GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, Mr Prodi, almost everyone who has spoken has asked – as you yourself have also done – why the EU's image is not what we expect, and why people have ever less faith in it. I am always surprised that this is commented on in a wounded tone as if we were misunderstood, as if all this were unfair, and even the answers on this subject have a very paternalistic ring about them. They say that it is all about explaining things better to the public and presenting our policies to them more clearly. Unlike Mr Swoboda, I do not think that we have really made any progress in this area. The concept of good governance is very vague, and people do not really understand what you are promising them. You are promising transparency, openness and consultation, but that is not what is at stake here, Mr Prodi. The major misunderstanding – I might almost say a misunderstanding of historical proportions – is that this Commission does not have any conception of European democracy. It has no conception at all of democracy at supranational level. All these paternalistic ideas that you have presented here miss the point that you do not have the courage – and have not had the courage for years – to highlight the democratic deficits of the European Union with sufficient clarity, and to recognise that the Commission must forego some power if such a thing as European democracy is to exist, and that you need to work alongside this Parliament on many key issues, for example on preparing a constitutional process and the main elements of that process. No, genuinely tackling the dissatisfaction that exists would mean addressing the state of crisis which exists as regards legitimacy. We govern people with regulations because we do not have the courage to say that we have been making laws for years now. We call them regulations because the democratic legitimacy of these laws is very fragile, because the separation of powers has not been achieved, because the principle of openness of legislation has not been achieved, because the process of committing the administration to laws has not been achieved, and because instead there is disproportionate scope for discretion, which cannot be reconciled with democratic principles, because we have an irregular administration in many areas, such as the committee structure. It is not regular, there are no staff regulations, there are no clear loyalties, and the processes for appointing staff in these areas are by no means transparent and are easy to manipulate. Mr President, you cannot reconcile the idea of a good technocracy with a debate on democracy. Just as there is no such thing as a good dictatorship, there is also no such thing as a good technocracy. You will have to address the issue of a European democracy and the position of the Commission in this process.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the good news is that the ICC has been successfully established with 139 countries having signed up and the president, prosecutor and judges appointed. It will prosecute the worst kind of crimes, such as genocide, mass slaughter, widespread rape and ethnic cleansing. It will help make the world a safer place. The European Union must live up to its leadership in establishing the Court by ensuring that all Member States fulfil their funding and legal obligations. The United States' opposition to the Court is totally irrational. There are ample checks and safeguards to prevent politically motivated prosecutions. It is absurd to claim that US peacekeepers would run the gauntlet of anti-American prejudice. US domestic political ideology is in conflict with American security interests. Surely an international court which signals that the international community will not allow gross breaches of law to go unpunished coincides with the objectives of the United States global security doctrine. We may not be able to stop the US from shooting itself in the foot, but we ought to be able to stop it shooting the rest of us in the foot. It is deploying the most outrageous bullying tactics to get small countries to sign bilateral immunity agreements. Six of the seven EU accession states which are candidates to NATO have not obtained a waiver and have had military aid cut off. It is alarming to see the Bush Administration pursuing its anti-ICC campaign to such lengths as to cut off military assistance to its allies in the war against terrorism. Indeed, most ICC member states are democracies with relatively strong commitment to the rule of law, so the aid cut-offs represent a sanction targeting states that abide by democratic values. That is extremely perverse. The Balkan states are in a very vulnerable position. Croatia and Bulgaria have refused to sign. Romania, Albania and Bosnia have granted immunity and Macedonia, too, I understand. It is no good just saying we regret that they do not live up to EU criteria. We have to both sanction and protect these accession and aspirant states. This is the kind of exercise which, if the EU cannot hang together, with its candidate and aspirant states, makes people despair of a common foreign and security policy. We should be able to do more and I hope we will be able to do so.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I extend my thanks to Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca for the way in which he undertook his role as rapporteur and the way in which he involved those of us who were shadows on behalf of our groups. It was an exemplary way of setting about proceeding on what is a very difficult issue. Of course with hindsight this is something which should have been considered long ago. However, the European Commission and the Joint Research Centre have listened to the comments made by the European Parliament about this matter of concern. I accept that they are trying their very best to put forward a solution which enables them – who know as well as anyone else the seriousness of the situation – to tackle this problem. The methodology, however, is quite inadequate and can only be very temporary. We have this historical liability but, colleagues, this is not something that can possibly be funded from current research. This is not current research. We would be stealing money from research programmes which are badly needed and a top priority for the European Union if we financed the decommissioning from that budget That would be a completely incorrect use of research funds. These installations are the property and liability of the whole of the European Community, not uniquely of the research programmes. Conclusion 9 spells that out most clearly, and I fully support it. The traditional budgetary procedure is inadequate and inappropriate for the reasons that have been stated by colleagues. Not least, it is far too uncertain for a very important task like this. The trialogue is urgently needed. I support Amendment No 20 which says that the present situation, the present conclusion, is adequate for this year only. That means that we must have a trialogue meeting called within days after the passing of Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca's report. We must ask the chair of our committee, the Commission and the Council to get together before the summer so that a solution can be found for next year's budget. This work must be done in the safest possible conditions. We cannot have any corners cut in an area where it would actually be dangerous to do so. It must be done properly and properly financed; no cutting down on the amount of cooling time. Certainly not! We face a time-bomb in the Joint Research Centre: the imminent loss of very many skilled people who have the knowledge from their time at the Joint Research Centre. Those people are getting older and will retire. We have to have emergency measures to ensure that people with the appropriate skills are brought into the workforce at the Joint Research Centre. Of course we must look at the historical liabilities, but I urge colleagues to support Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca's report.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it is well known that this proposal for a directive has arisen as a consequence of the block that European employers have imposed on the negotiating process on which the social partners had embarked. Nevertheless, although the proposal is intended to improve the working conditions of temporary workers, guaranteeing them equal rights and equal treatment, it only guarantees these through minimum standards of protection, based on the principle of non-discrimination, with countless derogations and with the dangerous prospect of an upsurge in temporary work agencies, which will contribute to greater job instability. Consequently, in the debate in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, we agreed with all of the rapporteur’s attempts to improve the proposal for a directive and to guarantee workers’ rights, having tabled various proposals for amendments, specifically the removal of various derogations that could undermine the principle of non-discrimination, the guarantee not to use temporary workers to break strikes and the principle that the work undertaken by temporary agencies must not contribute to increasing job instability. We regret that most of these proposals have not been accepted, although we welcome the fact that some important ideas have been adopted, specifically on the restriction of derogations, enshrining the application of the principle of non-discrimination from day one with the removal of the six-week derogation, thereby guaranteeing some rights in the field of the information and participation of temporary workers and their not being used to break a strike. Other articles, however, are worded in a way that is unfortunate, incorrect and in some cases dangerous to workers, in addition to opening the way to further derogations, to be granted by the social partners. These articles are also intended to ensure an active role for temporary work agencies, contributing to greater labour flexibility. Hence the proposals we tabled for the vote in plenary. We are attempting to ensure that the European Parliament proposal achieves a significant improvement in the rights of temporary workers and does not pave the way for greater job instability. Our commitment is to ensuring that the greatest value is attached to work, by creating more high-quality jobs with rights and not to instability and the devaluing of workers. We therefore hope that you will support our proposals and reject all those that will, in practice, create greater instability and damage the rights of temporary workers who, in most cases, only resort to taking this type of work when they cannot find permanent employment. Let us not, then, contribute to a dual form of discrimination.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Commissioner, I am grateful for your assurance that this is the first step of the procedure for infringement proceedings. I have had here today beef farmers from my constituency. Those farmers have had to wait more than 14 weeks since 1 August and still their beef is not back on the market in France. They have now been told that they have to wait a further 14 days until we get the French position. May I put it to you straight. Do you not already know what the French position is? Has the time not come for the Commission to throw the book at the delinquent Member State? Does not anything else make the Commission look limp and lily-livered and undermine public confidence in the European Union? Will you make it clear please at your press conference that the full force of the law will be used against the delinquent Member State unless this ban is lifted.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, now more than ever it is necessary to tackle the matter of a Community framework for cooperation in the field of accidental or deliberate marine pollution, at a time when the preliminary work for pumping the fuel oil is just starting off the coasts of Brittany. Whether deliberate or accidental, even if we cannot equate illegal degassing and the use of obsolete vessels and flags of convenience, it is still the same rationale of maximum short-term profit which is adopted by oil companies such as Total, Elf and Fina, for example. This is why we must, at every level – French, European and international – support any restrictive legislation concerning contractor liability, for either civilian or military contractors, by enforcing the principle of ‘polluter pays’. It is scandalous, moreover, than no serious penalty has yet been considered following the wreck of the Erika. Quite clearly, risk prevention measures must be stepped up by improving vessel design and construction standards, one such measure being mandatory double hulls. This also requires establishing an independent system of classification societies, increasing the number of inspectors in European Union ports, and also banning oil tankers that are more than 20 years old from European waters. Naturally, tipping harmful substances from the shore must be prohibited and, of course, radioactive substances must be specifically included in the list of toxic substances. Finally, the fact that many States tolerate over a hundred flags of convenience, offering guarantees that are more than dubious, is a serious threat to the safety, the working conditions and even the lives of many sailors. The European Union will have to take action on this issue to and work towards establishing international standards. The McKenna report represents a move in the right direction, and we shall therefore vote in favour of it. We must, however, remain vigilant to ensure that the fine resolutions adopted by the European Parliament and the Council take the form of directives and mandatory regulations in the near future.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are now looking at a Commission proposal for a regulation, seeking the revision and updating of legislation on detergents, in line with a trend that has been in place since 1973. The proposal is also intended to contribute to the free movement of detergent products on the internal market. I congratulate Mr Nobilia on the report he has presented to us, which I fully support. Like Mr Purvis, the draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, whom I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate, I believe that this regulation represents progress for both producers and consumers of detergents. I wish, however, to make a few comments on two issues that I consider to be extremely important and on which I tabled proposals for amendments in the Committee on Industry. First of all, I welcome the fact that the preamble to the regulation expressly acknowledges the need to undertake an evaluation of issues concerning phosphate content and the biodegradability of detergents and establishes the Commission’s duty to inform Parliament and the Council, within three years, of the results of this evaluation. We will consequently be in a position to assess the future need for regulation in this field. The second issue, which was unfortunately not adopted in committee, concerns the obligation on manufacturers to provide any health care professional with a datasheet listing all the ingredients of a detergent. In this area, I think it is crucial to allow Member States, on the one hand, to appoint the body or bodies responsible for receiving this information and, on the other, to take the necessary measures to ensure that the bodies and health care professionals charged with receiving this information provide the necessary guarantees of confidentiality. This information can only be used when there is a medical need to take preventive and curative action, in particular, in cases of emergency, with the Member States being responsible for ensuring that this information is not used for other purposes. Information on preparations is extremely sensitive and can only be passed on to bodies or health care professionals bound by the duty of confidentiality. Furthermore, such information must be used exclusively for the purpose of treating sick people.

Political group: PPE-DE
It is not a mistake to do with the languages, since the addition is missing in all the language versions.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I, too, wish to thank Mrs Ghilardotti for the sound and skilful work she has done on this report. I also wish, in particular, to thank her for her understanding of the minority views that may be adopted by a Danish MEP in this situation, for we have a special system of consultation and cooperation in the labour market which creates problems for us from time to time. We all agree, of course, that information and consultation and a good social dialogue are important. It has become a part of modern management to attach importance to these things, to involve employees and to talk about learning organisations, so enabling companies to develop better. I believe it is important that, when we talk about these matters, we do not only view information and consultation as part and parcel of restructuring and the reduction of the labour force, but as also being a part of day-to-day work in which it takes a long time to build up mutual confidence and that reciprocal dialogue that can be of value both to employees and companies in a crisis situation and which may also perhaps play a part in preventing crises from breaking out within companies. We have had a long period in which it was difficult getting everyone to understand the need for revising this directive, and revision has been blocked by a majority of the Council. Denmark has been a part of that blocking majority, not because we are nervous about having rules on information and consultation – we have in actual fact had stringent rules on these matters from as far back as 1960 – but because we are afraid that common rules might create problems for the system we think works well in practice. It would, of course, be an irony of fate if common rules were to be destructive in an area in which matters are operating well. Flexibility is a key word when it comes to drawing up the common rules, but there must not of course be so much flexibility that the required information and consultation does not occur in those places in which these things have not been emphasised. I must say, therefore, that, on the whole, my group is able to support Mrs Ghilardotti’s proposals. We have some problems where the sanctions are concerned, and I must say that the Council’s solution is an extremely fine balance that it is very difficult not to upset. There is therefore a single point in regard to which we cannot completely endorse the strict rules indicated in Mrs Ghilardotti’s report but in regard to which we prefer to endorse the Council’s solution. On the other hand, I want to say, on the subject of interim arrangements, that it is a question of putting these in place. Let us now get these matters implemented and not just continue to talk about them. Information and consultation are not a punishment for business. On the contrary, they are things that promote good business and competitiveness.

Political group: ELDR
I hope that Members will appreciate my strong interest in this matter. I wish to move, under Rule 144, that Mr Cunha’s report be referred back to committee and I do so with the support of the Group. On Monday, my colleague, Mr MacCormick, raised questions about the admissibility of part of paragraph 6 of Mr Cunha's report, and this involves very strong issues which may well be raised again today. But before we get to that point, I also believe that there are significant political and practical issues surrounding paragraph 6 and the proposals therein. It would be in all our interests to try to seek a consensus in our approach to this. Therefore, further discussion by the Committee on Fisheries and indeed the possibility of an opinion from the Committee on Legal Affairs on this matter would be helpful to all sides of the argument. In view of the doubts and some of the controversy which surrounds paragraph 6, a referral back would also allow, and should provide, an opportunity for further consultation both with the industry and with our experts in the Commission and elsewhere. I request that we vote to refer this back to committee and to return it to the House in due course, after further consideration. I also ask that this vote, if agreed, be a roll-call vote.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the report mainly identifies the unfortunate position of women farmers. However, it does not highlight the causes or who is responsible for this situation. A conscientious effort is being made to disorientate by creating the impression in women farmers that their position can be improved within the framework of the even harsher anti-farming measures being promoted with the recent reform of the CAP. The findings about the efficiency of programmes such as Leader I and II are also misleading. It is a known fact that these programmes refer to complementary actions as far as farming and rural development are concerned and the level of funding under the so-called second pillar is not only trivial, but also mainly profits those who exercise a business activity in the subsidised sectors of these programmes. The report essentially accepts the supplementary and unequal role of women farmers in agricultural activity, as well as the effort to remove women in rural areas from agricultural employment, which is why they are being guided to similar activities. These proposals serve the European Union's objective to further shrink the agricultural population and desert rural areas, which already have huge abandonment problems, especially in Greece. Finally, this being so, proposals such as creating crèches, cultural centres, public transport and so on range from the insignificant to the cynically hypocritical. Women farmers' acute problems are the result of the CAP and anti-farming policies. Consequently, only overturning them can safeguard the continuity of farming activity, a stable income and a dignified standard of living for women farmers. (The President cut off the speaker)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, thanks to the Costa report the discussion about a common framework for levying transport infrastructure charges has got going again. If we want a single market that works, we need a transport system that works, in which the conditions of competition are equal or at least comparable for all those involved in transport. The gradual harmonisation of transport infrastructure charges is the most important step towards that. The way we agree to calculate costs is certainly important to the maintenance, operation and new development of infrastructure whether full costs or marginal costs, social marginal costs or social net costs. But almost more important in terms of equal opportunities in competition is that we reach agreement, and do so as fast as possible. Yet we must remember one thing. If we want to see fair competition between the various transport modes too then we need to go on discussing the implementation of the external costs. To prevent that discussion also means preventing the integration of the various modes of transport and is therefore no more than lobbying, or a policy of lobbying for the status quo. I will fight out the question of who is holding sham debates in this House with Mr Jarzembowski elsewhere; at present I only have two minutes' speaking time. For heavy goods transport we urgently need a Europe-wide, kilometre-based heavy goods charge; here we could also envisage reducing the motor vehicle taxes. Many transport associations are themselves seeing it that way now. Only if we charge transport costs on the 'user pays' principle can we obtain a market-compatible instrument to tackle the emerging crisis in goods transport, for we all know about the next leaps in goods transport costs: rising costs as a result of enlargement eastward, of e-commerce, and that is on top of the rates of increase we have seen up to now.

Political group: PSE