Speeches

Madam President, colleagues, this resolution brings clarity and simplification to the law applicable to AI systems across Europe – for the benefit of all, but particularly our start-ups and mid-caps. One very simple clarification is that AIs that create non-consensual intimate imagery will be prohibited. This has been a priority not only for my colleagues in the review group, but across this House, from ECR to The Left there have been amendments to that effect, and I am glad that they are reflected in this resolution. Having one's image taken and sexualised will no longer be a price to be paid for a woman seeking elected office in Europe, or for a person merely because they are in public life in Europe, or for those merely because they are growing up in this digital era of such limitless possibilities but new risk. Like the AI Act passed only two years ago by this House, this law seeks to facilitate the possibilities of AI while mitigating its risks, and I commend it to the House.

(start of speech off mic) ... many of which were beyond the control of Member States and, indeed, perhaps even the European Union. But do you think that any of the causes of the housing crisis in Ireland lie with the government of which you were a minister, with collective cabinet responsibility? Not all, but any of them?

Mr President, I see Commissioner McGrath here and I wish to recall the debate which occurred in the Irish Parliament, in which he and I were both members, around the cost of fuel in Ireland in 2022. I think there's going to be a very similar debate coming up very soon in the Irish Parliament, as there will be in national parliaments and indeed this Parliament, given the tragic, horrible and illegal events unfolding in the Middle East. What I wish to address is this tendency of national parliaments to blame the European Union and say, 'Well, we can't lower fuel prices because they are set by the European Union.' Yes, they are to a certain extent, and I think the European Union will have to act at some point if what is now unfolding continues to occur. But it is worth noting that the vast majority of taxes in many Member States, including Ireland, are chosen and levied nationally by act of those parliaments. For example, European law sets a minimum excise duty of EUR 0.42 per litre of unleaded petrol, whereas in Ireland the excise duty is far higher. It sets a requirement of 15 % VAT, whereas in Ireland it is far higher. There is leeway at national level and this must be taken.

Mr President, Commissioner, of course we need to combat piracy in sports coverage. But equally I think we need to be cognisant of what's driving it and we need to be vigilant about the tendency to put all live sports behind a paywall and we need to be vigilant about unscrupulous operators. For example, Sky recently argued in an Irish court that they were under no obligation to tell their consumers when their contract was coming to an end and to tell them what new deals they could avail themselves of. Instead, they could roll over the contracts at existing prices without offering them new or lower prices. That, I believe, is unacceptable and the court found it was unacceptable – and it did so based on EU law, which is hugely important to those who ask what EU law ever does for us. With regard to sport, though, there is this tendency to put it all behind a paywall. I am old enough to remember Italia 90 and Euro 88, which gave Ireland huge confidence, brought people together and, in a way, perhaps contributed as much to the Irish economic resurgence as any economic measures did. But that was when groups of people were able to watch it. Now, increasingly, all sport is put behind a paywall. That is simply not fair, it's simply not good and it's particularly unfair in the context of sports which are receiving considerable exchequer funding for their activities.

Madam President, I say again, Commissioner, I welcome you and very much welcome your presentation of the European affordable housing plan and what it contains: a loosening of the rules around State aid to allow for more national funding and additional EU funding, as well as the discouragement of speculative investment. All of that is very welcome. Again, Commissioner, I welcome your balanced approach in saying that, yes, Airbnbs are a problem, but we're not going to ban them completely. I'm from a country which has effectively banned them completely, has no plan whatsoever on enforcing it, and I come from a county within that country that is very reliant on tourism, but doesn't have hotel beds for a variety of reasons that I don't intend to go into, so it is a matter of balance. We have failed, though, as an Irish Government, and we're not alone in that – it seems a pan-European problem to build houses. Instead we've built an edifice of state control, of agencies, of regulators, et cetera, who soak up political energy, soak up exchequer capital, but don't actually deliver housing for our people. That is a huge problem that needs to be tackled as well.

Mr President, Commissioner Jørgensen, I wish to commend you for the very balanced approach that you've taken to this. In your opening presentation, I heard you say two things that I would consider to be of considerable import. One is that we need to continue to protect our environment while we advance these grids, which are absolutely necessary. I think nobody doubts that. The second thing is that there has to be a share in the ownership for local communities. Neither approach, unfortunately, is being adopted in Ireland. There is environmental subterfuge going on, where these huge developers submit an environmental impact assessment report, which is often cut and pasted from another part of the country – very obviously cut and pasted, because it mentions places from another part of the country. And there is nobody in our planning system who can interrogate that report because we don't hire environmental scientists, we don't hire ecologists. So we take these huge corporations at their word. They say that they have taken the environment into account but, of course, they take profits into account fundamentally, because that's what they're set up to do. These companies are emanations of the State. It's the ESB and it's Coillte that are doing this. And of course, as regards local ownership, there simply is none. They sponsor some football jerseys or some other patronising claptrap for the communities, and that is the extent of the local buy-in. It is fostering huge resentment because they are facilitated in proceeding with huge developments in areas where members of the community can't do anything because of environmental designations.

Mr President, this afternoon, the Trade Commissioner, Maroš Šefčovič, was quoted as saying that Europe would lose face if we do not continue with the Mercosur deal. Colleagues, I say Europe will lose faith if we do continue with the Mercosur deal. We will lose face with those who have believed for 40 years now, that it is possible to farm in a way that is compatible with the environment, we will lose face with those who for 40 years have reduced a dependency on antibiotics and believed that it is important that antibiotics be by prescription only. We will lose face with those who believe that we can farm in a manner which is compatible with animal welfare standards. And we have to ask ourselves fundamentally, are we willing to lose face with our own citizenry, with food production standards that have been set by the European Union? Are we willing to lose face only with trade commissioners who have been trying to negotiate this and impose this over the heads of sovereign states for decades now, and failing? Our own deputy Prime minister in Ireland, the Tánaiste, despite commitments made in the run-up to the election, was unable to say whether or not there was a blocking majority at this stage. It is quite clear that a blocking majority is now forming. It is time for our government to get off the fence. It is time for us to stand up for what we have espoused for 40 years now, and block this deal.

You well know that there isn't unanimity on how we deal with many issues in many groups, including the Renew Group, including your own. The one thing I suppose, that we have absolute unanimity on in your group is a complete failure to ever take power in any country and ever be responsible for the decisions required. But do I agree with some of the decisions that have been made in France, frankly? No I don't. Am I required to agree with them all? I am not. What I will say, though, is that the group that I am part of, and many groups here are willing to take difficult decisions. It is very easy – and I have seen it myself in the Irish Parliament – it is very easy to sit on the sidelines and constantly throw stones, and when the opportunities are offered to go into government and make difficult decisions to shirk those responsibilities.

Madam President, Commissioner, I have to say, I've listened with some scepticism to your plans to eradicate this disease. And that scepticism is informed by my experience of TB eradication in Ireland. TB eradication programs were underway in Ireland 20 years before Ireland joined the European Union. Compulsory for ten years before they did. And yes, TB is far from eradicated. The government spending of EUR 157 million on the eradication programme is welcome. It's a doubling of the budget from previous years, but I have to say I am still sceptical as to its success. None of that money will be spent on vaccination. The reason for that is that the European Union precludes vaccination as a method of combating this. We really have to look seriously to DIVA tests and the possibilities that offers because it is simply not working and farmers are losing. They are losing more and more money because of the artificial caps in Ireland and other countries, but they are also losing hope and losing patience with the system that is manifestly failing. It is succeeding in the same way that the war on drugs is succeeding, i.e. it is manifestly failing before our eyes.

Mr President, Madam Vice-President, I welcome your stated aim of this digital simplification omnibus. Who could argue against simplification? We all want to reduce the regulatory burden. We all want to reduce overlapping and duplicative reporting requirements. We all want to increase regulatory uncertainty. I particularly welcome your statement this evening that this was not about undermining our digital rulebook. However, the reported statements of your transatlantic interlocutor belie that to a great extent. We do really need to avoid a Groucho Marx approach to regulation: 'These are my principles. But if you do not like them, I have others. These are our laws. But if you don't like them, we have others.' In particular, the AI act: I was not here a lot, many in this House have a very paternalistic approach to it. I do not, I was not here when it was passed only a year and a half ago, I didn't vote for it. You were, you did, so I want very clear explanations as to why it needs to be amended so soon. On 'stop the clock', I would like to know if we are to stop the clock on particular provisions, how do we know we won't have to stop the clock again under pressure from big tech? So the onus is on you to explain why we need to introduce these and what market surveillance has been done to prove that or to show that.

Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, on Friday, it will be three years and eight months since Putin's illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine. It is an act that is to be entirely condemned without any reservation. But equally, it is now three years since I was told by an Irish Army officer in the Irish Parliament that the defeat of the conventional Russian forces was nigh. That hasn't happened. I wish it maybe did, but I have to live in the real world. It's not happening. Yet, we are told that, contrary to what some believe in the House, we are not seizing Russian assets. Instead, we are making a loan of EUR 140 billion of European taxpayers' money, to be securitised with that money, which will be confiscated when Russia loses. But they're not losing – there is the problem. So it's time for plan B, it is time for negotiation. I am glad, Commissioner, that you have said that you support President Trump's efforts because it is not at all clear that your colleagues in the Commission do.

Mr President, colleagues, the suspension of the ICC chief prosecutor's email as a result of US sanctions last May set alarm bells ringing around the globe – including, of course, in Brussels. Our vulnerability and reliance became immediately apparent: where our data is stored, by whom it is hosted and where that company is headquartered are suddenly key considerations. US cloud companies control 70 % of the European cloud market. Only 15 % of the European market is controlled by European service providers. If large proportions of our data – even, sometimes, sensitive data – are hosted outside of our jurisdictional reach, how sovereign are European states and how sovereign is the European Union? If the technology that we as Europeans rely on is not under European democratic oversight, and is at the mercy of foreign or commercial interests, how sovereign are we? Given the level of interdependence in the modern digital world, is it even possible to be fully sovereign? Can Member States or the EU ever exert full control over a technological domain? These are all difficult questions that governments and the Commission have been grappling with since May, and, Madam President, I look forward to your answers to those difficult questions in the upcoming act.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, colleagues, at this time when instability and change are the only constants, I think it is vital that the European Union look across the world and try to reach out to countries with which it shares values and look to accentuate that which it shares, rather than accentuate differences. India has much in common with the European Union and its Member States. It cherishes democracy. It cherishes the rule of law – it has done since its foundation. It also builds its future on education, trying to move forward, trying to build technology in that regard. With regard to the rule of law it shares a common law legal system with at least one Member State, namely my own. But in looking to develop a future with India, it would be really foolhardy of us to lecture India on where it should position itself in the geopolitics of the world. India has always pursued a middle way. When there were revolutions and wars on its frontiers, it pursued a middle way. It will pursue its own course, whether we like it or not. The question is whether we can respect and value India as much as it deserves as a trading partner to be respected and valued. Not lecture and hector to it, but rather to respect it and try to move forward together and to accentuate that which we share, rather than our differences.

Mr President, Madam Kallas, every statement of the European Commission on Israel begins with its right to defend itself and the right of every state to defend itself. And of course, every state does have that right. But Israel is no longer involved in a defensive war against Hamas in Gaza; it is engaged in war crimes in Gaza. It is also seeking to emasculate the Palestinian people in the West Bank, while people's eyes are diverted to the horrors of what it is doing in Gaza. Israel's attack on Iran was not a defensive strike. It was an unlawful and unprovoked strike designed to subvert the negotiations that were taking place between Iran and the Trump Government. Madam Kallas, you rightly call for the respect of international law in Ukraine by Russia, but those calls are fatally undermined by your failure to do the same in Israel. The European Union must suspend its trade association agreement now. And Germany – which, because it fuelled a genocide against Jews, now feels obliged to fuel another one – must end its arms shipments to Israel.

Mr President, the aim of hate speech laws is, of course, to suppress division in society and to create social harmony. However, there is absolutely no evidence that they work. In fact, the effect of hate speech laws is exactly to the contrary: people resent the fact that they are threatened with prosecution for expressing their views. We now know that increasing proportions of populations across Europe are afraid to express their views, rightly or wrongly, but this does not affect how people think in any way, it just affects what they are afraid to say and what they resent. Nevertheless, it is proposed to initiate a prosecution against Ireland for failure to comply with European Union laws. I say that is fundamentally misguided, and the reason that Ireland perhaps is so reluctant to comply with those laws is because it looks across the channel and it sees elderly people being prosecuted, it sees police increasingly tied up with looking at social media postings on the internet, instead of making neighbourhoods and communities safer. It is simply not working, and I would urge the Commission to revisit the approach that they are taking to hate speech laws, and indeed to Ireland.

I'm just wondering: if one has been wilfully misrepresented, do you have a right of reply under standing orders? Because I did say freedom of religion was contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The previous speaker chose to misrepresent what I said, wilfully. I presume he's not a stupid person, so he wilfully chose to misrepresent what I said.

Madam President, as we stand here at this moment we're celebrating 50 years of diplomatic relations with China. In that time much has been achieved by the European Union. There have been enormous developments. There have also been enormous developments in China, which must be commended. However, differences also remain, and while it would be wrong not to acknowledge the developments that have taken place in China – huge advances particularly in technology and in AI, equally it would be wrong not to acknowledge the differences. However, just because there are differences does not mean that we shouldn't engage in dialogue, that we shouldn't seek to persuade each other of each other's positions. Freedom of religion is a central tenet of Western belief, of Western civilisation. We believe that religious groups should be autonomous in how they organise themselves. That is not the experience of Buddhists in Tibet, nor is it the experience of Muslim groups in China, be it Uyghurs or Hui Muslims, or indeed of Roman Catholics, where two bishops have been appointed notwithstanding the fact that the Apostolic See is now vacant. However, it is more than a central tenet of Western belief: it's also a commitment that China entered into when it signed the ICCPR, and it's one that I think we can legitimately ask that they honour for the sake of adherence to various religions across China.

(start of speech off mic) ... I suppose the instability and unprecedented level of conflict in the world is such that when two of the world's greatest powers, two of the world's most populous nations, both nuclear armed, are squaring up and threatening each other, it barely receives a word here in the European Union, or indeed from this Parliament. I would like to take this opportunity to express my condolences to the families of those slaughtered so savagely in Kashmir recently. But I think it is also important for this Parliament to call for restraint and dialogue. The speech of Pakistan's army chief, General Munir, to representatives of the diaspora a couple of days before the attack is viewed as inflammatory in India. However, there is no evidence of any link between Pakistan and the heinous attack and, in the absence of such evidence, any attack by India and Pakistan, which is itself a frequent victim of terrorist attacks, would be unjustified. However, one cannot help but reflect on the benefits of democratically elected leaders speaking on behalf of their country rather than military men. In that regard, one might recall that when the Great Leader Jinnah outlined his vision of Pakistan in 1947, he spoke of no distinction between one community and another.

Mr President, I'm not here very long, but already I have the impression that this place operates like a bubble. I've listened to numerous speeches this week saying that the only thing that our citizens care about is defence. Colleagues, I do not believe for a moment that this Parliament will be judged on whether or not there are soldiers wearing the European Union insignia on their shoulder in five years' time. The success or failure of this Parliament will be judged on whether or not we bring down energy prices in Europe, and whether or not we provide energy stability and security across Europe. And the same is true, Commissioner, of your Commission, in my view. I do very much welcome the action plan that has been announced, though. Clearly, we need a huge investment in our infrastructure. Clearly, we need to break the link between gas‑pricing and energy‑pricing, because that has resulted in energy prices remaining artificially high across Europe. But we can't wait for grid infrastructure. We do need to look at innovative solutions. Everybody across Europe is talking about the benefits of AI. At the same time, the same people are saying that we can't have data centres. Well, we can't have it both ways. We do need to look at whether data centres can be used to stabilise our grid in the short term, while we wait for our grid to be enhanced.

Mr President, I voted in favour of this resolution supporting a just transition and reconstruction in Syria today. The people of Syria have suffered for too long at the hands of a brutal dictator to have it replaced by an equally brutal regime. I acknowledge the suspension and revision of the sanctions regime, which – we must acknowledge – had little or no impact on Assad's reign and worsened the lives of the ordinary people of Syria, 90 % of whom now live in poverty. I look on with great dismay at the persecution and revenge killings of 1 225 civilians and members of the Alawite majority faith in recent days, and even greater dismay at the Commission's silence in the face of that killing. The silence of the European Union's chief diplomat on the slaughter of civilians – even if they were once protected by, or may even have supported, leaders that she doesn't like – is a failure on her part; one that lowers her and lowers the EU further on the world stage.

Mr President, colleagues, the deterioration in respect for human rights in Azerbaijan should be a source of concern to this Parliament. But so, too, should the Commission's silence in the face of that. The ongoing detention and trial of 16 persons from Nagorno-Karabakh, including eight former leaders, must be condemned for what it is: a Stalinist show trial. So, too, the denial of access to the media and observers, even though the trials are supposedly being held in public. This is exacerbated by Azerbaijan's ongoing refusal to cooperate with the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, and this, too, should be noted by this Parliament and the European Commission. The Red Cross, the only external organisation with access to these prisoners, has now been asked to withdraw from Azerbaijan and this, too, needs to be noted. It does seem that the Commission is only capable of condemning one country at a time, and that should not be the case when there is such a clear deterioration in standards, as there is in Azerbaijan.

Madam President, colleagues, the extension of Iceland's commercial whaling, allowing up to 426 whales to be killed each year, must be condemned and combated by the European Union. Whales are vital for our marine ecosystems, for carbon stability and for sequestration, and scientific research also underscores their intelligence and social complexity, making their protection even more urgent. Existing international laws lack strict enforcement and, we know, are not adequately effective. Therefore, a stronger, enforceable action under updated international frameworks is required. However, we also need to look at the other causes of the decline of the whale population. It has been suggested by some politicians that offshore wind farms are responsible for that. But in that regard, I would say, quoting Herman Melville, that 'ignorance is the parent of fear', because there is no evidence. There is limited evidence linking wind farms that are embedded in the seabed, at least in their construction. There is no evidence whatsoever linking floating wind farms to the damage to whales.

Mr President, I just wish to explain my vote on Georgia and why I voted against the resolution. Simply, I voted against the resolution because it bore no relation, in my view, with the statement of the long-term mission which was in place of the OSCE-ODIHR, but to which the European Parliament, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, the Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe also subscribed. Colleagues, in 2016 a Declaration of Principles for International Election Observation was agreed, and it was endorsed at that time by the Commission and since by the Parliament. Essentially, what it does is say that we need to be very careful about people who arrive in country for a very short period of time around election time. We put in an impartial mission for a long period of time that assesses the overall election during the whole period of the election and indeed looks at the treatment of essential freedoms around that. That mission was put in place with the agreement of everybody, and it came up with a statement. I happen to know the person who was in charge of that, but that is not why I agree with it: it is the principle. I also know those who put forward the resolution, but I just think we have to respect the processes, and there is always a danger that people who are going there for a very short period of time can have their heads turned by regimes, but there is equally a danger that they can have their heads turned by the opposition, and when faced with a conflict between short-term observers and a long-term mission, I have to side with the long-term mission. And for that reason I have no alternative – and reluctantly, given that many of my colleagues were involved – but to not support the resolution.

Mr President, colleagues, plastic pollution is one of the most visible manifestations of humanity's destruction of the planet that we see. It is also something that profoundly frightens me. To walk on Spanish Point Beach with my little children when the tide goes out, and to pick up pieces of plastic and put them away, I'm struck by how different it was to when I was a child, and how different it will be when they're adults if they get to bring their children out to that beach, because plastic production is increasing exponentially. We produce approximately 460 million tonnes of plastic in the world annually, and that production is set to triple by 2060 with current productions. Yes, recycling of plastic is hugely important – we currently recycle only a third of the plastic produced – but recycling isn't enough. We have to reduce the production of plastic. If you look at those who developed plastic and interviews with them and their hopes for it, it's really instrumental because they saw it as an environmental benefit that we wouldn't have to cut down trees, but they never imagined that plastic would be produced for single-use materials. They imagined that it would be something that could be used and reused, rather than this single-use plastic, which we must combat. In my own constituency, plastic pollution and litter is a huge problem along the Clare coast. Lahinch, Doolin and even Mountshannon, which is inland, are cited by An Taisce for plastic pollution. Ireland is the highest producer of plastic waste per person in the European Union, 65 kg a year per person, twice the EU average. Most of the EU's plastic is burned and, as I said, less than a third is recycled. So I think it is very important that we conclude the Global Plastic Treaty this week. But, Commissioner, I share your reservations about it – we do need to go further, but we do need to at least start combating this. Because, as I said, I talked about my aesthetic sensibilities in picking up plastic – that, of course, is irrelevant compared to the impact it is having on habitats and the many species that rely on not having to survive amid plastic for their future. So it is, as I say, something that I hope the European Union can work on and support, but also develop further because there are many weaknesses in what is proposed. But it is at least a start.

Madam President, the Council of Europe's 2023 annual report on prison populations noted that Cyprus, Romania, France, Belgium, Hungary, Italy and Slovenia are all grappling with severe overcrowding, with the prison density of more than 105 inmates per 100 places available, with Ireland, Portugal, Finland and Denmark not far behind. Cork prison, in the constituency that I represent, is already at 120 % capacity, with 60 of its 355 inmates sleeping on the floor. Of course, those levels of overcrowding make the prisons extremely dangerous – not just for inmates, but also for those who work with those inmates. Yet we hear our government parties, as they campaign, talking about increasing minimum sentencing. I mean, the question arises: where are you going to put these inmates? Who is going to be Barabbas? Who is going to be released instead? Instead of just talking about more prison spaces, which, yes, are needed, we also need to ensure that there are fewer people serving short-term sentences, and prisons don't become a place where we are housing people with addiction problems and mental health issues. Fundamental reform is needed of our prisons across Europe.