GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, does the Commission intend to issue a common safety standard for nuclear power plants which will be binding on the EU's Member States and applicant States, or, alternatively, to start drafting lists of power plants in the area of the Union on the ‘name and shame’ principle?

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I simply wish to express my agreement with the words of the Member from the Partido Andalucista, from Andalucia, and suggest, as a place to repair the British nuclear submarine, the gardens of Buckingham Palace. That is where they could take the aforementioned ‘beast’.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I voted for the resolution and should like to explain my motives. Several speakers mentioned that the only person with whom many elderly people have any contact is the postman, particularly in mountain communities. I wholeheartedly agree. However, it also seems to me that the pensions of many elderly people are being reduced as a result of national budget constraints. In my own country, Italy, there are some 200 000 postal workers who cost the state approximately L 50 million a year per capita, or EUR 25 000, that is, a total cost of around EUR 5 million. Liberalisation of postal services would mean that the state could give each pensioner an extra ITL 10 million a year so that a million pensioners would see their pensions doubled. That should amply compensate them for forgoing their contact with the postman.

Political group: PPE-DE
Just to confuse my colleagues, it is not exactly correct, because if we vote for the EPP Group's amendment, then we will have a different wording on Article 22 which is the Article on the electricity and gas regulator. I will leave it to the wisdom of the Assembly, but personally, I will vote against this in order to be consistent with Article 22. If we do not solve it today, we will solve it at second reading. (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0074/2002) by Peter Michael Mombaur, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity (COM(2001) 125 – C5-0185/2001 – 2001/0078(COD)) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0053/2002) by Georg Jarzembowski, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports (COM(2001) 695 – C5-0667/2001 – 2001/0282(COD)) Before the vote on Article 3:

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, given the economic and geopolitical importance of Russia, the European Union believes it must seek a common strategy on the subject. The report contains many empty phrases and, in particular, pious hopes. It is not just because each of the major European powers is primarily concerned with safeguarding the interests of its own capitalist groups, but in the final analysis, what does capitalist Europe have to offer Russia? Economic growth? Yet for the last ten years the Russian economy has done nothing but collapse. An end to the preponderance of queues? Yet what use are more or less well stocked shops if, with unemployment, and retirement pensions and wages at a low level or not even paid, one third of the population is living below the poverty line and does not have any money to buy the goods? Democracy? Yet under the guise of democracy there is domination by official and unofficial mafias. Freedom? Yet the freedom which the reintroduction of capitalism has brought Russia is freedom only for a narrow range of bureaucrats left over from the previous regime to pillage natural resources and transfer the proceeds to Western banks. And indeed, what does freedom mean for the Chechen people? In voting against this report I wish to stress the inability of the capitalist economy and the western world to bring progress and prosperity to the peoples of the Russian Federation or indeed to the majority of peoples on this earth.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am concerned about the result in Ireland. It is a victory for those who wish to stop and say no. Referendums encourage short-term, self-interested views rather than long-term acceptance of responsibility. As Europe stands on the brink of a highly successful age, its citizens are vacillating. Reunification can increase freedom, security and opportunities and we can show solidarity with people who have suffered under Communist oppression and the destruction caused by a planned economy. However, reunification is just as important to us, as enlargement is not only a historical responsibility but also a necessary injection and a win-win situation. In Gothenburg the EU Heads of State and Government must therefore now set a deadline for enlargement and ensure that its road map is confirmed politically. This is the clear message which I believe is needed. But we should also examine ourselves. Citizens, not only in Ireland, are questioning what the EU is doing. We are poor at explaining the heart and the successes of European cooperation. Many people wish to foist tasks on the EU which can better be dealt with domestically. This threatens self-determination, while at the same the EU’s fundamental task of increasing freedom, ensuring peace, opening up markets and breaking down trade barriers becomes neglected. Enlargement and expansion of the European Union requires focus, consistency and commitment from all those interested in making Europe a success. There is another summit being held. Sweden believes the summit with the US is a significant event and one that is important to the EU. The leadership must focus on what unites us. Understanding the interests of the US may ensure Europe’s reunification and ability to manage crises. Working with the US to ensure peace and increased free trade must be the primary task. George W. Bush is good for the US and good for Europe, and we welcome him to Europe. I hope that both summits achieve concrete results and wish everyone the best of luck. I would like to add my congratulations to the foreign ministers for ensuring that the Presidency’s six months, which started out looking rather grey will seemingly end a little more on the light blue side.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I voted in favour of Mrs Oomen-Ruijten's report, although Austria was originally opposed to a directive. I really would like to thank the rapporteur. I welcome her work, by means of which a most effective option has been put in our hands, partly through Article 2's listing of all offences. Another reason for me to vote in favour of it was that the Commission had declared in its document, albeit without binding itself, that it would consider preparing legislation that provided for sanctions under criminal law on illicit activities in connection with nuclear materials. If there is any real threat not only to the environment but also to human beings, it is that posed by atomic waste. I think it simply ridiculous that we have a whole list of offences without a single sanction being provided under criminal law for deliberate or even negligent acts and damage in the nuclear domain. I strongly urge the Commission, which is now no longer present, to submit a directive on this as soon as possible, and I will be repeating this call in a question.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Jonathan Evans represents the citizens of Wales, and I represent the citizens of Wels. In both our cities we have strong small and medium-sized enterprises, and that is also Europe's strength. It is because firms with under 250 employees account for two-thirds of jobs that we in the political world must always bear in mind the need to ‘think small first’. First we must think of the ‘small players’ and look to see how we can apply some leverage for them. It is precisely for the students or workers who want to become self-employed that we have no help to offer by means of functioning instruments. The so-called ‘one man start up’ is a very important area of concern. It must also be possible to make risk capital available in instalments ranging from EUR 5 000 to EUR 10 000 rather than only from EUR 5 million upwards. In particular, we will have need of that when it comes to the new Member States. We must be aware that they suffer a glaring lack of equity capital, and that even the banks there find this very difficult. If we want to build prosperity there, with a market economy that works, we have to consider how these businesses get their hands on the capital they need once they are working in the European Union. The second major area is the transfer of businesses. There is at present an enormous tax burden when businesses are handed on from one generation to the next. It is, though, precisely at this stage that the enterprise is at greatest risk, as, on the one hand, the experienced generation is stepping down, and the new generation takes risks in its desire to build something new. I would ask the Commissioner to offer alternatives on this point. I would like to add, in conclusion, that it is important that we think about fiscal optimisation. Are the rules on depreciation right? Do new businesses and enterprises using risk capital not need new rules on depreciation, new allowances and reserves? How long are time limits to be, and to what should they apply? I believe that tax also plays an enormous role in the accumulation of equity capital. I request the Commission to produce a Green Paper on this issue, because it is in taxation also that Basle II will bring enormous changes, as we can create the conditions for Basle II only if there is massively reduced taxation of business proceeds, especially of undistributed profits from businesses, and then the Finance Ministers really will have to prick their ears up.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it sounds wonderful that the EU wants to create the most competitive, dynamic and knowledge-based economy. But would it not have sounded even better if the EU had chosen to create the most environmentally friendly, sustainable, just and equal economy? This appears not to be the case, particularly not in the report by Mr Gasòliba i Böhm, which is an ode to deregulation, privatisation and social cutbacks, i.e. the things which create deep divisions and environmental damage. For example, my own country Sweden has in the past been a very egalitarian country. According to many reports since joining the EU, it is now a country where divisions, antagonism and inequality are increasing the most rapidly. I would like to recommend all market fundamentalists to read the following in today’s Guardian, “California and New Zealand that were once keen privatisers are now both turning their backs on deregulation. They are ready to renationalize. California is turning dramatically left. New Zealand’s experiment in market fundamentalism has failed”. With this in mind, I wonder what the Swedish Presidency intends to do now. The Swedish Presidency was in fact recently praised by The Economist for the egalitarian traditions in Sweden. Are you now going to continue down the EU’s incorrect road towards deregulation fundamentalism? Or will you instead perhaps regain some sort of tradition of solidarity and try to move the EU in a direction which takes more account of environmental friendliness, sustainability and solidarity? It would be interesting to receive an answer on this.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I think there should be an opportunity for someone else to take over the request for a roll-call vote. There must be a chance to do this if another group withdraws its request. That was the point here!

Political group: Verts-ALE
I support this report and agree entirely with its condemnation of the limitations on liability for nuclear accidents which create a privileged position for nuclear energy as against other energy sources. Ireland is not a party to the Paris Convention to which this report relates. However everyone in Ireland is acutely aware of their vulnerability should there ever be a major incident at the nearby Sellafield plant, or should there ever be an incident involving the shipments of dangerous waste materials which are brought to that plant through Irish territorial waters. In fact the single greatest threat to the Irish environment comes from Sellafield so it is absolutely outrageous that the European Union has so far failed to apply the 'polluter pays' principle to nuclear accidents. It is high time the European Union adopted a more comprehensive stance in relation to the dangers of the nuclear industry. We certainly cannot afford to have any gaps in the application of international conventions and Community legislation to the area of liability for nuclear damage. - Report: Sousa Pinto (A5-0096/2004)

Political group: PSE
The Group endorses and supports the joint motion for resolution on Euro-Mediterranean relations. However, I should like to take this opportunity to highlight the importance of the final statement of the contact group of the presidents of the Euro-Mediterranean parliaments. Especially Article 2 on the application of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the phrase 'for peace' and the legal right of the Palestinians to self-determination and to an independent state, paragraph 6 condemning military occupation by Israel and paragraph 7 condemning all forms of violence and terrorism against innocent Israelis.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to ask you to record Mr Bolkestein’s comments in the Minutes of our meeting, because, if I am not mistaken, Mr Bolkestein is correcting Mr Prodi on a crucial point. He is saying that the word ‘equivalence’ does indeed mean equivalence between Parliament and the Council.

Political group: PSE
I just wish to say on behalf of the that I very much hope Mr Goebbels and his colleagues will withdraw their amendment. We do not believe that the amendment insisting on call-back is appropriate to this particular piece of legislation, which my colleague Olle Schmidt has described as being very carefully balanced after the common position of the Council. Nor is it appropriate in the context of the ongoing discussions over Lamfalussy. Indeed, I would go as far to say that by insisting on call-back, which was not a phrase which appeared in Parliament's second resolution on this subject after the Stockholm Council, we risk calling into question our bona fides in the lengthy negotiations which some of us have undertaken with Mr Bolkestein. I very much hope, therefore, that the people who have put forward this amendment will withdraw it, and that discussions will take place in an appropriate place. We should not try to call into question this piece of legislation. I believe it should be put through as is.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we must recognise that we are talking about a report on regional policy of great importance and scope, which advocates that the regions should play an active role in their European future. We must therefore continue to insist that this House maintains Mr Napolitano’s report, produced by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, which included, amongst other things, increasing the participation of the regions in decision making, the adaptation of Community legislation and the right to bring cases before the Court of Justice of the European Communities. It would be a good idea – as I pointed out in an amendment to the Napolitano report – to ask the Convention to guarantee the inclusion in the European Constitution of the famous paragraph 2 of Article 299 of the EC Treaty, which deals with the special application of Community provisions in the outermost regions of the European Union. IN THE CHAIR: MR PUERTAVice-President

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, at the beginning of this legislature, we all agreed, and we still agree, that certain sectors of both the Commission and the other European institutions need reform. Inside the Commission, it has emerged that over 1200 posts needed to achieve fundamental strategic objectives are unfilled. According to the Commission, part of that deficit can be made up by rationalising and redistributing the existing workforce. That approach deserves support, but it anticipates that some members of staff are not capable of adapting to the new tasks. To solve the problem, the need arises to give such staff incentives to choose favourable, mutually agreed early retirement as a unique, one-off package. This hypothesis rightly recognises the past contribution of the staff involved, and gives them the option of alternative employment elsewhere. The Union does not suffer economic overload and it is not obligatory to take the package. To conclude, my verdict is positive. However, I do not support the Ferber amendments. Reform is an exceptional event and should be regarded as such. I would like to express great appreciation of the rapporteur’s really excellent and influential work, and the same appreciation applies to the proposals from the heads of delegations, which extend that solution to all the institutions of the Union. Finally, great appreciation is due to all the employees of the Union, those who choose early retirement and those who remain in working life, because it is also thanks to their enthusiastic work that Europe continues to advance briskly towards the future.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, I would like to know what is going on, please. You talk about a crowning achievement, a historical decision, a milestone. It reminds me of Faust – Gretchen would have liked to record this day. State Watch, which is what this is about, the European Federation of Journalists, and so on say that rather than enshrining the rights of citizens, it undermines what we have been discussing today and will be voting on. It says that the current code enshrines the rights of Member States, albeit in different form. If I interpret this, it reminds me of Goethe, of Faust, again: 'I hear the message well, but I have little faith.' Maybe an attempt is being made to find a compromise position, perhaps today is not such a historical day. But receiving the EU's proposal here is rather like getting to see a new car. 'Now you can have a look!' they tell us. We certainly will. It is not long since the European transparency initiative was launched, an initiative taken so as to provide as many of Europe's citizens as possible with access to as many documents as possible, including those relating to Council meetings. Will we now get to see what documents really exist and which ones are sensitive? What does sensitivity mean? We are all very sensitive. How will you interpret sensitivity? Will you tell us that we can look at the car, but the motor is sensitive, the seat is sensitive and the steering wheel is sensitive? Or will we get there and see the whole car? I believe that there is room for optimism when you look at the example of the United States. It took decades until the Freedom of Information Act was passed, and even they started off by just having a first look at the car. But I hope that the Presidency and their successors will not come to us in future and complain about money, and say that it is too expensive if we ask for detailed information. There is money available for that. In the USA, the Freedom of Information Act costs USD 40 million every year. The bill for the American Government's public relations is USD 1.5 billion. I share the opinion of our rapporteur, Mr Cashman, who is to be congratulated. He says that this is something that will develop by itself. We are relying on it developing by itself up to 2004. I believe that we should not be holier-than-thou about this, but that we should make a start here in this House when it comes to transparency.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, the report by the two rapporteurs is very ambitious, very ahead of the times, but it has two major defects, which ought to be corrected by the vote in plenary. Firstly, to generalise the system of dual simple majority voting is not the panacea of the future integration of Europe. A principle of that kind could induce public opinion in the Member States and the national parliaments to reject that system for the most sensitive issues which are in fact exceptions to the general rule. It would be better to seek a compromise acceptable to all, as in the past. It is a question of legitimacy and acceptability. Secondly, Member States with a large population get more than their fair share. The underlying principle of “one man – one vote” is unacceptable. It conflicts with Article 190 of the Treaty which provides that the number of elected Members must ensure the appropriate representation of the peoples of the States brought together in the Community. It is a question of equality and solidarity. Finally, there is no serious argument to back up the thesis we keep being served up, namely that a Commission of more than 20 members would not work. Equally, in the case of the Commission, let us avoid making numbers into an absolute principle. On the contrary, if we want decisions proposed on the Commission’s initiative to gain wide support in all the Member States, it is vital for them all to be represented. The important vote we will be holding tomorrow will, I hope, enable the European Parliament to put an end to this ambiguity and to make some adjustments. Only a more politically realistic proposal will have a chance of being taken into consideration. IGC 2000 is not the end of the story.

Political group: PSE