GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I am standing in for the draftsman Mrs Terrón i Cusí, who had to return to Spain on a matter of urgency. The speech by Mr Vitorino and the report by Mr Moraes both seem to me to be fully acceptable, in view of the opinion adopted by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, which underlines the following points: the Council’s delay in adopting the legislative instruments presented by the Commission to implement the Tampere programme, a delay which, fortunately, was partly made up for in December with the adoption of the important directive on long-term residents; the need to retain a global view of immigration policy linked to employment policy and social integration policy; the usefulness of agreements with the countries of origin in order to guarantee the transfer of social security entitlements; the need to combat illegal immigration with repressive measures directed not against the illegal immigrants but against the traffickers who profit from them, and to combat illegal employment without discriminating against immigrant citizens; the usefulness of facilitating legal access for immigrants to the labour market so as to reduce demand and supply on the hidden market; the suitability of fighting discrimination and paying particular attention to the precarious situation of immigrant women. The opinion underlines in particular the usefulness of creating the form of citizenship known as ‘civic citizenship’, which enables third country nationals legally resident in the European Union to have economic, social and political rights and duties, including the right to vote in local and European elections, as the European Parliament has often requested. Only in this way will all workers and residents be able to feel that they are participants and jointly responsible for the future of the Community, sharing its values and contributing to its growth and to living together in peace and solidarity.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the task of the post office is to ensure that, every day, the post is delivered everywhere, be it in the city or in remote, rural areas, at the same tariff. For 150 years, the postal services have been a public affair and, as such, just like public transport and the power supply, a core task of the national governments. Such recognisable and useful core tasks give the electorate a reason to vote. They are much less interested in a government which takes no interest in these affairs. I once heard a Christian Democratic politician make the following comment in a Dutch village: “The postal service belongs to us all; taking it away from us is tantamount to theft”. The existing postal companies no longer fall under democratic control and room is being made for competitors. The newcomers are only interested in those parts of the work that generate high profits at low cost and low prices. They can be the cheapest for a while only by means of a drop in quality for their customers and employees. Such companies have always been around, but they used to be banned, whereas these days they are being heralded as progress. The end result will be that existing companies will also be forced into bad practices. They will get their workforce to do more work at lower wages. They will often do fewer home deliveries, charge more for retaining post during the holidays, close down a large number of the post office branches and, ultimately, the tariffs for the individual will sharply increase, at which point the only parties which will stand to benefit from this type of practice will be companies which conclude collective agreements at a lower tariff. It is time we stopped this trend. A fault confessed is half redressed. We are better off with one democratically controlled monopoly than the waste and chaos brought on by competition which cannot be controlled.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Argentina is in crisis, and when Argentina cries, the whole of the Americas are concerned, as, I believe, Europe is too. Not just because Argentina is a favoured partner of the large trade bloc that goes by the name of Mercosur, but also because of its strong social and cultural links with old Europe. I am afraid we are discovering, through some worrying facts, that the political and economic populism of this wealthy republic does not have a happy ending. The winds sown by certain governments are now being felt by Argentinean citizens, with the disastrous results of the economic whirlwinds we are currently seeing. That is why the European Parliament is calling for international solidarity to try to help these citizens of the southern cone of South America to come up with an appropriate economic policy. We must help a people which, in desperation, lives with and bears the consequences of damaging former government policies, on a daily basis. Our contribution should be to work towards social stability in Argentina and the economic recovery of its people, because what is good for Argentina is good for everybody.

Political group: ELDR
I agree with the rapporteur’s view that the Member States’ ratifying or acceding to the Hague Convention of 1996 will help to provide better protection for the rights of children in respect of parental responsibility, so that, as the rapporteur says, ‘in all decisions relating to children, the child’s best interests remain a primary consideration’. I welcome the proposals intended to ensure that the Convention enters into force as early as possible. I do not, however, have any truck with the federalist thinking underpinning this report. In particular, I must highlight how ironic and inexplicable it is to suggest that the Member States need Council authorisation in order to ratify or accede to this Convention.

Political group: GUE-NGL
You are no longer my favourite Commissioner, Mr Monti, but you can change that if you give me the right answer tonight!

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I believe that the precautionary principle needs to be quite radical in order to work, otherwise we shall always be confused by all the different interpretations possible. I will give an example: a fungicide has been proven to cause babies to be born blind. It is therefore a teratogenic substance. Very well, it is a fungicide, it kills off mould. This teratogenicity has been demonstrated by just one English laboratory, perhaps because it is the only one that has carried out tests. Now, in my opinion, given that this is such a serious risk to health, the precautionary principle lays down that this product should immediately be taken off the market, which New Zealand has done, for example. So I want to put this question to you. When human health is at stake, or there is the possibility that human health will be seriously affected, should we not perhaps carry out a cost-benefit analysis? The cost of a baby being born blind is too high; there are no benefits that can compensate for this. In short, Commissioner, I would therefore like to know whether in this case, the precautionary principle as you understand it, would in any case, require the product to be taken off the market, until such time as another laboratory provides evidence to the contrary.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, our group is quite satisfied with the result of the conciliation, even if there is always, of course, room for a little further progress. Our objective has always been to obtain as soon as possible a comprehensive system for recovering end-of-life vehicles, with stringent demands in terms of recycling and a ban on dangerous substances. We also wanted manufacturers to be held completely liable, so that it is the manufacturers who take financial responsibility for recovery. Once this decision has been made, the position in a few years’ time will be quite close to what we had wanted to achieve. What is worth noting, as far as the conciliation process is concerned, is the fact that Parliament has unfortunately slowed down this development towards manufacturer’s liability instead of speeding it up. It would be quite alarming if Parliament were to exchange roles and, instead of making the running, hand over that role to its opponents.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as many fellow Members have already stated, I believe that the biotechnology industry can bring about improvements, particularly in medicine, but I think that it would be naïve to believe that it can solve all the world’s problems. When I hear what some Members have to say, or when I read certain passages in the report, I am stunned and astounded. World hunger, unexpected climate change, protection of the environment, all these problems could be resolved tomorrow thanks to the benefits of biotechnology. I think that it would be just as naïve to simply disregard the possible risks, excesses and abuses, all the more so because we are already seeing some of them taking place. The risks and excesses could either be curbed or increased depending on developments in legislation both in the European Union and internationally. I would like to make just two points. The first relates to drug patenting. We are now seeing the problems of access to generic drugs to combat AIDS in the African nations, Brazil and countries in Asia. Given the pharmaceutical industry’s propensity for the use of biotechnology in future drugs, I think that this problem will only grow worse and that we will therefore have to ensure that patent legislation does not prevent production and parallel imports of generic drugs to combat great scourges and serious diseases, which threaten the poorest nations. My second point relates to patents on genetic discoveries. I think that a clear distinction must certainly be made between patents on inventions and patents on discoveries, especially since biological riches are concentrated in the countries of the South, in tropical areas, because, otherwise, we will once again see the countries of the South being plundered so that major laboratories of industrialised nations can benefit. In any case, we must put an end to the ‘patenting of life forms’. The third point, which will bring me to my conclusion, is that I believe fundamental decisions, particularly on releasing GMOs, must continue to come under political responsibility. The European Food Safety Authority will most probably play a crucial role in providing expertise, information and recommendations, but it is the competent authorities which must, on a political level, continue to authorise the release of GMOs. As long as problems such as traceability, labelling and determining responsibility for damage persist and as long as we have no guarantees on risks, I believe that we are justified in continuing the moratorium.

Political group: PSE
I simply wanted to say to Mr Baròn Crespo that he can always depend on the Group of the European People’s Party to keep its word. If the Chairman of the group makes a statement here, then he can assume that the statement will still hold true the next day. That is why we will now set in motion the procedure with which Mr Baròn Crespo obviously agrees. It would be nice if the House were at one on this issue. (Parliament gave its assent) b) Sittings of 29 and 30 November 2000: No amendments were proposed. ***

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should not wish the European Year of People with Disabilities and the parliament we had last week to be seen as the end, but rather the beginning, of something. Demands have been made in a number of areas. Now, it is a question of implementing them. The Commissioner said that mainstreaming should apply to disability issues. I share that view. Disability policy is not a policy area. Disability issues are part and parcel of all policy areas. In those areas in which the EU has competence, disability issues are therefore also an area of responsibility for the EU. For example, one area of competence for the EU is people’s freedom of movement. That applies to everyone, including people with disabilities. Transport is also one of the EU’s areas of competence, and transport for all, including people with disabilities, also falls therefore within the EU’s competence. It is regrettable that the Member States have not implemented the directive concerning the equal treatment of people with disabilities in the workplace. That must not be used as an excuse for not producing directives in other policy areas. What signal would that give to those Member States which do not want to do anything? They would, of course, imagine that, if they did not do anything, no further measures would be put in place. We know that directives are needed that cover all the relevant policy areas, and that is what we demand. I shall conclude by mentioning two other important areas to which attention should be given over the next few years. The first is the new Member States. Even though we face challenges in the present Member States, the challenges are still greater in the new Member States. The second is the debate about the future. We must push our demand for majority decision-making when it comes to anti-discrimination. The country that is least ambitious where discrimination is concerned must not be allowed to determine the agenda. That is why majority decision-making is needed in this area.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I join in the warm thanks expressed by all my fellow Members to Mrs Echerer. I should also like to do so with reference to the way we cooperated. We might yet – who knows? – feature in her TV programmes, as long, of course, as these are properly protected in terms of intellectual property rights. That everyone is in agreement is evident from the fact that the report has been adopted unanimously in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. In addition, the encouraging words which the Commissioner has just spoken will now, I think, lead to improved legislation, in respect of which it is particularly important for transparency and legal certainty to be increased and, above all, democratic control, because clarity avoids lack of understanding. We are now all talking about the right-holders, but I think that it is also very important to mention the right-users. I can remember an incident last year when many companies in the Netherlands received a letter out of the blue from the Stichting Reprorecht – the Reproduction Right Foundation – stating that they needed to pay a hefty bill for copies they had made, without any explanation as to the purpose of this exercise. This sparked fear and anxiety. I think that this legislation can ensure that it becomes clearer on what basis certain costs are charged, why certain costs have to be met and for whom they are intended. The Commissioner has already indicated that 5% to 7% of the Gross Domestic Product – which is high – is accounted for by products and services that are limited, governed and protected by copyright and neighbouring rights. This means that we are talking about a considerable proportion of our internal market activities, in which there is a need for clarity and structure. As I have already pointed out, competition and the dominant position of collecting societies should not be a problem as such, as long as legislation is clear and is not used inappropriately. I think that this problem can be solved with these recommendations if they are enshrined in legislation. As Mr Medina Ortega has already indicated, enlargement is also a key aspect of this issue. As a result of their political history, the acceding countries have never given copyright-holders any explicit protection, and this is why I think it is important to provide support on the spot. The rapporteur re-emphasised this point in her oral amendment. We, the Liberals, give her our unqualified backing. By way of conclusion, we welcome this initiative, and we hope that the Commission can adopt the amendment that I have tabled to produce a clear evaluation after three years in order to check whether the legislation actually works and protection takes place. Having kept within the three-minute time limit, I will not further delay this afternoon’s proceedings.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, on the eve of a potential conflict in Iraq – one that we hope can still be avoided – a debate on the use of anti-personnel mines and depleted uranium ammunition is of great topical interest. After all it has been found that soldiers and civilians who came into contact with depleted uranium ammunition in earlier military conflicts, such as the Gulf War in 1991 and in Kosovo, later experienced serious health problems, what we call Gulf War sickness or Balkan syndrome. They suffer from memory loss, chronic pain and fatigue, symptoms of paralysis and have an increased risk of cancer. United Nations statistics, published in the renowned 'British Medical Journal', indicate that the incidence of cancer in southern Iraq increased sevenfold between 1989 and 1994. Even the US Army Environmental Policy Institute has acknowledged the potentially very serious medical consequences of the use of depleted uranium. Weapons and ammunition that harm the civilian population are in contravention of the Geneva Convention and the Convention on Conventional Weapons. The second Convention is very explicit. It imposes a prohibition or restriction on the use of certain conventional weapons that are deemed to cause excessive injury or that do not discriminate between military and civilian targets. According to information leaked from the Pentagon, about 3 000 guided bombs were fired in the first wave of attacks in Iraq. It seems very likely that the US will use ammunition with depleted uranium again. Parliament must continue to warn of the potential dangers of the use of this type of ammunition. There is an urgent need for an independent, scientific study of the effects of its use, not only on health but also on the environment. We must have a moratorium on the use of depleted uranium while we wait for the results of such a study. The European Union must play a pioneering role in this, just as it did in the campaign for a worldwide ban on antipersonnel mines, as was laid down in the Ottawa Convention. And my questions, Mr President, concern that Convention, its ratification and application. To be very explicit, I wanted to ask the Council exactly what actions are planned to ensure that as many Member States and candidate countries as possible sign this Convention. You will understand that I would really like to hear from the current President-in-Office of the Council why Greece is actually waiting before signing this important Convention. Finally, in anticipation of hopefully being able to avoid a possible international conflict, I urge the Council to make a clear statement guaranteeing that the Member States of the European Union will not use weapons that are banned under international law or are deemed to be illegal in this or any future armed conflict.

Political group: ELDR
Commissioner, we appear to be condemned, you and I, to discussing the same question every three or six months. It is like chestnut trees in Paris, to borrow an expression from journalism. My question is this: you originally told me – I have all the information here and I do not suppose that you will question it – that it would be all done and dusted in 2001. That is what you told me in September 2000, a year ago. Obviously, you do not lie. Obviously, you were given that information and this assurance. Now you tell me that you have been informed, but not assured I hope, that it will be all done and dusted in 2003, with a few extras ‘tacked on’ in 2005. What I should like to ask is who is to blame, Commissioner? Are you in a position to point a finger at who is to blame for this situation? Because this is no way to conduct a policy to combat employment and the periodic employment statistics published by Eurostat are making a laughing stock of my country because the column headed Greece is always blank. This is no longer acceptable.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, on my way here to Strasbourg I was reading Antony Beevor’s excellent and quite shocking account of the Red Army’s advance on Berlin. It was splendidly fitting travel reading for this historic part-session. The most important task of enlargement the Union has to face is to ensure that never again do European nations submit to the aspirations of power-hungry dictators or are driven to hatred for one another. It is just as crucial to strengthen our common democratic structures at the same time as enlargement takes place. I am glad that the representatives of the applicant countries are able to participate in the work of the delegation discussing the future of Europe. Until now we have spoken all too little about how the EU itself will benefit from enlargement. We are not actually just the party that is giving something. The candidate countries’ magnificent cultural tradition and capacity for creativity will provide new opportunities for competitiveness built on information and skills as well as an improved quality of life for our citizens. Cultural and linguistic diversity is a great source of wealth and offers enormous potential. It is also gratifying to see that the applicant countries are also already involved in the Culture 2000 programme, among others. Criteria for membership, however, must be kept in mind right up until the negotiations have ended. We must remember that viable labour relations are an essential part of the Union’s activity. As vice-chairman of the Estonian delegation, I am concerned about information received that social dialogue in Estonia has broken down. That is not acceptable nor is it wise. I hope that my neighbouring country, which has been very successful in the financial and technology sectors, can sort this problem out too.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Group of the , I would like to move a point of order pursuant to Rule 144 of the Rules of Procedure. The motion is to refer this text back to committee. We believe that the Beysen report cannot legitimately be adopted until the questions that were raised by the Executive Committee in the Green Paper on Consumer Protection have been resolved. These questions are: should we harmonise European consumer law using a framework directive or using specific provisions of the type used in the proposal for a regulation on sales promotions?

Political group: PSE