GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the Commissioner is right; it is up to the customs offices of Member States to check whether products come from Israel or from Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. However, the Commissioner also knows that once Israel has said that a product hails from Israel, there is very little customs offices can do about this, even when we know that we are being led up the garden path. Member States are not individually capable of enforcing what, in my view, is to be done, namely for Israel to stop labelling products which we know originate from settlements, but which are still given the label 'from Israel'. How difficult this is was once again demonstrated in this very Parliament when the Israeli Ambassador stated quite clearly that he challenges the EU's right to draw a distinction between products from Israel and those from the settlements. As long as this situation persists, I do not think it is up to the Member States, but up to the Commission, to do battle with the Israeli Government in order to force the latter into action, which Member States are not capable of doing. It is also up to the Commission to draw the necessary conclusions if Israel does not appear prepared to do what it is required according to EU legislation.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The fact that people should kill themselves and many others in the terrible manner of 11 September in New York and Washington is a sign of hate and desperation. You can only combat terrorism by helping to remove the breeding ground for violence, not by causing yet more outrage. The way in which Israel seeks out and liquidates violent Palestinian opponents only appears to evoke more sympathy for violent resistance. There is now the threat of that very mistake being repeated on a global scale. When it comes to matters of climate, armament and racism, the US President sought isolation. The formation of a coalition of the rich and powerful, led by him, against the poor and rebellious will be counter-productive in the long run. I side with the only American politician who had the courage to vote against the warmongering, following in the footsteps of those few German dissenters at the beginning of the First World War. The money we are about to waste on war would be better spent on prevention. Within Europe, this would involve making ourselves as secure as possible against attacks, something which would be possible if we did not privatise airport security and air traffic safety and if we paid closer attention to safety standards for very tall buildings. Outside of Europe, it would involve helping to solve the problems of poverty, neglect and injustice.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I have to follow Mr Dell'Alba and Mr Heaton-Harris and this will be tough. I would like to congratulate Mrs Theato on her report and in particular for making the effort to come here as I know she is not feeling very well tonight. The report deals with the protection of the Community's financial interests and how we deal with that and these are the major questions. It is always the area where we see hugely inflamed headlines in the papers and we need to tackle these issues seriously otherwise we are going to continue with a largely Eurosceptic public like the people represented by Mr Heaton-Harris. We must not forget that 85% of the money is spent within the Member States and we must also not forget that Parliament’s and the Commission's role is to take a pan-European approach to these things. We must also remember that fraud also concerns money that is not collected, something that happens very often. We lose serious amounts of money because it is not collected by the Member States. It is interesting that several countries, however much they protest about fraud, still have not signed up to the Convention on the Protection of the Communities' Financial Interests. I put an amendment down to name these countries because it is about time they were named and shamed. We need to bring these countries out into the open to reveal their hypocrisy. It was quite interesting to hear what Mr Prodi said today because he sounded quite enthusiastic about the European public prosecutor which is quite a shift from what we have seen in the past. I must emphasise, from the point of view of the political group, the amendment that was tabled by Mr Bösch was critical of the report because it talked about concentrating on the institutions of the European Union, the public prosecutor being relevant only in that sense.

Political group: PSE
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I must say that your comments have not satisfied me at all. I understand that Portugal is affected by this. However, it seems to go against all reason and intelligence that 80% of the anchovies, which, until 1995, were being fished in the Portuguese fishing grounds, through an agreement between that Member State – Portugal – and France, should now be fished in the Bay of Biscay and that the Council of Ministers wishes to maintain that this has no effect on the anchovy stocks in the Bay of Biscay or the Cantabrian Sea. It has been shown, as we have been claiming since 1995, that this move is appalling, and, if Portugal and France wish to reach an agreement, that is fine by us, but these anchovies should be fished in Portuguese fishing grounds and not in the Bay of Biscay. Today, scientific studies show that the anchovy population in the Bay of Biscay is in danger of extinction, and now there will be measures to restrict the amount of anchovy which can be fished in that Bay. I do not know if you are aware, representatives of the Council of Ministers, of your responsibility over these last few years, and in 2000 as well, for the plight of the families who live on anchovy fishing in the north of the Iberian Peninsular.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, books are an important instrument by means of which culture is passed on, and modern publishing techniques contribute to this. This is why this report is excellent. I would like to thank the rapporteur for all the work and the research she has carried out. It is a field which is continually changing. In the publishing world, however, not only is production important, but so is consumption. Reading is a form of consumption which needs to be encouraged effectively. People have to make choices constantly about how they use their time. This is why I, together with my fellow Member Mr Graça Moura, tabled an amendment concerning the issue of a European day of reading. We proposed 23 April, as it is Shakespeare’s birthday and the anniversary of Cervantes’ death. It therefore covers the whole of Europe. There is already a UNESCO day of reading in many countries. But I grant the Commission the freedom and wisdom to select another date. Commissioner, there is no supply without demand. In order to give an extra boost, Mr Garça Moura and I have also asked for a year of reading, preferably within the foreseeable future, but that might be pushing things. A second point is market forces. A book sector which is synonymous with a multiform and cultural diversity must be protected, where necessary. Fixed book prices and reduced VAT rates, as applied in various Member States to paper printing, must also apply to the electronic alternatives.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the proposal for the ARGO action programme falls short on crucial points. It is, though, to be welcomed that the proposal for Odysseus' successor programme allocates funds, among other things, to improving the training of officials, but what use is a programme of training, exchange and cooperation if no change is made to the overall conditions that have prevailed to date? The situation cannot go on in which asylum seekers are turned back at the EU's external borders by the relevant border authorities, as they have been hitherto. The situation cannot go on in which they run the risk of going down a chain of deportation and ending up back in the country where they were persecuted. As the Commission proposal for a Council Directive laying down minimum standards for the reception of applicants for asylum in Member States envisaged, their applications for asylum must be examined by an independent authority in the Member State in question. Asylum seekers must be able to have recourse to the law when administrative decisions go against them. That is the least that we can expect of a state founded on the rule of laws such as our own. Let us not forget that border officials can be as well-trained as you like, but all that good training is of no use if they are entrusted with tasks that cannot but overwhelm them, such as deciding on the welfare or otherwise of asylum seekers.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I have a point of order relating to the Nassauer report. Normally this Parliament is consulted on a Commission proposal. By derogation from that, under Rule 61, we can deal with a proposal from a Member State government as well. In this particular case, though, Parliament is to deliver an opinion on a position that has been adopted within the Council. It originated with a Member State but we are not giving an opinion on the actual proposal which was put to the Council. I am not seeking to hold up the Nassauer report but I would ask for the matter to be referred, in future cases, to the Committee on Constitutional Affairs because this is a very important precedent. If, in future, we are going to deal with the changing target of the latest document within the Council instead of the proposal that initiates the legislative procedure, which we then normally seek to amend and where the author can take account of our amendments, we may be going down a slippery slope. This could be unfortunate for the future and I would ask you to invite the Constitutional Affairs Committee to look at that. I would hope that, unlike five minutes ago, this genuine point of order to make sure our Rules are properly applied will not be misinterpreted as a political manoeuvre to keep something on or off the agenda. I am not seeking to remove the Nassauer report from the agenda. Nor was I, just now, seeking to prevent us discussing foot-and-mouth. My concern was to make sure that we respect our Rules of Procedure because they are the foundation of the powers and privileges of this House.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Vice-President of the Commission, Mr Costa, ladies and gentlemen, I want to give high praise to the rapporteur for his success in achieving a broad consensus with his report, after we have spent years in this House hotly debating the right way to charge for transport infrastructure costs. Commissioner, Vice-President, I hope that after the vote tomorrow you will peruse all the drafts for the White Paper on transport policy again and check whether they follow the same lines as proposed by this House. After all, normally the Commission's proposals always take account of the Member States' views, and perhaps in future they will also take more account of Parliament's views. I believe that the Costa report offers an opportunity to re-think some of the habits the various departments have grown so fond of. I also hope that we do not mix up the subject matter of the White Paper with the subject of the trans-European networks. We are about to review the trans-European networks; these are both important subjects. To present them to Parliament as a single package would, in my view, be extremely unwise since they are in fact separate subjects. Allow me to make just a few comments on the Costa report. Amendment No 1 makes it quite clear that we want use-based transport charging, which can be verified on the basis of the construction, expansion and improvement costs. That is the first issue. So there are two aims of which we must not lose sight when we harmonise these transport infrastructure charges. Firstly, we must finally achieve a single market in this area. For when you think that we still have enormous distortions of competition because of divergent fiscal and other charges between the Member States, a whole 8-9 years after the completion of the single market on 31 December 1992, then the question of equal competition is bound to arise. Secondly, we really all think that after the meteoric rises in oil prices over the past year, in whatever way we want to convert and achieve a more fair and environmentally compatible system, the total charge for undertakings must not rise. We do not want any forcing up of prices. Last point: in relation to external costs I have two requests. Firstly, about three years ago, Parliament decided in toto to work out on a scientific basis what the external costs actually are. How can they be calculated and how can they be charged? We never received that report. Secondly, we must differentiate when we calculate these external costs. To give just one example: congestion costs. It would be absurd to charge an undertaking for the fact that the drivers are stuck in a tail-back because the Member States have not expanded the roads, so that the undertaking not only has higher petrol and working costs but also has to pay additional charges to the Member State responsible for the congestion.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to start with the fact that if words could solve the problems we could all pack up and go home. But unfortunately, as we speak today in the safety of this Chamber, human rights abuses are occurring throughout the free world. Sometimes the more we speak, the less we hear – motions: words; conventions: words; treaties: words – if we are not careful, words themselves become a substitute for real action. Words framed in inclusive and liberating documents become treaties and conventions which are often paraded as a testimony to a country's respect for and adherence to human rights. Yet words spoken, written or signed are not in themselves enough. Look at the signatories to the conventions on human rights and minorities and then compare the treatment received by such minorities, groups and individuals – the list is shameful and shaming. Can anyone argue with any persuasiveness that women are treated equally and fairly, that children have human rights or that people are not discriminated against because of their religion, belief, gender, disability, age, sexual orientation, opinion, political affiliation etc? The defamation of minorities in newspapers and other media fuels discrimination. Even within the EU citizens still suffer human rights violations and a breach of our conventions. Every day in the press misinformation and misrepresentation are used to deny some minorities equality before the law and to denigrate ethnic minorities. Quite frankly a hierarchy of oppression has been created. And so long as people do not have equality before the law, this inequality will lead to discrimination and human rights will be eroded. In our enlargement process in the EU we have rightly placed the emphasis on human rights and the protection of minorities. We must not waiver in that commitment. But we must also hold up the mirror to ourselves and recognise our own inadequacies. Yes, conventions have been signed, but action is needed. I would recommend to you ongoing audits of human rights practices, eternal vigilance, not just outside our borders but within. That is why I would welcome an annual Member State report from each individual state which would have to record any charges against it and the action taken. Because what happens in each Member State happens to every single one of us. What happens in another part of the world affects us. Pinochet in Chile is as relevant as Haider in Austria. Human rights and civil liberties are inextricably linked. Human rights do not exist in isolation, they are connected to our development policies, our economic policies, our home affairs policies, indeed they are at the very heart of our democratic functions. I would repeat what Mr Patten said: we must engage, we must inform, educate and thereby effect real and lasting change.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, since the 1970s various Member States have applied the practice of switching to summer time. The dates for starting and ending summer time were harmonised, finally, a few years ago so that they have been the same in all the Member States of the EU since 1996. We have become used to the practice, as the previous speaker just said. The proposal that has now been made is, in the opinion of our group, a good one, and our group supports it, and no more amendments to it are needed. The main issue here is that summer time is applied in all Member States and that the date it starts and the date it ends remain uniform throughout the EU. It is to be welcomed that the proposal states that matters connected with time zones and summer time provisions should be matters for Member States to decide. Harmonisation is necessary only in connection with the practice of summer time starting and ending at the same time in each of the Member States. A harmonised summer time will remove obstacles to the free movement of goods, services and people and promote the more effective realisation of the internal market. Studies on the effects of summer time do not clearly reveal whether the effects, for example on agriculture, are positive or negative. The greatest concerns are mainly to do with the welfare of animals and the working conditions of farmers. The adoption of summer time has meant energy savings, even if they have only been very slight, according to reports. Studies show that traffic safety has improved with the evenings staying light for longer. Long, light evenings also mean opportunities for extended leisure time.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, on 8 November 2001, the Council of Development Ministers urged the European Union and Member States to increase development aid. I believe that we must now take firm and visible action. How do we go about doubling the current level of aid given by industrialised countries to achieve the required USD 50 billion a year, as recommended in several of the preparatory reports for the Monterrey conference, so that we can meet the most basic requirements of developing countries, particularly in terms of education and health? What stage has the Commission reached in its negotiations with each Member State on a timetable to enable us to achieve the objective of 0.7%, which was set some 32 years ago? Although the attitude of the United States is placing the very existence of aid for development under serious threat, the Monterrey conference would be an opportunity for the European Union to prepare and set in motion a strict process to rigorously monitor this timetable. There are still other avenues to be explored. Firstly, we must cancel debt and go much further than the HIPC initiative. The crisis in Argentina is an urgent reminder – as if it were needed – of the need for us to act. The world parliamentary forum, held some days ago in Porto Alegre, also recommends, by means of a resolution, that the United Nations establish an international tribunal to combat debt in order to guarantee financing for development. Furthermore, it is time to seriously consider introducing a tax on international financial transfers. Lastly, reforms in the financial system and international trade system are obviously needed in order to make them more democratic and to combat the mechanisms which cause poverty in developing countries. Furthermore, as regards the current situation with aid, we must ensure that payments of sums are made in a swift and efficient manner as, at the end of 2000, EUR 9 billion remained in the coffers of the European Development Fund and we must also change the focus of the ODA. It is, first and foremost, private investors who find this attractive, as it helps to further develop each country’s specialist knowledge of production niches for exporting goods in terms of the requirements of the global market and not of populations. The commitments made towards developing countries must be honoured. This is a legitimate expectation of the 2.8 billion people who live on less than USD 2 per day.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, once again we are called upon to discuss the situation in Rwanda. Yesterday we were deploring genocide and violations of human rights. Today, indeed, we can only be outraged at the release of Jean Bosco Barayagwiza, supposedly for technical reasons, even though he was one of the most significant parties in the incitement to genocide. His release, indeed, is quite symptomatic of the lack of will to make an evaluation of the genocide and, more especially, of the wish to hush up the involvement of European countries, particularly France, where a recent parliamentary inquiry revealed complicity that was, at the best, passive. Let us also stress that the Rwandan situation, as worrying as it is, more particularly affects the stability of neighbouring countries, and the situation in the Congo is quite tragic from this point of view. It is essential today for the European Parliament to assert clearly that, in order to ensure stability in this region, the conditions must be created for a peace which is based on justice and the prosecution of those responsible for ethnic violence. This is why we are asking the ICTR to review its position regarding Mr Barayagwiza’s release, in consideration of the seriousness of the charges against him. Without some action of this sort, the populations of Rwanda are likely to feel they have been wronged and ethnic conflict is likely to start up again with renewed vigour. We also ask the Rwandan government to resume its relations with the ICTR. This is why it is essential to put an end to the conditions of impunity which are prevailing in these countries.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I would like to emphasise the main reason, within the context of the common line taken by the Group of the , why I voted for the Zabell report. It is because of the priority given to prevention. It is, in effect, right to focus first and foremost on prevention. The myth that it is possible to be ‘beautiful, powerful and highly successful’ without making any effort must be exploded in schools and in society. Young people must be taught that taking shortcuts to success and to the realisation of their projects is always extremely dangerous. This line was included in the pilot project which Parliament opted for in the 2000 Budget, providing for a large-scale anti-doping campaign. But what has happened to the project? None of the timeframes laid down have been respected to date. The list of candidates for the project should have been selected right now in September. Therefore, we must start to be coherent in our intentions or we will be indulging in fine theoretical discourses which have absolutely no substance outside this Chamber. - Mennea report (A5-0208/2000)

Political group: PSE