GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the telecommunications package is about to achieve its first goal. Passions in one way or another will give rise yet to a colourful debate. The rapporteurs, Mr Brunetta, Mrs Niebler, and Mr Paasilinna, in particular, as well as Mr van Velzen, have all worked very hard indeed to create compromises, and I would like to say a special thank you to them. The definition of a dominant market position has been the main area of special attention. The balance now achieved will be a clear message to the Council, which it will also then have to take account of. The Commission at one stage was going to walk all over the national supervisory authorities, but that did not happen. Owing to cultural differences the national regulatory authorities must be given some leeway and they must have their role strengthened. The Commission is above the NRAs, and its role must be to monitor the adherence to rules common to all. We must be able to intervene in roaming charges that are currently distorting competition. A written question of mine last year was connected with the hampering effect these roaming charges have on competition. The workings of an open internal market must be respected. There must be further wide-ranging discussion with regard to the position of virtual operators. We have to consider upon what terms and conditions a virtual operator can work in the network, to permit free competition and to guarantee a benefit to consumers, though, on the other hand, the rights of network ownership should be protected. We are in a bipartite situation and we are hardly going to find a solution to it right away.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, yesterday, on behalf of our group, I talked about capital punishment, and I also said that, in our view, there is a clash between Europe’s system of values and that which is currently being adhered to in America in this connection. I also stated that this is of major importance, especially in the light of Mr Bush’s visit to Europe this week. These two elements, the clash between the two value systems, and the position of President Bush and his visit to Europe this week, are not mentioned in the Minutes in this connection. I would like to see these included.

Political group: PSE
Neither the age of a plant nor its location, nor indeed the state-of-the-art design are any guarantee of Y2K date compliance. I would not like to be in this building at midnight on 31 December – a mere 43 days from now. Lifts, fire alarms – what would work, if anything? There is a serious point to my jesting. We only have to think about it. This is a modern state-of-the-art multi-million plant. In Ireland successive governments have expressed their concern to UK governments concerning the accident rate at the BNFL institutions, particularly the accident rate at Sellafield on the UK's least-populated west coast, only a few miles across from our most populated east coast. You may laugh, Mr President, but I am serious. It is not a major credible accident I have in mind and I do not mean to be alarmist. But I have to put on record my lack of confidence in the British nuclear industry's safety record. As a sovereign, non-nuclear nation, we in Ireland have a right to self-determination in terms of our people's health and environment. Consultation and communication between our two countries over the years regarding the British nuclear programme have not been good. A certain high-handed arrogance has been apparent despite public relations by Sellafield in recent years. I conclude by saying that all nuclear nations need to state clearly and honestly their programmes for Y2K date compliance, to assure their own and neighbouring nations of their readiness. Even at this late stage it is better we know the problems than adopt a head-in-the-sand approach.

Political group: PPE-DE
British Conservative MEPs have been actively engaged in raising concerns relating to Eurostat, and have played a major role in highlighting the issue to the wider public. We do not believe that the Commission has accepted political responsibility for the failures that have become clear from this affair. We believe the Commission has been given a clear message by the motion for a resolution on Eurostat adopted on 22 April 2004 which: - stated that the Commission had failed to draw the appropriate conclusions from the Eurostat affair, and that it had failed to accept its political responsibility either collectively or individually; - made clear Parliament's intention to continue to monitor and scrutinise future developments in the ongoing Eurostat investigations and potential legal actions, with a view to proposing further reforms. Since the motion of censure was originally devised, the responsible Commissioner Pedro Solbes has resigned and returned to Spanish politics. In these circumstances, we do not believe that it would be appropriate for the whole Commission to be dismissed at this time, but we urge the Commission to take note of the serious concerns expressed and urgently address the issues as laid out in the resolution adopted by Parliament.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur and the committee on their excellent work. This is an important measure which, at last, defines precise targets for increasing the share of electricity produced from renewable energy sources, laying down precise time-frames. It does not matter if these time-frames span several years; what is important is that we have precise targets against which to measure our progress. We must be aware, however, that a lot of work will be required to reach these targets and that it will be necessary to follow this measure with sufficient investment in research. Finally, I would also like to express my support for the joint text, and I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Rothe, in this regard too for her balanced and competent approach to the disputed issue of the incineration of urban waste. I too would have preferred the text prepared by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, but I feel that the compromise reached with the Council is adequate and should be supported.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Secretary-General of the Council, the Council is without doubt the institution most in need of reform. There is much that is no longer acceptable, be it the complicated structures and sub-structures which have got completely out of hand or the lack of coordination of Council work by the General Affairs Council. Blurred structures, overly complicated decision-making processes and, above all, a lack of transparency and openness are the reasons why much is beyond our citizens' comprehension, when they even know about it, that is. Ask anyone you like to tell you the difference between the European Council and the Council of Europe. We know that European regulations cannot be passed unless the governments agree in the Council of Ministers, but still one of their favourite games is to tell the public that 'Brussels' is to blame or to attack the Commission simply because it goes down well with the voters at home. Unfortunately, my government has gained a rather dubious reputation here recently, which is why we need really radical reforms, reforms which stop ministers from hiding from their responsibility for European decisions behind 'Brussels'. So how should we proceed? We need clear regulations so that national parliaments can exert a democratic influence on, and democratic control of, what their governments do in Europe. Secondly, we need a Council that meets in public when it is legislating, with television cameras to relay debates and votes and allow the public to follow the decision-making process. And thirdly – and I agree with Mr Poettering here – we need to create a European Affairs Council which takes account of the progressive drive towards European integration, because European policy is no longer foreign policy in the traditional sense, it is actually European domestic policy. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, thank you for giving me the floor. I would like to inform and at the same time reassure the Members who have just spoken on this important and serious matter. I should like to point out to them that the College of Quaestors has acted in accordance with the precautionary principle. In fact, if the College of Quaestors had not ordered an air quality check in these buildings, the problem would not even have been mentioned today in plenary. This check has therefore been carried out and, as you know, it proved negative on two points. We took the necessary steps immediately, namely closing the buildings where the problems were observed. After technical changes had been made, we carried out a second air quality check, the results of which are available for asbestos. The second check did not reveal any more asbestos fibres, suggesting that they had been brought in from outside, or could well have been. We are quite certain that asbestos was not used to construct the building. Furthermore, a second check has been carried out for the ducts contaminated with legionella bacteria, but the results of this are not available yet for purely technical reasons, as well as biological reasons, because the cultures take about a fortnight to mature. At any rate, the results of this second check will be available by the start of the next part-session in Strasbourg, and rest assured, ladies and gentlemen, that if they should be positive, i.e. if these pathogenic elements are found to be still present, then the College of Quaestors will advise the Bureau and the Conference of Presidents to take the necessary action. There is therefore no cause for alarm at present. We shall wait for the results of these checks and we shall take the necessary steps in accordance with the precautionary principle.

Political group: PSE
Just for confirmation, according to the final draft agenda, the vote is not tomorrow as Mr Méndez de Vigo implied, but on Wednesday. It has been changed back to tomorrow? Right, we need Amendment No 24 very quickly then.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, hand on heart, fellow members of the European institutions: do you really believe that European competition law, specifications for the height of tractor seats or directives liberalising the electricity market make hearts leap at the thought of European integration? Surely we need something else the people in our Member States can identify with. Cultural exchanges and cultural life can bring about a plethora of positive results, far more than a disputed regulation can. The cultural heritage and cultural diversity of Europe should have been mainstreamed in Community policy since the Maastricht Treaty, ever since the word culture appeared in the Treaties. So much for the theory. In practice, the Member States jealously guard their national and regional cultural sovereignty. The Council insists on the principle of unanimity on cultural affairs, tiresome conciliation procedures are the order of the day and low-level agreements and infuriating delays the consequence – witness Culture 2000. The budget is and always has been derisory. At 0.04% all in, cultural expenditure represents a sliver rather than a slice of the European budget. It is soul-destroying for artists to know that there is a 90% probability of their application being rejected – however convincing their idea – because fewer than 10% of applications stand a chance of being rubberstamped. And it is not much fun for us Members of the European Parliament to keep dashing hopes as we turn down applicants by the dozen. No one wants to rob the Member States of their authority but a bit more openness would not go amiss. Unfortunately, it is not even to be found in the practical implementation of Culture 2000. As we have already said, crippling bureaucracy and delays with payments, which are ruinous for organisers, make life unnecessarily difficult for applicants, to mention just two of the criticisms. In the final analysis, what we also lack is a consistent material concept which answers the question: exactly what is the purpose of the aid? To stage major events to reach as many people as possible in one go? Or to give as many artists as possible the opportunity to work in other countries? Mainstream culture has a much easier time of it. But the way to people's hearts is to support less established artists, networks and private initiatives. That is what creates European added value. The European Union is the most powerful economic area in the world. We gladly brag about that with undisguised pride. But the European Union is also a cultural area of immeasurable diversity. We should be making broad strokes, not fiddling about at the edges, and not just with Culture 2000. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, financial conglomerates can give rise to whole new combinations of risks, and that is something to which we must of course respond. A number of European countries, such as Great Britain and Sweden, have overall financial supervision and have already had good experience of how it works. Overall financial supervision makes it possible to deal with the same risks in the same way. That represents progress towards greater competition neutrality on the financial markets. Supervision of this kind also continues to guarantee that consumers and workers are better protected when such conglomerates collapse. Across the world, the financial markets have moved closer together. This became clear when it was via the financial markets that the American economic downturn was transported to Europe faster and with greater force than even the experts had reckoned with. What is true of economic downturns is also true of crises in the financial markets: neither is now a merely regional problem. Supervision of financial conglomerates has as its objective greater stability on the international financial and capital markets. It must, however, be borne in mind that cannot be achieved only by means of a regulation covering only the territory of the European Union. I do think that the directive will lead to discussion in the Member States as to what the ‘right way of implementation’ is, as, on many points, it makes no provision for specific rules, allowing instead wide-ranging discretion for the national supervisory authorities. It is positively dangerous for a directive primarily intended to apply to conglomerates that operate internationally to be transposed into national law in different ways from one state to another. This will involve national law on supervision imposing responsibilities on conglomerates or removing them from them, and this will affect competitiveness to a high degree. Finally, I would like to express my concern that, by sorting out questions of detail, the Supervisory Authorities' Committee will end up leaving a decisive mark on the substance of the law on supervision, and that this means that what Parliament wants becomes less important.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, President of the Commission, I agree totally with the previous speaker that acidification, eutrophication and the increase in ozone levels in the soil are problems we have to effectively address throughout Europe. Effective national emission limits must therefore be set for the main pollutants. After some long and hard negotiations the Council achieved consensus on national emission ceilings. The Commission, for its part, supports the Council’s common position. The Council’s common position would mean a significant reduction in emissions. It is perhaps not as ambitious as Parliament, in its first reading, would have liked, but perhaps it is the best possible compromise in this situation. Our Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has unfortunately finished up by making some proposals that are so dramatic and ambitious that, if they were implemented, the general consensus that has been reached would be jeopardised. In this respect I am in agreement with the views expressed earlier by Mr Davies. When emission limits were being discussed in Parliament’s first reading in March of last year, I stressed that new targets should not be set before the earlier ones had been achieved. The Commission must check that there is continued improvement in all Member States, and promote measures to help industry to make the necessary changes. It is important that environmental targets are achieved as cost-effectively as possible. For that reason, Mrs Jackson’s question is more than justified. As worthy as the tighter restriction on emissions as proposed by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy are, we should be aware of the possible adverse effects of our hopes and voting behaviour. Delaying this directive and embarking on a course of prolonged conciliation, the poker game which someone mentioned, would certainly be the worst alternative from the point of view of the environment. And besides, the environmental benefits gained from more stringent measures would be very slight in comparison with the costs.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we will take down the flags, pending their recognition by the European Union. It is a fact that six Member States are smaller than the regions whose flags are on display today. What we mean by this is that we welcome the new Member States, but at the same time, we want to call on the Council and Commission to recognise that the reality of languages and cultures, the diversity of peoples in Europe, cannot simply be reduced to states. We know, and realise all too well, that we are one big family, but in our new Constitution, we must share sovereignty at supranational level, so that with Europe, we can play a role in the world that is worthy of these 450 million citizens. At the same time, we must urge our Member States to recognise that within some Member States there are differences that are not sufficiently recognised. In principle, this is already the case in the new Constitution. The principles are laid down, but the rest is down to our Member States. We would like our Member States to realise that they have to recognise the diversity of peoples within themselves, so that these constitutional regions are not required to become states – which over the course of history, they have missed the opportunity of doing. Although we collectively want to share sovereignty at supranational level, we also want the principle of subsidiarity to be applied from the top down, and languages and cultures to be protected. Catalan, for example, is a language that is spoken by 10 million inhabitants. We are reluctant to accept that such a language can be recognised at European level only if Spain wishes it to be so. Is it not sufficient that that is what ten million citizens aspire to? Thank you for your attention and I hope that in the new Constitution, due consideration will be given to this deeper reality, which is older than our Member States. (Applause from the gallery) President. – The gallery does not participate in the sitting. Therefore, quiet please.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, my warmest congratulations to my fellow MEPs Mrs Müller and Mrs Grossetête, and also to the brilliant Commissioner Liikanen and the Italian Presidency. We have reached a good compromise: eight years for generic medicinal products, to begin with: the European Parliament achieved this. The ten years has been dropped. The Dutch Government voted against the common position since it would mean an extra EUR 160 million expenditure per year in the Netherlands alone. At first reading, the European Parliament reached a good compromise of between six and eight years. We have held on to this, and have also been able to push it through in the face of opposition from the Council and the Commission. The centralised procedure via the EMEA in London is increasingly becoming the norm for an increasing number of medicinal products. That is a good thing. In this regard, too, Parliament has put its stamp on the legislation in no uncertain terms. We should have liked more, but the compromise is acceptable. It was very important to us, the Group of the , to incorporate the environmental effects of medicinal products into that Community legislation. REACH does not do this – a small error on the part of our brilliant commissioner. That deficiency has now been remedied, however. In the case of veterinary medicinal products, negative environmental effects can even lead to a blockade. That is not the case with human medicinal products, but negative effects will indeed be taken into account. I am happy that the Commission has spoken out on Doha and stated that it will present legislation in early 2004. We shall hold the Commission to this. American advertising of medicinal products is and remains banned. We in the Group welcome this. We shall have to discuss later on how provision of information to patients can be improved via websites and telephone helplines, and indeed that is the crux of the matter. Direct patient reporting did not make it. Member States can develop this further, however, and some of them will do so, and the subject will return to the agenda later. The line between food supplements and medicinal products is not sufficiently well defined. Let us hope that the Commission will conduct an accommodating policy on this. Homeopathic medicinal products did not make it. We in the Group shall continue to fight for these.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President-in-Office of the Council, I have two short additional questions. First, I would like to know if Council has asked the Republica Srpska how many expellees and refugees have now returned to the Republica Srpska. Are any figures available on this? Secondly, I would like to ask if cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia has had any repercussions on the finances of the Republica Srpska.

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, first of all I should like to thank you for your answer and very briefly request that, since the Commission is the Guardian of the Treaties and the Treaties state that the Community must contribute to the enhancement of the cultures of the Member States and to respect for regional diversity, it should ensure that those Member States within which several languages that also have official status coexist can take part in organising the events planned for the European Year of Languages. That is, you have said that no State had excluded any language from taking part. That in itself is good news, but it is not enough for them to be able to take part. It is very important that representatives of the peoples that use these languages should also be able to take part in the body that is to organise the events, as stated in the report we approved at the time, in order to guarantee their presence and enhancement.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is normal for us to be given the opportunity to ask the Commissioner a brief question. I just wanted to ask specifically, because this question was not answered, if humanitarian aid is being given, yes or no? I mean so far, not in the future, but now, specifically.

Political group: PPE-DE