GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to thank the rapporteur for the huge amount of work she has done. It does sound as if we, in actual fact, all have the same intentions. I should like to praise the Commission, and also the rapporteur, for having emphasised what the intentions are, namely to create still more development and still more investment in small- and medium-sized enterprises in this area. What is odd is the simple fact that small and medium-sized enterprises are not pleased with this directive when those are what the intentions are. Why are they not shouting with joy and, upon being consulted, using their answers to praise the proposal for a directive? Why are small and medium-sized enterprises not demanding that we implement this directive in one go? Why are all the software industry’s innovators not demanding that we introduce this directive at breakneck speed? Why are they doing almost the opposite? That should, I think, in any case give rise to a certain amount of doubt as to whether we are in actual fact doing what we say we are doing. The ostensible purpose of the directive is to ensure that rights can be enforced. Being able, however, to enforce rights in this area or, perhaps, to protect oneself against others’ maintaining that their own rights are being violated is so expensive that it is transparently obvious to small and medium-sized enterprises that this is not a method of progress for them. Legal cases of this type cost approximately one million euros and are not the kind of thing that small and medium-sized enterprises can get directly involved in. We say that we shall not extend the existing provisions. That, I think, sounds wise, especially since the European Patent Convention does emphasise that software cannot be patented. Let us, therefore, stick with that. We are not in fact without rights now. We have a legal basis in the form of the European Patent Convention. The fact is, moreover, that the European Patent Office has extended the scope of its activities slowly and gradually. If we were now to respond by legalising that extension, we should in fact be heading in the wrong direction. We should then be heading in a direction in which it was more and more usual to demand patents on software, but not on pure software. My question is therefore: how pure must software be before it is pure? That is a question I have been in no position to obtain a clear answer to. Moreover, it is perhaps precisely such questions that should be clarified before we take definitive action in this area. I very much want to invite reflection. I very much want to recommend that we allow doubts to be heard and that we listen to what the small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe have to say in this area.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I requested the floor in order to speak about the amendment to the budget appropriations solely to express my disagreement with the idea that the much-needed supplementary budget for addressing the problems of BSE must be achieved without adjusting the limits set by Agenda 2000. We are facing an extraordinary situation, which must be addressed today by means of extraordinary funds, which are sufficient for the task, although, in the future, the necessary appropriations for new agriculture can be achieved through the reform of the CAP itself. In any event, I wish to protest both at the way in which Parliament is being sidelined in the attempt to find solutions to the problem of mad cow disease and at the inability of the Council of Ministers and the Member States to find appropriate ways of resolving this serious issue, having ignored and neglected it for most of the 90s.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I have made so many speeches that I have lost my voice. Maybe I have delivered too many explanations of vote! I voted for the directive on undertakings for collective investments in transferable securities because one way that pensioners get rich – I am not being serious here – is through reaping the benefit of fruitful savings. In this way, if their savings bear fruit, as the directive proposes, pensioners will be able to follow the example of the great single-handed circumnavigator, Mr Francis Chichester – the father of our beloved fellow Member, Mr Giles Chichester – who celebrated his sixty-fifth birthday while sailing single-handedly round the world. Report Jensen (A5-0319/2001):

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wish to thank Mrs van der Laan for giving the Committee on Budgetary Control and the European Parliament a model on which to base future discharge reports. From the outset she was very clear that she wanted to concentrate on a few areas where we wanted to see real improvement. They were clearly set out last year. Now we have a follow-up to check that those points have been implemented. We shall be following her lead in not supporting the amendments tabled because we want to keep to that clear-cut approach. On the whole, the Commission has responded positively, and this now has to be set within the context of the more general Commission reform. We are pleased that the Commission will present annual activity reports for each Directorate-General but, for that to work effectively, we need to know the targets for these DGs very soon. Work on staff policy has also gone ahead but things seem to be moving very slowly. We appreciate the sensitivity of negotiations on staff issues but we and the European public will soon lose patience if the talking does not stop soon and the action start. The CAP and Structural Funds are the areas where most mismanagement problems lie in the EU, partly due to the scale of the finance received by these areas. That is why it is critical that we, as the controlling and accountable body, have access to information on the financial management of these two areas. We look forward to receiving regular reports from the Personal Representatives Group. External aid, however, is an area where we still see substantial problems. The rapporteur has referred clearly to the disastrous way the aid to Palestine was handled, which gives a very poor signal at a time when the utmost political delicacy and sensitivity were needed in that region. Another Court of Auditors' report on external aid has come out very recently and we shall be looking at that in the future. Once again, I thank the rapporteur and congratulate her on a job well done.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as the rapporteur points out very effectively, the cautionary or precautionary principle – even though the rapporteur differentiates between the two – is laid down in several international agreements, ranging from Rio 1992, to the protection of the North Sea and, more recently, in the Montreal Biosecurity Protocol. As other speakers have said, it is crucial that this principle should be applied properly and that there are legal guarantees for the parties involved, but I would like to take up three ideas that are in Mrs Patrie’s report and in some of the amendments and which seem to me to be perhaps the most important ideas in the report. Firstly, that there is no minimum threshold of risk below which the precautionary principle must not be applied and, consequently, even in cases where there is little risk, it would have to be used. Secondly, that transparency and consumer information are very important and necessary to the whole process of assessment and risk management. And lastly, that public health and the environment must be given priority over all other considerations, particularly financial considerations. If things had been done in this way, Mr President, I do not believe that we would now be lamenting the disease suffered by mad cows, or that we would be lamenting certain other examples of food contamination whose future effects are still unknown. There is currently a great degree of sensitivity and concern over the use in foods of genetically modified products. Another example is the great sensitivity over the information, whether it has a scientific basis or not, about the possible effects of mobile phones, electromagnetic waves and also masts transmitting electromagnetic waves. Mr President, I believe that this is a very important principle if it is used properly and whenever it is necessary.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as the rapporteur, Mr Pirker, has said, this Parliament has already expressed its opinion more than once on the proposed Eurodac Agreement. Last time it expressed its opinion on the proposal as a whole and I believe that the position Parliament adopted was very close to what the Socialist Group wanted. I wish to defend Parliament’s position, which this House voted for a few months ago in relation to the Eurodac Agreement. I therefore believe that we are now being consulted on an amendment which the Council is introducing in this communication, and that it affects the allocation of competences for this action by the Council. The Treaty established that the Commission must have responsibility for implementation – for Eurodac also, we believe – and also established that Parliament can supervise what the Commission does. This still does not seem sufficient to us, and we hope that, at least in the legislative and supervisory field, we can have further competences. For this reason, my Group is tomorrow going to abstain in the vote on all the amendments which do not relate to this change to the Council’s communication. We are going to abstain on those amendments which we feel have already been approved by Parliament and which are already included in this Parliament’s previous report. We are going to abstain for reasons which I imagine are very different from Mr Pirker’s reasons for voting against it, but we are going to abstain in order to maintain the position which Parliament has already expressed. However, on behalf of my group, I would like to express my support for the amendments proposed by Mr Pirker, for the reasons which I have already expressed, because I believe that the previous proposal was better and because I believe that the Commission must take this project forward. I hope that it does so taking account of Parliament’s decision and it is important that tomorrow’s vote shows Parliament’s strong support for the previous proposal. Mr President, we are developing a third pillar on the basis of policies which have been intergovernmental and which must become Community policies. I believe it is very important for Parliament to support these first actions we are taking and also to support the Commission so that it can play the role accorded it by the Treaty.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this is a small but significant measure to extend the duties of Member States to carry out strategic environmental assessments on the planning framework as well as on the actual plans where the implementation would or could have a significant impact on the environment. All Member States voted for the common position, but some made it clear that they would go very little further than that. Our task is to clarify and to amend responsibly and on behalf of the Group I congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Schörling, on the work she has done and the consultation she has had with us. We will however be rejecting some of her amendments, notably those that seek to extend the system to all financial plans, to defence and civil defence, to consultation beyond what is reasonable and to the general policies she has just mentioned, which become more of a wish-list than firm proposals. However, we agree that it makes no sense to exclude projects financed wholly or partially by the European Union, especially structural funds, and we certainly agree that it makes sense to talk to neighbouring states outside the European Union. We agree that there should be adequate reporting back, not only on the environmental risks identified by the assessment, but on the action it is proposed to take to mitigate or remove them. We also of course have to consider Amendment No 26, in the name of some of our German colleagues, which rejects the common position. I understand the concerns of colleagues from Germany and some parts of Italy. These result from the way in which some governments and regional governments have chosen to implement the assessments. These governments are giving environmental assessment and Europe a bad name for what are entirely excesses of their own making and they need to look carefully at their domestic policies. But this is a subsidiarity measure which leaves the details to Member States. It is not the big hand of Europe extending control to local planning matters. It does, however, ensure that particularly at our respective borders our planning takes account of the environment quality within and across our borders when planning frameworks are being agreed. We believe that to be a good thing and my Group will therefore not be supporting Amendment No 26 and will vote for the common position. We shall then vote for the amendments we supported in committee and for one further clarifying amendment which has been submitted since, but we shall oppose the amendments which we believe are a step too far in terms of what is desirable, practical and acceptable.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, the President-in-Office has said that if you were to ask the people in Member States what they want you would get a clear message. This Tampere motion is, I believe, part of that message. It is one example of the people’s agenda. If enacted at Tampere and enforced by Member State Governments it will show to some of our more Eurosceptic citizens that real progress is being made. Many of them are not really concerned about the extension of qualified majority voting, important as that is, but they are anxious for progress on citizens’ rights, progress on free movement, progress towards a real integrated Europe where people know and understand their rights and responsibilities. You pointed out the importance of this agenda when we are moving towards a successful enlargement of the European Union, setting our own House in order. Freedom, justice, security and transparency before we enlarge is, I am sure many would agree, absolutely crucial. It is a Europe that builds on what we have in common and does not set up barriers to highlight our differences. Earlier Mr Camre spoke against support for poorer countries. I say to him and others that you cannot have real prosperity and real security for 350 million people in 15 countries if you deny hope and similar rights to your neighbours. Walls, weapons and iron curtains are not the answer to asylum-seekers and refugees. That is why the success of the Tampere Summit and this resolution are so important. Some UK Members on this side of the House may have reservations about one or two points but we fully believe in the principles of this resolution, the points that are practical and enforceable. I feel very optimistic that the Tampere Summit will not just be a positive step forward but will become a historically significant summit. I wish the Finnish presidency every success.

Political group: PSE
The resolution on the ‘Intelligent Energy for Europe’ Programme (2003-2006) broadly warrants our support, given that: - it seeks to ensure continuity by means of a programme in the field of energy that follows on from the current framework programme (1998-2002) in this field, with regard to sustainable development, security of energy supply, energy efficiency and electricity produced from renewable energy sources, amongst other aspects; - it recommends an increase in budget appropriations for this programme, although only to a level that is still extremely inadequate (from EUR 190 million to EUR 200 million), given the strategic importance of the fields covered: energy efficiency and rational use of energy; new and renewable energies; the energy aspects of transport and international cooperation, particularly with developing countries; - it calls for an appropriate balance to be struck between monitoring the programme’s implementation and the need to ensure that its allocations are fully spent, and proposes easier access for prospective proposers. As to the issue of creating a European Intelligent Energy Agency, we believe that the issue is essentially a political one and hinges on concerns over whether or not we should have effective policies for researching and promoting energies that provide environmental and economic advantages.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to congratulate Mr Hernández Mollar on the outstanding work that he has carried out and on the excellent report that he has presented to us. He has already emphasised, and rightly so, that although migration and asylum are closely related issues, they are nevertheless substantially different and require different responses from the European Union, although it should be borne in mind and recognised that in both cases there are advantages in applying a cross-pillar and global approach. We know that increasing numbers of people are seeking better opportunities or protection through migration, in order to escape war, persecution, poverty, unemployment or violations of their human rights. We know that there is an increase in illegal migratory movement, for the most part controlled by criminal networks that often create situations involving exploitation and blatant violation of human rights. We obviously support a global approach including support for democratisation and promotion of the rule of law, support for the prevention of conflicts and for reconciliation, respect for human rights and the development within countries and regions of origin and of transit of the fight against poverty, by improving living conditions and by creating greater opportunities for employment. In order to achieve all of this, and despite the criticisms that Mr Hernández Mollar has just presented to the House, which related specifically to action by Parliament and the effectiveness of this action in some of these countries, Parliament’s commitment must be serious and consistent. We cannot herald good intentions and then fail to put them into practice because of a lack of funding. Information campaigns must be undertaken in close cooperation with the countries of origin and of transit, publicising the real opportunities for legal emigration, in an attempt to reduce or eliminate the problem at its source. We must step up the fight against illegal immigration, ensure that the rights of the victims of criminal networks are protected, and step up efforts to prevent all forms of trafficking in human beings, paying particular attention to the situation of women’s and children’s rights. We must also detect and break up the criminal networks involved in these activities. Within the Union, we must make a detailed assessment of the situation in the various Member States and harmonise national legislation on conditions of entry and residency. In doing this, we must take into account economic and demographic changes in the Union, each Member State’s ability to receive immigrants and the historical and cultural ties that the Member State may have with the countries of origin. In short, we agree with a common European policy on asylum and immigration based on four pillars: partnership with the countries of origin, a common European asylum system, fair treatment of immigrants from third countries and more efficient management of migratory flows.

Political group: PPE-DE
Citizenship is inextricably linked to participation in the political life of a Member State. It is the sign of belonging to a particular group, not only in a strictly legal sense, but also on a very practical level. The right to vote at local level is one way of participating. Third country nationals can already participate in many ways in local life within the European Union. Granting them the right to vote at local level means recognising an additional right, but this recognition is not without its associated duties. Third country nationals who can prove that they have lived in the European Union for at least five years must therefore show a voluntary commitment if they are to be granted the right to vote in local elections. This commitment must confirm compliance with democratic values and human rights as laid down, amongst others, by the Constitutions and national legislation, as well as by the European Convention on Human Rights of 1950, which protects in particular freedom of conscience and religion, and prohibits any form of discrimination on the grounds of religion, sex or race. Citizenship must be defined by certain civic behaviour as much as by active and daily participation in society.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I appeal to you to write to the Taliban authorities about the unfortunate case of Shelter Now. Members of Parliament may have heard that a number of aid workers have been arrested by the Taliban authorities, largely on the basis that this is a Christian-based organisation which contravened the Taliban's rules on religious intolerance. I appeal to you to write to the Taliban authorities demanding fair treatment for those arrested and their rapid release. They have committed no crime apart from trying to help Afghanistan and the Afghan people. Afghanistan is one of the poorest and neediest nations in the world and it sets a very frightening precedent if aid workers are attacked because of their faith. It will undermine aid operations throughout the world and especially in Afghanistan. I would like to draw Parliament's attention to the fact that these aid workers, both European and Afghans, may face the death penalty under Taliban law. I urge Members of the House to support an appeal to the Taliban authorities to release those arrested.

Political group: PPE-DE