GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
chairman of the Committee on Budgets. – Mr President, we have tried to work closely with Mr Cunha and the other rapporteurs to ensure that when we take the final vote on this we comply with Rule 63a of our Rules of Procedure. The amendments tabled by the Committee on Budgets state that the figures do comply with the financial perspectives up to 2006. However, during this vote several amendments have been adopted which have not been assessed. The assessments are carried out in conjunction with the Commission to ensure that the figures are within the financial perspective. In the light of the votes on these amendments, could the Commission inform us whether those figures remain within the financial perspective? If they do, that is fine; if they do not, then the wording needs to be changed from 'do comply' to 'do not comply', for factual reasons if nothing else. If Commissioner Fischler does not know the answer now, I suggest, if the House agrees with Mr Cunha, that when the assessment is finalised we make sure that the correct wording goes in the final text for the Official Journal.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I want to congratulate Mrs Damião, who has set out excellent requirements in her report. The Commission, though, has side-stepped some key issues in its evaluation report, which it submitted almost four years late. After 1992, the Member States allowed important years to pass when they could have introduced improvements for millions of mothers and prepared themselves for the changed framework conditions in the information age. There are too many loopholes in the directive, the question of the reversal of the burden of proof is not settled, nor is the question of financial contributions, which clearly reflects a need for substantial improvement. Employers regard their contributions as cost factors they will do their best to avoid. But for many women, that obviously means they have to make a decision: job or child. However, their desire for economic independence must not force them to decide between the alternatives of either a career or a child. The right to choose is a human right, applying to both women and men, and the possibility of reconciling family life and a job is a key social democratic demand. Pregnancy is not an illness and we must change the situation where pregnant women and new mothers have to give up their income during the period of legal protection and where for women collectively the potential ability to bear a child leads to discrimination on the labour market. Here we need to change Community law. The Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities will spearhead the EU in the fight to increase maternity leave to 20 weeks and drastically reduce the number of derogations, such as in the hotel and restaurant trade. Special assistance needs to be provided for high-risk pregnancies and multiple births and 21st century society needs to take the health of mothers-to-be seriously. I hope those colleagues who are chatting so animatedly among themselves also take it seriously. We must speak with one voice in order to implement ILO Convention No 103, and for small and medium-sized undertakings we must regulate the assistance elsewhere, for instance in the Treaty and not in this directive.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, a little while ago another speaker again brought up the fact that the compulsory labelling system for beef is not to be introduced until 1.1.2001. I am able to inform you that the Council has obviously adopted our demand to introduce this system by 1.9. This represents a small victory for the European Parliament as far as the timeframe is concerned. However, it did not reach this decision under the codecision procedure. This would have meant it also having to adopt all the other proposed amendments that we voted on here yesterday in the simplified procedure. Then all our proposed amendments would have been adopted in the codecision procedure. Instead of which, the Council decided, under the old regulation 820/97, in accordance with Article 19 of the implementing rules, that the Member States now have the facility to continue with the voluntary system until 1.9.2000. I do not consider this to be the right strategy either. It does, however, go some way towards meeting European Parliament requirements. Apart from that, we are now going to continue with the codecision procedure for the other proposed amendments, which we voted on yesterday, for this process will run on after 1.1.2000. The Council must give its reaction to this. If it fails to adopt our proposed amendments then we will become involved in a conciliation procedure. All the other matters that we want to include in this regulation will therefore still be a matter for debate. I hope that we will be able to persuade the Council to adopt our proposals in this area too, and that it allows reason to prevail.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, many important issues have been squeezed onto the agenda at the Summit: enlargement, the Middle East, a possible new WTO round, and so forth. Remember that this summit was launched as the first ‘green’ summit. Thirty years after the UN Environmental Conference in Stockholm and ten years after the UN Earth Summit in Rio, the Heads of State and Government have a historic opportunity, an undertaking and a responsibility to adopt a credible strategy for sustainable development for the EU. However, this strategy must also form the basis for further global environmental responsibility and undertakings ahead of Rio+10 in South Africa. The Commission’s proposal is an important first step, I would say a minimum step. Much, much more is needed in order to achieve a real breakthrough for sustainable development. Major changes must be made in economic policy, transport and energy policy, chemicals policy, and agricultural and fisheries policy. As faith in the EU fades, as was shown in Ireland’s rejection of the Treaty of Nice, a fundamental debate is required on the future of Europe, a debate without preconditions in which European civil society can take part. The summit must stake out such a path. The summit not leading to a credible result on sustainable development would be another setback. There must be a good result. It is not just about us but about future generations. I wish the summit well and hope for a successful, ‘green’ outcome.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the common position is sound, but it is up to Parliament to improve the common position on end-of-life vehicles. The Social-Democratic Group has submitted a few important proposals for improvement over the past couple of days. I would especially draw your attention to Amendment No 45, in which a choice is made in favour of laying the cost of disassembly and recycling at the door of the manufacturer, for new cars at any rate. Consequently, consideration will also be given to recycling during the conception phase and production. For the cars currently on the road, it would be reasonable to share the cost, for example by setting up a fund such as that in the Netherlands. The common position stipulates that manufacturers should not only bear the cost, they should also take back end-of-life vehicles. This is a big problem in my opinion. I urge that car manufacturers should most definitely not be given the task of organising the dismantling and recycling of vehicles, as they would gain an excessive hold over the second-hand components market. They would then determine their own prices. Anyone who has been in an old car knows that this is to the detriment of the consumer and the amateur mechanic. The European consumer organisation, which has asked us to support the common position on this point, is to my mind letting the consumer down. A second argument for keeping the dismantling of cars out of the manufacturers’ clutches is the cost of transport. If car manufacturers all set up their own dismantling companies, this will necessitate transporting end-of-life vehicles over long distances. This is environmentally unfriendly but also expensive and does not benefit the consumer either. I would therefore appreciate your support for Amendment No 45.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I believe we can all be very proud of this magnificent building which will soon, I believe, be known throughout the world and which will add to the prestige of the Union. Before making a few observations, I would like to draw your attention to the matter of tastes and colours. Personally, I like these colours a lot. Perhaps I am in a tiny minority, but even so. You know, we could be discussing colours for hours on end. Just now a fellow Member said, “ I hope there will be some pink”. Well, I don’t like pink! So I think we must try to be reasonable, to spend as little money as possible, and then we can all get used to it. However, I would like to add a detail regarding the specification. When we are told that the disabled access is not suitable for visitors, well, perhaps someone should have thought of that before. The specification was perhaps not precise enough, and I find it unfortunate that it is only now that we are noticing that disabled visitors do not have proper access. The improvements are going to cost us even more, but it is only because we did not plan things properly beforehand. A few thoughts, now, on the lifts. They go as far as level zero, there are glass doors which open to the outside, but we have no access to them. I would like to know why, as I think it is unfortunate. Regarding access by car, even though the red light is extremely unpleasant, I find it reasonable to be obliged to use the badge. On the other hand, being obliged to use it and still having to wait minutes on end to get out, I do not see the reasons for this. Being checked on entering, maybe, but as we go out? That is beyond me. I would also like to ask if it is possible to have a shuttle for our assistants and for the staff when there are meetings which last until 9 in the evening so that they do not have to take a taxi. I find it regrettable. Finally, the only thing that really bothers me is the reception as you enter this building. Compared with the reception area in Brussels or that in the former building, there is a vast difference, and there should be some thought on providing a far better reception.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the only point of the fallacious symmetry established between the under-representation of women in managerial organisations, on the one hand, and trade unions, on the other, is to show that there are still far fewer women in managerial organisations than in trade unions, even though managers face no material obstacles to this other than the misogyny of the managerial environment. On the other hand, it would be extremely cynical to reproach workers’ organisations for not including women in their number, when female workers throughout the European Union have the problem of insufficient or non-existent crèches and nursery schools. As the rapporteur is a former minister, she would be better advised to use her influence to encourage the Member States to implement an extensive programme for the creation of crèches, day nurseries and nursery schools, employing a sufficient number of staff. That would certainly not solve the problems of female representation in the managerial bodies of trade unions, but it would create better conditions.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, although I know that we have more important things to do today, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that, on 6 September, I raised objections to the Minutes of the previous day and also asked – with a view to having these issues in general clarified, and not just this particular instance – that the committee responsible for dealing with agenda questions be asked to look into the matter of a vote result being retrospectively altered. Towards midday, I raised another objection and referred to my first one, but I have to date received no reply, and I do think that a Member is entitled to be given answers. So I ask you firstly: do you think that a Member is entitled to be given answers when he raises objections? And secondly: when can I expect to receive one?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would also like to thank Mr Menrad. His report provides a helpful basis which, it also has to be said, has been very greatly improved upon by our shadow rapporteur Anna Van Lancker. As for the Liberals who have spoken, I would like to tell them that their theory that Europe does not need an employment policy comes five years too late. European employment policy has already undeniably demonstrated its value. Various analyses have shown that the Member States have taken many sensible initiatives, that they are taking workers’ initial and further training more seriously than before and that new jobs have been created by means of this employment policy, and above all, Mr Brie, in the services sector. Our committee does not want to see new jobs in services with pay below the poverty level, as in America – we want quality employment in services also closely linked with production. It is possible to criticise the policy adopted up to now, especially the measures taken by Member States. We are not being persistent enough in fighting the exclusion of older workers, and it is evident that in all Member States, even in Sweden, women do not participate to the same extent in working life. It seems to me that despite the Employment Pact, despite the social dialogue, employers – businesses – are totally ignoring this issue. There is an urgent need for them to become involved, and financially too! It is not acceptable for the financing of employment policy to be a matter solely for the Member States and solely for the European Union. Furthermore, both sides of industry must of course be involved in the process of renewing and modernising employment in the Member States. Involving employees and keeping them informed is a prerequisite for this. The Commission needs to play a more active role here, because there is still a great deal to be done in this area, as we saw in last week’s debate on Michelin. It is essential for the European Parliament to be involved in the guidelines, that much we agree upon. It is, however, also essential, as Anna Van Lancker has already said, to have specific, measurable benchmarks for the guidelines. That is why we are tabling these amendments. I have to say that I totally fail to comprehend why our Conservative friends do not want to support measurable benchmarks for the Member States, for example increasing the employment rate or achieving a specific reduction in long-term unemployment over five years. You will even be helping the Socialist and Social-Democrat heads of government in a way that could scarcely have been expected! Finally, I would like to mention – since our Conservative friend has already told us this – that the euro is probably also a successful example of employment policy. All Member States have worked to comply with the stability criteria, as have those countries that wish to join the European Union. We also need these specific criteria for employment policy.

Political group: PSE
This proposed directive dating from 1996 is connected with the harmonisation of the internal market. The Commission is therefore giving Member States the option to authorise the addition of vegetable fats other than cocoa butter to chocolate products up to a maximum of 5% of the total weight of the finished product. The directive also provides for the marketing of these chocolate products containing vegetable fats in all Member States, subject to a label which lists the ingredients. I agree with the rapporteur that we should go back to the text adopted at first reading in this House in 1997 and that we should not authorise this addition and this marketing. I still believe that the name ‘quality chocolate’ should be reserved for chocolate which does not contain any alternative vegetable fats. A study into the impact of such a measure on developing countries’ cocoa exports should be recommended. Finally, I still want clear and precise labelling for consumers. This is a position of principle which is not really open to negotiation, just like the protection of quality products and consumers which we all are. This is why I encourage this House to vote for the amendments tabled by our rapporteur and, in so doing, to take a stand against the position of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, like all the problems linked to the world of work in the European Union, employees in the maritime sector also constitute a problem which cannot be ignored. Due to a lack of skilled labour at national and Community levels, shipowners are being forced to recruit crew members from third countries. In the interests of making this process easier, the Commission has accordingly pushed ahead with a programme for training third-country crew members and for recognition on the part of Member States of qualifications issued by third countries. In this connection, it should be said that more vocational training means enhanced safety at sea and less shipping accidents. Bearing in mind that many shipping accidents are caused by human error, it is essential to ensure a high standard of training for the crews of European vessels. The proposal now under consideration stipulates, for example, that English should be used as the working language when a ship’s crew and the authorities on land have no other common language. I believe that before a request is made to recognise training in a third country, evidence should therefore be provided of a lack of European personnel available to perform the duties in question. Without detracting from the merits of the proposed training scheme, I would like to take this opportunity to draw the attention of the Commission and of Parliament to the importance of continuing vocational training for third-country and European seamen. I therefore agree with the rapporteur, Mr Poignant, on the need to make the maritime professions more attractive, as a means of combating unemployment and boosting human resources in a sector in crisis. To my mind, the European Union lacks a plan of action designed to promote these professions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, Director-General, I would particularly like to emphasise the following in relation to the von Wogau report: I welcome the Commission’s open-minded endeavours to initiate debate on the hitherto strict procedural rules, and to propose practical reform measures. I congratulate the rapporteur Karl von Wogau, who takes up the theme but also makes quite plain his demand for clarification, indicates the accompanying measures that need to be taken, and pulls no punches when it comes to the problems currently under discussion. The White Paper and the report are contributions made at the beginning of a necessary process of reflection, discussion, and reform which has yet to be concluded because there are still a few questions posed by ourselves, the judiciary, the Member States, and above all the SMEs concerned, that need to be clarified. Competition policy must continue to be accorded central importance and will not be renationalised because this would jeopardise the internal market and Europe as a business location in a global economy. However, it must be “europeanised” taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. I also welcome, therefore, the fact that responsibility is to fall to the individual, without the Commission giving up any of its responsibility. In practice, only 9 cases were rejected, 94% of the cases that the Commission had to process were not dealt with formally but by means of unpublished, non-legally binding administrative communications or on account of the expiry of deadlines, which clearly shows that the work of the Commission is subject to time-related, staffing and financial limitations in this age of globalisation and EU enlargement To conclude, I would like to tell you what I am expecting from this reform: fair competition and equal competition conditions, legal certainty for all enterprises, consistent application of competition policy, procedural simplification according to the principle of the one-stop-shop, coordination of the national – and to me, independent – competition authorities, close cooperation between the national authorities and courts and the Commission, along with a clear distribution of competences between national authorities and courts in the application of European competition and monopolies law, and I expect the Commission to concentrate on what is most crucial in the fulfilment of its tasks as the supreme guardian of the European competition policies. I am in suspense as to how the discussions, which were broadly based, will be incorporated in the first legislative proposal.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the whole house agrees with Mrs Halonen: Helsinki must inject new life into the process of enlargement of the European Union. The individual negotiations which we want to conduct with 12 applicant countries should not become mere routine. The last Intergovernmental Conference of the century marks the end of a millennium of European wars and you must ensure, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, that the foundations are laid so that there will never again be another millennium of wars in Europe. That is the aim of enlargement, to unite the whole of Europe in a European Union. Mrs Halonen, we support what you have said regarding the negotiations and how they are to be conducted and are also in agreement with what Mr Prodi has said on the matter. We find that all well and good, but what you have said about the preparation of accession, about the so-called Amsterdam leftovers, that is not enough for us. We want comprehensive reform of the European Union. If we are to open the doors of the European house, of our European Union, in order to take in another 12 lodgers in addition to the 15 already living here, then one visit from the cleaner is not enough, we need to convert the whole house. That is something I have heard too little about, not only from you, but also from the other governments of the European Union. I know what you are thinking and perhaps what your intentions are: let us just begin with a few minor reforms at this Intergovernmental Conference and then, after next year’s Intergovernmental Conference, there will be another Intergovernmental Conference and so on and so forth. I put it to you that the people of the European Union are tired of seeing the EU stumble from one Intergovernmental Conference to the next, taking so many tiny steps that they no longer know which direction they are going in. We must show them once and for all what our image of the European Union and of the future of Europe is, instead of watching the EU constantly stumbling from one conference to the next. With regard to the common defence policy, we welcome the statement which you have made today, but there must be more to European summits than statements and papers. We want you to take the decisions needed in Helsinki so that concrete initiatives can be introduced into both military and non-military aspects of the common defence policy and to stipulate the operational capacities needed and the institutions in which the decisions are to be taken. Finally, we want, on the day after Helsinki, on 12 December, to be able to talk about a real European Summit, a Summit from which we can look out into the new millennium and not just a mole-hill without a view. You have the responsibility and the opportunity to ensure that the Finnish Presidency at the end of this century goes down in history as a great presidency! (Applause)

Political group: PSE