GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Skinner, for his very prudent report, which comes just at a time when we need a fresh impetus in the risk capital sector within the European Union. The acceleration in the pace of company growth, start-ups by highly innovative businesses and the terrific speed of industrial change all require more efficient risk capital markets. More support is needed for growth. Although there has been rapid growth in venture capital here over the last five years, Europe is still way behind the United States in this area, especially in the high-growth areas of information and biotechnology, and also in the area of health care, including preventive health care, a totally new field that is constantly growing. In addition, venture capital can be used to create modern social services, an area that should not be overlooked. These services will be particularly needed in the future because of the growing numbers of older people. The Committee on Employment and Social Affairs took a special interest in types of supplementary pension funds and the prudential rules these require. Because of increasing life expectancy, ever more new financial products are being created in the field of old-age pensions. This means that pension funds are playing an ever-greater role in providing risk capital. But social security systems, however they may be constructed, therefore particularly need special regulations and supervisory and codetermination bodies when it comes to funding, so as to strengthen confidence in these new systems and products. That is why it is also necessary for all interested parties – including the European Parliament, the social partners, the European Investment Bank and the European Investment Fund – to participate in a continuing dialogue. It cannot be said often enough that the European Union involves pooling our strengths. We must use all the financial instruments at our disposal to rapidly develop the market and to increase the volume of risk capital investment in the EU, so that risk capital is put to use in a way that genuinely creates jobs, thus benefiting all stakeholders. Investing in new business start-ups will also create jobs. If these are to be successfully built up, employees will have a key role to play and will act as a driving force. Employee participation systems linked with codetermination mechanisms therefore need to be in place. This is of vital importance for a variety of reasons. To sum up, I would like to emphasise once again that the Commission communication, combined with the report, can potentially provide a strong impetus for combining forces in the risk capital sector.

Political group: PSE
This issue of Community subsidies for supplying milk to schools goes back to 1997 and is generating an increasing amount of interest in each of our Member States, all the more so because it involves issues of public health and economics, issues which are of concern to the European public. If you need proof of this, you only have to read the countless letters which were sent to us when it became known that the European Commission wanted to end this programme! That is why I can only urge you to follow the recommendation of our rapporteur, who is seeking not only to maintain this type of programme, but who is also taking a stand against the proposal of 50-50 cofinancing that the European Commission is putting forward. Such a harsh cofinancing programme could lead to certain Member States refusing to pay their national contribution, thereby leading to discrimination within the Union. Without denying the need to improve the management of this budget line, I nevertheless feel that improvements to the system can, and must, be made gradually, and I therefore urge you to support the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and its rapporteur by adopting this report.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, the great interest which you have witnessed in this House today – even though you yourself are not responsible for fisheries – has, I hope, made it clear how much our ideas deserve support, both in the Committee on Fisheries and in the Commission. We have made one thing clear today: we do not want fish out of a test–tube. We do not want fish only from aquaculture or a standardised packet off a supermarket shelf. We want more, even though the facts about our seas are bleak. The fish on our plates comes more and more rarely from European Union waters. The indigenous supply cannot meet European demand. This indigenous supply does not offer an adequate prospect for the future. We are therefore reliant on fishing in foreign waters, both in international waters and in the coastal zones of other states. I would like to thank you, Mrs Miguélez Ramos, as rapporteur, for taking up this issue in a detailed own–initiative report and clearly identifying the key problems. The European Union's fisheries agreements are an important factor both for supply and employment, especially in the regions which depend on fishing. Simply rejecting a report, as has just been demanded, cannot be our objective, for we must examine these issues seriously despite all the potential contradictions. Nor must we lose sight of the fact that we have exploited our own waters to the point where the stocks are exhausted. We need only think of the reform of the common fisheries policy. It would be fatal – as one of the previous speakers has said – simply to export these problems elsewhere. I call for a sustainable approach to the fisheries agreements and a balanced distribution of use, but naturally also for an economically profitable approach, for I do not want to lose sight of reality. However, long–term public subsidies conflict with this goal. It is absurd to justify the irresponsible exploitation of stocks in other waters with arguments based on fleet reductions and market supply in the European Union. Ultimately, our key goal must be to safeguard the sustainability of resources, both in European and foreign waters. However, in this context, we must genuinely accept responsibility, rather than simply seeking plaudits in the short term. This applies especially to international waters. Here, prompt action is needed to combat illegal fishing effectively. Controls alone are not sufficient. What we need is harmonisation of sanctions at international level. This can only take place jointly and in a global framework. The sanctions must not simply be tokenist. I know that the international community's mills – and our mills too – grind slowly, but we will continue to give them grist, and we will keep the wheels turning.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as stated in the introduction to the Commission’s report on the draft communication to the Council and the European Parliament, in public opinion today, there is, fortunately, growing concern, engendering much debate, about the impact of the liberalisation of trade on employment, on the distribution of wealth, on the environment, on health, consumer protection and cultural diversity, as well as the increased marginalisation of poor countries. These concerns are shared and (...) by our group. We are not in favour of increasing the competences of an organisation lacking democratic structures, as is the case with the WTO. Nor are we in favour of interaction (...). What we want instead, is the World Trade Organisation to be officially reformed so that it complies with the Convention on Human Rights and with the conventions of the ILO. We particularly want economic and commercial measures for the development of poor and marginalised countries. In any case, I want to say that the Millennium Round negotiations must not harm the basic elements of the European Agricultural Model. Neither must they harm the reforms which in addition to Agenda 2000, are necessary for protecting the development within each State of the number one objective which is local, family-based farming in the face of the interests of big industrial companies which have huge powers of distribution. Finally, we are asking this Parliament to participate, as well as the Commission... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: Verts-ALE
I roundly condemn the wave of brutal repression unleashed by the Bolivian army on the orders of the country’s former president, Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada, which has left dozens dead and hundreds injured. The struggle of the Bolivian people has evolved over the last few months, growing into a popular uprising whose central demand is a guarantee that Bolivia and its people will retain sovereignty over the country’s energy resources. That struggle brought about the resignation of President Sánchez de Lozada. It is crucial that the perspectives and opportunities opened up by this important victory for the Bolivian people should enable their most profound and legitimate aspirations to be realised. Particularly important is that the country should have full control over its natural resources, especially energy resources. This should be achieved principally through nationalisation of those resources and an end to foreign interference, above all by the United States. It is also essential to move towards an end to the neoliberal capitalist policies which have caused the poverty and difficulties suffered by a huge majority of the population. They must be replaced by policies which do the reverse, responding effectively to the needs of the workers and people of Bolivia and improving their living conditions.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Let us try to redirect the situation because your reply has also been very general. You will know, Commissioner, that the headlines of the entire Spanish press, and not just the largest newspapers, today feature the serious irregularities uncovered by the inspection of the Agriculture Department of the Council of Communities of Castilla la Mancha in the flax processing companies which were in dispute and have been examined and analysed by the Committee which has been mentioned. Since you know about this, I would like to ask you what information you can provide regarding the investigation, which I imagine you are also carrying out in your Directorate-General, with regard to flax and premium hunters. Do you not have any information of your own? Will you take account of the information supplied by the Agriculture Department which I have mentioned? If the Agriculture Department inspection indicates evidence of serious irregularities in the flax processing companies, should the corresponding subsidies be paid or should we await the conclusion of your Directorate-General? Commissioner, the worst possible approach would be to try to prematurely close an investigation such as this flax investigation, which involves senior members of the Spanish Government in relation to the illegal payment of subsidies and fraud in this aid for the flax processing industry. There could be nothing worse than to close our eyes to it.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I live in the middle of the Nordic forests, which form part of the enormous area of Europe covered by forests. In the Nordic countries, we obviously do not have the same problems as in the Mediterranean area. It is therefore incorrect to talk in this context about the forests of Europe. The forests of Europe are very, very different from one another. I could spend all night and all of tomorrow talking about the history of the forests and about the enormous importance Europe’s forest areas are going to have in a future sustainable Europe. However, this report concerns the threats to our forests. For the forests in northern and central Europe, the greatest threats are from airborne forms of pollution. Unfortunately, we cannot prevent pollution by means of forest policy but only by means of environmental, traffic and agricultural policy, in short through general environmental policy. Because most forests are damaged by discharges which come from a long way away, responsibility for the air and climate is global and European. Fires do not constitute a problem for the Nordic forests. On the contrary. To obtain environmental certification, the owners of the forests have to burn down a certain area of them each year. We need more fires. We set fires for ecological reasons. In the Nordic forests, there are a great many species of plant which have waxed seeds. They have to be warmed up by a fire in order to grow. In the Nordic countries, there are also insects which need burning ant hills in order to breed. I believe that we should support the southern countries’ need to fight fires, but that not all forests can be lumped together by talking in this context about European forests.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, my colleague, Mrs Thyssen has produced some excellent work and I wish to congratulate her on it. In this connection, I myself would like to comment just on the relevant production markets and the guidelines for interpretation regarding how market share is determined, especially from the point of view of cooperation agreements in the petrol station business. These issues cause problems, at least in my home country of Finland, and in other small Member States. Guidelines on vertical restraints should be designed to help us see clearly and accurately when the seller’s market share in the relevant product market exceeds the 30% threshold to be applied. Regarding cooperation agreements in the petrol station business, the draft guidelines to be applied do not at present take sufficiently clear account of the special features of that industry’s market and delivery agreements. The 30% market share limit provided for under the Block Exemption regulation will cause problems relating to equal treatment for existing petrol stations, at least in Finland. Applying the new ruling might lead to situations where, for example, we will be inspecting in a different manner the contractual obligations regarding cooperation in the petrol station industry that are otherwise comparable in every respect with each other as far as their direct effects are concerned if the market share of one company exceeds the 30% threshold. It is important to define unambiguously the relevant markets referred to in Article 3 of the Block Exemption regulation. The guidelines have not defined sufficiently precisely how the market share of a manufacturer and a wholesaler should be determined. I feel this is especially problematic. As this is a matter of regulating the right of competition in an industry in which competition takes place among brand names, the guidelines should clearly state that calculating market shares should always involve studying each stage of delivery separately. In addition, the guidelines should indicate unambiguously that the 30% threshold in the relevant market has been calculated to take account of sales of the supplier’s own brand to the retailer or distributor.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, safeguarding pensions is an extremely important task facing our age. We are conscious of the fact that numerous pension schemes in the various Member States, based on the intergeneration compact, are encountering ever-increasing difficulties. That is why the issue of supplementary pensions has become so very important, and that is what we are discussing this evening. When it comes to supplementary pensions and pension funds, our first priority in regulatory terms is to ensure that the rules governing the Common Market are upheld, and that no additional restrictions to the free movement of persons within the European Community are created, as is often the case. We are aware that this is still the case today for many social security systems, and we must avoid the possibility of similar restrictions to the free movement of persons arising in this new sphere as well. That is why certain common minimum provisions need to be put in place here. We need certain minimum regulations for the protection of financial investments, and we anticipate that suitable proposals will be drafted and improved on to this end. The second quite crucial issue is that of tax breaks, this being possible at three different stages: at the paying-in stage, then afterwards on the interest that is paid, and then at the payout stage. The arrangements for this vary from one Member State to another, and if we want these funds to be compatible throughout the European Community then we are going to have to produce common provisions. This is not going to be a piece of cake. We all know that taxation is subject to the unanimity principle, but this is one of the fundamental demands we have to make. I now come to the crunch question of this debate, namely what are pensions? What are pension funds? I have to say, we are still only halfway through the debate where this is concerned. We have not reached a conclusive opinion within our Group either. There is only one thing I can say with certainty: biometric risks must play a part in this overall assessment in some respect. In other words, if we do not take biometric risks into account, then it will not be possible to address the other issues I have mentioned. But we are quite deliberately proposing an open style of wording, as chosen by Mr Ferri for the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market in points 7 and 8. I believe this kind of wording will attract the broadest consensus here, and therefore enable us to make progress, for what matters most is that the directives are now put forward to us. I believe it will not be possible to answer some of the questions we are discussing today until we can assess them in the light of the Commission’s proposals, the actual draft directives, that is.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, it is said that one of the characteristics of Galicians is to answer one question with another and, as a true Galician, I shall therefore begin my speech with a question. Why, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, must CFP reform take place specifically in 2002? It is taking place because a transitional period has just come to an end in Spain and Portugal. Since 1986, Spain and Portugal have not enjoyed rights equal to those of the other States over the seas that belong to us all, as Community seas. This fact does not appear anywhere, however; it does appear in the Commission document, but Parliament has rejected it. We are drawing up a series of documents, regulations, as if the main reason for reform were not actually the fact that since 1986, five new States have joined the European Community and these States should have the same rights on Community seas that the Member States had when the European Community was made up of six States or ten. We must not uphold privileges and discrimination that allows these States still to be considered as intruders in seas that belong to us all. Having said this, we are now seeing enormous confusion. Privileges are being confused with the conservation of resources. In order to justify the privileges it is said that we want to conserve resources. We all want to conserve resources – that is not the problem; we accept all fair decisions to conserve resources; the problem is how to distribute between fleets, resources that scientifically, reasonably, with common sense, applying the precautionary principle, are considered fair. This principle is not being applied. This situation has arisen, with the reform disadvantaging Spain and Portugal, and therefore Galicia, which has been referred to so often today, because it has not even been considered to be a territory that depends on fishing. Maintaining – I am just finishing, Mr President – the principle of relative stability, scorning international fishing, failing to take into account that ... (The President cut off the speaker)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to comment on Mr Kuhne’s speech, which contained some scandalous comments to my mind. He used his contribution as one of Parliament’s rapporteurs as an opportunity for polemics. Since I have no wish to involve myself in polemics, I most certainly would not wish to remind Mr Kuhne that his European party is happy for large numbers of staff to be funded by their own group. I do not wish to go any deeper into this, but he ought to have mentioned it. All will become clear as to why I requested the floor. Mr President, I urge you to clarify, via the Bureau of the European Parliament, to what extent a rapporteur of this Parliament is allowed to include personal polemics in his or her report. I think this is irresponsible, and if we want to maintain a common style in this House, and eliminate abuses – which are also perpetrated within our groups – something I wholeheartedly embrace, then this must be done in a spirit of cooperation and not using polemics in the way that Mr Kuhne just has! I urge you to have the Bureau look into this matter. (Applause from the right)

Political group: PPE-DE
The repercussions of the forest fires which swept through Portugal this summer are far from over. The heavy rains have brought landslides and floods which have threatened to worsen the scale of the catastrophe, over and above the environmental consequences in terms of soil erosion, and the severe socio-economic problems experienced in areas of the interior of the country where woodland was the main source of economic activity. The figures do not convey the depths of the suffering of our communities, although they do illustrate the scale of the disaster, which caused the deaths of 20 people, laid waste 5% of Portugal’s total land area and almost 11% of our woodland areas, leaving 45 000 people deprived of any source of income, and costing a total of more than EUR 1.3 billion, almost 1.12% of Portugal’s gross national income, in direct damages. We therefore welcome the mobilisation of the Solidarity Fund to provide EUR 48.5 million for Portugal, after the Commission’s latest adjustment in the light of new information received, in accordance with our direct request in the Committee on Budgets. We would remind you, however, that more should have been done, as we proposed. The amount of aid is at odds with the scale of the tragedy, and this raises the issue of assessing and revising the current criteria for mobilising the Solidarity Fund.

Political group: GUE-NGL