GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, just a quick word on the tanker accident off the Galician coast, which is another terrible and tragic accident of which we have certainly not heard the last. A few days ago, a representative of the Commission, speaking in Lisbon on the subject of EMSA, the European Maritime Safety Agency, addressed the concept of a European environmental coastguard. That is something we have been demanding for ten years, but without getting very far with it as yet. I also want to prevent the occurrence of anything like what recently happened in Germany. It was a year ago, in a similar situation, that we set up a maritime casualty taskforce that has still not yet become operational. It was stated in a weekend newspaper that three potential bases are being sought for it, the best of which will be chosen. I would have you know that the public take a critical view of this, to say the least, and I would simply ask that we should not allow ourselves such blunders, at least within the European framework.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, like other Members, I am delighted this evening to see how much progress has been made on the task of modernising Regulation No 1408/71 on social security, which obviously improves the position of EU nationals who have to travel across borders, essentially in the context of their work. This is something that we can be pleased about, even though I do share the reservations which other Members have expressed. This is a technical and complex issue. Dealing with it has required a great deal of time, and the task is not finished even now. We have just been reminded that the annexes are empty, and we still have some work ahead of us. However, I should like to thank, also on behalf of my colleague, first of all, the rapporteur, Mrs Lambert, for her perseverance and determination. I should also like to pay tribute to all those who have assisted with this work, whether in the Commission or in the Council. Although, overall, we can feel satisfied, we ought nonetheless to admit that margins for improvement are both possible and necessary on this subject. I should like to concentrate on the issue of the tools at our disposal for dealing with this matter. We need to go beyond the reservations and attitudes of those Member States who seek to preserve prerogatives which, in this context, look very much like protectionism. I hope that the coordination principle, which basically restricts and constrains us, and does not allow us to respond to the questions put by Members, will soon give way to real harmonisation on social protection, which is one of the essential components of the European social model. I am convinced, Madam President, that the demand expressed by European citizens for a real social Europe, which we shall all be hearing a lot about in the near future, requires significant institutional change. The progress which has been made is to be welcomed. It is considerable, but it is still modest in comparison with what is at stake. Finally, and above all, it must not be allowed to mask the existing disparity, which is to be condemned, between the very effective procedures which we have at our disposal with regard to economic matters, and the much weaker procedures which are used in the social sphere. Social convergence criteria are essential in order to deal correctly with the subject of social protection linked to mobility in Europe, a subject which, to the citizens of Europe, forms the basis of the credibility of European integration.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Committee on Industry considers that this is an extremely important issue and should be dealt with as a matter of great urgency. We all know the reasons why the situation affecting Montenegro is a complex one and we should not, for obvious reasons, delay this matter any further. I therefore propose producing a simplified report so that we can vote on urgent procedure.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this report focuses principally on public health and food safety. Feeding with infective animal meals or fats is still regarded as the principal trigger for BSE. It is irresponsible, in view of the experience we had of poor adherence to the ban on feeding ruminants with animal meal, to think at present in terms of lifting the general EU-wide ban on it. Moreover, consumers would find it incomprehensible. All animal meals still kept in stock, as well as feed containing them, must be destroyed without delay in order to prevent future cross-contamination of feedingstuffs. There is a particular and connected danger presented by the animal meals, some of them infective, still stored in other states. The smallest amounts of this material is sufficient to cause infections, and this is yet another reason not to lift the ban on feeding with it. Guaranteeing the safety of humans and animals most certainly and fundamentally presupposes a working and stringent system of controls in the Member States. I welcome the strict prescription of effective tests for BSE in all the Member States, and also the demand that the age for testing be reduced to 24 months. The Commission must also intervene in favour of the introduction of the open declaration of all feed ingredients in all nation states. Even before the Central and Eastern European states accede to the EU, they need to set up working systems alongside our own to oversee the safety of food and feedingstuffs. There is an especially urgent need for slaughterhouses to be reorganised so that the immediate removal and disposal of hazardous materials in accordance with European directives may be guaranteed. Imported food must be every bit as safe as that produced in the European Union, and so tests for BSE must now be made obligatory in countries outside the EU. The safety of food, including that which is imported, is a fundamental requirement for consumers who want to eat healthily. We must make it our concern.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to say to the Commissioner that this has gone on for far too long. I welcome the question, but what I would welcome even more is a promise of clear legislative action. In fact, as far as the Trading Standards Officers in my home city of Hull are concerned, this has been a running campaign against chicken cheats for over six years. That is long enough. During the last of those years I have had correspondence and contact on their behalf, both with our national authorities and with the Commissioner's bureau. Now, of course, recent publicity has highlighted the problem with chicken, but this deception is not confined to chicken – adulteration of other meats, particularly ham, is commonplace. This entire practice of adding water and, therefore, also other animal proteins to meats is misleading, deceptive and downright immoral in respect of its impact on some religious communities. Whilst labelling might be one possible improvement, my understanding, as other speakers have said, is that the best answer would be a ban on the adding of water above, say, 15%. I want to be able to go back to my home city – which is a large port through which much of this adulterated meat comes in – and tell our local authorities that they can now expect legislation to back up their long-running pursuit of this deceitful and harmful trade.

Political group: ELDR
Thirteenth and last explanation of vote, Madam President, by the Pensioners’ Party today, 30 November 2000, on this document relating to cooperation and development. I have voted in favour of this document, even though – and I say this loud and clear in this session of the European Parliament in Brussels – I believe that, now that we are spending European money to help the poor and less fortunate in developing countries, we should decide to appoint European ambassadors in these countries to supervise how this money is spent. This is absolutely essential!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, my home country, Sweden, will be holding a referendum on the euro this autumn. In spite of the fact that we are still not part of the eurozone, we are nonetheless actively attempting to fulfil the convergence criteria and to respect the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact. The Commission and the rapporteur, Mr Olle Schmidt, point out that, on two issues – the rate of exchange and legislation concerning the Swedish Central Bank – Sweden does not meet the requirements. I believe that it will be possible quickly to fulfil the requirements regarding these issues if the outcome of the referendum is a ‘yes’ vote. Our respect for these rules does not only have to do with the fact that they exist as external demands. Rather, it primarily has to do with the fact that we ourselves perceive that they are beneficial to the Swedish economy, which has also constantly been improving. At present, we have relatively low inflation and low unemployment, together with stable state finances. What is more, we have higher growth than many other countries. These are basically good rules. It would therefore be dangerous to begin to ignore these rules, together with budgetary discipline, as soon as some people have problems. That would undermine confidence in the euro and EMU. Notwithstanding the approach pursued by the Group of the European People’s Party in certain amendments, there are reasons for developing the rules of the pact in the long term. Allow me to mention a few examples, for instance concerning the matter of price stability. Clearly, we must stick to the inflation target, but, for example, the two per cent requirement could possibly be the average for an economic cycle, so that inflation could be one per cent in one year and three per cent in another. That is something that would favour growth and increase flexibility. The same applies to state finances. The Commission has put forward an interesting proposal whereby countries with low national debts should be given increased opportunities to provide loans for long-term investments. That is something I believe would be constructive. Allow me finally to say that, for both political and economic reasons, I hope that Sweden will soon be involved in cooperation concerning the euro. If we can strengthen and unify Europe in a situation in which the dollar’s and the United States’s dominance is so powerful and, at the same time, reduce the risk of new currency and interest crises, then I obviously think that the Swedes should vote in favour of the euro. I should like to express my thanks, especially to Mr Olle Schmidt who has produced a truly excellent report of which I shall vote in favour.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in Germany there is an old proverb which says that you have to suffer to be beautiful. With the new cosmetics directive, however, precisely the opposite is true: beauty, hygiene and well-being without risk. Three points are of particular importance to me: optimal consumer protection, a clear label and, as a general rule, the avoidance of animal testing. Optimal care must be combined with a maximum degree of consumer protection. We can only guarantee this optimal safety by having numerous scientific tests. Scientists are busily researching new test methods which deliver reliable research results and at the same time avoid the need for animals to suffer. It is our declared objective to bring to an end the era of animal testing. We need to support all scientific moves towards achieving this. In the future there must be no tests on animals for products and their constituents which have already been investigated once and for which reliable results are available. Nevertheless, consumer protection and product safety are our prime concern. That is why in exceptional cases, where there is no alternative, we need to allow animal testing until further notice, above all when the optimal protection of infants, children, the sick and older people is at stake, including with respect to shampoos and creams. That is why we have to permit the Member States to allow animal testing for cosmetics for two years longer than is currently laid down, provided that there is no alternative. In certain cases it is quite simply necessary to carry out tests on animals, in particular where acute skin and eye intolerances are concerned. It is also important for consumers to know which products can cause allergies. It would be detrimental to the market and discriminatory, however, to label all the cosmetic fragrances listed in Annex 2 for this reason. That is why the only products which should carry warnings are those which have also been previously identified as allergens by the Scientific Committee. It is very important for consumer safety that there should be a clear, visible indication of the maximum and minimum durability of the product after opening. The product label should also provide consumers with clear and easily understandable information about the correct way to administer the product. This is about consumer protection and safety with a minimum of animal testing while encouraging the use of alternative methods.

Political group: PPE-DE
I congratulate Mr Nobilia on his report. In line with the precautionary principle and with a view to protecting the environment, we must give a boost to setting biodegradability thresholds and to implementing new techniques for measuring the biodegradability of surfactants in detergents. Existing legislation does not fully meet these aims. I therefore welcome this new legislation since it: increases the number of surfactants that will be monitored and measured; it introduces a new technique for measuring biodegradability; it harmonises risk assessment systems and promotes a new labelling system. I do feel, however, that the directive lacks ambition with regard to limiting phosphates in detergents. - Report Kirkhope (A5-0104/2003)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first of all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent report. Quite clearly she has spent a lot of time on it and has brought a lot of problems to light. We can see the different problems quite clearly from different areas of the European Union. Each area has its own particular problem. We have to recognise that it will take time to achieve our ultimate goal. But there is no doubt that short sea shipping is something we must strive to achieve better than we have up to now. It is certainly sensible to ship more goods by sea rather than by road. It is more environmentally friendly, more acceptable in every way. But we have to ensure that we get the balance right. That is what the rapporteur has been striving for. One of the greatest problems will always be the cost factor. To be competitive ports have to be more efficient and for this they will certainly require more support. I support Mrs Attwooll's appeal for the A75. It recognises that we in Northern Ireland export goods across what is a very expensive stretch of water between Northern Ireland and Scotland. It is our main outlet for all we produce. From Scotland they trundle down to England. There certainly could be a more efficient and environmentally satisfactory way of doing that but there is no cheaper way. For our industry or agriculture to survive they have to be cost-effective. We had a very good ferry service set up between Ballycastle and the south of Scotland which was forced to close recently because of lack of support and bureaucracy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the debate which followed the presentation of this own-initiative report at last highlighted two concepts, one of which, unfortunately only too prevalent, involves favouring the commercialisation of all aspects of life and aiming to reduce supplementary health insurance to a mere project by placing it in the hands of economic operators and subjecting it to the rules of the internal market. According to this concept, the purpose of the market in profit-making supplementary health insurance schemes is to increasingly and crucially take on the role of supplementing the basic state systems. This view turns up its nose at the non-profit-making mutual insurance companies, which are vital players in supplementary health insurance in several Member States. The other viewpoint illustrated by the rapporteur’s initial statement and shared by a number of members is to promote regulations and codes of conduct which are needed in order to establish among insurers ways of organising costs on a mutual basis providing everybody with guaranteed access to high-quality care and to counter the risk of discriminatory practices developing together with risk and client selection. The report by Michel Rocard, which is being presented today as amended in committee, demonstrates the difficulty of overcoming these contradictions. The amendments we are proposing on behalf of the Group of the recommend that consideration should be given to the following points. Firstly, we have not, unlike some, resigned ourselves to the reduction in the relative share of public expenditure on health. Demographic trends, the effects of an ageing population and increased demand for medical treatment necessitate a public debate. It should be the citizens of the European Union who decide the outcome of this social debate and the volume of funds that must be allocated in order to guarantee the fundamental right to social protection. The increasing transfer of responsibilities from the basic systems to the supplementary health insurance systems is doubly disadvantageous in that it reduces the obligations of these systems, while at the same time weakening non-profit-making mutual insurance companies which reject risk selection. We propose that the report should include recognition of a right to health care for all, rather than simply the recognition of a basic service which is accessible to all. We also propose removing all risk of discrimination or risk selection which would, we believe, result from the legislation calling for medical examinations to be carried out before a supplementary health insurance contract is concluded as provided for in Paragraph 11b.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to confirm what Lord Inglewood said: the Group of the will vote against the second part of Amendment No 3 and against Amendment No 6. I believe that this would increase the coherence of the text. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Lord Inglewood on his excellent work. (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) President. – If I am correctly informed, this may now enable us to conclude this important procedure in one reading. This would represent a very substantial piece of political work. My congratulations to the rapporteur and all colleagues involved in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. *** Report (A5-0054/2002) by Elena Ornella Paciotti, on behalf of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on the regulations and general conditions for the performance of the duties of the European data protection supervisor (COM(2001) 411 – C5-0384/2001 – 2001/2150(ACI)) Before Amendment No 9:

Political group: PSE
Madam President, firstly I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on a very courageous report. This is going to be very painful for all fishermen, because it will mean that there will be many reductions in the catch and many job losses. She refers to that in her report. There are some measures there to help fishermen. One thing we can be sure of is that fish do not recognise any border or boundary. We must also recognise that this is a cod and hake report. I want to make sure that we urge all colleagues to vote for hake to be reintroduced to this report. Otherwise we will be sitting here in the not very distant future saying that the hake stocks have been reduced so dramatically that we need even more draconian measures in order to reinstate them. The rapporteur said that hake stocks have been reduced by 50% since 1980, so we must take measures to make sure that they improve. We also have to accept that when fish are swimming in the sea they do not separate themselves out neatly, so when you go out to fish one particular species you cannot always be sure that is the only species you catch. We have to take a wider look at all the conservation measures. We must in particular find a solution to discards of fish, tradable quotas when you come ashore or whatever it may be. There must be a way to stop discarding healthy fish, because the stocks are not there and we must make sure that they are built up again. We have only to look at what has happened in Canada to see that if you carry on fishing then there is going to be no fish for anybody. It is also wrong for one particular Member State to exert enormous political pressure to try and have hake removed from this report and then try to get more fish for itself. At the end of the day it does not matter what nationality we are. If there are no fish, there are no stocks and nobody will be able to fish. We have to be sure that these measures are put in place. I again congratulate the rapporteur and ask that we all vote for what was originally a cod and hake report – and make sure that we do have a cod and hake report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Commission's White Paper has the ambitious intention of comprehensively modernising EU law on materials and products. It is fundamentally right to unite, in legal terms, old and new materials and combine them with standardised registration and evaluation procedures for all materials over one tonne per annum in a strict time concept by 2012. This fundamental line taken by the White Paper strengthens sole responsibility for chemicals management in the industry and takes past experience with individual items of legislation as the basis for proposing a comprehensive reorientation. Parliament's Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has adopted this report by a large majority. The consequences of the White Paper's proposals for competitiveness, international trade, employment and medium-sized businesses had not previously been sufficiently examined, and further studies are still required. In addition, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy expressed the view that legislation should be made to apply not to the attributes of materials but only to actual, scientifically verifiable risks. Amounts are merely auxiliary quantities. What is crucial is the amount of risk involved. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy therefore demands a two-stage screening process. We expressly reject the following suggestions made by the rapporteur of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy: that sensitising substances be included in the approval procedure; that approval be granted only for a limited period; that the registration requirement should apply to all amounts under one tonne; that the public be given unrestricted access to all data; that there should be extensive prohibitions on materials; that extensive data and evaluations to be submitted by the industry should be subject to additional examination by peer review; and a number of other points. A massive extension of the approval procedure would run quite counter to our common goal of reducing animal experiments. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy therefore takes a rational line, as demanded by both trades unions and employers in the European chemical industry.

Political group: PPE-DE