GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I should first of all like to extend a warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Busk, for the excellent cooperation. I should also like to thank Mr Kindermann, who helped us find a solution in a number of compromise amendments. My second point concerns the Commission. I should like to thank Mr Byrne for coming up with a proposal at any rate. But at the same time, I am of the opinion that the Council should also be here today. For if we consider this legislation on the welfare of pigs, I cannot help but observe that the discrepancies between the European Member States are unjustifiably huge, so huge that they are posing a threat to our free internal market. It is, in fact, unacceptable in this Europe that, as a result, prices can differ between the various pig holdings in Europe by up to 30 to 35%. This situation is, at the same time, a criticism of the Council, which is requested to draft general rules. In actual fact – that is why I am so pleased with Mr Byrne’s presence here this evening – this matter is also of relevance to consumers, for we are once again debating a directive which has implications for farmers. But what about the implications for consumers? On behalf of my group, I should like to expressly underline that we are particularly concerned about this aspect for, in the final analysis, this proposal will lead to extra investments for pig holdings without any guarantee of an increase in yield. This concern must be reflected in whatever approach is adopted, be it via a European premium policy or an extra surcharge for consumers. In any case, animal welfare may no longer lead to huge differences in terms of competition, and the bill may not always have to be paid by European farmers alone. I wanted to make this quite clear. I will not elaborate on the content of the report. Mr Busk made an excellent job of that. Mr Sturdy expertly outlined the consequences for the WTO negotiations. We all know that animal welfare is an incredibly difficult issue in the WTO. But if European society cares about animal welfare, it also has the costly duty to ensure that it is put on the agenda in the WTO negotiations, and to take this matter into consideration in politics in general. We could talk about this topic ad infinitum. We have been approached by various organisations with different points of view, as well as by consumer organisations, animal protection organisations and farmers’ organisations. I have increasingly noticed that, sometimes, there is definitely a basis for an alliance. But such an alliance could only be set up if the necessary funding started to become available and if the consumer were far more involved. Although my group welcomes the agreement reached, it is very concerned about the implications for farmers. We also believe that, slowly but surely, the implications for consumers should be made clearer.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I do not think that is the most helpful answer a Member of the European Parliament has ever been given in this Chamber so perhaps I can ask the President-in-Office whether he could give me a little more encouragement. Is he aware, for example, of the request from 37 million disabled people in Europe and many outside our borders that the United Nations should enforce better rights for disabled people? Is he aware that next year is going to be the European Year of Disabled People, and is he taking an interest in that? Is he aware that since 1996 we have had a rights approach to disability that would suggest that we should support such a Convention? In his answer he has given no evidence whatsoever that he is aware of those facts. Given that he has admitted to this Chamber today that he and his colleagues have not even discussed this issue, at the very least will he respond to the request from this Parliament that he should table such a discussion? If the members of the high level group on disabilities convened by the Commission are all members of the Council, it is within his power to do that if he wishes. Perhaps he will now answer the point.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, temporary work agencies are a necessary part of the flexible labour market of the future. The recruitment difficulties of companies are solved to an increasing extent by taking on staff from temporary work agencies. Immigrants often gain excellent opportunities to get a foothold in the labour market through these companies. It is therefore important to encourage and facilitate the activities of temporary work agencies. We have heard here that legislation regulating temporary work agencies varies greatly from Member State to Member State. It is therefore difficult to create even framework legislation which takes into account all the differences. The political starting points for the proposal for a directive are to view work done for temporary work agencies as a variation on temporary employment, and to prevent what has come to be known as social dumping. The problems with framework legislation at European level are clear when one looks at Sweden. Here, the political starting points are not reflected in the actual conditions. In Sweden, permanent employment is the rule. Around 70%of those employed through temporary work agencies are on permanent contracts. Terms and conditions of employment are regulated by collective agreements for both permanent and temporary employees. The salary of white-collar workers is set individually and separately, which means that no pay comparisons can be made. Blue-collar workers have collective agreements guaranteeing that pay will not fall below the pay in the user undertaking and that the working hours of the user undertaking will apply. This is not regulated in law, however, but through negotiations between the social partners, as should continue to happen in the future. This is why we do not believe that pay should be included in the directive’s definition of terms and conditions of employment. Nor should comparisons of pay and terms and conditions of employment be regulated in the directive. The temporary work agency sector functions well in Sweden and could be a model for Europe. There you are, Mr Andersson. However, the proposal before us does not facilitate development of this sector in Europe. Europe needs more forms of employment, not fewer.

Political group: PPE-DE
I have just voted against the motion for a resolution on the situation in Austria in view of a possible government being formed between the ÖVP and the FPÖ. I consider the casting of Jörg Haider as “Europe's scapegoat” (or even worse, neo-Nazi and Super Racist) to be counterproductive. Of course I, in no way, agree with the publicised statements of this right-wing populist and fully condemn xenophobia and any downplaying of the Hitler regime. However, I fear that a purely emotional reaction by Europe to the events in Austria will only multiply Haider's adherents. The EU must not do him an invaluable PR service. The strength of the FPÖ can be traced back to the weakness of the previous government and in this the Austrian s must bear the main responsibility. It was only after they unsuccessfully solicited the FPÖ to tolerate a minority government and, obviously in vain, offered the Freedom Party ministerial posts, that the SPÖ begin its massive campaign against Haider. It turned its threatened loss of power into an “heroic battle for the preservation of values” and an imminent, pure-and-simple “decision between democracy and non-democracy”. This is a smear on the voters in my neighbouring country which I cannot condone. We German used another strategy in the battle against extremists and clearly disassociated ourselves from them. We revealed the hollowness of the republicans who were nationalistic, xenophobic and anti-minority. Today the republicans are no longer represented in most local parliaments. The German approach is no guarantee that this radical movement will not grow again. It cannot be copied arbitrarily since each Member State has its own specific conditions. The ÖVP (Austrian People's Party), whose presence at European level we have also come to take for granted, is daring to attempt a coalition for the sake of governability in Austria. It can only succeed if agreements are made which are solidly based on compliance with democratic principles. The Council has become prematurely involved without waiting for the results of the coalition negotiations or a programme of government. This condemnation is as unacceptable as the threatened breaking off of official contacts with the Austrian Republic. Sound democracy means being alert and not blind in one eye. We must take up a reasoned offensive against radicals on both the right and the . I would have liked to see the same outrage in Europe when the s were prepared to make common cause with the successors to the misanthropic and persecutory regime in the DDR. In the meantime, they have been forming governments in German federal states. I fully support the statements made by Commissioner Prodi in today's session. He spoke of the task of not isolating Member States but of doing everything to unite them in common European values.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I note on Friday that the oral question on language teachers which came on our agenda extremely late has got no attached motion for a resolution. I appreciate that the request I put in for that to be added arrived too late in the rather chaotic circumstances of this Monday. This is an important matter, and I would ask if after that debate closes a deadline can be fixed for motions for resolutions to be lodged on that topic.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, last year, Mr Moreira da Silva, who was at the time a Member of this House, concluded an agreement with the Council on the trade in greenhouse gases. That was not easy, because the agreements that had already been reached in a number of countries with industry to reduce greenhouse gases had to be incorporated in European policy. Today, or in actual fact, tomorrow after the vote, what I see as a fresh agreement will have been reached and new arrangements will be in place by means of which emission trading will be extended to include third countries. I am proud that we, the European Union, have demonstrated that we are serious about Kyoto and that we not only conclude agreements but also live by them. We, in Europe, have adopted defensive policy in the environmental field for too long. With the new CDM – Clean Development Mechanism – instrument and joint implementation, we can once again take the lead on the world stage. Thanks to the development and export of clean technology, we are creating a new market for cleaner production processes. Our European industry stands to benefit from this. However, I expect the transfer of environmentally-friendly techniques also to help developing countries to introduce sustainability and it will also bring them more prosperity. The exchange projects that can now be implemented with the developed countries or with countries in the process of moving towards a market economy, expand the market on which emission is being traded and thus reduce the costs per reduced tonne of greenhouse gas – a high environmental yield at the lowest possible costs. In the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and also in discussions involving the rapporteur, much has been said about the risks which placing the reductions outside of one’s own Member State can entail. Since we have now agreed at European level that joint implementation and CDM are all too supplementary, we have to settle for the review that has been arranged. What matters now is that industry takes what is now available. Mr de Roo has done his level best, on which I should like to congratulate him warmly. He has made sound negotiations possible, for which I should like to thank him.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, you realise this is the second month running you have done this to me – cut me off as my question was coming up. Yet you have allowed speakers to speak for over one minute including a rather long and pointless dialogue about the merits of Murcia. Also in the rules as I recall, you are only allowed to take one supplementary question per political group and these rules are being broken and as a consequence, for the second week running, I miss out on a question. I think it is absolutely outrageous and I will be writing to the President to complain.

Political group: PSE
The Moderates believe that the organisation and content of health care and health services, as well as of care for the elderly, are national issues that should not be dealt with at supranational level. Because the report prescribes in a very detailed way how the Member States are to organise their health care and health services, as well as care for the elderly, we have voted against it, and this in spite of the fact that we can, in principle, support a number of the proposals presented in the report, for example that concerning the right of EU citizens to health care throughout the EU.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I fully subscribe to the intervention by Mr Von Wogau and I shall make some additional remarks. The Lamfalussy report is based on one sure fact: the legislative procedure we have is too slow and prevents us from shaping legislation to market needs in time. What the Lamfalussy report does not say is that the point where legislation on this matter normally gets bogged down is in the Council. Therefore I think the telling-off was aimed at the wrong culprit. Secondly, the Lamfalussy report tries to solve this problem by delegating the drawing up of enforcement measures to a stocks and shares committee in which the Council and Commission do not lose an iota of the power they had, while Parliament’s power is cut back. In my opinion, the solution prescribed may generate a lack of confidence which, in the long term, will result in an even slower process than we have had until now. What Parliament is asking is that when a rule of enforcement goes too far in relation to general principles, it must not be seen as a mandatory rule but as an unlawful one. We are not asking the Commission to take our opinion into consideration; if the rule goes too far, the rule is not a rule. That is what the theory of the mandate says, which I learnt in Roman Law, or the theory of the delegation of powers, which I learnt in Political Law. But perhaps the most important thing in this deviation of the Lamfalussy report, which has been taken up by the Stockholm Council, is the intergovernmental deviation to the detriment of the Community method of drawing up rules, and secondly, and even more importantly, the desire to speed up the liberalisation of the internal financial services market without, at the same time, adjusting the rules and measures that provide controls or safeguards. Under these conditions we could find ourselves with a hypermarket with no political control, in which the nation states are subordinated to semi-political decisions made by economic agents that would move with absolute freedom around the Union. We had more or less the same discussion before the Single European Act, when fortunately Mrs Thatcher’s ideas did not triumph.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I request that the first clause – “calls on Israel to comply with” – be replaced with the clause “calls on the two sides to comply with international conventions”, and that, after the words “arrested and imprisoned”, the words “by Israel” be inserted. (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Motion for a resolution (B5-0100/2002) on measures to combat terrorism Regarding Amendment No 8

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we are on the verge of deciding on the revision of the so-called Seveso Directive. Nearly a year ago, I remarked in this House that we are locking the stable door after the horse has bolted. This was an appeal to the Council to ensure that we use the revision of the directive as an opportunity to plug existing holes, so that accidents of the kind that took place in Baia Mare, Toulouse and Enschede can be prevented in future. In Enschede, it transpired that current Seveso legislation is insufficient. A fireworks factory which did not fall within the scope of the directive destroyed an entire housing estate. Human suffering was huge, and the grieving for the victims continues. Residents of this housing estate were not aware of the presence of the fireworks factory. Authorities were only aware up to a point. It is therefore logical to tighten up the rules. Of particular importance, in my view, is the drafting of a method for establishing minimum distances. The European Commission should set up guidelines for this purpose, because it is about time we knew exactly what a safe distance is. A safe distance in the Netherlands is considered 25 metres, in France 500 metres and in Germany as many as 1 000 metres. An objective method for establishing the safe distance is important for those living nearby but, above all, also for the local politicians. Hazardous factories do not belong in housing estates. An active policy should be adopted in order to remove them from those estates, if possible with the help of European funding. In addition, it is important for maps to be drawn up which indicate the areas in the vicinity of an establishment that could be affected after a major accident. Every citizen is entitled to this information. Tightening up the rules is one thing, observing them and being accountable is another. We can lay down rules ad infinitum, but if they are not implemented in municipal practice, they will have little effect in the end. If nobody feels responsible, if organisations each work in a vacuum, legislation remains a paper exercise. Safety is not only a matter of rules, but also of culture. It is a public task to actively promote this culture. Where safety is concerned, we should not cut any corners.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as we have just heard, UNICEF estimates that there are 250 million children under the age of 14 in the world who are still working. In Africa, thousands are in forced labour in the coffee and cocoa plantations, the produce from which is often destined for export. That makes us indirect accessories to what is happening. Many of these countries, it should be said, have signed the convention on children's rights or the convention banning child labour. I think that Parliament cannot simply continue to take note of the multiplicity of legal instruments intended to ensure that children's rights are respected at international level or to issue a sort of good conduct label under the various conventions which these countries have signed unless there is a binding force somewhere. It is up to us to react rapidly, as has been said, by punishing or even excluding any country which violates these conventions. I should, however, like to point out that there are different debates, which take place at three different levels. There is the first level, which is the direct result of misery and unemployment, as we have heard, and it goes without saying that the IMF and the World Bank cannot continue to burden Africa with so-called structural adjustment policies. We know full well today that this debt hangs over Africa like a sword of Damocles and the IMF in particular needs a clear policy here. However, there is another debate which I think, as a parliamentarian, involves questioning if it is conceivable nowadays to keep all these conventions, all these different conventions, and accept that these countries are not going to comply with them. What is the point? Finally, I think it is important for us to think about much more potent matters. In particular, I think that we should introduce a European social label which requires products from Africa and Asia to indicate their exact origin, so that we can see if they come from countries which exploit children or violate the labour code. Finally, I think that, as my fellow Member has said, the summit of Least Developed Countries is being held at this very moment with the European Parliament, including European leaders. I think that it is important for us to be able to call on them and for them to be able to take urgent measures on this form of modern slavery which affects children, children the same age as our children in Europe.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I am surprised that you should reply to such a highly political question in such bureaucratic terms; but since that is how you want it, I must ask whether the Council intends to establish measures for China similar to those established for Cuba, such as recommending that the Embassies of the Member States receive representatives of the opposition, of the resistance relating to Tibet, or defenders of human rights who clearly do not take the line of the Chinese authorities, over the holidays. That is what my question relates to.

Political group: PSE
We have listened to the prime minister of Greece and the President-in-Office both today and yesterday and, what can I say, we are speechless. We have decided to stand a country, a nation, up against the wall and then we demand that it totally disarm; we – or more to the point the United States – who manufacture, export and use weapons of mass destruction. It would be a different matter if this were part of a joint endeavour aimed at general disarmament. But we heard it yesterday and we heard it again today. What has to be done? Iraq has to be taught a lesson and disarmed! A clear common position has to be adopted on Iraq! Not a word today from the President-in-Office about the fact that the inspectors have yet to find a smoking gun; Bush and the European Union are still determined that they will. Mr Simitis also said yesterday that it is irrelevant that the European Union has four members, the Security Council will decide. And what is he going to do with these four members? He is calling on other members, Mr President, China and Russia. Of course they too have a responsibility, but what will the four from the European Union do? And we also want to know what is going to be done about the American bases in the European Union, because thousands of troops are marshalled in Germany and in Souda ready to intervene, as they are in the region of Iraq. Is this our peace effort?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, the position taken by Mrs Morgantini and Mrs Uca on the situation in Turkey has our full backing. I should like to add that it is now ten months since political prisoners in Turkish prisons went on hunger strike in protest against the government's plans to keep them in tiny isolation cells. The toll to date is tragic: thirty-two young people have died on hunger strike and a further thirty-one were killed in last December's attack on the prisons by the Turkish authorities. The most recent victim was Hulya Simsek, who passed away on 31 August. She was the sixth relative of a political prisoner to die on hunger strike. On behalf of the Communist Party of Greece, I wish to use this platform to condemn the criminal indifference of the Turkish regime and the hypocrisy of those who, while battling for human rights, have not lifted a finger to put pressure on the Turkish government to stop this intransigence in the face of the prisoner's just demands and to respect human rights in general. They include the European Union, which has a particular responsibility now that Turkey is a candidate country. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, indifference in the face of crime is tantamount to complicity.

Political group: GUE-NGL