GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, this Commission proposal aims for a long-term ban on the use of phthalates in toys as an emergency measure. Nevertheless, this emergency measure is already applied in several countries and is renewed every three months. Furthermore, the Commission proposal is the result of two opinions issued by the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment. It appears that the Commission has interpreted these opinions according to criteria which are no doubt very well intentioned, but which can at best be described as hasty, in light of the audience which took place in the Environment Committee with the scientists responsible for the opinions. One of the premises for the application of the precautionary principle must be proportionality, which appears not to be the case here. In fact, DEHP, the phthalate so far considered the most dangerous to human health, has been declared by the international cancer research association not to be classifiable as a carcinogen in humans. Furthermore, we should bear in mind that, in order to establish the toxicity of any product, the dose and the exposure time of that product must be defined. It is not sufficient that a product is intrinsically toxic. Even water can be fatal if consumed in an enormous enough quantity to cause drowning. A substance as toxic as heparin, a rat poison, turns out to be an effective anticoagulant which has saved many lives. Viruses and bacteria, in minimal doses, become vaccines. Furthermore, there has been much less research on the substitutes for phthalates than on the phthalates themselves. If this ban is adopted – and we can support it, above all if there is a supposed risk to children – we will also support Amendments Nos 11, 13 and 24 because the Commission should amend this directive in the event that the Scientific Committee approves the use of methods of measurements for practical purposes.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am also perplexed by the fact that tradition and culture are always used as an argument at the expense of anything else. Historically, culture and tradition have put women into the situation of inequality they suffer today. The worst violations against women in the world are currently carried out on behalf of religious fundamentalism. Religious fundamentalism is also political and, when women and girls live under it, their lives tragically offer them no possibility of escape. In the name of the freedom of thought which the Members from the People’s Party advocate, quite rightly, the Izquierdo report argues in favour of the separation of the powers of Church and State, that is, between religion and politics. That should be the report’s most significant argument. Many women are awaiting our commitment on this issue. We must defend the values that we, men and women, espouse in order that we may live together in freedom. In the name of that freedom of choice and decision which is denied to the majority of women in the rest of the world. We do not agree with the exclusive determinism for women, which condemns them for the rest of their lives. It is not true that women can participate with the same dignity as men because they are excluded from practically everything which may give them that dignity. In the name of tradition, religion and fundamentalism, women are stoned, murdered and mutilated. As I have said, many women await our commitment and we cannot disappoint them. In the name of freedom of thought, we must vote in favour of this report.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, the report Mr Nisticò has presented is an excellent one, the content of which I fully endorse. I do not want Mr Lund's statement to give a false impression. There is a need for this directive to achieve uniformity across the Member States in matters affecting the safety and quality of blood and blood plasma. Both in terms of infection and the maintenance of supplies, the protection of patients has the highest priority. Two things, therefore, must be safeguarded as a matter of fundamental principle: blood quality and the availability of sufficient blood and blood plasma in the European Union. I will go on record as supporting the Council's Common Position, which enhances the safety of blood and blood components and, at the same time, puts us on course to achieve maximum availability of lifesaving drugs. Plasma is needed in the manufacture of drugs which are essential to life, for example the clotting agents 7 and 8 for haemophiliacs and immunoglobulins to prevent infections in patients with congenital weaknesses of the immune system. Any bottleneck would put many patients' health at risk, something that we as politicians certainly cannot justify. Voluntary and unpaid blood donation is a basic principle and so let it remain. The payment of expenses to plasma donors in the EU cannot, however, be excluded for the future. Almost 50% of the human blood and blood plasma needed in the European Union has to be imported, mainly from the USA. The directive must not prohibit the import of plasma originating from paid donors either. The EMEA study published at the end of last week clearly shows those blood products from paid and unpaid donors are without doubt equally safe. There is therefore no reason to make unpaid donation mandatory on safety grounds, which would inevitably block supplies even of medicinal products manufactured from blood plasma. This makes Amendments Nos 7, 19 and 20 unacceptable.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the war in Chechnya largely started for reasons which are more to do with internal politics in Russia than with the situation in Chechnya itself. I therefore fear that there is little hope of the war ending before Mr Putin’s victory has been confirmed at the elections of 26 March, unless it is by total Russian victory before that time. What is important is what happens once the conflict is over and that is hard to predict. It is obvious that the problems in Chechnya and the Northern Caucasus, which rank among Russia’s poorest regions, will not be over when the war itself is over. When the Chechens are able to return to their homeland, they will find very little with which they can rebuild their lives. In the past, after the previous war, nothing came of the promised Russian reconstruction and it was difficult to grant foreign aid due to problems on both the Russian and Chechen sides. At the same time, it is also beneficial to look on the bright side, for example, the progress made in the three independent Caucasian states, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. There is no longer a threat of war there and the European institutions should be aware of the different situation there, because it is possible to have it this way.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, with regard to yesterday’s vote on the Olsson report, Paragraph 1, second part, states that I abstained from the vote. I actually voted against. I would appreciate it if this were corrected.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mrs Ferrer on having produced a balanced report. It is important that we recognise the role of the EU and the extent of its influence. We demand coherence and coordination. I would similarly like to say how satisfied I am that the importance of the work of NGOs, which work independently of governments, is being acknowledged and taken into account in development cooperation with the express purpose of strengthening civil society as a result of such cooperation. I also think that the recommendation that coordination should take place within the framework of the strategies selected by the target countries themselves is a healthy approach to the issue. When we speak of development cooperation, in the same breath it is a salutary exercise to remind ourselves that development cooperation is not an objective in itself. The objective is for the less developed countries to be able to sort out their affairs themselves, take responsibility for their own development, and act as societies in a manner that is just. And instead of hindering these opportunities, we should try to help put things right. At EU level, this means, for example, that our policy should not encourage countries to survive on the basis of just one product. Only those countries whose economy is in decent shape can benefit from globalisation. Those developing countries that struggle along on the basis of one product will run into difficulties. At EU level, we must also see to it that our values are reflected in our policy on development cooperation. Conditionality must have its place. Thus, we cannot aid countries that show no interest in their citizens’ human rights or democracy. In other cases we have to confine ourselves just to humanitarian aid. I would also say it was vital that the EU should have a human rights secretary, in the manner of the Ombudsman, whose job would include observing the human rights situation in the less developed countries. At EU level we must really be aware of the political effects of aid, as we already know from experience that aid can be damaging. In fact the risk is considerable. We have to develop the sort of aid that by its nature prevents conflicts, and does not fuel them. Aid must be directed in such a way that it brings benefit to the worst-off of all. Crises caused by environmental problems must be able to be predicted, and aid should not be given in such a way that it stirs up conflict over natural resources. We have to learn to recognise those societies in which the risk of violence is associated with state-induced terror. In channelling aid we have to see to it that it does not prop up undemocratic state structures. Through the conditionality of aid we can prevent corruption and the oppression of certain groups. I know that the issue is not simple and that conditionality is an arduous and cumbersome exercise, but positive conditionality, as it is referred to, can achieve a lot. Experience has shown it. For that reason the EU should not shy away from it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am acting in this Chamber as the spokesman for pensioners and old people throughout the whole of Europe, who, once again, have said to me: ‘We do not have time to wait for the European Constitution. We are eighty, ninety, one hundred years old: there is no time!’ So, I would ask the Irish Presidency to bear this in mind or, better still, remind all the other presidents of it. In particular, if this cannot be done, I would suggest, as an alternative, that more time be given to old people and pensioners. How? Given that the President of the Council, Mr Berlusconi, appears to have grown ten years younger – as a result of plastic surgery, it is said – I would ask that all pensioners and old people in Europe be allowed to go down the same route, at the State’s expense, so that they can also become ten years younger and have time to wait for the European Council to eventually give us the Constitution. (Laughter)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, here we are again, with farmers demonstrating because we are dealing with food issues. I believe it to be important that we should keep fighting to win consumers' trust, and it is particularly with regard to foodstuffs that more precise labelling is vitally necessary. In my capacity as draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I would like first to thank our rapporteur, Mrs Klaß, for her fine cooperation. Even though, when discussions started, we approached issues of detail from slightly different angles, as a whole we took the same line, so that the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy complemented each other very well, something which I do think should be mentioned and appreciated at this time. As a whole, the Commission proposal amounted to a welcome advance in the labelling of foodstuffs, but no doubt there is nothing so good that it cannot be improved. That was a task for us here in Parliament. The existing rule that all food ingredients – including constituent parts of compound foodstuffs – must be enumerated in the so-called list of ingredients on the label did indeed provide for derogations. Mrs Klaß has addressed the question of the so-called 25% rule. We often hear it said by way of justification for this that labels were made too all-inclusive by the large number of constituents listed on them, thereby ending up being unreadable, which was no doubt a bit extreme. The Commission itself made reference to the absence of uncertainty in Member States where this rule did not apply. No doubt the 25% rule was problematic mainly in that consumers could not know, when buying processed foods, whether they contained substances that might trigger allergies, in that even very small proportions of these were significant to the consumer. I do think that this context makes it clear that an even closer look needs to be taken at the difference in Amendments Nos 7 and 12, and consideration given either before or after the adoption of the directive as to whether this scientific basis for the inclusion of allergenic substances is the right one.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, we can only welcome the campaigns to fight hunger in the developing countries. The official statements, all of which have been quoted in today’s resolution, must now be followed up with further, and very definite, measures. There is no doubt a great variety of ways out of the poverty trap in the less developed countries. As a member of the European Parliament’s ACP delegation, the removal of barriers to trade with the poorest countries concerns me greatly. The number of people in the developing countries who have less than one dollar a day to live on continues to grow. Across the world, 900 people die of hunger every hour, many of them children. Deep public concern has long since ceased to be enough. The European Union and other donors must respond more vigorously to hunger in the developing countries, increase food and humanitarian aid and distribute the money provided, from the HIV/AIDS fund, for example, more quickly. Road tolls, import and customs procedures, and so on, in the areas at risk, mean that logistical capacity is not sufficient to ensure that food aid is delivered on time and without a hitch. We here in the European Parliament should, by means of today’s resolution, make clear once again that the worldwide costs of failure to abolish hunger are enormously high. Wars, repeated disasters, international crime, drug dealing, economic stagnation, illegal immigration and premature death, ladies and gentlemen, are but a few among them. Of course, the decision to admit all products – with the exception of arms – from the least developed countries to the European Union market is a step in the right direction. Mr President, I have almost finished. Of course we must improve market access for agricultural products from the developing countries. But we should also point out that other highly developed countries in this world really must make greater efforts too. As a member of the ACP delegation I support the work of this resolution as a whole.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to begin by thanking Mr Garot for his report, even if I do not agree with its content. I agree that there has been a crisis in the pigfarming sector but I do not agree with Mr Garot’s proposal as to how future crises might be solved. The fact is that the pigfarming sector has been the only sector which has until now been able to compete on market conditions with just a relatively few forms of intervention such as export subsidies and private storage, and it must continue to do so. If subsidised by the EU, the regulatory fund proposed in Mr Garot’s report may well be of short-term benefit to small producers and help keep them artificially alive at the expense of larger and more productive producers who are, of course, the future for pigmeat production here in Europe. The extra EU subsidy proposed in Mr Garot’s report would, in my view, be quite unreasonable in a year such as this when, with Agenda 2000 and the forthcoming enlargement to include Central and Eastern Europe, we are to reform agricultural policy. We are not going to do this by inventing new aid schemes. Nor, moreover, is there any money in the Budget for this. I should like to have a statement from the Commission on the extent to which this proposal is in keeping with the trade agreements with the WTO and with Agenda 2000. In my view, it is in direct contravention of the common agricultural policy to establish national funds which will lead to unequal competition for European pigmeat producers. What is perhaps worse, however, is that it may contribute to a renationalisation of agricultural policy. I would therefore urge you to vote against both Mr Garot’s report and the Commission’s proposal so that the liberal policy which has so far prevailed in the pigmeat sector can continue.

Political group: ELDR
Commissioner, will you take it from all of us that we believe you have acted proportionately and not out of panic. The only panic here would be if this were being represented as a major threat to human health, rather than animal health which it is. In recognising the prompt action of the UK on 20 and 21 February, could you confirm that the UK has in fact now asked to draw down the remaining tranche of agrimonetary compensation, as the British Minister announced last night. Could you be specific about the additional support which will be needed if an entire farming community is to be able to survive the loss of its livelihood which, for many of those we represent, is now the case. Finally, have you had any reports from the FVO in Dublin yet concerning the causes of the outbreak at Heddon-on-the-Wall. Given that the risk by land and air of infection is now so great, will you at least assure us that you will not rule out preventive vaccination, at least to give additional assistance in the attempt to stop the disease spreading, even if the animals have to be destroyed later?

Political group: PSE
I will explain as carefully as I can. The original text says, and this is the original text as voted in committee: 'Whereas free, fair and socially-balanced world trade must be further developed and consolidated' etc. Amendment No 11 says in its first part: 'Whereas (delete four words)'. We are ready to vote on that. I have said that we will vote against it. There is then a further amendment to Amendment No 11, which is in two parts. But I think we can vote the whole of Amendment No 11 now, which deletes the four words 'free, fair and socially-balanced'. No-one has agreed to an oral amendment of any sort.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as has already been said here, a couple of years ago, when we held the debate on the Sixth Framework Programme, a compromise solution was reached on the conditions under which research on stem cells could be funded. Let there be no doubt that this was a compromise solution between those people, such as myself, who preferred a more open and liberal position and others who advocated more restrictive solutions. Consequently, now that we are debating the issue once again, it does not appear logical that that compromise solution should be considered an extremist position and that other parties, opposed to research on stem cells, should tell us: let us now seek a compromise between that solution and our position, which, at the end of the day, means rejecting any possibility of funding research with stem cells. No, Mr President, this is not a good system. It is a form of subterfuge aimed at hindering the European funding of research with stem cells, when there are many countries which allow it, because there are significant sectors of the scientific community and of the social community in general which believe that researching with stem cells can lead to great progress in the fight against the extremely serious diseases which devastate us today. I believe that this way of working is not worthy of the European Parliament. It could have been said – and this would seem logical – that, since it is exclusively a question of funding, the funding would be allowed. Mr Ribeiro mentioned the principle of subsidiarity, well, let us accept it. We could say: European funding is allowed in all countries which allow research with stem cells. Under what conditions? Under those allowed in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity in those countries. Nevertheless, rather than maintaining this position, we have upheld the agreement which was reached on the Sixth Framework Programme. Let us not now aim, as a result of intolerance, not just to destroy the European Area of Research, but also to prevent and hinder successful research in this area in the countries where it is allowed.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I have a high regard for Mr Barnier, as does the whole of my group. We value his work greatly. I should like this to go on record. I therefore formally endorse the statements made by previous speakers. Essentially, we agree with the basic approach drafted by the Commission further to Mr Barnier’s proposal. We agree with the minimum 0.45% for the three objectives. We agree with bringing Lisbon-Gothenburg and employment under cohesion. We also agree to the College of Commissioners’ 1.24% proposal. The rapporteur represents the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism. It is regrettable that he is not prepared to defend the 1.24% proposed by the Commission. Our proposal is therefore lower than the proposal made by the College of Commissioners. I find this most disappointing. I simply cannot understand why this is the case, when we tabled so many amendments on this subject. There is agreement in principle with the Commission’s proposal. I should like to emphasise two key issues. The first concerns the ultra-peripheral regions. It is important to try to ensure these regions retain substantial aid, regardless of their per capita income. Seventy-five on mainland Europe does not mean the same as 75% at a distance of 3 000 km from the mainland. Finally, I should like to emphasise how important it is for this House to stand up for fair criteria. A case in point is the need to ensure that the statistical effect does not have a negative impact on any institution in receipt of European funding. We have argued this strongly. Indeed the College of Commissioners made a proposal along these lines for the regions. Parliament has no objections. Anyone who maintains the opposite is not speaking the truth and is sending out the message that the statistical effect cannot affect Member States reducing the Cohesion Fund either. I know of one country at 83% of average income. This is set to change to 92% because of the statistical effect. The limit is 90%. I urge you to be flexible between now and when the vote is taken, Mr Hatzidakis.

Political group: PSE