GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, we are facing a difficult issue, as evidenced by the large number of speakers. I would like to extend warm thanks to Mr Kuckelkorn as rapporteur, for the huge effort he has made to achieve this report. I am slightly less pleased with Mr Kuckelkorn’s tabling of amendments, because he has tabled a great many and they go beyond the requirements of the current objective. I think that we should differentiate between the two Kuckelkorns. I believe that the systems we should pursue in Europe should be based on two principles. One of them is simply the statutory pay-as-you-go system and the other is the system of capital cover which is an extension of the former, it is just that the only problem we are facing is that all countries have very different starting positions. It is true that a country such as the Netherlands has managed to strike a fine balance between the two. Other countries have managed to do this to a lesser extent. Also, for example, countries where nearly all pensions are capital cover systems, such as Great Britain, do not meet expectations because, although the risks for the government are reasonably small, the cover for the retired is extremely modest. In England, if there is a hard frost, for example, people are unable to pay their bills. I do not think that this is the right way forward. First and foremost, we need to remember that this is about people and based on this, we must develop a system which makes sound pension schemes possible, and we must, as far as we can, leave this task to the Member States. We should keep intervention to a minimum. We need to bear our starting point in mind, namely that if people move from one country to another to work or retire, it should be possible for them to take their pensions with them. The Commission has always attempted to do this and I do believe that it has succeeded in its aim. I think that two issues still need tackling. Firstly, risks tied in with the second and third pillars should be sufficiently covered, because far too little has been said about this. Secondly, the first pillar should at long last be defined, as the first pillar in one country is quite different from that in another country. And if we could bring all of this a bit closer together, we would perhaps have far fewer problems than we have at the moment.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this is obviously a very important issue that needs to be addressed with some urgency. Not only do consumers need to be reassured, but the industry also needs a climate of certainty within which to operate. May I say that I speak with a background in the industry, though since joining this House I have of course severed all ties with it. In my previous life I was managing director of a snack food company that made tortilla chips. It also made an excellent British delicacy called pork scratchings – which I just toss in so as to keep the interpreters on their toes. Tortilla chips are made of 100% American maize; and certainly when our customers asked for guaranteed GM-free identity-preserved maize, we had very great difficulty in securing that. All the tests we did, in testing that was widely and commercially available, showed even such maize occasionally contained between 1 and 2% adventitious GM material. So to those such as Mr Bowe who say 1% is a target that can easily be met, I say from experience that it cannot easily be met. It is a very challenging target. I believe that the industry has accepted that target, but with some trepidation. If that target is reduced, what is quite likely to happen – because industry will not meet it – is that increasingly it will just label everything 'May contain GM material' – which completely undermines the purpose of this labelling. That is the first point I would make: the target is already tough. The second point regarding a review is that the industry needs certainty: so constant changes every 12 months are no good for the industry, and indeed confusing for the consumer. The final point, going back to a point that Mrs Jackson made to begin with, is that we must ensure, when labelling comes in, that equal rules are applied with certainty across the EU. As we approach a new millennium, maybe we can start a new trend towards ensuring that such laws will be universally enforced and applied.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Vice-President of the Commission, I checked the statistics while preparing this short intervention and I was shocked to discover that, statistically at least, more than 55 people have been killed on the roads of the European Union since we convened this morning. The European Union loses 4 people an hour. Road traffic accidents are the most common cause of death among children and young people. Every year, we lose a university or large school full of young people no less, because 15,000 young people die on our roads every year. Add to that the fact that I personally have the unhappy privilege of coming from the Member State with the second highest number of fatal accidents in Europe. And what is more, Greece is the only country in Europe in which, unfortunately, there has been no downward trend over the last ten years. Entire families are being sacrificed on the asphalt alter. Road safety can, and must, be a top priority both for the whole of Europe and for each individual country, which is why I shall support the proposal made by Mrs Hedkvist Petersen, whom I should like to congratulate on her report, that we need strategic planning for road safety and we need to set a series of strict but realistic numerical targets. This will attract citizens' attention and provide an effective focal point. We, ladies and gentlemen, have a huge responsibility both here and in Brussels. It is, for example, unfortunate that no legislative proposal has been submitted on the compulsory adoption of the four types of test designed to make car fronts safer for pedestrians, a research programme which, it should be noted, the European Union has been funding for the past 22 years. In addition, further support for the European programme to evaluate novice drivers, support for strategies to promote the use of seat belts, the development of telematics systems, the mandatory fitting of daytime running lights to motorbikes and cars and other proposals in the report could benefit road safety and public health enormously at relatively little cost.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner Liikanen, the questions have actually been asked, and there are a great many questions about this regulation. We too welcome the fact that there has been some movement at last. But it is regrettable that the Commission has only reacted to pressure – pressure from the Austrian Government – and has been proposing legislation piecemeal for years. Where, for example, is the novel feed regulation? How, Commissioner, can you reconcile this with the new Commission slogan that there should be greater transparency, when for example more than 80% of soya production goes into animal feed? I would have liked you to tell me this evening whether you are prepared to announce your support for a moratorium until we have a novel feed regulation. Because anything else means misleading packaging with the result that our consumers are secretly sold quasi-genetically manipulated food under false pretences. I would have liked to learn from you this evening how long these tactics of submitting to the pressure of the feed industry are going to last, or whether you are finally going to deliver on the promise which Mr Prodi made here of greater transparency for consumers. Incidentally – but you know this already – we also think that the 1% is far too high. The level ought to be at least as low as half, as this is possible to analyse. If you are going to assume that there is unintentional contamination then, Mr Liikanen, you will have to explain to me how, in a shipload of soya, 3000 tonnes – that is 1% – becomes unintentionally contaminated! I do not believe that this has anything, anything at all to do with it. We expect you to do what you have already said you would do in the committee, which is to endorse Parliament's vote, finally invite everyone to a round table and propose a new threshold as quickly as possible. Secondly, I expect a clear statement from you this evening on how long the Commission's delaying tactics on the novel feed regulation are going to last, and whether you consider it appropriate, with a view to consumers finally having a clear picture, to support this proposal – part of which was also of course drafted by the Council of Ministers – to declare a moratorium. For I believe that this is the only way to achieve some degree of clarity here.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I would like to add that, on Friday, a United Nations aeroplane crashed. It was carrying 21 volunteers on the WFP programme for the reconstruction of Kosovo and 3 crewmembers. I think that we should remember these victims too, and thank these people for the incredible and useful work they did and pass on our condolences to their relatives, as well as addressing the reason that caused this catastrophe. I would therefore ask you, President, if you think it appropriate, to hold a minute’s silence as well in memory of these heroes of our time.

Political group: PSE
This report was adopted in committee by an overwhelming majority of 47 to 1 without amendment. It concerns a small but important modification of an existing directive which needs to be implemented before the end of this year in order to prevent many European companies from being in breach from January onwards. The Finnish Presidency would very much like to adopt this proposal in Council this week. The last meeting of the Council this year is on Thursday and, if the House wills it and is agreeable, I would like to make a formal proposal that, instead of a debate, we have a vote on the report on Wednesday. This would enable the Council to go through its procedures very swiftly and make a lot of European industries happy. I understand that it would be something of a first to achieve agreement with unanimity in the Council on the first reading. I should therefore like to propose a vote without debate on Wednesday.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by warmly congratulating the rapporteur on his report. The text approved by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market is the result of skill and a spirit of dialogue, which has allowed broadly accepted compromises to be reached. The result is a text which has been rebalanced in order to increase consumer protection, especially with regard to the information they are to be provided with, complaint procedures and the situation of minors, amongst others. Also excluded are practices which are not of a commercial promotional nature, such as the operation of games of chance in the apparent form of sales promotion operations or sales at a loss or below cost. I repeat that the latter is not a genuinely promotional practice, since its aim is not so much to protect the consumer as to eliminate market competitors, which at the end of the day benefits neither consumers, competition nor the good operation of the market. For this reason, it is considered an illegal practice in the majority – not in the minority – of Member States. Furthermore, several of them – since the competition rules are insufficient – have had to reintroduce these provisions. And this, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, must be taken into account when the Commission produces its article 7 report and when we try – as we are trying – to implement the common market. Because the common market cannot be a means for extending practices which the majority of Member States consider to be prejudicial, for good reasons. The impact of a liberalisation cannot be measured in purely economic terms, but we have to take account of all the factors that affect the common good, and consumer protection is something which cannot simply be left to the predatory practices of certain large companies. We therefore feel that the solution adopted is appropriate and consequently the enormous majority of our Group – which is not ultra-liberal but rather is in favour of a social market economy – is going to support it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am taking the floor to speak about INTERREG, but I shall confine myself to a few criticisms, which will clearly also enable me to keep to my speaking time. We have all spoken favourably of this programme’s confirmation and of the extension of the sectors it covers to include the field of transnational and interregional cooperation, in addition to cross-border cooperation. However, this does not blind us to the fact that the majority of resources – 50-80% – will be reserved for cross-border cooperation, for INTERREG IIIA. Therefore, we still think the decision to consolidate the current areas of cooperation in this strand, regarding the selection of eligible regions, is wrong and contradictory. We hope that the Commission will want to look into this and acknowledge Parliament’s position in practical terms, and not just with a formal tribute. Cross-border cooperation continues almost exclusively to be an issue concerning landlocked areas and, where exceptions have been made for maritime areas, their selection is not transparent and they often suffer from compensation from other Community policies. This discrimination is much more serious for islands that have a regional status that can only be linked to areas of an exclusively maritime nature. This is in line with ongoing discrimination, which ignores Article 158 of the Treaty on island regions with regard to cohesion policies. More serious still is the fact that this is occurring while ignoring the new situation associated with the approach that has been adopted towards the enlargement process for the inclusion of regions such as Malta. This has given rise to the proposals we are making to at least extend the regions eligible to include the NUTS III Sicilian provinces which have a frontier with Malta and to include all the regions of the Adriatic which share a frontier with Balkan regions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the would like to withdraw Amendment 32 because it has been replaced. I would like to ask for a split vote on Amendments 8, 10, 14 and 18 because that would allow us to vote for more of the amendments that Mrs Pack has put forward. In view of the very high quality debate we had this morning, that would be very helpful, but only, of course, if you would allow it.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, 13 April will see the start of the trial, in Iran, of thirteen Iranian citizens who are of the Jewish religion. Since they are being charged with spying for the United States and Israel – who have denied any connection with them – there is every likelihood that the thirteen citizens could face the death penalty. Madam President, I know that you have already intervened, at the request of certain Members of Parliament, to request that a delegation of the European Parliament be allowed to attend the trial, but if I am not mistaken, the Iranian government has, as yet, neither granted nor refused our request. I must ask you to intervene once again, and I also call upon the Commission to intervene, to ensure that human rights are fully observed in the course of this trial, so that thirteen people are not condemned to death for reasons unknown, given that this Parliament has repeatedly declared its opposition to the death penalty. I would like to thank you in advance for your efforts and for the endeavours of Parliament and the European Commission to protect freedom and respect for the rights of the defence in the trial of these thirteen Iranian Jews.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I would firstly like to acknowledge the French General, as others have done, but also the rapporteur for this report, Mr Morillon, an exemplary citizen and Member of the European Parliament. This Parliament has today established the foundations which will allow the Council of Ministers next week to go ahead with the fifth enlargement of our political project, which is surely the most historic enlargement, since it has allowed us to overcome the division between Europeans represented by the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain, which was quite simply the ultimate indignity and which fortunately now belongs to ancient history. This also comes at a time characterised by the 11 September attacks and the Iraq crisis. The enlarged European Union today has a greater population than the United States, it has a similar gross domestic product to the United States and greater commercial and industrial power. However, it is weaker in terms of the latest technology and control of the financial markets and, of course, in the military field where the differences are immense. My belief, Madam President, is that we must accept the fact that these insufficiencies – whether we like it or not – are the result of our own incapacity and that at the moment there is no effective alternative in the field of security and defence to the Euro-Atlantic alliance. Yesterday the President of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia visited this Parliament, and this visit coincided with the entry into force of a European Union mission to that Republic. These are small steps, Madam President, which demonstrate the European Union's desire to establish itself as a strong Europe and as a player on the international stage which is able to shine in the military, economic and cultural fields, amongst others. In the field of security and defence, Mr Morillon’s report responds to this objective by trying to establish a series of procedures which improve the decision-making process, which promote compatibility between military weapons, which consolidate the formation of the Council of Defence Ministers and which provides this policy with the financial resources necessary to implement it. I would like to stress, Madam President, that it is very odd that the people who have complained most about the insufficient role played by the European Union in relation to the Iraq crisis are the ones who are most reticent when it comes to consulting their public and asking them to provide this policy with sufficient financial resources. Finally, Madam President, President Aznar has not put pressure on anybody and neither would the dignity of the Presidents of Mexico or Chile have tolerated any type of pressure. Madam President, I would refer those people who have made these statements to the words of the Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs yesterday, when he said that relations between Spain and Mexico have never been better at any point in history.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wish to thank the rapporteurs. The pharmaceutical review is important for EU citizens. In this review we are not only encouraging research and innovation but we are also trying to get generic medicines on to the market more quickly. This will cost the taxpayer less. Considering that the drugs bill in the UK has gone up in the region of 30% in the last three years, it is no wonder that a sensible pharmaceutical compromise is necessary. We have a compromise package on offer: either Parliament accepts a compromise or we go into a conciliation process in which we risk losing much of what Parliament has wanted. I urge colleagues to back the compromise on offer. As one of the movers of the original amendments, I warmly welcome the introduction of Braille on the information packaging that patients receive. Product names will appear in Braille form on the packaging and a full information text will be available in a range of formats, including Braille, on request. I would have preferred more, but I accept the compromise as a step in the right direction in giving access to information to blind and partially sighted people. This is a balanced piece of legislation and one which I feel happy to support. I hope that colleagues will support the compromise.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in connection with the European Police College, I would point out that what is particularly important is to combat crime in the cities. As MEPs, we ourselves are very often concerned by crime. I hope that, in this area, the College will provide a starting point for the future.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I fully agree with what the committee chairman has just said: the ASEM process is an important framework for dialogue between EU states and Asian states. But, quite honestly, we should also admit that the results of the ASEM III Summit in Seoul last year were not so terribly significant. Many assertions remained very vague and if you look at how many of them have been put into practice you will see that we actually still have work to do on many of them. In this respect I fully share the views of our committee chairman. Commissioner, I think that we are acting as allies when we ask you to table a report on the preparations for ASEM IV, so that both of us – the Commission and Parliament – as we say in Hamburg, have a bit of butter with our fish, that is, actually introduce some substance into the preparations for ASEM IV in Copenhagen next year. We would ask you to provide us with a very substantial report as soon as possible so that we can debate with you, but also with the Council, which areas further negotiations should really focus on. Allow me to make one additional comment. I should like to take up once more what Mr Brok said about conflict prevention, but also about conflict resolution. We are in the business of helping each other. I need only recall that the Japanese donate a considerable amount of development aid to south-eastern Europe – our area – so as to express their solidarity with us on matters of security policy, and we should not therefore shy away from taking part in discussions about conflict resolution or providing assistance in this respect either, whether it be in China, Taiwan, North Korea or South Korea. There is one further comment which is on the tip of my tongue, Commissioner. Consider the following: this initiative involves ten Asian countries and fifteen European countries. There will soon be eighteen or twenty countries on the European side. We should maintain a balance. That is why I think it is important for us to consider to what extent it might be possible for the Asian side also to admit more members. I believe, for example, that a country like India, which is significant on the one hand because of its abundant population but on the other because of its democratic structure and experience, could be a good partner. Perhaps you could discuss this briefly with your Asian colleagues even in the run-up to ASEM IV, so that we have balanced coverage of both geographical areas. I think that we agree here: we need to make it clear in the political discussion that Asia's relations with Europe are of decisive importance, and we should help each other in this respect. In conclusion, I should once again like to refer to Mr Brok's opening comments. Relations between states are of course negotiated formally by their governments. But I would say to the Heads of State and Government: civil servants and ministers need the support of members of parliament. That is why the committee's idea... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: PPE-DE