GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would also like to thank the rapporteur warmly once again for his constructive collaboration. He has really tried to achieve a viable compromise. For a sustained strategy for the Eurovignette, however, the success achieved so far is not sufficient. This is because the purpose of the Eurovignette is to achieve fairness in competition between rail and road and also to compel those who cause damage to pay for it. We think that external costs caused by transport, goods transport by road, must be attributable to it in full, and only then can fairness be achieved. Fairness in competition means that the long-term environmental damage must also be included here. Mention has been made of the sensitive areas. There too, it is obvious that not only the mountain areas, but also valleys, which have the effect of kettles and in which environmental pollution is massively intensified, and even the cities, which are already subject to strain, are all vulnerable to possible increases in the effect of traffic. Fairness in competition also means that social dumping in goods transport must be resisted. As we all know, it is only through more effective monitoring that this can be promoted. We therefore take the view that greater room for manoeuvre must be created in the integration of external costs into the ‘polluter pays’ principle in the area of transport for the purpose of achieving greater road safety, sustained long-term integration and above all sustained environmental protection, because we do not want the next generation to carry the cost of the damage that we are now doing with a short-term strategy for the Eurovignette.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, you will know that the City of Strasbourg is twinned with the City of Leicester, my home city. The Lord Mayor of Leicester, Councillor John Allen and the Lady Mayoress, Mrs Allan, are in the public gallery. This twinning is an important political and social union and I very much hope you will welcome the Lord Mayor and the Lady Mayoress here in Strasbourg. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, allow me to ask the Commissioner a question before the debate closes. You said we would need another hundred million. According to the calculations in your proposal, the payments affected here – if I remember correctly – represent 1.6% of all payments. In other words they are minute. As Mr Pesälä said, we were not looking to increase premiums, we were just trying to keep things simple. If the Commission makes sure that it adds the additional premium increase for the farms to the global payment system, then we would be satisfied. We are not trying to increase premiums through the back door, even though these holdings are sorely in need of an increase. That is another kettle of fish, however. To make savings here is out of order, however. Given that you were so quick to work out or to get someone to work out the figure of one hundred million for you, then we would be most interested to know how much would be saved if the premium was not increased. Because that would represent a saving and a reduction in premiums to the detriment of these small farms and I think we should prevent that.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, enlargement is not just meant to bring peace, democracy and the rule of law; it is also, of course, meant to help raise the standard of living in the countries that will be joining us. Economic cooperation ended up being a formula for the European Union's success, and this formula is to be applied more widely to give us stability in the sense of peace – not only external, but also internal and social peace. Great economic insecurity lies in store for the candidate countries, and we have to get them to understand that we know what difficulties they will face. For example, we have been able to learn from the Economic and Monetary Committee's delegations what advances have been made, and which have proved difficult, in such areas as, for example, competition policy or the control of aid payments. This has also had an effect on jobs in the candidate countries and cannot be organised without it running the risk of rejection. We are, then, well aware of the credit that is due to the candidate countries for their efforts, but it is also evident that they, when they join, must not only be capable of functioning as market economies; they must also be able to stand the pace of competition. There is still room for improvement in this respect. I want to give just two examples of this – steelworking and shipbuilding – and propose to mention energy only in passing, even though it is equally important. That is why the Commission was right to insert safeguard clauses. I think the candidate countries will also be able to handle these, and we must see to it that these safeguard clauses are inserted in such a way that they do not affect this or that country in an arbitrary way. I am confident that the process of reform in the candidate countries will continue; indeed, it must continue and be a success, as it is not only the failure to inform the public in the European Union that is an issue here; it is also the lack of information in the candidate countries. It would be a good thing if we could help to resolve this problem.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, on a point of order. I wish to draw attention to some other rather unwelcome visitors on our premises. Yesterday there was a disgraceful Communist demonstration in the courtyard of the Tower. This is very intimidatory, as far as Members are concerned; it is an intrusion on our parliamentary premises. Could you look into the circumstances of this: where are the limits of this Parliament and what rights do we have to exclude such people from our premises?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, if the constitutional changes and reform laws in Macedonia come into force – and we hope that this will happen soon – the country will have minority rights legislation which far outstrips the standards in the majority of European countries and most EU Member States. We always talk very pompously about European standards – which, in reality, do not exist in this form – and often demand that other countries meet criteria which many of our own EU Member States are not prepared to comply with themselves. Nonetheless, I am gratified by this positive development in Macedonia, not only in the wake of the most recent acts of violence but over the last two years since the Georgievski government embarked on a reform course in this area. Once again, the violence has jeopardised this process. I am pleased that the European Union and other international organisations, including NATO, have succeeded in shoring up the process, so that the reform course has not only continued but has actually improved and accelerated. However, this should not be a reason for us to fob off the Macedonians with mere thanks, as it were. Like Mr Haarder, I too believe that we owe them a debt of gratitude. However, this gratitude must be of a practical nature. We must finally take action in response to the scandalous handling of the issue of the country's name. We must finally take action on the financial resources for Macedonia, which must be used to benefit the country as a whole, including the very underdeveloped east and south and not just the capital or the few regions which were particularly affected by the crisis. What is very important is that we must finally begin to recognise that this country is our partner, based on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement. We do not need any special instruments, we do not need a (pseudo) protectorate status, which is obviously still being mooted in some circles, also in connection with the idea of special agencies etc. I regard Macedonia as our partner. The Association Agreement is the instrument through which we can channel our cooperation. We must continue to work with Macedonia in partnership and assist it in its progression towards membership of the European Union. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, our group thinks that Mrs Roth-Behrendt has done a very good job. We support all the important parts of the report. When it comes to the main issue of animal experiments, we think that this issue has been dragged out for too long. This decision concerning an effective ban on animal experiments in connection with cosmetics ought to have been taken several years ago. It is indefensible, both ethically and as far as the electorate is concerned, to test cosmetics on animals, which is something of a luxury. Nor is there any doubt about public opinion on this issue. I also believe that, if we are to force manufacturers to find alternative methods, they have had many years in which to begin applying such methods, they must know that there is a fixed date when the ban comes into force. We know that the methods applied will vary from one area to another and that there are thousands of ingredients to choose between in cases where these methods have not been fully developed. We therefore support a comprehensive ban on these tests. If such a ban is to be effective, it nonetheless needs to be combined with a marketing ban. It is only a combination of marketing and testing bans that can be really effective, which is why we obviously support a marketing ban too. As a counter-argument, we are told that the WTO might object to a ban. In our view, this is, for one thing, by no means certain; and, secondly, it cannot just be accepted that, by voicing its objection, the WTO can prevent tougher animal and consumer protection regulations from being introduced. That is, of course, what has to be fought for; the right to tougher, more progressive legislation. We believe, then, that this cannot be an argument for not pursuing this issue. On the contrary, the EU’s implementing this ban might also open the way for a worldwide trend whereby more countries follow suit and adopt the legislation we have in place and the methods we have developed for alternative testing procedures. We also support the other parts of the report. We believe that more account must be taken of people with allergies. Allergies are a major and growing problem which does not only affect those who directly use products but also people in their vicinity, if such people are particularly sensitive. That is why we are in favour of tightening up on the use of allergy-causing substances. We also think it reasonable that there should be tough rules on content labelling and that both the date of manufacture and the best before date should be stated. This is my way of saying that we in the Confederal Group of the – will be voting for all the principal points in this report. IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTAVice-President

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mrs Smet's report is the outcome of serious study as well as political experience and personal commitment, which is why it was enthusiastically adopted by a large majority in committee. It deals with a general practice, which is common to all the social and economic systems of Europe, a harsh reality which will cancel out all legislative progress, be it at national or European level. Women have difficulty not just in accessing work but in advancing their careers and levels of pay. The last report on employment tell us that most of the Member States have given up trying to right this wrong and that this issue is missing from the social dialogue agenda in most countries. We urge the Commission to call on the Member States to conduct a serious assessment, as the rapporteur suggests. And to avoid repeating what has been said by my fellow Members, with whom I fully concur, I should like to suggest to you, Commissioner, that we take a global approach to this issue both in your policy and in that of the Member States. The political practices which apply in numerous countries in the European Union in the area of women's employment, social protection and pensions marginalise them professionally, marginalise their ambitions, efforts, competitiveness and claims and hence their pay. Our role, your role is a difficult one; we must convince public opinion and women themselves that all these issues are interlinked. We must convince them that their so-called vested rights run counter to their interests and to the quality and viability of and pay for their work. Commissioner, please help the governments bear the political price which this endeavour and change usually imply.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, after months of intensive work, we can now vote for the first time in plenary on the draft directive on working conditions for temporary workers. Everyone involved has made great efforts to achieve the best possible solution for temporary workers, temporary work agencies and dynamic economic development in our EU Member States. Reaching this outcome was a difficult task. I would like to thank everyone who helped to ensure that we could present a fairly good compromise today. With around 10 million jobless and a shaky economy in the European Union, we must be sure that our well-meaning intention – to guarantee a basic level of social provision for temporary workers – does not paralyse an entire sector. It would be quite inappropriate to term 'temporary work' an atypical or even an unworthy form of working. Temporary work can help new recruits find a direction for the future, and it can help prevent employees who are particularly difficult to place from leaving the workforce, or assist them to return to work. My group attaches particular importance to flexibility in this sector. We must not create new bureaucratic hurdles, and temporary work must continue to be affordable for small companies too. Otherwise, the days of temporary agency work are numbered, leaving even more millions jobless in the European Union. If, when we vote tomorrow, we are guided by the principle of subsidiarity and the concept of pro-active economic development as a basis for more jobs, we will create more scope for the EU Member States to pursue their own courses towards flexible labour market development which does not conflict with appropriate protection for workers. The measures adopted in Germany with regard to temporary work lead to a dead-end. I hope we can create a more effective framework here.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, our Rules of Procedure do not allow for a secondary market in amendments. The Group of the strongly opposes... (Applause) ... the underhand introduction of an oral amendment, with the excuse of clarifying an issue. Oral amendments require the acceptance of the groups and this group is opposed. Voting cannot be done à la carte.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, combating discrimination and passing legislation against it means acknowledging that is exists and that many forms of it are in a sense ‘decriminalised’ because they are so commonplace. I therefore, obviously, welcome today’s directive, whose application must also become the norm. I shall therefore confine my remarks to the limitations which, I feel, still remain in spite of everything. Firstly, the burden of proof. The directive takes a step forward in shifting the burden of proof but does not go as far as to reverse the situation. Yet, should the law not provide the victims of discrimination with better means to escape the isolation they too often find themselves in? How is it possible to think that a job applicant, rejected in such circumstances, has the same resources as a firm, especially a large undertaking, to defend himself and prove that he has indeed been a victim of discrimination? Moreover, if it were compulsory for firms to prove that their practices were non-discriminatory, they would doubtless think twice on the matter when recruiting. I am thinking particularly here of the discrimination affecting third-country nationals, but also the second-generation children from immigrant families. There are many examples of this in France. Given an identical curriculum vitae, identical education and identical career, a young person with a French sounding name has four to five times the chance of being recruited than a young person with a North African sounding name, and twice that of a young person with a Portuguese or Spanish sounding name. This is the hierarchy of discrimination. In a Europe that is supposed to be multicultural where diversity is respected, we must ensure that our deeds live up to our words. Let me end on the subject of the exemption granted to religious bodies. I would like to say that I consider the exemption of Article 4(2) to be very dangerous and perhaps even a legal cover for the most reactionary ideas. Earlier, the idea of abuse of the provisions was mentioned. I feel that this may provide a major foothold for those most reactionary ideas. Mr Paisley’s objectionable intervention earlier with regard to homosexuals bears witness to this.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, you have given Mr Schulz an answer. I am grateful to you for that. We must accept it, but we do not agree with it. Mr Medina has now made this quite clear as well. We will continue to pursue this issue. We will be looking very closely at the reasons why this process has taken so long. It is not only that the stages within the process are incomprehensible; the length of time involved is beyond belief. But I would prefer not to continue this discussion with you during this debate, Madam President. Instead, I should like to say a few words to Mr Poettering. I am quite astonished by his statement. (Heckling) Yes! I am quite astonished, because I value him, I value him as a fair partner. But this time, he has astonished me. First of all, it is quite clear that Mr Schulz was speaking on behalf of his group. Mr Schulz spoke and put questions on behalf of the Group of the , and did so with a great deal of courtesy and moderation. Those of us who know Mr Schulz realise that he does not always find it easy to be so moderate and restrained, but he managed it on this occasion, in order to make the points on behalf of the Group in a clear and lucid way. (Heckling) Our full support for Mr Schulz! Secondly, Mr Poettering, let me make the following point. I did not speak last time in Brussels. You, however, said something in Brussels which is extremely dangerous. You said that this Group was going against Austria. Do you know who else uses this argument? There is only one person who argues along these lines, and that is Jörg Haider. He always says: “Anyone who criticises the Austrian Government is going against the country.” (Applause from the left) I reject categorically – not only as an Austrian, but also as the present group spokesperson – any implication that anyone criticising the government is going against the country. Our group has never gone against the country or against Austria. (Applause from the left) Thirdly, Mr Poettering, what greatly astonishes me is that, if you had a clear conscience, you really would be pushing hard for a decision to be taken prior to the elections in Italy, without any delay here in Parliament. It was never an issue for our Group or, indeed, for our Italian colleagues who spoke out against it. Mrs Napoletano did not say that we are against a discussion of this issue. She was merely critical of the way in which the discussion was being conducted, namely on a party-political basis. Our Italian friends have absolutely no interest in politicising this matter. What we cannot accept is that the timeframe is so long. And if you, Mr Poettering, in particular, are genuinely interested in ensuring that a decision is taken, you must also be interested in ensuring that the decision is taken in the European Parliament now, regardless of the Italian elections. Otherwise, there will be suspicions that you know it could be dangerous for Berlusconi, and are doing your utmost to postpone the decision until after the elections. And you could only quash these suspicions, Mr Poettering, if you were in favour of a speedy decision by this House! (Applause from the left)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to start by putting some questions to the Commission in the person of Commissioner Fischler. Why is it that for the banana trade you are advocating pure and simple liberalisation with effect from 2006, whereas in the case of meat, milk and cereals, which absorb 68% of EAGGF Guarantee Section resources, you refer to the special characteristics of European agriculture, as the Commission did in Seattle? Surely it is unacceptable to be applying two different sets of criteria. Is the Commission not guilty of double standards here? Are bananas the poor relation of agricultural production in the European Union? Should the European agricultural model not be used to safeguard banana production in the European Union which will certainly be threatened by the liberalisation being proposed? Is there also a plan to liberalise trade in meat, milk and cereals? Will the Commission yield to the more radical approach adopted by the United States at a time when the Americans are significantly increasing their support for agriculture? Is no attention being paid at all to the fact that bananas are the main agricultural product in four outermost regions which are amongst the 10 most disadvantaged regions in the European Union? What is the relevance of Article 299(2) of the Treaty, which provides for special treatment for the outermost regions, to the proposal to amend the Regulation on the COM in bananas? The multi-functionality of European agriculture, which is a key aspect of the European agricultural model I have already mentioned, needs to be reflected in this reform, since in Madeira, for example (the region that I represent in this House) the environmental aspect of agriculture is as important as, or even more important than, its economic aspect. If banana production were to cease on the island of Madeira, it would represent an enormous environmental catastrophe as well as a serious loss of income for thousands of families. Furthermore, as we saw in Seattle, the new round of WTO negotiations should be a genuine development round. For this reason, we can justify giving priority to bananas produced in the European Union and in the ACP countries when we reform the common organisation of the market in bananas and this would be perfectly legitimate. And it is only by maintaining import quotas that we can achieve this objective, which is perfectly compatible with World Trade Organisation rules.

Political group: PPE-DE