GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, my home country and especially my group, have a particular difficulty with the way olive oil is dealt with in the proposal by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. This is because there are significant differences between the sums received per hectare in different olive oil producing areas. For instance, some areas of Spain receive EUR 720 per hectare, whereas other provinces receive EUR 156. That is a difference of almost 500%. How can these regions ever be expected to compete with each other? There is another paradox involved too. The most productive and profitable areas are those belonging to industrial owners, large multinationals, major landowners and producers. The situation beggars belief. To draw a comparison with the retail trade, it is as if we were helping large department stores such as El Corte Inglés or Carrefour and penalising small traders. I am sure you will agree that would not make sense. Well, let me tell you that nonetheless, it is actually happening. It is part of daily life out in the real world. We believe the situation has to change. Small producers and family holdings must be helped, to ensure people remain on their ancestral land. If they were to leave, we would be faced with depopulation and all its ensuing problems. Ladies and gentlemen, if we do not succeed in encouraging these people to stay on the land, there will be a heavy price to pay for our failure.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, these negotiations were always going to be hard but Commission officials believed that a deal would be done at the end of the day because political leaders across the world simply had too much to lose by returning home empty-handed. It is a matter of huge disappointment that agreement was not reached and I very much regret that the end of the convention was marred by a dispute between Britain’s Deputy Prime Minister and the French Presidency over the compromise proposals he put forward. The fact that after Mr Prescott’s rather noisy departure, the Americans tabled new proposals, which came closer to the EU position, demonstrates that the French Presidency was right to hold firm. We were getting closer, but sadly time ran out. The fear is that the momentum has been lost and the American negotiators will change and we start afresh in May. The disagreement within Europe is all the more regrettable because my overriding impression of the convention was of a European Union negotiating as a closely-knit team, from a position which crossed party lines and united Member States behind shared principles, a shared outlook and a shared sense of anger at the refusal of the Americans to face up to their responsibilities as the world’s largest emitters of greenhouse gases. From all we have heard, we must assume that the US Senate will not ratify the Kyoto protocol, however hard we compromise. Therefore, we must give greater priority to bringing in and gaining the support of nations elsewhere, to getting emissions trading up and running, and to taking real action to reduce global warming gases in this Union. Let us hope we get agreement in May; in the meantime let Europe take the lead. The USA remains of great importance. Money talks in American politics more than it does within our Union. US industry and the oil companies are telling their politicians that they must reject the Kyoto protocol, whatever the American public say. My question to the Commissioner is this: How can we persuade American industry that it is in their commercial interests to support the protocol, so that they pull purse strings and pull the American politicians into line? How do we drag them kicking and screaming into the 21st century with all its problems?

Political group: ELDR
I have voted for this report to indicate my support for cooperation between the Member States in the field of health care and long-term care. I particularly support the principles contained in the report concerning access for all regardless of income or wealth, high quality of care, and financial sustainability of care systems. I believe that the creation of an integrated framework and tighter coordination in the field of social security is an important part of our progress towards achieving the social dimension and social protection incorporated in the Lisbon process. I support the call for the Commission to bring forward proposals for further progress on this matter and for the Council to adopt the principle of application of the open coordination method and a detailed timetable at the European Council next June, and for the Member States to lay down common objectives and indicators by the European Council in 2006.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, if we truly want to improve the environment and allow railways to take the pressure off our over-congested European roads, I believe we should pursue three objectives. Firstly, those responsible for managing the infrastructure and charged with ensuring good use of the latter must be completely separate from and independent of service operators and users. Secondly, the railways must be integrated with other forms of transport to achieve a genuine door to door service. Thirdly, just as there are toll-free motorways so certain sections of the railway track must be free of charge. The cost of transporting a tonne of goods should not be prohibitive. Furthermore, if we really want to change the present situation, free up our roads and achieve genuine environmental improvements, the cost has to favour the railway.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, my congratulations to the rapporteur on a job well done, together with my thanks for his help in ensuring that the amendments needed to the overall endeavour were accepted. The amendments to this directive follow on from amendments to two other directives relating to mass redundancies and company transfers, the common objective of all of which is to protect workers' interests when companies are restructured and we must not forget this. They therefore ipso facto raise the question of coordinating the common concepts used and I think that we need to pay attention to this when the amendments are finalised. Secondly, this directive also fails to address the question of communitising the definition of salaries. Despite the difficulties inherent in this endeavour, the Fifteen need to adopt a minimum common definition of the concept of employee if the directive is to be applied uniformly. Otherwise, every country, depending on whether it has a broader or narrower understanding of the concept, will differentiate the scope of the directive as it sees fit. We need to tread carefully on this point. The proposed amendments, which I too support, include extending the scope of the directive to employees under what qualify as 'implied' contracts in national legislation. If we are not mature enough to extend the directive to the self-employed, we could at least extend the scope of the directive to employees who are self-employed but who are treated as employees under special legislation. Secondly, this amendment is an inclusion in the sense of covered claims and severance pay, as provided for in International Labour Convention No. 173, and I fail to see why we cannot cover them in Europe. Thirdly, it is the clearest redefinition of the meaning of insolvency so as to include any collective insolvency proceedings and not just traditional bankruptcy proceedings. In any case it is also in the objectives of the directive and has not approximated any formulation. The House would be well advised to approve these three amendments.

Political group: PSE
Just to show that this question is not only of interest to Swedish Members of the European Union but to other nationalities as well, is this new procedure in the Council in operation? If not, when will it be in operation? In other words, when can I get my first document out of the Council?

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, once again I see that a far-reaching debate is raging about the pros and cons of summer time. In the main, this is, as I see it, more of a philosophical discussion than a serious debate about a real policy of substance. I do not therefore think that we should dwell on this matter for too long in this House; after all the Member States and also the public have already accepted the summer time arrangements to a large extent and they are acknowledged to be part of our calendar. We should, therefore, really not rack our brains over this any longer. In-depth research, as has also been called for in various quarters, would therefore in my opinion also be a waste of time and money. Surely we have, as I see it, much more serious problems to cope with in Europe, such as the transport situation, enlargement and, at this very moment, BSE. It is also obvious that there has to be agreement across the EU on when the clocks are changed because anything else – as has already been said – would lead to hopeless confusion. I also think that the public would rightly question the point or otherwise of much EU legislation. From the point of view of farmers – this has also already been said – repeatedly switching between summer and winter time is not exactly ideal for our farms, either as far as the animals are concerned or the actual work on the farm. Nevertheless, I will say quite openly that there are more advantages than disadvantages in favour of changing the clocks and in favour of keeping the summer time arrangements as they currently stand. We should leave the arrangements as they are and in my opinion prolong them indefinitely. Consequently, I can say on behalf of my group that we do not wish to accept any amendments. I have said this because I and my group are convinced that Europe has more serious problems and tasks to deal with. Summer time is not the problem for our common European House.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner Patten, I would like to restrict my observations to our relations with China. My group endorses the view put forward by the Commission in its excellent policy paper on the new relationship between the EU and China; we are also very grateful to the Council for having made its position clear as long ago as 13 October. Whilst we believe that the People’s Republic of China is a significant strategic partner for the European Union and that both sides should be committed to building up relations between them, we share the Council’s concern that the current human rights situation in China, especially where fundamental civil, cultural and political freedoms are concerned, still does not meet the international standards that China itself acknowledges. This is particularly the case as regards Tibet. Like the Council, then, we call for serious dialogue to be commenced between central China and the representatives of the Dalai Lama. Whilst unequivocally endorsing the ‘one China’ policy, we join with the Council in calling for a constructive dialogue to be commenced between the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China of Taiwan. The conflicts across the straits must be resolved by peaceful means, and so the rockets – which could be seen as a threat – must be withdrawn from China’s coastal provinces. Parliament’s great interest in having closer relations with Taiwan, including in a multilateral framework, is a matter of record. Commissioner, I hope that this Sixth EU-China Summit on 30 October in Peking will be successful in the sense to which the Commission and the Council have referred in their statements. Commissioner Patten, I wish you luck in what will be the first high-level meeting between representatives of the EU and China’s new leadership, in the hope that we will be able to make a new start on the basis that we have just discussed. All the best!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am going to have to interrupt this consensus debate, because I am afraid I cannot support Mrs Honeyball’s report. Despite the protestations of the Commissioner, it is plain that this report is about harmonising taxes: it does seek to produce a harmonised regime for vehicle taxation in the European Union. I do not think we need that for cross-border trade; there is no necessity there. I strongly believe that taxation is a matter that should remain within the remit of the Member States. It is of fundamental importance to ordinary people across Europe that they are free to elect the people who set their taxes. Real democratic accountability on taxation therefore requires that decisions about our taxes be taken by the governments that we elect, and not by the European Union. I find it surprising that Mrs Honeyball is supporting so warmly a report that promotes tax harmonisation on the very day that Gordon Brown is all over the Daily Telegraph saying that he does not like tax harmonisation. Our government and our Labour MEPs should try to ensure that they have some kind of consistency, because indeed Richard Corbett, as recently as this week, said 'Tax harmonisation? What is all the fuss about?!' I say this is a fundamental constitutional principle. Time and again, the Commission comes to this House and claims that this is just a technical matter, that it is just about the internal market. We are assured that we need not worry and that it does not really affect our democratic right to set our own taxes. The cumulative effect of these proposals is to strip the Member States of very real and serious powers regarding setting taxes and to remove democratic accountability from the setting of taxes, which is dangerous for democracy and is certainly unacceptable to those who elected me to represent them in this House.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I believe that Mr Schulz’s reference to the need for preliminary investigations, as well as his serious approach to the problems, indicate that a debate on them would be premature. At the moment, I do not see that the conditions he has enumerated for a serious debate have been fulfilled, and it is for that reason that we oppose the motion. The fact is that we should not have a debate if it is to be conducted only on the basis of an emotional response to day-to-day politics, in the absence of the necessary conditions for a debate, and without us being able to complete it with a resolution. (Parliament agreed to the request) Thursday: President. I have received a request from the Group of the to refer back to committee the report by Mr Perry (A5-0203/2003) on the Lloyd's petitions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I regret to say that, although the Commission very often surprises us with the immense quality of its documents and the time it has dedicated to analysing the reality, this Regulation presents numerous technical problems and is practically devoid of scientific basis. Evidence of this is that it was initially proposed that animals should be unloaded to rest in open spaces and subsequently it has been demonstrated that that is also prejudicial to their health and contributes to the spread of diseases. These are reprehensible aspects indicating the lack of maturity of a document which is being presented for other reasons. And what do I believe are the main reasons for this document? Firstly, there is no scientific certainty and, therefore, there is no willingness to wait for it. That is why we have introduced an amendment which states that we must continue to carry out acute-phase protein research, which defines the stress suffered by animals. There is no knowledge of many of the aspects indicated and therefore certain measures, for example, such as excessive separation of animals, is going to harm them, or in other words, things are going to be worse than before. The second hidden intention in this document is clearly to create a glass barrier, a new border for the countries of the East. In other words, on the one hand we integrate them and, on the other, we create a glass barrier, an invisible one, that is, a new form of customs, which will prevent them from crossing from one end of Europe to the other. This concept is furthermore entirely in opposition to the general policies we are implementing on other points. Above all, however, the intention is to dress everybody in the same suit: all animals in the same suit, like Chairman Mao’s suit. We have therefore also tabled an amendment calling for the exclusion of certain animals, such as, for example, those for repopulation, wild animals, circus animals, because there is no doubt that a measure for animals for slaughter cannot be applied to all the others. This is an impoverishment, a shackling, and goes against the ideas of sustainability, which are to adapt to reality and make things viable.

Political group: PPE-DE
The Poos report on the reform of the Council is controversial and contradictory and, albeit rather timidly, further clears the way for European federalism. On the one hand, it contains positive aspects on improving transparency, not to mention the concept of change in the institutions in an enlarged European Union, in its references to the workings of the Council and to greater participation by national and regional parliaments in EU policy. On the other hand, it puts forward some highly controversial ideas, specifically transferring the responsibilities of the High Representative of the CFSP to the Commission, thereby reducing the powers of the Council and further communitising this important policy, which we must, of course, oppose. At the same time, it puts forward working methods for the Council that could have a damaging effect on the role of national governments, moving towards greater federalism, which include: strengthening the General Affairs Council, so that its meetings are held regularly, weekly even, attended by ministers; and a distinction being made between the legislative and executive Council, which must operate openly, which would seem to be moving towards the creation of some kind of European Union Senate. Therefore, in voting against this motion, we confirm our opposition to this path to federalism without undermining the report’s positive aspects.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The European film industry has problems distributing its films on the scale that we should perhaps wish. The proposals put forward by the report do not however solve these problems. They are based on the erroneous belief that increased State and EU aid can make an industry competitive. They also show a lack of respect for free choice on the part of the consumer. There is also a desire to impose a further item of expenditure on the European Investment Bank, parallel to the Bank’s main responsibilities. If TV companies were to be forced to adjust their programming in the interests of European cinema, this would constitute an infringement of their freedom. It might also be asked whether it is reasonable for European schools to be required to support the film industry through their teaching. For these reasons, I have chosen to vote against the report. Maat report (A5-0347/2001)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the rapporteur spoke with great passion and great conviction about the issues involved in social exclusion. I would like to assure her – though hopefully she needs no such assurance – that such passion and such conviction is shared also on this side of the House, as I am sure it is right across the House. In that case it may be rather odd that her report had a rather rocky ride within the committee and that a large number of people voted against it. I suspect that might happen in plenary, certainly if a number of our amendments, which, as I understand, will be supported by the Group, fail to get through. It would be a shame if the report were to go down. There are just two issues I would like to highlight, both of which have already been addressed more eloquently by my colleagues Mr Pronk and Mrs Bastos. The first point is the importance of this issue being treated on a bottom-up basis rather than a top-down basis, that it is up to Member States as close as possible to the problem to address the problem most successfully. The second issue is the importance of having full employment: promoting employment is the greatest way of addressing poverty and social exclusion. The first of the eight joint actions, the eight core challenges, referred to the point of promoting employment, though it was in recital V in the report. This needs to be stressed with great vigour. In particular I draw the attention of the House to Amendment No 20, which talks about the importance of temporary work and agency work as a way of getting people into permanent full-time employment. I would also say to the Commission that I strongly agree with the Commissioner that it is important to lay the foundations for further development of the temporary work sector.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, where supplementary pensions are concerned, the crucial issue is whether one wants to provide pensioners with security in their old age or to reinforce Europe’s capital markets. These are not only two quite different goals, but it is also difficult to combine them in one and the same system. The Commission’s proposal and both the reports we are debating today give priority to the needs of the capital market. The hope is that the market-based pensions will then also prove to be good for pensioners in thirty or forty years’ time. How matters will turn out, however, we do not know. If one considers how Europe has changed during the last thirty to forty years and acknowledges that circumstances are going to change just as much in the future, then one can see how uncertain such forecasts are. There is a large deficit when it comes to security and solidarity in the pensions area because the risk is so great and because there can never be enough security and solidarity. Supplementary assurances are therefore a problem. They are, of course, much less secure than a system of basic pensions which has been financed on the basis of solidarity. I also believe that supplementary assurances and supplementary pensions may be needed, but then their managers ought to be obliged to invest in such instruments as provide solid savings in the long term, instead of having short-term rates on the stock exchange and global financial capitalism determine how matters will stand for pensioners in the future. I also believe it would have been commendable if these supplementary pension systems could have been run as pension funds on the basis of solidarity under the aegis of trade unions, as happens in certain Member States. Even if these too are market-based, they offer much more in terms of stability and security than the privatised pension assurances. It now looks as if we are to have a liberal arrangement in the pensions field in Europe, and I shall therefore advise my voters to invest their surplus funds in safer instruments than private pension assurances. To young people I would say: pin your hopes on education and on developing your skills. And to older people I would say: acquire a nice, inexpensive place to live in the autumn of your years. We politicians ought to be putting our faith in a good, sound system of basic pensions.

Political group: GUE-NGL