GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, for me the issue of which national courts are responsible for a European patent and when is not the vital question regarding this report. As I see it, what is far more important is the purpose of this draft and exactly what a patent system of this kind is intended to achieve. This report and other planned changes to the EU patent system are intended to make patent applications more attractive by making the protection offered by the patent directly applicable in the EU and thus extending it. A patent suggests that the patent holder has invented everything that he or she wishes to patent. However, as a rule the invention draws on all kinds of knowledge that people have developed beforehand, and which can only be used at no cost if this knowledge is not itself covered by a patent. This absurdity is particularly apparent when you consider the present attempts to make more and more software patentable. Even algorithms in computer programs would no longer be freely available. This would deprive all developers of the building blocks they need for any new computer program. Supporters of the patent system often put forward the argument that patents would benefit invention ‘freaks’ who do not work for companies but who come up with their inventions either privately or at least with limited financial resources. A patent would protect these people from having companies use their inventions without paying any fee to the inventors and thus not paying them for their work. The problem with this picture is quite simply that it does not match the reality of the patent world. In Germany at least, most patents are held by companies that are constantly extending their patents. Private individuals often cannot access the system because of the high patent fees involved. As the term ‘intellectual property’ implies, patenting simply means exploiting intangible things such as ideas, inventions and even discoveries. I am not interested here in the fact that the proponents of capitalism are shooting themselves in the foot if they really believe in their credo of innovation and competitiveness. I say that because my aim is free access to and exchange of information and knowledge and its further development. That is precisely what is needed for a self-determined lifestyle and an emancipatory political approach. However, in contrast to all this, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi's report is aimed at treating an ever growing proportion of worldwide knowledge as goods that can generate profits for industry.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I voted for the report on our great Parliament's initiative on the serious crisis in we which find ourselves due to the spread of this epidemic amongst cattle. I would like to point out that my intention in voting for the motion was, inter alia, to support point 7 of the report. Indeed, I hope and call for an analysis to be carried out immediately of all the cattle carcasses which have been placed on the market in butchers' shops throughout the European Union, in order to discover whether they are infected with BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy). A check must be carried out on all the carcasses immediately, whatever the cost, for otherwise beef and veal sales will fall below zero.

Political group: PPE-DE
I have nothing against developing vocational training by harmonising it at European level. However, that vocational training must include a large portion of general knowledge, language learning and so on, which means that the big employers must not be involved in the running, management or even the inspiration of that training. Otherwise, we will simply be manufacturing labour to meet the changing needs of the bosses and not to serve the interests of young people.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Commissioner, we can only welcome this text and thank Mrs Gillig for the work that she has done. Let us take one very simple point of reference: child labour. In a recent report by the ILO, it is estimated that 245 million children are involved in economic activity throughout the world, of which 180 million perform the worst forms of labour, in other words, labour that puts their physical and mental health or their morality at risk. This shows how important it is to reflect on core standards. However, at a time when we are advocating a European social model, we must consider our own standards because we must not forget, once again taking the point of reference of child labour, that the number of children working in developed countries is estimated to be 2.5 million and, although all the fifteen Member States have now ratified ILO Conventions 182 and 138 on the worst forms of labour, this situation, Commissioner, is only very recent and, moreover, the conventions have not yet been ratified by all the candidate countries. In the developing countries, 10 million children work in export-related activities; they work, therefore, albeit indirectly, for multinational companies. The vast majority of children, however, are involved in labour connected to the undeclared economy, which makes it extremely difficult to monitor. This is why our group is calling for the core labour standards to be integrated into the Union’s development policy, in order to provide a clearer definition of targeted measures in the context of development cooperation programmes and to promote coordinated aid. It is from this perspective that we have drafted a number of amendments and we hope that the House will support the proposals by the Group of the European People’s Party in this area.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to thank Mr de Miguel for his statements today. The Watson report, which has recently been provoking extremely serious debates and has caused a number of clashes, is back on the table today. Today’s debate is on the amendments made by the Council after the decision was approved by Parliament; these amendments include those of the Italian Government, of course. My respect for Parliament prevents me from focusing on the controversy triggered off by a certain political party. The passage of time has proved these accusation to be nothing but hot air, hot air which, I regret to say, has been blown this way again today, thanks, not least, to Mr Di Pietro, on whose behalf, as a friend, I take it upon myself to apologise to the House, especially for his grossly inaccurate accusations which are more the product of blind hatred of the individual concerned than proven facts. The priority of internal security and the protecting external borders must therefore be underscored firmly once again. Internal security and the fight against organised crime can no longer be matters purely for national competence. The trafficking of drugs and human beings and terrorism are transnational phenomena which can only be addressed at a higher level. With regard to the need to create an internal judicial space, the differences between national Constitutions and judicial systems must be taken into account so that national legislation can be genuinely harmonised. The European arrest warrant must be accepted as an essential tool for combating terrorism and crime but, if it is to be genuinely effective, it needs to be handled in the same way in all the Member States. Only thus will the citizens be able to have guarantees of effectiveness in the fair handling of individual cases and the certainty of justice rather than the freedom and rights of the powerful – as somebody in this Chamber has insinuated – but the freedom and rights of all the citizens, including citizens of third countries who wish to live and work lawfully in Europe. We must fight to stop Europe becoming the new forum for attempts to exploit the legal system to persecute political figures or other forms of intolerance which diminish the dignity of the individual. In conclusion, Mr President, the battle against old and new forms of crime and unlawful activities, against organised crime, money laundering and corruption – combined with a bold fight against terrorism in all its forms – must not be confused with inquisition-like persecution. Henceforth, we must quickly build a common judicial space, maybe even placing the rules governing penal law under the first pillar again, making the different legal systems consistent and with the objective of combining inflexibility in fighting unlawful activities with firm consolidation of the Rule of Law. Mr President, we must never forget that our task here is to build, all together, a Europe based on the freedom of the citizens.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as the High Representative said, a European Union of 25 countries, 450 million people and a quarter of the world’s total national product must assume greater responsibility for its own security and defence; and, I would add, be less dependent upon our friends in the United States. That is in the interests of both the EU and the United States. That is something we owe to ourselves, as well as to the Americans who, for many years, have been the guarantors of peace in Western Europe. We therefore need closer institutional ties between NATO and the EU so that we might react more consistently to the new global challenges in terms of combating international terrorism, organised crime and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. The objective is therefore the continued development of the EU’s defence dimension – which is also supported by the United States – as the European pillar within NATO. The EU must increasingly work in partnership with the Americans, and not in opposition to them. The transatlantic alliance can only be maintained in the long term if a proper European defence identity is introduced. The news we received from the foreign ministers’ meeting in Luxembourg concerning a stronger and more pro-active foreign and defence policy was therefore encouraging, and it is with great excitement that we now await the High Representative’s proposal for the first common European security strategy. We can be happy about the fact that the Council generally wishes to strengthen European defence and cooperation around research and development in this area, but the proposal should also fully support the re-establishment of the transatlantic partnership. In this connection, it has been gratifying to read what has been termed the Allbright declaration on this partnership. The declaration also states that the partnership is the supporting pillar of NATO cooperation.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, rich Romans at the beginning of our era, between the first century BC and the first century AD, were the first to breed certain species of fish and molluscs. This was practised more, however, as a costly and fashionable pastime than as an economic activity. The sea-fish rearing ponds were then greatly admired for their beauty and as a symbol of the prestige that they represented. Traces of at least 50 fish rearing ponds dating from the Roman period have been identified along the Mediterranean rim. Later on, particularly in the nineteenth century, some countries developed beds of oysters, which were considered – quite rightly – to be a species of food for the refined palate. Only in the latter decades of the twentieth century, however, did we see the rapid expansion of aquaculture, in response to the danger of fish resources being exploited to extinction. In fact, in 40 years, world fish production has increased fourfold, and today stands at around of 100 million tonnes, and world demand is increasing inexorably, in line with demographic growth. Although aquaculture cannot replace fishing in the environment, it is, nevertheless, designed to complement and enhance some much-loved and sought after species that today feature on our daily fish menus and that fishing cannot supply in sufficient quantities. In future, aquaculture is bound to grow. What is essentially required is bringing to fish production the same changes that farming and livestock breeding underwent, moving from simple hunting and gathering to the creation and production of animal and vegetable foods. Such changes are not made, however, Mr President, without problems, particularly of an ecological nature, with regard to consumer health protection and even with regard to the well–being of the fish. Mr Martin addresses all of this in a thorough, rigorous and intelligent way in his report, which should become the textbook for aquaculture in the European Union.

Political group: PSE
High Representative, you have efficiently drawn our attention to the progress we made in this field between Amsterdam and Helsinki and to certain decisions which have already been taken since Helsinki, such as the establishment of the three committees and, of course, the decision to provide for the deployment of a 50-60 000-strong military force. However, this increase in pace accentuates the lack of coordination between these decisions and the on-going Intergovernmental Conference even further. I believe that we will have to reach a compromise in this area between those who, rightly, are pushing for the communitisation of this policy and those who think that such advances should be the responsibility of the Intergovernmental Conference. A word of warning to the latter: this policy needs substantial democratic legitimisation. We are aware of the importance of public opinion when we intervene in matters of foreign and security policy, and I would therefore ask you, in general terms, of course, whether you feel that the reform could tackle any of the following issues: the new, two-level Commission-High Representative structure; a clear, practical distinction between civilian and military crisis management. At this stage, this could include, for example, collaboration between the Commission and the Political Committee, the consolidation of Community responsibility for non-military crisis management, the creation of a Council of Ministers for Defence, coordination of the Treaty on European Union, the NATO Charter and the WEU, the legal personality of the European Union, reinforced cooperation in this area as well, parliamentary control and, lastly, financing. Do you think that any of these issues could be included, at least in the agenda of the current Conference?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the French constitution which emerged from the 1789 revolution contains a duty to revolt which appears to sum up our debate perfectly. A duty to revolt for the 34 million people with AIDS, most of whom – over 4 million sufferers – live in South Africa. What could be more normal, in the face of a catastrophe which everyone agrees is a humanitarian, health, demographic, economic and social catastrophe, than to want to do everything to save one’s own people. Must we reiterate that, thanks to various treatments, we have considerably prolonged and improved the life of patients in the west, while in Africa and Brazil AIDS sufferers are dying because only 5% of them can obtain treatment due to the excessively high cost of drugs. That is why South Africa passed a law in 1997 so that its sufferers could benefit from suitable care. I think it is irresponsible for the pharmaceutical industry to block this legislation. During this period, 400 000 South Africans have contracted AIDS. In using the WTO to attack Brazil, which – by using its own treatment – has almost halved its AIDS epidemic, the United States have demonstrated an equally unfortunate cynicism. Not only should these proceedings be abandoned; more importantly, we should urgently help revise international trading rules so that they benefit human health. Mothers of families with no access to AZT are bringing babies into the world who already have AIDS and are condemned from the day they are born. Is that the humanitarianism and solidarity which inspires our resolutions? I think, Mr President, that we need to retaliate against the indifference of the 34 pharmaceutical companies and affirm the principle of exemption for reasons of health. If this principle is not applied, we shall call on the Commission to suspend the investment aid granted to all the European companies until such time as they withdraw their complaint against South Africa. And then we should push for a World Solidarity Fund to be set up and cofinanced by the pharmaceutical industry. Because, faced with their indifference and given the huge profits which they make, we should force them to invest in research and invent a vaccination as a matter of absolute priority. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party also welcomes this proposal for a Commission directive, in the same way as it welcomed, equally favourably, the draft framework decision by the Council in December 2001. The would, of course, like to thank the two rapporteurs, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten and Mr Di Lello as well. These two initiatives are a practical response to one of the people’s major concerns: 88% of European citizens want the European Union to take practical measures to protect the environment. This is one of the findings of a Eurobarometer survey carried out less than a year ago and which my fellow Member Mr Coelho mentioned earlier. In response to acts of ecological delinquency, the supports the position defended by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten, namely that the Community framework under the first pillar is the most suitable. We believe that a directive is the most appropriate tool for establishing a European list of environmental crimes and a common foundation of criminal sanctions. As for the more specific content of this proposal, I believe, as most of my colleagues do, that incitement, as well as the act itself to breach European environmental legislation, must be punished. Similarly, we should use general terms when referring to breaches of the law, in order to avoid ecological crimes from being swallowed up in a potential legal loophole. Having said this, and due to the dispute on the legal basis between Parliament and the Commission, on the one side, and the Council, on the other, I believe it is crucial that we take swift action, that we reassure our citizens by taking repressive measures against these modern-day polluters, because, today, and it seems with regard to the environment in particular, the reason why the law is toothless and benefiting unscrupulous individuals is that it is not being implemented. To take an example, most of our Member States have strengthened their criminal weaponry. This is a positive step. At the same time, it is worrying to note that in the same Member States, criminal cases involving the environment represent only 2% of the total number of all litigation. That is why we must use this dissuasive tool at Community level to ensure current regulations are applied, but also so that we are more effective in combating the organised networks which have made pollution their chosen new weapon.

Political group: ELDR
I also have concerns about the proposal on animal transport. The UK currently has a derogation from EU law whereby the export of horses and ponies from the UK to the continent for slaughter is prohibited. As you know, the UK has a number of semi-wild herds of ponies in the New Forest and Dartmoor. As I understand it, the proposal on animal transport that you have recently published will force the UK to lift that derogation and allow the export of hundreds, if not thousands, of horses and ponies for slaughter to France, Belgium and Italy. I think that is an absolutely shocking proposition, given that Britain is a nation of horse-lovers and given the particular cultural values which British people attach to horses and ponies. Will the Commission be able to support the amendment that I plan to table in the Environment Committee which would allow the UK to prohibit the export of horses and ponies from the UK for slaughter or further fattening?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I was somewhat surprised that, prior to voting on the Council’s Regulation on the combating of international terrorism and the freezing of funds of terrorist organisations, we did not allow all the parties one minute’s speaking time to outline their standpoint. Indeed, it was agreed earlier with all the political parties that we would discuss this prior to voting in view of the urgency with which the material was presented and since we had no time for a debate. It is a very important matter. I therefore regret that we did not get that opportunity. For the rest, I will submit the substance of our contribution But what concerns us is that we think it very important, where this proposal is concerned, that a judicial review should take place. We are delighted with this proposal from the Committee. We are pleased that it is based on Article 308 of the Treaty. This means that there is a role for the Court of Justice and this means that there is a role for the European Parliament. We are very disappointed in the Council’s rejection yesterday of this legal basis. The Council has not understood the urgency of this proposal and has also failed to understand the need to base it on Article 308. By wishing to base it on various articles of the Third Pillar, the Council of course wants to exclude both the Court of Justice and the European Parliament. It is a serious matter that should most certainly have been discussed in Parliament.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, of course it would have been better if the weapons inspectors had been given more time, if Saddam Hussein had respected the resolutions and if the UN had given a mandate for the intervention in Iraq. Now, the war is under way, however, and we must look to the future. The Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party hopes that the war will be short, that there will be as few civilian casualties as possible, that Turkey will not enter Kurdistan and that we shall soon be able to bring the Iraqi dictator to justice in The Hague. Those who were carrying placards here in the Chamber, bearing the words ‘Stop the killing!’ should call to mind how many hundreds of thousands of people have been murdered and driven out of the country by Saddam Hussein. The post-war period will see some arduous work begin, first of all of course in the form of humanitarian aid. Following that, Iraq must be reconstructed. Stable and democratic institutions must be created so that the Iraqi people can at last live in freedom and peace. The UN must have ultimate responsibility for this work, and the EU must make a generous contribution. Iraq must not become an American protectorate. What is more, new life must be breathed into the peace process in the Middle East. Transatlantic relations, which are in tatters, must be repaired. The UN needs to be reformed, and we must get a broad discussion under way about what international law really entails and about how it might be able to protect people in future. Finally, the EU must get its act together and show that it has learned from the débâcle of recent weeks. We need a common foreign policy. We can make a host of institutional changes but, as long as there is a lack of political will, the EU will fail to be heard in the arena of foreign policy.

Political group: ELDR