GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I want to associate my party and our 37 members here in the European Parliament with the words of the Council communiqué expressing sympathy and solidarity with the victims of the terrorist attacks in Madrid, with their families and with the Spanish people. On Lisbon, I welcome many of the points in the Council statement: the need for substantial structural reform, the completion of the internal market, better regulation and sharing of best practice. However, current European economies remain so restrictive and inflexible that progress will be hard to achieve. There remains, I must say, a deafening silence on our own inability to reduce the tide of regulation, which gravely damages our competitiveness and destroys jobs. Good intentions, sadly, are no substitute for practical measures. On the Constitution, Mr Watson and Mr Duff's party leader in the UK has joined my party in calling for a UK referendum on a Constitution. On Monday in the House of Commons he argued that a Constitution was needed in order to define and make clear the limits of EU power. The question, he said, is: does this Constitution have constitutional implications? The answer he gave was an unequivocal 'yes'. You have argued, Taoiseach, that Member State governments must show flexibility and compromise on all sides – I noted your words. However, in that very same debate Mr Blair said that the issues of tax, social security, the UK abatement, foreign policy, defence, and criminal justice are all parts of our nationhood, and we will be insisting upon them. Therefore there are two further questions. Firstly, on asylum and immigration in that debate, Mr Blair assured the people of Britain that it was absolute rubbish to suggest that the EU would have any role in determining any policy decisions or laws in this area. Secondly, on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, he assured the British people that the European Court of Justice would have no jurisdiction whatsoever to enforce this Charter or the rights that were expressed within it. I think it is a rather different legal situation and would be grateful for your view. It is hardly surprising, when our Prime Minister denies that a Constitution for the EU has any constitutional implications, that people find it rather difficult to trust him. That is why my party says that we should trust the people and have a referendum.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President-in-Office, I am delighted to hear that you say safe nuclear energy is indeed safe to use, because it is impractical to expect countries that are currently producing 30 and 40% of their energy from nuclear power to replace this with renewable energies on any financial or economic terms or with the burning of fossil fuels without considerable further damage to the environment in these already polluted countries.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I want first of all to congratulate Mr Bushill-Matthews on his report. He has produced a good piece of work in spite of difficult conditions, and we in the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party very much agree with his conclusions, as well as with the amendments tabled by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. There are, of course, many different ways to create full employment, but this cannot be achieved without economic progress and a high degree of competitiveness. This was also, of course, the conclusion reached by the Lisbon Summit last year which specifically emphasised growth and development as the means to higher employment in the EU. Moreover, every politician has a soft spot for small and medium-sized enterprises. At any rate, that is true whenever we raise our glasses in praise of their importance to economic development and employment. When it comes to everyday practice, however, the reality is all too often different. Far too many obstacles are placed in the way in the form of bureaucratic rules which deter many people from setting up in business. There are not enough incentives to take risks, and this generally impedes development and dynamism. We cannot, of course, get away from the fact that, in general, there is less willingness to take risks in the EU than in the United States, something which is reflected in less dynamic new business development. I therefore also think it is important to ensure that these programmes which, through the European Investment Bank, provide small and medium-sized enterprises with new financing opportunities operate as efficiently as possible in the eyes of the enterprises concerned. The programmes must be made more widely known and linked to other programmes, and it must of course be ensured that the payments are not dragged out, indeed that the programmes operate with a minimum of bureaucracy. Mr Bushill-Matthews’s excellent report and the amendments tabled by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy contain criticism of experience to date. That criticism should be taken on board so that our friendly feelings for small and medium-sized enterprises do not only find expression in fine celebratory speeches, but also in practice. We must also ensure that the programmes are effective overall, and I am therefore particularly pleased about Mr Bushill-Matthews’s request that the Commission follow up the programmes and examine their effect on employment.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, of firsts there is no end. There are not even any visitors to welcome here today. There was similar silence yesterday in Yokohama, from where I have just returned. What we are doing here today does not require 70 000 spectators. But zero remains zero and gives clear expression to the fact that we have failed to give Parliament even the minimum of information. That there are only three Members in their seats to hear this debate shows how Parliament itself values this report. If the Rules of Procedure were reformed and people knew what we are doing here – and above all what we are failing to do here – then this place would be full to overflowing. The question is for how long we will be reforming ourselves and how quickly we are going about it, and is that the topic for debate? It is indeed the topic for debate, Mr President, for Euratom is doing the very same that we are doing here in this Parliament in which we hide ourselves away, where we do so much to ensure that nobody hears us doing it. It is subject to no proper democratic control, and, whilst the context of course makes fundamental criticism difficult, some aspects of Mr Rübig's report are definitely praiseworthy. By that I mean item 16, item 17 and most of all item 13, because there at least the attempt is made, albeit in typical fashion, to put a finger on the spots that have just been described. Item 13 makes it very clear that Euratom functions undemocratically, without either transparency or accountability. Unless one knows Parliamentary practices and perhaps also certain usages in debate behind closed doors, it is very difficult to track the thinking behind items 1, 2 and 3. If we have so much material unaccounted for, how can we, on that basis, say that the job is done well, very well, because none of it has come to light? If we carry on in this fashion, then not only will our work continue to be undermined, but so will what perhaps makes sense of the use of nuclear energy, and that brings me to my ceterum censeo. Mr President, there is no democracy without transparency!

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I beg your pardon, but the French interpreter made a small error, on the most sensitive word in the debate, during the translation of what Mr Alyssandrakis just said. I just want to ensure that there is no ambiguity. Mr Alyssandrakis was translated as saying “the confederate solution would be best”. Obviously, he said “the federal solution would be best”. It is a most important point and needs to be clarified, Mr President.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, according to today’s agenda, the debate on matters of urgency was supposed to begin at 4 p.m.. I arrived at ten to four and as I was entering, I saw my name light up. This almost made me out to appear unpunctual in front of Parliament, the Chamber and my colleagues watching. I imagine that other speakers would have experienced such unpleasant surprises, too. Could you explain, Mr President, how this confusion came about?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I strongly support the principle that high quality and reasonably priced public transport should be available in all areas. However, this report is particularly important to my constituency, Wales, due to issues relating to concessionary travel. The Welsh National Assembly has introduced a scheme, which will come into force next spring, whereby local bus travel will be free for all pensioners in all areas of Wales. The scheme would offer free bus passes and free travel on local buses and would theoretically enable pensioners to travel throughout Wales if they wanted to without paying a penny. Whilst I appreciate the importance of ensuring that groups such as disabled people, schoolchildren and trainees are also eligible for reduced cost public transport, it would be ridiculous to undo the good work the National Assembly has done for pensioners in Wales by preventing pensioners enjoying concessionary travel under this regulation. I am pleased that the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has already voted to abolish the ceiling on concessionary fares that was proposed by the Commission, thereby protecting these pensioners in Wales.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to express here the sympathy and consternation of our group in the face of the earthquakes in Turkey and Greece. It is an irony of history that the earthquake in Turkey and the earthquake in Greece have brought these two countries closer together at last. I will not say reunited as yet, but certainly brought closer. It is indeed a rare coincidence that legal proceedings, whose fairness and rectitude I am not one hundred percent convinced of, and a conviction, of which, for fundamental reasons, I am even less convinced, specifically the death sentence against Mr Öçalan, have led to the development of an opportunity to bring a dreadful civil war in Turkey to an end. Sometimes this is the case in history; tragic events can set positive developments in motion. Therefore, instead of going into details, I would like to basically welcome the fact, firstly, that relations between Greece and Turkey have improved even regardless of the dreadful events, because both Foreign Ministers are prepared to speak to each other. I am very pleased to see that many European countries reacted so positively and made aid available immediately when the dreadful events occurred, and the European Union, furthermore, is considering, as a result, how a new beginning in the relationship between the European Union and Turkey can be achieved. In recent days I have spoken with some Turkish Members of Parliament, who also clearly expressed their desire for this new beginning. There have been a series of changes, new laws in Turkey. So it could be that, because of the awful events and a certain rethinking and reconsideration within Turkey, a new beginning will be possible in the next few months in the relationship between Turkey and the European Union, with the help of Greece. In all these steps together with, and with regard to, Turkey it is important to proceed in partnership with our Member State of Greece. The Foreign Minister, Mr Papandreou, has just established the prerequisites for us to enter into this new partnership with Turkey. It will be a long and laborious path. But for once it could be written in the history books that these terrible disasters in both these countries were the beginning of a new relationship, even a new political relationship, and possibly even a new economic relationship. Personally I shall also strive, as the former rapporteur on Turkish matters in this House, to achieve these new relationships between Turkey and the European Union. Turkey is an important strategic partner, but Turkey must also know that it must carry out appropriate changes in its law in order to achieve the prerequisites for clearing the obstacles to its free entry into Europe. Entry into Europe is conditional upon legality and respect for human rights. That is the only possibility. With this in mind, my group will attentively follow the latest endeavours of Commission and Council and will consider them positively, but critically.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, if a mark between 1 and 10 were now to be given for success in pursuing the two objectives of the action programme, namely that Kosovo should be multi-ethnic and that it should remain a part of Yugoslavia, I believe that the President-in-Office of the Council and I can probably agree that the mark concerned would be fairly low. We agree, however, that this is the result of a policy which has been pursued up until now, that is to say a result of what has happened. My question is this: is the Council giving any consideration to how this policy can be changed in the future, or is the intention to go on using the same tools, that is to say military action and initiatives against troublesome areas in the region? What is the basic idea behind setting up a 60 000-strong rapid reaction force when we all agree that a number of other initiatives are presumably required if there is a desire to solve conflicts in Europe and in neighbouring countries?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, I shall reply in your language. I should like to thank you for your intervention and to say that I hope that we shall have the opportunity to hear you when you present your report on cohesion, which will not only be about social and economic cohesion, but will now, for the first time, also encompass territorial cohesion. I also believe that territorial cohesion will not be possible without a genuine instrument to strengthen cross-border cooperation. It is clear that the cities and the regions, or in France’s case the départements, have had difficulty in setting up cross-border cooperation programmes, given the differences in legislation that exist between the countries concerned. I therefore feel that it is at European level that we have to design an instrument that makes such cooperation both possible and, hopefully, easy. We await a legislative proposal in this regard, which will contribute towards reinforcing the links between the different countries, in order to dismantle what remains of these borders, described by Robert Schuman as scars of Europe’s history.

Political group: ELDR
We would like to once again express our friendship and personal respect for the President-in-Office of the Council, but I have to say that we think it was a mistake to ratify the common position. We believe that the common position is a negative thing, that everybody in Cuba, from the authorities to the opposition and the church perceives it to be negative, and that practically all the ambassadors from EU States in Havana consider it to be ineffectual and even counterproductive. I certainly believe that this ratification of the common position has acted as a major stumbling block for the reopened process of dialogue that we, like you, wanted and looked upon with a great deal of hope. My question is this: How will the Council respond to the repeated requests from the ACP countries for Cuba to be treated like all of the other countries and for it to be offered a guaranteed place as a signatory to the Cotonou agreement? This is the question, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, with no disrespect, that we will be asking once again in Cape Town, in the Joint Assembly, in the presence of all the speakers from ACP countries, who have unanimously asked on numerous occasions for Cuba to be included as a member of their community. Thank you and, once again, welcome, Mr de Miguel.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I wish to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Florenz, on this milestone in environmental policy. I would like to comment on two great causes of concern. The first is that existing collection systems could be destroyed. I do not share Mrs Jackson's viewpoint, in fact I believe that they could continue to operate. But it would not be unreasonable if some change were necessary after ten years. Secondly, cities and municipalities are terrified that it will be incredibly expensive for them. However, it need not cost the municipality anything at all, because they would of course be able to recover the cost from consumers via waste charges. I regard it as being very dangerous to take over costs from producers at least from the collection point. In view of the late hour, I will take the liberty of becoming literary: I almost regard this as an un-European way of doing things. One final word about Finland. I am sorry for the Finns that things are in such a mess there, but it not the only thing to go wrong in Finland. They even want to build a new nuclear power station!

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I had not managed to reach my seat. I wanted to make a very brief comment: my name does not appear on the attendance register and I wanted to say that I was present at both the sitting and the corresponding vote. I know that this relates to Monday's sitting, but I did want to have it included in the Minutes. Many thanks. Obviously I did not sign in, but I was here and I did take part. Thank you!

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I had a speech prepared, but that is not the speech I shall give. I too was disappointed at what I read and heard of events in Bali. However, I am also disappointed by what the presidency had to say and I should like to ask a few specific questions: What are the real problems? What was the opposition? Who is responsible for the stalemate, or rather the failure of Bali? We are talking politics here. We did not come here to provide a shoulder to cry on. The Commissioner gave a number of details, but we need far more than that. Are you going to say anything about the deal between the United States, Canada et al and the petroleum producing countries and how it is stopping renewable sources of energy from taking off? Are you at long last going to give us a more political opinion on the increasing unreliability of important partners with whom we are perhaps still hoping to broker agreements in Johannesburg? I agree with what Mr Lannoye said about our policies; they have to change. Following Bush's policy towards American farmers, who seriously believes that there can be the tiniest change in Europe towards European farmers? We really do need to find reliable allies. And they really are to be found among the poorest in the world. We really do have to say something to persuade them. Leadership succeeds not by what it says but by how it persuades. So, first, there is the Kyoto and the Cartagena way. We can continue along this course, even if unreliable partners pull out. There are huge efforts which can be made both on the question of trade relations and on the question of funding, without overturning what was agreed in Doha and Monterrey. And even greater efforts can be made, especially with regard to public assistance. There is the question of administration, what some refer to as gouvernance. We demand good governance on the part of developing world countries and we are incapable of good governance of the world per se, with institutions, rules, resources, funding, possibly even taxes, which we are quick to reject. (The President cut the speaker off) IN THE CHAIR: MR PROVANVice-President

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by congratulating Mr Hernández Mollar on the excellent report he has presented to us, which the Group of the endorses and which gained the almost unanimous support of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This is a small step forward, but one which signals the beginnings of a strategy for harmonisation which, we hope, will be enacted under the third pillar. We are thus beginning to move towards harmonisation, with the creation of a joint secretariat for the various supervisory bodies. We hope that a set of common regulations for supervision and for a single supervisory body can be adopted in the medium term. This is crucial if we are to guarantee that the public’s fundamental right to privacy is respected, safeguarding the legal principle of fair and equal treatment for all citizens. Laws must be applied and interpreted according to the same criteria, providing the same level of data protection. In fact, there is no justification for the existence of three separate joint supervisory bodies. Today, in addition to national supervisory bodies, there are also these three joint supervisory bodies, each with its own secretariat. The question is: can this system really guarantee effective protection? I do not think it can. These bodies therefore need to be merged into one single entity as soon as possible, with legal personality and its own budget, which will ensure that it is impartial and independent from the other institutions, as Mr Hernández Mollar has just said, and he is quite right. This is a matter of protecting the interests and rights of our citizens. There is also a vital need to create a single legal framework in the European Union to provide citizens with sufficient guarantees, essentially by preventing the improper use or dissemination of personal data and by remedying the shortcomings in the current system of protection. The constitutions in force in the various Member States recognise the right to privacy. Furthermore, Article 8 of the Union’s draft Charter of Fundamental Rights also expressly upholds every citizen’s right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her. The very fact that different laws exist in each country, however, raises various problems that can be overcome by adopting minimum standards which will make it possible to harmonise these national laws, thereby guaranteeing that citizens’ fundamental rights are respected, and specifically the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression and of information.

Political group: PPE-DE