GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr Vice-Chairman of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy I voted against the directive on computer-implemented inventions, which remains a confused text, opening the door to the patentability of software. I am disappointed that the amendment to reject the directive tabled by the Group of the was not adopted: when a directive is badly drafted, I think that the Commission has a duty to redraft it. Nevertheless, I am delighted that there was excellent cooperation with other political groups, allowing us to improve the text, in particular in Article 2. In recent months, I have been approached by several researchers who are afraid that the software patent is putting the brakes on innovation in the European Union. At a time when we are doing everything we can to create a European area of research, it is absurd to adopt legislation that is condemned by the most eminent members of the EU’s scientific community, who sent a petition to me. Furthermore, software patents endanger free software, which is used in a number of scientific and industrial applications such as the European satellites in the Galileo system. Only a clear text guaranteeing the protection of computer programs by copyright could re-establish legal clarity in this field.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr Haarder, we were referring in our question to the death in prison of Juan Ondó Nguema, but, sadly, we must now add that on 31 August another political prisoner died in the Black Beach prison, Juan Asumu Sima. This 80-year-old man had to attend trial, sometimes assisted, and at others seated, due to the brutal torture to which he had been subjected. The political prisoners in Black Beach may end up becoming names on a long list of the deceased which will continually prick the conscience of international and, of course, European Union public opinion. Mr Haarder, the Council can think what it likes, but, of course, believing the government of Equatorial Guinea instead of the opposition is too much to believe. I ask you, is the Council thinking of making an official visit to the political prisoners in Black Beach and, moreover, taking measures to suspend the Cotonou agreement with Equatorial Guinea if they are not freed immediately?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I too have read the report recently published by the European Commission on the fight against fraud. EUR two billion in tax money disappeared in the year 2000 as a result of fraud and irregularities. That is an extremely worrying phenomenon. Europe has a bad reputation as it is in this area, and we need to pull out all the stops to fight this phenomenon. This evening, we are discussing the review of the Financial Regulation. Against this backdrop, I should like to make a few observations. It will not come as a surprise to you that I too advocate effective and modern control. The Commission and rapporteurs want to abandon centralised, independent ex ante control. That must be replaced by decentralised ex post control. We debated this very issue at an earlier occasion. I then noted that I welcomed the introduction of an independent ex post audit, but that that should not be at the expense of the opportunity of independent ex ante control. If we are to introduce this across the board, I fear that we will turn this fine dream into a nightmare. I am in favour of a system in which independent ex post audits are the rule. The option of independent ex ante control must continue to exist. I can think of many situations in which a systematic or random ex ante control is necessary in the event of proven irregularities. If we remove this option from the Financial Regulation, we will surrender an important weapon in the fight against fraud, and that would be irresponsible at a time when we have not gained any experience of decentralised ex post control. I would therefore call on my fellow MEPs to support our amendments in this connection, so as to avoid the abolition of ex ante control.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I went to Genoa at the invitation of the Genoa Social Forum and I was surprised because I had never seen such police conduct, and I say that having fought for democracy and freedom in Spain since 1966. Not even under the Franco dictatorship did the police behave as I witnessed in Genoa. It was more similar to the situation which I experienced on 11 September 1973 in Santiago, Chile, when Pinochet’s coup d’état took place. This raises a serious problem for the European Union: to guarantee that, just as the G8 can meet, all people, young people who want a different world, can also meet in a democratic fashion. That is the responsibility of the European Union, of the European Parliament. I therefore believe that we will have to ensure that progress is made in terms of democracy and freedom for all. IN THE CHAIR: MR IMBENIVice-president

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, again today I think that numerous honourable Members are not particularly satisfied within themselves with the agreement which we have before us. I understand the reasons for their reactions; however, if they themselves go back a bit, six or seven years back, and look at where we were then, they will see that we have before us a very important step, a very important step for Europe, a very important step for the European citizens. As you too, Mr President, were personally involved in the conciliation procedure, you will understand, I think, better than anyone, that a very important step is being taken in the field of restricting delays and, consequently, in this manner we are strengthening air transport, protecting the environment better and efficiently supporting European tourism. Right until the end, we were faced with prejudices either on the part of certain Member States or certain military authorities. You know that, up to the last minute, there was a problem as regards cooperation between military and civil authorities, on the one hand, and there was a problem as regards the way in which single operating sections or blocks are defined at international level. Some steps were taken under pressure from the European Parliament. Perhaps the steps were not taken which should have been taken. Nonetheless, it is better for the European Parliament to agree to what we have before us and to look on it as a first step. Our efforts must not stop here. It is worth our putting even greater pressure on the Member States to become more bold in their approach and, I think, to close my short position, within these frameworks, it would be an oversight if we failed to mention the exceptionally positive role of the European Commission, and the Commissioner in particular, for whom I imagine it is perhaps one of the greatest achievements which she has had in her term of office to date as the Commissioner responsible for transport. We must thank her and congratulate her on that.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to carry on straightaway from where Mrs Theato left off. Commissioner, we are actually finding it quite hard to imagine what the point would be of having an advisory office for financial irregularities of the kind you envisage. The same applies to the new agency for internal administrative investigations that the Commission is planning to set up. What purpose would this office and agency actually serve, when by the Commission’s own decree, OLAF is responsible for all serious breaches of duty against the interests of the Community, and not just for fraud-related offences? I would remind you once again that you, yourself, decided that that is how it should be, yet you are evidently on the point of allowing some kind of pointless superstructure to form part of your proposals. Mrs van der Laan’s report quite rightly maintains that the Commission has not yet made sufficient progress on the personnel policy front for Parliament’s taste. This particularly applies to the already long overdue reform of the disciplinary procedure. Of course, this has a great deal to do with the budgetary discharge, because one thing that also concerns us is the issue of the liability of officials in respect of damage they cause. Do Commission officials have to defray the costs of damage they cause, themselves, at least as far as their financial means permit? In principle, the answer to this question has long been ‘yes’. Only, the corresponding provisions of Articles 73 and 74 of the Financial Regulation have never actually been applied in a single case yet. The excuse used was always that the relevant procedures were unclear. Anyone hoping that this will now change under the reform process has been disappointed so far. It is this very issue, an absolutely crucial one, that the consultation paper on the reform of the disciplinary procedure put forward by Vice-President Kinnock on 29 November, ignores, and it postpones a response until a later date. Understand that if you will, because I find it incomprehensible. This House has repeatedly and clearly opposed this and called for an external chamber for budgetary discipline to be established at the European Court of Auditors or Court of Justice, which should be called in whenever the financial accountability of officials is at issue. This demand from the report by Mr van Hulten on the reform of the Commission has now been on the table since January last, and was expressly re-confirmed in the Stauner report on the 1998 discharge. I also believe that this discharge, the excellent report by Mrs van der Laan, leaves these issues, which are key to the credibility of EU administration, unresolved. We have pointed the way, and now all we can do, Commissioner, is to invite you to follow it.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, may I begin by saying that I cannot agree with anyone who suggests that the claims of most of the people who have been processed in the system in the United Kingdom are found to be fraudulent. I would like to distance myself from statements like that. It misrepresents the position of people in Britain who do not understand the kind of attitude that we heard here earlier this afternoon. We are glad that after eight days of sitting under tarpaulins in the hot sun and inside containers, the Afghan refugees are now at least in reasonable conditions on board the ship on a long voyage to Port Moresby in Papua New Guinea. It has been an extremely tragic incident and terrible to watch and to think of their suffering. But more than anything it teaches us that the 50-year old asylum-seeking system instigated by the United Nations is not working any more. It is creaking under the strain of the mass movement of 21 million migrants a year. The desperation of the people on the Tampa is clear. To suggest that people take this kind of action lightly is ridiculous. They take terrible risks with their lives and the lives of their children in order to escape persecution or penury. They cross the seas in inflatable boats, they cling to the underside of trains like the Eurostar and jumbo jets. The suffering of the refugees on the Tampa should at least lead all the governments that we represent here to rethink the way that they implement the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees. Finally, I would say that the first thing we have to try and do is to ensure that it is governments, rather than organised criminals, that determine where refugees finally end up. Attack on a train in Angola

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the liberalisation of the energy markets has been an ideological project. A smokescreen of market confidence has been cast to cover up certain real problems. Markets are always about just one thing: they always operate in the here and now. Prices take no account of the structural changes that happen when resources peter out. Liberalisation of the gas market will not guarantee investment over the next twenty or thirty years. As it is gas that is to meet the EU’s entire need for additional energy, and as gas is imported from the east, those that need gas should share in the investment costs of new gas fields. In a liberalised market only the short-term benefits are taken into account. We should be able to conclude long-term delivery contracts for gas. In a market of short-term benefits they are not made. Network ownership patterns might become a problem in the electricity market. Unless a government invests in or maintains backbone networks the market will not function. If the government does not invest in the network and take responsibility for it, electricity cannot be transmitted from one place to another. I am rapporteur for the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy with respect to a report on the safety of nuclear power plants. In that capacity I see the problems that can impact on the pricing of electricity. Electricity produced from nuclear energy may be cheap on the spot markets but we cannot be certain as to whether the prices have taken full account of the costs of decommissioning nuclear power plants and of waste disposal, which will extend over hundreds and perhaps thousands of years. If these costs are not reflected in today’s market price for electricity, competition will be distorted. The liberalisation of the markets determines prices in the short term, but will not solve the big problems of the future. There will be new Iraq oil wars. Our group would have liked to safeguard the public and universal energy sector services in connection with these directives relating to liberalisation and privatisation.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr Solana, I am sitting quite close to you, close enough to see your face. I think that you have aged, your face is quite lined. It pains me to look at you and I despair on listening to you; that applies both to what you say about games with little soldiers, as Mrs Maes just put it, and what you do not say. You bear a huge responsibility because the pretext of ethnic cleansing is being used to spill blood in another bout of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and yet you have stood up here, while blood is being spilled in Kosovo, and you have not said a word about it. You are Spanish; you are from a large country, Mr Solana. Spain and Franco were not one and the same. Spain maintained its unity, it kept the Basque country and Andalucia and Catalonia and it did well to do so, because no one identified Spain with Franco and no one played around with Spain’s unity in the name of a Fascist dictator. Today, you are identifying Yugoslavia with Milosevic and you are playing with Voivodina, with Montenegro and with southern Serbia. It is you who has created this mess. Which is why, unless they are accompanied by clear political solutions which respect borders and autonomy and all the democratic guarantees, all these plans on paper will lead to new blood-letting in the Balkans.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the demand for an adjournment of this debate and vote on the draft association agreement with Egypt is completely unrealistic, not to say bizarre. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the agreement and of Egypt, a great country and a friend of Europe. The draft agreement contains 92 articles concerning not only economic and social issues, but also the political dialogue which is important for achieving progress and peace. Negotiations leading up to the agreement have taken over seven years and have been conducted in difficult circumstances. Those who are calling for an adjournment have clearly not thought about the consequences, especially given the current state of world affairs. Need I remind you that, unlike certain other Arab countries, Egypt has never been a breeding ground for terrorists? On the contrary, Egypt has paid dearly for terrorism. It would be irresponsible not to adopt this agreement. It is unrealistic to expect Egypt to copy our models exactly. It is unrealistic to expect to be able to impose our law. It is unrealistic not to take account of the culture, identity and sovereignty of Egypt. The Member States and we, ourselves, must ratify this agreement. We owe it to the European Union because this agreement will be an essential factor in the necessary relaunch of the Barcelona process. We owe it also to Egypt, a great country and a friend of Europe, acknowledged for its role in working for peace in the Middle East.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to say that I cast a vote in error yesterday afternoon on the question of referring the bananas issue back to committee. We in this Parliament risk setting ourselves on a course which will fail to help the banana growers and, at the same time, will continue to inflict grave injustice on small enterprises engaged in producing things like bath products and ... (Protests) ... I therefore wish I had cast my vote the other way. I wish that to be placed on the record.

Political group: Verts-ALE
President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this Sixth Periodic Report on the social and economic situation of the regions of the Union, which was adopted last year by the Commission, indicated that the 25 richest regions of the European Union still had an average GDP per head that was two and a half times higher than that in the 25 poorest regions, and my fellow Members have also reminded us of this. The development gap between the Member States has certainly been reduced, but there are still disparities between the regions, not only with regard to the GDP per head, but also, particularly, in terms of unemployment. Despite the economic upturn, the unemployment rate in the Union as a whole stood at around 10% at the end of 1998. Moreover, the distribution of unemployment is extremely uneven. Whereas the 25 regions least affected are experiencing a relative stabilisation of the rate at around 3 or 4%, the trend has not been reversed in the 25 worst affected regions, with a rate which is still higher than 20%. In its 1998Annual Report on the Structural Funds, the Commission notes, rightly so, that high regional unemployment leads to social exclusion, hence making unemployment even more resistant to economic improvement. An integrated strategy combining measures to boost the economic base of the regions and measures to improve access to the job market, particularly through training, is essential if this situation is to be resolved. It therefore seems to me that structural actions must continue to step up their efficacy and impact in terms of job creation in order to sustain the current economic growth, especially in the regions most affected by unemployment. Furthermore, the work carried out under the European Spatial Development Perspective follows the development of the organisation of the European territory from a traditional, rather centralised model, towards a polycentric model which is the only way to promote a more balanced geographical distribution of work in Europe. The Commission has promised that the emphasis in the new programming period for the Structural Funds will be on improving transport networks, particularly in the peripheral or outermost regions, and on creating sustainable and effective transport systems that provide a balance between the different modes of transport. I must stress particularly that the priority objective of this increased coordination should be to reduce structural divergences between the central part of the Union and the peripheral and outermost regions, as specified in one of the amendments adopted by my committee.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am an interested party in this matter and so I have not taken part in the debate, nor will I be voting. (Parliament adopted the resolution)

Political group: PSE
The fact that our colleague, Mr van Hulten has taken the opportunity of discharge for the 2002 financial year to speak in favour of a single venue for the European Parliament, namely Brussels, is no surprise to me. That he makes use of hypocrisy and makes factually inaccurate statements in support of this is an insult to his intelligence. Paragraph 69 of his motion for a resolution includes an error. It gives the impression that the quoted sums of EUR 185 and 203 million are overspends arising from the retention of three venues, while these are in fact the total costs. Of course, even a single venue involves a cost. Paragraph 70 goes on from the confusion and includes falsehoods. I shall leave it for our French colleagues to respond to the attacks on Strasbourg. I protest vehemently at the insinuations to the effect that Luxembourg has access problems, health problems or security problems. This is in bad faith. Consequently, I have voted in favour of Amendments Nos 16 to 20, deleting paragraphs 69 to 73, tabled by the Group of the European People’s Party .

Political group: ELDR
The remit of the European Agency for Reconstruction should have been extended to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia a long time ago and should not be linked to the internal changes in Yugoslavia. It was not Milosevic and his cohorts who paid the price of exclusion, the lack of international aid and the harsh post-war conditions; it was the civilians – or rather the most disadvantaged civilians. Simplifying the decision-making process, creating decentralised operational centres (and not just in Pristina, which has gained in importance now that it has broken away from Yugoslavia) and dealing with the twin structure between the Governing Board and the Commission may prove to be the right moves in a bid to deal with the huge bureaucratic shortcomings at the European Agency for Reconstruction. At the same time, we should: 1. Increase funding to this region, given that the European Union perpetrated and aided and abetted its destruction. 2. Ensure that local agents, seconded by bureaucracy and various European consultancy firms, have a say at central level. 3. Strengthen cooperation programmes between the former parties to the conflict and the countries in the region.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I have three questions. I would first like to say that I find it a very good thing that the Commission is at last turning its mind to supporting the strengthening of administration. But my question is whether it is also going to look at the need for administration to really involve the citizens, so that things that go without saying, here in the European Union, are also put into practice there? My second question concerns the action plan and finance. If you are allocating more resources from the Phare programme for the support of the institutions, does that then mean that resources are being removed from the other important area of social and economic cohesion, in other words that we are no longer supporting the halting of increasing social decay, which is a core problem in these countries, even though it is urgently necessary? My last question concerns a point which the report does not mention at all. Does the Commission intend to encourage the Council to publish a European programme for the Roma people, something which is in my view urgently required? In almost all countries at present, the Roma minority's human and democratic rights are being violated as much as they have been in the past. This can clearly not be resolved by these accession candidates on an individual basis; it is a European issue that must be dealt with by a European programme.

Political group: Verts-ALE