great many plans, that we all want structural change, but I should like to add that the financing of this must be temporary. We must not give a permanent allowance for the implementation of these structural changes. I should also like to say another thing about the practical implementation in the future. I think that changes are necessary, and they can only be achieved if the fishermen’s organisations are willing to cooperate. There are sufficient individual examples of this in the European Union, but there is too little structure. I should also like to make another plea for something that the North Sea Commission Fisheries Partnership has already introduced, namely letting biologists sail on fishing vessels. This means that they no longer miss the boat, since they are following in their own little boat. We must ensure that ecology and economy want to share the same future; changes can also be made much more effectively if that desire is there. I should like to draw attention to this system, therefore, and also make a renewed call for new, improved methods: that is to say, research into acoustic methods for distinguishing species of fish, and a review of the situation regarding by-catches – as it is incredibly important that we form a picture of not only the main catch, but also the by-catch. It is important, therefore, that we are also able to record that picture by landing the catch and, at landing, recording everything that comes out. This is how to make a real contribution to the future of the fisheries. In addition, by way of conclusion, I should like to make one more small remark: it would also be useful if the rights were transferable in future.

Political group: ELDR
We have, of course, voted in favour of this resolution which seeks to improve safety in coaches, whether this involves the wearing of safety belts, driver training or limiting driving time. The series of fatal accidents that have occurred recently has once again highlighted the exploitation of drivers, who are often forced to drive to the point of falling asleep. We also wish to condemn the scramble for profit which encourages the construction of coaches with ever-greater capacity, in particular, double-decker coaches. Where transport sector employers are concerned, profit comes well before safety. ***

Political group: GUE-NGL
Parliamentary democracy in Pakistan has never had a real chance thanks to the involvement of the army. Whenever voters elect a decent government to power, it is eventually overthrown by the military. Former Prime Minister Bhutto was even killed after being deposed, and his daughter, popular so long as she was regarded as his political heir, was also later thrown out of power. This military intervention against progressive governments has created a breeding-ground for Islamic fundamentalism and for groups that want to set individual sections of the population against each other. These groups have been able to continue their activities legally under the military regime. Current President Musharraf was until a few years ago regarded as a dangerous general who had seized power in a coup, who wanted to make his country a nuclear power, was creating space for a very conservative interpretation of Islam and cooperated with the Taliban regime in neighbouring Afghanistan. Once he helped the American military intervention in Afghanistan he suddenly came to be seen as an American ally. This proposal gives him the same status in Europe. Once again, commercial and military interests take precedence over human rights. It is astonishing that this Parliament should first approve an agreement with Pakistan and then later in the meeting adopt a resolution regretting the lack of human rights.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as many Members have said, speaking on ‘Plan Columbia’, this United States military plan, the European Union must intervene autonomously and independently, pursuing a non-military strategy, promoting and safeguarding respect for human rights, humanitarian law and fundamental freedoms and, most importantly, doing something to improve the standard of living of the local communities. On several occasions, including in recent months, we have drawn up resolutions on human rights in Columbia, resolutions adopted in this Chamber. Well then, I would like to take the opportunity afforded by this debate to condemn another incident: since 15 September 2000, three Italian citizens, engineers employed by a company which makes sweet-making machines, have been in the hands of the National Liberation Army. Together with these three Italian citizens, there are three other Europeans and thousands of Colombians. Not only have they been held prisoner for four months, it has not been possible to communicate with them at all. The Italian authorities are doing everything in their power but there is a certain unwillingness, even on the part of the Colombian Government, to undertake serious negotiations with the National Liberation Army in order to reach a solution. Now, I feel that we must make human rights our priority, and I would therefore like to take this opportunity to ask the President of Parliament to send a letter to the Colombian authorities calling for respect for human rights and urging the government to make every endeavour to ensure, since it says that it is negotiating with the Liberation Army and the other forces, that any agreement reached will, without fail, include the immediate liberation of all the European and Colombian citizens – both Europeans and non-Europeans – who are deprived of their freedom and are prisoners of the militaries.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I want to begin by thanking the two rapporteurs for their work on two important directives. I shall concentrate on the directive concerning information and consultation rights of employees, but I also want to say something about working time of persons whose occupation is the performance of mobile road-transport activities. It is very important that self-employed people should now be included, even if there is a transitional period, for we are concerned here with protective legislation for those whose job it is to drive lorries. In work of this kind, there is no difference between being employed and being self-employed. Just as Mr Schmid says, this is also a road safety issue and, from that point of view, it makes no difference whether the person driving is employed or self-employed. Where information and consultation are concerned, I agree with Mrs van den Burg who, in her speech, said that the directive was of historic importance. It is of historic importance. Three women have been involved. I can add a fourth. When, in June during the Swedish Presidency, the Council succeeded in reaching a common position, which laid the basis for this directive, a female Swedish minister was also involved. I think it quite obvious that there should be this type of information and consultation in an internal market, that an internal market is not only about companies’ rights but also employees’ rights and that the latter must be informed and be able to put forward their views. Sometimes, people in Sweden can be heard saying, ‘What does this really mean for Sweden when we, of course, have much better legislation?’ Well now, that is true. Our legislation is such that this directive does not perhaps affect us at all. That being said, minimum directives are still important, not only for those countries which do not have such good legislation but also, indirectly, to prevent an internal market with social dumping arising whereby companies are set up whose employees suffer poor conditions. Accordingly, it is important for all the countries that we should increase the minimum levels and have minimum directives that lead to better conditions. Finally, I again want to thank the rapporteurs for two good directives. I hope that we can go further and improve information and consultation in the future.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, Commissioners-designate, ladies and gentlemen, my group, the Group of the , announced yesterday that it had taken, almost unanimously, the decision to vote in favour of the Prodi Commission, on the basis of what President Prodi had stated and committed himself to in the Conference of Presidents last week. As well as the five points, there is also that commitment, which seems important to us, to embark on a new stage in the construction of Europe which, I believe, we should reaffirm today. That is to say, to end this period of crisis and stagnation and go forward with confidence and a vision of the future. The President has restated today a commitment which seems to us decisive, which is to carefully prepare, announce and debate his programme of political action for the whole of the legislature. He has also announced the programme of reform of the Commission and, therefore, we believe that, if we jointly embark on this new stage, we will be able to build together, like bricklayers and architects, the Europe of the future. I also believe, Mr President, that you have a special interest in the development of information technologies in Europe, which I believe to be an absolute priority. Another point which the President has mentioned, and which seems to me important to specify, is our approach towards the Intergovernmental Conference. My group has very much appreciated the fact that three experts have been given the task of clearing the way, but I believe that it would be very positive if the Commission were to make use of that capacity for initiative which is conferred on it by the Treaties – and Parliament – and if we could agree on how to go forward together on all fronts, with a view to the new millennium and above all, and firstly, for the sake of our fellow citizens. We require a new contract with the peoples who form the European Union to resolve questions such as employment, prosperity, the defence and adaptation of our social model, the preservation of our environment and consumer protection, in order to achieve a foreign and security policy which will allow us to integrate those countries which wish to form part of our common adventure, which will allow us to stabilise our continent, in the East, and also in the South, in the Mediterranean. We require a contract which will allow us, above all, to pursue something about which I am in absolute agreement with President Prodi: this fascinating historic adventure which the Europeans have embarked upon, which is changing the face of our continent and which, let us hope, will decisively help to change the future of the history of humanity. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I have a quick question for the Commissioner regarding the point of providing proof. If a third country does not provide the information that is required to discover whether they are involved in unfair competitive practices, what would the Commission do?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would just like to say that I voted in favour of Mr De Rossa’s report out of my conviction that apes and other exotic species are among our planet’s valuable resources and that any modern and highly-developed system of protection for nature and the environment should protect and maintain these resources for the sake of future generations. I regard Mr De Rossa’s report as an excellent piece of work towards this end, one that will contribute to the protection and maintenance of endangered species. It also draws attention to the need to protect such species and raises popular awareness of that need. It was good that Amendment No 2 was adopted; I had hoped that the two other amendments would be as well. That has not happened, but, as what we have here is in any case a workable solution, I have voted in favour of it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Undeclared gainful employment is just a euphemism for illicit work. It is a problem all Member States face to a greater or lesser extent, and it exists for all sorts of reasons. And there are mountains of regulations for tackling illicit work. Of course these are only effective if they are implemented in conjunction with supervisory and punitive measures. But introducing new European regulations is no way to go about tackling the problem of illicit work. A new phase of Brussels-inspired regulating mania would be neither use nor ornament in the fight against illicit work in the Member States of the European Union. Illicit work must be tackled at the roots. Why, for example, are people prepared to do illicit work when it does not entitle them to social protection? Why are employers prepared to take on illicit workers when they cannot offset the wage costs against tax? Our rapporteur, Mrs Glase, rightly states in her report that the fight against illicit work is a task which cuts across a whole range of policy areas, such as finance, the economy, social issues, the labour market, and justice. Illegal immigrants are engaged in illicit work, but industrial law regulations are not the way to go about tackling this problem. Illegal immigration must be prevented, and many Member States are too lax on this front. It is pointed out in the report that a particularly high number of illicit workers are women, principally in the service industry. Particularly where domestic servants are concerned, employees are only too willing to pursue, and employers are only too willing to countenance, undeclared gainful employment; in the employer’s case because it cuts down on the administrative burden, and in the employee’s, because they can avoid paying tax and social contributions. The collective taxation of spouses is a fundamental reason as to why – in my country at any rate – domestic servants simply do not want to be registered. In addition, the amount of paperwork involved is a stumbling block to the lawful employment of domestic servants , particularly for elderly private individuals. We certainly did not solve the problem in Luxembourg, but under the terms of the employment plan, we have released employers of domestic servants from the administrative burden, and I believe that the payment of a net wage to personnel of this kind represents a substantial improvement. Naturally I voted in favour of the report, but I also wanted to point out that positive, tax-related and other measures are a more effective way of tackling illicit work than new, European prohibitive measures, particularly where women are concerned.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in Italy you often maintain that you are exposed to political persecution by your critics. That will not happen in this House. Your work will, however, be scrutinised carefully, for there is no immunity in this House against political blunders and infringements. This autumn, the EU is to unite around an asylum and immigration policy based upon humanitarianism and shared humanity. That is something you did not say very much about in your speech, Mr Berlusconi. Success demands clear leadership that can act with legitimacy and authority. I must unfortunately ask myself the question as to whether the Italian Government really is capable of shouldering that responsibility today. One of your own ministers, mentioned earlier in this House, demands that the police use live ammunition upon refugees seeking freedom in your country. That is something you must now clearly reject. Your own role as Italian media proprietor has led to the government directing the content of both the private press and of public television. That is a very worrying development that affects the whole of the EU and that would not have been accepted if it had happened in any of the EU’s new Member States. The gloomy question we now have to ask ourselves is whether Italy is a country that fulfils the political Copenhagen criteria. May you demonstrate that we critics and sceptics are wrong. I nonetheless wish you good luck over the next six months.

Political group: ELDR