Datasets:
ArrcttacsrjksX
/
LLM

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
1
text
stringlengths
0
2.68k
The action we have taken to prevent this problem is based on three main approaches: firstly, to simplify and accelerate the administrative procedures governing infringements; secondly, measures to train national judges so that they apply Community law more frequently and more accurately; and, thirdly, the forthcoming adoption by the Commission of an appropriate programme, called the Schuman programme.
But as I said a few moments ago, I do not know whether the current institutional framework is sufficient to secure enforcement commensurate with the expectations of the single market.
It has been pointed out that in the area of competition and state aids, enforcement is extremely effective and, of course, I too take that view. I am the first to admit that in the area of the single market it is less effective, even though I have described the measures that we are taking.
And why is this so?
Because, while in the case of competition and state aids the Commission is alerted of any breach of the rules and is able to act before the damage has been done - I am to some extent simplifying matters here, but the subject is familiar to you - when it comes to the single market all that it is able to do is to prosecute such violations, by opening infringement proceedings and, finally, referring the matter to the Court of Justice - but all of that takes time.
I therefore appreciated the references in the Secchi report to the possibility that, in the context of the Intergovernmental Conference, ways of securing more rapid enforcement will be studied and compared.
In other words, we are doing all that we can - and we can certainly do better - but, in the current institutional framework, it is not, unfortunately, possible to achieve enforcement as effective as it is in the case of competition and state aids.
The second major gap underlined in the report, and also by a number of honourable Members who have spoken during the debate, concerns taxation.
I very much welcome the fact that the House is taking a robust line on the distortions affecting the single market as a result of inadequate fiscal harmonization.
Here too, as in the case of enforcement, there are a number of things that can be done under the current system and others that require adjustments.
Within the current system, we are making a considerable effort to persuade the finance ministers that it is in the interests of the Member States themselves that there should be better coordination.
I welcome the amendments tabled by Mr Secchi to his own report and can say that, yesterday, the Ecofin Council gave a positive reception to the Commission reports on the development of the taxation system, referred to in the Secchi amendment, and brought that document to the attention of the Dublin European Council with particular reference to issues of fiscal competition and the need to complete the internal market in fiscal terms.
Moving on finally to the third gap - which I shall mention more briefly but not because it is any less important, and it is something that it is appropriate to discuss in the European Parliament - namely, the fact that the single market is not close enough to citizens.
You know how important this issue is to me and to the House.
We cannot expect citizens to lend their support to the continuing construction of Europe if have no clear picture of Europe or of the single market which, though they do not realize it, is working to their advantage.
The two main measures which the Commission, as you are aware, is taking, are: finally to secure the fourth - although it ought in fact to have been the first, as rightly criticized in the Secchi report - freedom of movement, that is to say the free movement of persons: a package of proposals to secure the dismantling of internal frontier controls within a security framework, and the Commission welcomes the fact that Parliament recently largely supported those proposals. Secondly, making available to citizens appropriate information on what the single market can do for them: I thinking specifically here of the 'Citizens First' information campaign - and in that connection I must thank the House for the support and encouragement it has given to that initiative.
The system that will be set in place on 29 November of this year and that will be important in making Europe's citizens aware of the rights that they have under the single market, how they can actually exercise those rights and where and how to protest when those rights are impeded.
I think that I can end there, although I realize - and apologize for this - that I have certainly not been able to deal with all the points in this very valuable report, covering a very important field.
I wish again to thank the rapporteur and all of those who have spoken, because what they have said provides the Commission with a genuine steer and valuable support.
These are all issues, moreover, on which cooperation with Parliament's Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Industrial Policy but also with the Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizen's Rights and the Committee on Civil Liberties and Internal Affairs has and will, I hope, enable us to make fairly rapid progress.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.
Question Time (Commission)
The next item is Question Time to the Commission (B4-1218/96)
Mr President, on a point of order.
Could you explain the urgency of INTERNET, nickelcadmium batteries and Europartenariat in Wales which makes you take those three questions first?
Mr Wijsenbeek, I cannot do so.
That is the prerogative of the presidency and it, in its wisdom, has decided that those are the only three matters of urgency.
As the author is not present, Question No 25 lapses.
Mr President, on a point of order.
I wonder whether I could take over Mr Collins' question, because I have an interest in this matter?
You cannot, I am afraid.
The only way you could have done so would have been if there had been a written application prior to starting Question Time.
I fully sympathize with your feelings and others who wanted to ask supplementaries on this very important matter. But, since Mr Collins has not turned up, there is nothing we can do about it.
Question No 26 by Ivar Virgin (H-0864/96)
Subject: Nickel-cadmium batteries
Cadmium, which is found in nickel-cadmium batteries, is a highly toxic heavy metal that accumulates in the liver and kidneys and may cause lung cancer.
In accordance with the substitution principle, environmentally harmful products are to be replaced by existing environment-friendly alternatives.
Nickel-metal hydrid batteries are a type of battery already used in Sweden.
Is the Commission planning to take action to speed up the changeover from nickel-cadmium batteries to nickel-metal hydrid batteries?
If so, will it propose that Member States avail themselves of economic instruments to ensure that such a changeover takes place?
Mr President, thank you for this question about what the question itself described as a 'highly toxic heavy metal' , and the health risk related to it.
There is an EC directive on batteries, namely directive 91/157, which lays down a limit for the content of heavy metals in batteries.
As this pertinent question indicates, care needs to be taken with the use of heavy metals in batteries.
I can report that the Commission is giving consideration to the need to accelerate the directive because, like the questioner, we are aware of the problems this issue raises.
The inquiries being carried out are also looking into the question of promoting the use of nickel-metal hybrid batteries.
It is still too early for me to report on the findings of these inquiries, but I would stress that the Commission is aware of the problem which the honourable Member has raised.
With regard to economic resources I would say that Member States have a free hand in their use within the framework of the Treaty, and I would refer you to Articles 30, 36 and 95.
As I said at the beginning, the Commission fully shares the questioner's concern, which is why we are engaged in inquiries into whether to make changes to the battery directive so that we can ensure that other Member States see a development along the lines of what the questioner has described as being the case in Sweden.
As things stand at the moment I am unable to say how we will achieve a limitation of the use of cadmium.
But I do take heart at the favourable results that are being achieved in Sweden.
Mr President, I should like to ask the Commissioner whether she regards the regulation of nickel-cadmium batteries as more important than the regulation of the Internet, in particular, control of child pornography which is currently accessible on the Internet.
Commissioner, do you want to answer that?
I think that was an unfair way of Mr Truscott getting his first question across.
To be honest, I believe the President answered that question a moment ago when a question was raised concerning procedure.
As is fitting for a member of the Commission, I have answered the question which Parliament asked, and it is Parliament which decides what is 'urgent' .
As the author is not present, Question No 27 lapses.
I am afraid the discipline of our Members is excruciating today. Mrs Cresson, I give you my full apologies.
Mr President, the Commission is well aware of the importance of the public health problem which diabetes represents, particularly in an ageing population such as the population of Europe today.
It is also entirely aware of the formidable progress, for people suffering from this disease, that the introduction of the therapeutic use of insulin represented when it was discovered 75 years ago.
It is not unaware of the positive spin-offs of research into diabetes in several fields or of the interest presented by this research in understanding and treating other chronic diseases.
Research into diabetes thus benefits from a great deal of attention in research programmes in the Union.
One thread of the Biomed research programme, of the fourth framework programme, is devoted to it explicitly.
Within this framework, nine research projects have been launched which cover both the epidemiological aspects and clinical research.
Furthermore, the genetic aspects of diabetes are studied in the part of the programme dedicated to research into the human genome, and, as you know, research into the human genome has recently made some important developments, and this is one of the success stories of European research.
Because of both its importance and its interest, research into diabetes is set to continue as the subject of sustained attention in the fifth framework programme of research and technological development which we are currently in the process of getting under way.
But the fight against diabetes also involves prevention.
The prevention of diabetes by the adaptation of one's lifestyle and diet in particular has been registered as one of the themes of the educational, training and health promotion activities which are carried out within the scope of the European Union's public health policy.
Since the financial resources made available for this policy are fairly limited, action for prevention remains modest in comparison with requirements.
It would therefore be very useful if we could sensitise Member States to the importance of a more sustained effort in this area.
I would like to thank in every instance the honourable Members who have drawn the attention of the Commission to this problem and I will certainly take account of these concerns in the preparation for the fifth framework programme of research.
Thank you very much for the answer, Mrs Cresson.
It is pleasing to hear that you are aware of the problem of diabetes.
I must, however, also add that there is very little about this in the various programmes, particularly in the fourth framework programme.
Perhaps we should still concentrate upon the fifth framework programme, on which we are now fully occupied. There is very little mention in it of diabetes and the budget allocations which are proposed are very small.
I would very much like to draw your attention to this, and for you to devote far more energy in promoting these questions, since diabetes demands so much.
If the Commission were to take this seriously, the costs of medical care could likewise be reduced in the future.
Mr Holm, you are absolutely right, except for the fact, as I have just said, that the fifth framework programme is only at the drawing board; some great presentations have been given but, as you know, the matter will require some extremely in-depth work and - it should be remembered - decisions relating to the priorities of framework programmes are still made by the unanimous vote of the Member States.