GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I am not going to talk at length on the great number of irregularities in this Protocol. We simply have to look at the text and compare it with the Council’s mandate to see how arbitrary the Commission has been. Furthermore, if we compare the Protocol with any other agreement with the South, it is frightening to think how sure some high-level officials in the Directorate-General for Fisheries must be of their position of impunity. That is the heart of the matter. Not the fact that there are EUR 300 million to solve the crisis facing the fleets affected by the failure with Morocco and that there is more than double to pay for fishing opportunities in Greenland which are not even worth what has been spent on their negotiation, not to mention the cost in terms of the loss of prestige and credibility of the Commission. Nor is the most important element the fact that, unlike the agreements with the South, there was no clause allowing new Member States access, nor the fact that only shipowners within the agreements with the South have to contribute to the funding of the external fisheries policy, nor the fact that it is impossible to control the spending of this considerable amount of tax-payers’ money. The important thing, Commissioner, is that this Protocol demonstrates in a few pages the extent to which the CFP can be arbitrary and unfair. Furthermore, the Director-General for Fisheries’ attempts at an explanation before our committee could be called laughable if the gravity of the situation did not make them insulting. He thinks it is completely normal to have double standards in terms of the benefits of agreements for the North or for the South. And he added unashamedly that Council ended by approving this Protocol. Of course we are also going to approve it, because we are very aware of the difficulties of ending up without a fisheries agreement. Neither do we have great hopes for an improvement in the mid-term review, since the Protocol makes it clear that, if one party does not wish to deal with an issue, that issue will be left out of the review. If this is not the case, if we have interpreted it wrongly, we would ask you, Commissioner, to make a gesture to calm the worst fears of the fishing industry and to put an end to the feeling that our CFP always benefits some people at the expense of others. It only remains for me to thank Mrs Langenhagen for her work in the Committee on Fisheries.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in the present report China has been subjected to criticism. I agree with this criticism, despite the fact that, as chairman of the Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China, I risk receiving yet another protest letter from Beijing asking whether the European Parliament is waging a hostile campaign against China. Based on the reports from Mrs Malmström and Mr Haarder I can answer emphatically: ”No, we are not waging a campaign against China, but for human rights – everywhere”. The reports direct criticism towards twenty or so countries outside Europe and towards almost all EU and candidate countries. In fact, I am considering sending the reports to the EU committee of the National People's Congress in Beijing and suggesting that they do something similar. How about a self-critical report from the National People's Congress on human rights in China and a report on human rights in the world and in the EU, as seen from a Chinese point of view? In actual fact, of course, we do need to discuss human rights with China. Then the Chinese will have to discuss and not just protest.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I too nurture some small hope. In actual fact, there seems to be greater awareness within Parliament of the tragedy taking place and also of where responsibility lies for this situation, not least our own responsibility. As Mr Solana has said on a number of occasions: we have wasted many opportunities. I fear we will waste others too, but I do feel it is important that we have gained this awareness. I find Mr Bush’s support of Ariel Sharon’s policy truly irresponsible, opportunist and inhumane, for it is not that the two sides lack confidence in each other: this is a specific policy, a specific decision – Ariel Sharon has made this explicitly clear in his speeches in the Knesset – not to allow a Palestinian State to exist, apart from ‘Bantustan’ territories, and not to give back the Occupied Territories. I do not understand why we do not realise that this is his policy and take appropriate action. At the same time, some responsibility certainly lies with Yasser Arafat, and it is an appalling tragedy for both Palestinians and Israelis that terrorist acts are taking place. However, my hope lies in Commissioner Patten’s words, in Mr Solana’s words, in actions and signs, and I would like to tell you of the great hope that I have in Israeli society. On Saturday, together with 300 Israelis – young people, coloured people, young lads who have refused to serve in the Occupied Territories, women, university professors – we crossed the Kalandia checkpoint, running serious risks for the Israelis who crossed it were told they were not allowed to enter the Occupied Territories. Three hundred of us crossed the Kalandia checkpoint to go to meet Yasser Arafat. The young Israelis said: ‘We want peace. We are the other Israel’. And Mr Arafat embraced them. However, the most important part was in the afternoon when we met the Palestinians and Palestinian organisations, and they too displayed their desire for peace. I therefore feel that it is imperative that we believe in these organisations and act to support them. I too, like Mr Cohn-Bendit, want to issue a challenge. If Mr Arafat leaves the territories, there is a danger that we will not be able to get him back in again. It is important that we work to support this operation, to bring Abu Ala and Avraham Burg here. International protection is vital for the Palestinian people; moreover – and here I agree with Mr Sakellariou – it is vital that we take practical action, even suspending the association agreement, for Israel must respect human rights.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, our group supports Mr Trakatellis’s very well-produced report and also the work of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. We believe that, as Mr Trakatellis very effectively pointed out, we need to make arrangements in order to move ahead with the implementation of programmes in progress. Since all of Europe’s citizens are being affected by common problems relating to food, work, and various issues, it makes sense for there to be common European programmes which are becoming increasingly important in the joint combating, prevention, awareness and action in relation to these issues. It is therefore desirable that the efforts dedicated to these matters should increase. It is precisely on this issue that we believe there is a notable lack of direction in the European Union, in the Council and the Commission, which, with the budgetary cuts – not wanting to reach the ceiling of 1.27% which the regulations in force currently allow – is harming actions such as these at a time when coordination between the different Member States is becoming increasingly important. We also agree with the need stated in Mr Trakatellis’s report to balance the different programmes and actions which are underway. Furthermore, we must take account of the fact that prevention and promotion as well as monitoring are all going to be increasingly important and therefore they should be given more resources and a higher profile. Lastly, we believe that we should try to ensure that, in the future, situations such as this do not recur, with a lack of speed on the part of the Commission in providing for the renewal of all actions on time. This is a worrying state of affairs, which has caused concern amongst the many organisations involved and the problem should be resolved once and for all.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, better late than never, as they say. The current proposal for a Council decision is based on the idea of tightening up civil and criminal responsibility for pollution-generating maritime transport. In line with the positions of the Commission directive and with the traditional positions of the European Parliament, the proposal has enabled the European Parliament to fine-tune the initial text with two unanimously approved amendments that I consider to be highly relevant. The first extends the scope of criminal responsibility to behaviour resulting in substantial harm to people, beyond the limited criterion of death or serious injury. The second, following a similar logic, extends the perpetrators’ responsibility from damage to species of fauna and flora to substantial damage to the protected natural environment, which is all marine and coastal life at risk from pollution. I therefore pay tribute to the rapporteur Mr Di Lello Finuoli, who tabled these amendments. Indeed, the new legal framework on maritime pollution and the future Lisbon Maritime Surveillance Agency, established by the Brussels Council last month, leads us to believe that Europe is finally assuming its responsibilities. It would be absurd for Europe to be responsible for regulating sea resources, without first having the necessary means to protect them.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in contrast to the previous speaker, I would like to say in the clearest terms that the White Paper on food safety before us today provides a springboard for action by the institutions of the European Union, for achieving the highest standards in food safety and for regaining consumer confidence. After all, there are good reasons why we asked for this paper. Of course, there have been very different approaches, as the discussions in recent months have demonstrated. That is why the rapporteur deserves great praise, because he has managed to pull together very different approaches and ideas into a clear report. There have even been widely conflicting views about the main point of the White Paper, the creation of a Food Safety Agency. I will not deny that when the White Paper was published, I spoke out against the Agency. If when it comes to the vote I – and I expect a substantial majority – argue in favour of this Agency, I would nevertheless advise the Commissioner not to be deceived. There are many doubts and critical voices. You should take Parliament's proposals seriously and concentrate the Agency's work on scientific tasks and risk analysis. I particularly wish to stress that the Agency and the present system of advisory committees cannot exist side by side. There must be clear arrangements governing the Agency's cooperation with the Joint Research Centre in Ispra and the Food and Veterinary Office in Dublin. You must prevent several institutions carrying out similar work in parallel. As regards the actual structure of the Agency, it must be clear how it is to be financed. We in Parliament welcome and wish to encourage a financing plan. What staff numbers are required? What is an appropriate timetable for setting up an authority of this kind? You should also use the White Paper to enforce strict rules in the Member States. If the proposals for over 80 legislative measures are much the same as the hygiene rules I have now received as rapporteur, then I am very optimistic. However, Commissioner, when it comes to the provisions on labelling, please think again about your ideas ... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I myself have two children who are Protestants and I always celebrate Christmas in the proper way. I wanted to say this to my fellow Members. However, personally I am not a Christian. Jews, Muslims and many people of other faiths live in Europe. For this reason I should like my colleagues to accept, at long last, that Europe is not populated solely by Christians. Although I am not a Christian, I am still a Member of this House. Some interventions make me wonder where on earth I am. Does this mean that I am not a European? Perhaps Mr Posselt might like to answer that question. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
It is incredibly important quickly to bring about open, clear and unambiguous common rules. We have therefore chosen to vote in favour of the resolution, but not for those proposals that demand a reduced pensionable age. We also believe that salaries should be more in line with those of members of the Swedish Parliament and that salaries should be taxed on a national basis.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, as proof that this Parliament has not yet overcome its role as a consultative and subordinate institution, the excellent report by a fellow member of my Group, Elisabeth Schroedter, has not been able to reach plenary sitting because the plans for regional development for the period 2000-2006 for Objective 1 regions have been sitting in the Commission’s offices for several months. Bearing this in mind, this House should, in any event, demand that, before the Community support frameworks for the period in question are approved, they be studied and submitted for debate in this Parliament, specifically in light of the guidelines that we have presented today. This is because we think that they are particularly able to create employment in the poorest and least-developed regions and we would thus contribute to reversing the harmful trends towards inequality that exist in European society and to the move towards a fairer Europe.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, on a point of order, I also wish to associate myself with those remarks. However, what I wish to raise is the threat from SARS that may arise in Europe in the absence of any power at European level to deal with this matter in a concerted and coordinated way. I realise there will be a debate on this matter, but unfortunately I will not have the opportunity to express an opinion on it. I urge the Council to convene an urgent and informal meeting of European ministers for health to seek to coordinate a European response. I ask this House and all the Member States to support the initiative by Commissioner Byrne to amend our Treaties so that we at least have the same powers to deal with human disease as animal disease.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Jews are the enemies of the prophets and believers. The Jews are traitors and infidels. Students must understand that there is a link between Nazism, Fascism and Zionism. The Jews seek to persecute. They conspire with hypocrites. Those are a few passages from the Palestinian schoolbooks used to teach children in the territories, an education service, moreover, which we ourselves are funding to a large extent. As you said, Commissioner, particularly where wages are concerned, the European Union is funding a form of education which is, in reality, being twisted into anti-Semitic propaganda. I have asked you about the Commission’s participation in educational programmes, and you avoided the question. I also asked you how the Commission might monitor this aid, and you did not reply to me on this point because there is in fact no real monitoring. I am sorry to have to tell you that I am not satisfied with your reply. I asked precise questions and I expect precise replies on such a serious subject. Are you, yes or no, prepared to make Community aid, and not that of the Member States, conditional upon respect for fundamental human rights?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, what I would like to know is, do you think that prompt payment by the European institutions, as set out in the late payment directive currently in the pipeline, might result in a clear improvement to the image of the European Union? Do you intend to use benchmarking or best practice methods?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I welcome the series of compromise amendments that have been tabled in the names of Mrs Lienemann and Mrs Roth-Behrendt on behalf of the Socialist Group and by myself, on behalf of the Group, particularly as the agreement will allow the EUR 14 million budget to be put in place which will ensure that this four-year programme can commence in 2001 without going to second reading. In a nutshell, this commitment for a Community framework will hopefully, with the agreement of the Commission and the Council, put a legal base under existing schemes being pursued by networks of local and regional authorities which are actively promoting sustainable urban development. This will also provide financially for them. We must be careful not to take a top-down approach to what has to be a bottom-up initiative. The Commission must not impose priorities from above but must listen to, and facilitate, the work done at local level, as the local authorities are not just facilitators of Commission policies. They are the level of government closest to the citizen. They have the democratic, financial and administrative responsibility for urban sustainability. I welcome this legislation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Parliament’s position at first reading of the draft directive on the opening of postal services to competition was decisive. In fact, the Council accepted four out of the five basic principles we put forward. Our only demand not to be accepted was that of bringing down the weight limit of normal post from 150 grammes to 100 grammes. We should not forget, however, that the weight limit proposed by the Commission was 50 grammes. What is the most important aspect of this discussion? To my mind, it is to maintain the security of postal services as universal services, which all Europeans citizens have the right to use, regardless of where they live. It is also essential that the postal services continue to fulfil the irreplaceable social role that they have traditionally played, whilst being able to remain competitive and to provide increasingly up-to-date services. What is the issue here? The issue is that by the end of this year, it will be possible to end the monopoly of postal services that has hitherto been allowed to exist, and unless we are able to reach a common position between the Council, Parliament and the Commission, in 2003 the Commission, using a different legal basis, will be able to treat this problem as a case of competition within the internal market, which falls within the competence of the Commission alone. The proposal we are now discussing is, then, under the current circumstances, the safest one. Not only is the common position reasonable and accepted by the companies responsible for postal services in our countries, but it also makes any new liberalisation dependent on co-decision by the Council and Parliament. We suggest that we vote in favour of the Ferber report with the amendments that we adopted in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we should surely endorse the Commission's basic statements on the development of the Northern Dimension and the shape it should take in the future, including such things as the diverse subjects to be covered by future cooperation, ranging from the resolution of environmental problems to telecommunications, taking in research and technological development. The list of partners is no less impressive than that of any previous initiative. There can also surely be no dispute about the fact that the accession of the Baltic States to the European Union will be able to rapidly extend cooperation and move it up a gear, and that there will be greater opportunities for developing relations with Russia. Appreciation of these and other positive aspects does not preclude critical observations, and I will limit myself to two of them. It is, for example, striking that the Council, in producing its directives, is to some degree working on the basis of a decidedly uncritical analysis. That has also, alas, and to a somewhat lesser degree, been true of the statements from the Commission. An example of what I mean by this is the uncertainty still felt by many investors with a particular interest in involvement in the candidate countries and in Russia. Deficiencies in administration and in the justice system are kept quiet for appearances' sake rather than described in terms that reflect the reality. Surely it is more than a mere linguistic nuance to say that the efforts at rectifying abuses of this sort must not just be persevered with, but also significantly stepped up. Secondly, development of technological infrastructure has a key part to play in relation to this major region as a whole, and there is a need for this sort of activity, which is at present still largely scattered, to be better interconnected. Existing concepts and plans for road and rail transport need to be realised more quickly if real improvements are to be made. To sum up, the plans made to date, and the results that have been achieved, should be seen in a very positive light. What is now needed is for priorities to be set out more clearly than before and decisive improvements made in key areas.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Chernobyl disaster was not an exception, and, as such, not something which was typical of one type of nuclear power station which was produced and used in the former Soviet Union. Even before 1986, there was the disaster in Harrisburg in the US, where an overheated and melting nuclear reactor threatened to sink into the ground. The fact is that since the 1950s, there has been too much optimism worldwide about the characteristics of nuclear energy. It was expected to be a non-exhaustive source of cheap and clean energy, but instead it turned out to be a risky business which, even after production was stopped, continued seriously to pollute the environment. Fifteen years after the disaster, a large area in Belarus and Ukraine is still not inhabitable for people who do not want to get cancer. Those who stay have become dependent on government aid, and those who should be able to help those most affected avoid or leave the area. Food from the polluted area remains unsuitable for consumption. To solve this situation, we do not need a new type of nuclear power station, but rather a recovery plan for the affected area, alternative ways of generating energy, as well as energy-saving measures. Only a financial contribution is in the interest of all Europeans; anything else will just lead to wasted energy and to future disasters.

Political group: GUE-NGL