GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, we have not yet given up on the goal of a common European label, at least that is my interpretation of the common position. The eco-label may have suffered thus far from a lack of acceptance, but a working plan which allows for coordination with the national labels can only increase acceptance. Our proposal in committee to automatically award the eco-label to products and services which already carry national labels and which satisfy the requirements of the European label did not, unfortunately, achieve a majority. It would have afforded the opportunity to disseminate the European label even more quickly and effectively. An important issue is the involvement of non-governmental organisations and associations. It is essential that expert opinion and protection of consumer interests have some influence on the awarding process. This can only benefit the status and merit of what the label stands for in terms of ecology and the consumer. The aim of our amendments is to increase the participation of associations. There is much to be said on the question of fees. We need to introduce a system which covers the costs and it is therefore not right at this stage to fix maximum fees, which would seem premature until such time as we know the actual costs involved. In this regard I would disagree with Mr Schnellhardt because it seems to me that even though the well-known national labels do give rise to costs, suppliers are still happy to acquire them. It is right, however, that there should be a cost reduction for SMEs and for products from developing countries. Overall, we must succeed in establishing the European label in Member States which do not have their own label. If the common label has a function at present, it is that of filling the environmental label gaps in Europe. The path which we are taking is the correct one, but a recognised common European label is not yet in sight and a major effort is required in this area. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
The Burmese generals continue to wage war against their own population. They take no notice of the rest of the world. The military regime is still breaking all records when it comes to violation of human rights, political prisoners, forced labour, child soldiers, media censorship, violation of religious freedoms and violence against minorities. Everything that God has forbidden goes on in Burma. In drawing up a new common position, the European Union must speak with a clear voice. The time is long overdue for the generals to release unconditionally the 1 200 political prisoners who are being held in atrocious conditions and tortured. The Council and the Commission must also give very serious consideration to the systematic rape of women and sexual enslavement and argue for an international investigation into this. The ILO must be given access to all areas where forced labour is going on. The European Commission must denounce these abuses at the WTO. The European Union must also demand that the regime put an end to the climate of impunity, that applies to all those who are guilty of torture, forced labour, deportations or unlawful executions. Finally, Mr President, it is of the utmost importance that the Burmese refugees in Bangladesh are not forcefully repatriated. While it may be true that the freedom of movement of the D of Aung San Suu Kyi has been slightly increased, that seems to be more a question of window dressing than of a significant change in policy. The European Union must strengthen the sanctions against Burma. A ban on foreign investments should be introduced. European companies which get Burmese blood on their hands to serve their shareholders must be pilloried. Unfortunately there are still Member States that give more weight to their own business interests than they do to a consistent human rights policy. Only with broad international support do the oppressed Burmese people have a chance of ousting the generals.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, as far as I, and I believe the majority of my fellow delegates are concerned, the crunch question is whether a programme will be put forward at the end of the Intergovernmental Conference that creates the conditions we need to strengthen our own foundation and admit a further 12 States. When I hear the ongoing debate and consider how much opposition there has been from the Council over the past few months, some members of which are barely prepared to go beyond the three “leftovers”, then I think it is hypocritical to conduct negotiations with the candidate countries at the same time. Today’s statement by President-in-Office of the Council Gama has inspired me with a little more confidence, but I still see no evidence of political will on the part of the other Member States. Our goal must be to equip our parliamentary representatives at the Intergovernmental Conference with a clear negotiating brief, which we will then also use as a yardstick for assessing the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference. In my view, it is crucial that we set down a clear marker for the proportional composition of a future European Parliament, subject to an upper limit of 700 Members. Extending majority voting in the Council must lead to codecision rights for the European Parliament. The Council must have open meetings when it takes on the role of legislator. We need to clearly distinguish between competences at European and national level without delay. The self-inflicted crisis in the Council is a matter of deep regret to me. I would like to ask the Council how it proposes to pull off the stroke of excluding a certain Member State from taking part in discussions without any legal basis, when it needs this State’s support in order to achieve unanimity in the Council on Treaty amendments. I cannot support the proposal in recital 29 of the report to make the procedure for suspending a Member State easier. How I vote at tomorrow’s vote on this resolution will depend on the outcome of the vote on these issues.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, there are only two observations I wish to make, and they overlap with each other. I believe that the European Union's practical policy after 11 September has made it clear, through the behaviour of a number of Member States which indulged in bilateralism or appeared enraptured by their own managerial airs and graces, that the European Union is strong wherever it works in accordance with the Community method, and weak wherever it does not. That is the lesson to be learned from the past two or three months; it shows us how necessary general reform of the European Union is if this approach, which weakens us, is not to recur in future. The conclusion to be drawn from this is that it is important that we find the right mechanism at Laeken, where the European Council will not yet, essentially, be deciding on content, but where success will depend on the methods by which the content is worked out. One thing, I believe, must be clear. If there is to be a Convention which owes its existence to the help given by the Presidency, a number of Member States and the Commission, and in which Members of this Parliament and of the national parliaments take part, then it must not be a Convention whose procedures are conceived in such a way that it does not have the room to manoeuvre needed if the right decisions are to be reached. Nor must it lack a procedure that can serve as the basis for the final negotiations by the Heads of State and of Government. It is, above all else, unacceptable that so much time is allowed to elapse between the Convention and the summit that the old method of the diplomatic governmental conference destroys all the political momentum built up by parliamentarians. I believe that this will be the decisive test by which Laeken will stand or fall. I wish you a great deal of success, knowing as I do that you, in the Council and in the Commission, share this view that these positions must be made to prevail so that we can work together with a view to a result acceptable to all.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr, President, first of all I want to pay tribute to our three rapporteurs. Parliament is very fortunate in having distinguished Members who are experts in their field and that is reflected in the quality of the work they presented to us. I want to speak from the perspective of the rapporteur on internal market strategy for the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. I was very pleased that colleagues endorsed this report so soundly in the last plenary session. We all share the view that confident, well-informed consumers, empowered to make choices, are at the foundation of a successful internal market. We want those choices to reward companies that provide quality, value and outstanding customer service and we want to make sure that the framework of regulation does not discourage innovation; it must actually encourage innovative companies. We also want to encourage responsible and successful businesses to adopt regulation to help themselves, to look at codes of conduct, to drive out irresponsible businesses. That is the framework in which we must all judge your proposals. I hope you will agree with me that it is of no value whatever to consumers to penalise successful and responsible businesses with excessive bureaucratic costs when the rip-off merchants simply ignore the legislation and go scot-free. Enforcement of regulation must be something that you will look at. I am pleased that you explained to us the range of studies that you have commissioned, including impact assessment. I want your assurance today that the impact assessment is looking at the costs imposed on business and making sure the results are proportionate and delivering real consumer benefit. In conclusion, I would like to say on behalf of all my colleagues in the Internal Market Committee, that we are really interested in consumer policy. We would like to see more of you in the Internal Market Committee because we think that some of the proposals you have sent to us are not delivering benefits to consumers in the way that we would like to see. I say to you in generous terms, please get out more, come and spend more time with us and together let us build a real consumer-driven internal market.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the problem here is that Member States fail to enforce the rules in far too many instances. Therefore, there are horrific cases of animal cruelty and far too many cases of animals – living creatures – simply being treated like so many nuts and bolts on a manufacturing production line. The Commission does not have a police force, and I recognise the attempts being made by the Commissioner to try and introduce a system that is more capable of being enforced. However, that is no way near enough. Inevitably horrific practices will continue to occur. We will find many instances of dead animals being left amongst live animals on journeys taking many days. It is now some 150 years since refrigeration was introduced, which allowed beef from Argentina to be imported into Europe. It is simply incredible that all this time later we are still transporting live animals huge distances within our continent. The time is going to come when we will impose a ban on this, when carcasses only will be permitted. Refrigeration permits this. We should introduce a ban on the transport of live animals at the earliest possible moment.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, our feelings can be summed up in one word: disappointment. Not only are we disappointed, however, the overwhelming majority of European citizens, who are in favour of a European Constitution, are also disappointed and perplexed. Fortunately, and to the despair of the Eurosceptics, the European Constitution is a popular idea and one that mobilises the people. The European project is the finest idea that the twenty-first century has inherited from the violent twentieth. Today, Europe stands at a turning point. Enlargement will bring change; we are creating another political entity. I am not indulging in political metaphysics here – this is the reality of the situation. Enlargement without a Constitution is something that can no longer be contemplated, less still accepted. This is something that the recalcitrant Member States must understand. Unfortunately there are a few States that attempt to counter the spirit of Europe with the old myths and delusions of grandeur or of national importance and still advocate the political fossil, albeit a recent one, that is the Treaty of Nice. Europe must be built, however, through a positive, not negative spirit. Some leaders act as if the Union gave them rights but no duties whatsoever. We cannot and must not fail in our confrontation with history. Europe urgently needs a Constitution and it is within our reach. Long live the Constitution!

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I am grateful too that the Council have come back because I have got something to say to them as well. Can I first of all thank Mr Karlsson because cooperation with the Committee on Budgetary Control this year has been much better than in previous years. Your work is crucial to our job because you are the experts and we then sort out the political problems. We must not forget that this report refers to the 1999 budget, the year when there was the forced resignation of the Commission, so it is clearly too early to judge yet. Next year will be the beginning of the real test as to whether the Commission's reform has started to bite at all. It is interesting to note that a key part of the Commission's reform is the whole question of who takes responsibility. Where does the buck stop? Who is responsible? We should today be assessing how the Commission and the Member States spend the money rather than assessing the work of the Court of Auditors. But I find that the work of the Court of Auditors has not been done sufficiently well to help us to do our job. Let us not forget, and I hope the Council once again is listening, that 80% of the money is spent in the Member States. The Court, as in other years, has failed to point out exactly where those failures occurred. We have asked time and time again for a 'sinners list'. We want to know where the problems lie, in which Member States, in which areas. We even want to know about good practice. You will note from one part of the report that two Member States have been exemplary in terms of VAT collection but how are other Member States supposed to copy these Member States if they do not know who they are. We need names. If you the Court will not do your job of naming and shaming, then we will have to do it for you. But your legitimacy as an auditing body will be questioned, and some might even suggest that some members of the Court are keen to protect the interests of Member States that nominated them. Will you make a commitment to do this in future, Mr Karlsson, because a lack of clear information in the report makes it very difficult for us to put pressure in the right areas on the worst offenders. I call on you also to publish a league table of those countries which have the worst record of maladministration in the EU and in what areas. Europe's taxpayers deserve to know where the money is going. Without the facts we are fighting fraud with one hand tied behind our back. Of course, there are no magic solutions to improving financial control in the Commission. The whole process will take time. We have a lot of vested interests to challenge but we will be watching next year's report for concrete evidence that the measures the Commission has put in place since its investiture have had a real impact in stamping out financial mismanagement.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this Summit was announced as the Summit of liberalisation and ended up addressing longer working hours. In itself, I have nothing against longer working hours, and I think that this topic merits a debate. However, the question is whether Europe will endear itself by persistently bringing out statements of this kind only. In my view, it does not show much leadership when a presidency focuses on aspects of this kind rather than other aspects that are at least as important. Discussion at Lisbon mainly concerned the knowledge economy and the importance of knowledge and human resources in this connection. However, were decisions taken about lifelong learning, for example? No, this decision is being shunted to Seville where we are to get a resolution. In my view, we should be very careful that this does not become an academic exercise. If we want to take concrete steps, these will, above all, need to establish benchmarking. Let us clearly agree on how much of our GNP we want to spend on education. Let us make it clear that learning and the right to learning are not solely determined by labour market data. However, I do not only want to be downbeat. In my view, the Summit has taken some important decisions, one of which is undoubtedly that on energy taxation. We must prize this decision, and I hope that it will be implemented effectively. A second point on which I should like to congratulate the presidency and the Summit is the attention to language learning. Language education is increasingly in jeopardy. In a number of Member States, it is considered unimportant, but I do not think this is fair, and we should address this issue as a matter of urgency.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to highlight four social accents which seem to me crucial in the strategy for Stockholm. First of all, Madam President-in-Office, Stockholm must hold on to the objective of full employment. That also means that that 3% growth must remain on the agenda and that hence productive investments must be made, not only in the knowledge society but also in social services and in people. This must be clearly reflected in the employment guidelines. I welcome the interim goals but these must also be included in the economic guidelines. Secondly: full employment, to us, means quality jobs. And however important coordination methods are, it is important that a clear link is established with the social agenda, social legislation and social agreements in this connection. I set great store by the fact that you have invited the Commission to formulate objectives for the right to lifelong learning, but it would be equally important, Madam President-in-Office, if the Council were to invite the social partners to at long last reach agreements on that score. Thirdly: Stockholm must be the summit where quality equals equality. That means that we should not only talk about labour participation of the elderly, however important that is, but also of women. Stockholm should therefore focus on improving the quality of the so-called atypical jobs, on reconciling work and family, redistributing the work, a strategy of equal pay for equal work, and child care. Lastly: Stockholm must first and foremost be a social summit which does not reduce everything to labour market policy, however important that may be, but also maps out courses for the future with regard to social cohesion and solidarity. I so much hope, Madam President-in-Office, that Stockholm will prove crucial in the strategy of open coordination in terms of social exclusion and social protection, so that the Belgian Presidency can outline clear and ambitious objectives in this strategy. Mrs Lindh, the texts are, in my opinion, not wholly satisfactory, but I hope that in the time left available to us, the missing pieces of the jigsaw puzzle will fall into place.

Political group: PSE
I fully support the move to deal more effectively with the outstanding problem of pollution. Indeed, calls to allow Member States to equate breaches of EU environmental law with a criminal offence will give a strong and positive signal that the EU is a serious player in the environmental domain. By listing environmental crimes and a corresponding list of sanctions, the Commission draft directive provides a concrete means by which Member States will be able to enforce environmental law in symmetry, since at present, EU environmental policy is implemented in an ad hoc and asymmetric fashion. Lastly, by adopting this directive, the EU will reinforce and bolster the explicit signal that it gave when signing up to the Kyoto protocol: that it is a responsible and key world player in the environmental domain. - Deprez report (A5-0047/2002)

Political group: PSE
I think that first of all we must try to understand why North Korea decided to admit that it is producing nuclear weapons. What lies behind this declaration? Is it an act aiming at dialogue as some seem to think? Or is it a provocative act, an attempt to blackmail in order to get money in exchange for a behaviour – renouncing nuclear power – that it should adopt in any case? Moreover, yesterday, North Korea reinforced its blackmail through another threat: it will re-start missile testing if it feels the negotiations with Japan are unsatisfactory. This is to say that, if North Korea does not obtain millions of dollars in exchange, it will not respect its promises, as it has already demonstrated on many occasions. How should we behave towards North Korea now? It seems to me that, above all, we should have sent a clear message – things have changed and nothing will be the same. This is why I was against the decision to send a letter to North Korea to reconfirm the invitation for the Parliamentary delegation to come to Brussels this week. Maybe we should not have sent it since the invitation was turned down. The EU has little influence on North Korea. As we heard from Mrs de Palacio, our monetary contribution to KEDO is minimal in comparison with that of other partners. I think that the Commissioner was right to say that we must aim to develop cooperation between the actors in the area so as to oblige North Korea to respect international rules, although I doubt this will happen with the current regime still in power. The resolution which we are presenting today is built on those premises and is a result of a compromise reached by the major political groups in Parliament. I would have preferred it to be tougher on North Korea, but it still represents an acceptable compromise between the need to maintain an open dialogue and the necessity to press Pyongyang into giving up its nuclear and missile programmes. I hope that everyone will agree that it would be useful after yesterday's developments to move an oral amendment strongly condemning the new threat of renewed missile testing.

Political group: PPE-DE