GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, the Rübig report does not pose any problems. It proposes adjusting the financial measures for companies and modifying the multi-annual programme for enterprise and entrepreneurship for which I was rapporteur. I hope that this report finally marks the will of the Commission to take into account the needs of SMEs for risk capital, start-up aid and transfer of business, as you said, Commissioner. All of these programmes are still insufficient to achieve the Lisbon objectives, which are nevertheless reaffirmed each year at the Spring Summit. I will not elaborate further. As this is, however, our last sitting and I will undoubtedly not be in the next Parliament, unfortunately, I would like to emphatically state again what my colleagues in the Group of the European People’s Party in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and I have always advocated. First of all, I hope that the European Charter for small enterprises will finally have legal status. Our companies need it to be implemented, as was stated at the Barcelona Summit. What is the Commission’s opinion, Commissioner? Secondly, our companies, both small and medium-sized, and whatever their sector, innovative, traditional or small-scale, need access to the research and development programmes. This is not an option, but an obligation in order for them to remain competitive, dynamic and effective, as you just said, Commissioner. Finally, these companies need advice, cooperation and dialogue. There are professional organisations that support these small and medium-sized enterprises. Does the Commission intend to consider them as genuine partners when drawing up new programmes? This is how our companies will be able to respond to the challenge of growth and employment, our young people will be able to take on the culture and spirit of enterprise and Europe, finally reunified, will be the most dynamic area in the world so that every citizen can find their place in it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would, on behalf of the Group of the , like to thank the Commission and the Council for the EU’s Northern Dimension having become an ongoing and consistent part of European Union policy. Its continuity is demonstrated by the fact that we are discussing the Second Action Plan. The Northern Dimension, however, as was said earlier on, has been criticised as being shapeless and accused of lacking in anything concrete. This forthcoming programme for the period 2002 – 2006 will hopefully eliminate these problems. The programme promises to put in place a coherent operational framework for all Northern Dimension policy by creating strategic objectives and priorities. The Northern Dimension will not acquire sufficient credibility until it helps to improve the life of people in the EU’s northern regions and those areas bordering on them. This means developing the economy by exploiting the potential offered by trade and the sustainable use of natural resources. In northern regions environmental questions are also vitally important. After enlargement the Baltic will become an internal sea of the EU, and its protection will require swift action not only in the European Union but also in Russia. It is good news that the Russian Prime Minister on his visit to Finland this week gave his support to European Union efforts to discontinue the use in the Baltic Sea of single-hulled oil tankers. Environmental cooperation must be continued in order to improve nuclear safety, and wildlife in the Arctic also calls for special attention. Plans and agreements made in the area of health and social protection must also be turned into projects of concrete cooperation. The New Neighbours initiative, which was being discussed here just a short while ago, will give strength to the EU’s Northern Dimension. Added value will be afforded in particular by the new financial instrument proposed in it which, for example, will reduce bureaucracy in border cooperation. The Northern Dimension nevertheless also needs sufficient new financial resources for it to be implemented.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Perry has earned our gratitude by presenting a report demonstrating a very forward-looking perspective, and in which he has not left out the areas of conflict that undeniably exist in a dual system in which public and commercial service providers square up to each other and fight over a market comprising 155 million households in the present European Union of fifteen Member States, a figure that will further increase. There is no doubt that the directive will have to be revised if its objectives for the future are to be achieved. My Group takes the view that the Commission is too hesitant in this respect. What is in fact at stake is the safeguarding of cultural diversity, a wide range of opinions and pluralism. Whilst democratic opinion today is, in essence, shaped by television, this is no longer only the traditional television with analogue transmission. More and more, we have digitalisation to cope with. I was recently at the International Broadcasting Exhibition in Berlin, where I could see very well how consumer habits in this area are changing, and that nowadays the technical means of transmission can no longer be decisive when it comes to deciding which is the right way to draft laws for a media service. It must also be clear, however, that we need to establish a system of graduated regulation, and this is where there will be new demands placed on future legislation. Not every media service is of major importance in publicity terms, so the determinative criterion for the future must be the extent to which a media service is useful for publicity purposes and in what sense it is not. If I might put it rather loosely, it is on that basis that legislation can be drafted with varying degrees of rigour. Much will also be demanded of the rules that will have to be laid down, not only, to be sure, under the television directive, but also in parallel with it, in order to counteract the accumulation of economic power, which becomes media power and, eventually, also political power. We are dealing here with a development that makes it plain that bounds must be set at European level to contain media concentration, which does indeed endanger pluralism. As we can see from the example of Italy, national legal resources are not, in any case, sufficient.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mrs de Palacio has demonstrated her legal and political skills and struck the right balance. My congratulations. A Europe of free competition, especially in today's age of knowledge and innovation, needs a Community patent if it is to thrive. Even though we all recognise this, the way in which opposing views have been expressed in the past reveals something which we would do well to take onboard: the huge problem of reconciling straightforward national interests with straightforward Community interests which, in the final analysis, are supposed to serve the individual national interests. The first attempt to grant a European patent was under the Munich Convention. However, once it had been granted, it became national law subject to national provisions. Today we are trying to communitise the European patent following the failure of the endeavour made in the Luxembourg Convention. I should like to raise three issues. Τhe first is language. Everything has been said and a compromise has, I think, been reached. However, it would be helpful if at least all the claims in a European patent were translated into every language. This would reduce the cost of granting a patent considerably, compared with the cost of a European patent applicable in 15 countries. As far as the main offices are concerned, the idea of giving the European Patent Office a central role, with some of its work delegated to the national offices, is a good idea. This would combine the advantages of a strong European patent organisation with the de facto strengths of the national agencies by reason of their geographical proximity, knowledge of local conditions, knowledge of the local language and facility to mediate between the public and private sectors. Close contacts with national patent authorities are of crucial importance for the purpose of information, public support and the dissemination of the information technology contained in patents. They will also make it easier for small and medium-sized enterprises to access centralised information. I think that, if we can agree on this basic position, we can also agree on the type of work which could be delegated to the national offices. Finally, jurisdiction. The proposed solution, that is, that the patent courts in the Member States should have jurisdiction at first instance, without discrimination, with the Community intellectual property court ruling at appeal, is a happy compromise between centripetal and centrifugal tendencies and will guarantee easy access to the courts, swift justice and affordable appeals, making innovation easier for small and medium-sized enterprises and hence fitting in with European employment policy in general.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, allow me to make it clear from the outset that the Group of the is very concerned about the socio-economic crisis within the white fish sector and that we are also in favour of providing financial compensation to those fishermen affected by necessary measures to save and conserve the cod stocks. This crisis must not prevent us from taking necessary measures to conserve the white fish and cod stocks in the long term, and item 2 of the resolution is therefore very important. In this, the European Parliament calls upon the Commission and the Council to ensure that changes to the measures taken to conserve cod stocks are made in such a way as not to lead to a further reduction in cod stocks but, rather, to maximise their chances of recovery. The have also tabled a new amendment in which we ask the Commission and the Council to take account of the fact that ISIS researchers believe that many cod stocks in EU waters are now down to a critically low level. I do not believe that any of the laboured arguments we have heard in Parliament are of any help. Clearly, it is the fishing effort that matters. New test trawls on Sweden’s west coast also show that cod stocks are at their lowest level for 23 years and that the number of one year-old fish of this species amounts to only a tenth of the number a year ago. This is worse than we thought. It is therefore also an unprecedented scandal that the EU is preventing us from calling a halt to cod fishing in these waters, which we would do by means of a moratorium. That this is a disaster is a matter of actual fact. We have our hands tied, which is enormously frustrating. I really want to question the way in which the Commission is acting in this matter.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, on the Galileo project I would like to seek some clarification from the Commission and the Council on important issues which need to be addressed before the definitive phase of the project can be approved. The Memorandum of Understanding signalling the provisional funding from private bodies of EUR 200 million needs further explanation. Could the Commission therefore give specific examples of some of the businesses which have agreed to the funding? Could the Commission also confirm reports that unless a firm political decision is taken on the definitive phase by June 2001, then such engagement of funding by private industry will become obsolete? Could the Commission also comment in this regard on the lack of a political commitment to come out of the Stockholm Summit? Surely vague rhetoric will not suffice when billions of euro are at stake and the deadline, according to the Commission's timetable, is less than three months away? In the interests of transparency, may I call on the Commission to make absolutely clear its intentions with regard to the funding of this project and whether, in the absence of substantial private-sector interest, it will fund the project solely from the EU budget, including the EUR 220 million it will cost to maintain the project per annum? Could the Commission also provide an up-to-date breakdown of the contributions foreseen from individual Member States? On development, is the Commission aware that whilst the EU has been spending millions on Galileo the US has been updating its existing technology? Could the Commission justify why Galileo will only be used for civilian purposes, as it seems absurd that the EU decides to build its own satellite navigation system, yet denies its military capacity? In conclusion, launching satellites is a very expensive business. We need firm assurances that investments in the Galileo project will produce an adequate return. Fundamental questions and less than three months to go. Unless the Commission comes forward immediately with some answers on this project, we in the EU run the risk of appearing amateurish and irresponsible. I therefore urge the Commission and Council to consider these points. At a cost of billions to the taxpayer, to whom we are directly responsible, we are entitled to some answers.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, you can ask your two comrades-in-arms. The official sitting your left looked in my direction but did not inform you. I cannot do anything about it either.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we are on the verge of war, a war which could have devastating consequences not just for the people of Iraq and for the Middle East as a whole but for the rest of the world as well. Under these circumstances, sense and reason have to prevail over the simplistic venting of one’s feelings. Following the devastation of the Second World War, the nations of the world created the United Nations as the instrument which was to guarantee world peace, and, as Mr Patten says, there is no alternative to the UN when it comes to maintaining global security. The nations came to an agreement under international law on the rules for military intervention in order to preserve world peace. It is clear from these that decisions on such action must be taken by the UN Security Council. To choose, like the USA and Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, to abide by UN resolutions only when it suits us would have devastating consequences for the whole international legal system. It would amount to rejecting and deliberately opposing the UN. Is this the legal system the conservatives stand for? The justice of the powerful and international lawlessness? Or should all countries have an equal right to take so-called preventive action? What would happen then? It stands to reason that Iraq must comply with UN resolutions and allow the inspectors to carry out their work without conditions. An agreement has also been reached between Hans Blix and Iraq whereby the inspectors are to be allowed to resume the work which was in actual fact suspended when the USA and the UK started their last bombing campaign. The inspectors should now be able to start their work immediately. There is no excuse for dictator Saddam Hussein’s breach of the UN resolutions. Iraq, like all other countries, has to abide by the decisions taken by the UN. Obviously, this also applies to Israel. If the principle is that Iraq has not complied with UN resolutions and must therefore be bombed, what are we then to do about Israel, which continually breaches UN resolutions? The EU has to make it clear to the world’s largest democracy, the USA, that all countries must abide by international law and that the law of the street is not acceptable, even against dictators.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on this issue of the liberalisation of the water market, we have a contradiction in the French text. The French version is written in such a way that it seems that Amendment No 48 says that the water market needs to be liberalised without taking into account regional characteristics, while the English version says the opposite. I would like to point out that we worked first of all in English. Those who wish to reject the liberalisation of the water market therefore vote for the original text, if they do not accept Amendment No 103. They first have to vote on Amendment No 103, which rejects the liberalisation of the water market, and if Amendment No 103 is not passed, there remains the original text of Amendment No 48, the first part of which also rejects liberalisation.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we all know that the words ‘communication’, ‘information’, ‘networking’and ‘connection’ lead to the following two expressions: firstly, the information market and, secondly, the information society. Market or society. We are indeed dealing with a market. That much is certain. Everything is moving in that direction. It remains to be seen, however, what sort of a society we are dealing with. Even though Mr van Velzen’s report is very technical, the purely technical issues end by confirming two other problems of a technical nature which are, moreover, brought up again in the amendments: access for all, democratic access to this information society market, and the definition of a public service, henceforth known as a universal service, without forgetting the development of the content of these information and communication networks, a content which seems to interest so few people, which never fails to amaze me. Firstly, on the subject of democratic access, people will tell me that other reports and other programmes, the one on “e-learning” for example, exist to support the efforts made by European countries to promote access to the Internet and to new technologies. These programmes must not, however, be just a salve for the existing infrastructures, specifically the ones we are currently setting in place. May we hope for some consistency on this? Next, what form can a universal service take nowadays? What undertakings must Europe and the Member States set themselves in this regard? Affordable access to all communication services is not enough to guarantee a universal service. We need financial commitments from the Member States in order to guarantee a public service, in schools and libraries for example, and we also need them to monitor the quality and diversity of the proposed information content. This brings me to the matter of content. It might be feared that our reintroducing this question could be taken for an automatic reflex on our part. But how is it possible to agree to our opinion being consulted on the regulation or on competition without our being asked to deal with the matter of the content of information and communication? At the present time, 94 of the world’s 106 most visited web sites are American. While Europe is certainly ahead of the United States in terms of mobile communication, it lags behind them specifically in relation to the handling of content. This reminder is, perhaps, just a reflex, as I tell myself every time our only concerns with regard to the new economy are the actual networks. Is it, however, possible that the matter has become urgent today? I was pleased to note Amendments Nos 6 and 7 to the van Velzen report clearly acknowledging that the question of content was a problem. I also take the fact that, on 24 May, the Commission adopted a programme that was proposed to promote European content and multilingualism on the Internet, as a very good sign. It is only a start, but let us not forget that we also have the task of building a cultural Europe.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to draw attention to the fact that the Commission already has competence in the area of sport, especially regarding the implementation of legislation on competitions. However, the Commission has been grossly ineffective in this matter. F1 events and, in particular, Mr Ecclestone’s work to preserve the monopoly in the field, have been looked into for years now, but no results have been forthcoming. This is a matter of the most obvious monopoly, that of television rights, which a certain contract has ensured will continue for a hundred years. Instead of the Commission adopting a position on this, many Commission members are mannequins for Mr Ecclestone and the motor race teams and thus contribute to establishing and upholding this monopoly. I wish, before the Commission is granted new powers in this area, it would use those it already has.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, the European Union is now quickly on the way to developing a common policy in the legal field by means of a series of different measures and programmes. Large common registers of personal details are being established for refugees and for the purpose of combating crime. This raises important questions about legal security and personal integrity, not least for the most vulnerable refugees of all. Experience so far is not so good. Supervision of the Schengen Agreement’s register, SIS, has been poor and, where the SIRENE structure is concerned, it has been even worse. In the SIS register, details of asylum seekers who have been refused entry have been mixed up with those of criminals and stolen goods. The Joint Supervisory Authority has been severely critical in connection with the misuse of information in cases where refugees have not been informed of their rights and where the authority itself has not had proper access to the register. The proposal concerning the EURODAC register is worrying, not least when it comes to demands to register groups in addition to asylum seekers and when it comes to the rules about when information is to be deleted. It will be possible for very sensitive personal information, for example about political views, to be entered in Europol’s search register. It will even be possible to register people who have not been convicted or directly suspected of crimes. The proposal concerning the ENFOPOL Convention is worrying because certain Member States will be able to engage in wire-tapping in other countries without the latter’s permission. In view of all these considerations, it is therefore a disappointment that Tarja Halonen and the country which holds the Presidency of the European Union had so little to say about questions of legal security and personal integrity which ought to be major issues.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, you did not give the Belgian Presidency the opportunity to reply to my follow-up question subsequent to my Question No 12. Normally a follow-up question is answered, and a follow-up question to Question No 14 has just now been answered. I thought it was rather impolite not to give the Belgian Presidency the opportunity to answer.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I believe – and this also emerged clearly from the way in which people voted – that this is primarily about the fact that having losses recognised for tax purposes is a fundamental prerequisite, especially for small companies, because they risk a great deal of private capital. To risk personal capital, in particular, is a highly precarious business. That is why a facility to carry forward losses and enter them in the accounts would have a significant impact.

Political group: PPE-DE