GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, I, too, find the proposal disappointing. It is actually high time that carcinogenic substances were done away with. The removal of phosphates is in fact a necessity, and it is a tragedy that we have not succeeded in bringing it about. Moreover, when it comes to phasing out, the Regulation lags far behind other provisions, such as, for example, the water framework directives. Labelling is only an initial step. Although the highest priority must of course be given to freedom of choice, my criticism is that too little attention has been paid in this debate to examining the causal links between allergies, sensitivity to chemicals, and exposure to chemical substances. This Regulation does too much about the effects on water and far too little – hardly anything at all, in fact – about any exposure assessment covering consumers and those who work in the production process. Let me conclude, Commissioner, by putting a request to you. We were too late in submitting an amendment, but I ask you to consider it all the same. We know that a number of companies are already adding bitter constituents to washing-up liquid in order to prevent children accidentally drinking them. There are still far too many deaths as a result of children drinking washing-up liquids or cleaning fluids. I ask you to give consideration to this, even without an amendment on the subject, and to look into the possibility of asking firms to add bitter constituents in order thereby to reduce the number of child deaths.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I had no intention whatsoever of speaking on this issue, but since the debate has been sparked off again...(Heckling). Please be a little more patient! You can tell me what you thought of what I am about to say in a moment. You may even be slightly troubled by this. Madam President, since the outset, the Members in my group believed that this was a matter involving a string of events that are all the more worrying and harmful since they evidently relate to a political issue, the scope of which is clear to all to see. I am clear at least about one thing – and that is the political responsibilities used quite openly in this matter – namely, the prolonged silence, and then the delaying tactics used by the Spanish government for more than eight months since the matter was referred to it by your office, Madam President. I think that we cannot help but associate this attitude with political collusion with Mr Berlusconi. That is what is unacceptable. We must not accept it. As for everything else, the more we have out into the open, the better it is for our institution, and, in my view, and I want to state this personally and very clearly, I do not question the integrity of the President of this Parliament, even though I do not approve the course of action she chose to follow in this sensitive matter. I know only too well what courage you have shown in other circumstances, Madam President, and therefore I will not go accusing you of anything underhand today. On the other hand, we have asked for complete transparency from the outset and you helped to provide this earlier by giving the details of this matter. It was just so that the whole truth could be known by all, and possible misunderstandings avoided, and most importantly so that we could finally make up some lost time to look into this request for the waiver of parliamentary immunity. I hope that the precedent of the Council of Europe that you mentioned – the Council of Europe to which the Spanish government felt it could turn – will enable you to persuade the Spanish government to treat the European Parliament in the same way as soon as possible, so that we will finally be able to look into this issue and turn the page on this chapter.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I have a question for Commissioner Diamantopoulou regarding the European employment process and the most practical difficulty to which it gives rise, namely the problem of implementing the policy in the Member States. Most of the players in the labour markets across Europe know absolutely nothing about the European Employment Strategy. The Commission is aware of this and has started to stress the importance of implementation, which I welcome wholeheartedly. When I last heard Mrs Diamantopoulou speak to our committee, she said that there would also be further consideration of how to include the European Parliament and the national parliaments in the European employment process. I think this sounds excellent. My question now is whether the Commission has progressed any further on this issue and has clearer ideas in this regard. If we look at each individual Member State, they all have some sort of national action plan for employment in as much as their parliaments have adopted budgets which establish which measures in the area of labour market policy have funding for the coming year. As there cannot be two separate national action plans, the national action plan which is part of, and builds on, the guidelines in the European employment process must be coordinated with each parliament’s politico-economic work on creating a national employment policy. I therefore wonder why the Commission is not clearer on this point. I know that telling Member States how to handle their decision-making processes is not an option, but making recommendations is obviously possible, not least within the framework of the open employment process. With this now about to be introduced in the candidate countries, which have a weak administrative capacity, it is even more important to place the political responsibility for the employment process clearly on the political process and to emphasise that the national parliaments have a crucial responsibility for, and influence upon, this issue.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, could I draw your attention and that of the services to paragraph 12 of the proposed resolution? I would also like to ask the British MEPs to have a look at the text. Paragraph 12 of the Dutch text states that “eist dat deze maatregelen de uitbreiding omvatten van de lijst van buiten de wet geplaatste individuen...” [demands that these measures include the extended list of individuals placed outside the law]. In my view, what is meant here is individuals to whom access to our territory is being denied because this is a reference to the sanctions. The French text states “des personnes frappées d'interdiction”. This should, in my view, read: “interdiction d'accès”. I do not have the English text here, but I think that these three texts relate to the same kind of sanctions, namely the ban on access to our territory in the European countries, in the EU countries. I should like to ask for these texts to be checked and for paragraph 12 to have the same scope in all language versions.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today's resolution on the Aviation Safety Agency is one of the first of many decisions that we have to take in the area of air transport. A lot is moving in the skies above Europe. The crisis in air transport following 11 September appears in the meantime to have been almost overcome. Movements of aircraft are expected to double again by 2015. The restructuring of air transport is in full swing. The political response to these challenges is represented primarily by the Single European Sky and the optimisation of capacities at airports. The present time demands continuity in the midst of change. Safety in the air must be the highest priority in air transport. Previous strategies to harmonise technical regulations have not been able to keep up with the breakneck pace of developments in the air transport sector. This is another reason why we need the European Aviation Safety Agency, which is to be the heart of a future unitary safety framework. I am glad that we have found a European response in this sensitive area. We can chalk it up as a success in our negotiations with the Council and the Commission that it will be only a year after the Regulation enters into force that requirements for the operation of aircraft and for the approval of aircrew are timetabled to be drawn up, and that these measures are also to be applied to aircraft from third countries. Safety aspects of airports are also to be included. Turning to the agency's accountability, Parliament has succeeded in giving it greater independence, including from the Commission. It has also been laid down that Member States are to make an appropriate contribution when external delegations of the Agency are set up on their territory – a contribution which I think Parliament will take to be financial in nature. As a whole, discussion of the EASA shows that what we actually needed from the Commission is a framework directive on European agencies that would respond to the horizontal issues concerning a unitary structure for agencies. It is still unsatisfactory that the problem of budgeting for agencies' income could not be resolved as the Committee on Budgetary Control would wish. The Aviation Safety Agency will be followed by others, dealing for example with the safety of railways and ships. I consider this overall strategy to be suited to advance the integration of European transport markets.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, three weeks ago the European Parliament was highly critical of Belarus’ closure of the OSCE office. The fact that its top official Andrew Carpenter, who has been deeply involved in democracy and human rights in this European state, failed to received an extension to his visa in practice meant the closure of the office. Now we are once again lamenting the infringement of human rights in Belarus, injustices against journalists, dissidents, people who are subjected not only to trial and serious prison terms but who are also violated, degraded and sidelined from official society. People have actually lost their lives in the fight for democracy in Belarus. This is a further expression of the lack of faith in the political and popular legitimacy of the country’s own regime. The Commission, represented here by Commissioner Diamantopoulou, must now seriously review the European Union’s strategy with regard to Belarus. The country is, and has long been, isolated. We must not give an inch in our demands regarding human rights, but we must, at least at a lower technical level, open a dialogue with Belarus. Despite everything, it is a European state. It is a neighbour of Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, of the enlarged EU. A new strategy is required. Allow me to mention a few points which may serve as suggestions for such a strategy. Firstly, no one person, namely President Lukashenko, can stand in the way of a whole country of ten million inhabitants. These people must be given a European vision, must be given hope of a different future. Secondly, civil society must be strengthened and local elections in Belarus prioritised as an expression of strong grassroots involvement in democracy in this country. Thirdly, election rules in the country must be more open and create greater confidence that elections actually are reliable and fair, which has not previously been the case. Fourthly, we in the EU must act in such a way as to avoid strengthening polarisation in Belarus. We must support democracy but without splitting the country. Fifthly, we must continue in our single-minded fight for human rights. Belarus may once again crop up under topical and urgent matters in the European Parliament in September. Sixthly, we must remind Belarus and President Putin that they have a responsibility within the framework of the union with Belarus to stand up for human rights in this country.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we do not yet know how the steps adopted by the Security Council are going to be applied, but we do already know that assistance will arrive too late to save a great number of lives. On the one hand, irreparable damage has already been done. The disaster was not unexpected. The Timorese resistance had given the alarm signal, demanding that the United Nations oversee the safety of the ballot on self-determination. The crime was that of failure to assist a people in danger. The East Timorese are paying a high price for earlier compromises. The Indonesian army, the body chiefly responsible for the current massacres, was set up, trained and equipped by the major powers of the West in 1965 in order to massacre the Indonesian population itself, in order to eradicate a Communist Party whose influence was troublesome. Today, there is unanimous outrage, but there is great hypocrisy. Who is going to be made to believe that the United States, but also France, which signed a military co-operation agreement with Djakarta, did not have the means to exert sufficient pressure to stay the arm of the killers? At the time of the bombing raids on Iraq or the former Yugoslavia, the great powers spoke of human rights. It would seem, from this case, that for some people, defending human rights takes second place to defending financial interests.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, I would like to put this debate into context. As a native of Auvergne, I would remind you that just about a year ago we were debating the Michelin crisis in this Chamber. Michelin announced massive redundancies in its European factories at the same time as record profits on the stock exchange. At that time, in this very House, we were collectively engaged in reviewing European regulations on company mergers. I would suggest to the Commission that it might be worth having another look at Directive 94/EC and Regulation 4064/89 to strengthen information to and consultation of employees before major change – a euphemism for redundancies – whether due to restructuring or merger. A year later, as a first concrete step, we are offered a monitoring centre for industrial change. Fine, but let it really serve the cause of the employees. For that, two conditions seem indispensable. The Commission must be allowed to evaluate the implementation of the directive on collective redundancies and closures of companies, and make proposals so that effective sanctions can be applied in case of non-respect of regulations. The two sides of industry must be associated with this initiative by means budgetary resources allocated by the European institutions.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, no European security and defence policy existed until 1999, when it was one of the fruits of the lessons we learned in the Balkans. There, we had the experience, in 1999, during the Kosovo conflict, of being able to speak with one voice after a decade of discord; if, though, the United States of America had said that this was a European matter that we had to deal with ourselves, we would not have been in a position to do so. That is why this joint response force has to be built up by 2003, and the fact that we will then be making a start, albeit with a small mission, is, I believe, an important step in terms of European integration policy, whilst underlining at the same time the fact that it is being taken in cooperation with the Americans and with NATO, rather than in opposition to them. It will, during this stage, be increasingly important to have due regard to the European Union's institutions and to remain within the bounds of its institutional structures. In was with this in mind that, on 25 November 2002, in the course of the Budget procedure, Parliament and the Council agreed on a statement on the financing of the common foreign and security policy, which statement, firstly, stresses the point that Parliament is to be informed about all basic options under the common foreign and security policy and their financial implications. To this day, the Council has not once complied with that requirement, but this is to be done in future, with a summary being presented, in its own dossier, to Parliament by 15 June. Another point is, though, that the Council is not only to do this once a year, but is to promptly state the amount of the prospective costs involved in any and every specific decision in the field of the common foreign and security policy entailing expenditure. This is a new measure agreed on in November. After some hesitation, we are glad that the Greek Presidency, during the most recent consultation with Parliament, undertook to make available to Parliament all the information that had initially been withheld, including that on costs and personnel. I see this as an important decision and as complementing that on the political principle of involving Parliament. We are well aware that, even though the Western European Union has since been integrated into the European Union, its Parliamentary Assembly continues to exist, the argument for this being that the national parliaments have to keep on meeting together on a regular basis, as the European Parliament does not yet possess rights of control. This example shows how we are already involved in this area. Building on this and, in the event of future missions, such as the taking over of the SFOR mandate, informing this Parliament in due time, is an important step, and what Mr von Wogau said about giving this its own firm place in the European constitution is something I can unreservedly endorse. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I begin by declaring an interest as the joint president of the Hong Kong Friendship Group, joint, that is, as with my good friend and colleague, Mr De Clercq, from the Group. The first point I would like to make – and this has been alluded to by my friend and colleague, Mr Cushnahan – is that Hong Kong cannot pass law under its constitution if it contravenes the international standards of human rights. My second point is that all countries need security legislation. I would argue that even what is proposed is milder than the recent Homelands Security Act passed in the United States, without much obvious protest from this House. We asked the Hong Kong authorities to ensure that the Article 23 proposal would not be used to silence opposition. I shall give a couple of quotes. A few days ago on 27 November, Mr Antony Leung, the Financial Secretary, was in the European Parliament. From the minutes of the meeting he attended – and I quote: 'He gave a very personal reassurance of the government's commitment to upholding the rule of law and the guarantees of human rights and freedoms set out in the Basic Law and enshrined in the Hong Kong legal system'. That was in front of our Members very recently. A few days ago, on 10 December, the former financial secretary, now acting Chief Executive, Donald Tsang, said in a speech in Hong Kong: 'The free flow of information, the freedom to say and do what we want are the very fabric of Hong Kong society'. I put it to you that there is concern. I also look forward to having a clear and detailed provision and would like to see a draft bill for us to debate. But let us concentrate on getting good legislation, and not fall victim to those who want to campaign against the PRC by proxy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the specific programmes for implementing the Sixth Framework Programme deal with each thematic priority in detail, clarifying their content and certainly making them more effective. They will make substantial changes contributing to the success of the whole programme in that they are based on the focusing of financial aid on a restricted, specific number of priority themes throughout Europe. This will give researchers a closer system of cooperation and will increase their mobility, for the aim is to create an attractive working environment for them in Europe too. As regards the employment rules, the Sixth Framework Programme, on which work began over a year ago and to which the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs has contributed, has preserved the very themes highlighted by our committee as well among the priorities, particularly employment, health and safety at the work place and the integration of the socially excluded and disadvantaged such as people with disabilities. Indeed, we must not forget that the whole point of research is to serve the people: it is not an end in itself. In addition, particular stress has been placed on support and research for small and medium-sized businesses, precisely because of their function of an economic catalyst in Europe. Moreover, the restructuring of the Common Research Centre has made it more efficient and the confirmation of the budget is an important step towards the creation of a European Research Area. Lastly, I am pleased to welcome the inclusion of an amendment tabled last June on employment in Europe. Our request that research should be extended to the development of operating systems and hardware in Europe has been included in the specific programme aimed at integrating and strengthening the European Research Area. That will certainly help to boost employment and put the brakes on our current growing dependence on the United States and Japan in what is considered to be a crucial sector for the new economy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Sri Lanka has three population groups of differing origins. In addition to the Sinhalese majority, Tamils – who are related to the inhabitants of southern India – predominate in the north-east, whilst descendents of Europeans from colonial times live in and around the capital, Colombo. Following independence, left and right within the ethnic majority have been fiercely opposed to each other. The two parties have alternated in government, and have lost face politically to a great extent in the meanwhile. They have been outbidding each other in their aversion to minorities. Sinhalese votes can be won by saying that the Tamils must move to India and that European cultural influences must be eliminated. It is only after a long, hopeless war of secession that a government has emerged ready to talk seriously with the Tamil resistance movement, which wants its own State. Norwegian assistance has played an indispensable part in this. It is the quest for self-glorification of the President, who belongs to a party whose origins I find more pleasant in themselves than those of the ruling party, that is now threatening to ruin everything again. Europe must give a clear signal that a lasting peace agreement is inescapable, and that resumption of the devastating war is unacceptable. Without a lasting solution for the north-east, the country will suffer disruption and people will be uprooted. Any illusions the ethnic majority, or the President, may have that things can continue without a solution to this problem will only lead to a repeat of the disasters of recent decades. For that reason, the outside world should make it as clear as possible that this is an unacceptable situation and that a peaceful solution really is needed. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL