GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would like to refer to my question which is now number 52 on the question paper, which I tabled within due time specifically addressed to Mr. Liikanen, on the subject of regulatory impact assessment. This is a subject which I know he is very capable to deal with, since I have participated in a number of seminars organised by his services. When I arrived in Strasbourg this week, I discovered that this question was not down for a reply by Mr Liikanen, and Parliament's services told me that it had been reclassified by the Commission – I understand, by President Prodi's services – as a general question, and that therefore it would not be covered. I have two points to make to the President. Firstly, I have discussed this with Mr. Liikanen and, if we have time to reach it this afternoon, he is certainly prepared to address the subject, if not necessarily the full scope of the question. The broader issue is, could we ask the Parliament's services – and I am not blaming them in any way because this is a Commission issue – to ensure that if a Member's question is reclassified in this way, and is not down for an answer by the Commissioner to whom it is redirected, we are told about that, so that it can be reformulated if necessary and the Commissioner to whom it is addressed can answer it. It does seem to me, Mr President, from the point of view of this Parliament, that it is perfectly possible for the Commission services in effect to deflect a question away from a Commissioner unilaterally, without the Member concerned having any knowledge of it. Perhaps you could address that, and take it up with the services, so that in future we may be given more knowledge about these instances. Can I ask you, if we have time, to allow Mr Liikanen to answer my question?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, like everyone else I welcome this report and I congratulate the rapporteur for his work. He has been thorough and consistent and has applied himself. We have moved a considerable step forward since this Directive was last considered for amendment in this House in Strasbourg in 1994 – I know because I was there. Events in Toulouse and in Enschede have demonstrated the need for action to amend and reinforce the existing Directive, so as to avoid any possibility of accidents and to minimise damage should an accident occur. A future directive on pipeline safety and a proposal with regard to tunnel safety will also be very welcome because they respond to promises made during the last reading in 1994 and also to events, some of them very tragic, that have occurred consequently in other parts of the Union. The common position is, in fact, quite a significant step forward but it does not deal with all the problems. There are still issues that remain unaddressed – issues that are quite clear and evident to us because of events that have taken place in the recent past. Everywhere else we have responded. We responded to Enschede and Toulouse with this Directive. We have responded with directives to events that have caused us to be concerned about tunnel safety and pipeline safety. We are going to miss the chance to respond properly and completely unless we amend this common position to cover other events that have taken place in recent times within and outside the Union. The events of Baia Mare in Romania and Doñana in Spain demonstrate the need to take action with regard to mining safety and mining waste safety. Until we see the mining waste directive we cannot relent on amendments that we have previously passed in this committee and in this Parliament to ensure that action is taken with regard to those dangerous substances and activities, not necessarily utilising dangerous substances that clearly need regulation. Put them in the mining waste directive, Commission, and we will relent on the amendments. That is a reasonable remark. Other issues have still to be addressed. In 1994 we argued very strongly the case to have some kind of discussions on distance. We still do not have a solution on that and that is why we maintain the amendments and insist they are placed in the common position. Finally, on safety reports and some of the technical issues, I would ask the Commission to think again. They are produced and directed at you in the light of our own experiences. Please act on them.

Political group: PSE
President, our hearts go out to the two radiation workers who were subjected to intense radiation poisoning and to the 300,000 people who were in terror as radiation levels skyrocketed. All over the world nuclear authorities insist that an accident like that in Japan could not happen anywhere else. Different processes will ensure that the chain reactions do not start. But in Britain, BNFL has recently admitted the falsifications of safety checks on MOX fuel while in Japan the authorities have found that the plant at Tokaimura was operating illegally for four years. The nuclear industry is clearly out of control. The PPE and refuse to acknowledge a link with the BNFL MOX shipments to Japan. Perhaps here we see the long arm of Mr Blair, but the falsification of such data is of concern to Europe. There is a link – MOX shipments to Japan are under EU safeguards controls. If both ends of the chain are operating illegally, we must not only halt all MOX shipments but we must also halt the production of MOX fuel. I have to say here today that we must also stop blaming workers, workers who are now under sentence of death for the illegal and criminal activities of the nuclear industry. We have been told time and time again that stringent controls are in place, that accidents cannot happen and that fail-safe systems are in place and then when anything happens, we are told it is the fault of the workers. This is not only injuring people but also adding insult to injury. It is time that the nuclear industry was shut down completely. That, of course, is our position. But is this latest accident the death rattle of the nuclear industry or must further nuclear terror happen before we close this monstrous industry down?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Thank you, Mr Prodi. From my accent I am sure you will not be surprised by my question. We in Britain have complied with the beef ban. The beef ban has been lifted and now the unilateral action of one Member State is undermining, certainly in Britain, the whole spirit of the European Union project. In my region, the West Midlands of Great Britain, there are farmers who have very little left to live on. Will you please act urgently to bring pressure to stop this unilateral beef ban by the French? (Applause)

Political group: PSE
I should first like to thank the Commission for the proposal for a regulation it has tabled and to thank Mr Sjöstedt very much for an outstanding report on the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol, which will place us in the best possible position to ensure global protection in connection with the movement of GMOs. I think it important that the developing countries in particular be protected against the harmful effects of what is often the aggressive marketing of GMOs, with their possible serious consequences for people’s health, especially if we wish to conserve biological diversity in the countries concerned. Certain points in the Commission’s proposal for a regulation are not perhaps entirely clear, but that is something I think is largely remedied by Mr Sjöstedt’s report and a number of the amendments tabled. In this context, I shall just highlight the essential features. First of all, I think it crucial that we help the developing countries develop the administrative capacity and expertise needed if they are not to be crushed by multinational companies with unlimited marketing resources available to them. Secondly, it is important for the precautionary principle to be established. In relation particularly to the developing countries, it is absolutely crucial that doubts about the harmful effects on biological diversity in the countries concerned should really be taken seriously, and it is also crucial that the legislation apply both to GMOs released into the environment and to genetically modified food and animal feed. Finally, I think that Mr Sjöstedt is right to emphasise, and table proposals about, the fact that it is not enough for exporters to give notice of movements of GMOs. There should be actual approval on the part of the authorities in the recipient countries, organised in such a way that the absence of a response from these authorities could not of course be interpreted as a tacit acceptance. I think that this should apply to all movements, and not only the first, since the recipient country should have the opportunity to monitor the spread of GMO products in its territory. It is also good that only products approved by the EU itself should be exported from the EU area. Finally, I would add that it is very important for the EU countries to apply tough and uniform sanctions so as to avoid a situation in which certain countries visibly get away, or almost get away, with disregarding the legislation while others do not. A state of affairs ought not to arise in which there is more incentive in some countries than in others to contravene the legislation on transboundary movement. I think that by adopting Mr Sjöstedt’s report and a number of the amendments tabled also on Mr Sjöstedt’s initiative, we shall see the Cartagena Protocol implemented fairly and consistently.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are dealing with a new document which forms part of the effort being made by the European Commission to reform and update Community competition law. Furthermore, this document is consistent with various other regulations and documents which this Parliament has declared itself in favour of. The distribution of automobiles has always had special treatment, a sectoral treatment, and, if pushed, I would say that this system may have made sense before, when there were different regulations for the different distribution systems, but perhaps it makes less sense now. The fact is, however, regardless of this, that the different regulations that have been in force in this sector have not managed to remove the obstacles in that market. The differences in prices in the different countries are still considerable, essentially as a result of the actions of manufacturers who are determined to maintain national borders and prevent cross-border trade. We only have to look at all the decisions the Commission has taken and consider the considerable fines and penalties imposed on manufacturers as a result of this anti-competitive behaviour to realise how true this claim is. The Commission is now presenting us with a new proposal for a Regulation which I believe takes us in the right direction. Some of the sectors involved tell us that they will go through hell if the Regulation is approved, and they forecast harmful consequences for the sector. I do not believe that this is true. However, I am sure that with the proposed measures manufacturers will be asked to maintain unjustifiably high prices as a result of anti-competitive actions. The essential point of the proposal is the disappearance of the location clause for the dealer, and that measure is a step in the right direction. It is true that it may affect the structure of the distribution market, and I can therefore agree to a transitional period. However, not to approve this measure until a study is carried out and a new decision adopted, let us not deceive ourselves, represents subterfuge by those people who do not want this measure to be approved. Not now, not ever.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I just wanted to clarify, for Mr Goebbels' benefit, that I am not raising an issue about individual Members pointing out problems in relation to just their machine or whatever. I am concerned about the possibility of a general failure of numerous machines and rules which would then call the decisions of the House into question. Let me also assure Mr Goebbels that I do not object to matters being decided by a majority of one. The British Labour Government was defeated by a majority of one in 1979 and I never objected to that. (The Minutes were approved)(1)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I am reminded in this context of the saying: they cannot see the wood for the trees. It is reasonable that this directive needs to be updated as a result of the accession of new Member States and the development of the single market and forest research. It is reasonable that EU labelling should be harmonised in order to facilitate trade within the EU and with the OECD. But the directive takes no account of the differing needs of the Member States. In the view of our specialists in Germany, in the view of the German forestry industry and the forest nursery industry, this new directive will have a lasting negative impact. Monitoring should be confined to forest undertakings and should not, as the report provides, apply to all undertakings, as these requirements would then affect undertakings which produce no forest reproductive material at all. The willingness of successive farmers to plant forests in my region is receding sharply. This increasing prevalent basic attitude is dictated by financial considerations. I would just like to say to the House that I know what I am talking about because the forest economy has longed played an important role in our own undertaking and I would like in this context to point out the life-threatening situation in the Germany forest nurseries. Given the change in forestry in my country towards natural regeneration, massive cutbacks in planting requirements and a lack of public funds, I feel that I really must draw the House’s attention to this. The monitoring system is now supposed to be up and running by 2003. Our experts tell me that they think this deadline is too short. The directive is unacceptable in this respect; it fails to take account of geographical and regional differences within the EU. In northern countries we have to cope with huge forest areas with a single registration number, so that the new regulation holds no problem whatsoever in store for these areas. I would like to more or less keep to my allotted time, but we should bear in mind during the overall debate that we must not only take account of the Nordic point of view and we must not only consider the enthusiasm of mountain lovers in Austria; we in the middle of the EU, and this includes Germany, set great store by open clauses, so that the whole system can remain truly practicable.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr Frattini, Commissioner Patten, I was one of those who, like Mr Morillon, warned of what could happen after such a war. I wish I had been wrong in my predictions, and take no pleasure in having been proved right. This is not about establishing who was right, who was to blame, or anything else of the sort, but about finding a way to resolve this situation. Most of us, I believe, take the view that an international solution is the only way out, but that requires international legitimacy, and that must first be established. It is because of the absence of such legitimacy in the past that the UN and the occupying powers must determine who does what, when, and where, and must clearly mark out their areas of responsibility. I agree with you entirely, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, that the Iraqis themselves must be involved at the earliest possible stage if, instead of concentrating on security and waiting until it is established, we consider as a whole the reconstruction measures that will be necessary – by which I mean the process of democratisation, the re-establishment of government, the creation of order, and of course the safety of all the people in Iraq, along with the rebuilding of infrastructure such as electricity, water, and roads, as well as hospitals and schools. The sooner the people of Iraq themselves take on responsibility for the rebuilding of their country – its political system and democracy, not forgetting of course the technological, social and cultural dimension – the sooner we can expect the situation to return to normal. If they are to do that, I believe, they will have to have a definite prospect of taking their destiny into their own hands in the very near future; that is why we have to set very tight deadlines in the expectation that a constituent assembly will be elected in Iraq, perhaps by the end of this year, giving the Iraqis a sense of working together with us on these matters. I think that if international legitimacy is established and the Iraqis are enabled to share responsibility for what happens to them, we in the European Union will be able, by means of common action, to make what is in fact an important contribution; today’s debate has shown that the great political and national differences of the past are no more, and that we all agree, in principle, on the same objective, that of seeing this country rebuilt.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Prodi, what matters most as far as the Group is concerned, is for the IGC to reach a successful conclusion. We believe this is crucial if we are to take a major step towards rapid enlargement of the European Union. Just imagine what the countries of Central and Eastern Europe are making of the events in Nice. Elections have just taken place in Romania, and we have been shocked at the outcome and the rise of a very extremist party. Elections are due to take place in Poland and Bulgaria early next year, and how are we to motivate the people of these countries if the European Union should prove unequal to the task of producing a sound treaty in Nice? The European Union needs some good news. A poor agreement would prove that our Heads of Government do not attach any priority to the enlargement of the European Union. How can we invest with a view to gaining broader support among EU citizens for further enlargement, if our own Heads of Government should prove unable to negotiate a sound treaty? But according to our heads of government, it is also a question of demonstrating that there is no adequate solution to the major issues confronting us in the European Union. BSE, security, foreign policy and defence, Europe’s competitiveness vis-à-vis the United States; it is no longer possible for any issues of this kind to be resolved at national level. It is therefore no way to tackle the fact that the decision-making process within the European Union is still akin to wading through treacle. Mr President, Europe needs leadership, clarity, choices and decisiveness. That is what the people actually want to see. In view of the extent to which public confidence has been undermined with regard to the euro, people need to see that we are taking steps forward. So I feel it is the weighty task of the French Presidency to at last whip up some enthusiasm for Nice. It is extremely sad that a situation has developed where large and small countries have come to take opposite sides. I feel it is a psychological error of the first order that such a huge amount of distrust has been generated. I would urge the French Presidency to do their utmost to overcome this divide, because it is extremely destructive. We believe the Commission’s role to be essential. The Commission is, and remains, the driving force, and if the Commission does not emerge from Nice in a stronger position then it will be a black day for Europe. So I think what we need to do is work more with the Commission and less at intergovernmental level. We will assess the outcome of Nice on the basis of whether it leads to enhanced effectiveness, and efficiency, greater democracy and transparency, and that is what is on the agenda.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first of all like to congratulate Mr Graça Moura warmly on his initiative in discussing the role of education in relation to culture and its dissemination, and, schooling, being compulsory across Europe, is a good instrument to bring culture, including common European culture, to citizens of the future. Education can play a significant role in this and make the parents, and with them the children, aware of what culture has to offer. Europe is not only an economic project but also, above all, a cultural project; what unites us is culture and cultural diversity. Moreover, I think that it is in the interest of enlargement that the different perspectives of culture are discussed; the accession countries have a different view of our history, and there is still a long road ahead of us before we can all acknowledge and recognise what we have in common. I would like to point out, though, that education is, of course, a matter of national concern. We in Europe may be able to make recommendations and provide information about European culture, but it simply is not up to the EU to do as some of us are proposing and force the Member States to include this information in their curricula. My group will certainly distance itself from that. I do share Mr Graça Moura's view that the emphasis within education should not only lie on the academic subjects, but that due consideration should also be given to creative subjects. In that respect, I should like to stand up for music education, including classical music and opera. Both boast a long tradition in Europe, but are more or less disregarded in schools. In addition, access to culture is important. Children who grow up in families where little is done about culture have difficulties. Ideally, parents should adopt the role of guides, but schools can also play an important role in this. I should therefore like to point out that schools should involve the parents. In that way, education in creative subjects can receive additional support, and far more interest in culture be generated.

Political group: ELDR