GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would also like to thank the rapporteur for her work because I feel that - as this morning’s debate has confirmed - this is a very complex, sensitive issue. As has already been said, software plays an important role in countless industries; it is a basic form of creation and expression. Software is, in addition, a field of specialised engineering and a basic human activity, with more than ten million professional developers throughout the world and tens of millions of people creating software. Independent software developers and small businesses play a fundamental role in innovation in this area, above all in Europe. Europe is at the forefront of the culture of information technology: 71% of open source software developers work in Europe and only 13% in the US. Patents should not, therefore, permit the monopolisation of tools for the expression, creation, dissemination and exchange of information and knowledge, must not hold back the development of research and knowledge. The stakes are considerable because this is a matter of guaranteeing that research and innovation continue to be free and – according to the spirit of Lisbon - to stimulate economic growth based on knowledge, to bring about the stimulation of software-based innovation and inventions at all levels and to avoid production and trade monopolies for products that use the software. Thus, some fundamental points of the Commission proposal need to be modified and improved on, so that the regulation is a step towards clear, severe limitation of the conditions for patentability. A great deal has been said about technical contribution, industrial application, the meaning of computer-implemented invention; the conditions for the industrial use of an invention based on software filed for a patent must be extended to the product as well as the method. This is why Commissioner Bolkestein said that he is concerned that the amendments tabled in this House will be adopted, For my part, I have to say that I am concerned that, if they are not adopted, we will not be able to support the proposal on the table.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, firstly, to a certain extent I feel reassured because I notice that the Commission has been concerned with, and has perhaps also done something about, this problem. However, the dates mentioned by the Commissioner – there was a meeting on 29 November, on 2 December it was decided to open an investigation, and then it is said that it may happen within six months, etc. – are not very illuminating. I believe that the intentions as a whole are hugely reassuring, but the reality is that meanwhile our dockyards are closing down. I come from a country, Spain, and specifically the Basque Country, where there is nobody left building ships because we cannot cope with Korean competition. The Korean shipbuilders are quite happy to carry out dumping – not only with regard to the European Union, but also the whole world – and I cannot see any solution to it. I would be grateful if we could take immediate and crucial measures.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we welcome many of the points contained in Mr Liese’s report. In particular we support the amendments which seek to exclude from the scope of this directive tissues and cells originating from human embryos or genetic engineering, insofar as there is no European legislation defining the use of gene therapy. One compromise, however, is causing us problems, and that is the one concerning voluntary and non-remunerated donations of human tissues and cells. What we want is a guarantee that such donations will be unpaid. In order to achieve such a guarantee, it is necessary to define specifically, in this directive, the legitimate and acceptable level of compensation, which in our opinion is the reimbursement of travelling costs and income lost during the period required for the journey, the donation, and any rest period which is necessary, plus refreshments and that sort of allowance, but nothing more. Otherwise we shall be leaving the door open to compensation – or even remuneration – for such donations, with all the foreseeable abuses in terms of quality and safety, and the risks that would result for both donors and recipients. As the previous speaker said, bodies are not commercial goods. Our cells and tissues are not for sale. Another fundamental principle of this directive is that of anonymity, which must be compatible with the traceability of the tissues and cells. The proposal by the European Commission, enhanced by the amendments of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, has succeeded in taking both of these principles into account. The plenary session of this Parliament should not call into question this fragile equilibrium by adopting amendments seeking to remove anonymity from donors of gametes and therefore of sperm donations, or to make tissue and cell distribution records available to the public, and I am referring here to one amendment in particular. The transparency argument is ill-advised in this case. The need to trace tissues and cells destined for transplantation from the donor to the recipient should not work to the detriment of anonymity. That would be to leave the door open to abuses of an ethical, eugenic or even racial nature. Finally, we would ask the Commission, which did not want to include organs within the scope of this directive, to propose as a matter of urgency a specific text for establishing quality and safety standards in respect of organs. I believe that this report is a balanced one. We should continue to work in this direction, including during subsequent readings.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I wonder if it is possible to get a set of headphones. I do not appear to have a set at my desk and I must apologise to Mrs Thors, my Finnish is not that great.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I was seeking your clarification of the Rules on the set of circumstances that were just raised. If a machine is not working, is it the case that a vote that is entirely disregarded? If so, it seems to me that is a matter that may require of an amendment in the Rules of this House. It clearly is the case that the intention of the House was, by a tied vote, not to carry that particular measure.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the attack of 11 September on the WTC and the Pentagon strikes at the very heart of our democracy. The key aim of the new terrorism is to instil fear into us, to throw our world off balance and at the same time to exploit the helplessness of others in simple black-and-white terms. In a nutshell, this is an attack on our world, the whole world, and on our international rule of law, and this is precisely what I should like to uphold. Terrorism has become global and also employs, therefore, global, modern technology and international, criminal structures. That is why it requires a worldwide response. For example, a higher level of cooperation among our secret services and the infiltration of terrorist networks spring to mind. We can no longer afford to work at cross purposes as separate states. Instead, we must take joint action and in this new coalition of action, we must go beyond usual concepts. International financial consortia and multinational businesses too must cooperate. The production of drugs and oil in regions of conflict and the trade in ‘blood diamonds’ facilitate the financing of illegal activities, of conflict and of war, and are in turn closely linked with the terrorist networks. We must discontinue the funding of, or cooperation in, the trade in raw materials, where this feeds conflicts and where it provides a breeding ground for terrorism. In this way, we can immobilise the funding of terrorist networks extremely effectively. This new war also requires a continued effort in the exchange of economic and criminal intelligence, even if this means that for reasons of security, some public services become more expensive or slow down. Our desire to live in an open democracy that is accessible to everyone makes us vulnerable. But our strength lies in cooperation. This applies overall, irrespective of race, religion or nationality. We can see through every terrorist attempt to divide the world into their world and ours, to antagonise groups or religions. Terrorists are not nourished by religion or ideology. Their hunger is called power. Their weapons are fear and destruction. They do not want peace in the Basque Country, Liberia or the Middle East. They simply want civilian victims. That is why we are on the side of America and of every peace-loving individual who wishes to support this international order.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I have requested the floor for a procedural motion. Numerous Members are stuck in their hotels in the centre of Strasbourg, at least in the area where the Novotel and Ibis hotels are located. When the first car left, half an hour late, they asked me to pass on this protest because at least 15 Members were in the same hotel and will not be able to take part in the vote because of the transport delay.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, High Representative, ladies and gentlemen, I shall, of course, be voting in favour of the resolution that has arisen out of the agreement between various parliamentary groups. This is a possible compromise, but I believe it to be inadequate. The doctrine of a preventive war to protect the vital interests of the United States is unacceptable. The Pope has said this and felt obliged to condemn such a doctrine because it contravenes international law and the United Nations Charter. This doctrine should, therefore, be expressly criticised and rejected by the European Parliament. Furthermore, the ‘erratic’ policy of the Bush administration – as Bill Clinton called it, and erratic is the least that can be said about it – conceals the monstrous concerns of a new strategy to control oil in the Middle East and has provided cover for the real and unacceptable State terrorism taking place; the terrorism perpetrated by the government of Ariel Sharon. I am saying this on the day following Ariel Sharon’s victory in the Israeli elections, which will, in my opinion, have tragic consequences for Israel. I very much hope that I am mistaken, because I consider myself to be a friend of the Israeli people. Yesterday’s speech by George Bush was once again extremely arrogant and without any real foundation. He clearly wants war at any cost, for reasons of his own and to protect the interests of the United States. The existence of weapons of mass destruction, an accusation that President Bush is levelling – so far without any convincing evidence – at the dictator and murderer Saddam Hussein seems simply to be a pretext, ignoring Kim Jong-Il, the Korean dictator – who does indeed have atomic weapons – and all the other dictators in the Middle East. I wish to conclude by praising the courage and political clear-mindedness of the French and German Governments for having condemned war against Iraq without the express authorisation of the United Nations. We, and I, as a Member of the European Parliament, are proud of the ‘old’ Europe. All the European governments, in my opinion, especially those of the Fifteen, should uphold this position. Telling the truth is the best way of demonstrating our friendship and respect towards the United States of America; the America of the pioneer spirit and of idealism, not the America of self-interest and dirty deals. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it is astonishing that market forces have been incapable on their own of boosting the energy efficiency of the fuels they use through the generation of combined heat and power. As the heat generated in the production of electricity can be used for both heating and cooling, it is an economic resource, the utilisation of which (one would think) served the interests of the production plants themselves. The directive is not needed just because it will help to protect the single energy market. It is also needed to compel the Member States to channel resources for the effective use of fuels in the name of efficiency and environmental protection. Common objectives are set very carelessly in the EU. An objective is set, but neither the resources nor the sanctions to achieve these objectives are created. An example of setting objectives based on wishful thinking is the promotion of cogeneration now being discussed. The aim to increase cogeneration to account for 18% of electricity generation by 2010 or 2012 is a pious hope. The market will engage in cogeneration if it is financially worthwhile. The directive will not mean the market’s unseen hand will lose the power of its grip. Small production units are often innovative: they make good use of margins that do not interest the big producers. For that reason, in many of the amendments one feels there is concern regarding the equal treatment of small producers in a liberalised market dominated by the large producers. It is only reasonable to insist that the small producers should be certain of having access to the network, and they should get a fair price for electricity from cogeneration. In this connection I would furthermore like to draw attention to the problems that arise if there is no coordination between different directives. For example, the directive on a system for greenhouse gas emission rights trading should not be inconsistent with this directive. The former is a synthetic market directive, whilst this directive on cogeneration is financial/technical. The directive on emission rights trading is not in the interests of European business, whilst this directive is.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Well that did not hurt, did it? I have been waiting for that reply since 2 February and I simply cannot understand why it has taken the Commission so long to come up with that negative. I accept the negative, but the fact of the matter is that I am a Member of the European Parliament. I have been waiting five months for that reply. Why?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I have to say that what we have just heard from Mr Alyssandrakis is quite eerily reminiscent of a past that will at last be finally behind us when, in just a few days’ time, we welcome the States of Central and Eastern Europe into the European Union. For decades, this House has contended for freedom, human rights and the right of peoples to self-determination in Central and Eastern Europe. It has helped to sweep away Communism and its dictatorship, banish the ghost of Stalin, tear down the Iron Curtain and now unite the whole of Europe in freedom, and it is positively spooky that a relic of this inhuman ideology such as Mr Alyssandrakis should get up in this House and defend the dictatorship in Cuba. Let me say it loud and clear, my good friends: we are not, as you suppose, against the Cuban people. On the contrary, we defend them. Those who, before 1989, spoke in this House in defence of the Communist dictatorships must be ashamed when their words are dredged up from the Minutes. In the same way, you too will one day have to be ashamed of what you have said today about Cuba, one of the last brutal and repressive Communist dictatorships in the world. We do not have an uncritical attitude towards the United States, and God knows that I am not going to defend all the things that a blockade entails. I take a thoroughly critical view of it. I have to say, though, that it stands to reason that it is our duty as democrats to defend with all our might Cuba’s democracy movement, the rule of law there, and its freedom, against those who repress them, represented by the old-school Communist Fidel Castro, a man as lacking in understanding as you are, Mr Alyssandrakis, and, like you, forever yesterday’s man.

Political group: PPE-DE
Once again, Mr President, yesterday I requested that the vote on Mrs Villiers’ report be postponed. It is a very important report which deserves better than to be discussed in an almost empty Chamber. I do regret the fact that some Members see fit to avoid turning up to the Friday sitting in Strasbourg, but since it does happen, if we go ahead and vote today, the outcome is likely to be based on the will of a random majority, which does no credit to this House either.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, I listened to what you said very carefully and was most surprised when, at one point in your speech, you said that you did not have a magic solution to this problem. My reply to you is that we do not need magic solutions, we need two things: first, we need to accept that health, i.e. public health, takes priority over every other policy. Once we have accepted this, not just proclaimed it but believe in it, then we come to the second element, which is the question of political will. Let me assure you that, if we had had the political will then, we would not be facing this problem now, because we all know what has caused it. We know all about meat-and-bone meal and we know that there are tests and that we can find the animals from herds which need to be destroyed in order to deal with the problem. We know all that. What is preventing us from acting and why must there always be a crisis for us to come here and confirm that we, the European Parliament, believe that public health is the number one priority? And you are saying the same, but just how well has the Council understood it? Because, basically, at some point we seem to be unable to act. We seem to be unable to apply what we know. And we all know that prevention is the best cure. Except that there is no cure here. We know that this epizootic disease brings terrible suffering and tragic consequences in its wake but we do not know where they will lead us. Because not all its epidemiological elements have been identified. So we are playing with fire. And what amazes me is that we come here and repeat the same things over and over again. I have listened to my fellow members. They are all right in what they say. Our aim must be to apply it. We want application, members of the Council, we want action and we want it throughout the European Union; we do not want fragmented action by France or this or that country. It must be taken everywhere and it must be taken at once.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the have spent more than a decade endeavouring to expose the myths at the heart of the free-trade theory. Now we know for sure, as we have always suspected, that the rhetoric of the US and its major corporations was a sham. Far from being at the centre of a development agenda to help poorer nations out of poverty, the US tariff barriers reveal how that country uses trade rules to gain access to other people's markets, while protecting its own industrial interests at home. The US view is clearly that free trade is a one-way street for a superpower: good for US exporters, but not so good for US domestic industry. Contrast that with the unequivocal lectures given by the US to developing countries at the WTO meeting in Doha, to the effect that, by liberalising their markets, they will automatically reap the benefits of globalisation. Poverty eradication and sustainable development are somehow automatically meant to follow, yet poorer countries have known for a long time that this is often far from the case. Perhaps the one good thing that could come out of President Bush's unilateral introduction of tariffs on steel imports would be a much-needed serious debate about the flaws and weaknesses inherent in the free-trade model, because there is growing opposition to the global inequality inherent in its diktat that every country must put international competitiveness above all other domestic concerns. The reaction against this ranges from Indian farmers calling for an increase in tariffs to protect themselves from cheap food imports, through to steel workers, including fully restructured UK steel workers, who find that they will now still be unable to compete with Romanian steel exports. However, there are some retaliatory actions that the EU should consider, which will send the right signal to the US. I would like the Council and Commission's views on them. For example, since the US has refused to implement the Kyoto Protocol because of the perceived impact this would have on US business, the EU should levy an energy tax on all US-manufactured goods. Or we might consider the issue of a complete ban on all imports of US-produced GM foods, since US pressure exerted under free-trade rules has prevented EU ministers from reflecting popular opinion by banning such foods from markets here. The time is long overdue for the EU to call Mr Bush's bluff.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, I would like the latter part of your informative comments to be given added depth, especially with regard to the use of the Structural Funds in the field of education. You specifically raised the issue of school drop-outs. I think it would be very important for the European Union to focus especially on education and training, so that young people in the accession countries have a chance to benefit from suitable job opportunities in their own countries. It would also be important in psychological terms, in terms of the basic attitude in these countries, for young people to see that they have a chance in Europe and that Europe guarantees them this chance. For this reason, I am wondering whether it is possible, in terms of funding, to launch special measures via the Structural Funds.

Political group: PPE-DE
I wish to support this call on the Commission and the Member States to learn lessons from the Europe's largest corporate scandal in years, and strengthen EU auditing rules with particular regard to the interest of workers. In the wake of the accounting scandal surrounding Italian food group Parmalat, which erupted in December 2003 with the revelation of a black hole of EUR 4 billion in lost funds and EUR 14 billion in unpaid debt, I believe we certainly need the Commission to set up a revised directive on corporate governance that could strengthen rules on auditing. Time and time again workers and pensioners have lost out in the wake of corporate scandals so none of us can be in any doubt that there is an urgent need to improve corporate governance and strengthen our defences against corporate malpractice. Good company law and good corporate governance are essential to the job security of all employees and to the protect the future of members of company pension schemes. The financial services industry must certainly put its house in order and ensure ethical conduct and diligence to protect the jobs and savings of millions of people. It is outrageous that no warning signals were sounded while Parmalat funds were being embezzled. (Abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: PSE