GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
As rapporteur, I supported the thrust of amendments tabled with a view to getting a clearer definition of what is patentable and limits to ensure that pure software is not patentable. It remains to be seen in the analysis of the votes whether this objective has been achieved. We await a common position from Council and Commission. This will be difficult to achieve as Parliament's amendments will inevitably be seen to go well beyond the legal situation as regards the patenting of computer-implemented inventions and may indeed put us at odds with our obligations under TRIPs. I continue to express my concerns that this EU directive should not undermine the competitiveness and innovation of our brightest and best companies in Europe, in particular by putting EU business and industry at a disadvantage in the global marketplace. It would be folly if our companies as a result of Parliament's amendments could not protect their innovation, enforce patents or gain a return on their R[amp]D investment. It would be contrary to our economic interests if we allowed the US and Japan to dominate markets as a result of their patent protection, while Europe's companies are squeezed out.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, following the discussion in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market and furthermore as a result of the presentation of new Commission documents on the same issue of improving Community regulations, my group believes that the report should be referred back to committee, with a view to presenting a proposal in plenum which can receive the widest possible support.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I too should like to start by extending my warmest thanks to the rapporteur of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, Mr Beysen, and congratulating him on his report. It was thanks to our excellent working relationship that we were able to put what started out as a highly disputed Commission proposal on sales promotions to bed. Advertising in the individual Member States and, more to the point, cross-border advertising in Europe, is a difficult and tricky business nowadays. One hardly dares launch an advertisement nowadays without checking with a lawyer first. There are all sorts of restrictions and bans on advertisers in the Member States. To bring you up to date on what is happening in Germany, which Mr Lehne also used as an example, the euro discount offered by a clothing chain at the beginning of the year was prohibited by the courts, early riser price discounts have been prohibited by the courts and classic customer loyalty schemes such as Air Miles have been banned under German law. Consumers are treated like ignorant, uninformed children. We have to put a stop to this, which is why I and my honourable friends in our group welcome in principle the Commission proposal to help out here. With the amendments by the Committee on Legal Affairs, it will certainly do a great deal to help the cross-border marketing of goods and services in Europe. The Committee on Legal Affairs has proposed important amendments to the scope of the regulation. A number of sensitive areas need to be exempted, especially national advertising bans for members of regulated professions such as lawyers and notaries, and bans on the advertising of pharmaceuticals. In addition, national rules on aggressive advertising practices or the exertion of psychological buying pressure need to stay in place. Seasonal and clearance sales are also exempted from the regulation, as are fixed-prices for books and, last but not least – and this has already been addressed – the thorny issue of below cost selling. We were right not to include this in the scope of the regulation. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I am pleased that all the parties and all the groups in this House – including the Group of the – agree on the political compromise that has been reached. After all, today’s legislation means that the moratorium will be lifted. Member States can therefore no longer prescribe their own requirements and ban products off their own bat if GMOs have been tested and approved at European level and meet all safety standards. I am also pleased that the Commission will be tabling a proposal shortly in which it will indicate how GMO farming, organic farming and traditional farming can continue to exist side by side. I wonder what the proposal will be like, but I assume that sufficient guarantees will be given for traditional and organic farming. Madam President, Consumers have the right to know what they eat and to be certain that their food is safe. Consumers must be able to choose, and labelling is crucial to this. I am not at all happy with the rules that have been laid down, not only in the Environment Council and in the Agriculture Council, but also in our own group. After all, traceability has not been factored in as the guiding principle: as modified DNA can be present unintentionally, a margin is provided for. We will therefore never be able to say again that something is completely free of modified DNA, which, to my mind, turns freedom of choice into a farce. Let me give you two examples: foodstuffs made of GMOs, such as sugar, starch and vegetable oils, fall within the scope of the labelling obligation, while sugar, oil and starch do not contain any protein or DNA. Other foodstuffs, however, that have been prepared with a GMO do not fall within the scope of the labelling obligation; these are cheese, wine, beer, soft drinks and last but not least, our daily bread, while bread improvers used to prepare bread contain yeasts or fungi with a GMO. These do contain residues of modified DNA in a verifiable manner. The distinction drawn is therefore hypocritical and I can understand very easily that industry has difficulty with it. I regret it and I hope that in two years’ time, thanks to the amendment clause, something better will turn up.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to congratulate Mrs Figueiredo most warmly on her good work in preparing this report. I am also very glad that the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs has put forward these amendments. What the Commission has tried to do in bridging the opposition between ourselves as Parliament and the Council is also gratifying. But I really must say that the Council has taken precious little notice of us. Only a few formal matters have been adopted. The Social Council and the Swedish Presidency, the Swedish presidency I would almost say, are not aware that there is also such a thing as codecision, they what to keep control of everything themselves. They think: there is open coordination and you as a Parliament must simply pay for our stunts from the Community budget. That is, I believe, unacceptable. That will undoubtedly lead, Madam Commissioner, not only in this case, but also in a number of others to great problems with the Council if the Council does not manage to clarify its position somewhat. We have had one discussion with the Council in which obviously the way was pointed to compromises between this Parliament and the Council, Mrs Figueiredo did that splendidly, but the Council did not listen at all and simply made a kind of blueprint, a kind of stamp of what it previously intended and that is a kind of circuit for civil servants, by civil servants and for civil servants, so to speak. Our amendments are an attempt to change that just a little. I believe that we must adhere to them, since only then can the fight against poverty and the combating of social exclusion be tackled in a truly European way, namely if everyone has a hand in it, and not just a bunch of highly-paid civil servants gathering cosily together in Brussels.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I oppose urgency on a matter of principle, not on a matter of substance. I am sure we all support a global health fund and President Prodi guaranteed EUR 120 million at the G8 meeting in July. However, I and many others are extremely disappointed that the Commission has taken until November to come forward with any effective suggestions and now it is asking for urgency, effectively denying the Council and Parliament any time to debate or amend this proposal. It looks as if we are just going to hand over a cheque and that will be the end of it. The Commission is also suggesting the funding should be found by taking EUR 60 million from a fishing agreement and EUR 60 million from the EDF. In its resolution in this House on 25 October this House emphasised that contributions should be new and additional funding, and this is not so. At the moment it looks as if it is a one-off payment. I would like to hear the Commission guarantee that a legal base will be found for the sustainable funding of the global health fund after 2000 and submitted as quickly as possible. I would like an assurance that it will be new money and that Parliament and the Council will be kept fully informed and involved, so that we play a legislative part in this process. We, as parliamentarians, cannot be treated in this way.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, our group considers that this is on the whole a good result and especially welcomes the fact that the area of application is extended to include the whole of Community law. These rules are to apply, in particular, within the second and third pillars. We welcome the wealth of initiative and invention which has characterised this work. We should like to thank the rapporteur. We think that the institutional solutions are very good. We are not talking about some form of collegiate body but about a supervisor and assistant supervisor. It is important to ensure that, important as data protection is, this must not mean limited access to documents within the EU’s institutions. The European ombudsman has unfortunately been compelled to point out that the Commission has used data secrecy as a reason for limiting access to information about who had taken part in a meeting intended to sway the Commission. This is an example of the misuse of data protection, which must not occur. I really do hope it is ensured that the regulations will not be applied in that way. We must also be aware of the fact that the European ombudsman and the data protection supervisor will be on opposite sides of the fence. We must not be surprised if they sometimes end up in public discussion with each other. The fact that their tasks have not been combined is extremely positive. To some extent, this is an automatic transfer from the old Directive 95/46/EC. In this connection, I want to take the opportunity to ask the Commissioner when revision of the general directive on data protection is to begin. There is, of course, an obvious need to revise this directive with a view to modernising it, so that it meets those needs mentioned by Mrs Cederschiöld. Data protection on the telecommunications network ought also to be reviewed. Finally, I want to point out that, as a Finnish citizen, I have realised that the European Parliament is the only institution – the only elected body – to supervise the Commission’s decisions when it comes to the level of data secrecy in third countries. We are aware of the famous case in which such supervision was applied. The European Parliament is the only body which can democratically supervise decisions by means of the committee procedure which exists. I now see that my own country is to alter the law relating to personal data which deprives elected representatives of any influence at all over the Commission’s decisions. I therefore welcome the constructive dialogue we have established with the Commission, together with the appropriate committee procedure which will guarantee citizens’ security.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, circumstances are such that we are speaking this evening about safety, the safety of our fellow citizens. We began by speaking about air safety and now we are moving on to maritime safety. We have been talking about these problems and about marine pollution for four years now and I hope that in a few years’ time we will not need to talk about them much more. For our part, we can only hope so, but when, while watching French television last weekend, I again saw Atlantic beaches soiled by oil slicks (whether they came from the Prestige or from uncontrolled degassing on the high seas is not known), I said to myself that there is reason to question the effectiveness of the legislation we have been putting in place for four years. I would nevertheless like to add my voice to the compliments addressed to the Commissioner for the energy she has shown in trying to overcome the inertia of our governments and ministers in this field. If they had listened to her, I do not think we would be where we are now. We are here to support her and to demonstrate to our citizens once again that we really do want to put all this legislation in place and see that it is obeyed. We know only too well, however, that if legislation is to be obeyed there must be sanctions. We will not achieve anything so long as there are no sanctions or they are not enforced. That is why we have met this evening and I would like to congratulate the various authors of the texts that are the subject of this debate and say how important it is that we should define the crime of ‘illegal discharges’ and insist on the necessary coordination so that the Member States will at last work by common agreement. I will close by saying that the drafting of a clear follow-up document based on the work of the European Parliament’s Temporary Committee on Maritime Safety should enable us to give the Commissioner our support on these problems of marine pollution and responsibility.

Political group: PPE-DE
The PvdA [Dutch Labour Party] Eurodelegation would like to state the following: 1. The PvdA delegation warmly supports the directives on electrical and electronic waste. The environmental objectives should be paramount in these directives. We therefore endorse all the amendments designed to reinforce the environmental objective. 2. The Netherlands is one of the few countries which has experience of collecting electrical waste. Producers must be encouraged to design with the environment in mind, but this is much broader than recycling. In addition, producers must be individually responsible. But different makes of TV sets, hairdryers, electric toothbrushes or hand blenders hardly differ in terms of recyclability. Individual funding is, therefore, not obviously better than collective solutions. Collective systems have, in fact, major advantages: they are less bureaucratic and more practical. There is no need, therefore, to reserve collective systems only for exceptional circumstances. 3. My final point concerns the waste disposal fee. In our view, environmental costs should be incorporated into the price of the product – but these are more transparent if it is mentioned separately. Moreover, visibility enhances consumer awareness. This is of major importance, for in order to achieve the environmental goals, the cooperation of the consumer is required. Finally, a visible waste disposal fee is significant in connection with competition laws.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should first of all like to congratulate the rapporteur and to emphasise that there is basically no difference in the attitudes of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. We therefore endorse the rapporteur’s conclusions, particularly his comments on delays, which should be avoided in future. The Committee on Industry perhaps emphasised to a greater extent the importance of SMEs for employment, the need to facilitate access to risk capital, the need to simplify bureaucratic and administrative procedures and regarding improving the coordination between the various Commission programmes of interest to small and medium-sized enterprises. We therefore tabled a number of amendments and, as the rapporteur has just explained, due to an unfortunate combination of circumstances, the rapporteur did not receive the amendments in time. I should like to thank him, nonetheless, for having tried to accept Amendments Nos 1 to 8, which constitute the bulk of the Committee on Industry’s amendments, which complement the rapporteur’s report.

Political group: ELDR
I fully support this report on the Commission communication, which aims to improve information exchange between the EU and its citizens. Anti-EU campaigns in countries such as Ireland have clearly demonstrated the need for a positive communication strategy. Moreover, the practical policy prescriptions outlined in this report show that the EU is serious about becoming closer to European citizens and countering the common perception that it is run by an elite bureaucracy. Focusing on issues which affect people's daily lives, such as food safety, the euro and justice and home affairs, will ensure that citizens fully engage in the debate about Europe. Moreover, the focus on decentralisation in this communication exchange is pertinent: regions vary dramatically across the EU and local authorities are attuned to regional needs and issues of local importance. They are clearly the best placed to disseminate information about the EU. Similarly, it is vital that regional TV should be involved. Finally, the call for more Internet use in the information campaign will ensure that this campaign is not only cost-effective but environmentally sound, too. Since the European Parliament is the European institution closest to European citizens, it would make sense for it to become the institution around which this information campaign revolves. - Report Izquierdo Rojo (A5-0365/2001)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, like the others I would like to give my sincere support to Mr Whitehead for his excellent work. I would also like to support Mr Whitehead on the Council deciding the location having heard the views of the Commission and Parliament. This decision should be made immediately at the Gothenburg Summit. Several wishes have been presented here that the authority should begin immediately at the start of next year. If we want this authority to be an authority which really gets into the work expected of it, we also have to sacrifice preparation time to the founding of the authority. The location is not the most important thing about this authority but I sympathise a great deal with the ideas put forward via the committee that, regarding this authority in particular, attention should be paid to where it is located. Nor is it a bad criterion that the location should represent a country which has the fewest food safety cases before the European Court of Justice. These matters are important to citizens. We must also take care that the authority receives sufficient resources, not only financial resources but also scientific and in terms of expertise. The authority must be independent and it must have good contacts with the scientific community. Openness and appointments based on merit are essential. It must be an expert body on which we in Parliament can rely, which citizens trust, which provides information about threats and risks as well as progress achieved in the area of food safety.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, two contrasting worlds coexist on our planet. In one of these worlds, hunger, AIDS and poverty are rampant. In the other, the world we live in, people die from high cholesterol. On the one hand, there is the developed world, bent on identifying axes of evil and launching wars which can only result in further devastation and poverty. On the other, we see a world crying out for someone to assume the leadership of an axis of good which would make food and medicine freely available and eliminate the barriers to free trade whilst promoting sustainable internal development to ensure self-sufficiency. Export refunds for surplus production destined to the poorest countries is the cruellest of all our policies. It runs counter to solidarity and should only be applied in the case of over-protected and more developed markets. Hypocrisy cannot be condoned though. We must not cast all responsibility on to the weakest sector in Europe, namely the traditional European agricultural sector, which has the lowest income in the Community. It is not for this sector to provide solutions to the problem of world hunger.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, could I ask the President-in-Office of the Council – all of whose good intentions for a multi-ethnic Kosovo I accept – whether he would not admit that the international community’s policy there in all its facets – the European Union, the United Nations, KFOR, NATO et al – is really an unmitigated and disastrous failure and getting worse by the day. What is being done to get the KLA and the Albanian bully-boys, who clearly have no interest in a multi-ethnic Kosovo, under control? There just seems to be an ineffectual permissiveness of the situation despite all these wonderful, pious good intentions.

Political group: PPE-DE
I should first like to congratulate my colleague, Elisa Damião, on the work that she has done on this extremely important issue. All of us remember the long debates which took place in the eighties, when everyone refused to budge from their opposing camps. Some argued that the fact that asbestos was dangerous was not irrefutably proven, while those exposed to it rightly wanted the precautionary principle – as we now call it – to be applied. In the end, they had to take account of the various studies stating that asbestos was a particularly dangerous substance and that exposure to it could cause serious diseases. Since then, too many people have taken risks, risks for which the price is paid in the longer or shorter term. This is because some diseases have a long incubation period from the time when fibre is lodged in the body until the point of biological degeneration. The majority of Member States have now banned the marketing and use of products containing asbestos. Nevertheless in some sectors the risk persists. I am thinking in particular of work to remove asbestos and maintenance or repair work on buildings containing asbestos. (Explanation of vote cut short pursuant to Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: PSE