kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
once this trade starts it will expand very rapidly by virtue of its competitive advantage.
like it or not one hundred million birds will still be in cages on d day or should i say e day?
this operation is proceeding on my own farm at this very moment and the machinery is reliable.
on the assumption that you somehow succeed in either of these where will consumers turn for their eighty three million daily eggs? to ukraine to india to argentina to brazil where all the eggs will have been laid in battery cages.
our uk solution is to mechanically stamp eggs with the code numbers that represent their method of production at the laying farm itself.
insisting on the ruthless enforcement of its rules in a year's time from the comfort of an armchair may give the speaker a great feeling of satisfaction but it could seriously jeopardise the long term health of the british egg sector.
this inspectorate will also visit packing stations and build up a database of the processors who use these battery cage eggs in their products.
how do you remove and dispose of one hundred million hens in twenty four hours?
i believe that an intra community trading ban is a complete non starter.
so the least bad solution and i say least bad' is to allow temporary derogations to non compliant producers with conditions attached.
in effect we will export a large slice of our industry which has just made massive investments to stay compliant with eu rules.
not only will it be impossible to police across open borders but it could be challenged by the wto.
most uk retailers are keen to avoid trading in battery caged eggs after the deadline but they can only succeed in this if these eggs are properly identified.
mr president the commission has created a huge crisis in the egg industry.
the commission say it is far too difficult for them to organise the stamping of a special code on non compliant eggs despite its obvious necessity. yes this is of course the same commission that is forcing uk sheep farmers to unnecessarily identify sheep individually with unreliable electronic equipment.
or how do you safely smash and dispose of eighty three million eggs every day?
it will be very difficult to stop.
there are some naked images i enjoy looking at but i do not enjoy the visual image of lorry loads of naked unstamped eggs leaving foreign battery cage units en route to the uk in.
do any of these countries have a reputation for high welfare standards?
two thousand and eleven today the import of shell eggs is very limited due to the short shelf life of the product as well as eu food safety requirements.
the commission is continually asking member states to complete the missing data on every possible occasion including in the standing committee on the food chain and animal health and the meetings of the chief veterinary officers.
last month in november two thousand and ten official data for two thousand and nine on production sites for laying hens were submitted to the commission by twenty four member states.
i also wish to highlight that member states are primarily responsible for implementing eu legislation on the protection of laying hens.
on behalf of the commission i would like to underline that the ban on conventional cages which was adopted in one thousand nine hundred and ninety nine represents an important improvement for animal welfare in the european union.
a better picture of the situation will be available next year after the stakeholder meeting.
at this stage the commission is concentrating its efforts to ensure that member states take the necessary measures to implement the ban on conventional cages by the legal deadline.
member states are responsible for ensuring that eggs not produced in compliance with the directive on the protection of laying hens are not legally marketable according to eu legislation.
furthermore the commission asked member states by a formal letter to submit their national action plans to implement the ban in order to better analyse the situation across the eu.
as of today only eighteen member states have submitted complete data.
according to eu legislation packs containing eggs imported from third countries where there are not sufficient guarantees as to the equivalency of production standards are to bear the indication of farming method as non eu
the commission is making every effort to monitor enforcement in member states including through inspections carried out by the commission's experts and through the data provided annually by the member states on the basis of a specific commission decision related to animal welfare inspections on farms.
the commission is making every effort and we are concentrating on our efforts to support member states in complying with this directive.
the measure has been drafted with the barest minimum of enforcement left to the precious care of greatly varying standards in twenty seven member states.
mr president united kingdom producers have been investing substantial sums of money pushing up their production costs in preparing for the implementation of this directive because they know that britain will implement the law.
will the commission ensure that countries that fail to comply will be prevented from exporting eggs to countries that do comply or at least that eggs from non complying units will not be exported?
why should they have to face unfair competition from countries that fail to implement the law or possibly are granted exemption or delayed enforcement?
the language is hardly suggestive of uniformly severe enforcement.
you must protect those who have complied in good faith with this legislation.
the uk's egg farmers put their confidence in the commission and have invested hundreds of millions of pounds getting ready for this legislation.
in the uk the pig farming industry learnt to its great cost the mistake of introducing higher animal welfare standards unilaterally.
what is going to be the outcome of that?
so what are we going to do here?
so what are you going to say to the stakeholders in january commissioner?
we want to know because you have got to realise that today the last hens are already in the conventional cages that have got to meet that deadline.
there is no way that figure is going to change dramatically by that time.
it is no excuse to say that we were not aware it was coming. ten years is a long time in any business cycle to be able to prepare and invest.
i want member states who are compliant to be able to protect their consumers and their producers by being able to ban imports of illegally produced eggs from those producers and countries which are not compliant. i also believe that the commission should draw up a list once it has the information and name and shame those who have failed to comply.
i want to be able to go back and tell them that we are going to take tough action to make sure that the legislation is complied with.
they want them. they do not value them and they do not want to pay the price for these. i have not received one query from a consumer in my time here in the european parliament since two thousand and four begging me to have this legislation implemented.
they do not at all give the true story of egg production in the european union.
having said that it is important that this legislation passed by this house is fully implemented and that those who have invested huge amounts of money to be compliant are protected by the european union.
the commission needs to tell us what is going to happen on that day because it is inevitable these eggs will be on the market and there will be a black market in eggs of some description so we do need clarity on this.
there will be a very visible pile up of eggs eighty three million of them on one january two thousand and twelve that are illegal!
morally and ethically we cannot dump those eggs. it would be horrendous if we did and also the market would suffer and prices to consumers would rise and there would be protests and revolt.
i think the commission knows it will have a legal problem on its hands. let me address the market situation.
those who are in the transition phase also need to know that there will be no roll back because they are confused about the messages they are getting.
that is the fact of the situation.
let me also say that if it was easy to comply with this legislation and if our consumers really and i mean this really really wanted welfare friendly framing systems they would pay the price for them.
remember that folks.
if more time is given then the moral of this story is that if the eu makes a directive it pays to ignore it.
he did the right thing.
the germans scandinavians dutch british and others have complied but certain large producers have simply refused.
eggs from illegal cages will undercut those who obeyed the eu.
the regulation has put about fifteen pence on a dozen eggs.
those bandits who do not comply might be given more time and would be clearly rewarded because they would have been given a price advantage.
this involves massive capital costs and to comply means borrowing money.
mr president this is not just a matter about hens in unsuitable cages but it is about the ability of the eu to oversee the single market. states were given ten years to comply by one january two thousand and twelve or the product would be illegal.
is the commission going to renege and make his eggs uncompetitive?
the issue of eggs in shell is quite visible and clear.
there is however a massive market for processed eggs for the confectionery sector and we need to know what sort of labelling requirements there will be for that product.
i think this is where we have the greatest concerns because more and more eggs are going into the processing sector and my fear is that we will export our cages from the european union and then import liquid egg and dried egg products from those very systems in third countries.
this is a very real problem for the european union. my other concern relates to parallel production systems and a huge problem in the marketplace if we have enriched cages coming into production while the current systems remain in production. that could cause major problems for producers and ultimately for consumers.
mr president as many colleagues across this chamber have said protecting producers who have complied with this legislation and spent vast amounts of money is absolutely right and is the duty of the commission at this stage.
i have spoken to many of my own farmers who find it difficult to find the money to invest in difficult financial and economic circumstances.
i am interested in the reference to the marking or stamping of eggs.
i have a recent letter from the commission which actually indicates that an additional mark would have little or no benefit because the commission did not believe that consumers would actually differentiate.
i have companies in my constituency which rely on the import of eggs from other european countries.
however the conclusion that we are divided in this house on this issue is not justified.
i would respectfully ask the commissioner to look at the result of the final vote before judging whether this house is divided on this issue or not.
increased transparency and accountability and improved corporate governance;
the final law we are debating today fully implements the basel rules on capital against the trading book and re securitisations and it robustly implements the international remuneration rules agreed at the g.
parliament has insisted on a tough interpretation of the g twenty principles to ensure that the upfront cash proportion of a bonus is strictly limited.
furthermore the bank of england reports say that lending to small and medium sized enterprises in the uk has actually declined in recent months and that mortgage lending is expected to contract in the next few months.
if that is the case why did the bank of england financial stability report state in june that the proportion of bank revenues allocated to salaries and bonuses has in fact increased since the banking crisis?
savers and investors saw the value of their pensions and investments decline as a result of the banks' risky practices.
it is therefore imperative that these rules on bonuses apply in.
in the last two years since two thousand and eight the banks have failed to reform their structures.
the effect of parliament's amendments is also to ensure that those remuneration policies first and foremost prioritise the health and stability of a financial institution and indeed lending to the real economy.
a cap on the ratio of bonus to fixed salary;
payment in contingent capital alongside shares;
two thousand and eleven these rules are deferral in line with the business cycle with annual review clawback;
a very special thanks goes to my shadows in the committee on economic and monetary affairs to the staff and also to commissioner barnier for his continued support for the committee's proposals and of course not least to the spanish presidency for their persistence and efforts in twelve hours of trialogues to mediate between parliament's negotiating team and the twenty seven member states.
we have a duty to respond to the public's concerns. our voters demand and expect banks to prioritise stability and lending over bankers' own pay and bonuses.
the bankers walked away with the short term profits from these risky practices while the risks they took will remain on the banks' books for years to come. the new law amending the capital requirements directive addresses these fundamental flaws and weaknesses in the banking system which led to the crisis. it will force banks to hold more capital against riskier activities on the trading book.
so colleagues at a time when governments across the eu are making substantial budget cuts scaling back public services and support to families and businesses we cannot continue with a banking culture that prioritises bankers' pay and perks over sustaining capital and credit for europe's economic recovery.
they have failed to do this and we are now doing the job for them in order to rebuild trust and confidence in europe's banking system.
the law also forces banks to reform their remuneration and bonus practices with rules that break the link between financial reward and excessive risk taking.
we are constantly told by the banks that they have learned the lessons of the crisis.
and of course coverage of bonus like pensions so a banker responsible for the collapse of his own bank will no longer be able to walk away with a gbp sixteen million pension pot.
twenty financial experts all agree that a high risk short term bonus culture combined with a lack of capital were central elements in the two thousand and eight global financial crisis.
paying a large part of the bonus in cash without any deferral or assessment of actual performance leaves the parliament believes an unacceptable incentive for taking dangerous short term risks.
in fact over the last week some banks and institutions have attempted to derail and undermine the proposals that we will be voting on tomorrow.
it is why enforcement is vital it is why national regulators must have the backbone to enforce this legislation and it is why tomorrow members will have to give a strong vote and a strong signal to banks and the public that we do intend to reform and indeed transform the discredited bonus culture in the long term. i believe colleagues that it is the beginning of the process
yes i mean up there alongside the supervisory architecture.
under capitalised trading books were a fundamental cause of the crisis making speculative proprietary trading attractive and almost cost free. so the three to four fold increase of capital required against such trading positions should be welcomed as directly addressing the root cause of the crisis and cutting down on the motive for casino banking.
on remuneration when i first suggested that big bonuses and pension lump sums could be paid in subordinated debt many said that this could not fly.
so i thank the rapporteur and my fellow shadows for supporting this idea which we transformed into contingent capital and is already becoming part of mainstream thinking elsewhere.
i regret that my specific tax avoidance texts could not be included but we have prohibited payment in ways designed to undermine the purpose of the directive.
this is a specialist area but every single citizen in europe is pleased that parliament the commission and the council are tackling the issue of excessive remuneration.
we only know about the excesses of the banking sector because of the disasters that have happened. i would argue that even if things were profitable in banking the remuneration is way out of line from the general public perception.
when people have knowledge of what is happening then we can take action on it.
we published the payments of farmers from the very smallest right up through the chain and we regard this as transparent.
in my view bankers make profits from public money from their shareholders and those of us who take out loans so it is time to tackle this particular problem.
i am not however convinced that the mindset of many bankers has changed at all and i fear that when this does eventually blow over unless the commission is very strong we will revert to type.
many of them are highly educated fully qualified and mad for work but they cannot get jobs because they are paying for the sins of others the sins of financial terrorists greedy speculators overpaid bankers golf playing non performing regulators.
i therefore fully agree that these forms of training at the workplace should be used properly and should not replace regular jobs as was highlighted by several speakers.
we will present measures on how to support young entrepreneurs and increase the self employment of young people and we would suggest targeted actions for young people with no or low qualification to help them to move into the labour market.
we cannot waste the talent of our young people where every fifth young european is without a job or without appropriate prospects.
it will be limited to trained experts in a passenger information unit.
concerning the european pnr directive that the commission has proposed and that we have discussed many times in this plenary these two issues are not comparable.
if there were to be a new proposal presented and i said if' that would of course take into account the outcome of the court ruling but also the data protection reform that has been debated here so many times.
you might recall that we discussed a couple of weeks ago the post stockholm programme and the paper by the commission an open and secure europe'.
there was a recently adopted paper by the eu fundamental rights agency which provides very useful inspiration.
that was written before the judgment.
we do not see any link between the court ruling and these agreements.
it is also clear from the judgment that member states' national legislations are not directly concerned by the ruling.
it will be up to national jurisdictions to decide if the legislation in question fully respects the fundamental rights.
it takes time and we need to carefully assess all this with our legal experts.
that means that we are back to the situation before the adoption of the data retention directive in two thousand and six and that is also why the commission has taken the necessary steps to withdraw the case against germany and that is why the fines given to sweden will be paid back.
there were some questions on the pnr and the tftp agreement. of course we are carefully assessing and reassessing this but it seems that the agreements provide for enough specific safeguards and are reviewed regularly by a team which includes representatives of the national data protection authorities.
we are assessing the full implications of the judgment.
we can assess together whether the strict limitations and safeguards can be further strengthened.
taking into account the data protection reforms if there were to be a proposal on a new type of data retention directive taking into account what the court says of course that will be dealt with in the normal legislation certainly with full participation
it is too early to say.
we said in that paper that we would review the data retention directive.
this needs very careful assessment.
we need to see progress on this.
the use of the data will be limited to the combating of serious crime and terrorism and any processing of sensitive data is prohibited. the proposal also includes effective safeguards to ensure protection of the data.
from the commissions side we have already started the reflection on whether there is a need or not for a new legislative proposal.
other issues that the court raises are access and use by national authorities the definition of serious crime data security measures the retention period and the location of retained data as well as the need to differentiate between individuals on the basis of their closeness to activities giving rise to criminal prosecution and the protection of professional secrecy. the commission evaluation report pointed to some of these issues as well.
the court has decided that the data retention directive does not meet the principle of proportionality and should have provided more safeguards.
at the same time the court considers that data retention as such does not adversely affect the essence of fundamental rights.
this in that case would be for the next commission to take up.
the commission has welcomed the clarity brought by the court on the validity of the data retention directive.
it recognises that some limitation to fundamental rights could be justified in the name of a legitimate and general interest namely the fight against serious crime and terrorism.
i think that this is a disgrace given that it was actually the council who back in two thousand and five put a lot of pressure on this house to rush through the legislation in a very short period of time. and we see the results now.
and the member states have to date completely failed to provide any evidence even a scrap of evidence that this has made our world safer mr weber.
' so i will not say told you so' but maybe we should learn from this experience.
will it start a sort of inverted infringement procedure if member states refuse to repeal the national laws?
so will the commission consider a wholly new approach with less intrusive and smarter means to keep our people safe?
the european commission is currently funding the creation of national systems for the storage of pnr in fourteen member states.
we have not had any proof of the effectiveness of data retention.
i would also like to know what the commission believes are the consequences for other programmes for mass storage of personal data like pnr swift eurodac licence plates and everything else.
what will the commission do?
it was bad legislation and i really do not want to say as one of those who voted against the legislation told you so!
it should not be for the courts to undo what we have done.
i think mr weber your call for a new data retention directive is slightly premature because before turning to the national laws i would like to point out the fact that we have been waiting for a real evaluation for years.
that is precisely why this massive data retention is considered to be disproportionate by the courts.
the uk was in the presidency and the person who pushed this through was the then uk home secretary from the labour party charles clarke.
the ruling by the eu's highest court that bulk storage of metadata on every single person's communications is an unjustified and disproportionate invasion of privacy and a breach of human rights is a vindication of the stance that we took in.
so what happens?
it sets limits on what is acceptable in the restrictions on liberty in the pursuit of security.
the gross encroachment of our rights through the mass collection of data and snooping on our citizens coupled with unaccountable surveillance with insufficient oversight cannot simply be justified in the name of the fight against serious crime and terrorism.
governments certainly need to be able to protect their citizens from serious crime and terrorism but the knee jerk resort to mass data collection with no basis in suspicion is utterly disproportionate.