GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, we should not allow the Community patent to pass as a wasted opportunity. Everyone is calling for it, but no one has managed to finalise it. There are two dates which stand out from all this to-ing and fro-ing: 1975 and 1989 and in the meantime, there have been many unsuccessful attempts to finalise this issue. The Heads of State and Government made the Community patent a priority at Lisbon and it was due to come into being before the end of 2001. The Feira, Stockholm and Gothenburg European Councils reiterated that there is an urgent need for it. So what is the current situation? The Council did not reach an agreement and Parliament, through its Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, which was essentially responsible for this matter, proposed a political compromise which I welcome, Mrs de Palacio, but which I feel does not truly meet the expectations of future users, as it does not improve the existing system to any great extent. Manufacturers and inventors are calling for the cost of the patent to be reduced, so that the patent can be competitive. They also want the respect of legal certainty to be guaranteed with the greatest fairness possible. The European Commission’s proposal is a pragmatic response to these aspirations, focusing on reducing costs. This can be achieved, firstly, by using the language regime of three working languages of the European Patent Office, which, since it guarantees the threshold of international competitiveness, meets our specific linguistic needs. Secondly, by recognising the important role played by the national patent offices in providing specific information and technical assistance to inventors and SMEs. And, lastly, by using a legal system that guarantees single jurisdiction by establishing a Community court for intellectual property. These three fundamental points have attracted the support of those working in the profession. They are the ones waiting for the patent. We must not risk creating a Community patent that they would not use because it is too distant from their concerns. This is the message that we must send to the Council with our vote tomorrow.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, this is a truly historic event: the first modification of the 1976 Act. President Gil Robles, whom I would like to congratulate as rapporteur for this parliamentary assent, has said that many drafts have become deadlocked. I remember how a distinguished British Conservative, Edmund Burk, said that Spain was like a whale washed up on the shores of Europe (or something like that, I am quoting from memory). Therefore, I am very pleased that it is the Spanish Presidency that has managed to break the deadlock on this issue and that in 2002, under the Spanish Presidency, we will have the first reform of the Electoral Act. I believe this is one of the few cases in which the European Parliament is called upon to issue an assent, that is to say, to vote yes or no, and, furthermore, so that this assent may have legal results, there must be an absolute majority in the House. This was the conflict the European Parliament was faced with: what to do. As the rapporteur said, it is true that not all of the aspirations of the European Parliament contained in its previous report, drawn up by our friend and former colleague, Mr Georgios Anastasopoulos, have been taken into account. It is also true that it was necessary to adapt this Electoral Act to the various and successive modifications of the Treaties. And it is also the case that we had to comply with a mandate and resolve an issue which stemmed from a judgment of a Court – in this case the Strasbourg Court – and therefore adapt our electoral system to the judgment in the Matthews case. That is what is being done. Like the rapporteur, I believe that most of the considerations expressed by the European Parliament on these issues, in its previous report, since the Treaty of Amsterdam modified the uniform electoral system in accordance with the general principles of electoral law, appear in the spirit and the letter of the text before us today. The Group of the European Peoples’ Party is therefore going to vote in favour, and it is true that there will be time to accommodate other requests from the European Parliament in the future. The historic nature of this moment, however, does not end there, because the Group of the European Peoples’ Party is going to support an amendment presented by Mr Bonde – a very unusual thing in this Parliament – because we think it is a good amendment, an amendment in which Mr Bonde says and maintains that those Members of Parliament elected in the territory of a State represent the whole of the electorate, something which, by the way – and this brings me back to what I said at the beginning – was also advocated by Edmund Burk in his comments to the voters of Bristol in 1794. Madam President, I would therefore like to say that my group will vote in favour of this assent which Mr Gil Robles has drawn up with such skill and dexterity.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I have asked to speak again so that I can say a few more words at the close of this debate. If you travel to the Netherlands, you will find that every last owner can get rid of his car cost-free. You will also find that these cars are suitably disposed of, that new material flows have been opened up in order to recycle materials, that 85% of the weight of a car is recycled and that 92% of all cars in the Netherlands are recycled. This is financed by a fund to which the buyer of a new car contributes. Should this be condemned ecologically, Frau Breyer? I do not think so. The Netherlands has an exemplary model for disposing of cars as per the wishes of the directive and the issue of whether the buyer of a new car should pay or, in the case of end-of-life vehicles currently driving around, the manufacturer, has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with ecology; it is a simple question of competition! (Applause) The issue here is whether a European manufacturer should pay EUR 250 million or a Korean manufacturer, say, EUR 2 million. In terms of the people who build cars here in Europe, I am in favour of not making competition unequal but, in terms of environmental protection, I want freedom from costs for the last owner, to be financed by a special fund, and manufacturer responsibility for new cars, which will force them to assume responsibility for building recyclable cars! (Applause from the Group)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we are in some danger of begging the question. The current enlargement round depends on the outcome of eight referendums which have yet to be held across central and eastern Europe. Does the Commission believe that it is right for these countries to be left to take that decision on their own, or does the Commission believe that it is acceptable to intervene politically and financially in that decision? So far there has been one referendum, in which the European Commission admits to having spent EUR 700 000, a sum which in per capita terms is equivalent to spending EUR 100 million in Commissioner Prodi's native Italy or in Commissioner Patten's native United Kingdom. If the terms that we are offering these countries are so favourable, why do we need to deploy colossal resources on this scale in order to help them make up their minds?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this evening we will identify what are probably the two make-or-break issues for the next WTO round in Cancun – TRIPS and public health and agriculture. Developing countries' perception of our good faith, good will and sincerity towards them will be tested by our attitude to these two issues. As we know, binding agreement was reached in the form of the Doha Declaration, paragraph 6 of which highlighted the difficult issue of WTO members with insufficient or no manufacturing capacities in the pharmaceutical sector, who could face difficulties in making effective use of compulsory licensing under the TRIPS agreement. The Council for TRIPS was asked to find an expeditious solution to this problem. Commissioner, we welcome the efforts you have made and the backing you have had to get this implemented. In an innovative and welcome suggestion you enlist the aid of the World Health Organisation. If the intention is not honoured, the new constraints would violate the spirit of the Doha Declaration and would show bad faith. I am sure you are right – and we have had discussions about this – to reject a moratorium on disputes or, indeed, a derogation. Neither is an adequate solution. The behaviour of the United States, not just on this issue but also - and far more seriously in some ways - on the issue of Iraq, is becoming increasingly difficult to understand. Indeed, the only possible explanation is its politicians paying undue attention to the financial interests of pharmaceutical companies who paid for their election. They have come up with only a unilateral solution and a narrow list. This is inadequate! Two deadlines have been missed already, and there is a real risk of deadlock if the efforts which we have channelled through you come to nothing. Concerns which have been raised, for example on the diversion trade in generic medicines, are being tackled. Hence the regulation by the Council of Ministers. Let us welcome your proposal of 7 January. It is a multilateral solution which enlists a reputable and widely trusted agency, the World Health Organisation. As you said, the solution must be lasting, fair and legally viable. The conflict should be examined on the basis of the guideline that public health has primacy over patents. We cannot overestimate the importance of finding a solution to this issue. I wish you very good luck, Commissioner.

Political group: PSE
I should like to follow on from the question put by Mr Alavanos in connection with the 2001-2002 harvest, which is now a fait accompli. The problem is that this situation does not only affect last year's harvest, it also affects subsequent harvests. This year's cotton is being harvested as we speak. For the second year running, producers are tearing their hair out because the Greek government has arbitrarily set production at 275 kilograms per decare, whereas output is much higher and no-one knows what will become of it. In February 2001, this House voted almost unanimously for an increase in cotton production because the European Union has a 70% deficit. Not only has the Greek government made no attempt to push this European Parliament resolution through, so as to protect Greek cotton growers and their produce; it has, as you have heard, been in an untimely hurry to apply the new regulation and has refused to make use of the European Parliament resolution. Mr President, I call on you to stand up for us here and I call on the Council representative to take a stand on the Greek cotton farmers' request for an immediate overhaul of this disastrous regulation in order to protect farmers facing ruin and their product, which has the status of a national product in Greece.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I wish to congratulate Mr Gil-Robles on his report on the election of representatives in the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage. The participation of the Union’s citizens in European elections is far from satisfactory. The turnout rate has fallen from 63% in 1979 to 49.7% in 1999, whilst the powers of the European Parliament have increased substantially. The European Parliament is gaining power but losing its legitimacy. The steady decline in the turnout rate in European elections is a matter of concern to us. In the next European elections in 2004, the Community institutions and Member States must adopt the necessary measures to make voters more aware of the importance of these elections. The Member States must reach agreement on a date for the next European elections which does not coincide with national traditional events or public holidays, in order to optimise the conditions for the turnout in the elections. The Member States must adopt all possible measures to ensure that there is greater participation in the European elections, including procedures for ensuring people are registered on the electoral rolls and for the use of direct voting. I agree with the provisions laying down the incompatibility of the offices of Members of the European Parliament and members of a national parliament. Portuguese law already contained such provisions, but this will now become a Community measure. I must note that the Council has not accepted Parliament’s proposal to reserve 10% of seats for the single European constituency. It was right to reject this proposal. This would do nothing to bring the citizens closer to their representatives and would only serve to take seats away from national representations and give them to a more distant set of ‘European’ personalities... In order to increase the turnout in elections, we must close the information gap and work on developing an EU information and communication policy aimed at the European people.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to speak in favour of this request. This is a highly contentious issue. I quite rightly asked DG I to look at the report as it was voted in committee to see if it was legally admissible in the way it set up and called for a committee of inquiry. Subsequently, changes were introduced to satisfy DG I. However, it came to my notice that other changes were introduced into paragraph 4, which bring about a profound change which is not in compliance with the request made by DG I. There is a very lengthy legal opinion. Even with the changes that Mr Perry wishes to make, recitals N and V, according to paragraph 26 of the legal opinion, are still not legally admissible. Therefore, rather than open up a debate here, and given the technical nature of this report, I recommend that your services look at the report as it is tabled – which brings in Mr Perry's explanatory statement, explicitly referred to in paragraph 5 – so that you can rule whether, as it currently stands, it is legally admissible. Furthermore, and in conclusion, it is vital that the report that comes to the House accurately reflects what we voted on in committee. I am afraid as it stands this report does not do so.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, the crisis in Iraq placed the crucial issue of the common foreign, defence and security policy of the European Union centre stage in a most dramatic manner. The report by Mr Morillon and the older report by Mrs Lalumière express the anxieties and findings of the European Parliament. However, they also express its political correlations. A positive example is the recent presence of the European Union in the FYROM. However, the problem persists. Findings, findings, proposals, and when some decisions are taken, they drag their heels applying them. I ask you, where does the application of the Galileo programme stand? Where do the famous Petersberg-type force and missions stand? Where does the Eurofighter stand? Where does the programme of large heavy air transporters stand, despite the fact that the last two are not European Union programmes? I sometimes wonder, are we, in fact, carrying water in the Danaïds' jars? Europe is a force for peace; however, it also needs to become a force for security and international cooperation. Europe needs to shape its own personality and to operate as an equal partner and associate. Europe needs to take its decisions at both an institutional and material level. The initiative by Germany and the other three countries is positive in principle. We are watching this space. We have often referred here to ancient Athens and Rome; however, we have also recently seen various kings and chiefs of varying colours from old, bygone colonial empires parading around the capitals of certain countries in Europe in gold-trimmed cars. I do not know if there is any similarity with certain European political leaders in a divided Europe who submit their credentials to Camp David or the seat of the new Rome every once in a while. Finally, I should like to propose, Commissioner, Minister, that we examine whether it would perhaps be better, if only for symbolic reasons, for some of the serious meetings of a political nature to be held in future at the seat of the European Union in order to symbolise our equality, potential and prospects.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, on a point of order. The BBC this morning reported that a British Member of this House, holding a senior position within his delegation, continues to offer strategic advice to private clients, but does not state in the Register of Interests who these clients are. The people of Europe have a right to expect their representatives to keep the public interest separate from private profit, but they can only be sure that this is being done in all cases if the information is both publicly available and easily accessible. Madam President, since these matters are currently being considered by the Quaestors, may I ask you to use your influence both to ensure that the Register of Interests is brought up to date and modified to cover instances of this kind and, above all, to ensure that the Register is not only available for inspection by this House, but is also published on the Internet?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I think there should be proportion in everything. Natural disasters are occurring around the world. There have been a large number of these in recent years. Thousands of people have been killed and been made homeless as a result of hurricanes, volcanic eruptions and earthquakes. It is these that are natural disasters! It is only right that the EU should try to help in these different contexts. I happened to be in southern Sweden in the course of the twenty-four hours we are talking about here. It is true that the wind was blowing. It was even stormy. It sometimes is in southern Sweden. This is not something the European Parliament can do anything about. Individual people were affected and there was serious damage to the countryside, but there was no natural disaster. This is a question for Sweden and Swedish insurance companies and not something the European Parliament should be devoting time to.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on a point of order: as chairman of the Environment Committee I would just point out that the rapporteur's job is to present the report of the committee. If Mr Papayannakis wants to express a personal opinion, he should have the freedom to do so. What he cannot do is to confuse the two. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I was astonished to read in the press the outcome of the negotiations by the Conference of Presidents to decide the winner of the Sakharov Prize. What I am asking myself is where and when will MEPs be given an opportunity to begin to understand how the presidents, or the majority of presidents, or whoever, came to a decision which patently contradicts the MEPs who voted in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. I find this scandalous to say the least, and I believe that there is a genuine problem with the way things work in our Parliament, which is that, in actual fact, we serve no purpose. We spend hours having debates and casting votes in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and then afterwards, Mr Poettering calls Mr Barón Crespo or Mr Barón Crespo calls Mr Poettering and what we think counts for nothing. I would simply like to say that we are Members who were elected with the same votes as Mr Poettering and Mr Barón Crespo, and that I cannot accept that it is they who call the shots in the European Parliament, therefore I want us to discuss, in plenary, the way that decisions are taken, just as the Sakharov Prize was discussed last week. (Applause from the Group)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you have talked a lot about the future, about what the Commission will do, and what the Presidency will do in Lisbon, etc. However, you also said something which I find particularly frightening. You said that in Lisbon you intend to discuss more dynamic and competitive development. I am beginning to feel a little worried because this may lead, partially at least, to exclusion. I do not see how you could, with the views that you hold, provide any answers. What I asked and what I am once again asking is the following: what are the views of the Portuguese Presidency on, for example, the appeals made by the network to combat poverty and exclusion, the division of work and social security, the implementation of tax policies, particularly for speculative capital, and the policy of redistributing wealth? I would like an answer as to whether or not the Portuguese Presidency intends to do something about these matters.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Myller, and also the shadow rapporteurs, especially our group's own, for the work done on this report. I consider neither the Commission's proposal nor the report presented by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy to be worthless. I do not, therefore, quite understand the proposal by the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party and the Group of the that the proposal and the common position should be rejected in their entirety. Another reason why I do not understand it is that, if I understand rightly, the Member States' environment ministers are not exclusively but, rather, primarily and also liberal Social Democrats and members of our family of parties. To be sure, we often have to criticise and improve what the Council submits to us but, in view of this political constellation, it is somewhat problematic to say that it is all nonsense. Despite our criticisms, we have to improve on the Council's proposal without completely rejecting it. In particular, I would call upon us to produce some stringent wording concerning subsidies that have harmful effects on the environment. The Council's wording strikes me as too weak. I believe that, whenever it is said that the protection of the environment costs money, one has first to bear in mind that, of course, the destruction of the environment and its consequences cost money, and that it is even worse when the destruction of the environment is being subsidised – in other words, when money is being paid out for it. There are possibilities there for very effective savings. I therefore emphatically support the idea of reducing subsidies. The Committee has now decided on 2005 as a deadline. A lot of people have problems with that, and not only in our group. That is why there are various proposals for compromise. I believe, though, that we must, whatever happens, agree on an amendment that is more stringent than what the Council has decided on. We should also not put other economic instruments, such as a fiscal reform, to one side, but should follow them through at a European level.

Political group: PPE-DE