GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, a few days ago, on 16 October, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamed, at the Summit of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, stated that the Jews control the world by proxy. An important French newspaper stated that, in the name of anti-Zionism, proclaimed far from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, anti-Semitism is re-remerging in a new normalised form. The Middle East conflict, however, is not unrelated to all these problems and we are all concerned about this conflict and this problem. We are now dealing with a report on peace and dignity in the Middle East. The report has been produced by the rapporteur, Mr Menéndez del Valle, who has made, I believe, a considerable effort which we are grateful for, although I do not agree with some of his conclusions. This afternoon, we have had the opportunity to hear two figures from the region: Naomi Chazan, an Israeli, and Jamal Zaqoud, of the Palestinian National Council, who, after the Dead Sea talks, wish to present what is known as the Geneva Accord. They are excellent people – there are excellent people on both sides – their will is excellent, but, naturally, in both cases they are currently far from the political powers, which in reality are the people who govern the destinies of Israel and Palestine. I said that this report has been produced with difficulty, because the first document was dated 21 May and the Commission’s agreement did not arrive until 9 October. Almost five months have passed and, over these five months, too many things have happened in those countries. It is a report which relates to the first phase of the Roadmap and I believe it is positive that Parliament should give its opinion on it, because it is the only direction. It also talks about education for peace, which is necessary at all times. Where I disagree with the report, however, is the second part, in which it wishes to propose what the second and third phase of this application will be. I believe it is premature at the moment to define a series of issues which will certainly be problematic: what must the final borders be, what must the policy on refugees be, what must be done in Jerusalem. I believe – sincerely – that it is premature to talk about it at the moment. The priority now is to ensure that the deaths in that region come to an end. I believe – and I regret – that this report will not make a real contribution to the peace process, because it will not be accepted equally by the conflicting parties and, in this regard, the European Union will not increase its prestige and its moral authority in the region, which is so necessary at the moment.

Political group: ELDR
The European Parliament has previously expressed the view that it sees the Turkish presence in Northern Cyprus as an occupation. The European Community was born as a peace project, and our desire is to safeguard the heritage received from De Gasperi, Schuman, Monet and Adenauer. Against that background, is it in line with the EU’s ideas of peace and the heritage from our founding fathers to give Turkey a starting date for negotiations concerning membership of the European Union at the same time as Turkey continues to be an occupying power in Northern Cyprus? In other words, can a country occupy another Member State of the European Union and, at the same time, be offered talks on membership?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to thank Commissioner Patten very much for the awareness he has demonstrated of the difficulties inherent in the peace process and the challenge that the European Union is taking on to bring it to completion. It is high time there was peace in the Middle East. It is time to end the era which began with the Balfour declaration in 1917 and the Arab-Israeli war of 1948. It is time there were secure borders and political, social and economic rights in every country in this region, and that human rights were recognised and upheld in Syria, Palestine, Israel and everywhere else. This is an exercise in sovereignty, and in democracy for each population and every individual, but to this end it is vital for all parties in the conflict to have the courage to strive for peace and rights, and to recognise the other as its partner and not as its subject to whom concessions must be given. I refer principally to the Palestine-Israel question, but the same also applies to the territories which have been occupied in the Golan since 1967 and in southern Lebanon since 1982. Israel has to accept its responsibilities, withdraw from the occupied territories and share its water resources but, at the same time, it has to be sure that it will be safe and able to live in peace in terms of economic and political relations with all the countries in the area. However, Israel is not the only country concerned with security. The same goes for the other countries, especially for the Palestinians, who are still living under military occupation and whose land even today is still confiscated in areas B and C, despite the Oslo Agreement and subsequent agreements. Between the period when the Oslo Agreement was signed and 17 October 1999, 174 000 dunams of land were confiscated, 8 462 of which have been taken under Mr Barak’s Government. Trees have been uprooted, houses are still being demolished and, above all, water supplies have been reduced or refused, especially in East Jerusalem, while the settlements continue and are growing constantly. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that with the election of the new government, positive steps have been taken: negotiations, at least, have resumed. But in the Middle East, there can be no stable and lasting peace if the Palestinians do not have their own state, if they cannot move freely within their own territory. All the international community has to do is implement Resolutions 332, 248, 245 and 194. We are concerned by the deferment of the building of relations with Syria, as well as Mr Barak’s decision to postpone the withdrawal of the Israeli army and the Sharm el­-Sheikh agreements. We feel it is extremely important for the European Union to play a political role in negotiations which matches its economic aid. We cannot be content with a role backstage. We must be leading protagonists while staying off a collision course with the United States, as Minister Gama said.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I thank the Spanish Presidency for its answer. I have a number of follow-up questions. Does the Presidency believe it is a good thing that the Commission and the Council should have arrived at different conclusions regarding Portugal’s and Germany’s budget deficits? Is it laudable that different assessments have been made? How does the Spanish Presidency view the warning issued a year or so ago to Ireland following Irish tax reductions designed to fulfil specific election pledges by the Irish government? Was it a legitimate warning, given the way in which Portugal and Germany are being treated? How do you view the Stability Pact’s credibility in the light of the euro’s having become weaker as a world currency, especially against the dollar, in relation to which it has fallen from 1.30 to 0.90? Finally, do you believe, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, that this decision is prejudicial?

Political group: PPE-DE
Indeed, this initiative is sound, and so is the report. Yet, I would still like to make a few observations. In the original recital G, it is stated that the import of fish and fisheries products from outside the EU by the processing industry could lead to conflicting interests. This is not always the case. Such imports often provide good incentives for the processing industry and can thus help maintain a good price level for European fishermen. Such a misconception is indicative of a general problem which, in my view, we are facing in our committee. There are many areas where we – to a greater or lesser extent – lack sufficient insight into how matters stand. Unfortunately, we frequently have to make new policy without having all the relevant information on which to base it. We must therefore try to obtain more insight into how things are. I am of the opinion that, with regard to research, the emphasis must be on reliability and speed. I would ask the Commission to ensure that we can have concrete, up-to-date information at our disposal, so that we can take the right decisions in all these areas at the right times.

Political group: ELDR
It was fascinating to hear the opposition a moment ago. Mr President, I joined this Parliament three and a half years ago with the firm intention of making Europe’s legislature more intelligible, more efficient and more democratic for our citizens, of helping to tear down the bureaucratic cathedrals and simplify administration. I have to say that, over three and a half years, we have, in this Parliament, discussed a whole raft of proposals. I would refer to the Kinnock reforms and the Lamassoure report on the clear distribution of roles between the four administrative layers of our European home, namely the European, national, regional and local levels. We are currently debating the Napolitano report, and are trying to get it endorsed here with a view to better anchoring down the foundation of our European home in the European constitution at both local and regional level. Today, we are discussing the Bourlanges report that officially addresses the hierarchy of acts. Originally, this report was rather complex and quite theoretical, too theoretical, in fact. However, we managed to sit down and have a proper talk, and we can be pleased with the outcome, because we managed to considerably reduce more than 30 types of decisions at European level, which easily outrival Gaudi's Sagrada Familia in terms of complexity, down to a clearer proposal. We are left with three blocs of legislation: a constitutional bloc with principles, a legislative bloc and an implementing bloc for implementing measures. I should like to say one thing. Although we are giving our unqualified support to Mr Bourlanges, we do not see eye to eye with him on one particular point. We do not want a few states to be deprived of their veto right, as it were, when we come to revise the Treaty. We cannot say to certain countries – the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France or whichever other country – that they are not allowed to participate in the revision of the Treaty. In this respect, I endorse the views of Mrs Kaufmann and Mrs Frassoni. We will therefore be voting against this particular point. We remain adamant that the Treaty should be unanimous and should be changed unanimously. This does, however, pertain to the constitutional bloc; as far as the other blocs are concerned, we naturally endorse the view that these should be simplified. This, however, does not apply to the constitutional part, as we would then end up with things being done on a very unequal basis.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, allow me for once not to talk about the large or small problems which Poland still needs to resolve in order to again take its rightful place in Europe. For someone like me who lived through – albeit in the privileged position of foreign correspondent – the hard years of the communist dictatorship and who then went back to cover Poland as rapporteur, this is an important, and I would even go so far as to say, an emotional moment. I would never have imagined in those years that Poland and the other former communist countries would have been restored to democracy and free and effective economic development in such a short space of time. I believe that this is the last time that I will talk about Poland in this Chamber and I would like to send my thanks to all those who, both here and there, in Brussels and in Warsaw – I can see Commissioner Verheugen here – have contributed to healing this wound in our continent. In addition, I hope that the Poles will fully appreciate the grandeur of the European dream. Nevertheless, I would also like to briefly mention another country: Romania. Mr Podestà is going to talk about this country shortly, in greater depth. Romania still has a long way to go, but it is doing all it can to come into line with Europe and prepare itself. We criticised Romania for its delays; it reacted by trying to put its house in order. Now of course it needs to be watched, spurred on and monitored, but it should also be encouraged, and this is why the reprobative tone which Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne used in her report was excessive. We therefore support the amendments tabled by Mr Podestà which move precisely in this direction, that is, constructive criticism. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first of all like to dissociate myself from the remarks made by Mr Chris Heaton-Harris and I believe that the Commissioner has very effectively outlined the framework within which the amendments to the Theato report were rejected in this Parliament. This is indeed a correct account. I should like to echo the words of Mrs Theato and call for speed. Commissioner, you have now announced a timeframe for setting up the post of European Public Prosecutor that is indeed a very slow process. You will be submitting a proposal after the Green Paper consultation in the course of 2002 or at the end of 2002 or beginning of 2003, this will be followed by a Treaty amendment in 2004, and entry into force is likely in 2006-2007. You will have to admit that this is all a long way off. I should like to note that at the time, the Committee of Independent Experts made a few suggestions in reaction to the dismissal of the Santer Commission in order to work faster and to move away from multi-stage plans. I should like to ask you whether you have adopted elements of these proposals by the experts in the Green Paper and whether you are willing to consider them, thus enabling us to make a start on the establishment of the function of European Public Prosecutor at this stage.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I should like to begin by thanking Mr Karlsson for the important work the Court of Auditors is doing, and I also thank him that this year the publication of the report has not been pre-empted by newspaper headlines based on biased leaks, which sow so much mistrust of the work of this serious and impartial Court and of the tasks this Parliament and the other institutions have to perform. I especially appreciate the impartiality of his report, in which he points out the faults and praises the progress; for instance, he praises the fact that the Commission is getting moving. I belong to a group of MEPs working on the reform; we have just been with President Prodi and have seen that he has personally taken on the development of the White Paper in accordance with many of the recommendations that have been received year after year from the Court over which Mr Karlsson so ably presides. It must be said that this is actually a process on paper which takes time to turn into action, but it is going along the right road. It is going along the road that you, this Parliament and the independent experts are indicating. Problems still lie ahead on this road, however, such as the overly-long transitional period laid down for the reform of the Financial Regulation. We are in a period that is bad for everyone, including those responsible for payments, in which we have an old system, a new system and an intermediate period in which there is a certain feeling of confusion. I should be grateful if the Court would issue its opinion on the reform of the Financial Regulation soon. Madam President, I must ask: where is the Council in all this? I think the Council is responsible for five sixths of Mr Karlsson’s report and for the spending it approves. Where is the Council? Right now, Madam President, I should like to stop talking and wait for someone from the Council to come here. Therefore, may I suggest that in the next debate on the presentation of the accounts, the Council should be present and intervene. I repeat that the part of the report I most value is the recognition that the Commission is getting moving; but the same cannot be said about the Council, whose importance lies not only in the spending figures. You say that you keep on drawing attention to serious and persistent weaknesses in Member States’ control and management systems, and you say that most of the errors occur in the main spending programmes managed by the Member States’ administrations. I believe that we, the members of this Parliament, will be able to point to and lay the blame on our own administrations if they do not meet their commitments, but you have to do us the favour of clearly indicating the States and the programmes. I am convinced that in order for the Community’s financial interests to be properly defended any management failures must have consequences in the budget and Parliament must be able to deny funds to a Member State for repeated breaches of spending control regulations.

Political group: PPE-DE
I had in fact forgotten to mention the fourth amendment, which, as it does not refer to expenditure, may appear less relevant, but it would be wrong to assume this. I simply wanted to say that one of Parliament’s amendments included the creation, in B5-671N, of a line for financing a ‘Rapid Reaction Facility’ which is designed – pursuant to the provisions of the Interinstitutional Agreement on budgetary discipline – to make it possible, thanks to a token entry, to allocate sufficient resources when the regulation is finally adopted. The Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy considers this a priority and I regret not mentioning it earlier.

Political group: PPE-DE
Thank you, Commissioner. Would you please answer the two other questions I asked on how the rules have been interpreted in other countries? I would very much like to hear your answer, as the debate in Denmark and the proposals put forward there seem like an April fool’s joke. However, 1 April was last Sunday, and now we have to look ahead, so I would therefore like to hear how other countries have tackled the issue of Article 75.

Political group: ELDR
Irish superstars Boyzone and the Corrs have asked the European Parliament to protect their music in the age of the Internet. It is very important for Ireland's music and publishing industry that music can be accessed through the Internet legally. It is especially important that the success of young up-and-coming musicians and performers is not jeopardised by piracy. The music industry would crumble without proper protection from piracy on the Internet. The rights of authors and creative people of all kinds are a priority but the directive also aims to allow libraries to continue to make copies available for private use. However, the libraries have accepted that the rights of authors are a priority.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the matter under discussion concerns children, and is therefore highly emotive. I know that very well, as a mother of three. Furthermore, the facts available to us are such that there are very good reasons why people might end up expressing exactly opposite points of view, all of which might be quite valid. The person making the decision should look at the issue calmly. Parliament has even shown a desire to ban all of the nearly 350 phthalates instead of the six proposed by the Commission. However, there is some kind of evidence of the possibility of danger in the case of only two phthalates. In addition, a warning was called for on products designed for 3 – 6 year olds, although the risk is likely to be associated with very small children, who like to put things in their mouths, in their discovery of the world. Reliable migration tests in respect of phthalates are not available, however. It is excellent that the EU is active in this matter, as seven Member States have already introduced national regulations. What is even better is that the issue is being dealt with in a consistent way. In my opinion, Mr Arvidsson has made a rational and responsible contribution to the issue, and is applying the EU precautionary principle to this problem of toxicity properly. The precautionary principle is a very important tool in environmental legislation. It should only be used, however, when there is scientific reason to suppose there is a real risk. This therefore concerns the existence of a scientifically demonstrable risk and the reaction to it, not the existence of a fear that might surround the substance. You can cry wolf once too often. Neither is it sufficiently justifiable to resort to the precautionary principle if, for example, some Member States have introduced national legislation in this area. Parliament’s struggle to ensure the safety of children is very worthwhile in a Union that often just concentrates on hard values. Parliament will be doing the safety of children and everyone else a disservice, however, if it erodes the basis of the precautionary principle, the possibility of a real risk. That is what we are in danger of doing in the case of phthalates. What sort of repercussions will it have, for example, on food safety? It is at least as important today to make sure we preserve the precautionary principle for future needs as it is to take a decision on the banning of phthalates. Finally, I would like to say that not one lobbyist from the chemical industry has come up to me. My concern relates solely to the vague application of the precautionary principle. If we want to ban PVC, let us do so freely and openly.

Political group: PPE-DE
We quite obviously want education and training systems to benefit from Information and Communication Technologies and, in short, from everything implied by the European e-Learning Programme. While the European institutions set great store, however, by programmes presented as being at the forefront of progress, the education of working class children, even at elementary level, is in decline everywhere in Europe. To take only France as an example, there is an increase in illiteracy and a decline in the ability to speak correctly and to do simple arithmetic. The reasons are simple: a shortage of funds and a lack of teachers, teaching assistants and various teaching support staff. Governments prefer to shower the employers with subsidies, while reducing the social budgets, including that for state education. If high technology is perhaps making a little progress in the classroom, state education is in decline for lack of resources. For that reason, a whole generation of children and young people from working class backgrounds and environments is being deprived of the minimum of education, not even to mention an education worthy of the name and commensurate with the wealth of the continent, for, in this area as in all others, it is the working classes who pay the price for the anti-social choices of governments serving only the privileged and affluent classes.

Political group: GUE-NGL