GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, we need to be clear that chemicals can be good for you. You only have to look around this chamber at the carpets, chairs, desks, paint, steel and glass to see how much we depend on them. However they can also be bad for you. Some insecticides, flame retardants and even hair sprays can be a danger and we need to be wary of them. Chemicals can certainly present a risk if they are mishandled and they can need regulation. Sometimes they need to be phased out or banned. However, I fear this report goes too far too fast and so, in some respects, does the White Paper. I know it is only the White Paper stage, but we need to look carefully at some of the potential costs, said to be some EUR 8bn to European industry. A massive cost to animals has been referred to. The BUAV estimates 2 123 animals per high production volume chemical test. We are told that 12.8 million would be at risk if one were testing on 30 000 substances and the report goes up to 100 000. Of course not all those would need animal tests, but a substantial number would. One other example of how this report overreacts: paragraph 38 sweeps up all CMR category 3 substances and designates them of very high concern. Just take one example from one industry, the raw materials for flexible foam. The finished product is in no way a hazard and provides comfort and safety for consumers in products from furniture to car dashboards. That is an industry employing 360 000 people, 96% of them in small- and medium-sized firms. They could be at risk. The aims of the White Paper are right: we want to improve knowledge about chemicals and we want a safer world. We should prioritise areas for action. That means rigorous management of risk, without damaging unnecessarily the many small- and medium-sized firms that make up the chemical industry which has its risks but also brings jobs, benefits and safety for our citizens.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I want, on behalf of my group, to express a very warm welcome to Mr Chirac both in his role as President-in-Office of the Council and for coming here as President of France to underline the importance which France and he personally attach to the work of this presidency. (FR) Last Sunday, thanks to “the blues”, France became Champions of Europe. I hope that, under your Presidency, France will once again become a champion for Europe! We have listened with great interest to your speech today and to the speech you made last week in Berlin. Both make important contributions to the European debate. The Europe of tomorrow matters to all of us. Much in the European debate is unsettled. What is the territory of Europe; what are its function, identity and values? In launching such a debate you have done Europe a service. However, the incentive to speculate on tomorrow's Europe should not become a disincentive to act on today's Europe. As we contemplate enlargement, today's Europe of fifteen has, as you have remarked this morning, major tasks in hand. One cannot underestimate the importance of the 'Amsterdam leftovers' as we prepare ourselves for this enlargement. You have spoken of having more than an accord à minimum. We certainly agree with that. My group attaches very great importance, as you have done today, to a charter of fundamental rights as part of the package that we contemplate in Nice. Like you, Mr President, we believe that Europe should be based on the values of freedom, dignity, tolerance, democracy and rights. We respect the role of the European Commission in bringing balance to our debate and our respective interests. We value the access which our citizens have to democratic checks and balances – through this House and elsewhere – in the formulation of European legislation. We value transparency and working in public on the record, not behind closed doors. We value the rights of citizens to appeal to the European Court of Justice where they perceive injustice. None of these things are characteristic of intergovernmentalism. We must be cautious about a drift in that direction. My group believes that a strong Europe needs European institutions with a key role for the European Commission. I agree with you that we should have a constitution for Europe. We can launch a debate on that but clearly it is too complex a question to resolve in the next six months. I would express one hope: that this debate does not become a third lock on the door of enlargement. Helsinki set two tests: firstly we must reform ourselves in Nice; secondly the candidate states must take on board the acquis communautaire. We should not add a third lock on the door by saying we must have a constitution before they join. It is our historic task to bring about a successful enlargement. I know from your remarks that you agree with that. It is important to give that reassurance. I believe that France, once again, has the opportunity to champion the cause of Europe. We wish you and your government every success in the next six months.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, the issue of food safety is one of the many unifying factors in the Europe of the citizens we want. As far as the European Food Safety Authority is concerned, I feel that the European Parliament has played a very major role: a great deal was achieved between first and second readings and, in my opinion, tomorrow’s vote will produce an extremely important report for, indeed, at this point, there is no longer any excuse for procrastination. We will have an instrument which will help us to keep a constant check on food safety in Europe. As regards this major work, achieved through the efforts of both the rapporteur and the committee responsible, there are still a number of small points which, I feel, will have to be specified: for example, it is extremely important that the management board should include a representative from the agricultural sector because the fact that we are dealing with a process means that all the sectors need to be represented. There are still a number of gaps as regards the procedures. We are definitely going to use operators from the food sector and people and companies specialised in all the parts of the food chain in order to ensure that the necessary information flow banishes all fears from the tables of our fellow citizens. One last question is that of the site. An amendment has been tabled seeking to ensure that the locations of the sites of the Commission and the other institutions do not affect the choice of site. The site should be in a place which has a longstanding tradition in food safety and which has scientific infrastructure and substantial resources in the field of safety. Of course, I must put in a word for Parma, for Parma is one of the most important places in the Italian agrifoods system. It is my genuine hope that the Laeken Council will take this candidate into due consideration.

Political group: PPE-DE
Thank you for your answer, which it was also very nice to have in Swedish. I perhaps understand why the answer was as it was, but this business with fish in the Baltic is just one example of how brominated flame retardants can cause problems for the environment and for people’s health. We know, you see, that these flame retardants have been used quite freely since the beginning of the seventies in electronic equipment, TV sets, computers etc, and they have just proliferated. This is an enormous problem because Swedish studies, and other studies too, show that we are going to see precisely the same thing happen as we saw happen with PCBs, namely that these chemicals will find their way into the food chains and it will gradually emerge that a big problem has arisen. I should like an answer to the question of whether Sweden would be able to take a decision to prohibit these substances by the year 2004 and whether the EU would be able to agree to this; that is to say, would the precautionary principle prevail?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, because of our feelings of solidarity and fraternity with the people of Turkey, we oppose that country’s accession into the European Union because, as the experience of the Greek people has shown, the Turkish people have nothing positive to gain from it. However, we are being urged to vote in favour of the two regulations and the release of the relevant appropriations to Turkey, both because it has made significant progress towards democratisation and in order to encourage it to go still further in that direction. Contrary to claims by the Council and the Commission to the effect that democracy is progressing in Turkey, claims which demonstrate that the first to benefit from progress are the multinationals, it is blindingly obvious that the situation has, in fact, deteriorated. So what is happening today? Turkey is still illegally occupying 38% of Cyprus in full contravention of international law, it is continuing with its provocations against Greece; it is still engaged in barbarous ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Kurdish people; it still insists on resolving the Kurdish issue through military intervention and it is continuing its military operations against the Kurds in Northern Iraq. Over 12 000 political prisoners are being held in its prisons where torture and murder are an everyday occurrence. Leila Zana, winner of the Sakharov prize, is still in prison, as are three Kurdish parliamentarians and famous writers and journalists. Recently, twelve political prisoners protesting against inhumane prison conditions were murdered. Then there is the case of Mr Öçalan who, aside from the inhumane way in which he was abducted and imprisoned, was sentenced to death in a mockery of a trial, and whose sentence was unanimously upheld two days ago by the Turkish Supreme Court of Appeal. That shows just how sensitive the Ankara authorities really are to appeals for democratisation. Secondly, we are told that if we accept these regulations and release these appropriations, it will help the democratisation process. We were told the same thing when the Customs Union was signed five years ago. However, neither the constitution nor the criminal code has been democratised. The death penalty has still not been abolished, nor has the Kurdish issue been resolved politically and, according to statements by Turkish ministers, the Cyprus question “is no longer an issue”. So, believe me, if we vote in favour of the two regulations under discussion, despite their positive aspects, then this will certainly encourage the Turkish regime, which claims that Turkey is the most advanced democracy in all of Europe, to tighten its existing policies. We do not want to hit the forces fighting for true democracy, we want to send a message of solidarity to prisoners and push for real democratisation of the regime, which is why we urge you to vote against these two reports or, at least, to refer them back to the committee until such time as Turkey shows tangible evidence of democratisation and respect for international law. IN THE CHAIR: MR PUERTAVice-President

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we have never before spoken with so many people and such little attention in the House. The large-scale production and use of anti-personnel landmines is an appalling phenomenon, not only due to its consequences, but also because it demonstrates worrying cruelty, perversity, hypocrisy and the paradoxical dehumanisation of a good number of those with responsibility for humaneness and for ensuring its progress. The figures in the reports by Mrs Bonino and Mrs Morgantini are frightening and, while reading them, many of us reacted with a deep feeling of shame as people dedicated to politics, and with cynical pessimism with regard to the human condition itself. We are talking about millions of people killed or maimed, between 70 and 100 million mines that could explode at any time, anywhere in 60 countries. The reports give less emphasis to the fact that the majority of those mines were manufactured outside the countries in which they are buried. Nor is emphasis given to the fact that the list of countries most seriously affected mainly comprises developing countries. Fortunately, emphasis is placed, however, on the fact that the mines constitute a fundamental obstacle to the development of these regions in addition to a lethal threat of death and distress. (Interruption by the President to request silence) (Applause) Courage is needed in the face of the reality with which Mrs Bonino and Mrs Morgantini present us if we are not to fall victim to despair. Fortunately, their reports also include a long list of the actions currently under way to put an end to the folly of anti-personnel mines, to oppose their production and proliferation, to eliminate them, to compensate the damage caused by those that have already fulfilled their cruel purpose, to clear and free from their effects territories so unjustly maltreated. And here, as in other contexts, the actions of the European Union and Parliament itself give reason for confidence, for reconciliation with our own kind, as with this step forward, this Commission regulation that we are trying to improve in this parliamentary procedure, reaffirming our commitment and our hope. This perspective will guide our amendments and our votes. Our efforts over all these years have been to this end, including in 1998 when the North-South Centre of the Council of Europe, over which I have the honour of presiding, awarded its annual prize to Mr Axworthy, Minister for Foreign Affairs in Canada, for the efforts of his government which took concrete form in the Ottawa Convention. Mrs Bonino, of course, received this same prize in 1999 and her report today is further proof that those of us who supported her candidature were right to do so.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, my mother tongue is very rich in popular proverbs and sayings. One of those sayings, which my mother and my grandmothers would use when some irreversible domestic accident happened, was 'why cry over spilt milk?'. This saying is relevant here because we are once again having to express our regret at something we should have prevented through stricter control measures and by bringing forward the date for the disappearance of single-hull ships – and please note, Commissioner, that I wrote this before hearing you speak and I am therefore in agreement with what you said at the beginning. We must demand compliance with the laws we adopt, but also revise those which are not sufficiently rigorous. The wrecking of the Prestige once again damages an area which has suffered three serious accidents of this type over recent years: in 1976, the Urquiola, the Mar Egeo in 1992 and the Prestige this year. I have not yet been to Galicia – I am going tomorrow – but I am sure that one really needs to talk to the fishermen and shellfishermen in order to understand exactly the extent of the tragedy they are facing and their need for help, help which our Group is fully in favour of providing. But we must prevent anything like this from happening again, because, as well as the social and economic disaster it represents, it is an ecological disaster which affects areas belonging to the Natura 2000 network, biodiversity and the wealth of a region such as Galicia. Commissioner, when it comes to voting in this Parliament, we must remember this catastrophe, because in the coming months we are going to discuss a very important directive, which relates to responsibility for environmental damage, and all of us here will remember what it is we are voting for. Because there are times when stricter measures are required and there is much resistance – on the part of the lobbies present in this very House – to voting for these stricter, more serious and more rigorous measures. In the last few seconds remaining to me, Mr President, I would like to say – on behalf of my colleague, Ilda Figueiredo, who has had to leave – that she also would like to express her solidarity with the victims of the oil slick, that she demands more rigorous control measures in order to prevent it happening again, that she considers it important to establish a list of sensitive maritime areas and that they must be subject to special protection in Galicia, Brittany and, as she points out, Portugal as well – which is close by – and she insists that the Erika I and II packages must be applied, and their dates brought forward, and she requests effective measures against flags of convenience and the mobilisation of the Solidarity Fund for the repair of environmental damage and compensation for the victims. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Rule 143(1): 'at the beginning of the debate on a specific item on the agenda, its inadmissibility may be moved. Such a motion shall be put to the vote immediately.' I move that it is inadmissible and request that you put it to the vote immediately. I was deeply unimpressed with the arguments I heard earlier.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I do not share the optimism of either the Council or the Commission on this. The fact that two Member States of the European Union possess nuclear weapons undermines the moral authority of the whole of the EU when it comes to the debate on weapons of mass destruction. The overwhelming hypocrisy of the British and American governments in demanding the disarmament of others, while simultaneously upgrading their own nuclear capacity, is clear for all to see. This is an untenable, hypocritical and very destabilising position. We have heard a lot about international law recently, so let me remind Britain and France that, according to the ICJ at The Hague, nuclear weapons are immoral and illegal. According to commitments made at the Sixth NPT Review Conference, all nuclear states made an unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament. That was four years ago, and very little progress has been made since. Britain and France should lead by example and unilaterally dismantle their nuclear warheads. There should be immediate removal of US nuclear weapons from European soil. These are undoubtedly ambitious aims, but if we are serious about the threats posed by weapons of mass destruction, this is the route we have to take.

Political group: Verts-ALE
We voted in favour of the resolution because we received a request to this effect from a French postal service trade union which was looking to obtain, in the event of a favourable vote, an additional time frame in which to defend employees. This does not mean that we approve the entire contents, which are too vague and which leave out the main concern. The policy undertaken by the European institutions and by national governments, especially the French government, is a retrograde policy, counter to the interests of both the service users, i.e. the great majority of the population, and the postal service workers. Postal services must continue to be public services. All people, regardless of their location or social status, must have access to the postal service on an equal footing and subject to the same conditions. In organising the public service no consideration must be given to the idea of profitability, and private firms must not be authorised to amass private profits by carrying off the most profitable public service activities. Consequently, the post office and its equivalents in the various countries of Europe must keep their monopoly of this service. In order to ensure that we have proper postal services on the European Union level, it is essential to put an end to the policy of closing down local post offices, reducing the number of deliveries and overworking postal staff. The post office and, more generally, all public services must, on the other hand, recruit additional staff. Such jobs are unquestionably useful, and creating an adequate number of them would reduce unemployment in Europe.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, it is with regard to Amendment No 32 in which the English uses the phrase “may use works” and the Swedish uses “tillgång till” [literally “access to”]. This is not the same, so I request correction in all language versions. Ideally, this point should have been made before the vote.

Political group: ELDR
I too should like to start with a thank you to my colleagues in the Committee on Budgets. As , Mrs Buitenweg and I are both new to the Committee on Budgets and we had some difficulty settling in. But I must say that, in contrast to national politics, what is striking in Europe is that practical politics are not party political and the European Parliament is aware of its responsibility on material matters, a responsibility which was, of course, heightened or highlighted by the poor turnout at the European elections. We all know that we must present the citizens of Europe with a solid policy on the budget and on budgetary control and that we must ensure that both are efficient and transparent. I consider that the European Parliament has been successful on this point in these budgetary negotiations. I think that we leave these budgetary negotiations a stronger Parliament, in my view a very important point. The Council must finally get it into its head that there is one thing you cannot do and that is to take on more and more at European level without entering into serious negotiations with Parliament as to how these additional commitments are to be financed. The matters at issue this year were not only Kosovo, East Timor and the earthquakes in Turkey. We all know that enlargement to the east was also an issue. We all know that the conclusions of Helsinki in relation to Turkey, and in relation to enlargement to the east in general, mean that we will be taking on even more sooner or later. That is why we need to fall back on serious negotiation as far as the budget is concerned and the Council can rejoice in the fact that this European Parliament has grown in stature and political awareness with its responsibility on budgetary matters. We shall ensure much more emphatically in the future that there is proper implementation of the budget at European level.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I often visit businesses and people on the border between Denmark and Germany and hear again and again about the problems of living on one side of the border and working on the other side. It means, indeed, that many people do not even try to do so. In actual fact, there are only 1 000 people who commute across the Danish/German border in spite of the fact that unemployment south of the border stands at 12%, and north of the border is as low as 6%. There are obviously linguistic barriers to taking up work on the other side of the border, but the different ways in which the tax and social security systems are set up are also of very great importance. What of course distinguishes Denmark is that we fund our social security systems across the border via the general taxation system, while in the rest of the EU more use is made of earmarked social security contributions. This has a role to play in creating part of the problem we experience. I should not, in a way, mind it if we in Denmark were to obtain reforms whereby future payments were better at reflecting the individual’s responsibility for the common good and whereby the costs of social security arrangements were made clearer, that is to say through an increase in the number of earmarked contributions. Such reforms could also reduce the problems posed by the Danish social security system in relation to other countries’ systems. That is not, of course, at present on the agenda, however. We are concerned here with simplifying the coordination of the social security arrangements between the Member States, and there is a great need to simplify these very complex rules which, over the years, have become progressively more complex. I should like to thank Mrs Lambert for the work she has done. I am in favour of Parliament seeking to cooperate with the Council on these issues and seeking to work in tandem with it. We must not delay the reforms unnecessarily. I believe it would be easier to get the reforms through before, rather than after, enlargement. We must not, therefore, be so focused upon the ideal that we fail to obtain a workable solution right now.

Political group: ELDR