kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
assisting them to employ a single new employee through a targeted use of convergence funding could have a hugely stimulating effect on the local national and eu economy. smes need less red tape yes but they need more assistance through direct action.
wales is subject to top level convergence funding and given that the primary funding objective is that of raising standards of competitiveness in the poorest performing regions i would like to urge the commission to encourage regional governments to use the money directly to support the expansion of smes.
mr president welsh smes provide ninety nine of my nation's employment. however they are really struggling right now with the economic downturn and although i appreciate the small business test and all the efforts under the procurement directive and such initiatives they actually still do not help directly the micro and small businesses in this current climate.
let us coordinate our policies to re stimulate growth.
micro businesses employ thousands of people.
where i come from this is a tremendous problem. however another issue is the red tape and bureaucracy which they have to contend with on a daily basis. i would be interested to hear the answer from the commission regarding the effectiveness of the small business act and in particular the sme test in proving to be truly effective in analysing the effects of eu legislation
over regulation has made medium sized enterprises less able to compete with other less regulated countries in other continents.
they have much less to do with business but a lot more to do with eu dogma.
the act contains fine phrases and bold ambitions.
offices to advise smes in china help with collecting debts from other member states and greater access to venture capital all have rather limited appeal to micro businesses and small businesses with a limited scope of activity.
they simply want freedom from excessive regulation and oppressive taxation. from one thousand nine hundred and ninety eight to two thousand and ten the cost of eu regulation to the united kingdom alone was one hundred and twenty four zero million.
they are the reservoirs of entrepreneurial spirit the employment generators and the embryos of tomorrow's big businesses.
i have yet to see the effect of this. the sme sector is the engine of the european economy.
the sector provides sustainable and long term employment in many towns and villages throughout my constituency in the north west of ireland.
the cost and availability of credit remains the single biggest obstacle facing this sector this despite the taxpayer support received by the irish banking sector.
i would remind the house and remind the commissioner that president barroso gave a commitment in his state of the union address here last year that red tape would be reduced and it would save billions.
i have actually worked as a financier on the china coast and seen the difficulties that small businesses come up against in china.
of course they are less regulated in different ways but they face many challenges that ours do not.
i believe we have broadly the framework for legislation for smes right.
i hope the commission will help them now by giving serious consideration to investment in things like broadband cheaper energy such as from renewable sources and transport links which will help these people to trade and to prosper.
as a result of this an efsa report was commissioned and this report supports the proposal for reduced transit times and for improvements in conditions for horses specifically.
that written declaration called upon this parliament to ask the commission to look at the particular case of horses being transported for slaughter.
i ask you to treat this as a priority to show your willingness to listen to this parliament and to scientific evidence and to take this as a first step in a new enlightened and animal welfare focused animal transport regulation regime.
the appalling conditions suffered by horses in particular are well documented by ngos and indeed i met with the commissioner's predecessor to discuss this in detail.
so commissioner i understand of course that you have recently taken over but i can assure you that scientific work has already been done.
i am pleased that the report supports the commission's view on the need to improve enforcement;
there are however some suggestions in the report with which the commission cannot agree and these include the large number of complex reports and studies that the report requests from the commission.
and communication to citizens.
the dissemination of guidance on the interpretation of the regulation;
opinions vary on the necessity of transporting animals and on maximum transport times.
these visits will serve two main purposes. firstly they will bring officials from member states with particular problems to another where best practice solutions to those problems have been implemented.
one two thousand and five and in two thousand and thirteen a new series of study visits' will be launched on this particular issue.
these will involve an fvo auditor acting as guide and monitor accompanying four experts from member states during a visit to another member state.
the commission can only produce reports when these are necessary in relation to a specific initiative.
thousand and five however the situation could and should have been better and owing to poor enforcement there is clearly still room for improvement within the framework of the current legislation.
improving controls of animal transport by making better use of navigation systems;
we are also working with the industry and ngos to promote and disseminate initiatives like the guidance on transport of cattle'.
in fact many of the suggested actions have already been taken forward. this includes the harmonisation of member states' reporting on controls.
one of the most contentious issues is the maximum transport time.
we should be opposing unnecessarily long transport times for animals to slaughter not only because of the obvious breach of animal welfare standards with respect to the animal but also because long transport times run the risk of poor hygiene and the subsequent transmission and spread of diseases.
i want to be equally proud that the european union acts so that there are fewer horses for them to rescue.
to the commissioner and those who argue against changing the law enforcement does need to improve but this resolution says that it can never be enough if the rules are wrong in the first place.
i am proud that the world horse welfare gives abused and neglected horses a second chance in life;
we should ask the commission to report to us on the consequences of slaughterhouse concentration not just on animal welfare but also on competition for producers.
if i could draw attention to paragraph one i think this sums up all our concerns and stresses that the problem is poor compliance and implementation of existing laws in the member states. so while it is easy to call for more legislation i am afraid that if existing rules are not being complied with it begs the question as to why we would lay down more rules
the second issue and lots of colleagues spoke about this is the problem of the concentration of slaughterhouses.
i also would ask in this era of austerity whether the member states will reduce the resources on inspection of animal transportation because they do not have the resources to do it.
this is something which the commission needs to look carefully at.
when there are problems currently.
mr president my thanks to the rapporteur and indeed to all of the shadows who worked on this difficult but important report.
but i share the view of those who say that if we are not even able to enforce the rules we have today how much more difficult it will be to enforce new legislation.
indeed i informed parliament of the measures which i think have to be implemented.
improving enforcement should not be the final step but the beginning of an approach which could be both reasonable and ambitious.
there have been some legal problems in this respect which we will try to solve but since we have these methods of modern technology which do not cost much i think we should use them.
rather it is the loading and unloading of animals and the conditions on the vehicle which determine whether there is a genuine welfare problem.
the commission report highlights where the real problem lies it is in the poor enforcement of current legislation.
we make the laws here then many member states ignore them.
enforcement of existing laws is the key to improving animal welfare and i hope this parliament can have a discussion with the commissioner on how we might actually make that work better on small local slaughterhouses i have to agree with my colleague elisabeth jeggle.
we look forward to working with you on this dossier and i would at this point declare an interest as vice president of the scottish society for the prevention of cruelty to animals. i think we agree that the problem we are trying to address with this report is to take stock of where we actually are.
the problem is not that we need more rules;
the problem is that we are not enforcing properly via the member states the existing rules.
it is of course complex. the economics are complex in different places but i would undertake to bring you some information from scotland where particularly in relation to state aid hygiene rules and the bse regulations we do have credible data that we are seeing fewer bigger abattoirs whereas we want to go in the opposite direction.
the report raises some very important issues and i do not think anyone would endorse the unnecessary transport of live animals over long distances.
a balance must be struck here between achieving high animal welfare standards and creating rules which are effective and above all else enforceable.
in the uk we have two inspection bodies the rspca and trading standards.
they will frequently be present at markets or abattoirs where lorries full of livestock are being unloaded.
are they of roughly the same size within those compartments?
have they included heavily pregnant ewes?
are there any weak animals?
i object in the strongest possible terms to politicians from countries where people engage in something like bull baiting lecturing me and other farmers on how to transport our livestock.
there is nothing scientific about eight hours.
it is a purely random figure.
it is an emotive subject which must not be used to undo the good work which agriculture and transport sectors have already done to date. great advances have been made in improving animal welfare standards during transport state of the art livestock trailers greater training and requirements placed on haulage companies journey planners and rest stop facilities.
it is not in the interests of the haulier or the farmer for livestock to suffer during transport and we should encourage the industry as a whole to adopt best practice and compliance with the law.
currently we have a regulation which i believe is not adequately enforced across the eu and before introducing more regulation we should tackle the current non compliance.
the ability to export live animals is extremely important to peripheral regions and the northern ireland economy.
it allows farmers a greater range of potential buyers.
restricting the ability to export live animals exposes farmers to the mercy of local slaughtering plants which with no other competing market will have an extremely dominant position in the market place. we need high animal welfare standards but we also need a balance between the practical and the enforceable.
some of us have been hearing different numbers being called. so that we avoid any misunderstandings can we pay attention to the screen up here?
these are challenges acknowledged in the eu's jobs and growth strategy the two thousand and twenty strategy and they should also be at the forefront of a successful raw materials strategy.
as we europeans find ourselves in an increasingly globalised world we face the dual challenge of securing european prosperity and fighting climate change.
tying a raw materials strategy based on free trade closer to other eu policies will enhance access to raw materials for european companies as well.
contrary to frequent assertions europe is still rich in natural resources and with its minerals metals and forests northern europe in particular has the potential to meet many of the eu's raw material needs in a sustainable way provided there is transport.
europe needs actions aimed at innovation and eliminating trade barriers in third countries not a policy of stockpiling rare and critical raw materials while undermining democracy abroad.
it is crucial that the capacity of developing countries is strengthened using the aid for trade' mechanism.
if sound and strategic management of our own resources can be coupled with real reform of the internal market we will be well on our way to being a competitive player in tomorrow's global green economy.
apart from being green and trade oriented the eu raw materials strategy must also ensure that both developed and developing countries can benefit from the sustainable supply of materials.
europe should also take advantage of the materials that we have here.
special attention must be paid to fragile states and post conflict situations in order to ensure that raw materials are not used to escalate or finance conflict.
especially at this time of crisis we need real growth orientated reforms based on encouraging free trade.
two thousand and fifty to achieve this a secure supply of raw materials is the key to a future where europe leads the world in green technology. as economies go greener they also increasingly compete for the same key raw materials many of which we must import from competing world powers.
over the coming decades we need to restructure the european economy in order to achieve smart sustainable and inclusive growth for the whole continent.
it is absolutely clear that we need to consider strategies for reducing the use of and increasing the recycling of these scarce raw materials but we also need to make sure that we do not over complicate the issue.
a strategy is a strategy and the title of this report is an effective strategy'.
we need to be aware that we could become too prescriptive at this stage.
i come from a country with a very long history of landfill and i am sure there is a great deal in there that we could very usefully use but we need to be careful.
landfill creates greenhouse gases we all know that; that is why we are trying to avoid it. old landfills are sealed they can create noxious gases sometimes poisonous gases so we must be very careful before we move forward with this strategy and we must have good and careful impact assessments in place.
much of the debate around this subject has centred on the distortions of supply in the market and on speculation market manipulation.
this is all open to debate but i believe that the last thing we need to do in response to that concern is to talk about stockpiling because that is a manipulation of the market and there is absolutely no guarantee without much further thought and much further examination that this will take us any further forward.
broadly i welcome the report.
i think this debate gets really interesting when we speak about specific raw materials.
your report did take on board some of the comments of the committee on agriculture and i thank you for that but i do think that when it comes to the three pillar approach it does not mention agriculture and food.
one of the most crucial areas in my view for the world and also for the european union is food security.
we need raw materials to produce food and many of those that go into food production into the land are scarce and in short supply.
this question asks the commission if it is attempting to mainstream the social protection and inclusion process in the provision of medium term financial assistance for member states' balances of payments under council regulation no three hundred and thirty two.
trusting member states is fine but trust has always to be earned and if there are concerns i believe they need to be dealt with.
mr president the eu's social protection and social inclusion process is core to ensuring the achievement of the european union's strategic goal of sustained economic growth more and better jobs and greater social cohesion.
regardless of the circumstances whereby eu funds are disbursed we cannot wash our hands and hope for the best.
during an economic crisis there are increased risks of poverty and social exclusion for many citizens but particularly for those on the margins of society for those who become unemployed and for those who rely on the various social safety nets that operate within the different member states.
we have been asked to trust member states.
we cannot aspire to a social inclusion process and produce lots and lots of documents outlining how to achieve it if at the same time we do not ensure that this process is mainstreamed in our initiatives. the commissioner says that we have attached harsh conditions to these loans but i was not exactly clear as to what these conditions are and indeed if they include social conditionality.
it was clear from the very beginning that such unselective cuts would hit the most vulnerable in society.
i fear that is not what is happening.
what we should have at the end of this crisis is a more sustainable economy with decent work with quality public services and fair globalisation moving towards the implementation of the millennium development goals. but that is not what we are getting.
at the same time that the commission is sanctioning the pumping of billions of euros into the saving of the irish banks we have an irish government which is planning this very minute to destroy local development to destroy community development programmes which are supported by the european union.
they are setting out to destroy our education system.
today we had the launch by the european foundation for living and working conditions of the report entitled restructuring in the recession. if i could just quote two lines here ideally it would be preferable to ensure that measures to address the immediate problems caused by the recession are aligned with long term goals'.
surely the commission should be insisting that all member states should at least seek to do that.
mr president this is not about telling member states exactly what they should or should not be spending their money on.
but when member states do receive that aid from the european union under this provision they should be encouraged to spend it in a way that respects the principles of the union in other words not ignoring the need for social protection and social inclusion.
many of those who have become unemployed in those member states are the most vulnerable and the least likely to find employment quickly.
that is why it is important that social safety nets in those member states are not ignored.
we have asked in our oral question particularly about whether member states are required to include an evaluation of the social impact in their reports that they submit to the commission.
i would be pleased if you can inform us about whether that is the case.
it is important that we give the right message to member states that are receiving european funding through the medium term financial assistance.
i believe personally that we must make it clear that the commission might take into account the way the most vulnerable have been helped before agreeing any further assistance.
it is so important to remember that this financial crisis has a human face as well and that face is represented quite often by the already most marginalised in society.
i think we need to bring that into the debate and the discussions which will come about.
will we be able to achieve this commissioner?
i thank the commissioner for having given us an insight into what he is preparing for the next year. i think the time has come to make a political decision here that we have to have a binding energy saving target because without it we are actually undermining everything else that we do on the economy on energy security and on climate change.
it would also create many thousands of jobs in the local economy.
by doing more on energy saving we are also tackling the very practical problems that people face in their lives.
he has succeeded in bringing parliamentarians together on this issue and he deserves warm congratulations.
mr president i want to pay tribute to mr bendtsen who has worked extremely hard on this report and cooperated closely with the shadows from other parties.
too many people are living in fuel poverty struggling to keep warm in houses that are not properly insulated. making homes more energy efficient puts money in people's pockets to spend in the local economy at this time of financial and economic difficulty.
secondly energy security.
two thousand and eight we should have made the target binding then and we really need to go forward now and find ways of making it possible.
so given all these positive effects it comes as a great shock to realise that the twenty energy efficiency target is the one part of the two thousand and twenty package which is currently heading for failure as the commissioner said.
the agreement has no budgetary implications for the union budget;
establishing a legal basis for eu canada customs cooperation on supply chain security and risk management.
in particular it opens the door to mutual recognition agreements on customs security reinforces the customs related aspects for securing the logistics chain on international trade including container security and facilitates legitimate trade.
therefore we have to shift the final legislative vote on my report in order to remain in control of the democratic process of this next large step of realising a common fiscal and banking union.
a set of studies is being undertaken so as to ensure that the next steps are based on the most up to date information and in carrying them out the commission will of course ensure that it addresses the various requests set out in the text of the final agreement many of which have been originated here in parliament.
to. two thousand and eight that is not a small task.
i know that there have been interesting debates on this file also within parliament and i am of course grateful as well to the different shadow rapporteurs who have brought their own perspective to this discussion.
km. that will be explored in the analysis that is being done right now.
we know that planning certainty is important for industry and in view of that the final compromise requests the commission to review the legislation by the end of two thousand and fifteen for the period into the next decade.
achieving it presents multiple benefits.
mr ulmer has already mentioned the benefit for the manufacturers; the benefit for the consumers is that they will have a reduced fuel bill. i could also mention the benefit for the european economy which benefits from lower oil import bills and sees savings from consumers' lower fuel bills being spent for other purposes. that is a clever way to spend the money in a time of crisis in europe.
this was set out in the commission's analysis and nothing has really called that into question.
are german sayings that somehow reflect what we experienced with our proposals on emissions from passenger cars.
the next step for the two thousand and fifteen review is that the commission will soon launch a consultation process which will look into the various issues and parameters which would need to be addressed when setting a target for after.
as we have set out in the commission communication on the two thousand and thirty policy framework for climate and energy it is absolutely clear that vehicle emissions need to continue reducing in the next decade that is the decade after.
i believe that together we have in the end managed to ensure an agreement at first reading which i think is a good outcome.