GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, today's vote on nuclear waste is most timely, given that research recently showed that over half the UK sites identified as potential nuclear dumps are located in Scotland. My Group today voted against the nuclear package because it offers nothing in terms of environmental safety. Furthermore, my party will continue to fight against Scotland becoming a nuclear dustbin. The Scottish National Party's vision of an independent Scotland is one of a clean, green Scotland profiting from our natural heritage and healthy environment. London, by contrast, seems to think that the rule when considering nuclear-waste dumps should be 'the further away the better', and regards Scotland as the ideal place. The people of Scotland will simply not stand for this treatment and my party will continue to fight against this filthy industry.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in the context of an increasingly global labour market, the European Union has been the target of constant migratory pressure, which must be properly managed. I agree with the need to draw up a new common immigration policy, but this policy must always take account of the real needs of the labour market and of the economy itself in each Member State. For this reason we can only adopt the report that Mrs Terrón i Cusí has presented if the amendments retabled by the Group are accepted. I wish to highlight two points: firstly, this proposal for a directive seeks to establish a common legal framework for conditions of admission and residence of immigrants for the purpose of employment. Consequently, on the basis of this directive, immigration for the purpose of employment in the European Union will be permitted if certain conditions are met. In our opinion, however, the power of Member States’ to regulate, through their governments, whether or not to open up their labour markets cannot and must not be taken away from them. In other words, this is a decision that can only be taken by Member States themselves and not at Community level. It is the responsibility of each Member State to assess and decide whether or not it needs to increase its labour force, by how much and in what sectors, taking account of their real needs as well as – and I think we all agree on this – their ability to receive and integrate third-country nationals. Secondly, the Terrón i Cusí report criticises the fact that the Commission’s initial proposal only addresses the situation of individuals who are legally present on Union territory. It also claims that illegal workers should also have the right to request a residence permit, which should be granted to them. Regardless of the rapporteur’s generous approach, this would clearly encourage an increase in illegal immigration, basically saying to these people that once they are on Union territory, even if they have entered illegally, they will have the right to be legalised. Mr President, as in other areas of human immigration, we must always be prudent. This is not simply a matter of protecting Member State nationals. In these areas, excessively generous solutions create more problems than they are intended to resolve.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think we can safely say, from what we have heard this morning, that extremism and racism are two of the most important issues we have to deal with at present. The past few months in particular have seen a whole spate of racially motivated criminal acts in Germany. The events that took place in Dessau, Munich, Ludwigshafen, Düsseldorf are of such concern to us primarily because violent acts were committed against defenceless people with great indifference and coldbloodedness. The fact that the crimes were committed in all these different places, however, shows that racism and right-wing extremism are not problems specific to East Germany, but are to be found throughout Germany, indeed throughout Europe. It does not help matters though, Mrs Schroedter and also Mr Schulz, to want to concentrate on tackling this problem in the new German Länder, singling these regions out for attention. It is true that the propaganda peddled by these groups, which have long been active in the old Länder, has, I regret to say, fallen on fertile ground in the new Länder in recent years, and that we undoubtedly need to take appropriate action. But hysteria makes for a poor counsellor. What we need is to show a united front in the fight against violence, but also to have faith and confidence in the ability of state and society to rid us of this monster. It is in no one’s interests to assert that over 10% of people in the new Bundesländer are of a racist disposition, or to disparage them as such. 16 million citizens cannot, and will not, allow themselves to be labelled as such all because of the activities of an extremist minority. Our citizens have done nothing to deserve this, and nor, more to the point, have our young people, the vast majority of whom are tolerant and open-minded. I would expressly like to draw attention to the various actions undertaken by the inhabitants of the new Bundesländer over the past few weeks and months, which have demonstrated repeatedly that they feel a great deal of solidarity with the victims of these crimes, and that we will not tolerate xenophobic machinations and acts of violence in our country.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have followed the fate of this crisis-torn country since I was young. I was a member of the parliamentary delegation which attempted to break the ice in the relations between the European Union and Algeria. Yet many of our hopes have not been fulfilled. Even our hopes of the new President Bouteflika, who has undoubtedly shown some signs of courage, and of the RCD's inclusion in the Algerian government have been disappointed. In my view, the basic problem in Algeria is that the powers-that-be – le pouvoir, as the Algerians say – have failed to make genuine efforts to reach a consensus between the social groups in the country. Contrary to the frequent accusations made against us, I do not mean a consensus with terrorists and murderers. There can be no consensus here. I mean a consensus with all the groups which do not wish to witness the victory of the radical Islamist terrorist forces. However, the powers-that-be – or at least some sections of the military – have no interest in achieving this consensus. They want to maintain the status quo, and unfortunately, they are heavily implicated in corruption. This is why there are so many incidents like the recent events in Kabylie, with their shocking death-toll and the resulting alienation between the country's young people and its ruling class. I hope that the delegation which will be visiting Algeria in the next few days will be able to foster at least some understanding of what is required to give the young people of Algeria fresh opportunities and restore their sense of hope. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would actually be interested to know how things currently stand with the timetable for the TENs. The financial package is now on the table. You have announced that the ministers are about to meet. When will the legal bases actually be created?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, the crisis in the Philippines we are discussing is a tragedy. I represent one of the countries which has citizens as hostages there. We appeal to the European Commission to ensure that its representatives continue actively to urge President Estrada to refrain from any assaults which might put the hostages’ lives at risk. I also sincerely hope that the hostages will be able to benefit from any medical aid, for example, that Médecins Sans Frontières might be allowed access so that we may thereby protect the lives of those who are currently hostages. There is, nonetheless, something to be learned from all tragic events. I also believe that the Finnish people have learned that the basis for the present conflict is social injustice and that, far apart from one another though we may be, we are nonetheless affected by precisely such social injustices and violations of human rights.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, that makes perfect sense to me, given that you have already promised to make inquiries in your famously discreet manner, and we are not going to entertain the idea of having a debate and a resolution on urgent subjects just because of some cock-and-bull stories. It seems to me to be obvious that we should await the outcome of your mission. (Parliament rejected the request from the Group of the

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, so that I do not repeat the words of the previous speakers, I shall state that I agree with almost everything that has been said, and with Mr Böge in particular. I would, however, like to ask Mr Byrne, firstly, to clarify the regional approach that he has taken, because I believe that we must protect this and immediately put it into place. Secondly, with regard to the outcome of the inquiries, I would like to say to the Commissioner and the Council that foot-and-mouth disease is one of the contagious diseases that is rife in the world; the entire population, one which is increasingly mobile which is natural since travel is becoming cheaper and cheaper will, increasingly, spread diseases that can be caught by both animals and humans. That is what this crisis of foot-and-mouth disease signifies. Are you prepared, Commissioner to give some thought, in conjunction with the World Health Organisation, to all these illnesses that we are going to suffer in the future as a result of this increasingly accessible Europe, in the light of the decisions taken regarding LDCs for 2006 and 2009, which will allow the free movement of all products, apart from weapons, throughout Europe. Are you prepared, Commissioner, to take steps, as the United States has done and I shall for once not make any openly anti-American remarks to establish much tighter controls in our airports, on all products that arrive from anywhere and everywhere in the world. Have you considered, in conjunction with the Council and Commission, any further steps to benefit the people who travel and who pass through our airports too? This really is a genuine appeal that I am making to the Commission, to Parliament and to the national governments. I shall sum up, Commissioner, by also saying that the European spirit which brings us here, to Parliament, forces us to ask the Council and Parliament to take exceptional measures for farmers and all sectors of the economy and the affected regions in Europe, otherwise, I believe that European integration is meaningless.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as Romano Prodi said in this debate last year, in Europe we are all minorities. Today Commissioner Verheugen said that to live in Europe is to live with compromises. To my mind these are crucial to European values. It is for the vast majority to make compromises for the minority. Therefore I was unhappy when I learnt that the European Parliament rapporteur on Slovakia had accused the Hungarian minority parties of setting ultimatums and using methods that are used only in wartime when they made their future in the government dependent on an administrative reform. The rapporteur's remark seems very unfair and does not take note of the different steps in the development of self-government at different levels, nor is it consistent with the views expressed by the Prime Minister of Slovakia. The Hungarian political representatives have, in spite of the adoption of new administrative borders that were promoted by nationalist and left-wing parties and deprived them of chances of adequate political representation, signalled that they are ready to continue in the government but that their future participation is dependent on giving real content to the administrative laws. That is what we are asking for in Resolution No 39. We should refrain from unfounded accusations.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this debate on the European Union fisheries agreement with Mauritania, together with yesterday’s vote on the fisheries agreements with Cape Verde and Guinea Bissau, are a good opportunity for a political study on international fishing agreements. I would like to make three brief observations in this respect. The first one relates to the economic and social importance of these agreements for the European Union. As is well known, these fishing agreements with third countries account for 25% of the supply of the Community market and represent around 50 000 jobs. It has been proved, as in the case of the Efremer study, that they are highly advantageous for the European economy. The second observation concerns the importance of the agreements for the economy of the developing countries. Clearly, the European Union cannot paternalistically and high-handedly impose a decision regarding the sectors to which compensation should be applied but, little by little and with diplomacy, we have reached a situation where part of this financial compensation is applied in the fisheries sector and in important activities. Thirdly, it is clear that these fishing agreements are of mutual benefit for the two parties, for both the European Union and the third countries. Lastly, I would like to refer to the Gallagher report, since the agreement with Mauritania is the most important one concluded with third countries to date. In the light of the non-renewal of the agreement with Morocco, this agreement with Mauritania, as the rapporteur stated, is now of special importance for Portugal and Spain, but also for Italy and France, which are countries that also fish in these waters. As you are aware, the Committee on Fisheries adopted an amendment proposing that the quotas be redistributed by the countries in the event that those for whom they are intended do not use them. I must say that my group agrees with this principle provided that it is applied from now on, of course, to all fishing agreements and not only the agreements with ACP countries. Lastly, I would like to thank Mr Gallagher for the excellent work he has done in this report.

Political group: PPE-DE
deputising for the draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. – Mr President, firstly, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur of her presentation for what is a very fair and balanced report. On behalf of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, I am pleased to be able to deliver this opinion, on behalf of my colleague, Mrs Hazan, who unfortunately cannot be with us tonight. My committee considers it important to give a positive response to this Commission proposal, which strives to make the recognition and enforcement of judgments between Member States almost automatic. Not only does this regulation build upon the judicial cooperation between the States it marks an attempt to put the citizen at the heart of the Europe – the citizen, not just big business, money brokers and others, with perhaps profit purely as their motive. My committee also considers that the provision of the regulation which seeks to protect the weaker parties in a contract should be approved. This will enable consumers, workers and insurers to be safeguarded by effective European regulations that can be automatically applicable across the Member States. Following this logic, it seems clear to us that there are no legitimate grounds to exempt e-commerce transactions from consumer protection rules. The rapporteur has referred to this, but e-commerce is an area which is set to grow. To differentiate between the rights of those buying on line and those shopping in the high street would go against the valuable work that the European Parliament and the EU in general has already done in championing the rights of the citizens. E-consumers, in common with all weaker parties to a contract and indeed European citizens in general, deserve and should be given the right to a fair hearing. Finally, my committee welcomes the introduction of alternative dispute resolution procedures and hopes that this regulation can enter into force as soon as possible.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I really want to give warm thanks, not just to the Commission but also to all those involved, to all my colleagues on the Committee on Agriculture, for enabling us jointly to achieve this compromise! I would ask you to adopt this document today, because otherwise the Council would be able to take a decision on 16 and 17 July without having Parliament’s opinion, since we would not be cooperating as faithfully as we should according to a European Court of Justice ruling. So I would ask that we adopt this document today. Once again, many thanks for your cooperation!

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, at a time when migration flow management and the fight against illegal immigration are becoming ever more complex, it is very difficult for us to accept this Spanish initiative in either substance or form. As regards the form, to accept this initiative would be to condone the Council’s working method, which consists in constantly amending texts proposed to Parliament. I applaud the work of the rapporteur and his admirable consistency. He was in fact given new versions when he had already drafted his report, so that the earlier text became null and void. This is quite unacceptable. Quite apart from the energy and time that have been wasted, such an attitude betrays a lack of coordination within the Council and contempt for Parliament and the representatives of the people of Europe, which gives us cause for dismay. One may then question the result obtained. Is it really effective? Reading the last official text of the Spanish initiative, one comes across the words ‘obligation’ and ‘penalty’ in practically every paragraph. The objective is clearly defined; it involves the fight against illegal immigration. The penalties should, therefore, essentially concern smugglers of clandestine migrants. But no! Penalties and obligations apply to the airlines and we cannot accept that the states should abandon their responsibilities, handing them over to private companies in this way and then penalising them if the work is not done properly. In fact, obliging private companies to collect data with a view to controlling illegal immigration means requiring the carriers to take over the obligations of the states. The objective of reducing illegal immigration is a legitimate one, but how can the proposed text be effective? There has been no demonstration of its actual operational usefulness, and the fact that only the air carriers are concerned has already weakened its objective. This text, if accepted as it stands, would completely disrupt the work of the airlines, since the transmission of data, which is obligatory for these companies, represents a considerable burden in terms of costs. In some countries, passports are not machine-readable; in other countries, the machines are not yet available: in order to rectify these failings, Member States do not provide for any system of compensation. Also, the system of penalties would be terribly onerous and would not take account of the efforts made by the penalised companies with a view to meeting these obligations. In conclusion, then, illegal immigration must of course be combated, but there are, in my view, many other ways. We therefore, in fact, reject this initiative and we should like the Commission to make us a proposal in the future, a coherent proposal, and one that respects competences and the public’s rights and duties. We trust that the Commission will be able to do this.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to state that I find it quite unacceptable that fraud involving EU funds should amount to something like two billion a year and even be increasing in some areas. At the same time, it must however be acknowledged that this is basically a national problem in as much as approximately 80% of the EU budget is administered by the national authorities. I think that, in this area, the Member States display a fundamental unwillingness to take the necessary initiatives to deal specifically with fraud involving EU funds. This is borne out by, for example, the Commission’s statement that, out of every four cases that are brought to light by OLAF and that should lead to the national authorities’ being prosecuted, only one has legal consequences. I find all this unacceptable. It does not however lead me unconditionally to endorse Mrs Theato’s conclusion that the optimum and only solution lies in setting up another institution: a common European Prosecutor in the form of a body taking precedence over national legislation and demanding extensive harmonisation in areas in which the Member States traditionally have different legal traditions and legal concepts. I need only mention harmonisation of penal legislation, production of evidence, penalties and the rules governing legal processes. If we were to implement this model here and now, I would anticipate major conflicts of authority between the common European Prosecutor and the national authorities, as well as some overlap in relation to other Community initiatives such as Eurojust, OLAF and Europol, initiatives that, in view of the short period of time they have been up and running, should at all events be given more time to produce results in areas including that of fraud involving EU funds. That having been said, however, I do in actual fact support in principle the idea of setting up this authority and embedding it in the treaty. I just do not think that the time is ripe for such a drastic harmonisation of fundamental areas of legal policy, as proposed by Mrs Theato. I believe instead that a European Prosecutor’s office should be developed gradually and within the framework of strengthened Eurojust cooperation. That is, moreover, the model mentioned by Mrs Theato in Article 22, Paragraph 2 of her report. In general, it is these considerations that form the basis of the amendments to the report tabled by the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to say firstly that you have the support and the thanks of the Socialist Group for the statement you have just made. (Applause) Having said that, I would like to refer to the point of order I raised this morning at 9 a.m., at the beginning of the session, jointly with other group presidents, with regard to the re-inclusion of the Boogerd-Quaak report on freedom of expression and information in today's vote. I raised the issue this morning and I leave it to the Presidency to choose when it can be dealt with in depth.

Political group: PSE