GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, it is a pleasure for me to be able to catch your eye. I have just one question for the Commissioners. Do you not think that there is a certain contradiction inherent in the recommendations? If you are in favour of more incentives for research in order to get better medicines to the patients more quickly, and if all the G10 countries have said so too, then why does it appear from the policy agreement on the pharmaceuticals package as if the provision being made for data protection, as regards the creation of a return on innovations, is insufficiently long-term, so that research is not being driven forward? Do you not also think that the safest and best way of providing patients quickly with better medicines would, in principle, be a fast and simple central procedure, and that it would be better if the Commission and the Member States were to hand out more money for research projects and at last get round to submitting the new legislation on children’s medicines to Parliament? That would enable us to do something more quickly about getting people better medicines.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, many thanks for allowing me to continue this morning’s debate. The Socialist Group has a need to recognise for itself that Europe’s position on the world stage has undergone a dramatic change since the fall of the Berlin Wall, when traditionally, foreign policy was adopted by national states which continue to play a major role, of course. We also noticed that our own governments often thwarted each other in their efforts to adopt effective external policy. We are now in a position where we can gradually see these governments taking joint steps and the European Union setting up a growing common foreign policy. And in our view, and this was also explained very clearly by Mr Patten, with regard to those external actions, “foreign policy” involves more than traditional foreign diplomacy as we knew it but also touches upon concepts such as security – and embraces a much wider concept of security – the environment, conflict prevention, trade and relations in all kinds of areas. It encompasses development cooperation and naturally the traditional tools of foreign policy. This has culminated in an enriched foreign policy for the EU and has also resulted in the integration of the Commissioner for External Relations, Mr CFSP, Mr Solana, and the Council who all have a particular role to fulfil. It is unfortunate that Mr Solana was unable to be here to make a contribution of this kind. We would actually like to emphasise that there are three priorities for which we need to find a balance simultaneously. Firstly, of direct concern are our neighbours, in other words eastward enlargement. Our second priority is the strategic aspect within MEDA. This is the second area which touches upon traditional relations within NATO, the G7 and the other contexts within which we cooperate with America and the other traditional partners. The third priority is easily forgotten but in our eyes essential, namely that of Europe as the bearer of values in the world, or, in other words ‘a global player in a global village’. In this respect, it is essential to regard the fight against poverty as a key contribution in our policy, rather than according it a minor position within foreign policy. Mr Patten, Mr Nielson, ladies and gentlemen, and the Commissioner for External Relations, you could, in fact, extract new value, new quality and effectiveness from this, working in tandem with Parliament. We very much regret the fact that heading 4, the role of our Parliament and the tasks which we actually have to fulfil in the process are still being sidelined to such a degree. All too often, we find that the Council follows its own line of thought and this is no longer the way in which we can market modern foreign policy which covers a wide range of issues. We therefore hope that we can once again drive our message home. We hope that this new policy takes account of the budget and can be accompanied by an involved and powerful European Parliament that can have its say and is taken entirely seriously. We would welcome a positive response from the Council and Commission with regard to this new policy in these matters too.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I have to say, with regard to the Gebhardt report, that I could not prevent myself dreaming of Mr Antonio Di Pietro, our fellow Member, who is well-known in Italy and throughout Europe in circles where judicial networks are a topic of conversation. On the subject of networks, I dreamt that Mr Di Pietro was a fisherman and that he was casting nets from his boat. However, the net he was casting was a judicial net and it caught a lot of big fish, but the small fish managed to escape because, as you know, they want to become pensioners. Well then, in my opinion, this dream means that we will have an excellent catch of European criminals in this judicial network, as I saw in my dream.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner – or should I refer to you, Commissioner Lamy, as the number one negotiator at the WTO talks? – the United States has shown that it was not capable of assuming the leading role at the WTO negotiations. Europe is the biggest exporter in the world – around 22% of exports traded on the world market come from Europe. For us this means that we have a clear responsibility to take the lead on world trade. It is said that without trade there is no prosperity. To combat world poverty is a genuine and honourable undertaking. At the end of the day, trade is a source of wealth. One of our major aims in WTO negotiations is, ultimately, also to guarantee good health into old age. Health is not unrelated to the life sciences and biotechnology. I believe that we should not shy away from a debate in this sector; we should not be too cowardly also to discuss the advantages of biotechnology and the life sciences in the WTO context. We should state clearly what is of use to us and what is damaging. We should fight against those things which are damaging, but we should also give unambiguous support to those things which are of use to us. Some organisational aspects also need to be contended. We need framework rules which do not accord preferential treatment to one side. The reform also needs to incorporate a change at ministerial level. In the light of the principle of unanimity, we need perhaps a round of the M7 – the seven most important importing and exporting countries – so that they can sit down together and reach a preliminary decision. We need a round of parliamentarians, perhaps with a majority voting system, and thirdly we need the non-governmental organisations, who ought to play a leading advisory role in particular in the social dialogue with the Economic and Social Committee. Mr Lamy, I am glad that you are taking on the position of leader. Make it clear that Europe is the number one player in world trade!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the rapporteur has been kind enough to speak positively of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, including in the report he has prepared. In the Committee on Legal Affairs we have taken a generally very positive view of the Commission’s proposal. I believe that the Commission is doing great work in updating and harmonising Community law in this area. I also believe that the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs has done great work, led by its rapporteur, by integrating and trying to modernise the new law. The report raises an important issue, which is the updating of the current asylum system and the whole immigration system. From the point of view of international law, following the First World War a series of international conventions were adopted with a view to regulating this area, based on what we might call principles of the right to individual protection in the face of political persecution of a specifically European nature. At the moment a radical transformation is taking place of the whole problem of international migration, in the sense that, as well as real political asylum, we are also seeing economic asylum. This is leading to great movements of people for which we probably do not have appropriate legal instruments. This morning, in the speech by Mr Nogueira and the last speech by Mr Volcic, reference has been made to the tragedy that took place yesterday on the island of Lanzarote, in which, once again, eleven immigrants drowned trying to reach our continent, the European Union. It is clear that there is no easy solution to this within the traditional exercise of the right to asylum because, even if we had more liberal and comprehensive legislation in this area, we could not prevent these people from leaving their countries nor offer sufficient guarantees so that they could reach their destination without endangering their lives. We are therefore facing a new phenomenon. I will repeat that, from the point of view of the Committee on Legal Affairs, the proposal represents enormous progress, but the Commission and the other European institutions will probably have to find a way to regulate the whole problem of asylum given the new dimension created by the enormous economic phenomenon of international migration linked perhaps to the process of international globalisation.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I should like to thank the Commissioner warmly for his explanation and particularly for the fact that he managed to adhere to the agreed deadlines. That is a major achievement. I should also like to ask him if he could answer the questions put to him by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy as soon as possible. That will, in turn, enable us to adhere to the deadlines, which is very important in my opinion. I have two explicit questions to put to the Commissioner. Firstly, in the specific programme, the most important research, and thus the money, is earmarked for the human genome and biotechnology. This may be a major area of research, but the results will only become evident over a ten- to fifteen-year period. At present, many EU citizens still die, unfortunately, of the three well-known diseases, namely cancer, heart and vascular diseases, and signs of ageing, such as Alzheimer’s. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has expressed a growing need for a separate life-science programme within the context of the human genome and biotechnology. I should like to find out from the Commissioner whether he would be prepared to help us think about setting up a programme of this kind. My second question to the Commissioner is of a technical nature: the Commissioner delivered a comprehensive explanation with regard to Article 169 of the Treaty. Why does he not apply Article 168 of the Treaty? Surely that would be a far more practical approach.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is very easy to feel powerless faced with the asylum situation we have in Europe. It is easy to feel powerless faced with the fact that so many people need this protection, but also faced with the inability we have in many quarters to integrate asylum seekers and immigrants into our Member States. That is a very important question, and I therefore wish to begin by thanking my colleague, Mr Marinho, for all the work he has put into this report. I also wish, of course, to thank the Commission for its proposal. I want to emphasise what Mr Marinho said about how important it is for the Member States to take this issue seriously now and to exchange words for action. The proposal concerning responsibility for asylum applications is a small, but very important, step in developing a common asylum policy in the EU. In spite of the Schengen Agreement and the removal of borders within this area, there are big differences between the Member States when it comes to the ways in which refugees are received and to asylum seekers’ ability to obtain residence documents. It is therefore especially important to asylum seekers themselves that there should be a shared approach to receiving refugees and to processing applications. It is therefore gratifying that the EU can now go a step further than the Dublin Convention did. Shorter processing times reduce the risk of lengthy waiting periods, with all that these entail in terms of uncertainty for asylum seekers. The proposals for strengthening the rights of children when it comes to their own families are especially important. Children who are left alone to flee from war and oppression must receive all the support we can give them. An important contribution to this is the extended concept of the family which we now have the opportunity to take a decision on. Finally, I want to point out that it is important that we have respect for the choices people make as to their family circumstances so that, in this area too, we try to put different forms of partnership and cohabiting on an equal footing.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it is important that the guidelines head in the right direction and that they guarantee the effectiveness of the programmes of the crucial seven-year period 2000-2006 so as to ensure sustainable development and job creation, particularly for women and young people, and ensure a balance is struck between economic and social policy and regional policy. It is particularly important to address those serious issues concerning urban areas, employment in rural areas, aid to agricultural regions and equal development opportunities for the islands of the European Union and for the Greek islands which, of course, comprise half of the islands of the Union, as stipulated in Article 158 of the Treaty. Cohesion policy needs to be strengthened further because a Europe which totally disregards the standard of living in its regions can neither be reliable or viable.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Amendments Nos 1 and 10, which were adopted by a majority of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, relate to a ban on the use of catering waste for feeding and to its disposal and use. The rapporteur has now tabled Amendment No 25, which is a compromise amendment. However, with one exception, these amendments are mutually compatible. The problem is that they refer to different dates. The amendments adopted by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy refer to 30 June 2002. Mrs Paulsen's Amendment No 25 says 'before the entry into force of this regulation', and that is what we are voting on now. I would like to table an oral amendment to the effect that in the two amendments adopted by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy the date should be changed to 'before the entry into force of this regulation'. Yesterday, the Commission said that it would not take on board either Amendments Nos 1 and 10 or Amendment No 25. So there will be a clash between us anyway, and that is why it is important for us to vote on all three amendments in this way. However, even if this oral amendment is defeated by the required majority – and I am saying this now so that I do not have to speak again later on – we can still vote on these amendments, because this date does not tie the Commission's hands. It has the right of initiative and can decide anyway. It is simply a recommendation, and if that does not go through, then I am in favour of us still adopting all three amendments.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, in these circumstances, I must put to you a personal question. But if you voted on this then I will not put the question. Did you vote on this matter?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as the President pointed out in his introduction, it has taken five years for the basis of the October 1995 report to evolve into the report we are dealing with now. This can be attributed to the fact that the market development of digital television has been much slower than anticipated. However, digital television has become increasingly important over the last few months and years, in the wake of media convergence. The Internet and home banking via digital television are examples of how the range of services has widened. This report will form the basis of a draft directive. Our group has two demands to make of the framework regulation for digital TV. Firstly, the framework must not restrict the meteoric technological development in this sector, and it must not be too rigid. Secondly, the framework must, however, safeguard the European internal market and consumer interests. We want to, and must, work within these two parameters. This entails the following: firstly, the transmission obligations are still an important means of meeting social requirements, for example minority language programmes or the important role of the public broadcasting sector. Secondly, there is the interoperability of the access systems to digital TV at subscriber level, as mentioned by the previous speaker Mr van Velzen. It is unacceptable for subscribers to need several receptor boxes in order to receive programmes. It should be one box per subscriber and no more. Thirdly, technical interoperability must not be compromised or undermined on account of national monopoly formation or abuse of a dominant position. As I see it, our aim is to create a European internal market, promote technical development and bring about television without frontiers – something the two previous speakers touched on – and that includes making sure that in future, citizens of other countries who are resident in the European Union are able to receive their pay TV services. I am delighted with the report by Mrs Thors. We adopted a very well balanced report in committee. Unfortunately, I am unable to endorse the two proposed amendments tabled by Mrs Thors, on behalf of our group, for the same reasons advanced by Mr van Velzen. We intend to vote against both proposed amendments. Apart from that, we congratulate you on this report and hope that in the course of the next few days and weeks, the Commission will present a sound basis for a directive.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am content with that, but they are on different points. The other two amendments make this observation: there are exactly 15 Member States in the Union at the moment and that is not disputed. Whether there are more nations is a different question. However, in a spirit of goodwill I withdraw these amendments as well.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, a common foreign, security and defence policy has recently developed in the European Union which would probably have been unthinkable a few years ago. It has come about because two main groups of members in the European Union have shifted their position: those who believed that NATO alone was responsible for security and defence, and those who believed that security and defence were not a Community affair and should be dealt with by individual states either neutrally or within a pact. I think that what is happening today is a positive sign of community and solidarity. I also think that, in the final analysis, Article 5, which has been quoted several times today, should represent the common basis for all members of the European Union, even if this can only be achieved gradually. Kosovo has been mentioned several times today. I think that too one-sided a view is sometimes taken of the lessons to come out of Kosovo and the Balkans. In fact, four issues are at stake. First, prevention, of which there was practically none whatsoever in the case of Kosovo. Secondly, deterrence, of which there was certainly too little in the case of Kosovo, because no common will was visible. Thirdly, the facility for rapid, targeted intervention. This functioned perhaps to a certain extent, although the fight about what constitutes the optimum form of intervention blocked a great deal. And fourthly, the restoration and stabilisation of peace, including after military intervention. Developments over the past few days show that it is not as easy as you might think. I am particularly thankful that the question of the police and security forces in Kosovo has been raised several times today, because it is essential to establish security by strengthening the presence of police troops. There is also the question of developing a system of regional responsibility in Europe which does not fly in the face of the United Nations system, as has been maintained time and again, but which, on the contrary, can be incorporated into the United Nations system and into the ideas of the United Nations. Finally, Commissioner Patten has said that we do not necessarily need institutional revolution, perhaps just reforms. But we should try for institutional revolution. As far as the institutions to be set up in the near future referred to today are concerned, I am afraid that we will paint ourselves into a corner. We should not allow too many institutions to exist and the integration of the WEU and the EU forms part of this philosophy. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Bosnia and Kosovo have shaken Europe. At long last, the European Union realises that it cannot afford to always give the Americans the political and military initiative. The decision to set up our own peace force is excellent. However, if Europe wants to take military action at crucial times, the Treaty must include a flexibility clause. Mr Solana can play an important role in this. He is not stupid. Certainly not! He is a driven man, a competent man. But the question remains as to whether this accumulation of responsibilities exceeds even his level of competence. In addition to being Secretary-General of the Council, Mr Solana is also Secretary-General of the WEU, as well as High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy. He also heads the Unity Policy Planning and the New Early Warning Unit. One wonders whether he gets any time to sleep, Mr President. From a democratic point of view, I actually find this accumulation of responsibilities unacceptable. This is exacerbated by the fact that Mr Solana is, of course, not a democratically elected politician, but a high official who is not accountable to any parliament. His position threatens to eclipse that of Commissioner Patten, as has been illustrated again today, in fact. It appears that, as European security and defence policy takes shape, the Commission and Parliament are increasingly being left out in the cold. This too is unacceptable in my view. Naturally, every attempt should be made to make European policy more efficient, but this should not lead to unwished-for concentrations of power. Mr Solana must keep Europe awake without nodding off himself.

Political group: ELDR