GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the speech by the President-in-Office of the Council on the Middle East gave me great cause for alarm, because there are, even so, few or hardly any regions of the world in a state of conflict that has such a profound impact on global stability. There are few regions in which a State breaches international law, humanitarian law and United Nations’ resolutions to such a degree and quite so repeatedly, and there is certainly no State associated with the Union which treats Europe in such an off-hand way, destroying Palestinian infrastructures that we have financed, which refuses, first Mr Solana, then Mr Moratinos, the right to visit an occupied Palestinian territory. And there is, above all, no State which treats the appeals that we make to it with such scorn, practically torpedoing the peace efforts on which we are working. It is in this context that the President-in-Office of the Council speaks of optimism and sees the main obstacle to peace to be the Palestinians. I cannot comprehend this! You are obviously right to condemn outright the suicide attacks and any act of terrorism against innocent people, in Israel just as in any other country. The Palestinian Authority also condemns them systematically and has often tried to put a stop to them. But what has Mr Sharon done during the last six weeks of relative calm to try to dispel the tension and re-launch the dialogue? The Ha’aretz newspaper answers for you, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, in pointing out that 30 Palestinian civilians were killed in August alone and Yedioth Ahronot, another newspaper, condemned the irresponsible nature of these crimes, although, apparently, the number of terrorist attacks has fallen spectacularly. This is the truth, and it has to be told, Mr President-in-Office of the Council. Mr Sharon will not bring security and peace to his own people by re-occupying Palestinian towns, setting up yet more colonies, starving the population and destroying everything that can keep the hope of a State alive, particularly the hope of Palestinian Authority, and this is something being pointed out by many dignified and courageous people in Israel itself. What credibility can the Elsinore peace plan that you mentioned have, if you gloss over the root causes of the Middle East tragedy? What sort of tragedy might this reckless headlong pursuit of the strategy of force lead to, if all those who have some authority do not use all their influence to stop Ariel Sharon? You did not even demand an end to the siege of President Arafat or the withdrawal of Israeli forces. Does it not bother you that your position is a considerable distance from Commissioner Patten’s, for example? Europe must live up to the world’s expectations of it. Today, you unfortunately fell far short of them. (Applause from the left)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, whoever would like to know what use the Audiovisual Observatory is, needs only to cast a glance at the contents page of any issue of the legal journal, IRIS, for example the issue for September 1999. Here, there is a report about a resolution to enact a Directive from the European Commission requiring Member States to ensure that no telecommunications company of relevance to the market should be able to operate its cable television network through the same legal entity. Another report is about the plan for a comprehensive French draft law concerning the information society which is to govern, among other things, questions about the free use of codings, about confidentiality in data transfers, about copyright protection and about necessary regulatory authorities. A third report concerns the latest judgements of the European Court of Human Rights through which 13 complaints against Turkey were heard and in eleven of which the Court agreed with the appellants and recognised violations of the law concerning free expression. All this amounts to far more than just collating statistical material, and I think it makes it clear why this institution is important. This impressively casts some light upon the objectives with which the founding of the Observatory was originally justified, namely those of surveying the market and promoting transparency there, as well as collecting and processing information and statistics concerning the audiovisual sector. Industry and related areas, and also the European Commission, Member States and the European Parliament, have since reaped the benefits of the Observatory’s services in many different ways. It has not, however, had any binding legal basis, and this is now to be created on the basis of Article 130a, paragraph 3 of the EC Treaty and with reference to the fact that, as a provider of information, it is mainly to contribute to strengthening the competitiveness of the audiovisual industry by improving the flow of information. The transparency which is to be produced in this way is an indispensable prerequisite for political action on Europe’s road to the information society, even if this is not perhaps to the liking of those who want to throw open the doors to unbridled market forces. I welcome the fact that the rapporteur has come out in favour of a five-year period of applicability. This view is shared by my Group.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to concur with Mrs Karamanou in what she stated a moment ago about the coherence in the Commission's policy. I should like to congratulate the Commissioner warmly on the report on gender equality that was issued during the Spring Summit. At long last, it has to be said, that report pulls no punches. Although progress has been made over the past few years, social inequalities between men and women remain extremely persistent. We know for a fact that women are disadvantaged in terms of labour participation and pay, that their economic independence is inadequate, that there is an unfair distribution of household and caring tasks and inadequate child care, while poverty in Europe is still predominantly a women's issue. The theme of the Spring Summit will be the often-expressed aspiration towards becoming the world's most competitive knowledge economy. The Commission's message is quite clear: if we are not prepared to enable women to actually realise their right to equality, nothing will come of this noble ambition. The ageing of the population means that the economic basis is vulnerable. The ratio between the so-called active and non-active population should go up. Europe can simply no longer afford to leave the economic potential of women unutilised. Socio-economic equality, however, cannot be realised unless the balance of power between men and women is also tackled in other areas. Violence against women and trafficking in women must be fought; more women should go into public administration; women must gain an equal share in research and science. The social inequality between men and women revolves around the balance of power: power in cutting the cake, power in apportioning tasks, power in using the public space, power in determining the political agenda and definitions, power where identifying social problems are concerned and power in the fight for self-determination in respect of our bodies and lives. Equality in those areas is a conditio sine qua non, but is also the price we are asking for using our economic potential. This requires tough negotiations around the kitchen table, but also around the tables of political power. At every summit, we always see a sea of men in grey suits, older men with grey hair, and a few women thrown in for good measure. They should be careful, because one day we will have the last laugh.

Political group: PSE
We have today voted in favour of this report. Corruption must be fought at all levels: international, national, regional and local. We believe, however, that a culture that opposes corruption is best created from the bottom up in society and is not something that can be promoted through EU programmes. In the same way, we think that scrutiny of the funding of political parties and election campaigns is best guaranteed by the parties themselves and in national regulations.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party is in favour of the reports we have for discussion, and we support the Commission’s attempt to make the very difficult work the European Union is doing for the Balkans more effective. The aid has been too bureaucratic and too slow in coming, because the Commission has been too centralised and management-driven in its work. There has been too much management in detail, and Parliament has been complicit in this on a number of points. It is very unfortunate that the agency has been split up into a headquarters in Thessaloniki and an operations centre in Pristina. We have been opposed to this throughout. Moreover, the arrangement has now also been criticised by the Court of Auditors. It is good that, in this year’s Budget, EUR 175 million is being set aside for Kosovo and EUR 200 million for emergency aid for Serbia. It is very unfortunate, however, that the appropriations to the UN’s administration in Kosovo, to the Baltic region and to the rapid reaction facility have been put in the reserves. It is very unfortunate that there is no certainty regarding what we have by way of money for Serbia next year. It is particularly unfortunate in view of the fact that the elected Serbian President is coming here tomorrow. It is also unfortunate that a large number of programmes have been put in the so-called performance reserve. I am well aware that Parliament wants in this way to force the Commission to behave better, but one ought not to take one’s own children hostage. We should do much better to give the Commission a free hand in making the work effective, and we must reserve the right to criticise the Commission if the work is not a success. We must not make ourselves partly liable for possible damage to programmes of which we are in favour. Let us give the Commission larger appropriations and permission to delegate responsibility so that it becomes easier to make rapid decisions and to implement initiatives. Let us celebrate the visit by the elected Serbian president tomorrow by now seriously giving the Commission a chance to put the aid we offer onto a new and better footing.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President-in-Office, first of all, thank you for the reply you have given me. However, I should like certain additional details because three years ago it was said in this very Chamber that the European Union would promote a stability pact in the area equivalent to that for the Balkans. So far, nothing has been done. The point has been repeatedly raised in this Chamber that, while we support regional cooperation, and at Black Sea level there is even a bank and an intergovernmental and interparliamentary procedure and secretariat, our relations with it are as if it were a far flung country, a country in the Far East. Because this area is of vital interest to the European Union and because numerous countries, such as Armenia, Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine and so on, have asked for prospects of accession to the European Union, I consider, for the moment at least, that the reply does not match the political needs of the region. I therefore await clarification.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner Nielson's department have produced an excellent communication and programme for action for communicable infectious diseases, HIV Aids, TB and malaria. It is not possible for the EU to fund that programme alone and therefore I would like to ask, is he going to take the lead in initiating and establishing a global fund in cooperation with the UN and other agencies so that this can be done? I am the rapporteur for that report and I hope this Parliament will put it on fast track so that it can be debated before the UN international conference on the subject in the third week of June. I saw a lot of time wasted this afternoon. This is an important subject and those responsible in this House should put that on the agenda for fast track debate, so Members of this House can debate it and the European Parliament's view can go to that conference for consideration.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we are all agreed on the legal position and the commitments arising from this for Israel, as we are on the fact that irregularities have occurred. We have urged Israel to exercise supervision accordingly. The Commission is in touch with Israel about this and the Commissioner has made a statement on this. According to the information I have received, however, there are no serious cases at present, and we are only talking small amounts in the context of the total volume of trade. What should our policy be? I will start at the end and work back. Surely it should be our common goal, once the internationally-recognised State of Palestine is in place, for there to be an agreement between the State of Palestine and the EU which is identical in content to that between Israel and the EU. This would constitute an important and practical contribution on our part towards facilitating cooperation between Israel and its immediate environs. Therefore it does not make sense, and benefits no one, to break up evolved interweavings in the infrastructure, in the labour market and in the marketing structures. The Commission has not stirred up the matter for good reason. We do not need any more secondary theatres of war in this complicated peace process. Therefore, in my view, all existing agreements and practices should be respected by all parties in a transition period. This is something that is best to the main protagonists – Israel and the Palestinian autonomous authorities – to sort out amongst themselves, with an appropriate amount of good will. One of the implications of this is that Israel must stop ignoring and blocking the interim agreement between the EU and the Palestinian autonomous authorities. But I also have an appeal to make to the critics of the Israelis’ former practice: what good does it do a Palestinian, if his Israeli employer, who grows a few oranges in the Gaza Strip or on the Bank, shuts up shop there and goes back into the heartland? None at all! He is out of a job. At the end of the day, the only people to profit from this on all sides are those who are not interested in reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians, rather they have goals of their own which they seek to achieve by radicalising the situation. EU fruit producers might also stand to benefit indirectly. However, I assume this was not an ulterior motive for pushing the issue here in Parliament. Therefore, my advice to everyone is this: let us not break anything up during this transition period that we would have to rebuild at great expense further down the line.

Political group: PPE-DE
Because Amendment No 53 was not carried I cannot support this important compulsory regulation in the area of development aid. The rapporteur stated in an Irish radio programme on 19 November 2002 that through this regulation, EU taxpayers would provide money to fund abortions in the poorest countries and that this was within the legal rights of the EU. Whilst ensuring women the highest level of medical care, and prevention of maternal mortality and morbidity, Amendment No 53 would have clarified the intentions of Parliament, the Commission and Council. It would also have protected the Irish constitutional position, and reassured the representatives of candidate and Least Developed Countries, deeply concerned that some terms within this regulation could allow the EU to establish a legal competence in the area of development that it does not have within the Union. Due to the doubt cast by the rapporteur's comments, and in the absence of Amendment No 53, the Irish Government, which has stated that ‘regulations regarding abortion are solely for individual countries to decide’, must ensure at Council level that the draft Regulation in its current form does not permit the use of taxpayers' money to fund abortion in the poorest countries. - Malliori report (A5-0021/2003)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, one of the main tasks of the Convention on the future of Europe is to respond to the question raised in Laeken almost a year ago about how appropriate it would be to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaty on European Union. A working group within the Convention was set up for this very purpose, competently chaired by Commissioner Vitorino and which is ready to make its conclusions public. Today, the European Parliament, through the report by Mr Duff, seeks loudly to reaffirm the position it has always maintained. I should like publicly to express my agreement with his conclusions and to take the opportunity to congratulate the rapporteur on the extremely broad consensus that he was able to add to his achievements in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. We are in no doubt as to the need to make the citizens and their rights the focus of our shared existence. What we have is not so much a market but a collection of women and men who give this Community meaning. This is why we wholeheartedly call for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated as the major part of the future Constitutional Treaty of the European Union. We are aware, of course, that many of the rights, principles and freedoms could have been worded differently and will have to be revised in future. No human work is perfect. From our point of view, however, that time has not yet come. It is time today to clarify and strengthen the legal status of the Charter, giving it a binding nature and increasing the legal protection of European citizens from the European institutions and from the Member States when they apply Community law. We therefore support the strategy advocated in this report and its main conclusions: to make it the major part of the new Constitutional Treaty, to lay down formal rules for its revision and, following the explicit attribution of a single legal personality to the European Union, to advocate accession to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I want to start by saying that I am speaking on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party which I represent on this issue. I should like to draw attention to the fact that the Council is not present today. By contrast, I welcome the attentive presence of Commissioner Vitorino, as has consistently been the case since his appointment. This leads me to another point. This House has only prepared one report on this Convention. It was in fact consulted on a text which was not the text being worked on by the Council and which did not contain points which had already been agreed. I condemn this, as well as the Council’s absence. These are serious matters on which this House must act. We are about to advance into new territory where attitudes and symbols are of great significance. A political community is reflected in the justice which it hands out. This is why this report is so important. It represents a step towards the area of freedom, security and, particularly, justice to which we all aspire. It is also an important step towards European natural justice. This will be built on mutual confidence between the Member States and their respective legal systems and on the confidence of the European people in any European court. It will also be built on scrupulous respect for fundamental rights and freedoms and on the guarantee of fair trials in particular. It is in this respect that this House has significantly – and in my opinion rightly – altered the balance proposed by the Council by firmly and decidedly supporting a reinforcement of these guarantees of fair trials in all the amendments. Mr President, as the rapporteur said, this House has concentrated on the particular issue of phone tapping in order to remove this from the Convention. On behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party, I have tabled an amendment to the motion for a resolution which asks the Council to produce a text on this issue as soon as possible. The regulation of phone tapping in the Council document was incomplete and therefore inadequate. Yet a lack of regulation is also inappropriate and may lead to abuses in the telecommunications field. In fact, we are aware that these are already happening widely. The other point which I must highlight and on which we have also worked extensively is the use of video conferencing with regard to accused persons. Again on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party, I have asked the Council to produce a convention as soon as possible in order to clarify and supplement the regulation of this issue, which is frankly unsatisfactory. Apart from a few exceptions, the Members of the Group of the European People’s Party will vote in favour of the committee’s amendments, and of course our own.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in the previous Parliament, many Members, especially from Southern Europe, were in favour of free trade in milder drugs. In the North, it is generally believed that any free trade in milder drugs lowers the threshold that makes it possible to move on to using hard drugs. It is important that the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, in the context of the positive climate that exists in Parliament with regard to drugs, also acquires sufficient resources for its anti-drugs activities outside the European Union. It would appear that this is not the case, however. The Centre is being given new tasks without the corresponding resources to carry them out, and the amendments, by the Group of the in particular, tend in that direction. Resources must be increased via the PHARE and TACIS programmes. The most important drug routes to the European Union area will, in the future, be Afghanistan, Russia, Chechnya and Turkey as well as Kosovo and the other former Yugoslavian regions. All the PHARE countries have to be made to go the way of Norway. And they must be given the technical assistance to do so. Estonia is one of the biggest drugs routes from Russia to Finland, and from Finland to the common markets of the EU. All countries that receive financial aid must be made to go the way of Norway. There are, at present, no conditions set for EU aid. By way of example, Montenegro receives financial and political aid from the EU to pay its police force, but not for the fight against smuggling and drugs, but for its struggle against Milosevic. No such conditions are imposed on the aid by the World Bank or the IMF. The EU should, however, impose conditions for the aid it gives.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for his very detailed response. Although I gather that he very much appreciates the input of non-governmental organisations, I notice in my dealings with those organisations that there is still some doubt as to their actual influence. I note what the Commissioner is now stating in this connection. The preparations for the 2005 Tunis Summit are fully underway. I should like to invite the Commissioner to continue his dialogue with the non-governmental organisations. As the Commissioner is aware, we in the European Parliament have a meeting planned with a number of organisations as early as the beginning of March. He has been invited to this but is, unfortunately, unable to attend in person. I should like to invite his Cabinet, or members of his Cabinet, or of his staff, to attend this meeting, which will be held in this House on 1 March.

Political group: Verts-ALE