GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market first and foremost studied the comitology procedure. This committee was of the opinion that it was preferable to include the annexes in the regulation and the directive so as to create clarity, and to safeguard public access to legislative documents. This appears all the more justified since the annexes contain a number of regulations which protect the end user. With regard to the gas directive, the great importance of effective and non-discriminatory access to natural gas production markets for all operators in the European energy industry should be underlined. By extending the principles of the internal energy market to countries which possess raw materials, producer countries can be developed and the internal market objectives met. The gradual and mutual harmonisation of legislation is crucial for the internal energy market to reach completion. A common minimum framework of standards must be available by means of which the regulatory bodies of the energy markets can be granted authority and given responsibility. In addition, I should like to underline that the sole purpose of gathering information on companies, both at Member State level and at Commission level, is solely to fulfil the tasks prescribed in this regulation and this directive. Since this information is partly confidential, restrictions on the distribution of the information obtained are urgently required. Finally, I should also like to draw your attention to the fact that the present directive amends a whole host of regulations in the existing directive, and it appears useful to me to seize this opportunity to publish a consolidated version.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, it is a great pity that Mr Barnier is not here himself, because the NUTS classification is not just a purely technical or statistical question, it is one of the most important political issues for our future cohesion policy. It is about whom will receive European funding in future, how much they will receive, and about who decides how it will be spent. These are pivotal issues for the future of the European Union and of the cohesion policy, and that is why this subject, which we are now discussing at the midnight hour, is more important than has been evident hitherto. The Commission has always adhered purely to statistical criteria for the classification of territorial units and has not taken such political issues into account. So there was ultimately always a tendency to distribute resources from the structural funds using a scattergun approach, rather than concentrating these resources in any efficient way on the regions in greatest need. Looking at the candidate countries, the Objective 1 areas have been extended to include high-income regions and centres such as Warsaw and Riga, and these regions receive just as much by way of funding as the poorest regions of the enlarged European Union, Latgale and Masuria. I am sure that cannot be right. This runs counter to a credible cohesion policy and I regard it as being totally absurd! That is why I would like to ask whether the same agency that grants the authority aid funding should also be the control agency. As I see it, the proposal before us does not adopt a bottom-up approach.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, since my group’s position in relation to this painful issue has been mentioned on many occasions, I would like to say that I believe that this has simply been a question of voting on the timeliness of the debate, because Parliament is united in its solidarity with and condolences for the families of the victims. My group is in favour, as are all the others I suppose, of this issue – which is already included in relation to maritime safety in the relevant committee of Parliament – being examined with the greatest possible urgency.

Political group: PSE
I thank the Commissioner for her substantiated reply. I must of course point out that we are talking about statistics for 2001 and living in 2003 and there is the added element of the numerous works for the Olympic Games and the dust floating above Athens against which no suitable measures have been taken. This being so, I should like to ask the Commissioner if there are any plans to investigate the question of worsening pollution as a result of this photochemical pollution and micro particles and the factor of the works for the Olympic Games, which are being carried out without suitable measures being taken to protect citizens’ health.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to take the opportunity to congratulate the rapporteurs on the substantive, good work that they have done. The rail package makes a contribution to the liberalisation and modernisation of rail transport in Europe, even though work on this is not yet finished. New EU rules provide the railway sector with a new framework. Nevertheless, this sector needs to develop its own economic strength if it is to contribute to solving Europe’s traffic and transport problems. If it does not, other modes of transport will finish the job. The railways can still learn a good deal from them. First of all, I should like to express my opinion on the report by Mr Jarzembowski about the development of the rail network. In so doing I should like to thank him personally once more for his work as a rapporteur. He deserves praise for striving for the complete liberalisation of freight transport by 2006. In view of the comparatively international nature of this mode of transport, it is a logical development that this market be opened up quickly. As regards the European railway sector, there is still no genuine internal market in spite of efforts in the context of the common transport policy. The railways directive has not led to a complete opening-up of the market. The railways are still unable to compete with road, water and air transport in many cases. The amendment of the Directive on the development of the Community’s railways would, in my view, contribute to a positive development in this regard. In addition, there must above all be a change in attitude in the sector itself, too. The present rail package holds out the possibility of a genuine European rail transport market. For example, granting what are known as ‘authorised applicants’ (consignors and forwarders) the right to use the services of the railways is a step in the right direction towards a more efficient use of the infrastructure. The recent reports of forthcoming cooperation between the German, French and Italian operators of high-speed trains on the construction of train units are a signal that European cooperation is getting up steam; and now on electricity, too. The momentum currently existing with regard to the rail package is not unconditional, however. The European Council makes a more definite distinction than the European Parliament here between the liberalisation of freight transport on the one hand, and the liberalisation of passenger transport on the other. In my opinion, the liberalisation of freight transport is more important than that of passenger transport at this time. The liberalisation of freight transport must not fall victim to fighting between Parliament and Council on this matter. It is of the utmost importance that we have a complete rail package by the end of the year. I also hold the report by Mr Sterckx in high regard. Maintaining high safety standards, whilst preventing the protection of abuses on our own market, is a good combination of priorities. I also agree with the reports by Mrs Ainardi and Mr Savary.

Political group: PPE-DE
I welcome the fact that the conciliation procedure on the proposal for a regulation on the financial instrument for the third stage of the LIFE Programme (2000-2004) has been completed, thus allowing further projects to be financed under the new programme in the second half of this year. I also welcome the fact that the amendments relating to the objectives of the programme have been approved, as has the compromise proposal for a new programme. Nevertheless, given that LIFE is the only instrument for directly promoting the European Union’s environmental policy, and has achieved substantial results, it is bound to be a matter for regret that the reference budget for LIFE-III has been set at EUR 640 million, that is only EUR 27 million more than in the common position of the Commission and the Council. This is a long way from the EUR 850 million proposed by the European Parliament at first and second reading.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Every year in the EU, some five million people have accidents at work, leading to absences of more than three days, and this amounts to 146 million working days lost. Some of these accidents have lasting consequences and affect both the victim’s ability to work and his or her life outside work. I therefore welcome Mr Perez Alvarez’s report, which illustrates the importance of adopting this directive aimed at raising health and safety standards. In spite of the introduction, in the Council common position, of amendments approved at first reading by Parliament, certain elements still need to be strengthened: - preventive measures must be established to reduce risk. Employers must determine and assess risks and inform the workers of these risks. The participation, consultation and training of workers must also be encouraged. - where exposure above the limit values is detected, workers must have the right to a medical examination and to access their health records. Should workers’ health be adversely affected as a result of such exposure, the employer must take steps to reassess the risks. - this directive must provide dissuasive sanctions to be applied by the Member States in the event of infringement of national legislation. In order to make Europe a better place in which to work, this directive must be adopted without delay.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to unreservedly congratulate those concerned on the preparation of the summit by the Spanish Presidency and by the team of Prime Minister Aznar, the President-in-Office of the Council. As far as the outcome of the summit is concerned, I would like to carry on where our group chairman left off and refer to the double standards employed in writing up the outcome. Was the reality such that only words like 'welcome, request, reaffirm, expect' were appropriate? Would the Council not have greater credibility if it were to criticise and regret certain types of behaviour and make specific declarations, just as the President-in-Office of the Council has done here today? Those who block, delay and put on the brakes need to be named and shamed, instead of always reducing everything to the lowest common denominator and thus turning their backs on Europe's real needs. Just who does the Council consist of? Many of the forms of wording it adopts give the hypocritical and misleading impression that the participants in the summit have nothing to do with the European Council and the various specific ministers, although they are responsible for their behaviour. Yes, we need to give more support to small and medium-sized enterprises. That is why I welcome Paragraph 15, which is based on the European Parliament's decisions with regard to supporting SMEs. That is why I am calling on every Council to consider the Basle Committee negotiations, so that the Six and the Nine are brought together. Yes, we need more rapid implementation once directives have been adopted. That is why we are calling for a reduction in implementation times. We are calling for a greater role for Europe in terms of achieving the Lisbon targets and thus Europe's role on the world market. Yes, we need the action plan for financial services and stability. That is why I am calling on the Council at long last, after two years, to adopt a common position on pension reform. I am calling for criticism of the ECOFIN Council for undermining the Commission. Yes, we need more transparency. That is why we are calling for Council meetings to be open. Yes, we need to remove the barriers, blockades and restrictions. That is why we are criticising the fact that election dates in France and Germany, for example, and monopolies such as EdF's have undermined the European objective of liberalising energy markets and the decision taken by Parliament.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I completely agree with the definition that you gave of the mandate given to the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, a very specific and limited mandate. It is simply a question of inserting the interinstitutional agreement into our Rules of Procedure, and I therefore agree with what you said about the nature of the report.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am informed that on 29 December 2003, at approximately 2 a.m., the Casal Jaume I Cultural Centre in Russafa, a district of Valencia, was attacked by persons unknown. All Casal Jaume I centres are members of the Acció Cultural del País Valencià association, whose goals are to study, support and promote the cultural heritage of Valencia. Acció Cultural has more than 9 000 members. Many young people are also members of Casal Jaume I centres. The following day a press conference was held in the centre and the reporters could see the damage for themselves. The Secretary-General of Acció Cultural referred to 21 attacks since July 2001 on the Casal Jaume I centres in Valencia and the nearby towns of Llíria, Carlet, Sueca and Vila-Real. Even the headquarters of the Bloc Nacionalista Valencià party has been attacked. In Valencia, there is continuing violence against parties and associations promoting and supporting cultural heritage and progressive values. All those attacks have been reported to the police. Violence is now on the increase; some people have been threatened, others attacked. To date, the response of the government has been inadequate.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I was distracted by Mr Knolle, but I will spare you the details of what he wanted to tell me. Those who were in the Chamber just now know what I mean. If I remember correctly, Mr Deprez wanted his report to be postponed. Now I do not know why I have been given the floor first. As rapporteur, he has in fact not yet told us why he is requesting this postponement. That is why it would be only fair for you to give him the floor first. Afterwards I will give my opinion and that of my group on this.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, I have listened to you with the utmost respect, but there is another question I wish to put to you: why did the Commission, in the EC-Romania Association Council meeting, oppose that Council asking the Romanian authorities to pass this legislation, which they promised for the end of last year, as rapidly as possible? We have had a moratorium in place since June 2001 and the Romanian Government has formally declared that this legislation would be ready by the end of last year. According to my information, however, although it has been approved by the Council of Ministers, it has not been submitted to Parliament and is still floating around, no one knows exactly where. I am surprised that the Commission, whose intentions the Commissioner has expressed very clearly, is not attempting to kick-start this process. I fully agree that the priority must be the children’s welfare, but this will not improve by holding up legislation that will enable international adoptions to take place. The way to improve their welfare is to push ahead, as quickly as possible, with this legislation, and not to leave these children in the orphanages until that happens.

Political group: PPE-DE
The Commissioner is right in saying that the decision makers should ideally understand what they are talking about. That is something on which we completely agree. I am also pleased that you indicated the timetable for publication of the standard. If, however, we look at developments in Europe and at the almost daily contributions to Finnish newspapers too, there is a prevailing uncertainty – even in Finland, as one of the countries to have signed a memorandum of understanding – as to whether the same standard will be used by cable, satellite and terrestrial operators. The question, therefore, is: Does the Commissioner think that 2004 is adequate as a deadline? In fact, we are in something of a ‘chicken and egg’ situation where developments within digital TV are concerned. May I ask the Commissioner if the issue of digital TV is in some way to be touched upon again before Seville?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I think we can congratulate ourselves on having brought a question before this House today which has been pending for far too long. It is impossible not to be surprised at this inability to resolve a precarious situation which affects the parliamentary assistants, people who assist us on a daily basis, whilst we are competent to legislate on certain aspects of the conditions of life and work of all the citizens of the fifteen Member States? It is in fact a question of finding solutions to crucial and fundamental issues concerning social protection, the employment statute, occupational accidents and all the issues of social cover with which we are so familiar, so that we can deal with them in relation to all the workers in the fifteen Member States. It is also a question of making an effort to clarify the definition of their working conditions, which, I admit, are rather the preserve of internal meetings. This issue has been raised over a very long period of time by our group and, as we have just been reminded, by other groups as well. During the previous legislative period of the European Parliament, proposals to formalise the statute came up against the reluctance of the Council to turn assistants into officials and to include the tax dimension of the problem in the equation. I think that today, however, we should be clear about what our objectives are. These demands are now no longer written in this way in the agenda. It is clear that we do not want to turn our assistants into Community officials, just as it would be out of place to want to link the issue of the assistants’ statute to that of Members of Parliament. Why, as was expressed so well by Mr Rocard, do you vie with each other to complicate an issue where the stakes are so clear and so legitimate, and which may find solutions in procedures that are perfectly ordinary, accessible and simple? The real issue today is to see how the Commission is going to follow up the work, which it asked an expert to carry out on this matter. It is true that the recent developments introduced by the Bureau of the European Parliament – the provision of contracts in the prescribed form and documents testifying to membership of a social security system and of an occupation accident insurance scheme – are good decisions, but the matter does not end there. It would be extremely important, for instance, to be able to check the information which is gathered. However, the proposal put forward to regard our assistants as genuine cross-border workers so that they can consequently have recourse to Regulation No 1408/71, to which we just have to add a subparagraph in order to cover them, seems entirely appropriate. Commissioner, our assistants expect the Commission to take the initiative. The Belgian Presidency would be doing itself credit by bringing this affair to a successful conclusion. However, Commissioner, you have just told us that proposals will be forthcoming before the summer. Thank you. We look forward to them. We thank you above all on behalf of all the assistants who work in this House. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I was on the flight concerned yesterday. It took me 12 hours to get to Strasbourg. What is more, I also had problems obtaining a seat at all on a flight to Strasbourg. It is quite unacceptable for MEPs to have to spend time which should be devoted to political work or to their electorate at home on wondering how they will manage to get to their place of work and also on working out where they are going to spend the night. MEPs who are not so lucky as to win the lottery here in Strasbourg and to have permanent hotel rooms have, on each occasion, to ponder such matters as where they are going to sleep and how they are going to get a room at their hotel in town. We need some orderly arrangements if this Parliament is to continue. I address you as a Frenchman – even though I appreciate that your nationality has nothing to do with your role as President – for the EU has a French Presidency now, of course, and, as far as I know, it is in France’s interests for the Parliament to remain in Strasbourg. I would request that the President of France be informed of the impossible working conditions to which we are exposed because Parliament meets in Strasbourg.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, Commissioner, it is, I believe, beyond dispute that public health and food safety are matters of importance to all of us, producers every bit as much as consumers. Preventative consumer protection is on everybody's lips, but my understanding of these things leads me to believe that our role as politicians is not to give additional impetus to the emotional discussions that are still being carried on about the ongoing handling of the BSE crisis. For my part, I do not want to help discussion of matters concerning BSE to slavishly follow the spirit of the age. In view of current events in Germany, I favour the strictest controls right along the food production chain. We also, of course, need the toughest sanctions when offences are committed. In the meantime, I advocate testing for BSE from 24 months. Now, when can we actually expect science to come up with definite findings on how individual animals get the disease? I think that when that does come to light, we could say goodbye in no time to the idea of killing off all our livestock. Until then, going down the road of mass slaughter is only one alternative. The feeding of omnivores with meat and bone meal will no doubt continue to be prohibited, at that for a variety of reasons. We will certainly maintain the current ban on feeding with animal meals for as long as the open declaration of feedingstuffs is not made mandatory and for as long as the processing of offal from healthy animals cannot be carried out with any guarantee of safety. I will mention, though, the formulation used in Mr Olsson's report. He, too, says ‘for the foreseeable future’. ‘For the foreseeable future’ means, for me, that the future may perhaps find us back on a better road ahead. Let me conclude by saying that it is easy for us to explain to any critically-minded consumer that healthy meat on healthy bone is part of good diet. Processed healthy bone in animal meal is, though, apparently a danger to the omnivore. Just try making sense of that. We could take numerous other examples to illustrate this state of affairs. I take the view that we, bearing as we do political responsibility, have to get back to discussing things in a more matter-of-fact way.

Political group: PPE-DE