GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I abstained in the vote on the McCarthy report because the arguments of the rapporteur and the European Commission in favour of the patentability of computer-implemented inventions are not compelling. I personally am convinced that patents in the software sector are the weapons that companies have long dreamt of for their army of lawyers to make them capable of legal blackmail. The sole aim of this all-out investment in patents is to weaken and even to eradicate all competition. As a Liberal, I cannot accept this commercial approach based on monopolies, which aims in time, to kill off the creative spirit of young computer scientists and the innovation brought to the sector by producers and users of free software. This is why I voted in favour of all the amendments making it possible to give this report a human face; those that, for example, seek to limit the scope of patentable software. Finally, I am glad that a clear signal has been given to the European Patent Office in Munich. The European Parliament calls on this body to act transparently and responsibly and sending this signal is the least we can do for this organisation which, in violating the European Patents Convention of 1973, authorised more than 30 000 patents to be granted for computer programs.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the Van Lancker report talks about prevention, education and health, but certain groups have tried to turn this into a report on abortion. They have lied to us, manipulated, blackmailed and coerced us, and have even claimed that abortions lead to breast cancer. We have been put under an intolerable amount of pressure. The Van Lancker report aims to eradicate certain inconsistencies, such as only giving the right to choose to women who are wealthy, and denying this right to all those who are not. Women of a high socio-economic class are able to solve the problem. It is women with fewer opportunities who still have a problem. The report also exposes the hypocrisy of failing to provide sufficient sex education and then refusing the possibility of abortion. Mr President, Spanish women used to travel to London to have abortions. Now Portuguese women travel to Spain. Is this right? Is it sensible or fair? Does it make any sense in the context of the European Union? The Van Lancker report provides guidelines with a view to reducing the number of abortions that take place. Better prevention and education will lead to fewer abortions. The Van Lancker report is balanced and the rapporteur has been flexible and generous with the right-wing groups in negotiating amendments, yet the representatives of the do not want to know. They do not understand, probably because they do not stay for the debates – they just give their opinion and leave. We think that many women in the European Union and from outside the Union are awaiting the result of this report. The report must be adopted by Parliament, as many women are awaiting its guidance, and all those who have been using blackmail need to learn their lesson, namely that, on Thursday, this Parliament will adopt Mrs Van Lancker’s excellent report.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as we have heard this morning, Morocco is currently eclipsing the EU’s fisheries policy. I can well understand this as the consequences of the failure to conclude a fisheries agreement for the Iberian Peninsula are enormous for all of us. I had the opportunity to convince myself of that just a short time ago. Nevertheless, we must not remain paralysed; we must look at other important aspects of the CFP which were covered by the report tabled by Jové Peres. Let me get straight to the point. Surveillance of fisheries is not everything, but without surveillance everything else is pointless. We know from our day-to-day experience that, without real and effective controls, the European fisheries policy would be nothing but a bubble of air. We need to make progress and adapt ourselves to modern developments. At a conference organised by the Commission last October in Brussels, reference was made to the international aspects of control. We need a global approach. The proposals tabled to this effect by the Commission are just as important as the provisions in the new Green Paper on the reform of the CFP. Responsibility for the carrying out of controls is clearly regulated. It lies with the Member States. Financial support from the Community is of course imperative, particularly if we are talking about an equal, across-the-board level of control. We need the support of the Community to bring about efficient modern controls in the future. I am using the word ‘modern’ quite deliberately and here the Commission has set the right priorities: the introduction of modern technologies, the use of information networks, the use of satellite surveillance systems and better training of surveillance staff. We must, however, think carefully about whether reducing the resources for the implementation of control measures is the right approach. I think that, in implementing these controls, we should be sending other signals, namely in terms of the priorities of the CFP. So an appropriate budget is of paramount importance.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to congratulate our chairman, Mr Hernández Mollar, on the contortions he has had to perform in order to bring this text to plenary. It has not been an easy task. If we are to understand the importance and, above all, the scope of the agreement, we must remember what prompted this initiative. It was not the emotion immediately after September 11 so much as the urgent need, following those tragic events, to create a network to monitor and combat the terrorist organisations operating throughout the world. To quote the resolution adopted by Parliament in December 2001, any agreement on judicial and police cooperation signed by the European Union must respect the Convention on Human Rights. The primary concern – as has already been said – is not to permit the extradition of prisoners who would be liable to face the death penalty in the United States. Now, without prejudice to this principle, I cannot see what other concerns there might be. We feel it would be excessive in any case to presume to make the implementation of this agreement conditional upon an undertaking to do something about the situation at the Guantánamo base. We can demand clarity and transparency from the United States with regard to what is happening at that base, but we must not hinder the progress of an agreement whose effect is much wider than that, which is, in other words, in the interests of world security, not just US security. That is why we voted against the amendment on Guantánamo in committee, seeing it as a separate issue which can, if necessary, be addressed on its own. As for accusing the United States of being a country which fails to respect human rights, all I can say is I would not want to be the council for the prosecution. We must remember that the United States was the first genuine democracy to be created in the world in the history of civilisation. My opinion is that some views are to be considered to be decidedly partisan. The agreement is a major step forward in combating not just terrorism but financial crime, the drug trafficking multinationals, money laundering, cyber crime and the trafficking of human beings too. These may appear to be unrelated issues, but they are, in actual fact, linked by the urgent need for resolute, timely, unconditional action.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, one year on from the end of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, the situation is unstable and the opposing forces in Serbia are giving increasing cause for concern. The daily news is witness to the oppressive actions of the Yugoslavian government. Opposition is struck down and intimidated in the ways traditionally adopted by governments who feel insecure: newspapers and radio stations are closed down, equipment confiscated, various groups and non-governmental organisations intimidated and there are random arrests and trials with unjustified sentences such as the case of Flora Brovina. Many of the men, women and students who are victims of oppression today are the same people who have courageously spoken up in these past years, calling for peace, freedom and respect for human rights, and who have, in reality, been abandoned even by Europe. However, the situation in Kosovo is equally worrying, where the oppressed have become the oppressors, and this has been said by Kofi Annan, Solana and Kouchner. In the space of a year, 240 000 Serbs, Roma, Gorancs and Jews have fled from Kosovo in terror. And those who have remained are regularly attacked and, in many cases, killed. The most recent UNHCR/OSCE report states clearly that, in Kosovo, minorities have no access to education, health and public services and no freedom of movement. And it is not only the minorities who are in this situation: even the Albanian Kosovars who are openly against the vendettas or for democracy in Kosovo live under threat and in fear of their lives. Leaders such as Rugova are familiar with the situation, but even more in touch are those women who, together with Serbian, Bosnian and European women – the ‘Women in Black’ against war – have in recent years managed to maintain relations and build peaceful bridges. Some of them have had to leave Kosovo and others have been forced to remain silent. In Serbia, the centre of the ‘Women in Black’ is currently under threat of closure. In my opinion, Europe, and, in particular, the 19 NATO countries, should undertake a large-scale self-appraisal operation and revise its policies. The crimes and unlawful acts committed by NATO against civilians are now universally acknowledged. In the interests of the protection of human rights, we must not violate international regulations and we must start by observing the Geneva Convention. At this point, let us mention fundamental freedoms: for these freedoms to be established the embargo policy must be abolished. We must not treat civilians in this way, and the democratic Serbian opposition which is still today at the mercy of Milosevic is calling for us to change our policy. It may be that we should be the ones to give them strong support in Serbia and Kosovo. We owe it to ourselves, but, most of all, we owe it to a wonderful little boy from Kosovo called Felt who said to me while we were eating an ice-cream one day: ‘This war has turned us all into nastier people’.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, a rather serious problem arose this morning when the assistants were suddenly prevented from boarding the coach to bring us here from the Hotel Monopol, despite the fact that this practice has been applied without a hitch for the past 21 years. I should like to protest because there would have been five members in the coach and the assistants would have been late for work. It is a stupid regulation because the bus carrying five passengers could have been replaced by two cars, meaning that there would have been two drivers instead of one. This bureaucracy must have been thought up by our quaestors and we urgently need to abolish it so that members can take their assistants with them to work. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, animal testing is carried out on a huge scale across the European Union and the world to ensure that products like chemicals and new medicines and pharmaceuticals are safe for humans to use. The public has long made clear that it wants an end to animal testing for no better purpose than to ensure the development of yet more vanity products to fill our bathroom shelves, such as all the deodorants, soaps, and hair shampoos to be found on supermarket shelves. Yet this debate has dragged on year after year with it becoming increasingly difficult for the public's wish to be turned into practice. Now we have a classic conflict between the Parliament, which has made it clear that it wants an end to animal testing, and the Council, which has done its best to ensure that no marketing ban is introduced. We have made it quite clear that an animal testing ban within the European Union alone is insufficient. It simply means that animals will be tested upon in countries outside the European Union where no proper supervision can be undertaken. A marketing ban has to be introduced, pressure has to be put on industry to ensure that new alternatives are developed. The proposals being put forward by the EPP have been particularly helpful. My group will be supporting Mrs Roth-Behrendt's call for a marketing ban to be introduced at the earliest moment. However it is likely that it will be the EPP amendment which goes through today. That leaves open the option for us all of an ambitious and yet realistic settlement, an agreement between the Parliament and the Council which can end this matter once and for all, putting pressure on the industry but not creating insoluble problems. I hope that today in the vote later in this plenary we can once and for all put an end to this issue and put an end to unnecessary animal suffering.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, there were enough warnings before the crisis in Kosovo really got under way. Before 11 September, Afghanistan was on the EU’s list of forgotten crisis regions. I think these are two examples of the way in which we are all too often all too wise all too late. Unfortunately, when it is too late there is every willingness to employ quite fabulous sums on military action. This is in stark contrast to the willingness to employ resources on civil crisis prevention and on peacekeeping. Now, the EU has decided to play an active role in conflict prevention in Africa. That is something I view in positive terms. However, we should also play a more active and independent role in relation to the conflict in the Middle East. That role has unfortunately fallen somewhat by the wayside since 11 September. The Sakharov Prize is not enough. We must make pro-active use of the tariff agreement in this crisis.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, European regional policy includes a differential element, which is dictated by geography and which defines the outermost regions. They are distant, isolated, fragmented and are highly dependent on the outside, and they have been experiencing inconsistent development since the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which allowed the application of specific measures to correct their backwardness. Over recent days, the authorities of these regions have been meeting in the Canary Islands to analyse, together with the representatives of the European Commission and the three States involved, the situation of these special regions in relation to social and economic cohesion. I am sure that, as well as asking for special treatment, they will have requested some of the measures which Mr Musotto is asking for today in his report – and I congratulate him also – in which he stresses the need to differentiate between statistical convergence and real convergence, as well as the suitability of using alternative indicators to per capita income, such as unemployment, the lack of infrastructures, the lack of transport and energy, double insularity, the training of human resources and the levels of ozone in the outermost regions. In this way, I am sure that their economic and social development will not be restricted and Europe will have clearly demonstrated its solidarity with its people.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, there is no need to insist on the importance today of the information society for everybody, both for the public sector and for companies and citizens. I will focus on just two of the reports under discussion today. With regard to the Commission’s initiative on the reuse of public sector documents, there are more and more companies in Europe who make use of information from the public sector and who reuse it. We must guarantee that the conditions for access to this information are the same throughout Europe. The price for this information must be proportional – without question – to the cost of production, but on the other hand we cannot oblige the administration – as the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs has said – to produce all that information if it is not relevant or necessary. With regard to the Council’s proposed decision on the monitoring of eEurope and the dissemination of good practices and security on the networks, I would like to highlight two aspects. The Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, which produced the opinion for the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, which produced the main report, has also stated that it is necessary not just to promote all exchanges of good practices between public and private professionals, but that the Commission should also fund information and awareness campaigns on the issue of the security of networks. I would like to congratulate the Commission on its initiative today to present a single system for security of the networks. It is clear that our work and our economies are increasingly based on the information society and it is therefore important to reduce the risk of insecurity on networks. We must guarantee both safe access and the protection of the privacy of the data of those who access the public sector and the networks in general. In order to promote an electronic economy in the field of enterprises, it is also essential to promote a culture based on the entrepreneurial spirit and to stimulate greater participation by companies in the information society. While in Lisbon, as other Members have said, the strategic objective was set on turning the knowledge-based economy into the most competitive and dynamic economy in the world, the objective of the information society is undoubtedly an important and essential driving force.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mr Alyssandrakis on this excellent and authoritative report, which urges us to put in place a Community space policy. That said, given the progress made on Galileo, I think that we are still a long way short of the target and that we must not give up what we already have for something far less certain. In other words, the intergovernmental method is now proving that it is working better than the Community method. This is because, throughout the world, space development cannot be achieved unless a number of conditions are in place. First of all, we must not be afraid of public support, funded from the public coffers. The market can fund not everything...not American rockets, not Russian rockets, not French rockets. Secondly, the military funds a large part of civilian resources; let us not beat about the bush. If we refuse to accept a dual system, we will have great difficulty in launching the space industry in Europe, given that, as you have seen with Galileo, the pacifism of this House is, at the end of the day, a gift to American militarism. I think that we must also have this set out very clearly in our minds. The Americans said that they do not want Galileo because it is incompatible on a strategic and military level with GPS. Lastly, we must also have a genuine industrial policy. However, I do not think that we are fulfilling these conditions as yet. This is something that I regret, but we must move in this direction if we eventually want the European Union to be the space power that it should be and that it must be if Europe wants to maintain a high level of technology. As a final point, I would like to say that I think if we want to move forward in this area, we must strengthen our cooperation with those who want to move in this direction and leave behind those who do not want to. And this is not simply for the sake of Galileo, it is also for the future of a European space policy.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner Reding, we have been in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sport until now, where we voted on three very complicated reports. That is why I arrived so out of breath, but we did very well. I would like to thank Mrs de Sarnez for carrying out her work with such determination and so much drive. In doing so she achieved what we wanted to achieve; we will be able to start the Erasmus Mundus programme at the beginning of 2004. This report emphasises something that is very dear to Parliament, that is, we are creating a European learning area, an expression we were not allowed to use in relation to Socrates II. Today, I think everyone is talking in such terms and that, I believe, is a good thing. We are bringing Europe back onto the international stage. Europe will become more competitive and more attractive to young people from abroad. As against the EUR 180 million that the Commission wanted, we have set a figure of EUR 230 million. Achieving this increase took a great deal of effort, but I believe that it is also a reflection of the ambitions we have for this programme. To be genuinely appealing such a programme requires financing. We put further emphasis on language learning and that is a very important point because the students who come here study in three different countries and we expect them to try to learn at least two of the languages of these countries. I see Erasmus Mundus as a marvellous way of continuing Socrates-Erasmus, and I believe that we will make this programme a great success in 2004, the very year that the European elections are taking place. I hope that in so doing and in showing what we are capable of, we will make this a real attraction in the European Union and beyond. These students, coming from outside the EU, will be able to study in three places in Europe; they will assimilate the cultural diversity of the European Union, they will learn the languages and they will carry Europe’s message abroad. I am glad that we have come so far together on this road. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we have had hot-headed arguments in the groups about speaking times and about which subjects can be included on the urgent list and which cannot. We have wrangled over minutes and then we end up finishing half an hour early! Something has gone dreadfully wrong with the mathematics and I would be most obliged if you would examine how we can make full use of the sitting time up to the vote. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
This report enshrines the plan to pursue and entrench the policy of destructuring both in situ training methods and the means of producing teaching and learning products (which now fall within the multimedia industry’s sphere of competence). This is happening in response to the so-called example gleaned from the experiences and policies of countries that have gone further along the path of privatising schools and of commercialising education. There, the companies that provide such goods and services are more experienced and have already accumulated considerable economic weight and cultural influence. This report’s support for measures that destructure modes of formal education, and in particular in situ education, comes to the fore at various points. These measures combine with the under-funding of educational institutions to help dismantle public education systems. In addition, they pave the way for private organisations to supply informal educational methods such as distance learning, whose value as an educational qualification is meaningless, and also for the ad hoc contracting of workers trained in such informal ‘education systems’. Doubts remain as to the composition of the Commission’s advisory committee, though it will, naturally, include ‘experts’, thereby circumventing governments’ representative authority. The rash of programmes such as eLearning, Leonardo, Socrates, and so forth, tend to reduce the room for manoeuvre, the authority, of each Member State, each educational institution. These programmes reduce the purpose of education itself to a supporting role, or to being a means to some other end.

Political group: GUE-NGL