GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would first like to say thank you to my colleague, Mr John Bowis, for his work. He has taken all aspects of human health into consideration impartially. It is opportune that we should be speaking about the health situation in the developing countries and access to clean water in the same sitting. You cannot just daydream about good health if people are denied their basic right to clean water. Clean water, functional sanitation and good hygiene are the foundations on which healthcare is built. Every year three million people die of infectious diseases transmitted through polluted water. Health and poverty reduction is a subject where almost everything has already been said. There is no lack of information from us. I do not intend now, therefore, to churn out more tragic figures and statistics before Parliament. I would prefer to tell you briefly why I decided some time ago to stand for the European Parliament. When I was asked to stand I had serious doubts about the reasons, which I shall not go into here. However, while I was thinking over what my decision should be I was on a working trip to El Salvador and Mexico. I was working for a development cooperation organisation examining the tracks of the hurricane that had raged in the autumn of 1998 and familiarising myself with the situation regarding AIDS patients and conditions in the slums. I met a mother of small children who had been infected with HIV by her partner and now it had been detected in her newborn child too. I encountered a lot more examples of wretched human destiny: small people crushed by enormous problems. Then I began to think: what if the politicians who decide these people’s affairs and fate for them have never met them in the flesh? What, furthermore, if they do not understand the issues they are taking decisions about? Supposing they do not even see the people through the statistics? They are, after all, real people, not zombies. They have a pain threshold. I made the decision to go into politics for these people’s sakes. Many a time I ask myself if my efforts are visible anywhere or sufficiently visible, and I cannot bring myself to answer the question. I think that if it does not result in any practical decision being made, or a gesture made for better things to come, or a hunger for justice, which has concrete results, I do not have the right to call myself a politician.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, instead of a written reply to this question, could it perhaps be answered verbally next time? Then we can ask supplementary questions, which I for one would prefer.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. At a time when we want to encourage innovation, growth and competitiveness within the European Union, in the form of a simple legal harmonisation and clarification of the varying practices and interpretations in this area, this directive represents a real step backwards, a real change of approach in relation to the European Patent Convention and to the directive on software copyright, because it seeks to extend to the limit the possibilities of patenting this software. We should consequently reject this directive, because it contains too many vagaries. First of all, computers have become a crucial tool in transmitting ideas, thoughts and knowledge. Excessive private appropriation of this tool is, therefore, dangerous. Copyright is more suitable. Secondly, from the economic point of view, innovation in the field of software is often accomplished by SMEs or by independent researchers, for whom patenting is not a suitable instrument because it is too expensive, too involved and will create a legal nightmare. It has not been proven that protection will increase innovation, growth and competitiveness. Lastly, in the context of the economic rivalry that pits us against the United States, adopting this directive would allow some large corporations, which act as monopolies, to maintain their dominant position in the market. We shall, therefore, continue to wait for a directive drafted after a more detailed study has been undertaken into the economic effects on innovation, competition and intellectual property policy in this sector.

Political group: PSE
Given that we are opposed to a market economy, we shall not adopt any position on the alleged simplification of the internal market. We are therefore abstaining from the vote on this report. However, on the aspects that may affect the majority of the population i.e. the workers, we are in favour of: - simplifying social legislation and social security by bringing them into line with countries that have the most favourable schemes for workers; - simplifying VAT through the universal abolition of both VAT itself and all consumption taxes, which are particularly unfair as they mainly affect lower income classes, and replacing these with a sizeable increase in corporation tax and a steeply graduated tax on all forms of revenue from capital. van der Laan report (A5-0397/2000)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Four years ago the Fifteen promised in Lisbon to make the European economy the most dynamic and the most competitive in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth together with a quantitative and qualitative improvement in employment and greater cohesion. European jargon can be used to paint a glowing picture of a brighter future but it cannot hide the hard truth. The Lisbon strategy was nothing but a barrage of attacks on employees. The European Union has shown itself to be incapable of preventing stock market redundancies, social plans and the closure of undertakings. It is even more scandalous that public money was used to inflate shareholders’ dividends, for example at STMicroelectronics. The European Union has never found ways of combating rogue managers, such as those at Parmalat. On the contrary, the EU continues to protect tax havens and banking secrecy. Lisbon, though, is primarily about structural reforms of the labour market based on flexibility, precariousness and salary reduction. Finally, it is about the commercialisation of public services to the detriment of citizens. This is why the 2004 Spring European Summit must make a radical break with the Lisbon process. Since the joint resolution refused to do this, I voted against it. - Report: Randzio-Plath (A5-0045/2004)

Political group: GUE-NGL
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. – In discussing Madame Lalumière's comprehensive and interesting report on the common European security and defence policy in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, we concentrated on the institutions and decision-making procedures. In particular the need for parliamentary scrutiny and democratic accountability. The development of the ESDP is a major new departure for the European project and therefore needs to have the existing institutional framework clarified. Whether there are legal arguments that existing powers are adequate is not really the issue. It should be clear that the parliamentary dimension should be introduced. No member of a national parliament would consider for a moment having limited and anything but transparent democratic scrutiny of security and defence. Within the limits of operational security even the US Senate and House are closely involved with the operations of the Department of Defence. Because of the particular nature of the possible developments of the CESDP, we also believe that Treaty changes will be needed so that such developments can be conducted openly and democratically. Similarly the status of the High Representative must be clarified in relation to the existing triangle and the Commissioner responsible for external relations. Mr President, you will be aware perhaps that my Party in the UK have considerable reservations about the thrust of this policy but I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues on the Constitutional Affairs Committee for guiding me into producing an opinion that I hope will be acceptable to this distinguished House.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I just want to reassure the House that this is largely a tidying-up exercise. (Laughter) However, it will, at the same time, provide us with a new ordering for our Rules of Procedure; it will plug a few gaps and deal with a few technicalities that have been spotted and it will allow the newly enlarged Parliament to have a new set of Rules that has been adapted for enlargement, not least pursuant to Rule 180(8).

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I asked Commissioner Verheugen a specific question about the financing instrument MEDA but he has not provided an answer. I would urge him to do so for his answer will determine the way in which we decide to vote on the various proposed amendments we have before us.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, can I too add my congratulations to the rapporteur. There can be no doubt that the job of the Parliament tomorrow is without further ado to vote through the report unanimously. Commission, Parliament and Council have had ample time to discuss and debate at both first and second reading and, as the rapporteur said, most of Parliament’s views now feature in the Council common position. It is therefore a balanced proposal. Let us remind ourselves that the Lisbon special EU Summit in March set us new targets and deadlines to make better use of the Internet, strengthening Europe’s competitiveness in the knowledge economy. This therefore means we need to create a clear and simple, predictable and consistent legal framework for electronic commerce. It is now an economic and political imperative. The directive will go a significant way towards creating the framework which is necessary to provide the confidence that both business and consumers desire to maximise the potential of e-business. From the wealth of letters and comments that I have received as a member of the Legal Affairs Committee, I know it is not possible to please all interested parties. Concerns still exist but I believe that Council, Commission and Parliament have struck the right balance between the need to protect public policy and consumers and at the same time promote and support the growth of e-business. I therefore strongly recommend that Parliament endorses and adopts Mrs Palacio’s report, which represents a common position. We do this in the full knowledge that the e-economy is evolving at a rapid pace. We are witnessing in the 21st century the equivalent of the Industrial Revolution. That means, as policymakers and institutions, we are still navigating our way through uncharted terrain. We need therefore to continue, as Mr Harbour said, to have a full consultation and debate on both the outstanding and arising issues for business and consumers. In particular, this is the case given the global nature of e-commerce. We have in this directive an article which allows us to do that. Article 21 of the common position provides for a review and we should use the time until then to deepen and further our knowledge on this critical sector of the European economy. I would warn against complacency. We need to continue to consult with interested parties in this debate and we need to ensure that the result is a national legislation and that we produce clear, appropriate and speedy legislation.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I think that the reason why we have before us today a Council common position differing considerably from the initial Commission proposal and from what Parliament worked out is because, as we all know, this matter has arisen from a misunderstanding between the desire, on the one hand, to substitute the Commission for Eurocontrol, and on the other hand, to give the air traffic controllers too much responsibility for delays, particularly in 1999, which was marked by exceptional military constraints. I think that, since then, we have done a lot of work and we are not very far from reaching a balance point. We have recognised that air navigation services are of general and security interest. We have left it up to the Member States to appoint their services. We have brought Eurocontrol into the picture, which I think was absolutely necessary. At present, there are still some points to deal with. Although I am aware of the legal constraints that they imply, I approve of and encourage the efforts that the Commission is making so that the military authorities at least agree to have a discussion. We are aware that there is an obstacle there, and quite a considerable one, which concerns capacity and is undoubtedly much more significant than others that are too often pointed out. Secondly, the question of arbitration on international airspace blocks has not yet been decided upon. I think that it would be enough for all the parties present to agree to re-establish taking into account Eurocontrol’s assessment; the Commission, as is normal practice, needs to give the final ruling on that assessment. Finally, I am of the opinion that we need to implement Recital 16 and Article 7 of Mrs Sanders-ten Holte’s report, which are aimed at involving staff as closely as possible, as they are an integral part of the safety chain. The air navigation profession is not simply about the market – and I think that the Commission can take pride in having finally recognised it – it is first of all about ‘policing’ airspace, airspace which will become increasingly overloaded and in which we must at all costs preserve know-how and excellence, avoiding introducing too much competition into the sky ‘policing’ services.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, on a point of order, I am aware that we are overrunning somewhat and that you will be taking the statement on Cancún at 5 p.m. Everyone from the Committee on Fisheries is present just now. I was wondering whether it would be possible to deal with Mrs Miguélez Ramos' report and Mr Ojeda Sanz's report before we adjourn for the Cancún statement? That would enable the Commissioner and everyone from the Committee on Fisheries to be present for all of these reports. No one anticipated having to come back late tonight and it would perhaps mean there would be very few people here from the committee for these reports if we delay them. Would that be possible?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to put a question to you. I do not understand why, when I am the official draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, when I prepared the amendments tabled by my Committee, when I arranged the vote on these in my Committee, when I defended them, rather vigorously at times, in the Committee on Budgets – where, in most cases, I also managed to obtain the approval of my fellow Members – why, therefore, my name is not on the list of draftsmen due to speak. I, therefore, ask permission to take the floor now, on behalf of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would specifically like to support this proposal on behalf of my group. There is every justification for proceeding in this way. We amended the Minutes this morning, so that this House's Minutes now say that the Group's motion was tabled first. I would, however, urge you, Mr President, to let this House decide. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I am delighted that of all the groups, it is the UEN Group that is standing up for more fundamental rights and more democracy at European Union level. I am pleased about that; it is a major step forward. However, I also believe that the strong language my fellow delegates are using is completely uncalled for. The EU countries have completely different cultures. In some countries Parliament can draw up its own rules of procedure and one does not have the option of going to the court of justice. Some countries have a different system. We have recital 15. Mr Dimitrakopoulos has already mentioned that there are amendments. The UEN Group are welcome to vote against them and then we will see if it is left in or taken out. All in all, I believe that there is no call for excessively strong language, and I am also in favour of us rejecting this amendment.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the question of whether or not Turkey belongs to Europe is not primarily a geographical issue, nor is it primarily an economic one. The deciding factor, however, will be whether or not Turkey will subscribe to a European set of values in which human rights, democracy and the protection of minorities are guaranteed. This will not require any sacrifices, probably unlike Turkey’s other issues, but it will be for the good of all inhabitants of Turkey itself. The political solution to the Kurdish issue would not only liberate the Kurds, it would also take a heavy weight from Turkey’s shoulders. As a matter of fact, I am of the opinion that we should not aggravate the situation by supplying arms. I myself am sceptical of Turkey joining the EU, but the current process may well promote peace and stability. This is why we want to give Turkey the benefit of the doubt. Whether or not Turkey will join may therefore depend largely on how it will fare in matters pertaining to human rights, democracy and the protection of minorities.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The Della Vedova report on the EU’s fiscal policy is an ill-assorted compilation of fiscal affirmations and claims. Some of these requirements also blatantly contradict the Treaty, which provides for unanimity in fiscal matters. For these reasons, I was forced to vote against the motion for a resolution.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, two weeks ago a London newspaper convened a meeting between senior journalists from Israel and Palestine, the first of its kind since before the current intifada. A number of participants, from both sides, expressed the belief that theirs was, in effect, a 'twenty-second century conflict': a war that would last a hundred years, blighting the lives of their grandchildren's children. A conflict that has the capacity to exhaust the optimism of the best of us once again demands deeper reserves of patience and commitment. But grim as the situation is, we cannot afford to despair. If the two sides have strayed from the roadmap's path of peace and reconciliation, we must coax them back. The European Union must continue to play a crucial role in the search for peace in the Middle East. Greater engagement with Israel might help in this. Making peace also requires a strong, functioning and accountable Palestinian Authority. That is why the Union has spent more than EUR 300 million since 2000 to keep the Palestinian Authority in business. An effective and legitimate Palestinian Authority is essential to dismantle the terrorist organisations. The Palestinians also need a strong voice to negotiate with Israel. The European Union must step up its support for financial reform of the Authority to help it distance itself from terrorism. We have also provided more than EUR 30 million for the vital work of Palestinian municipalities in providing basic public services, because that is how you fight despair – with clean water and classrooms; with the promise of normality and peace. We may regret Yasser Arafat's intransigence, but we should remember that if the Palestinians voted tomorrow in the fair and transparent elections we would like to see, they would probably choose him again as their leader. The surest way to ensure that outcome would be for Israel to make a martyr out of him. Arafat's place in the peace process is not for us to determine, any more than it is for Israel or for the United States. However, we can have no truck with terrorism. That is why my Group welcomes the inclusion of Hamas in the European list of terrorist organisations. Suicide bombings have taken an unbearable toll in Israeli lives, and the political apologists for terror cannot receive support while the killing continues. Both sides have to realise that there can be no military solution to this conflict. Israel's extra-judicial killings must end, as they will only breed more terrorists, not force the Palestinians to negotiate. Israel must withdraw its forces from the Occupied Territories, and the settlement building must stop. Two states, living side by side in peace – that is the only viable solution. Israel's existence as a Jewish state and as a democracy demands a Palestinian state. The alternatives are Palestinian apartheid or the inexorable demographic eclipse of Israel's character as a Jewish homeland. The roadmap, of which the European Union was the chief cartographer, recognises this, and my Group remains firmly committed to its implementation.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I wish, first of all, to talk about something that is of concern to us all: the issue of war and peace, which was addressed in Davos and Porto Alegre. In Davos, it was discussed because of the effects of the economic situation of the war against Iraq that the United States and its allies have decided on. Without denying the disastrous effects on the world economy of the militaristic decisions of George Bush, what was at the heart of the proposals made in Porto Alegre against the war and in favour of peace were the serious political and humanitarian issues raised by the United States’ aggression. We have a situation in which ultraliberal capitalism, which can be seen as the domination of globalisation by the most powerful States and the huge multinational corporations, is leading the world towards disaster. Especially today, we are on the brink of a humanitarian disaster in Iraq, causing the death of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people, amongst the poorest and most needy members of Iraqi society, especially young people, with the United States counting on the complicity and action of its European allies. Mr President, we must remember that the governments of the United States and of some Member States of the Union, against the beliefs and wishes of the majority of European citizens, are reaching the point where they are calling into question the model of European political integration that brings with it the awareness of another form of globalisation, which is more human and egalitarian and which demonstrates greater solidarity. The United States even want to destroy the idea of a constitutional political Europe with an independent role in the world. The other issue I wish to raise, Mr President, concerns international maritime traffic, the safety of our seas and of our coastal communities. The World Parliamentary Forum presented this problem as one of the main concerns of the ‘old world’ school of thought. The European Union must attach priority to resolving this problem, which today particularly affects Galicia and other European countries, from the Spanish State to France. The sea represents life itself. We cannot allow it to be owned and contaminated by a greedy, irresponsible and corrupt form of capitalism that enjoys the complicity of some European States. I therefore hope that the European States and this Parliament take the decisions that are needed to prevent the destruction of the sea that gives us life and sustains us.

Political group: Verts-ALE