GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, those of us who love Cuba and the honest and down-to earth Cuban people are deeply upset to see human rights and in particular the right to freedom of expression persistently breached by President Castro’s regime. The European Union, one of whose aims is to promote universal and inalienable human, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, can only vigorously condemn this authoritarian attitude on the part of the Cuban regime towards its people who legitimately aspire to fundamental values. The European Union, however, is not entirely in the clear either. Its relations with Cuba can truly be classed as unique. Indeed, Cuba is the only country in Latin America not bound by a bilateral cooperation agreement with the European Union, despite the fact that through some of its Member States, the Union is the main source of business and investment in Cuba. Following the collapse of the Soviet bloc, the Union became the island’s main trading partner and in this capacity, we believe that the Union’s key role presents exceptional opportunities for exerting moral and political influence in order to take democracy and respect for human rights forwards in Cuba. The other unique feature resides in the status of the island within the ACP-EU Joint Assembly. Cuba has been accepted as a Member of the ACP Assembly but remains an observer on the Joint Committee. Cuba is also the only country for which the Union stipulates conditions that must be fulfilled before it can sign the Cotonou agreement. Do we in the Union not have a responsibility to treat countries equally? Cuba should be treated in exactly the same way as any other country. The Union must consequently play a key role where Cuba is concerned. Whilst respecting its sovereignty and dignity, it can work towards achieving a peaceful, internal democratic transition and pursue a policy that could persuade Cuba to adopt positive measures such as signing and implementing the United Nations conventions on civil and political rights. The Cuban people are suffering. They are suffering as a result of the policy of confrontation with the United States after 44 years of the blockade and the Helms-Burton law. It is suffering as a result of an authoritarian regime presiding over a ruined economy and it is in the values of the European Union that these people are putting their hope. The Union must understand this and Castro’s regime must accept this.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as far as the common fisheries policy is concerned, we have been advocating vigilance and practical measures, stock management and the preservation of the marine environment for several years now. Most of the governments have not given a reaction to these proposals, which aim to sustain fisheries in the future. Now that we can see stocks are being exhausted – between one and two thirds of hake, cod and whiting have disappeared – we now have our backs to the wall. We must therefore thoroughly reform the instrument, which must become less aggressive and more selective, to avoid, in particular, by-catches which sometimes make up 80% of a haul, including juvenile fish. Each Member State will apply this European directive, which has been drawn up in the general interest, in the way it considers best. Instead of quite devastating industrial fishing practices, we, the , are calling for coastal fishing that is more capable of safeguarding jobs. Considerably greater sums than those currently allocated to cover the social compensation of this policy will certainly need to be made available. We are not in favour of taking blind administrative steps. These must be determined in conjunction with the Regional Advisory Councils proposed by the Commission, made up of professionals, labour experts, scientists and civil societies that can adapt them to the specific problems on the ground. This should enable us not only to salvage something from this situation but, more importantly, to provide the fishing industry with a new impetus and the sustainable development that is essential to our economic as well as human stability.

Political group: Verts-ALE
We have come quite a journey since the Commission produced its first White Paper. At that time I had the privilege of writing the report for Parliament with my friend across the floor – Mr Whitehead – acting as shadow. Now I am reciprocating as shadow for his report. My party is not a great party for harmonisation but we are a party for harmony and that is what we have seen in this report and the way it has been dealt with. I too wish to play tribute to the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs, also the Commissioner, Mr David Byrne, and – dare I say it in the light of earlier comments –to Magda Aelvoet, the minister. I hope Ms McKenna will not take offence if I give her praise in her absence as she too has played her part in looking for and helping us to find compromises which make sense, which do not betray anybody and which take forward the concept of food safety for the peoples of Europe. This is an issue which is of considerable importance to people. There is nothing more important than the safety of the food and the drink that they and their families partake of. There is a European dimension to this because, increasingly, not only does food cross boundaries but people cross boundaries. So we need to be certain that the food we eat has been grown in soil we can trust and the fertilisers added to it are known to be safe. The feed that is given to livestock also plays its part in ensuring that the food that ends up in our supermarkets and on our tables merits our confidence. Then we want to make sure that the processing of food is safe and, finally, we want to make sure that when it is stored and retailed, it is still safe for us to take home. Then of course it is up to us. There are many critical issues in this report – the title of the food safety authority has been crucial to us. We do not want to see an all-singing, all-dancing bureaucracy – we want an authority which is focused on safety, on the assessment of risk, on giving guidance where appropriate to the managers of risk. An authority that understands that risk can never be eliminated but it can be adequately spotted and dealt with. Science is crucial, so is independence – that is why the siting of this authority is important. The pre-conciliation process – if I can call it that – that we have been going through is an example of how to take measures through Parliament and the institutions. At this last stage Parliament has spoken overwhelmingly with one voice. I know the Commission and the Council have listened and I believe they will have benefited because we are working together on this measure.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the figures some Members have quoted amply demonstrate that the mountains are the minority of minorities in this House. We represent only a little over 5% of the inhabitants of Europe, of European citizens, but, as documented in the annals of the European Parliament over fifty years of the European Union, this is only the third time that the word ‘mountain’ and a motion for a resolution about mountains have been heard in this Chamber. The first time was in 1983. The rapporteur then was Mr Colleselli, from Cadore, in the North of Italy. The second time, fifteen years later, I myself had the honour and the duty of bringing the problems of the mountains to this House, with my report on a new strategy for mountain regions, approved on 23 October 1998. My report started from an overall view of the problems of mountain regions, in all their complexity, and concluded that mountain farming was and remains the key. The Ebner report – and I congratulate the rapporteur on the specific detail he has been able to put into it – takes this aspect further and opens up another horizon. I can state that he starts precisely from the conclusions of the previous report by indicating that the salvation of the mountains we are all calling for can start from the farming sector itself. However, we are all aware, once again, that farming cannot do it alone. That is why there are also proposals in Mr Ebner’s report which involve the whole mountain world: transport, infrastructure, tourism, the eco-system. There is another factor we must protect and safeguard; the vital factor for the mountains, Commissioner, is and remains man. The average age of farmers in Europe – as you know –is about 50. Some mountain farmers are over 60. That is a dire statistic for the future of the mountains. We must make mountain farming attractive again, give the farmers confidence, and give them resources. Above all we must have the courage to recognise, Commissioner, that a specific type of farming called mountain farming exists. Let us do so with conviction so that the mountains themselves can continue to exist!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we all know that disruptions at meetings of this kind are above all the result of a failure to educate the public. Hence the European Parliament's initiative to endow the WTO with a parliamentary assembly, so that in future discussions can be held with non-governmental organisations and interest groups, thus strengthening communication with the public at parliamentary level. I would now like to put this question to you, Mr President-in-Office: what initiatives does the Spanish Presidency intend to take in order to implement this plan as quickly as possible?

Political group: PPE-DE
Thank you for your detailed answer. This is, in fact, quite a difficult and sensitive question which may also create a number of problems for those applicant countries which are compelled to introduce a more restrictive policy towards neighbouring countries which they would really like to be more open towards. My follow-up question concerns whether, in the present situation, any of the applicant countries has requested exemption from the list of countries in connection with which visas are required, whether the matter has in any particular case been very specifically discussed. I should also like to hear whether you consider it likely that it will be possible to remove internal border controls with the new Member States from the first day of their membership.

Political group: GUE-NGL
We broadly agree with the report that has been presented and we would emphasise the need to amend the policy on the universal ban on anti-foot and mouth disease vaccination, which has been in force since 1992 and which does not even provide for prophylactic vaccination in the event of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease. We must, however, stress the connection between outbreaks of animal diseases, such as BSE, foot and mouth etc., as well as other food safety risks, such as dioxins, sewage sludge, etc., and the concentration and intensification of production as the consequence of adhering to a farming model based on exports and on liberalising agricultural markets, and which has therefore preferred culling to vaccination. We need only think of the irrationality of promoting the transport of live animals, with the centralisation of markets and the closure of local slaughterhouses, which increases the risks of these outbreaks spreading, especially in an internal market with no borders between Member States. Instead, what we really should be doing is promoting the localisation of production, the creation of local slaughter units and veterinary centres with greater decentralised resources and local and regional markets, limiting as much as possible the transport of live animals, and undertaking more thorough monitoring, even at the internal borders of each Member State. We insist on the need for a ‘ring’-style vaccination to be allowed and on the restarting of research, which has all but ground to a halt due to the ban on vaccination. Inspection services should also be strengthened, especially in the most isolated rural areas, and ‘blind’ culls or slaughter should be avoided.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I hope the lack of attendance at this debate tonight is due to the late hour and not to the way in which I have chaired the two Assemblies we are talking about over the last year. I sincerely thank the rapporteur, not just for his report and the way he has presented it tonight, but for the very hard work he does both in the ACP and in the Development Committee. I have prepared this report twice. I know how hard it is to find fresh ideas and yet he has come forward not only with fresh ideas but with extremely good points that we have now tried to incorporate in our rules for the future. The past year has been a watershed for the ACP/EU partnership. There was a lot of resistance about going to Abuja, in Nigeria last year. But I felt that it was vitally important that we were seen to support this fledgling democracy. That turned out to be one of the best Assemblies we have ever had. As Mr Howitt has just said, it was very much a look back at the past and a debate about future partnership agreements. But the real benefit of visiting these developing countries is not just the Assembly, it is speaking to people involved in development work there and speaking to those who are helped because we in Europe give that development aid. At the Assembly in Brussels we took the first steps towards realigning the Assembly to fit the Cotonou Agreement. As co-president I am determined we will have a workshop and not a talking-shop from now on. We have built many of Mr Martínez Martínez's ideas into the new rules. We are now a parliamentary assembly. We can involve civil society – this is desperately important. I want to see standing committees that do real work rather than the workshops that we have. I want to see a real North-South partnership leading to poverty eradication and I want to see the assembly take a leading role in conflict prevention and conflict resolution.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I would like to make a suggestion and ask the Members whether this resolution on hooliganism will also deal with the incidents which occurred at the Rotterdam stadium. You can put it to the vote if need be. I am sure that it would be possible to include the matter and we could also decide to instruct the negotiators to take it into account. I feel this is a reasonable suggestion, for if we do not make an effort to act in some way we would certainly be guilty of reluctance to do our duty. I would find this totally unacceptable.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this morning’s debate follows a turbulent period in which the world of computer users, inventors and innovators has been fighting tooth and nail to protect its right to difference, freedom and creativity. At the heart of this debate is patentability, with its advantages (when the patent rightly protects the inventor) and its major disadvantages, which involve often conservative monopolies being established to the detriment of young creators. Personally, I still support this movement, which I believe follows the same approach as all alternative movements fighting for a less rigid and less commercial society. Since this debate opened, we have scored points by tabling proposals for amendments that substantially improve the original draft. Recognising that in order to be patentable, a computer-implemented invention must have an industrial application is a step in the right direction. A statement to the effect that patents must not be granted for simple computer programs was needed. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the shades of meaning that have been introduced as well as the excessive vagueness. At this point in the debate, even at the risk of seeing these amendments fail to receive the vote or then fail to be included, we must state that not all problems have been solved, by any stretch of the imagination. I personally shall, therefore, be vigilant during voting and I remain willing to vote against the draft if the improvements prove to be nothing more than a cosmetic attempt to conceal the hold that large companies have over creative minds. In this regard, Commissioner Bolkestein’s last sentence, which smacks of blackmail, does nothing to alleviate my deep suspicion.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I should like firstly to thank you very much for the information and to present Mr Würmeling's apologies, as he had to leave for Berlin at very short notice to attend an important meeting. I should then like to add two short questions, which the Commissioner may be able to answer briefly together. Might it not be the case that the Commission's negotiating position would possibly be improved if it reserved the right in the negotiations to amend the directive in respect of the export ban if necessary, because it could then exert pressure on the other countries to go along with such a recommendation? Secondly, if the negotiations fail do you expect production to shift significantly from the European Union to third countries? Does the Commission know, or does it have any estimates of, how many jobs might be lost in the European Union as a result?

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I come from what was once a colonising country, Belgium, whose emotional ties with the Democratic Republic of Congo have never been cut. It was therefore with despair that I saw it swallowed by war and with relief that I welcomed the Pretoria agreements, which are a promise of peace and democratisation in this martyred region. The Congo has exceptional natural resources. In 1997, the value of the resources in the North was estimated at USD 25 billion. The minerals: zinc, lead, iron, tungsten, cadmium, cobalt and germanium are unique, and germanium has semi-conducting powers that are now used to make the most powerful microchip in the world, to say nothing of radium, lithium and niobium, which produce superconductive alloys at high temperatures, or diamonds, silver, platinum, and so on. It is probably the country with the greatest resources in the world. This is why, along with the neighbouring countries concerned, it has to be said that Western predators have pounced on it under all sorts of pretexts, exterminating its population and using Africans to fight a Western war. It is a veritable holocaust. People are quoting figures of 4.5 million Congolese victims since 1998, 2.5 million people displaced, 16 million condemned to death, thousands deported to Rwanda and Uganda, and I prefer not to mention the details of the massacres that have taken place, which are unbearable. So yes, I am in favour of this resolution, and if it turns out that my country, as has been suggested by a panel of experts, is harbouring any of the predators that are fuelling the war, Belgium will not evade its responsibilities. It will conduct the necessary enquiries and will ensure that there are repercussions. It will not add complicity in the present to the burden of past colonisation. However, there is one condition: the UN resolution last week on the same subject stressed that the panel of experts is not a judicial power and that therefore, the results that it gives cannot be considered to be established facts and cannot therefore automatically lead to penalties. The right to defence must be preserved.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I object on the basis that we reserve the right to vote on an amendment that allows us to have no lower threshold. This combination means that there would be a minimum threshold of 500 combining with a Socialist upper threshold. We do not want a lower threshold, so we cannot accept this compromise. (As 32 or more Members objected, the oral amendment was not accepted) After the vote on Amendment No 64:

Political group: PSE
The Action Plan proposed by the Commission does not take account of the impact of the decisions taken by the Fisheries Council between 16 and 20 December 2002 and does not provide a response to the problems facing the sector or to the consequences of the restructuring (scrapping) measures and recovery plans which, according to the Commission, would entail the loss of 3 000 jobs per year until the end of 2006, on top of the foreseen loss of 8 000 jobs per year resulting from the crisis in the sector and from fleet renewal. The Commission’s proposal to fund the action plan by reprogramming Structural Funds under the FIFG and its suggestion that it might use the mid-term review of the Structural Funds to try to obtain further resources from other Structural Funds are unacceptable. We agree with the rapporteur on the need for additional funds to compensate for the socio-economic consequences of the reform and the recovery plans, and the Commission must make use of the flexibility instrument or undertake a review of the financial perspective. We agree with the rapporteur’s observation that attention must be paid to small-scale coastal fishing. The Commission admits that ‘financial aid measures in favour of small-scale fisheries have not had the desired effect of protecting the sector’. Hence our insistence, in the 2003 budget procedure, on creating a specific support programme.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Overall, and in each of its comments, this report does nothing but extol the virtues of competition and the market economy. Its author’s sole concern, under the guise of unifying energy markets in Europe, is to deliver this entire sector into the hands of private profit. Or, more exactly, by separating electricity production and management of the distribution network, the author is prepared to allow states to manage all the areas that require a great deal of investment and offer very little profit, on condition that they hand the profitable areas over to the private sector. Unification of energy production and distribution throughout the European Union, and the planning and rationalisation of these activities, may represent progress, but only on condition that the whole sector continues to be a public service exclusively concerned with satisfying needs rather than maximising private profit. The rapporteur’s attitude is the exact opposite of this. Were the ‘liberalisation process’ he advocates to come into force, this would be tantamount to a step backwards. We have therefore voted against this report.

Political group: GUE-NGL