GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, as Mrs Sudre rightly emphasises in her very commendable and extensive report, it is indisputable that the outermost regions have five characteristics which put them at a permanent or very long-lasting disadvantage. Firstly, their geographical proximity to non-EU States and simultaneous membership of the European Union. Secondly, their relative isolation because of their great distance from Europe. Thirdly, the very small size of the local internal market. Fourthly, geographical and climatic conditions which militate against the development of endogenous potential. Fifthly, economic dependence upon a few products in the economy. This inevitably leads to a situation in which these objective handicaps can, also in the longer term, only be offset, with a view to achieving cohesion, when the necessary financial resources are made available on the basis of Article 299, paragraph 2. Through this article, the outermost regions should be so placed as not to be subject to permanent reductions in their budgets as a result of the Budget debate. Just as you, Mrs Sudre, as the representative of the outermost regions, rightly call for solidarity, I would also request solidarity on your part where the interests of the Objective 1 regions are concerned, in the sense that no reductions in funds should be implemented for as long as the regions concerned are still handicapped in comparison with the developed regions of Europe. The proof of the pudding is whether, in contrast to the agreement on how best to proceed expressed by most of the groups today in the Budget debate, we want to meet new political necessities not with new money but at the expense of policies which have still not been implemented. This question will become that much more relevant the closer EU enlargement towards the East becomes. I am convinced that it is now already clear that, without a change to the Financial Perspective, it will not be possible to solve this problem. Allow us simply to act according to the proverb, ‘Do not put off till tomorrow what you can do today.’

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we are all in favour of a reduction in the use of pesticides, but to suddenly decide upon a 50% reduction is neither realistic nor practical. Consumers want a very good quality product. In fact, they have become accustomed to this. Very often the quality of the product is due to the amount of pesticide with which it has been sprayed. I am almost committing a sin by actually mentioning it, but many crops are sprayed and, because of this, they are of a very good quality. Consumers demand high quality, and that is what they will buy. If they do not buy a product that is produced in the European Union because we have banned various chemicals, they will buy it from outside and this will put our farmers at a disadvantage. Farmers in the European Union also want to grow many varied types of crops. If we are not careful, we will take many chemicals off the market and this will reduce the amount of crops we can grow. This is certainly not the intention of the Commission nor of Parliament. There is a place for organic farming, but we must accept that if the whole world was to embrace organic farming, we would starve. It is as simple as that. We would be unable to produce anywhere near enough food for the world if we were entirely on an organic system. As one of my colleagues has mentioned, GMO agriculture would enable us to actually produce a plant which is resistant to many diseases and could be sprayed a great deal less. We could probably reduce the chemical use on these crops by even more than 50%, but, of course, we have closed our minds and our ears to the whole debate and, again, we are going to reduce the competitivity of European agriculture. We have to face up to the realities of the global market.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, a warm welcome to Professor Monti, who appears to be deep in thought at the moment. My heartiest congratulations to Mr Konrad on the huge amount of work he has done and the considerable effort he has put into this report. The main aim of the new regulation is to increase the level of competition across the board with a view to improving consumer well-being and safety and the functioning of the internal market. In order to achieve this last goal, it will also have to provide protection for dealers and encourage the small and medium-sized businesses operating in the European automotive sector. We therefore agree that the interests of consumers should take first place, and there are a huge range of possibilities within the common market. Increasing competition between sales distributors and in the after sales market and increasing competition in the manufacturing and distribution of spare parts must therefore be seen as positive. We must not, however, overlook the fact that, if the measures laid down in the new regulation are interpreted too rigidly or too loosely, they could reduce legal certainty and lead to forms of concentration in distribution location, in after sales services and in spares production, causing a considerable number of small and medium-sized businesses to disappear from our market and impacting negatively on employment and the expected benefits for consumers. For these reasons, the Group of the European People’s Party has adopted an extremely favourable stance; it endorses the idea of a transition period until 2005 and a review clause. Naturally, we hope that the other groups will take the same stance. The implementation of the idea of protecting consumers by reducing car prices, the effectiveness of which is, as yet, completely unproven, will have to involve an evaluation of what happens during the transition period. The necessary conclusions will be drawn from the results which emerge and the new regulation will then be applied accordingly. During that period, dealers will, however, have the opportunity to invest, taking into account any restructuring of industry, and this would, in any case, be less harmful than a regulation which might work against the consumer and which would certainly penalise a large number of small and medium-sized businesses operating in the car dealership sector.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I am deeply concerned, Commissioner. Listening to our fellow MEP, Mr Davies is extremely depressing. More and more young people in Europe are ending up in the type of squalor brought about by drugs. The trend is in the wrong direction. Mr Davies thinks so too, but more and more EU countries appear to have given up. In this Chamber too, voices in favour of legalising and liberalising drugs and classifying them as dangerous and less dangerous are being heard more and more often. Here in Parliament, there is a desire to tear up the UN conventions on drugs. These are what we have to hold onto, Commissioner. I am afraid that European drugs policy is on the decline. The overall tenor of Mrs Malliori’s report is, unfortunately, along those lines, even though certain parts of it are constructive, for example the demand for drugs-free prisons. That being said, it is quite unreasonable to begin talking about the ‘upside’ of drugs and about chill-out rooms and injecting rooms. Drug policy must free addicts from dependence, not sanitise dependence. The only way to achieve that goal is through a combination of bans, care, preventive work and international cooperation. The objective, which has to remain in place, must be a drugs-free society. We Swedish Liberals will vote against the report because it lacks this overall combination.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, this debate has already revealed substantial convergence of all the positions around an awareness of the importance of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership’s development of the Barcelona Process in defining the very essence of Europe and its strategy at the dawn of the third millennium, in terms of peaceful coexistence in an atmosphere of stability and security for its peoples, and of a socio-economic development plan and project which is also based on total respect for fundamental human, civil and political rights. All this helps to shape the development of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership and give it direction. Along with other Members who have spoken, I am convinced that, although there have been delays, these may not all be due to technical factors, but also to the basic intention – which I do not support – to reduce this process to the creation of a free trade area, and I am not denying the importance of a free trade area. The development of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership must mean more than this: there is no doubting the fact that it must also promote an infrastructure which is linked to the values of the civil societies, to cultural, social, tourist and sporting exchanges, and linked to the development of these contributions, which are not directly related to the creation of a free trade area but which complement it. We must not spoil the ship for a hap’orth of tar, as they say. Therefore, we need an active undertaking from the Commission and the Council, openly supported by Parliament, to make more resources available to sustain the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, a level of resources which is proportionate to the resources already used to sustain eastward enlargement. The Cannes European Council made a commitment of this kind, and it should not be forgotten. We must contribute to the development of a favourable climate for private investment, with technical assistance support which provides the same kind of support and aid for these third countries as that supplied to the CEE countries, the possibility of an interregional and transnational cooperation programme aimed at achieving complementarity and integration between the countries of the Mediterranean Basin through coordination between the MEDA and INTERREG programmes, and the possibility of a new generation of programmes to remedy the current fragmentation and inefficiency of a host of Community programmes for the Southern Mediterranean, which, at a rough count, already involve over seventeen different Directorates of the Commission and countless microprojects which, in all probability, do not fulfil this purpose. My proposals have been specific as other Members have already covered the more strategic, political points.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wish to begin by saying that I support what Mr Van Orden said. He has set the problem out very well. There is clearly a very serious problem, and Aung San Suu Kyi should be released immediately. It is unacceptable that a delegation from this Parliament is not allowed, and has been refused, permission to visit her. There is a real need for the other states in the region to maximise the pressure for her immediate release and to ensure that free elections concur with that. I have to ask how long will the European Union and the United Nations drag their feet and stand back before they increase the pressure for the early release of those held in prison? There is an urgent need for immediate action. Words are easy, what we need now is for the roadmap to be implemented.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is important to eliminate the final obstacles to achieving the completely free movement of people, goods and services. I have therefore no hesitation in agreeing with the proposal of the European Parliament to call on the Commission to come up with a concrete proposal for abolishing registration taxes. The differences in the taxation of passenger cars in the EU are resulting in great differences in car prices, fragmentation of the passenger car market, double taxation and a whole heap of red tape. People in the EU pay too much for their cars and are prevented from taking their cars with them when they move to a different country. With this proposal, the EU has an opportunity to fundamentally improve the free movement of people. A chance we cannot afford to miss!

Political group: PPE-DE
I am taking the floor for a personal reason, Mr President. I heard Mrs Angelilli refer in her speech to certain Members, whose names she did not give, and she stated that these persons falsified signatures in the European Parliament register. I should like you, Mr President, to make her say to whom she was referring – their full names – and to ask her to provide evidence for the statement made in this Chamber. This is not acceptable. Mr Cox has already had occasion to state quite clearly what the position is and what the rights are of the Members who work in this Chamber. This cannot be accepted, Mr President. I call on Mrs Angelilli to name names.

Political group: PSE
Once more, the hypocrisy of the European Union is evident both in the state of, and respect for, human rights within the Union and in its international policy on these matters. We are particularly worried by the proposals for greater consideration to be given to human rights in the Union’s foreign policy, not because we underestimate their importance or the need to promote and safeguard them but because experience shows that they are being used selectively. The European Union turns a blind eye to situations in which human rights are being savagely violated in order to protect its imperialistic interests. Its attitude towards the Turkish regime is a blatant example. Elsewhere, the particularly sensitive issue of human rights is being used as an excuse for intervention, even military intervention, so as to impose specific policies and particular courses of action. The recent and continuing invasions in Kosovo, using the rights of minorities as a pretext, and the unbelievable demands being made on Yugoslavia are a typical example of how military intervention is being advanced as a general principle of international law at the expense of the principle of national sovereignty. The very policy which the EU and its Member States are pursuing from within is leading to human rights being subverted and becoming dead letter. The effects of this policy are already visible in the rise of extremist, fascist powers and racist perceptions, and not just in Austria. The report on combating racism does not demonstrate that the necessary conclusions have been reached. We therefore condemn the EU’s attempts to use human rights as a pretext in order to reinforce its anti-grass roots and anti-democratic nature and intervene further to the detriment of the people. We call on the people to be vigilant and to stop their self-proclaimed saviours trampling on their rights. We also urge them to fight for solutions which will guarantee that their rights are promoted and flourish. For these reasons, the three Members of the European Parliament of the Greek Communist Party will abstain from voting.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I too regret the absence of the Commissioner here this evening. Perhaps she is stuck at Brussels airport. Perhaps she should have taken the train. I begin by welcoming the Commission's proposal to integrate Europe's convention on a high-speed rail network. I thank the rapporteur for his patience, his skill and, above all, his commitment to the cause of Europe's railways. I would also like to thank the Portuguese presidency for its skilful handling of this very complex dossier – an example of Europeans working together to solve common problems. This problem, I believe, can only be solved satisfactorily at EU-level. What is the problem? As we have heard already this evening, in 1970 the railways had a 21% share of the freight market, today just 8.5%. In 1970 the railways had a 10% share of the passenger market, today just 6%. If these trends continue just 4% of travellers will go by train at the end of the decade and rail freight will all but disappear. The sad fact is that the railways have lost ground even where there are well placed, for example, in long distance freight. The very future of our railways is at stake, together with the jobs of one million people employed in the industry. A key reason for this decline is that, in contrast to aviation and road haulage, a single market does not exist in this sector. For 150 years, the railways have been organised along national lines. Even the opportunity of electrification further divided Europe's railways because there are now five different systems in operation. More recently the railways have adopted 16 different and incompatible electronic signalling systems. That all adds costs and it means railways cannot compete. Differences have also contributed to the fragmentation of the market for railway equipment. This proposal being considered here tonight, together with other proposals from the Commission, aims to create an internal market in rail services. It will help achieve a harmonisation of technical standards for equipment and rolling stock and the integration of national networks to boost cross-border traffic. That will make the railways more efficient, reliable and more competitive. It would also boost the railway equipment industry in countries such as my own. It will contribute to the fulfilment of our aim of switching freight from the congested and polluted roads to Europe's railways and encouraging the development of more high-speed rail services to take the place of short-haul flights. The revitalisation of the railways is crucial to the future of Europe's transport system, our environment and our economy. That is why Mr Savary's report deserves our full support.

Political group: PSE
In two months’ time, the EU will be gaining ten new Member States. Although last year’s decisions make enlargement a certainty, the Brok Report lists 148 areas of concern, and the addition of still more such areas is proposed in the form of amendments, some of them tabled by myself. It would appear from the texts that some Members of this House are primarily concerned about the failed privatisations, the sluggish tempo at which all barriers to the free market are being removed, and what they see as the excessively high level of public expenditure. I disagree with them very strongly. In reality, these countries have already given in to many unreasonable and unwise demands, which means that their problems can only get worse in the future. The price they have had to pay for accession to the EU will prevent them from meeting their people’s expectations, which will constitute a threat to democracy. Others are more concerned about the desperate situation of the millions of Roma, about the marginalisation of the Russian minority in the Baltic states, the continuing discrimination against homosexuals, the introduction of electoral laws intended to exclude smaller political movements and the serious lack of concern for the environment. I endorse these criticisms and will continue to do so even after these countries’ accessions.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I must admit that, of the many subjects dealt with in this term, the subject that we are dealing with this morning has, for me, been one of the most complex, and I must acknowledge the enormous amount of work that Mrs McCarthy has carried out. I do not have all the answers and I understand the Commission’s need - as Commissioner Bolkestein explained clearly - to speak on this issue. I will, nevertheless, make a few remarks of a general nature, starting with the premise that we are dealing with an issue where identifying the subject of legal protection, and thus converting computer terms into legal terms and concepts, can already, in itself, be an extremely complex matter. Now to a second point: we have, of necessity, to deal with a complex international legislative framework and, if we look at what is happening, not just in Europe but in the United States, in particular, the patent system is proving to have very many limitations, above all very many practical limitations. Having said that, I believe that this directive, although there is room for improvement, has addressed a serious political issue facing the European Union. We need to stand apart from the US positions and we may well also have to convince our main economic partners of the need for a measure harmonising all aspects of the legal protection of software in a form different from the current form. In this, we are not starting from scratch, because the characteristics on which patents are based have already been clearly identified in the TRIPs agreements. We therefore need to insist on the idea - from which we must not be moved - that software patents are only granted on solid grounds. We have seen an abnormal number of applications for software patents in the United States, and there are probably just as many in the EU, and this makes it clear that we are not dealing with genuine inventive activity and that we cannot afford to grant every type of application a patent. Furthermore, with the number of patent applications increasing uncontrollably, it will become virtually impossible to ascertain properly from the archives whether the application will genuinely lead to a new invention. Of course, there are some legal aspects that could be improved upon; there are some discrepancies with Directive 91/250/EEC; we could certainly have reflected more from a legal point of view on Article 52 of the European Patent Convention, because one thing is certain: we will be forced to return to this issue because - as many Members have stated - development is so rapid that the European Union will have to adopt a measure in the next few years, when we will be able to revise our positions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, naturally, I am referring to the procedure. I would like to thank the Commission for the explanation. I fully endorse its position. Please be assured that the Commission has the support of a large majority of Members of this House.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it is a real procedural motion this time. By this, I mean that some MEPs, myself included at times, take advantage of this possibility, but this is a real procedural motion. I am a loyal customer of question time. I therefore prepare my questions. I knew that Mr Kinnock would be present, and I therefore asked Mr Kinnock a very specific question. This is question No 18 about language use in the European institutions. The services of Parliament have included this question in the third section, that is, the second question in the third section, although it was an explicit question for Mr Kinnock. I do not understand this. I will now only receive a written reply, while I might have wanted to ask Mr Kinnock additional questions. Can you explain to me how the procedure worked in this case, and why a question addressed to Mr Kinnock still ends up in the third section?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the Conference of Presidents has very kindly decided to include the oral question on the difficulties encountered by European beekeeping in the agenda for this Thursday’s plenary sitting. The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development adopted the oral question on 12 June in accordance with Rule 42 of the Rules of Procedure. The committee appointed Mr Souchet and myself to draw up a motion for a resolution to conclude the debate and we wanted to adopt the motion for a resolution on 30 September. Now, since you have brought the timetable forward – something which does not happen often but which we greatly welcome – I would like to ask, if the debate on the question is to be included in Thursday’s agenda, to include the vote on the motion for a resolution which the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development is to adopt on 30 September in the first October part-session. Thus, if the vote on the resolution can be taken during the first October part-session, we agree to the oral question with debate being included in this Thursday’s agenda. If the vote cannot take place during the first October part-session, we do not. (Parliament agreed to the request)(1)

Political group: PPE-DE