GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, after many years of working towards an effective Community patent, we must make it clear that a number of issues still remain to be resolved: the language regime, the differences between the role of the national patent offices and the role of the European Patent Office, and the legal arrangements. Despite repeated invitations from the Heads of States and Government and successive European Councils, most recently the Barcelona Council, the situation has not improved. We encountered the same problems in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market over the language issue. After lengthy debate, the committee opted for the language regime already used in the context of the Community trademark, under which applications can be filed in any of the official languages of the Community. However, the applicant has to specify a second language as well, known as the language of proceedings, which can be one of five languages – English, French, German, Italian or Spanish – the use of which he accepts as a possible language of proceedings, particularly opposition, revocation or invalidity proceedings. If the application is filed in a language which is not one of these five languages, the Office will arrange to have the application translated into the language indicated by the applicant. As I see it, this is not an ideal solution. For reasons of economy, it would have been preferable to use just one language, English. Moreover, European industry has called for this. However, that has not proved possible and so we look forward to the introduction of the Alicante model, which, although perhaps not the best solution, is the only solution possible. As regards the legal arrangements, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market proposes that first instance jurisdiction should be at national level, such that appeals can be made to national courts with experience in patent cases as first instance courts for Community patent litigation, while second instance decisions would be the responsibility of the European Chamber for intellectual property. This is a compromise solution. We would have preferred one single, centralised first and second instance jurisdiction, which would have ensured greater uniformity of interpretation. However, the opposition was extremely strong on this matter too. Lastly, assurance is given that the national patent offices will be able to continue to play an important role in the procedures for granting the Community patent. In other words, in our opinion, the solution adopted is not completely satisfactory, but it does mean that this complex issue is closed. I believe that, in her heart of hearts, even the rapporteur, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi – whom I do, of course, congratulate on her work – shares these concerns. However, Parliament has merely a consultative role in this procedure, it is not colegislator. We therefore give the report the thumbs-up, in the hope that the Council of Ministers will be able to come to a swift agreement without hiding behind any excuses.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I voted in favour of this report. And why is that? The Pensioners' Party includes a separate section of pensioner criminals, expelled from the party, who have spent their lives stealing and breaking the law. I expelled them from the Pensioners' Party myself, but I do consult them every now and again and ask their advice. On the subject of this report, they said, 'If you want to prevent fraud, it would be a good idea for the European Union funds not to pass through the State public bodies but to go straight to the citizens, for I am sad to say that corruption is widespread among public employees. And if we add to the corruption of the European public employees the corruption of the employees of the national State bodies, then the result will be an increase in fraud.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, of the great number of problems affecting Rwanda and Burundi I should like on behalf of my Group to speak about the latest events, that is say, what took place on 6 November, i.e. a few days ago, when the Rwanda government announced that it would refuse further cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal in Arusha. We took some pride in the fact that this Tribunal was set up at all – with our assistance too – whether it was adequate is a more complicated matter – in order to clear up these inhuman crimes and to punish the respective perpetrators. As an initial reaction, this attitude of the Rwandan government is even understandable, but the conclusion that it drew from it, i.e. now to refuse further cooperation with this Tribunal, is entirely the wrong one. We cannot understand – and I express myself carefully here – that the presumed architect of the genocide, Barayagwiza, on the basis of procedural issues – and this is hard to swallow – was released and not brought before the court at all. He was, after all, the political director in the foreign ministry of a regime that was responsible for the deaths of 800 000 people – we should really say for the slaughter of 800 000 people. This person, who has now been released, was a leading official in the state radio at the very time when the radio was urging and inciting people on to racial hatred. Our Group has a two-fold demand: on the one hand to the Rwanda government, to cancel its decision and on the other hand to the Tribunal to revise this decision. In particular, it is not acceptable that the Tribunal refer to the fact that a further charge in the same case is inadmissible owing to the “not guilty” verdict. For charges of this kind there can be no immunity.

Political group: PPE-DE
I, too, would like to congratulate the rapporteur, who has produced a major report in a short space of time. It has already been pointed out by almost all those who have spoken that, in effect, the situation with regard to transport – particularly sea transport – and seaports differs widely throughout our Union: the situation in northern countries differs from that in southern countries, in terms of dimensions and the volume of freight and passenger traffic. However, if we wish – and we do, for we consider it absolutely essential – sea and river ports to be included in the system of trans-European networks and to have their own system, then we must by necessity establish a hierarchy and a classification list for this system. Now, I come from a country which boasts 8 000 km of coastline and would therefore benefit greatly from having as many of its ports as possible included in the 'European port' category. However, we have to be prepared to stick our necks out and take what could be difficult decisions for the very reason that, if the strategies selected do not genuinely identify areas and ports with these characteristics, we will be in danger, considering, amongst other things, the lack of funding – we shall have to talk about this in any case for only EUR 400 million are available – we will be in danger of undoing any good work, in danger, that is, of being ineffective. One issue remains to be resolved – which I consider important and which other Members have raised and should therefore be at the centre of the conciliation process – and that is the issue of the islands and the outermost regions: in other words, the issue of those situations in which, even where a port does not meet the volume criteria we have laid down, its activity cannot be allowed to suffer as a result.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, on this document regarding safe and sustainable pensions I could not fail to give an explanation of vote. I voted for it, but I should like to draw everyone’s attention to the fact that the Pensioners’ Party is asking for a European pension. The pensions problem can only be solved when the European Union has the competence to decide on pensions too. The Pensioners’ Party is asking that social security, which is financed out of our wages, out of workers’ pay, should be voluntary and not compulsory. The Member States have shown that they cannot administer our money: therefore we should have the right to administer our own wages in order to have our pensions, freely and without being forced to give money to the state.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, exactly the same applies to this second decision as what you said for the first decision. Two proposed amendments in this second file are of fundamental importance to the Committee on Agriculture, namely Amendments Nos 28 and 29. I therefore again ask the Commission if it has perhaps revised its opinion here.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 11 September will go down as a crucial date in the history of the modern era in general and for the aviation sector in particular, for which we can talk about a before and an after. I wish, first of all, to express my solidarity with the victims of these cowardly and barbaric attacks and with the government of the United States and also to unreservedly, roundly and unambiguously condemn terrorism. Improving the security of transport users and transported goods was and must continue to be one of the Union’s priorities for action in coming years. I am delighted that this is the view adopted in the White Paper on transport policy presented by the Commission only a few months ago. We must not forget that a safe journey is the most important right of any passenger. The ongoing safety and competitiveness of this sector require the rapid adoption of the latest Commission proposals on air safety and the ‘single sky’ package. We must also take account of other measures that were already on the table, such as the JAR-OPS Regulation, the draft directive on occurrence reporting in civil aviation and the proposal on the professional competence of cabin crew. All of these texts, Commissioner, must be approved as soon as possible. To conclude, I would say that the disastrous action taken on the air transport sector in recent weeks has shown the extent to which the European Union has a pivotal role in responding to the need for regulation at both Community and world-wide level. Only a European vision will enable us to confront new challenges such as international terrorism, for which international intergovernmental forums can no longer provide a sufficiently rapid or effective response. Parliament has a duty to support the Commission on these proposals to restore the public confidence and safety that have been lost. It is at times like this that we must make Europe’s presence felt. Lastly, I also wish to address the Council, which must now find the ability and the courage to support and take decisions that ensure that civil aviation will continue to be safe, reliable and sustainable from every point of view.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, there will of course be many Members who will have some direct or indirect financial interest in this matter, in most cases to a rather small extent. Parliament's Rules of Procedure however state that Members must declare their direct financial interests if they are going to speak in the debate. I refer to Article 1 of Annex I of our Rules of Procedure. The Rules do not require us to register such an interest before voting. If every Member who has an interest is now going to get up and declare it before we start this vote, we will only start the vote at 1.00 p.m. Such interests are registered in the written declaration of Members' interests, so they are there for the public to see; that declaration will also soon be on the Internet following the vote in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs last week. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr van den Berg has tabled a scholarly, competent report on the Commission proposal on education and training in the context of poverty reduction in developing countries. I could not fail to vote for the report, so that education can be provided and poverty reduced in developing countries. I would point out to the President and the House – so many Members are present, as always, during my explanations of vote – that there are poor countries with a few wealthy inhabitants and wealthy countries with a few poor inhabitants. I would like Europe to help, in particular, the poor inhabitants of the poor countries and the poor inhabitants of the wealthy countries, for they all have the right to assistance, and I would especially like Europe to check up on what happens to the money given to them. Most of all, however, I would like to inform the House that retired teachers associations throughout Europe are offering their disinterested, free help, offering to teach, to pass on the knowledge that they have acquired over a lifetime’s work to all those in the developing countries who wish to learn in order to increase the prosperity of their states.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this proposal to amend the 1970 directive on additives in feedingstuffs is the first in a whole series of proposals on the subject of feedingstuffs. In other words, we shall be discussing other proposals here in Parliament over the next few months. That this subject is of paramount importance is borne out by the huge public attention which the dioxin, antibiotic, sludge and other scandals have attracted. In other words, this is an important facet of public health protection, which is why we believe that Article 152 should be taken as the legal base, not Article 37, as proposed by the Commission. The amendment which the Commission has proposed, namely equal treatment for additives authorised before or after 31 December 1987, is uncontested and has our full support. However, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has voted unanimously on some important amendments to the Commission proposal. The regulation proposed by the Commission conceals the danger of creating a marketing monopoly for certain additives. Only companies which obtained the original authorisation will have the right to apply and companies which obtained authorisation at a later date will be excluded. This sort of monopoly, which could lead, for example, to an increase in the price of feedingstuffs, should be prevented by granting provisional authorisation to all companies which had marketed a specific substance by 1 April 1998. This would then apply until the re-assessment procedure has been completed. The most important amendment to the Commission proposal is the inclusion, as recommended by the rapporteur, of genetically-modified organisms in the directive on additives, taking the compromise negotiated between Parliament and the Commission on authorisation for GMOs outside the scope of the release directive as the starting point. This already gives us a basis for the authorisation of GMOs. It is therefore only logical that we make provision for genetically modified feedingstuff additives in this case, just as we have in regulations already passed in other areas, such as forest reproductive material, to mention just one example. The labelling of genetically-modified additives is particularly important in this respect. On the one hand, it enables farmers to make an informed decision as to whether or not they wish to use such feedingstuffs and, on the other hand, it enables consumers to avoid foodstuffs produced using GMOs. Finally, our group should like once again to thank the rapporteur, who has gone to a great deal of trouble. I think that we can all hardly wait to hear Mr Byrne’s reply.

Political group: PSE
I am pleased that we have rediscovered the voice of reason in this plenary session, albeit by a not very large majority. It really looked as if it had left us for good after the vote in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. Extending the scope of the labelling and traceability requirement to include animals that, at some stage in their lives, were fed feedingstuffs which consist of, either wholly or partly, GMO or similar ingredients, or are produced using them, was more than one bridge too far. Fortunately, these amendments have not made it to the plenary session. This was unfortunately not enough to vote in favour of this report and the Trakatellis report. For this, it was necessary to introduce traceability as a relevant aspect of distinction for labelling. Only then is it truly possible to reach the main objective, namely to offer the consumer a choice between different products. This choice is not guaranteed at the moment, and that is a missed opportunity. We will now lead many consumers astray. – Lisi report (A5-0243/2002)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, whilst I otherwise hold Mr Caveri in high esteem, I wish to make it known that I have voted against his report. I believe that it would, in this case, have been better for Parliament to have taken the Danish compromise into account and not gone beyond it. It is not, in my view, very helpful to tie oneself down to a new line. I trust that the Council will again do as Mr Poettering, the leader of our group, has just suggested, and get to work on finding a common solution. The fact of the matter is that even the rule on category 4 HGVs is not entirely without its problematic aspects, as it means that the environment in the affected areas will be subjected to new nuisances. We have to provide help here as a matter of urgency, and there needs to be greater understanding of this area, which is such a sensitive one.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I used the term trafficking even though it is not quite the right word because there is no trafficking without trade and I do not think that there is any trade in these materials, they are raw materials which go where they can. However, we all know that, unfortunately, the silk routes were followed by the oil route, then the cocaine route and then the heroin route and now, unfortunately, we are witnessing the emergence of a trafficking route for these materials which are a serious threat to the peace and security of all citizens. In this sense, and because it seems that these trafficking routes run through countries which have applied for membership of the European Union, the issue has now become a political one and one which merits particular attention. In this sense, apart from protecting expert scientists with the relevant know-how who must not be led astray due to their specialist knowledge or financial weakness, it is a sine qua non that we adopt a rationale for setting political conditions for applicant countries as to what should or should not happen in their territories. This has nothing to do with new forms of terrorism, as some people are saying, but rather with new forms of threats and new forms of peace and security for all citizens. This is a pressing political issue which should be a multinational priority and not just the priority of a few policing mechanisms which may operate within a different culture and which do not understand the new dangers from which Europe must protect its citizens.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I have been a Member of this House for 14 years. In that time, every six months, I get mounds of documents from the incoming presidency telling me about its priorities – but not this time. I have had nothing. Yesterday I went to the presidency website – it was the first day of the presidency – to see what its priorities were, and there was a sign saying that nothing would be available until 16.30 hours. So I thought 'ah, the secrecy is because there is going to be some big announcement'. I waited with bated breath. But what we got was the usual warm words. This suggests to me that the real reason for this delay and the lack of information is simply because this presidency is not ready. That is what concerns me. When Europe is faced by some of its greatest challenges, such as how to prepare for next year's enlargement, we have a presidency that appears to have been so distracted by internal affairs that it has not properly prepared for its presidency. I wonder whether this is the worst-prepared presidency of my time in Parliament. I am also concerned by a lack of consistency. I will not repeat what Mr Swoboda said, although I agree with it. However, today we have heard of the presidency's enthusiasm for developing European defence. I note that this is the very government that rejected the A-400 M, which is, after all, the key element in European defence capability. That makes me wonder just how many of these warm words will be turned into reality. I am also concerned by contradictory statements within the government about migration. We have had some very emotive speeches on this subject. Quite frankly, we cannot run the important issue of asylum and immigration on knee-jerk rhetoric that only upsets and fuels the anxieties of our population. We have to show political leadership and a balanced approach, both in looking at the integration of migrants – something that the European Parliament will look at for the first time during this presidency – as well as the management of migration based on our economic needs and the needs of migrants themselves. I hope the presidency will show exactly that political leadership on this issue.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, firstly, we hear a debate in the House concerning an area of freedom, security and justice, and then we hear two vital speeches by Mr Patten and the Irish Presidency. We should be pleased and encouraged, but the truth is that things are, in actual fact, heading in all but the wrong direction when it comes to nuclear disarmament and the possibility of obtaining such an area of freedom, security and justice. One of the reasons why things are heading in the wrong direction is that there is an unwillingness to comply not just with the words, but also with the spirit, of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. I am thinking, in particular, of Article 6, concerning the abolition of nuclear weapons. At the most recent meeting, in the year 2000, it was decided to set up a special committee to deal with nuclear disarmament. Since then, nothing has happened. If nothing is happening, it is because those countries that should be putting their energy and resources into this issue either do not wish, or are unable, to do so. For the moment, it is clear that we cannot expect support from the Americans in this matter. They are in the throes of doing almost the opposite of what they have committed themselves to doing. They have also emphasised that they do not intend to comply with either the letter or the spirit of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. By introducing what are termed mininukes, they have, rather, reduced the nuclear threshold instead of doing what they have, in principle, undertaken to do. The EU countries are not much better. Instead of making this issue a firmly established part of the transatlantic dialogue, we are rather cautious and obliging. We get slightly involved in a war in Iraq and do our bit in a number of other US actions, in Afghanistan etc, without pointing out that, if this problem is not taken seriously and solved, all our talk of areas of freedom, security and justice may at most be used to lull people to sleep with. It cannot in any case be used to create the world we all want to see. Surrounded by flames, there is no living in freedom, security and justice, so I should like to see a little more energy behind the very fine words. It is always entertaining to hear Mr Patten produce fine words, but I am looking for a little more energy.

Political group: GUE-NGL