GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, my heartfelt thanks to the two rapporteurs. The amendments improve the common position, but, as far as I am concerned, it is not necessary to wrap the pharmaceutical industry up in cotton wool any longer or any more. At the start of the second reading, I put a number of questions regarding the new Member States on the table. I shall not pursue these, as I fully agree with what my colleagues Mr Blokland and Mrs Jackson have said on this subject. The second point is much more fundamental and concerns the manufacture of medicinal products for developing countries that are undergoing a serious health crisis. In early December it became known that AIDS has claimed five million lives over the last five years. This is a serious situation, but there is hope. On 30 August, on the eve of the WTO Conference in Cancun, the United States, the EU and developing countries came to an agreement speeding up the enablement of the manufacture of generic medicinal products for developing countries. It was not an enormous agreement, but it was a start nevertheless. However, we must now put that into practice. I cannot understand why the Council, the Commission and some fellow MEPs are not prepared to do what the European Union decided before the Cancun Conference. The Commission seems to be of the opinion that this matter belongs with the Community patent and national patents legislation. That does not seem to me to be an acceptable stance, because we do have data protection. That is exactly what this legislation is about. A minute ago, Commissioner, you asked me to name a specific medicinal product that cannot now be manufactured on account of data protection, and AZT is such a medicinal product. Now, as it was at first reading, Parliament is prepared to get involved, and several resolutions have been adopted, for example the report by Mrs Sandbæk from the Committee on Development and Cooperation, which unanimously called for the Doha agreement to be implemented in this legislation. Finally, I have two questions for you, Commissioner. Firstly, you have just said that you are prepared to introduce, in the near future, the legislative measures enabling the implementation of the decision of 30 August. When can we expect a proposal from you, and is it possible that that will take place in January? Secondly, I am assuming that products manufactured in the European Union are always authorised in the EU. Are you now stating that the data protection in this legislation does not constitute the slightest obstacle to the manufacture of generic medicinal products for developing countries by European undertakings? If not, are you prepared to amend this legislation again if necessary?

Political group: PSE
The draft constitution, like many national constitutions, is full of fine rhetoric on such things as a high level of environmental protection, with a few points that sound social, and the rejection of capital punishment or discrimination, but this is not why this text was initially conceived. The really tough points are the confirmation of the Council’s power, which hinders parliamentary democracy, the integration of the whole of the EU into NATO and the establishment of the capitalist character of the EU economy. Soon, there will be no more room for a militarily neutral position outside of NATO, as has so far been adopted by Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Austria, Cyprus and Malta. It is not only about defending each other’s territory against outside attackers together, but also about being able to intervene in defence of our own interests outside of NATO’s and the EU’s territories. The constitution also protects freedom of enterprise and ‘free and pure competition’. In neo-liberal Europe, public utility companies in the areas of public transport, postal services, energy and telecommunications are no longer considered to be vital community tasks but are contracted out to profit-seekers. In this way, this constitution will resemble that of Cuba or the former Soviet Union, which also wanted to lay down the form of their economy and protect it from democratic decisions about change. If Europe is to have a constitution, then this is the wrong text. There needs to be a referendum on this subject in every Member State.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, taking account of the statements made by Commissioner Fischler, we seemed to have reached the end of a process that has been dragging on since November 1999, with damaging socio-economic consequences for the Community fleet operating in that area and for the fishing communities that have traditionally depended on those fishing grounds. The question I would like to put is whether it is still possible to begin the negotiation of a new fisheries agreement with Morocco, with acceptable conditions. The Moroccan proposals on reformulating the previous agreement were unacceptable and some people in the sector even wondered whether a bad agreement was really better than no agreement. In any event, as a result, Portugal now has around 30 boats and over 600 fishermen without any visible future. In addition to extending aid, it is becoming crucial that the European Union guarantees compensation support for the fleet, to the fishermen and the areas affected, by supporting a programme of converting the boats that fished in Moroccan waters, guaranteeing the relocation to other fishing grounds covered by Community fisheries agreements and, of course, by considering changing the common fisheries policy.

Political group: GUE-NGL
This is the key ideological struggle for Europe facing us. This debate, I think, has summed it up. The key political divide has been very obviously stated this evening, and it is no surprise that this issue has polarised the debate in a House which is known for its consensus and its carve-out politics, and I am delighted to see this difference of opinion made so clear, because this report is a radical one. This report is a wake-up call to Europe. This report recommends radical measures, which in essence will make it easier to employ people. It is as simple as that. The reason why we have such crippling unemployment rates in Europe is that it is too difficult in many cases to employ people because of the red tape and the regulation and the inflexibility of the labour markets. This is the only way to go forward, because the real way to deliver social justice in Europe – and after all that is what we are all here to do – is to deliver prosperity and opportunities and jobs. This report signals very clearly the most effective way to do that, because Europe has to wake up. It cannot create jobs just by government spending. It cannot create jobs by legislating to cut working hours, as if jobs were a cake that you carve up and divide between people. The real world simply does not work like that. And if Europe wants to be left behind, left behind to stagnation and to unemployment and to statism and to corporatism, than yes, vote against this report tomorrow. But if you want Europe to go forward and to start delivering to the people of Europe, then I would call upon you all to give your support to this report, because it will deliver those jobs, and it will deliver those opportunities, and it is the only way to do so.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should just like to speak about the draft extradition agreement between the European Union and the United States. On 7 December 2000, at Nice, we signed, proclaimed and upheld the Charter of European Citizens’ Rights. It is very clearly stated in Article 2, under the heading of dignity, that nobody may be condemned to death or be executed; the Charter thus makes a clear distinction between the two things and states that, for us European citizens, a prohibition on being executed is not enough and a prohibition on being condemned to death is also necessary. Well, we are committing ourselves to cooperation with the United States, which has kept the death penalty, condemns people to death and applies the death penalty, has a justice system that uses military courts, and detains thousands of Arabs without charge and without defence. We are about to vote on a joint resolution with the other groups – we, of course, will vote against it – stating that extradition may be granted provided the United States guarantees that the death penalty will not be applied; that means that the United States courts may issue capital sentences provided they then refrain from applying them, and all that in spite of the Charter of civil, human and fundamental rights that we have been highlighting so much recently. We are opening up an enormous breach in our defences against the death penalty. Friends from the People’s Party, s, British Liberals, take care! We are saying we can extradite our citizens to be condemned to death in the United States even if that country then undertakes not to apply the sentence! It is a complete break with our tradition; it is a complete break with our commitment! Today, we heard Commissioner Vitorino give a speech full of references to our values and our principles. What, then, are our values and principles? Extradition to a country that will condemn European citizens to death? I appeal to your feelings, but also to your moral integrity. We must vote against this resolution!

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, one cannot fail to notice the confusion – we hope not deliberate confusion – in the report by the Committee on the Environment, which is turning the campaign against smoking into a campaign against tobacco producers. We do not dispute the fact that smoking damages your health and we therefore agree with the spirit of the directive proposed by the European Commission. However, we must not forget that very little, in fact just under 30%, of the tobacco consumed in the European Union is produced in the European Union. Most of it is imported. Consequently, measures to reduce tobacco production will do nothing to reduce consumption; they will merely boost imports. We need to take measures against imports and, once consumption has fallen to production levels, we shall have no objection to discussing production cut-backs. I should like to concentrate on three separate points: first, we are categorically opposed to Amendment No 17 by the Committee on the Environment, which recommends a gradual reduction in production aids for tobacco. This would spell financial disaster for hundreds of thousands of tobacco producers in Greece and other southern countries of the European Union, at no benefit to public health, for the reasons already stated. Secondly, we are also categorically opposed to Amendment No 21 in the report, which abolishes the European Commission’s proposal to extend the date of application for tar yields by Greece to the end of 2006. This extension was proposed because of the special nature of certain varieties of tobacco cultivated in Greece and abolishing it will hit tobacco production in Greece extremely hard. Thirdly, we agree with the view that reductions in the amounts of harmful substances should apply both to cigarettes consumed in the European Union and to cigarettes produced for export. It would be absurd to maintain that people from countries outside the European Union have greater resistance to harmful substances.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I must say that, listening to them, I increasingly admire our Austrian fellow Members of all political persuasions. I admire their tenacity, and their rhetorical ability in presenting the unpresentable, alas. I refer to a battle – the reasons for which I understand – which is entirely national, and has nothing to do with Europe, which on the other hand, a battle for the protection of the environment, for the protection of Europe does. Mr Swoboda, you asked what we should make a priority. I think we should give priority to the credibility of the European Union, to the fact that, when we go to our countries and talk to our citizens, perhaps asking them for sacrifices in various sectors, we need to be able to say that we are asking for these sacrifices because there is a higher common good, called Europe, called a community of rights, called freedom of movement, freedom of trade and the whole series of common values that we are putting in place. If, however, we cannot go with this peace of mind and must then tell our fellow citizens that in Europe some are in Division One, and some are in Division Two, then it all gets difficult and it is the credibility of the European institution which will collapse. The problem of living in a healthy, compatible environment is shared by all the citizens of Europe, not just Austrian citizens. I too regret that the level of emissions is unacceptable, but I do not understand why it should be excellent for Austrian citizens, when the problem appears to be completely irrelevant for other citizens. So, my friends, Mrs De Palacio, I do not want there to be any misunderstandings over one point: we have been fast at second reading not just because we want to go to conciliation quickly – although this was one reason too, of course – but because Parliament and the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism are happy with the first reading: we have nothing to change; that is our proposal – which is already a compromise proposal – and the sooner the Council realises this, the sooner we will, perhaps, manage to reach a practicable result. Nobody is labouring under the illusion that we can move a long way from that proposal: we cannot move away from it at all. It must be clear that the scheme will end, that the derogations will end, that the rule of law will be restored, after which we will seek for the whole Alpine region, for both sides of the Alps, to establish the precautions which will take us to 2006 by cutting emissions, because this is what we all want, but no one must be under the illusion that we can make anything other than a very few changes. I wanted to say this, not because the Commission, from this point of view, is not well aware of all this, but because it seems that at times the Council was not. I therefore hope that conciliation will offer us deadlines for a rapid end to an affair which we all, I repeat, want to bring to a close, but in accordance with Community law.

Political group: PPE-DE
I wish to thank the Commissioner for that very full answer and, in particular, for the last part where he indicates that the Commission is looking at speeding up and, where possible, giving fast-track approval for state aids. However, in some Member States there is still a serious problem created by delays in decision-taking on state aids. I am convinced that some jobs have been lost because waiting for the decision on state aid has meant that a company has gone out of business in the end because it did not have the approval in time. In terms of the delay, is the Commission of the opinion that the reorganisation that is currently going on will provide new resources and assistance to him in his attempts to speed up the processing of state aids, or does the problem lie, as he partly indicated, with the Member States in the inadequate information provided by some of them when they make an application?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should just like to endorse what other people have said about giving the Sakharov Prize to Mr Gusmão. I should also like to remind Members of this House that what has happened in East Timor after the referendum is something we should look at. We have just discussed Morocco, and the Western Sahara was mentioned. A referendum will be taking place there. The European Union needs to be extremely diligent to ensure the same fate does not befall the people who go out and vote. We need to see that a fair and democratic procedure takes place in Western Sahara, that people have the right to vote freely. We hope that what happened in East Timor, after the UN persuaded the people to go out and exercise their right to vote and they were subsequently persecuted and murdered by the Indonesians, will not happen when the people in Western Sahara vote. The European Union needs to address this issue. We are delighted that Mr Gusmão has received this award. He deserves it and the people of East Timor deserve it. They deserve their independence, their freedom and the right to live in peace.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the open market, the free internal market, is one of our European Union's greatest achievements. However, it is also one of the most difficult chapters, as open market access must not distort competition. We need harmonisation of the marketing conditions in the Member States. This sounds quite simple at first, but it is actually extremely complicated, not only because there is a large number of products to regulate, but also because we must focus on upholding the same conditions as regards cultivation, care, and not least, quality definition. For twenty-five years, comparative tests have been carried out in the Community on the basis of relevant legal provisions. I myself was a rapporteur on the amendment of Directive 68/193/EEC on the marketing of material for the vegetative propagation of the vine. The report was adopted by Parliament on 24 October 2000, and today, two and a half years later, the Commission is still only at the stage of discussing the contents of Annexes I to IV. With the tighter provisions envisaged here, I see a risk that the report's intention, namely to simplify, will be pursued ad absurdum. The virus tests which are called for, for example, would result in very high costs, which could lead to a reduction of clones and thus a depletion of genetic resources. This clearly conflicts with the Directive, whose content aims, in the long term, to abolish standard material while maintaining genetic diversity. I therefore ask the Commission this: firstly, why is the work here progressing so slowly? Secondly, can the Standing Committee on Seeds really amend a Commission proposal – one that Parliament supports – so radically? The resultant question for all of us is how effective our cooperation is. Today, however, we are discussing the financial contributions made by the Community for the comparative tests. I support the Commission's proposal to create a clear financial basis for this support.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, this is the second reading of a very important legislative measure on specifications for the quality and safety of human tissues and cells for use in transplants, the priority objective of which is to provide a very high level of protection for human health. It is a fact that tissues and cells help on a daily basis to restore health, which is why we need to lay down a specific European framework which will guarantee supply and sufficiency and, at the same time, safeguard the physical integrity of those who receive them, of the recipients. The demand for tissues and cells in Europe is far greater than the supply; thus the imports necessarily being made from third countries must respect the same legislative framework, because this is the only way to prevent the illegal trade. As regards the codes of conduct with which we are so preoccupied, everyone agrees that the new technologies must respect human dignity and the non-commercialisation of the human body. At the same time, human tissue and cell donations must be based on the free will of the donor, not the fee. The human body, as has been emphasised on numerous occasions, is inviolable and inalienable and must not therefore be turned into a source of financial gain. The compromise reached during negotiations satisfactorily covers the above principles. The addendum, whereby donors may receive compensation which is severely restricted to compensating the expenses and procedure connected with the donation, does not violate the principle of voluntary donation and allows the Member States to lay down the preconditions under which compensation may be granted. It is also a good thing that under this directive, as with blood, the data needed to ensure traceability at all stages are kept for at least thirty years after clinical use. Full and in-depth information for the donor, from a trained person, on the purpose, nature, consequences and risks involved in the donation is a necessary precondition to free consent. Protection of the donor's details and medical secrecy are, I think, satisfactorily protected by the corresponding points in the annex. I should like to mention that, even if the package of compromise amendments does not include other important points approved by the relevant committee of the European Union, I shall ultimately agree, considering that the priority is to get the present directive applied as quickly as possible. Of course we are waiting directly for the Commission proposal on the preconditions for organ transplants, as you yourself promised us Commissioner. Allow me to conclude by thanking and congratulating the rapporteur, Mr Peter Liese, on his work and on the huge effort which he made for the procedure to be concluded as quickly as possible.

Political group: PSE
Briefly, I would like to have it put on record that our Group has rejected the Newton Dunn report on account of the fact we did not agree with the legal basis to this report. What we have here is a classic ruling on the establishment of a process in one of the various pillars of our Treaty principles. Mr Newton Dunn chose the first pillar whereas we were of the opinion that the procedure should be left in the third pillar. The reason for this is that in the third pillar the group of offenders who are guilty of counterfeiting travel documents is more wide-ranging than in the first pillar where Mr Newton Dunn had established it, where the focus is exclusively on the tracking of the counterfeiting of documents for illegal immigrants. That may be appropriate from the ideological viewpoint but is politically wrong because someone who, as a drugs dealer, counterfeits documents must also be criminally prosecuted. In this respect, we did not want to vote against Mr Newton Dunn’s practical proposals with regard to the combating of document counterfeiting – which we support – as far as we are concerned it is exclusively a matter of the legal basis. Thank you for your attention. I would also like to thank Messrs Poettering and Pirker for their attention.

Political group: PSE