GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I think there are many good points in the Commission’s report, and I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on a job well done. Much has been said about solidarity and security. This is exactly what should be addressed with regard to pensions. There is still great anxiety about the discussion on pensions. My colleagues have expressed unease over certain crucial points. In my home country, Sweden, we have already started to adapt to this type of change, and a considerable part of our future pension system will be linked to a supplementary pension based on what happens on the financial markets. In Sweden, most people have started buying and selling shares and in the past few years many of them have experienced just how risky buying shares can be. Many have lost a great deal of their savings and are now wondering whether the same thing could happen to a pension system which is so heavily dependent on what happens on the financial market. There is a worry that the system will be unfair. Most of all, perhaps, there is a worry that it will be unreliable. Our group has tabled an amendment to tomorrow’s vote, in which we ask that the effects of the new system are at least assessed and the impact on solidarity on society studied. What will happen to security? How will it affect women? Several speakers, including Mrs Jensen and Mrs Van Lancker, have pointed out that women are a particularly vulnerable group, and in many countries I believe that women could lose out in the system now being introduced. I would also like to mention our Amendment No 13 in which we address a general raising of the retirement age as a way of solving future pension problems. It is tempting to use such a solution to try not only to increase levels and ratios of employment, but also to reduce the pressure on the pension systems. However, this presupposes that people will manage to keep working up to the raised retirement age. This may work in certain countries as they currently have a relatively low retirement age, at least for certain categories of pensioner. However, in my country and other Scandinavian countries, where we already have a relatively high retirement age of 65 – 67, there is currently talk of raising the age threshold to 70. I believe this is unrealistic. Most people are worn out from a long working life long before they reach retirement age. In this situation it is foolish and inhuman to try to force people to remain in the labour market. Finally, I would like to point out that I believe it is regrettable that neither the Commission nor the report we are now discussing mentions anything about the candidate countries. It could be said that this is a problem for the future, but when talking about pensions we are talking about the future. It is clear that there should have been a discussion on what a system of the type we now want to introduce will mean for poor candidate countries.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, in Laeken, two decisions were taken which are very important to the creation of a European judicial area in the fight against terrorism: a common definition and sanctions in relation to terrorism and the European arrest warrant. This Parliament had insisted on these two measures in the Watson report – and I would like to congratulate him on his election and also on his words – and I believe we have done a positive job with the Council and the Commission in implementing it. In Laeken, an assessment was also made of the implementation of the Tampere agenda. I will return to that in a moment. But I would also like to say that on 27 December, COREPER adopted a series of decisions relating to the fight against terrorism. The decision allowing for a list of people and organisations active in the European Union is significant. Article 4 of the common position stating the need for the police and judicial cooperation laid down in the Treaty and in the international agreements in this field will be applied to them. We are delighted with this decision, which is of unquestionable symbolic value. We hope that the measures for combating the funding of terrorism in Europe can also be applied soon. And I also hope, Mr President, that the Council will maintain the excellent cooperation that it has enjoyed with this Parliament, with the exception of recent times. Having adopted the most important instruments for fighting terrorism, we must now see that they are applied. You can and must convince the States which have the most doubts. I would also like to point out a cause for concern in relation to the question of immigration. Your agenda mentions immigration for humanitarian reasons and the fight against illegal immigration. You miss out an important package: that of rights and duties and that of the organisation of the legal entry of persons. And there are already documents in the Commission in this regard. Please promote the whole agenda, so that we do not have to end up regretting unfulfilled decisions, as happened in Laeken with certain decisions taken in Tampere.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the passion that the previous speakers have acknowledged in Mr Katiforis, in my view, only served to call on the European Parliament to respond to the hope of dozens of millions of unemployed people, social outcasts and those living a precarious existence in our European Union. This is the objective, in respect of which he called upon the European Parliament: give hope to the people of Europe. There is indeed economic recovery, but it only marginally reduces unemployment in Europe. The votes of the and the Liberals have very considerably diminished, and even reversed, the meaning of his message. That is why we did not vote in favour of the report as amended by them, despite our efforts, and we shall not vote for it as it stands at the moment. What are the minimum conditions under which we would vote for this report? First of all, the affirmation that there is room for a Europe of growth, but a Europe of sustainable growth, that particularly respects the commitments of the European Union at the conferences in Kyoto and Buenos Aires. There is an enormous amount of work to be done to keep to our commitments by the fateful year 2008, by which time we shall have to return to 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions. A tremendous amount of work remains to be done in the field of transport, energy saving and even in substituting travel by communication via the Internet. Secondly, even the growth rate of 3 or 4%, something we consider eminently feasible, will not be sufficient to reduce unemployment if we do not improve the job content of this growth. And we should say so very clearly, it will involve more savings on services, more third systems, more reductions in average working hours, whatever methods we adopt to achieve these things. Thirdly, we fully agree that it is necessary to reform labour relations in Europe, but that clearly means for us that we must protect and enrich the human capital. The lesson learned from the European experience is that where wages are lowest, where the salary ratio is the most flexible, unemployment is the highest and where wages are highest, where the social relations are the best regulated, the unemployment rate is the lowest.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as we all know, species of highly migratory fish share a series of characteristics which require their fishing to be subject to a particular kind of monitoring. Their movements, both through exclusive economic zones and through free waters, their current regulation by four regional fishing organisations, their high economic value, which makes them the target of many fleets, and their association with species which are not subject to direct fishing, such as dolphins and marine mammals, explain the fact that even the United Nations has decided to intervene by means of the agreement on highly migratory species. Therefore, the Commission proposal to group together in a single text the technical measures for the conservation of these species, which have arisen from Community legislation and from the recommendations of the international organisations, is very appropriate and is generally to be applauded. There is no doubt that a single text will not only be useful to legislators and to the fleet, which will not have to refer to dozens of different regulations in order to find out what their obligations are, but that it will also contribute to finally improving control. It is even possible that a single text will respond to this Parliament’s frequent demand that the recommendations of the regional organisations be incorporated into Community legislation with a speed that we are still far from achieving. With regard to this proposal, Mr Piétrasanta has produced an excellent report and, furthermore, he has sought to place his trust in the opinions of other MEPs who are already involved in certain issues. I am referring in this case to the Commission’s peculiar intention to sidestep the ICCAT recommendation to restrict the number of ships authorised to fish long-finned tuna by means of the subtle trick of not including certain so-called ‘experimental ships’ in the restriction. When we are eight months away from the final ban on driftnets, when this species has just been subject to a TAC and when the ICCAT’s 1999 scientific report expressly warns against this so-called ‘experimental’ fishing, the Commission’s intention is quite simply irresponsible, and the tactic of transplanting a recommendation in one paragraph in order to remove its content in the next one is unacceptable. We know that there is already an internal Council agreement to try to lessen the impact of the ban on driftnets on certain Member States, but this has already been suitably compensated for within the Council by means of quota assignments. The intention therefore to limit the presence of boats, whether we like it or not, with a fishing tradition in order to open up the ports to new fleets is completely unacceptable and I therefore ask for your full support for the amendments tabled by the Committee on Fisheries. Mr President, it only remains for me to thank the rapporteur once again for his collaboration and to congratulate him warmly on his wonderful report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to thank Mr de Miguel and Commissioner Patten for their speeches, which have been very illuminating, but I believe we are missing the opportunity to analyse what is happening in Latin America and the role Europe can play. It is essential that we see the FTAA project as a counter-offensive by the United States to reduce the European Union’s influence – which, although in principle it is contradictory, can also be described as beneficial – in relation to Latin America. I believe that is the most important issue which should be dealt with at the European Union/Latin American Summit of Heads of State. And we are therefore obliged to analyse the consequences of both the FTAA project and of 11 September and the change that has taken place throughout Latin America. We must take into account the violations of human rights in Guatemala and the impunity relating to them. We must consider the breakdown of negotiations in Colombia, which have failed, and we, who are committed to promoting dialogue and negotiation, should insist on this policy of dialogue and negotiation in order to restore common sense. We cannot pursue the aggressive militarist policy of the United States because that would cause us to lose all credibility in the eyes of the world and of Latin America. The same can be said with regard to Venezuela, Argentina and Brazil, where, incredibly, democratic candidates from the Workers’ Party and trade unionists are being eliminated before the elections, and all with the usual impunity. Therefore, our influence in Latin America, in view of the Summit, should be decisive, in order – just as Mr de Miguel and Commissioner Patten have said – to strengthen human rights, peaceful co-existence and democracy through the influence which the European Union can exert and which the United States is failing to exert. I therefore believe that it is worth taking full advantage of this opportunity and that we must not turn our backs on the situation.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I too should like to thank the Swedish presidency and, more especially, you Madam President-in-Office, for your cooperation. The Irish vote proves that our citizens want Europe, but that they want a Europe they understand, a Europe that is transparent, capable of action and democratic. So exactly how do things stand right now? We have a treaty which no one approves of, but which everyone says must be ratified because otherwise enlargement hangs in the balance. But what will happen if the treaty is ratified in fourteen national parliaments – meaning that not a single comma can then be changed – and is then rejected by Ireland for a second time in the autumn of 2002? That is taking a huge risk. Perhaps we should be preparing other options, so that the formal conditions for enlargement, such as the number of seats and votes and questions for the enlargement treaties themselves can be negotiated, as we did on previous occasions? I think we should at least prepare such an option, so as to avoid delaying enlargement and sending out the wrong message and giving rise to uncertainty in the candidate countries between now and November 2002. We must ensure that the post-Nice process is speeded up through public debate and a convention and can be wrapped up by the end of 2003, as the Méndez de Vigo/Seguro report suggests. For the rest, I would advise the governments in the Member States to take a good look at this report, because it contains a whole series of tips on how to manage this crisis. We have no use now for tricks, protocols, opt outs or anything else of the sort; what we need is a treaty which clearly shows our citizens how they can play a part in Europe. And although the Schröders and Fischers and Jospins and Blairs may have given brilliant visionary speeches over recent months, I for one should like to see them convert some of these fantasies into practical policy and for our Europe not to go down in history as the Europe which was unable to resolve its problems, either present or future. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, lifelong learning must be a responsibility not only of the European Commission and the European institutions but also, and especially, of the Member States. I voted in favour because I believe that tax advantages for professional and private education must be placed centre-stage so that educational sponsorship, in particular, becomes a possibility, too. Incentives must be created so that, in order to take some of the pressure off the system, foundations can take over educational establishments and sponsorship can be broadly based. I also believe, however, that we ought to set an example at European level. Every year, we ought to devise and evaluate training and further education syllabuses for our officials and politicians to enable us to measure how we are meeting our own needs for professional development.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I think that we need to make the requirements for the manufacture and sale of tobacco tougher and that to do so in a harmonised fashion, by means of a directive which must be respected by all the Member States, could strengthen the objective of preventing consumers from taking up smoking and of protecting them from this habit. Nevertheless, I truly consider it to be unacceptable to interpret the differences in criteria with regard to the content of the proposal for a directive in terms of a supposed confrontation between the powerful interests of the tobacco lobbies and the common interest of protecting consumers. To accept this would be to misrepresent the legitimate arguments of a good number of Members of the European Parliament who see, in the need to respect the legal aspects, a guarantee of the future viability of our own legislative acts. If we believe that we need common rules which are legally binding in order to better protect the public’s health from the risks of tobacco, let us seek a way of doing so, without using loopholes in the law, without back doors through which our good intentions may escape. Public opinion cannot and must not be fed solely by political gestures which are not solidly based in the reality of what is possible within the competences conferred on us by the Treaties.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, when these issues are addressed, the public authorities are usually more concerned about the aspects of dissuasion and security, crime prevention, approval of penal frameworks and action by police forces and the legal apparatus. However, it is also essential that we consider the people most affected by crime: its victims. Whoever they are, we cannot allow them to become a double victim, firstly of the crime and then of the system. Adequate protection must be guaranteed for crime victims within our Union and it is essential that equal treatment for these victims is also guaranteed, whether in court or before the authorities. Active means of support must also be developed. The personal dignity of the victim must be respected and their safety, privacy and family must be protected given that this Union which we are gradually building is based on respect for rights and freedoms, guarantees of safety for people and their property and effective legal protection. In other words, this is a Union based on the values which characterise contemporary democracies. We therefore welcome the Commission’s initiative which is clearly compatible with the effort to create an area of freedom, security and justice. It is essential that there are minimum rules on the protection of crime victims which ensure, throughout the European Union, an adequate level of legal assistance in cross-border proceedings. This is particularly important on issues such as access to justice, protection and effective application of the rights of victims in proceedings or their right to participate, receive the necessary aid, obtain and provide information, understand and be understood and so on. Victims must also have the right to compensation for damages, including court costs.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, particularly my colleagues in the Group of the , let me beg you, as a matter of urgency: can we please turn it down a bit? This is about a White Paper, and I believe we should not be trying to engage in muscle contests, which are in one way or another politically motivated, on the basis of this White Paper. At some future point we will be having the legislation, when we can do the real fine-tuning. It is a pity that some of the earlier speakers are no longer here; they will not hear what I have to say. But perhaps someone will be able to tell them. We have submitted amendments with the very same things in mind, which state that the duplication of work is to be avoided. Amendment No 97 is to remove peer review in order to simplify the procedure. We have already in committee brought in submissions on behalf of medium-sized businesses to the effect that there should be pilot projects, in which medium-sized businesses could deal with registration simply and effectively. We want simple administrative regulations and have provided for the employees, who will be directly affected – the employees and the members of the European works councils – to be involved in the decision-making process. These demands have been met, and I do not know why this all has to be played up and why the fate of the chemical industry has to be dependent on it. We are dealing here with a White Paper, in which nothing is finally decided. I cannot understand it. We have also included a subparagraph relating to substitution principle, which states that substitutes, too, have to be subjected to complete life cycle analysis before they can be used. So if we do not accept that and say, ‘that is the way to do it’ then I do not know what we are supposed to do next. And this one tonne: I simply cannot understand the argument that substances under one tonne are intrinsically less dangerous than substances over one tonne. Even they should be registered. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Madam President, let me begin by congratulating all the rapporteurs on their very hard work over a very long period of time. It has been very important because the maintenance, safety and development of our railway system throughout Europe have to be encouraged and not discouraged. Liberalisation is certainly inevitable; it has got to come. Traffic has to come off the roads. Taking traffic straight off roads and on to the railway can only be good for the future. The development of high-speed trains has to be welcomed; it should not be stopped. Where I come from – and I am going to be parochial for a little while – we are lucky to have any rail links left at all. We have the Belfast to Dublin rail link, but we have hardly any rail links left in Northern Ireland. TGV is not an option for us. We are lucky to have even ordinary railway links. Indeed, they are even trying to close the important link between Belfast and the port of Larne. I just do not understand this. At a time when we are going towards rail, here are people in my region trying to close down railways! This line has been allowed to run down into poor condition; its safety is questionable and the rolling stock is a disgrace. It is not a solution simply to put more traffic and freight on to our roads. This is a part of our problem. While Northern Ireland may be a very small place compared to other European areas, we need and require railways in Northern Ireland as well.

Political group: PPE-DE
Health is a blessing, not a commodity which can comply with the rules of competition. In its drive towards further liberalisation, the Commission is endeavouring to pave the way for new arrangements in the health and medical care sector which broaden the scope of activity of insurance companies and remove any obstacles to the business of private insurance companies at national and Community level. The ΕU attaches greater importance to the principle of the free provision of services than to the right to heath and medical care, methodically and systematically undermining the public health system, especially in the medical care sector, by disgracefully promoting private forms of insurance as a ‘necessary’ complement to and/or substitute for the public-sector system of social protection. The economic and social policy of the ΕU, which has resulted in the reduced purchasing power of and facilities available to workers, as regards the payment of contributions, the emergence of new diseases and the unaccountability of pharmaceutical companies, have caused health costs to spiral. Because there are problems meeting the cost of medical care as the result of the budgetary discipline and cost restrictions imposed by EMU, measures are being taken to pass the cost of health care on to the workers. Differences between insurance systems in individual Member States and obstacles to the free movement of people and freedom of residence in another Member State cannot be used as a pretext for privatising a large part – and later all – of the health care system. The real aim of these proposals is to extend liberalisation to sectors which are of crucial importance to companies in monopoly positions, ensuring that insurance business and financial business in general are highly concentrated and meshed so that they can increase their holdings in portfolio companies. We believe that the aim should be to strengthen the public health system and the system of social protection and to safeguard its basic content, in the sense of a universal service, by supplying high-quality medical care and preventative care to every citizen, paying particular attention to those living in remote or island areas, within the framework of a single public-sector system of health and social insurance.

Political group: GUE-NGL