GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, I do not think that anyone could doubt the uprightness of your actions. I would just like to inform Chairman Barón Crespo that, in 1994, when Silvio Berlusconi was Prime Minister with a centre-right coalition, a bill was presented to Parliament, intended to resolve the issue of the conflict of interests – it is right for this House to be aware of this as well – and the proposal was adopted by a section of Parliament. However, when the political situation changed, the law was not adopted by the other part of Parliament. On several public occasions, Silvio Berlusconi and the parties supporting his candidacy for Prime Minister announced that, under the new legislature, a government bill would be tabled once again, with the aim of resolving the conflict of interests, and that, as a citizen, Mr Berlusconi would strictly observe this new law once it had been adopted by Parliament. I would like to end by reminding Mr Manisco that the law is not a protocol formality. It may be in some countries with which he is particularly concerned but, in Europe and in civilised countries, the law is not a protocol formality.

Political group: PPE-DE
Our abstention on this report in no way signifies a lack of interest, nor does it mean that we are neutral in our attitude towards the problem of paedophiles, whom we firmly condemn. It simply means that the text is inadequate on some points and ambiguous on others.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, I would also like to congratulate you very warmly on your new post as High Representative and wish you all the luck that your new post requires in order that it may be a success, both for you and, above all, for the European Union. And having said this in your language, I am afraid I will have to continue in German and I would ask you to put your headphones on.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the degree to which the European Union complies with the Social Policy Agenda is a major indication of its interest in resolving the countless social problems that still exist. We are still seeing not only major delays in this policy’s implementation, however, but also that concerns with social policies are not being reflected in other policies and in the Community budget and we are even seeing a reduction in funds in the fields of employment and social affairs, which is unacceptable. Even in the field of social inclusion, and despite the miles of paper that have already been used up on the subject and despite national inclusion plans and countless declarations of intent, there are still serious problems which could grow worse as a result of the slowdown in economic activity and the insistence on privatisations in fundamental sectors and in public services that are essential to a genuine policy of social inclusion, in addition to the fact that financial resources are still very thin on the ground. If the European Union’s leaders persist in this approach, there is a danger, as the report states, that the commitments given in the Agenda will not be fully met by 2005. This is why it is so important for the Commission to speed up its work and, above all, to change its policies, giving the utmost priority to the social aspect in areas such as quality employment with rights, the fight against poverty and social exclusion, the guarantee of access to fundamental rights, specifically for the more vulnerable social groups such as children, the elderly, immigrants and the disabled and the establishment of equal opportunities for men and women in all areas. Lastly, I wish to thank the rapporteur, Marie-Therèse Hermange and her colleagues in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs for including in the report proposals that I tabled, specifically on asking the Commission to adopt initiatives and to present an action plan for the effective prevention of musculoskeletal injuries at work, to take initiatives to provide appropriate safeguards for workers’ rights, and notably employment, in the event of the restructuring or relocation of undertakings and to take initiatives, and notably adopt an action plan, to put into practice equality of payment for men and women.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, when the Doñana disaster occurred, the non-governmental organisation, the World Wide Fund for Nature, gave us a report on the number of reservoirs of this type in Europe. The number is huge. They are an ecological time bomb and affect the drinking water supply, ecological wealth and economic future of surrounding areas. I visited Doñana after the spill and saw how agriculture, fishing and the lives of people in the surrounding area were enormously compromised. I therefore believe that the European Union must, to start with, carry out an analysis of the situation of these reservoirs and compile a precise record of the number of these in Europe. We must bring these reservoirs under Community law and the directives on waste and we must use the precautionary principle to ensure that this type of event does not happen again. If we do not, we will be permanently endangering the ecological wealth of our continent.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to welcome the Portuguese initiative and Mrs Cerdeira's first-class report and thank her for her open and consensual approach. The feels that a very good report has emerged from the debate in committee and we will be supporting the committee amendments when we vote. We will not be supporting subsequent amendments from either the or the , with the exception of Amendment No 59. We feel that to call on Member States to sign the European Convention of 24 November 1983 on the compensation of victims of violent crime fits better in the legislative resolution than in the body of the report on the framework decision. It is quite clear that if we are to create and to realise the area of freedom, security and justice provided for at Tampere then we will need legal aid in cross-border cases. I know from my own constituency of a lorry driver who was assaulted by his employers in the Netherlands and found himself unable to take them to court to gain access to justice. Therefore, Amendment No 4 is essential. We know, too, that we need the assumption that a victim of any nationality will be treated in the same way as a victim of the nationality of the country in which the offence takes place. I have a constituent whose car was broken into in Brussels and who found that the Belgian police wanted to know nothing about it. This is why we will be supporting Amendment No 14. We clearly need civil liberties safeguards and the recognition of the special needs of minorities and these are covered by Amendment No 25 and others. I had in my own constituency a Swedish family attacked; it was a xenophobically-motivated attack, their attackers believed them to be German. I would be very interested to know whether they found it as easy to gain access to justice in Great Britain as they would have done in their own country. Somehow, I doubt it. So, Mr President, Liberals support this report. We feel it is a major step towards the creation of a European legal area and will benefit millions of our citizens.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, this is a serious and complex subject, which has been brought to the fore by the British decision. It should also be pointed out that national legislation on this issue varies enormously, which can lead to uncontrolled practices, but these practices, as Mrs Grossetête said just now, may make us question the value some countries place on the reality of the principle of respect for human life from the embryonic stage, stated in Article 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which forbids the production of embryos for human purposes. The difference between provisions shows how complex the debate is and raises several questions that merge into one another. What does respect for life mean? What does the pre-embryo mean in relation to the embryo? Do we have the right to authorise research into the embryo for therapeutic purposes? Where do the stem cells come from? Should embryos be cloned? Do stem cells come from foetal tissue as well as from adult tissue? Do we have the right to create embryos for any purposes other than for life itself? In the face of serious illnesses, which are currently incurable, do we have the right to prevent research being carried out, which we are told may bring hope? All of these questions are laden with consequences and concern the meaning of life itself. This is why we must have dialogue, especially within the European bodies, and I regret the fact, Commissioner, that President Prodi gave a sneak preview of his interventions on Monday to the press before he shared them with the European Parliament. I must say that his comments were very cautious and carefully measured on this issue. Secondly, I think that in order to hold this debate, Parliament should create an ad hoc Parliamentary committee which, could, in the first instance, quickly take the initiative of hearing experts from all disciplines, both from Europe and from across the Atlantic. This debate must also, however, be held in the public domain. That is why I propose that European ‘assises’ for bioethics be launched and there should finally be a provision which allows us to frame practices in this area at a time when we are pointlessly establishing monitoring centres. I propose that a European Agency for reproductive and biotechnological medicine be created.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I too can say that I am delighted with the Commission's attempt to simplify the promotion of mobility, for that is really what this is about. We all want citizens to be able to really demand justice in the free movement of workers. This has not been a success to date. Just one look at the statistics shows us that only around 2% of the citizens work in another country. However, I should in this respect also like to deliver a few notes of discord which do not concern Parliament. Once again, we have managed to work well with the fellow MEPs. As Mrs Oomen-Ruijten has stated, work with the European Commission was also perfectly feasible. I did, however, see it as a sword of Damocles that the European Council is threatening to call it a day after all if we do not bring our requirements under control. I find this hard to take, certainly where frontier work is concerned. I should like to underpin this with a few examples. In my area, which is between the Belgian border zone – in which I live – and the Netherlands, the opportunity is currently presenting itself to deploy 800 workers at a large company, Volvo, just across the border. People will certainly be recruited from my area. I still, however, hesitate to advise people to actually do this unless 100% guarantees can be given concerning sound and proper social security. I find it impossible to explain to, for example, a 62-year old lady who has become disabled, that she will lose her disability pension in Belgium and will not qualify for old-age pension in the Netherlands until she reaches the age of 65. These are all situations that cannot be accounted for because there is insufficient coordination at the moment. For that reason, we have all joined forces and tabled yet a few more amendments to avoid scenarios of this kind in future. With these amendments, we want to force the institutions and the Member States to coordinate their efforts more effectively. The amendments tabled by us, fortunately by a number of groups together, pertain to very specific cases which often affect frontier workers. This receives my support. In my view, it is unacceptable for the Member States not to be able, and willing, to acknowledge this problem. Surely we cannot have a situation where a united Europe is being sabotaged because a number of national officials and politicians treat frontier work as a marginal issue. I am therefore pleased that in its proposal, the European Commission is making every effort to enforce cooperation by the Member States. As soon as this regulation has been adopted, I hope that it will actually be enforced, and I would urge the Commission to see that it is.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, Commissioner Lamy, your position deserves to be welcomed unreservedly, especially in that everything in the negotiations is to be based on the principle of reciprocity and in that you have also mentioned a point that strikes me as very important – the fact that additional accompanying measures are to be taken in order to make the textile industry more competitive with effect from 2005, and that this is already happening. Whether this amounts to the creation of clusters or to something else, this is a very important measure, but it will probably need money. Perhaps, Commissioner, there is one thing that I should point out. Let us assume that, in 2005, European tariffs on textiles will be the lowest, and that barriers to trade, whether these be in the form of tariffs or not, will be being removed. What I say to you, though, has to do with the history of the European Union’s textile industry; it is that we will still, probably, have to deal with protectionist measures, or with the maintenance of protectionist measures, on the part of the United States or of Japan. That is my main concern in all this, and there are signs that this is again happening already. It is something we have often seen over the past twenty years. How many times, or for how much longer, must these two textile power blocs be allowed to do as they please with Europe’s textile industry? I see that as one of the core issues. What we need when it comes to the removal of barriers to trade, whether these be in the form of tariffs or not, is fairness; that is what needs to be promoted in this regard, both here and in the accession countries, where, I believe the main development in the textile industry will be. I can see China and India being another major problem with which we will have to deal. If China in particular is not induced to accept mechanisms of self-restraint, Europe can write off even its top-quality and most capital-intensive textile industry. We should not lose sight of that when we go to the negotiating table. Last, but not least, I would like to point out, having just come from the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, that we continue to be concerned that core labour standards and principles of human rights should not be shelved, and that they are of great importance, particularly where China is concerned. We trade unionists in the textiles industry have made a series of documentary films in countries such as Bangladesh, showing where problems with child labour and discrimination are really to be found.

Political group: PSE
I promise, Mr President, to be extremely brief. I do not think we have time or that it is in fact possible to have an in-depth debate on such a complex problem, but I should like to be able to discuss the matter with the Commissioner outside this Chamber. Firstly, I have an initial comment to make on the Scientific Committees. It is not sufficient, Commissioner, simply to read the conclusions of the Scientific Committees. You must read the report, as I have done. Occasionally, reading the reports gives rise to more doubts than certainties. I would ask you, therefore, to be a little more circumspect before rejecting all the amendments out of hand, since I can also claim to have made a scientific study of the situation. I have gathered a number of opinions, I have read the texts, and I can tell you that you are going too far in sweeping aside the amendments we are proposing. Next, there is one other aspect which has not been taken into account, to wit, the potential interaction between the many additives found in food. They have never been studied together, they are studied in isolation; and that is an aspect that you must take into consideration.

Political group: Verts-ALE
We Swedish Social Democrats would issue this explanation of vote regarding the following items: Item 66: Increased cooperation on road safety between the EU Member States is very important. A new European authority must not take over decision-making from national, regional and local bodies, but could strengthen cooperation between the EU Member States and promote best practice. Item 79: We are not in favour of a European transport fund. There is a lot of money in already existing funds that is not used to the full. We are in favour, however, of the proposal to set up an inquiry into the development of new methods for funding major infrastructure projects of common European interest. Amendment No 26: This proposal is far too detailed. It does not fall within the scope of this report to lay down detailed regulations on speeds.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I have listened very carefully to what the President-in-Office and the Commission had to say to us. I have two questions to ask. I still fail to understand what you intend to do about Bulgaria and Romania. Perhaps you are taking a step forward, but I fail to understand how and I totally fail to understand what our longer-term objectives are for the rest of the Balkans, where the decisions which we have taken so far are creating a black hole at the heart of Europe. My second question, Mr President-in-Office, is this: I am an optimist and I believe that the first accession agreements will soon be signed. Have we considered the fact that the candidate countries, which by then will be members, will need to learn to work within the European Parliament and, as in the past, their parliaments will need to send representatives to Parliament in Strasbourg and Brussels until such time as European elections are held? Have we made the necessary financial and technical arrangements? I think we should because this is something which has to be done and it is an extremely positive message which we can send the candidate countries right now.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I should like to thank Mrs Keppelhoff-Wiechert for her excellent work in this area. This proposal is one of the measures provided for in the Commission's White Paper on Food Safety. I welcome it and largely agree with the assessment and authorisation procedures it proposes. The current directive has been amended five times since 1970 and has never been consolidated. It is a complex and very un-user-friendly piece of legislation regulation at the moment. In the current climate, it is right that we should do what we are proposing now. We are amending or reviewing this directive in parallel with the veterinary medicines directive and they are related. However, I would caution against moving too quickly from a food additive definition to a veterinary medicine definition until alternatives have been put in place and we are ready to cope with them. I, like others, have concerns about proper controls on third-country imports. There is one way to ensure peace of mind, not only for our farmers and poultry producers but also for consumers, and that is to increase the resources of the Food and Veterinary Office so that it can keep the situation under surveillance. To go to Taiwan, Hong Kong or South America once every five years is not sufficient and nobody is fooled by this any longer. This issue has come up under the Temporary Committee on Foot-and-Mouth Disease review. It is a major issue, along with exotic diseases and imports of diseases and problems. If we want to ensure that the regulations are there to create a level playing field within the EU, we have to see to it that our inspectors have sufficient resources to be able to meet our expectations. I would like the Commissioner to address that particular point. There is much I welcome in this report and I would like to thank the rapporteur and the Commissioner again. Let us hasten slowly and be sure we have replacements, rather than moving at a pace which will drive people into veterinary medicines, away from their current practices.

Political group: PPE-DE
The threat that phthalates may pose to human health has not been proven scientifically. For example, according to research undertaken in the United States by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, only rarely, if at all, among children is there a risk of exposure to harmful chemicals, as the quantities of phthalates in toys do not exceed that level which could be considered harmful. As the quantity of phthalates that might possibly get into a child’s system from toys is so small, the study group is not recommending that phthalates be banned. I myself do not support the principle of ‘excessive force’ and an extensive ban that is not justifiable in the light of scientific facts. The toxic effects of phthalates are insignificant, and they do not irritate the mucous membrane or the skin. Although it was found in the 1980s that very large quantities of phthalates caused liver tumours in rats and mice, official agencies in Europe and the United States have not confirmed that phthalates present a risk of cancer in humans. In addition, I am sceptical about substituting phthalates with substances whose effects there is no research data on. However, I support the idea of further research into those phthalates whose effects we cannot be absolutely sure about. In practice the problem is a minor one, however, as the European toy industry has, in the main, stopped using phthalates. - Hieronymi Report (A5-0186/2000)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first of all, I should like to thank the rapporteur and also the European Commission. The European Commission has had the courage to present self-regulatory measures in order to get industry and governments to commit to greater pedestrian safety, which is also necessary, in fact. I come from a culture where self-regulation is very common. I am very much in favour of it, because self-regulation invariably entails the latest state of the art technology on which industry too can agree. Moreover, it can be a very quick process. The legislative process is always much more protracted. There is always one condition, namely that these self-regulatory agreements are monitored effectively. If you ask me for my personal opinion – and this is also what Mrs Petersen said –I would have been satisfied with sound self-regulatory measures, and legislation would not have been by definition necessary. However, this is what Parliament has decided and I will have to reconcile myself to this decision. A skeletal directive is what we will end up with, one that leaves open plenty of opportunities to repeatedly lay down further regulations according to the latest state of the art technology. I am such a staunch supporter of self-regulation because in my view, a number of processes in the European Commission are too slow. As a final point, I have stated in the recommendation by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy that something needs to be done about whiplash, although this is not at all related to this issue, but rather to a safety issue which also robs a huge number of people of their health. Moreover, it incurs a high level of costs in our society. Not for nothing have I included this as my final point. I know, after all, that far too little is happening in this area. I have also asked questions in writing, upon which I receive the response that something will indeed be done. We have already discussed it in the context of the Fourth Framework Programme. Why does the handling of all these issues that are related to preventing accidents and preventing extra expenses in this area take up so much time? This has been going on since the Fourth Action Programme; we are meanwhile looking at the Sixth Research and Development Action Programme. Surely, something else should replace it. I would ask the Commissioner not only to enter into consultation with industry very promptly in order to do something about this pedestrian protection, possibly by means of self-regulation, I would also ask him to tackle these other problems too.

Political group: PPE-DE