kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
it is also a matter of creating an environment which makes it less probable or possible for this phenomenon to arise so that the people of nigeria and the surrounding countries have a proper future and a proper present in their countries and in their lives. i believe that this is something that for sure we have to do. i said at the beginning
i welcome your invitation to do more.
we need to work very much with the region with the african union with the un framework.
let me also take this opportunity to say how much i value not only parliamentary diplomacy but also the work we do through our observer mission for elections.
i think the issue about the revolving presidency is one for the nigerians themselves to sort out. you will be aware that goodluck jonathan himself will say that he was only elected once into that role and has the right to stand.
what i would like to see is a much more democratic process in terms of the election i am pleased we have an observation mission there so that people can actually cast their votes and be sure that their votes mean what they put in the ballot box. but whoever is the president afterwards whether it is mr buhari whether it is goodluck jonathan again whoever else
certainly there does need to be a security response and yes i believe that international companies have a responsibility.
primary responsibility lies with the nigerian government.
i believe that right across the world we need to show the same outcry and that includes this house and the european institutions as well as the governments of member states to ensure that these atrocities that we witnessed in the last week simply cannot happen and cannot go unnoticed.
we will continue to work with the member states to try to solve the problems.
as an important element of this policy the commission will continue to assist member states in their efforts to transpose directives in a timely fashion.
here too we try to redress the situation and we have made very clear how we would like to improve the treatment of individual citizens' complaints.
the world health organization says this material is no more carcinogenic than sitting in front of a log fire cutting human hair working night shifts being exposed to dry cleaning fluid or drinking the argentinian drink mate'.
the british authorities were quite happy to pass it for safety under the risk based assessment. the eu likes to use the hazard based assessment but of course anything can be a hazard such as the salt and pepper we put on our food;
you rightly pointed to a very important aspect in light of public concern to ensure credible and independent scientific findings'.
substance. therefore the commission decided in light of public concern to propose a renewal for
formulants. the commission is therefore not the only one to decide when it comes to
this answer is from scientific
we do. as the refit evaluation of the eu pesticide legislation and the fitness check of the general food law are still ongoing it is a little bit too early to make assumptions or consider a different course of action at
techniques. this is what i highlighted again last week in a very interesting conference in parliament on biological lowrisk
finally we want the commission to promote and support the agricultural sector so that our farmers can move towards glyphosate free agriculture and towards alternative sustainable and cost efficient solutions for pest management. we asked precise questions on behalf of the environment committee to the commission and we are looking forward to precise detailed answers.
it is about losing public trust and about corporate giants overstepping their authority and yes transparency matters.
and this is why we are presenting this oral question we want to understand what steps the commission is taking to make sure that the decision on the renewal of glyphosate is based on credible and independent scientific findings.
and raise serious concerns. independent analysis indicates serious flaws in the efsa and echa safety assessments namely eight instances where increases in tumours as a response following glyphosate exposure were not included in the assessment by either agency.
we have to take a strong stand on this issue.
on the other hand the commission is claiming that echa and efsa concluded that the available scientific evidence did not meet the criteria to classify glyphosate as a carcinogen as a mutagen or as toxic for reproduction.
the carcinogenity and the genotoxicity of the substance are confirmed by certain studies but denied by others.
is it too extreme to imagine that there could be an expert panel financed by corporate giants who would conclude that available data will not support the conclusion that that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen'?
ultimately people's right to health and a healthy environment should be our priority at all times.
no wonder that questions and doubts still exist.
the fact is that it is undeniable that there are serious doubts as to the substance's safety.
how can we be sure of the validity of the conclusions about the safety or otherwise of glyphosate when there is lack of transparency and when it has been publicly revealed by the latest us court cases that the scientific data provided by the company experts was falsified?
in march two thousand and fifteen the international agency for research on cancer which forms part of the world health organisation said that glyphosate was probably carcinogenic to humans'.
it is about questionable scientific reliability and scientific independence.
until we know for certain that glyphosate is safe for our citizens and the environment we cannot allow this substance to be freely sold in the eu market.
we want the commission to recommend echa and efsa to critically revise the validity of the current studies and not to propose the approval of glyphosate as long as the scientific uncertainties have not been clarified. we also require the commission to rapidly ensure an independent review of the classification of glyphosate in relation to hormone disruption
discussions. it would be good to organise scientific debates and move forward but we must follow our legal obligations and i would like to say very openly that i am ready to fulfil my legal
built by echa. then i have legal obligations
simple. i would like to follow only plant protection product legislation.
we want a good investigation by the commission on this issue otherwise we will have to do it ourselves.
two of the issues that i have with what the commissioner opened with is how can he stand there and make the points he did when the european union expert body the european union chemicals agency this year said it should not be classified as a carcinogen;
some of my colleagues have already highlighted and others will i am sure the issues the consequences that will come of banning this particular product and none of them are very positive for our farmers and for our agricultural business.
i have read quite widely issues about protecting wildlife.
but when two agencies say it is safe then i think to actually go against them and especially to ask for a ban does not make much sense to me.
are we going to allow the weeds to destroy the village farmers' crops?
the same for the horticulturists the same for our gardens when glyphosate has been used for many decades and to all intents and purposes seems to be safe.
we have of course to take public concerns into consideration.
but we can do so in a practical and logical manner.
we certainly have to be careful we certainly have to be prudent and we have to allay as i said people's fears.
although i agree that the release of recent confidential documents disclosed to the public in the us are reason for concern we take the position that glyphosate is one of the few herbicides that our farmers have at their disposal and compared to earlier products is safer.
glyphosate is the world's most widely used herbicide and such products are also used in public and private gardens as well as in agriculture.
i would however like to see member states give more encouragement and financial help to those farmers that wish to farm organically.
so do our farmers.
our farmers are responsible farmers.
i represent the east of england which is a major agricultural sector in the united kingdom. our responsible farmers rely on good scientific evidencebased information for what they are doing.
from what i have heard from the commission this afternoon that is exactly what we have.
i hope that the commission will bring an end to all the uncertainty on this and confirm once and for all the authorisation for glyphosate.
it has been very clear we are hearing repetitions of the same sort of scaremongering the same things.
listen again to what the commissioner had to say look more closely at what he said to us all.
so the message is absolutely clear public health is not negotiable but farmers need every tool in the box.
this debate about glyphosate is going to be the first of many future technologies and those debates have got to bring clarity otherwise scientists are not going to invest in technology.
it has got to bring consistency otherwise farmers cannot plan their future.
and it has got to bring confidence that the food we eat is safe.
any debate in the future about technology like glyphosate has to be balanced and has to be proportionate and that means commissioner the debate has to be about proven science not about emotion.
secondly to those who say we can do without it hands up those in this chamber who will go out and weed the fields.
because there are very few of you who will do it.
i used to do it as a child and that is long long time ago. i think we need to be mindful of the possibilities or the options for farmers who need it.
i am looking in the gallery here and when i go into a garden centre anywhere in europe i see wall to wall glyphosate products because gardeners across europe use this product.
this is a debate that is worth having.
monsanto i think is on trial here and i am happy for monsanto to be on trial as is gm technology but i do think we need to be careful about the other issues and agencies that are on trial here the food safety agency and the chemicals agency.
we do have to have trust in these agencies.
i would be deeply troubled if this chamber became the authorisation place for any product but i do believe that this chamber should be where we debate these issues.
and that is why i welcome the debate but i am concerned about some of the comments that have been made.
this is an important part of the technology as has been said that farmers use.
so perhaps commissioner when we analyse the information you have given us and follow up as many of us will with some questions there will be greater clarity on this issue.
however i think many of us come to this debate with closed minds;
at the same time the region is rich in resources and has the potential of diversifying energy export routes to the eu and contributing to eu energy security.
the region is diverse and while we promote regional cooperation notably on crucial issues such as water management border management and drug trafficking we have bilateral agendas with the five countries following their respective tracks depending on individual needs and ambitions in terms of moving towards the eu and reform objectives.
let me conclude by saying that the european parliament has an important role to play as we move forward in our relations with central asia.
our technical assistance programme to support border management reform and combating drug trafficking remain among the leading international programmes in the region.
the region more broadly continues to face difficult chapters and much remains to be done in terms of our relations with the region.
we have established regular high level political dialogue between the eu and central asia regionally at the level of foreign ministers.
this is already taking place with a limited amount of focal sectors per country.
and given our admittedly limited financial resources for the region the coordination of assistance with other international donors is crucial and has to be intensified continuously.
the fact that our resources are limited has also made it increasingly important to focus our assistance as the european parliament report rightly points out.
the human rights situation is of general concern as has been pointed out by ms alfano and we need to see how best to make more of our engagements in this sensitive but very important area.
we have established regular human rights dialogues with all five countries.
on education more central asian students than ever are coming to the eu and the eu is heavily involved with education sector reform in several countries.
poverty alleviation remains a key objective and the poorest countries in the region the kyrgyz republic and tajikistan remain the primary beneficiaries of eu assistance.
with kazakhstan for example we just recently opened negotiations on an enhanced partnership and cooperation agreement which will be a first for the region.
widespread poverty in some countries and incomplete political and economic reform processes pose challenges not only for the countries themselves but also for regional cooperation and security.
and supporting the development of a parliamentary democracy there is a good example of the importance of our increased engagement.
there is significant interest among the countries in the region to strengthen relations with the eu.
job insecurity in the workplace and its ensuing concerns over the stability of incomes and rising levels of unemployment create new major threats for mental health. over the next two years the commission will organise a series of thematic conferences on the five priorities of the mental health pact.
this was evident from the great support for the commission's high level conference together for mental health and wellbeing' and the european pact for mental health and wellbeing both of which were mentioned by the rapporteur.
one of the suggestions in the report is to set up a structure to oversee the implementation of the european pact for mental health and wellbeing. i agree that there would be significant added value in periodically reviewing progress against the objectives of the pact.
socio economic learning has been included in school curricula.
parliament's report includes many concrete suggestions which constitute a valuable contribution to future debates in these conferences.
a first international conference on stigma and psychiatric care will be organised by the czech presidency on twenty nine may this year.
there could be new risks for mental health as a result of the current financial and economic crisis.
in the united kingdom life issues are now a subject in their own right in many schools.
in the first semester of two thousand and ten the spanish presidency will host a thematic conference on the mental health of older people.
we will seriously consider how we can best put such an idea into practice.
there is more awareness of the importance of mental health and wellbeing across all sectors compared to a few years ago.
the economic downturn worsens the future prospects of young people especially school leavers.
these will be joint events with council presidencies and member states.
nevertheless we think that the resolution should not be prepared for this session because we believe that we need to go deeper in identifying the problem behind it and we recommend this being discussed in tax three committee.
so we support the debate but we feel that the resolution should be discussed in another month.
it isn't about any particular country it's exactly as mrs rodrigues said it is about a mechanism that is supposed to monitor all the member states on an objective basis based on the same criteria.
so that is not linked to any particular country and i don't think we will be discussing any particular country we will be discussing the mechanism.
mr president i think it would be wrong to say we're going to postpone because of elections in one country precisely because the mechanism that we have all supported here exactly two years ago to the week wants to move away from the external debates about one single country or another and by postponing it you would actually give the impression that this is about one country or
the proposal builds on this success but recognises that change is necessary if we want to ensure that this remains the case for the next twenty years.
let me also call on you to agree on rules on access to water which are ambitious and workable at the same time in order to ensure that our citizens across the eu truly have better access to this indispensable resource.
the commission welcomes the european parliament's work and the fact that the european parliament's amendments are largely aligned with the main elements of our proposal. i would like to recall that the main objective of our proposal is to ensure the safety of drinking water in the european union for the twenty first century. we should be proud that today most people living in the eu enjoy drinking water that is of the highest standards worldwide.
i have taken good note of the latest amendments tabled.
that in acting as an honest broker to facilitate an agreement between the co legislators the commission would uphold the important objective of this proposal which i believe we all share. i know that on some issues political opinions differ such as the question of how best to ensure access to water and the issue of the strictness of health standards. these questions are crucial for european citizens and the solutions we propose will bring positive change to their daily life.
let me therefore once again call on the parliament to support the commission's ambition to protect even better the health of our citizens by proposing strict health standards.
this is the result of over thirty years of successful eu drinking water policies and rules.
i strongly welcome the work of my colleagues on this file.
two thousand and fifteen in the eu alone around twenty six million tonnes of plastic waste is generated every year and less than thirty of it is recycled. if you combine the production process of plastics and their incineration after use the amount of carbon being put into the atmosphere globally as a result of plastics is around four hundred million tonnes.
unrecycled plastic takes hundreds of years to break down and much can't even be recycled.
the council should take a step further and not just reiterate what we already promised in.
i will focus first on climate because i have only forty five seconds left and maybe just to start with the presidency.
mr president i think that it is very good that we are discussing climate and biodiversity at the same time because we all know that we have global pledges on the table but europe is not on track in meeting those pledges.
to be very honest your presidency conclusions on cop twenty four in katowice are just a repetition of what we already promised in the paris agreement that we are going to look at our pledges on the table that was the idea of the paris agreement.
in fact my view is that this parliament should be strengthening and adding to that ambition not watering it down.
madam president firstly can i thank the rapporteur mr dantin for all his work and indeed the shadow rapporteurs from the other groups all our staff and the commission officials as well for all their work on this complex wide ranging report. i think most of us take it for granted that when we turn on the tap the tap water in our glass will be clean safe and high quality so of course protecting public health and the safety of the public
leakage is bad for customers.
two four billion litres of water is wasted in my own member state every single day so i applaud the gmb trade unions campaign to take back the tap to get water in the uk back in public hands working in the interests of people and not shareholder dividends.
on endocrine disruptors the sd group pushed as we have done for a number of years for stronger protections by bringing those substances into the formal parametric values.
we must also take this opportunity in my view to not just criticise water suppliers for unacceptable leakage rates;
on pfas substances we have been clear that stronger action is needed and we are determined to see controls of microplastics in water as well.
we must also mandate action with targets to reduce leakage.
earlier i talked about the fact that we take it for granted that tap water coming out of our taps is safe but what about those who have no taps?
must be the foremost objective of this directive and thats the leading priority for my group.
we have to make the right to water a reality for all.
it would be a missed opportunity if this parliament did not match the ambition of the commission on the right to water.
i applaud the fact that the commission takes this opportunity to respond to the citizens' initiative signed by.
now here we are as the only directly elected eu institution failing the nearly two million people who fought for this eu petition.
that is why other like minded meps have submitted their alternative amendments and we will be bringing them tomorrow and i hope that people will join the right to water outside parliament at half nine in the morning as well.
but what is more disappointing is that the european parliament which supposedly represents the people across the eu is utterly failing those who signed that petition. in a shameful process of negotiations parliament has significantly weakened the provisions on access to water in this directive and this is an affront to the right two water petition and the petition procedure itself which is the only channel for the people to directly voice their concern to the eu.
madam president through the two thousand and fourteen right two water european citizens' initiative nearly two million people across europe sent a clear message to the eu that access to water is a human right. we did not choose this directive to respond to the demands of this petition it was the commission that came forward with this mediocre response.
i am elected by those people to represent their views.
the european economic and social committee also endorsed the petition's commands.
i was the rapporteur of the right to water report that was approved by this parliament in.
mr. president dear commissioner caete honourable members of the parliament thank you very much for the opportunity to participate in this debate regarding two very important upcoming conferences.
our public climate specific finance has almost doubled in nominal terms over the last three years.
we have more than two decades of experience in designing and implementing climate policies to drive the transition to a low greenhouse gas emissions economy and this transition is happening while boosting growth and jobs thanks to the development of clean technologies and low or zero carbon energy.
it also includes.
concluding our work at cop twenty four and making the paris agreement operational is critical for its effective and comprehensive implementation by parties as well as for their credibility on the unfccc process.
in this context i welcome also your resolution on the katowice conference.
as regards financial support for biodiversity the council believes that the global environment facility trust fund has proven to be an important financing instrument for addressing drivers of environmental degradation and biodiversity loss and has a strong track record in delivering overall good project performance.
climate finance is a contribution towards this necessary global transition.
the observed progression of eu climate finance over the past years is in line with the two thousand and sixteen usd one hundred billion roadmap.
the council agrees with the parliament that the protection of global biodiversity is an essential challenge.
therefore it is crucial that member states and all parties to the conventions increase their efforts to ensure their timely and effective implementation.
of the two thousand and thirty climate and energy framework including the emissions trading system the effort sharing regulation land use and forestry and also on targets for renewables energy efficiency and governance of the energy union.