GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I welcome active participation by the EU in crisis management, together with cooperation within the defence industry. On a number of points, I do not however share the rapporteur’s view. There are clauses concerning the CFSP and cooperation with NATO that are all too far-reaching. The EU does not have the same basic objective as NATO, and I am therefore, for example, opposed to drawing up a White Paper on security in cooperation with NATO. Furthermore, I am opposed to the creation of a European munitions institute. There is already practical cooperation in the purchase of military equipment, and I do not believe that the creation of a European institute would contribute any added value. - Middle East

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I want to put a question on the issue of our order of business, so I am not expressing a view for or against. This is the question – both parliamentary and political – but for a different reason, to the President of the Socialist Group. If the Commission is setting a precedent and, more to the point, if the Council sets a precedent this week, should we not be told, at the earliest date and when the House is as full as possible, of the precedent and the response of the House. Is it really ideal, if we are setting precedents, that the European Parliament should contemplate a debate at 5.30 p.m. on a Thursday, which if it is anything like the 5.30 p.m. debate I attended on the Thursday of the January part-session, is not to be recommended as a time for setting precedents. So, Madam President, can we invite the Commission and indeed the Council to express themselves in this House earlier in the week, so that we can treat this properly? My fear is that Thursday evening is not the optimum time to try to do it.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am now speaking on the Ludford report, the primary purpose of which is to create better conditions for people legally resident here, over a long period of time, through according them more rights. That, for a start, is the right approach. The problem, though, is that the third-country nationals within the EU constitute a sort of third class of citizens, ranking below the citizens of the country they live in and then after the citizens of the other EU countries, who are in second place. The report enshrines this distinction in law and thus justifies the fact that discrimination will never be permanently absent. For those who really want to ensure equal rights for all, must also assimilate these differences. There is, though, a second point which I see as even more important, and, again, it is about enhancing the rights of long-term residents in the EU. Only a specific element among them is addressed here, namely those with legal resident status. It thus excludes all those living here illegally. One could say, ‘OK, the illegals just do not feature in the report and so we are not going to say anything about them today’, but that is precisely the problem: we are always dealing exclusively with people with legal resident status, and almost all the other projected legislation – even own-initiative reports – has seen the failure, over and over again, of amendments intended precisely to enhance the rights of the illegals. The inevitable conclusion is that the illegals are simply the logical consequence of the ‘fortress EU’ policy, and that is why I entertain no high hopes of major changes on this point from within Parliament, the Commission or the Council in the immediate future. Let us then be honest enough to say that we are interested only in those who have the great good fortune to be able to enter the EU at all – under very degrading conditions and often illegally – who then play the joker and get asylum from whatever EU country it happens to be, or who simply happen to be people the capitalist system can make use of. There is to be no improvement in the law for all the people who fall through this particular grating.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Gebhardt deserves our congratulations on the excellent report she has presented, dealing with one of the decisions taken at the Tampere Council. Her criticism that, considering the development of police cooperation, the issue of judicial cooperation should have been tackled earlier on is fair, particularly bearing in mind the enormous scale that organised and cross-border crime have reached and that this requires rapid, joint, concerted action. The creation of Eurojust is part of the European action for fighting organised crime which seeks to strengthen and guarantee the balanced development of police and judicial cooperation in the European Union. The proposal that we have before us today, that a provisional unit for judicial cooperation should be established, must therefore be considered to be the first stage in the process of creating Eurojust. Its actions will have to improve positive and close cooperation between the competent national authorities for investigating and instituting legal proceedings when two or more Member States are involved and when the case requires joint action. The national legislation of each Member State will be respected throughout. The experience gained in running this provisional unit will serve as a basis for the drafting of the decision that will lead to the creation of Eurojust. With regard to the increase in Europol’s powers that we all wish to see, Parliament has drawn attention to the need to ensure that democratic control is exercised. Eurojust must work, on this point too, with greater jurisdictional control. Commissioner Vitorino ended the previous debate by drawing attention to the initiative that is now underway for a measure seeking to communitise EUROPOL: we look forward most keenly to the presentation of this proposal so that we can state our opinion.

Political group: PPE-DE
I think it is appropriate, in this explanation of vote, to set on record the clear progress made in the development of the European rail network following the recent decision at the Italo-French summit in Turin to approve construction of the Turin-Lyons rail tunnel and the resulting new high-speed railway line. This decision finally gives the go-ahead for a project which is essential to the goal of improving the rail system and transferring freight traffic from road to rail through the Alps. As I have already told this Chamber, while the Swiss Lotschberg-Simplon and St. Gotthard project is making progress, the Turin-Lyons project suffered considerable delays at the planning stage; however, we now have a coherent sense of purpose for this century through the Trans-European Transport Network. I must add that the decision by Italy and France, fully supported by the European Commission, is in line with the transport protocol of the Alpine Convention. Moreover, it is encouraging that, just last January, the Commission, after years of showing no interest in the Alpine Convention, requested the Council to authorise it to sign the protocol, calling for this important document to be ratified soon. As it stands, the project, which favours the relaunch of rail in the Alpine region to reverse the increase of freight traffic on roads decisively, will be appropriately supplemented by the development of new rail routes. In this respect, the Commission is already aware of my hope that the Aosta-Martigny rail route will finally become part of the trans-Europe network to be established in the coming years. I would like to conclude by expressing my satisfaction at the decision, also adopted in Turin, to reopen the Mount Blanc road tunnel after the summer. I feel that, in setting limits on the number of lorries which can use the tunnel, the French and Italian authorities have exercised good sense. I call upon the Commission to facilitate the application of this decision to reduce numbers. This must be a radical, well-regulated operation. - Wieland report (A5-0012/2001)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I am pleased that we are debating this resolution today even though I would have preferred the resolution to have been the one we are debating. India and Pakistan have carried on this conflict for over fifty years now. There were UN resolutions that called for a plebiscite for the people of Kashmir all that time ago, and still nothing has happened. It is even more important now that we find a solution, especially as both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers. If there is another war across that border, I believe it could turn into a nuclear war, and that will be a problem not only for India and Pakistan and the people of Kashmir but for all of us. That is why I hope India and Pakistan will come to the negotiating table, together with the people of Kashmir. I would like to see either the European Union or the USA acting as an honest broker, as a mediator, to try to find an end to this dispute. But whatever happens, the human rights abuses must stop. We have daily reports of rapes, murder, torture, and a lot of people say, “Oh, this is an exaggeration”. But when I was in Azad Kashmir and I went to one of the refugee camps a few years ago I was very moved by the first-hand accounts I heard. I was even more moved when I went into a tent where the women and children were. I went up to one woman and although we could not speak each other’s languages we stood there and hugged each other. That woman was sobbing her heart out. I could almost touch the pain, really feel the pain of that woman. She was not acting it, she was not pretending it – nobody goes to a refugee camp for fun. They were there because they had been tortured, they had been mistreated and they were escaping. That was not an isolated incident, and it is still happening today. We must find a solution. They must come to the negotiating table.

Political group: ELDR
The proposal for a directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions must have aroused more passion than any other matter debated in Parliament in recent times. From the outset my opinion of the directive has been critical. I do not, however, object to it totally, as I think it is good that the present confused situation regarding conditions for granting software patents is to be clarified. At present, with the regulations being so unclear, the decisions taken by national patent offices and the European Patent Office may well have been very different, and therefore common European rules could be needed. There have to be quite a number of amendments made to the report, however, before it can be adopted. The amendments I have proposed would make the directive less harmful to independent software developers and small- and medium-sized companies. My main arguments are as follows: - In its present form the directive could significantly harm independent software developers and European small- and medium-sized software houses, which may find it impossible to survive in the ‘patents jungle’ of the great software giants. Patent processing times are very long and application is expensive. That is why they could slow down and even obstruct the development of the European software sector, dependent as it is on innovation and speedy reaction. - Software interoperability and communications should, furthermore, be possible without huge licence fees. I am in favour of open interfaces. Algorithms, business prototypes and computer programs should not be patentable as such. - One of the main purposes of granting patents has always been to make society aware of the existence of inventions. Patents on computer-implemented inventions are virtually useless as data sources if the source code is not published. In the United States of America the source code is published in the patent application in the case of most software patents, which is established business practice in the industry. This should also be possible in Europe. I hope that tomorrow’s vote will have a favourable outcome and that as many of my fellow Members as possible will show their support for a creative and innovative European software industry. IN THE CHAIR: MR PROVANVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, fundamentalism causes many problems within societies, and women, in particular, are the victim. This is illustrated by such things as the situation of women in Afghanistan, the stoning of women, or traditional practices such as female circumcision which, unfortunately, are still being carried out, also in Europe. In fundamentalist societies in particular, women are often denied fundamental rights and freedoms, and often have no access to adequate assistance, health care and education. This is why I was pleased with the proposal by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities to draft an own-initiative report on the topic of ‘Women and fundamentalism’ and this is precisely why I am disappointed with the poor quality of the present report. I regret that we were unable to find a compromise within Mrs Karamanou’s opinion. The Izquierdo report is right to call attention to the adverse effects of fundamentalism. However, if the topic and the intention are good, it does not necessarily follow that the report is good. The report goes too far where it lumps together religion, fundamentalism and human rights violation. The report is more anti-religion than it is pro-woman. It has adopted the wrong approach because solutions are sought in half-yearly reports, the setting up of an open university for women only, special mobility programmes for women – as if women needed this – and intervention in countries which act in accordance with their legislation but which, in the eyes of the rapporteur, nevertheless offer women inadequate protection. The report is also inconsistent. It is fair to call for the separation of church and state, but it goes on to prescribe requirements for the internal organisation of religious traditions. Moreover, the report is full of careless formulations. Our group has tabled amendments, which can improve the report to some extent. However, even if they were all adopted, there are many instances left of over-simplification, lack of editorial clarity, duplication, obligatory repetitions of EU legislation and proposals which fall outside our remit. In my country, representatives of human rights organisations, women’s organisations, churches and women in churches have made an urgent appeal to vote against the report. One thing is certain: women and religion, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities and Parliament, along with the fight against fundamentalism, deserve a better report than this one.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am somewhat surprised because this report was duly and unanimously adopted by the Committee on Budgetary Control. I would have expected such matters to be clarified in committee, rather than here in plenary. The report has been available for some time and I therefore see no reason why we cannot debate and vote on it. Secondly, I would be obliged if Mr Dell'Alba could tell me what he means by saying that I have blocked documents for weeks. I fail to understand Mr Dell'Alba’s choice of words and assertion and I would welcome an explanation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, an American firm called Pratt and Whitney is still producing the so-called Hushkits. These are engine-mufflers for old and grimy aircraft that are mainly bought by developing countries and Eastern European countries. Parliament and the Council have decided that from 4 May onwards, the number of these noisy American machines permitted to land on European airfields will be frozen. This one aircraft firm obviously has such a strong lobby that the Clinton administration unquestioningly does its bidding. The US government has threatened to prohibit Concorde from landing in the US if Europe does not revoke this decision. This threat came as such a shock to the fifteen Ministers for Transport and the European Commission, led by Commissioner de Palacio, that they wanted to make concessions to the Americans. Fortunately, Parliament has the power of codecision in environmental matters. That is why these concessions were not made. What happened is that the European Commission, mainly under pressure from Parliament, did not make enough concessions to the US government. That is why the Clinton administration decided last week to lodge a complaint about Europe with the ICAO. That was a big mistake. Ultimately, the US could even have Europe thrown out of this organisation. But we need not worry on that score, for it would then be much easier for us to push stringent environmental standards through. The situation is bound to simmer down in time though, and it will not come to that. Discussion will be less heated once the American presidential elections are over. The political conclusion reached by my group is that Europe must frame its own policy when it comes to the noise and environmental pollution caused by aircraft, both new and old models. This is the European position we must thrash out in our negotiations with the Americans, particularly in view of the international negotiations due to take place in September 2001. If we are to reach a compromise with the Americans, then surely the minor problem of the hushkits can be resolved as part of the overall package.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Can I start by congratulating Mr Clegg on the speed and quality of his work and also welcoming him to this rather exclusive band of Members who so often are here late at night debating telecommunications issues. Indeed Commissioner Liikanen's predecessor, Commissioner Bangemann described us once as 'we few, we happy few, we band of brothers'. He rather ignored the sisters but I think you get the drift from his Shakespearian quote. I should also like to comment on the legal instrument – the regulation – because it is exceptional and historic and there are very special reasons: reasons of speed – post-Lisbon summit – and reasons of technical consistency which I think we all appreciate and understand. Parliament must be ready to look at new ways of working, imaginative and, as Mr Harbour says, adventurous. But we also must make it clear when such measures are appropriate and it is almost certain that the other parts of this latest telecommunications package are going to take rather longer and will be along more traditional lines. I want to comment too on one very important part of Mr Clegg's proposal which relates to the powers of national regulators and powers of initiative, which I think are very important components in the speedy and consistent enforcement and implementation of this regulation. Others have mentioned the Lisbon summit and it is of course right to stress that this legislation follows a commitment from the European Union Member States to support the growth and use of the Internet in Europe under the e-Europe action plan. Much of this would not happen without this promise to provide affordable, high-speed Internet access and we note the importance of unbundling in the success of the e-Europe plan. It is also true that the combined efforts of the Commission, Parliament and the Council have brought about this legislation as part of an overall effort to modernise telecommunications law. This effort will bring openness, transparency and competition to the industry while balancing the need for regulation with the desire for liberalisation. We have more legislation ahead of us and we have to learn the lessons from so much of the legislation with which we have been jointly involved over many years in the past. Then we tried to look backwards, to extrapolate from what we had done, before looking forwards and guessing, second-guessing or third-guessing what lay ahead of us. We made mistakes in such a fast-moving and volatile market but I would like to end with the point that if Europe is to stay competitive, to stay in this field, to bring the very real benefits of e-Europe to all the citizens of the European Union, to remain ahead in third-generation mobiles – if I can jump ahead – vis-à-vis the United States of America, it is going to need all our combined efforts to make sure that the total package is safely accomplished.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to draw attention to the way in which the Danish Government and a number of Danish parties are at present genuinely trying to harass Development Commissioner Poul Nilsson. This is happening in the light of the fact that, after having visited Iraq, he has set out a number of facts, namely that Iraq is an occupied country, that this situation will be untenable if the occupying power is not replaced by a UN force and that the United States has, to all appearances, appropriated the Iraqi people’s oil. I should like to ask you, Commissioner, whether or not you share my admiration for a man who dares to call a spade a spade and who has the courage of his convictions. Do you not think that this attempt to muzzle the Commissioner is unacceptable?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Burma, since the sixties, has isolated itself from the world at large, at great cost to its own people. Burma is poor, under-developed and its population increasingly remote from the military government, which refused, in 1990, to accept the result of the last free election in that country and placed the victor of those elections, Aung San Suu Kyi, under house arrest. According to the findings of the Asian Development Bank, quoted by the UN's own rapporteur in his report, the country spends only 0.17 percent of its GDP on health care and a comparable amount on education. Burma is now the world's largest producer of heroin and significant parts of the country are controlled by drug lords, and I am concerned at China's role in facilitating this process. There are over 1 000 political prisoners in the country, including 15 elected MPs and a 74-year-old professor – as mentioned by my colleague, Mr Van Orden – Dr Salai Tun Than, whose only crime is to call for free multi-party elections- a man who bears no hatred towards his jailers but who symbolises, poignantly, the plight of his country. Burma's rulers have driven themselves and their people into a cul-de-sac. I support the principle of targeted sanctions, including travel bans on the military leadership, but I am sceptical about the consequences of their indiscriminate application, as this may only hurt the people themselves rather than the military leadership, although it makes sense to make new investment dependent on improvements in human rights on a case-by-case basis. Certainly, we recognise that some political prisoners have been recently released and that 25 of the offices of the National League for Democracy in Rangoon have recently been allowed to re-open. This is great progress and we should encourage it. That said, we need to ensure that aid is channelled through trusted organisations and we need to offer the leadership a road map for reform. Lastly, I say to the military leaders, that by imprisoning a 74-year-old man, they show not their strength but their weakness. A country that tolerates freedom of expression is a stronger country with better hope for the future. I urge them to free Dr Than and Aung San Suu Kyi, and all other political prisoners immediately and to give their people hope for the future.

Political group: PPE-DE