GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I would like to thank Mrs Grossetête and her colleagues for bringing this motion before Parliament. The environmental disaster of the sinking of the Erika off Brittany and the spillage of 10 000 tonnes of oil has been widely reported in the British media. Although Britain and France have had their differences recently, I can assure you that there is considerable sympathy in my country for all those affected. TV pictures of the damage done to your coastline and wildlife, in particular birds and the already dwindling fish stocks, have brought back memories of similar British disasters, such as the Torrey Canyon in 1967, and have prompted many British volunteers to help. I salute these joint efforts to repair the damage. This is clearly a problem for all EU coastlines which will require imaginative solutions. Instead of allowing the costs of these disasters to fall on the communities most affected and insurance markets such as Lloyds of London, we must develop new technologies to retrieve from the sea much more than 10% of the lost oil. There is currently little financial incentive for this when the insurance market picks up the tab. Ultimately, the polluter must pay. In addition we must build on the Council directive dealing with enforcement of international standards for ship safety and pollution prevention by ensuring that the inspection goal of 25% of ships calling at EU ports is met and that a high standard of inspection is delivered. Moreover, although I am not opposed to shipowners registering their vessels in their country of choice, I believe there is a need for stricter application of international regulations. Rather than banning flags of convenience, which would violate the right of every sovereign state to have a merchant fleet, under the 1995 EU directive on port state control, national maritime authorities must impose more effective sanctions on flag states which fail to carry out their international treaty obligations. I sincerely hope that, particularly during the French presidency later this year, the Commission and the Council will look carefully at all these options, and I heartily commend this resolution to Parliament.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy held a debate with the Danish Presidency last Monday on the implementation of the Sixth Framework Programme. This debate included discussions between a number of Members, including the Chairman of the Committee and the Danish minister, in the course of which it was stated that the Council, having adopted the Framework Programme's specific programmes, which were laid down without Parliament's codecision, had come to an agreement with specific reference to the sensitive ethical issues. This led a number of Members to assert that this agreement goes against the agreement which Parliament reached with the Council of Ministers in May. There was no mention, in the documents we had to vote on before second reading, of any agreement on the issues that the Council has now come to an arrangement about, nor have I had any information about it. It therefore follows that it is right and proper for Parliament to put questions to the Council. As an ordinary MEP, though, I would also like to ask if the President or anyone else has been provided with documents that were not available to all Members of this House when the vote was taken.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I do not agree with the rapporteur. I think that the amendment can indeed supplement the amendment by the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism that has now been approved, and that it is a more precise statement of the content of the first amendment.

Political group: ELDR
I voted against the motion for a resolution for the reasons indicated by Mr Désir.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, please be patient, I have the floor. I have two reports, but you may be reassured to know that I shall be speaking only once. As rapporteur for all regulations on the basis of which Eurostat has to quickly compile the best of statistics for us, I would again like to recommend here and now that you approve my two reports with the usual enthusiasm. The first is about a regulation under which we and everyone concerned – primarily the European Central Bank – will now receive quarterly information on Member States’ debt. That is very important, even if the blue letters for the deficit procedure continue to be issued on the basis of the annual figures – and even if they do not. As you know, Member States are not treated equally in this respect. Mr Eichel and Mr Mer might, however, discover the scale of their budget problems sooner. They might even find out sooner what their efforts at consolidation have achieved, if they have made any. The second report is concerned with a regulation that is to provide us with quarterly national accounts data, specifically on the contribution made by the individual sectors ‘households’, ‘companies’ and ‘government’. The United States have had that for a long time now, because it is important for monetary policy and economic analysis to know how the various players are behaving. The Ecofin Council recognised a year ago that the lack of information on the behaviour of households and companies in the business cycle was a major deficiency of EMU statistics. However, all countries whose gross domestic product is lower than 1% of the EU25 total will not have to report data on transactions in the households and companies sectors. (Uproar) Mr President, I have twice two minutes’ speaking time and I will keep to that – you can make as much noise as you want. (Applause and laughter) Those excluded are Luxembourg and all the new Member States except Poland. They, too, however, must supply the quarterly data on transactions in the ‘general government’ and ‘rest of the world’ sectors. Now you know what is involved and, as in the past, you can vote in favour of my two reports with a clear conscience. They are my last reports for this legislative period, in which, counting today, I have spoken nine times on statistical reports. I do not know whether I will be able to take care of these statistics regulations after the 13 June elections; they are much drier than wine and honey. However that may be, I thank you for the confidence and enthusiasm you have always shown for my reports. (Loud applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
PPE-). – (DE) Mr President, I wish to make one thing clear: my group did not actually want to ask for the removal of this item, but we were informed that the Group had asked for it and then we said, very well,... (Interruptions) Just listen for a moment! I always listen to you. So we said that, in order to have a large majority in this House and to remain committed to the topic, we favour removing it for this week, but finding in the immediate future an appropriate procedure in order that we may get to grips with this topic in a way it very much deserves, with the Council and the Commission present if necessary. It is only on this basis that we are in favour of dealing with this topic, not as a matter of urgency this week, but at a later juncture and in a far more appropriate format. That is the condition we impose. (Parliament agreed to the request) President. – Secondly, I have received a request from the Group to replace the fifth item ‘Clementines’ with ‘Ethnic clashes in India’. (Parliament rejected the request)

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I wish to begin by welcoming our 162 new MEPs to the European Parliament. I am convinced that there will be many exciting debates in this new Parliament, even though I myself shall not be participating because I am now, after two terms of office, leaving the European Parliament. Many have said that this is an historic enlargement, as of course it is. It must, however, be followed by further historic enlargements. We must not stop here. We must be open to a cooperation that does not set any geographical limits. It must also be possible for every country that wishes to do so and that fulfils the stated requirements to become a Member of the EU. I also welcome the negotiations with Turkey, even though I am aware that Turkey still has a huge amount of work to do in the matter of, for example, democracy. The new, enlarged EU must take upon itself the arduous task of genuinely becoming a functioning Union for all citizens. The objectives must be a secure future, human dignity, work, health and a sound environment to hand on to the next generation. We must be tolerant, and we must be good neighbours. I am therefore very proud that the Swedish Parliament voted against a proposal for transitional rules governing the labour force from the new EU countries. I am proud that, from the beginning, my party – the party of the environment – absolutely rejected transitional rules in any form. Such rules only cause offence and put a damper on the joy of having good neighbours. That is something that also emerged extremely clearly from Lech Walesa’s speech yesterday. To obtain respect, there must also be a readiness to respect others.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I know you have certainly endeavoured to pick up on all the defects there are here. I think, however, we should take care not to put all the defects down to the architects, but we should rather look into our own court. There is one thing I find simply unforgivable. In countless motions for resolution, all of us in Parliament have stressed that renewable energies were the technologies of the future, the technologies of the 21st century. This week the UN presented a report pointing out that energy conservation would be one of the themes of the next decade. I find it unforgivable that we call for a One Million Roofs Solar Programme, but we have not invested in renewable energy either in Strasbourg or Brussels and have not adopted the slightest energy-saving procedures here: for example, the vestibules to our offices are lit up day and night and the lights cannot be switched off, and so forth. This is precisely what we called for in the Bettini Report seven years ago. There have been several exchanges of letters with the Bureau. Mr Priestley will inform you of this. I was told it would be too expensive. That is just incorrect and unacceptable. You know the costs of renewable energy would pay for themselves within nine to twelve months. How can we explain that to house builders in the Member States? We are encouraging them to have solar roofs installed while we do not do the same with our own roof, even justifying it with the spurious argument that it is for reasons of cost. Energy conservation, energy efficiency, renewable energy, this is what we recommend day in day out in our resolutions! Madam President, this is a very serious matter, as we lose our credibility if we do not lead by example, if we do not make it clear that these are the themes of the next millennium. If we do not put the principle into practice here ourselves, then we will also have lost some of our credibility. I therefore call upon you, as a matter of urgency, to correct the most unforgivable mistakes which have been made both here and in Brussels, and to immediately convene a working party to obtain quotes for setting things right. In addition, I would like to have an energy efficiency plan for both buildings. For I do not think we can afford to squander so much energy here while at the same time telling the general public that they must save energy. We are all familiar with the problems of carbon dioxide emissions and so on. Madam President, this is a very serious subject, which has not unfortunately been addressed by you here today. I would also like to receive an answer from you as to why this was not taken into account in the planning and how we can sort this out in future. We must resolve these problems and achieve this with emphasis on renewable energies, energy conservation and energy efficiency. I simply think we have a responsibility to the public to set a good example. For I believe we are all unanimous here in thinking that environmental problems are problems which we must resolve urgently. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I am here to speak on behalf of millions of women football fans. I welcome Commissioner Kinnock's reassurances. I must say that I was appalled at how the ticket allocation was handled by the French authorities. I know that a large number of people in Britain were equally frustrated. The release of the tickets was really too late for most people to be able to take up those opportunities given their work commitments. What we need, I believe, is some joined-up thinking. One of the main objectives of the EU institutions is to ensure that citizens of all EU countries are treated fairly and equally. In this instance, millions of football fans were discriminated against. And yet, this breach is taken lightly. Whatever the reasons for that particular measly fine, it will alienate a large number of fans. It is another missed opportunity to connect with the people of Europe. Football is a passion that unites all the countries. What better way for us to change our image and connect with the people of Europe than to say that we take football as seriously as we take any branch of commerce.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr Linkohr's report is much to be welcomed. It is a balanced report with workable suggestions on how to improve the intermittently precarious oil supply situation. That it is precarious can be seen from the spike in prices which occurred last autumn, or as is occurring now with Iraq's decision to stop oil exports. It is precarious because we depend on supplies of oil from unstable parts of the world. It is intermittent because these crises endure for relatively short periods as market forces come to bear and rectify the situation. Indeed the volatility of oil prices, ranging in the last 18 months from USD 10 to 34 per barrel, is as much a problem for the suppliers as it is for the consumers. This gives us an opportunity, because stable prices are of interest both to us in Europe and to the oil supplier countries. We should make a much more consistent effort to develop a dialogue with the oil supplier countries, with the Middle East, with Russia, with the Caspian and Caucasus countries and with West Africa. This dialogue must not just be pursued when there is a shortage, or when there is a seller's market, or when it is in our interest. It must be pursued also when the boot is on our foot, when there is a glut and a buyer's market. As a practical example, Europe should encourage and facilitate the construction of oil and gas pipelines from these places to the heartland of Europe. Nor should we overlook the potential of our indigenous oilfields, notably those in my Scottish constituency. Research and investment and improved recovery techniques have already extended the life and productivity of the North Sea and continental shelf oilfields. But more can still be done. We must also pursue opportunities for saving energy, above all in the transport sector. Yes, we must do what we can to promote renewable and alternative energies. But we cannot share Mr Linkohr's enthusiasm for harmonising tax rates and using harmonised tax, applied at European level, and the manipulation of strategic oil reserves to regulate oil prices. Tax rates are for the Member States to set and clearly they are quite unwilling to sign up to the long-delayed directive on taxation of energy products. Taxes on energy should be set in the context of an open competitive European market which, in itself, will ensure that fuel costs are not too far out of line from one country to the next. We cannot afford to hobble our economies, our industries and those who live and work in our rural and remoter regions. Yes, oil supply is a matter which has to concern us. The Commission's communication and Mr Linkohr's report are valuable contributions to understanding the problem and defining possible solutions. If we can succeed in amending the few unacceptable aspects that I have detailed, this group will be pleased to support Mr Linkohr's report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Four years of reduced rates of VAT do not allow us to see the complete effects of this experiment; all the more since, knowing that it was temporary, some employers did not implement it. All the industries consulted, however, claim that lowering VAT has positive economic effects that are by no means insignificant. In this way, the number of wage earners working in the housing maintenance sector has increased in France by 8.6% in two years. This is why we need to continue down this route. As draftsman, I can only welcome the Commission text and, in particular, Annex H, extending Annex K to some services, such as catering. Since each Member State freely chooses to apply a reduced rate in a category appearing in Annex H, all sectors that benefited from the experiment must not now be excluded from the scope of the directive. This is why I voted in favour of the amendments by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Furthermore, Amendments Nos 22 and 23 that I tabled with Astrid Lulling for the part-session are extremely important; indeed they allow for the experiment to be extended until the current changes to the directive come into force, which is absolutely necessary in order to avoid disastrous consequences in terms of jobs.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioners, I should first like to mention the proposal on cooperation between consumer authorities, which is extremely welcome, and I think that the rapporteur has done an exceedingly good job. It is both astonishing and depressing how much energy some Members have put into attempts to water this proposal down. I cannot conceive of a situation in which everyone but the consumer has rights in the internal market. That has been truly depressing, but I welcome this proposal, and hope that a large majority in Parliament will support the compromise proposal drawn up by Mrs Gebhardt. On the subject of Mr Wuermeling’s report on credit for consumers, I must say that I welcome the fact that we are having the debate today and that we have managed to make a good deal of progress. As previous speakers have said, improvements are needed, however, because otherwise there is a risk of the directives diluting the rights that consumers already have. Earlier on, a speaker mentioned the actual annual percentage rate of charge, and in this case, too, the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party and I should like to see a broader definition. The right to earlier repayment must also be improved. I do not think that the rapporteur’s compromise proposal goes far enough in this respect. As I often do in these debates, I should just like to mention the right to number portability in the telecommunications sector, which has given consumers important rights. In my home country, costs have fallen by 7% over the past year, and I think that the right to repayment has been a significant contributory factor. I also think that better information on credit cards is needed, and that the exclusions in some amendments are not really desirable. Finally, in my opinion, joint and several liability is really needed in order to develop the internal market and afford consumers protection when new products are placed on the market. I should also like to mention here something that happened in my home country. A new low-cost company went bankrupt, and only those consumers who had paid by credit card had any kind of protection. This also goes to show that this aspect is necessary for consumers when markets are developed.

Political group: ELDR
I hope, understanding as I do your answer, Mr President, that I have the good fortune to appear higher on the list the next time you are in the Chair for Question Time.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Minister, in its resolution, the European Parliament, for example, has asked that the Galileo programme should be used for military purposes. That is not what I want to see but it is the will of the European Parliament. As there are funding problems with the Galileo project and it would seem that there is insufficient Community funding available to realise the entire project, I would like to ask whether it is possible that funding will come from individual Member States with the purpose of using this satellite system for military reconnaissance as well. The European Union is developing a defence and security policy dimension which the creation of reconnaissance systems would be associated with.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The fight against the ever-increasing hole in the ozone layer is of major concern to the people of Europe and the world. The studies provide enlightening reading. For example, ozone has decreased by 6-10% in 20 years. In 1996, the hole covered an area of 20 million km2 for over 40 days and a record depletion of 46% in the ozone layer over Scandinavia, Greenland and Siberia was recorded. Yet recent studies show that the efforts made to combat greenhouse gases are far from adequate. There is no point in compiling figures: these issues are crucial and our health and long-term survival are at stake. Is there any need to highlight the increasing frequency of cancer and the acute immune disorders caused by this depletion of the ozone layer? This is why we unreservedly support this proposal which sets deadlines for eliminating a range of toxic substances. To be effective, these measures must deal with two concerns. Firstly, they must be justified in the eyes of the people. This means that the changes which will occur in our daily life with regard to HCFCs, CFCs and halons must be correctly explained. We must tell people why and how the EU has come to legislate in this very technical area. Secondly, we must respect the capacities of our enterprises to adapt. In the main, these have incorporated the environmental dimension into their product development policies. However, we must pay specific attention to the small and medium-sized enterprises which, due to their smaller size, sometimes have fewer opportunities or facilities than others for diversifying. With this regulation, enterprises are being confronted by new challenges which they must meet successfully and dynamically. - Aparicio Sánchez report (A5-0075/1999)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur, but I also wish to make a couple of observations. It is a matter of concern for us all that mandatory targets have not been agreed upon, but the various UN conventions provide a model here. I am thinking of Rio, where as a correspondent I was able to follow things in detail and see how from little acorns great oaks can grow. Much as there is to criticise in the basic structure of Europe's institutions, by means of this twin-track approach we have given the Commission a chance to take the initiative and subsequently propose mandatory targets. As she is present, I would like to take the precaution of calling now on the Commissioner to do that. It is also possible to learn something from successful systems. Spain, Germany and Austria have arrangements and means of handling renewables that others could also adopt. This is not to say that the world should simply adopt the German approach, but rather simply save unnecessary additional expenditure which subsequently leads to excuses that it was not possible to reach the targets. When the rapporteur says that proofs of origin will guarantee transparency, that fits in very well with my repeated demand that the European institutions should set an example by being completely transparent for the benefit of the public.

Political group: PSE