GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I welcome Mr Wiebenga's report, not only for its strengthening of the practical arrangements for sharing responsibility for Kosovo-type situations which I am sure our citizens can relate to as a demonstration of European solidarity, but also for Mr Wiebenga's insistence that a regime of temporary protection must not undermine and become a substitute for the Geneva Convention and the rights of beneficiaries to apply for asylum. Mr Wiebenga has added some useful, strengthening amendments to the clause already in the Commission proposal: for instance, on insisting on non-refoulement, to insist that the Dublin Convention shall not apply and that the host Member State shall consider the asylum application, and on the involvement of UNHCR. All these are to be welcomed. I am sorry that the Group insisted on forcing amendments to the article on family reunion. I feel the clause about unmarried partners which says that Member States may admit an unmarried partner if the legislation of the Member State treats unmarried couples in the same way as married couples is slightly perverse. I would have thought that it would be rather odd to treat them differently if domestic legislation did not. The other point I want to make is the contrast between Mr Wiebenga's report and the previous one by Mr Kirkhope. Mr Wiebenga's report is based on a Commission proposal in line with the Tampere conclusions and the scoreboard. It passed through our Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs constructively, without major dissension and results in a report which sensibly improves the Commission proposals. What a contrast to the series of Members States' proposals. Mr Vitorino said politely what many of us in Parliament are saying rather more rudely, that the Council and Member States need to get their act together on asylum and immigration. Mr Wiebenga's report has been a model of how we can work constructively between the Commission and Parliament. All we need is the Council to work as constructively with us.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the Commissioner said that he felt cheated by the Government of Cyprus. He was too polite. His good faith has been betrayed, as has that of our rapporteur, Mr Poos. Under international law, the entire island of Cyprus will join the European Union on 1 May, regardless of the result of the referendum, and Turkish Cypriots will become EU citizens. However, if the Greek Cypriots reject the Annan Plan, Turkish Cypriots will be EU citizens who are denied recognition and representation and who are being kept impoverished by economic sanctions applied by the EU. Turkish Cypriots are trapped in a pincer: they are threatened on the one hand by Turkish settlers and on the other by the economic strength of the Greek Cypriots. They have been poorly led for years. However, the tide has now turned and if they vote 'yes' in Saturday's referendum, they will have done everything that we and the UN have asked of them. Under such circumstances it would be completely unacceptable for economic sanctions to be maintained. We cannot persecute our own citizens. The presidency and the Commission, with the UN, must take steps to lift their burden through the means of transport and trade, and must do so without delay.

Political group: ELDR
The group voted to take out the part of Amendment No 46 that seeks to confer 'data retention' powers on Member States; this is the power for governments to require telecoms operators and Internet Service Providers to keep traffic, billing and location data for possible access by law enforcement agencies. We do not disregard the case for some data retention for security purposes. But we oppose insertion in this Directive because the huge implications both for industry and civil liberties are not adequately addressed in this context. It is dangerous and premature to endorse a blanket EU regime of data retention as an add-on to a telecommunications single market package. Any imposition of these powers should be debated at national parliament level and then addressed in the context of EU cooperation on policing and crime-fighting, including guarantees for citizens' rights. This measure voted today is an internal market Directive, part of a package designed to open up the EU market to competition and enable telecoms companies and ISPs to operate on a level playing field. The original Commission proposal did not contain any reference to data retention powers, which was added by the Council of Ministers in its common position.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, as the first speaker from my group, I would like to pay tribute to the rapporteur on behalf of all my colleagues who work closely with him. We welcome the robust way that he has defended the balance of this directive. As the rapporteur said earlier, with the compromise amendments – the set of amendments passed by our committee – I am sure that we have the right directive at the right time. No one pretends that it is perfect. It is important to emphasise that. There has been considerable difficulty in reconciling national traditions and exceptions. There are countries that have levies, for example, on recording media. We have sustained the objective of this directive because, above all, we want to encourage new creative artists to exploit this new technology. This is an enabling, liberating directive. It gives them the assurance that they will be able to create new works and to get fair rewards. Equally, on the balancing side, consumers expect that their existing rights to be able make private copies, to be able to use library facilities, to be able, if they are disadvantaged, if they are blind or disabled, to have access to new forms of media will be safeguarded. We have got that balance right. The other point, colleagues, is that we are not arrogant enough in the Legal Affairs Committee to suggest to you that this is here for all time. We have proposed and recommend very strongly to you that in 18 months' time this directive be reviewed. We must, in a very fast-moving world, take responsibility for our work but be prepared to modify it in accordance with what is going on in an entirely new world. That is a very important provision. We have strengthened the review provisions. We propose a very speedy turnaround, and that shows that the Legal Affairs Committee has taken a very responsible attitude to this directive. We now want to get it transposed as soon as possible. Why do we want to get it transposed as soon possible? Because a crucial element in this quick transposition is that the European Union will be able to accede to the World Intellectual Property Organisation Treaty and that will bring a very important measure of global protection to all the artists involved. That is really a prize worth having and worth having as quickly as possible. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner Barnier, I wish to begin by congratulating you, Commissioner Barnier, for the results achieved with the n+2 rule, by the efforts at simplification and by the fact that matters are now apparently such that, within structural policy, there is more success in implementing expenditure and getting money used. We do in fact see, however, how the budgets and the payment appropriations have been significantly cut back, both in the Commission’s and the Council’s proposals, and, in the light of what you are saying today, it has of course to be wondered whether it is right to take matters so calmly, confident that there are enough payment appropriations, and whether a proposal for the supplementary budget is enough to solve the problem, if it emerges that the money is being used up more quickly than we anticipated. In recent years, we have of course seen that there has been a huge amount of money left over from the agricultural budgets in the autumn, but will that continue, with a falling dollar and other growing expenditure? That is a matter for reflection. I also think it right to look at the problem constituted by the fact that it is not possible to have confidence in the reports we obtain from the Member States. Neither the Commission nor the Member States’ finance ministers have confidence in the reports obtained as to what needs exist. This is therefore worth investigating more carefully. I nonetheless think Mr Mulder has the right idea in saying we should increase the payment appropriations so that we might be sure that the projects can be implemented within the agreed time frames, even if those of us in my group have never supported large increases in the payment appropriations. I want to mention something else, namely the issue of the cutbacks we see in a range of budget lines where small and medium-sized enterprises are concerned. In particular, we see how, within the action programme for the working environment, the budget is being drastically cut back, and that, I think, is a completely wrong signal to send out prior to enlargement. I want to attach a lot of importance to our being able to obtain an exchange of knowledge and development of experience in the area relating to the working environment, so that free competition in the EU is not at the expense of a good working environment.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too am taking as a starting point the fact that there was absolutely no guarantee that we would reach the vote in plenary. We are here because of a sensible decision made by the Parliamentary Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, which has displayed great commitment and has adopted a method capable of dealing with over 1000 amendments and achieving a reasonable balance in its proposals overall. Precisely because of this ability, which I hope will be confirmed tomorrow in the House, I am sure that the Commissioner and the Council will pay greater attention to Parliament’s work. I consider the reports to be well-balanced, particularly Mr Cunha’s report. We have emphasised the need for reform, and to those who oppose reform with various arguments I would simply say that blocking reform will not protect the CAP – it will ultimately divest it of social legitimacy. We have therefore concentrated on introducing useful amendments to avoid the risk of decoupled aid, which would become support measures or lead to the abandonment of production. We consider partial decoupling to be the right way forward. Lastly, I would like, if I may, to draw the attention of the Presidency and the Commissioner to the decision we have made to maintain support for durum wheat unchanged, and I hope that there will be particular focus on the expiring COMs as well as on this package – oil, tobacco, fruit and vegetables – so that we avoid using the savings made through the decisions we are about to take for some sectors and not others, in other words solely for milk and sugar, thus avoiding exacerbating imbalances between producer countries.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, I speak to you not as a neutral referee but as a representative of the executive institution of the European Union. I am concerned, and this morning's speeches confirm this feeling of unease because the BSE problem, despite your explanations and the interventions you have mentioned – which are obviously a response to an economic crisis – represents a structural crisis to which we have yet to provide a response. BSE is a moral problem: over the decades agricultural policy has been constructed around agriculture, but now a veil of distrust is coming down over the sector that we, as institutions, cannot afford to allow. The agricultural sector is a sector comprised of working people, families who work the land and people who, occupied with everyday commitments, are paying a price which is not theirs to pay. It is absolutely essential that we rewrite the rules but we cannot ask working people to pay a price – which amounts to bankruptcy in many European countries – which is not theirs to pay. The response to an earthquake is not “We'll see what we can do”; the response to an earthquake is appropriate and, above all, immediate intervention. European agriculture is currently experiencing one of the most critical times in its history: our dealings with the agricultural sector are not without repercussion and ultimately not only farmers will be affected but Europe itself because, in the end, the farmers and people of Europe look to us, to Europe, to the institutions, as the entity that must meet their demands.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President of the European Central Bank, this debate is taking place with the euro having been in place for nine months, in conditions which enables us to affirm that its introduction has been successful, even if only in the limited sense that the transition to the third phase of the Economic and Monetary Union has taken place with no great upsets. Given that much of this success is undoubtedly due to the Central Bank, we must communicate our congratulations to its President, and we hereby do so. Having said this, we must stress two or three points: firstly – and this has been mentioned this afternoon and Mr Duisenberg knows perfectly well that it is a concern of this Parliament – we have the question of transparency. Given that this has been discussed here this afternoon, I will not pursue this argument, particularly as I know that Mr Duisenberg is perfectly aware of the Socialist Group’s position in this regard. The second issue I want to address, which for me is more important, is that of growth and employment, specifically the relationship between monetary policy and growth and employment. We agree with you, Mr President of the ECB, when you say that price stability is necessary for growth, and that growth and the creation of employment cannot happen without guaranteed price stability. Likewise we agree with you when you say that monetary policy alone cannot resolve the problem of unemployment. But we must also warn – and you understand this perfectly – that bad decisions regarding monetary policy may harm growth and prevent the economic recuperation which has started. There is no lack of historical examples in this respect and the warning is worthwhile at a time when economic recuperation in Europe is far from being confirmed and when, at the same time, there is speculation about the imminence of a stricter monetary policy. Lastly, I would like to take this opportunity, given that the Commission is present in this debate, to remind you of something which has also been repeated many times by this Parliament and which, in any case, is very important to our group: economic policy does not end with currency and does not end with monetary policy. The third phase of Economic and Monetary Union raises the issue, even more than in the past, of the need for a more robust and articulate coordination of economic policies. In this case, it is the responsibility – I would say the main responsibility in this area – of the Commission. You know this, Mr Solbes, and we call on you to face this responsibility, and in this you will surely be able to rely on the support of this Parliament.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we owe a debt of gratitude to Mr Napolitano for taking on the difficult subject of the role of regional and local bodies in European integration, on which he has shed light in his meticulous and comprehensive report. The many amendments tabled here and in committee testify to the topic's capacity to engage our emotions. Whilst the EU is being enlarged, that process also demands internal integration. People may well move around, but they think of themselves primarily as citizens of their region and of the places where they have their abodes and domiciles, long before they start describing themselves as Italian, English, German, Spanish or even European. This gives these local structures crucial importance when it comes to imparting the tradition of European thought and implementing European legislation in practice and on a day-to-day basis. The fact is, though, that the Member States' constitutional arrangements also differ to an extremely wide degree. Our rapporteur has distinguished himself with the survey he has compiled and included in his working paper on the relationships between the central and local levels in the EU's Member States and in the candidate countries, which reveals that, below the level of a Member State's central government, the regions or federal states possess the most diverse legislative competences. It is not intended that Europe should tamper with this autonomous approach to national structures, which has the deepest of roots in the nation state. Let us not, though, delude ourselves; discussion of this topic brings the Member States, those with centralised constitutions and those constituted on federal lines, with their own conceptions, head to head with each other. This alone explains why so much emotion is called forth by the idea of the regions having an independent right of appeal to the ECJ when their own legislative rights are directly affected. Ladies and gentlemen, it is the European Parliament that, alone, possesses the power to integrate Europe. We, its Members, represent the people for whom ‘home’ means their regions and their communities. If we are now to work on the even greater Europe that we all – for a diversity of reasons – desire, we have to take care to stand on a secure foundation; what we must also give this Europe is a soul – and we must do it with popular consent. Our regions are that foundation, and it is for that reason that we have to treat them with respect rather than passing their concerns through a filter, as Mr Corbett suggested. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, how many minutes’ silence have we held so far in this Parliament for the victims of ETA and in condemning terrorism? How many people have lost their lives in attempting to tread on European soil along the Andalusian coastline, in Dover, or on the coasts of southern France or Italy? How many women and children have been and still are exploited by organised criminal networks that – and this is the worst part – act with impunity in European territory? We must begin to find answers to these questions now, and fast! The fight against organised crime, terrorism, drugs or the trafficking of human beings requires new police methods, a readjustment of legislation, and the immediate adaptation of police and judicial cooperation to the new European area. No terrorist, drug trafficker or trafficker in human beings must find shelter in a Member State. And it is urgent, as the Commissioner has said, to set the European search and capture order in motion against these enemies of freedom and security. I particularly wish to thank you, Commissioner, for the interest you have shown in setting this European search and capture order in motion. In Spain a recent survey has shown that terrorism and immigration have become two of the main concerns of Spanish citizens. These concerns also require European responses. We are going to have two great debates in the coming months: a report on terrorism and another on immigration and asylum. I hope that we Members of Parliament, the Commission and the Council will rise to the occasion and succeed in offering European citizens and those who legally wish to live in our territory precisely what we set forth in the recent Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, since the end of the Cold War, the distribution of light weapons has become a worldwide issue; this is a phenomenon which is fomenting both street crime in our part of the world and civil wars in the Third World. The UN Conference is therefore more overdue than premature. I am of the opinion that the European Union must take the lead in New York. The 1998 European code of conduct can serve as a template for a worldwide agreement on the export and transfer of weapons. This code has proved its usefulness but is deficient in two important areas. First of all, it is not legally binding. Europe must press for an international agreement which is binding. Secondly, no provisions have been made for monitoring the end users of exported weapons. In Africa, for example, Togo and Burkina are officially known as end users of weapons from Bulgaria while, in reality, these weapons are being channelled to Liberia and to the rebels in Sierra Leone. Europe must call for the stricter monitoring and penalisation of transfer countries of this kind. The distribution of light weapons is, in fact, not only a problem in the Third World. In Europe and North-America too, the possession of weapons is on the increase. Half of all American families possess a firearm. Although these are often legal weapons, they cause just as much damage, as was once again demonstrated last week in California. That is why the UN Conference must also pluck up the courage to broach the subject of legal small weapons, and Europe must be able to argue for a total ban on the advertising of firearms. Mr President, the UN Member States are facing a difficult dilemma: either they opt for the arms industry and economic interests, or they choose human safety, stability and peace. We are very much counting on the Swedish Presidency to set the right tone at the preparatory meeting, and on the Belgian Presidency to make the right choices during the conference.

Political group: PPE-DE
The debate and the resolution adopted by Parliament give serious cause for concern as to what will be decided at the Nice Summit, specifically as regards the potential increase in restrictions on the sovereignty of small countries such as Portugal, the strengthening of federalism and the militaristic path in security and defence policy, and the weak and clearly inadequate measures in the social sphere. With regard to the Intergovernmental Conference and the subsequent reform of the European institutions, it is particularly serious that moves are being made towards strengthening the power of a small number of large countries to the detriment of the decision-making ability of the great majority of small and medium-sized countries. This may happen with the extension of qualified majority voting, instances of closer cooperation situated within a hard-core concept, the application of closer cooperation to areas like security and defence policy, the prospect of moving towards a European Constitution based on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which itself has a content that is restrictive and in several aspects retrograde compared with similar international or national documents, the latter applying to the case of Portugal. In the social sphere, the proposals are too timid and do not even effectively flesh out the commitments adopted at the Lisbon Summit, particularly as regards the need for strengthening economic and social cohesion. The Council must, therefore, re-examine its positions and move to oppose the wave of company mergers and concentrations in various sectors, interrupt the current liberalising processes, and change macroeconomic policies with the aim of fighting for quality employment with proper rights and against poverty and social exclusion.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I was the Member responsible for the successful amendment to the Corbett Report, as a result of which the book where you sign written declarations under Rule 51 was moved to just outside this Chamber instead of being stuck in an office which nobody could find. I spoke to the official there today, who complained that not a single Member has shown any interest in reading the declarations or signing the book, even though the procedure is now much easier and more convenient. Can Members please cooperate with this project, in order to justify the change and the human resources dedicated to making it work?

Political group: PPE-DE