GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would thank the Commission for its statement and would urge it to file an official objection to this patent. The Council should give the Commission the mandate to do this. In justification of this, I would point out that it must be the Commission’s job to enforce the directive on bio-patents. It is debatable whether this directive, for which I was the rapporteur, is in fact a suitable tool for managing the problems involved. It would have been helpful if whoever was giving vent to his indignation had taken the trouble to read the patent. He would then have seen that the patent infringes the directive on bio-patents on two counts, firstly because the patent protection extends to include a procedure for modifying human genetic material and, secondly, because the patent protection extends to include the use of embryos for commercial and industrial purposes. These are two clear infringements of the directive on bio-patents. How one might now use this as an opportunity to again cast doubt upon the directive without having read the patent or the directive, I really cannot imagine. Hence, my request to Parliament to the effect that we should not again cast doubt upon the directive, as Mrs Breyer thinks we have to. This is, in fact, the first text in the world to offer a satisfactory solution to the problems involved in patent protection and bio-technological inventions and, what is more, the first text in the world to win universal approval. It is now, therefore, a question not of again bringing the directive into question but of enforcing it.

Political group: PSE
We have today chosen to vote in favour of the report on a reform of the budgetary procedure. The report contains a number of important measures in the area of the budget. It is proposed, for example, that the distinction between compulsory and non-compulsory expenditure be abolished. We believe that there is no good reason for such a division. Clearly, Parliament must have influence upon agricultural expenditure too. We support the proposal for making it simpler to move money between different categories of expenditure in the EU budget. That is an important measure for creating a system in which money is used more efficiently in the EU. The report also points out that the rules governing the EU’s own resources must be reviewed. We want particularly to emphasise that we support a system that is clearer than the current one and that is better at showing how much money is going into the EU. We are, however, completely opposed to a system that could lead to Parliament’s being given influence over how much money is to be allocated to the EU. It is important that it be the Member States that decide upon the levels of funding for the EU and that Parliament have the last say on the money that is spent.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, we have discussed this at great length and negotiated with Mr Oostlander in person. We do not agree with this oral amendment. Unfortunately, it is the UCK, not the ‘so-called UCK’, and they are ‘armed groups’, not ‘allied groups’ which is why we oppose the oral amendment. (More than twelve Members rose to oppose these oral amendments being taken into consideration) - On the subject of Amendment No 41

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, whenever we debate the crisis in the Balkans, which of course has now become a gentler, more correctly defined form of crisis, we are all the wiser for it. In this sense, today's report by Mr Lagendijk is a good report and we are all the wiser for having debated it. The situation in the region is indeed complicated, complicated from the political standpoint, from the social standpoint, and from the developmental standpoint. Our intervention in the Balkans, therefore, is not technocratic intervention, it is political intervention, because new institutions need to be built. Now that every institution has been destroyed, nations which have been in conflict need to be encouraged to communicate and the entire social, political and developmental environment needs to change. So our efforts have to be unwavering, they have to take an unwavering approach which avoids controversy and they have to be in keeping with UN resolutions. Any philosophy of change could give rise to renewed crisis. Secondly, the nations in the area need to make an effort to communicate with each other again; this will also foster economic development because these countries all used to support each other's economies. Thirdly, it is good that the countries in the area as a whole will soon all be members of the European Union, from Romania to Bulgaria, Austria, Greece and so on; in other words, there will be a positive impact on developments in these countries from all sides. And then we shall need to do our utmost, politically, to help these nations, which lived in peaceful coexistence for hundreds of years, to regain their historic foothold, to rediscover their modus vivendi, to rediscover the political union and common way of life which, unfortunately, have been upset over recent years by untimely movements and careless initiatives.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, there is a quotation from George Orwell’s book, Animal Farm which, in a way, describes what happened in Nice. It reads, ‘Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.’ Translated into what happened in Nice, this could read, ‘All EU countries are equal, but it is the large countries which decide’. What happened in Nice was not only that the European Union’s large Member States set the agenda, but that they also brought about Treaty changes which guarantee them the same power in an enlarged EU. On the basis of the Treaty of Nice, an enlarged EU will become a Union which is more centralised and in which the small countries pay the whole price of enlargement. For the Swedish negotiators, it would appear to have been more important to please the large Member States than to fight for our own influence. Sweden is therefore to be given fewer votes than comparable Member States. It is hard to see what there is in the Nice decisions which really makes enlargement of the EU any the easier. The decision-making process in the Council is to become more complicated, at the same time as it is to become more difficult to take decisions. Nice means more supranationalism and centralism, which are precisely what the EU did not need. The EU’s real problems are the lack of democracy and grassroots support, but those questions were not dealt with at all at the Nice Summit. I can also inform this Assembly that the results of a Swedish opinion poll were published today, showing that only 38 per cent of the population want to remain in the European Union.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, approximately two years ago, information was circulating to the effect that Roma women were being sterilised against their will in Eastern Europe, especially in Slovakia. On 17 October 2003, Mr Alvaro Gil-Robles, the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, published a recommendation on ‘Certain aspects of law and practice relating to sterilisation of women in the Slovak Republic’. The recommendation states that there has been no organised policy in this area. It has, however, happened that women have been sterilised against their will. In March 2002, I put a question about this to the Commission, which promised to follow up the matter and enquire of Slovakia whether proof had been found of such compulsory sterilisation really having taken place. Mr Alvaro Gil-Robles, the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, has now published this evidence, and I would ask the Commissioner to fulfil its promise. We cannot have an EU in which what is most fundamental is not respected: a person’s right to his or her own life. I hope that everyone else who, later in the debate, discusses issues of life and death will also consider this aspect. We cannot accept such things in a European Union.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I am going to comment on the Koukiadis report. Hardly a year has passed since we debated the report on the deliberations of the Committee on Petitions for 2001 – for which I was rapporteur – and I am pleased to note that the right of petition is increasingly strengthening the political control that the European Parliament can exercise in relation to excessive violations of Community law. This also allows us to assess the state of the application of that law within the Union and the degree of satisfaction amongst the citizens with the Community institutions, which are absolutely essential in a Union which is so large, so multi-faceted and sometimes so disconnected from those institutions. All of this is taken up superbly in the report by Mr Koukiadis which, furthermore, comes at an historic moment for the Convention, which should not sidestep – this would be a great mistake – the strengthening of the right to petition and the enlargement of a uniform administrative code of conduct. For all these reasons, we congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Koukiadis. However, we once again regret – and this aspect is also taken up in the report we are debating – the lack of attention the Council is paying to this inalienable right of the European citizens, since the Council is still absent throughout the process, and this at a time when it is trying to gain more power for itself, to the detriment of Parliament and the Commission. Furthermore, we are delighted at the intention to introduce preventive measures to prevent abuses of cultural and environmental heritage – which, by the way, are issues which are at the forefront of the European citizens’ concerns. I will end by insisting also that we should investigate procedures aimed at effectively remedying the national authorities’ lack of willingness to cooperate with the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament. We must study them and implement them as soon as possible. We have had enough of the lukewarm positions of the Council and the national governments. As the rapporteur suggests and as has been proposed in corresponding reports in previous years, we should even go as far as to renounce, in press conferences, the obstructive and reticent attitudes of the governments to the resolutions of Parliament’s Committee on Petitions. And I would also like to wish Jacob Söderman all the best for his Iberian retirement. IN THE CHAIR: MR PODTÀVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, for many people in the EU, Albania is far away, further than the back of beyond, and yet the Albanians are one of the oldest European civilisations. In the Middle Ages they fought against the Ottoman invasion and they defended themselves against them as Europeans until well into modern times. They have suffered particularly badly from European disregard. In the nineteenth century, better prospects were held out for all the Balkan nations at the Congress of Berlin in 1878. In Berlin, the Albanians were almost brushed aside from the table – their views were not taken into account – and in the twentieth century, they have suffered greatly under one of the most terrible ideologies of the twentieth century, namely under socialism and communism in a particularly brutal manifestation. That is why, today, we have a European responsibility for this European Albania. That is why I welcome the line taken in the report and the approach adopted by the action plan. However, we need to make absolutely certain that we do not operate double standards. Much has been said here about minority rights. I should like to say that we are right to demand minority rights of the Albanians. But if we do so then we must also introduce them across the European Union. We have not managed to do this. We do not have any European standards on the protection of minorities. In all Albania's neighbouring countries – apart from Kosovo, where the Albanians are in a majority – we have Albanian minorities, and we can demonstrate here what the EU's standards on minorities are. I should like to make a second point. Like Mr Lisi, I believe that we need to incorporate burden-sharing in our policy on asylum and refugees. But the problem is that we have fought for this very point, and neither in this House nor in the European Union have we achieved a majority in favour of a system of burden-sharing based on quotas. Precisely in the case of Albania we see that it can affect any Member State. That is why it is important for us not to spend any longer tinkering about with the symptoms, but for us finally to establish a policy on asylum and refugees based on solidarity, with fixed quotas and a stable system of burden-sharing, before catastrophe strikes.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the shadow rapporteurs have reached a new compromise on this point and I should therefore like to withdraw Amendment No 76 on behalf of the . We accept this compromise.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, you will be aware that, at this moment, thousands of seamen and volunteers are working with their own hands in Galicia to resolve a problem which should not fall to them – a disaster caused by the idleness of the public authorities – making up for the absence of the European Union and the Spanish State. Mr President, I would like to express here at this time the indignation of the Galician people and their disappointment at the Copenhagen resolutions, which were a complete failure and which did not even take account of the demands of the European Commission, and there are therefore States in the European Union – the majority of the governments, with the cooperation of the Spanish Government, led by Mr Aznar – which prefer to attend to the interests of the large oil companies – I would even say of the criminal capitalist mafias – rather than protecting the countries and citizens of Europe.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the problem of waste is one of the subjects that interests people most, as it has a tangible effect on them. Waste management and promoting the recycling and recovery of waste can have a direct impact on people’s everyday lives and welfare, as well as their enjoyment of their surroundings. The explosive growth in the volume of waste in the future will be both an environmental and a health problem for an enlarged European Union and its citizens. Nevertheless, in many Member States regulations for waste management, the prevention of its build-up, recovery and recycling have not been implemented yet in any serious way, and national laws are often unsatisfactory. I myself belong to a band of happy citizens who live in a country where the national strategy on waste is sufficiently ambitious and dealt with excellently. Finland’s waste problems at national level cannot, however, be shrugged off, because, as with environmental disasters, waste knows no limits either. The Commission proposal to clarify regulations on shipments of waste and clinch a deal on common rules for the waste markets is sorely needed. The authorities need clear legislation to improve waste recovery and steer waste management in a more environmentally friendly direction than before. It is also particularly important that the minimum requirements for environmental standards applied to third countries adhere to the internal legislative logic of the Community and are not based on any merely vague guidelines. I am also worried about the welfare of vulnerable sea areas and the environmental risks they face. The protection of Europe’s only internal sea, the Baltic, has long been a priority for the Finnish state. I regard it as important that the proposal in question should include the EU’s regional waters, which need protection from the threats posed by waste traffic. It is important to note that ships and other means of transport by water can be classed as waste. The Basel Convention has not taken separate account of this, and it is therefore important to raise the matter here and now so that any loopholes can be closed.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, for genuinely taking the initiative in producing this own-initiative report on coexistence, and for successfully bringing together all points of view in one report. The fact is that opinions on coexistence vary from one country to the next, and even within my group we cannot agree on the subject. Let us be clear: it was a long time now that the question stopped being about whether we say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to genetic engineering. The rapporteur has said that. That question has long been decided. We need to look ahead and are already discussing how there can be coexistence between GM and non-GM crops, and how to ensure that all parties can operate side by side without anyone being disadvantaged. Coexistence ought to guarantee freedom of choice for farmers and consumers, and clear rules need to be created for the benefit of all European farmers, allowing each to make an independent choice about which different farming methods to use, and ensuring those methods can coexist without generating problems. After intensive cross-party and internal discussions, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affairs has reached a compromise and has approved a report containing specific, clear demands. Our own-initiative report calls for comprehensive regulation at Community level, since the guidelines proposed by the Commission are a collection of non-binding recommendations. We therefore expect the Commission, where policy is determined at Community level, as in the case of agricultural policy, to provide a common regulatory framework. Another important feature in our report is the call for the Commission to submit a proposal for Community-wide liability and insurance. Provision must be made in advance to cover the possibility of adventitious contamination, rather than simply leaving the farmers to sort it out between themselves, and the devil take the hindmost. There is no way the question of liability should be left to the farmers to resolve. In addition, GMO contamination in seed must be established using technically viable and accurate threshold values, in order to ensure that agricultural production complies with the existing labelling threshold of 0.9% for food. This subject has already been addressed by Mrs Scheele. An own-initiative report is one way in which Parliament can send a clear political signal. If we now water down the demands and comments made by the Committee on Agriculture and unwrap the existing package, our demands will no longer be clear. Instead, we will have a hotchpotch of vague statements without any clear shape. As MEPs, we need to ask ourselves whether we really want to send out a political signal with no actual content. I therefore join the rapporteur in hoping that this own-initiative report will be adopted tomorrow with a genuinely convincing majority, since it has already received so much support in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affairs. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, beef labelling was actually conceived as a quick way of regaining the public’s confidence in beef after a string of crises and scandals. But it has since turned into an almost unending saga. Whenever the regulation might cease to apply, Parliament is called upon to act quickly to prevent a legal vacuum arising. There have been two deadlines, first December 1999 and now the present deadline of 31 August 2000. Commissioner, given the time periods involved, you cannot seriously call on Parliament not to adopt any amendments. We want a workable system, and we have always said that. As the proposal before us does not guarantee that, it is not just our right, it is our duty as Members of the European Parliament to adopt amendments. When I then hear that in Italy, for example, the technical requirements for this system are not even in place yet, and that the same applies in other countries, then I wonder why there is all this rush if the system has not been implemented anyway. I would welcome some comments from the Commissioner on that point. The Commission’s proposal will lead to our having to deal with the system again before long. The Commission perhaps reacted somewhat hastily in the wake of the BSE crisis, and now we are into brinkmanship again. I cannot help feeling that the 2003 deadline that was thought up in December 1998 is now occupying the Commission’s thought processes again. I believe that you can achieve implementation of this regulation by 1 September if you accept our amendments. You will not achieve it if you still insist on including category of animal, which we have already touched upon several times today. That has nothing to do with information for the public, it is just a quality issue, and does not belong in this regulation. Commissioner, please accept the amendments and we will then have something workable in place by 1 September.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the European Socialist Party, I formally request that the vote take place in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, which states that we should vote by means of secret ballot papers. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Development and Cooperation. – I congratulate my friend and colleague Mrs Gillig as rapporteur. Her report for the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs is parallel in many ways to mine on corporate social responsibility. We have worked together to ensure a consistent and complementary set of proposals is put to Parliament, and I should like to thank her very much for that. On behalf of the Committee on Development, I want to stress four points in particular. Firstly, whilst we very much welcome the Commission's commitment to the inclusion of core labour standards in the enhanced GSP and in its trade agreements – we have seen evidence of that already in the South Africa trade agreement and the Cotonou Agreement – we stress in paragraph 11 of this resolution that new emphasis must be placed on practical implementation. For too long the human rights and democracy clauses in the EU's international agreements have committed us to the finest ideals, but they have not been subject to monitoring, reporting and systematic dialogue between the parties. Such clauses on core labour standards have to become the means to actual enforcement and that is the test for the Commission in following up this communication. Secondly, as we say in paragraph 12, that implementation has to be part of development cooperation programmes too – not just fine words in country strategy papers but real, quantifiable programmes, assisting developing country governments to establish and operate effective labour inspectorates and giving direct aid to developing country trade unions and other civil society and watchdog groups, to provide an independent voice in tackling abuses such as child and forced labour. Thirdly, core labour standards are universal. There must be no exceptions and that means the abuses which are systematically accepted in the massive informal sector in many developing countries, and deliberately encouraged in export-processing zones in many more too, have to come to an end. Europe has to be part of making that happen. Finally, specifically on corporate social responsibility, I welcome the Commission's new commitment to promote and enact the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprise in its White Paper this week and I repeat – as we do in paragraph 15 – the ultimate aim is a binding EU code of conduct for multinational enterprise. Today's vote and report brings that aim one step closer.

Political group: PSE