kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
this week workers around the world marked international workers' memorial day when we remember those killed or injured at work or victims of occupational diseases and we commit to make working conditions better throughout the world. in bangladesh much needs to be done.
al shabaab in an extremely gruesome way is trying to compete with isis in killing civilians and especially christians.
the dynamics of both groups display many similarities whereby ethnic and religious differences are exploited to further create instability in the region and seize control over resources.
as my colleague has said education campaigns and the availability of information play a key role in addressing this problem.
however self regulation has failed. such campaigns are particularly important in informing young people of the implications of alcohol consumption for their health and well being.
i believe that we have improved the current directive in a number of ways.
the commission estimates that the current rohs directive has led to a reduction of one hundred zero tonnes of certain heavy metals and two groups of brominated flame retardants from going into the waste stream and potentially entering the environment.
nanomaterials will be looked at specifically in future reviews of restrictions.
we managed to reach agreement following a lot of hard but constructive work including some very difficult compromises.
the rohs directive was designed to address the specific problems of a specific waste stream and i think that we have missed an opportunity to move it forward substantially by adding further restrictions.
together with an examination of three phthalates and one brominated flame retardant identified as priority.
as this market continues to grow it has also become the fastest growing waste stream in the eu estimated to rise to a huge.
to help find a solution i proposed in amendment one hundred and five that we adopt a declaration calling on the commission to report on the current practice of member states in providing correlation tables and how it affects the commission's work instead of insisting on mandatory correlation tables.
in summary we managed to strengthen a rather vague and unambitious proposal into a new rohs which will deliver a higher level of protection for human health and the environment now and in the near future.
this will give us a much clearer picture for the future debate.
it now has a clear methodology with criteria for deciding on new restrictions complementary to and independent of reach. the scope has been extended to include all electrical and electronic equipment within eight years unless it is specifically excluded. there will be a review for additional exclusions within three years
to put this debate into its proper context over nine million tonnes of electrical and electronic equipment is sold every year in the european union. most of this is large household appliances and it and telecommunication equipment.
the waste hierarchy makes prevention of waste the first priority which means substituting hazardous substances in products which prevent recycling or pose a risk to health and the environment when undergoing waste treatment.
time limited exemptions can be granted on the basis of clear criteria and application deadlines.
given my ambitions for this report members will not be surprised that i am not completely satisfied with the final outcome.
rohs has set a global standard but there was a need for more clarity so we had a great responsibility with this recast to ensure that a clearer and more ambitious law was adopted.
a computer for example contains over sixty raw materials. on average each eu citizen produces twenty five kg of electronic waste every year.
it has brought about important changes in the design of electronic products in the european union and worldwide.
we would not have reached this point if it were not for the hard work of the european parliament on this important dossier. i would like to thank and congratulate the rapporteur jillian evans as well as the committee on the environment public health and food safety for the excellent work carried out on this proposal.
the commission would therefore like to clarify the issue by making two statements.
in addition the directive's environmental ambition is improved through the extension of the product coverage first by the two new categories medical devices and monitoring and control instruments and in eight years to all electronic products. further extensions to the scope of this law will further increase the environmental benefits
the key element for the commission is to ensure alignment with reach but real environmental benefits only arise when a law is properly implemented and enforced at national level.
we intend to adopt a recommendation on such a common definition for all legislative sectors in the near future.
rohs. finally the commission also regrets the lack of support for the provision including in the commission proposal making the establishment of correlation tables obligatory.
the commission accepted the substitution of the obligatory provision by a recital encouraging member states to follow this practice in order to facilitate a first reading agreement but it states that this should not be seen to be a precedent.
i hope that the introduction of the common definitions and assessment tools of the new legislative framework for the marketing of products in this law will significantly improve this.
therefore it is important that this law be clarified and streamlined.
however industry and member states alike have reported the risk of inadequate or inefficient implementation and enforcement of the directive.
other countries including the eu's major trading partners have followed the eu's example and brought in similar legislation. we use enormous and increasing amounts of electronic equipment which contain a lot of metal resources.
after very long negotiations we have an agreement that my group can sign up to.
however i do want to take this opportunity to mention a couple of areas.
it was intended to simplify the requirements and demands on manufacturers.
looking at the result it seems to me to be in many ways one step forward and two back.
i welcome the removal of annex iii which effectively created a blacklist for many substances but i regret the inability to agree on the availability as a criterion.
i have to mention the opening of the scope here.
it seemed to me that at the very least we required a full impact assessment from the commission before agreeing to this.
i look forward to the commission taking this point on board.
i am also very pleased to hear that the commission is committed to this directive since the future of the directive itself will lie almost entirely in the hands of the commission should the text be adopted on wednesday. we will have no further codecision powers and in future the commission would review the scope and the future restrictions.
so i would call on the commission to prioritise that view of the future restrictions so that we can further clean up this very important waste stream which still creates so many problems for human health and the environment.
as we have heard colleagues saying tonight prevention is better than cure and there are far more problem substances than those heavy metals and brominated flame retardants which are restricted under the current rohs directive.
this proposal was a compromise and we all know that compromises lead to compromises.
i would like to thank you all for your contributions and your suggestions.
this particular report this year is welcomed not least because of the qualified opinion that the court has been able to make that is a very welcome development but also because of a very significant improvement in the error rate.
but we should never forget that we are talking about a very small fraction of total public expenditure in the european union.
substantial amounts of commitments are made into the future and the money is not spent.
this is a very important part of our procedure where we discharge on an annualised basis the expenditure under the eu budget.
there are issues that we need to address.
that is a significant improvement and it is something to be recognised and something to be celebrated in this house and within the council.
it is not fair for members of this house not to recognise the fact that over the past three years we have seen effectively a twenty five reduction in the error rate from about. four four to.
we have got to make sure we can get on with the task of spending those monies. but there will be enormous challenges not least because of the question mark of the budget into the future on the question of brexit but also because we have to review the mff.
that means that we should use that expenditure to the very best of our abilities and for the objectives of the programmes that we set out.
it is important not just because of the role of parliament but also the role of the council in making sure that eu taxpayers know that their funds are being used properly in key areas of public expenditure.
as other colleagues have said the question of simplification of rules is crucial to reduce the error rate. one of the issues outlined in the report from the eca this year is this question of outstanding payments.
on the important question of measuring performance and i think this is something we all welcome we talk about it all the time and we need to find better ways of measuring performance in the future of course a number of measures have already been introduced to measure performance.
i would be interested to know from the commission and from the court what those measures might be.
i think that this information could be shared between member states and then used to reduce errors in the future. i believe this is something we should be looking at and focusing on. it is also important to note as the president said that member states have the information to detect and reduce the error rate maybe even below the two
also of course i wanted to welcome this year's positive report.
previously in its report the court does suggest the commission continues to look at other ways of linking payments to performance.
we should underline that in the eca's report there is an early warning on a number of issues that we should be careful about. the challenges are mainly related to budgetary and financial management.
the estimated level of errors in the payments made from the eu budget for the last three years shows a clear trend of steady decrease from.
when all but six of the auditors are former civil servants it starts to undermine a level of public confidence in those same auditors.
now that is something which in any context and in any organisation is not good practice.
if it were just that it would still be bad enough but it is not just that;
i now have deep concerns with regard to the court of auditors because auditors should always be completely independent of the organisation that they audit.
and i note the continuing weakness in the areas of joint management.
so for that reason controls need to be proportionate rather than a barrier to entry.
in public finance it is important to strike the right balance between rigorous checks and controls and on the other hand ensuring public funding is readily available.
this is taxpayers' money and it is our duty to ensure that it is spent in a manner that is both beneficial and fully compliant.
mr president i thank klaus heiner lehne and his team for their report and i am delighted to note that this is the first audit to receive a qualified positive opinion since the system began in. one thousand nine hundred and ninety four this is welcome but there is always room for improvement
the annual report gives us a great amount of useful information and plays a crucial role in the discharge procedure.
it acts as a basis for a thorough analysis of the implementation of the eu budget so congratulations on this important work.
this year we can once again be mostly satisfied with the court's report itself and the conclusions it incorporates.
unfortunately a confusing case of non compliance regarding the eligibility period of disbursements within financial instruments the estimated level of error for cohesion expenditure does not necessarily represent the true state of its implementation.
it did what it was bound to do within the legal interpretation.
but the point beyond that is this the european citizen has to have direct access to clearly understandable numbers and there we still have some work to do. we do appreciate that the court has begun to put more emphasis on performance audit and this is the right path.
in the coming years we still need more data on actual results and added value also in and by member states.
we want to see the list of regulations and internal statutes that member states want to retain.
setting up the points of single contact for business is a ground breaking proposal again in any european directive.
but the transposition on twenty eight december is just the start of the process of removing obstacles because every country is now going to come up with a list of proposals which discriminate against other countries and which they believe they can justify in the public interest.
our question tonight focuses in particular on what we regard as the most important elements to be put in place as soon as possible.
i have to say to cecilia malmstrm that it was disappointing to say the least to see in the report that a competitiveness council discussed back in september a note from the commission that it would appear in some member states the political commitment to full and timely implementation has unfortunately not been translated into appropriate action.
that is going to be a vital part that starts and we are following that with great interest.
i want to say particularly to cecilia malmstrm the minister here tonight how impressed the committee was with the work that sweden was doing when we went to visit sweden on a mission back in september.
we know you will give our best wishes to charlie mccreevy from everybody.
we would also like an assurance that this is not going to be a process done behind closed doors because consumers and businesses and other interest groups will want to know how that process is being carried out.
up. so that is what our question is here tonight.
believe me there are literally hundreds of legislative proposals or pieces of legislation in different countries that have had to be amended as a result of this proposal.
i am very pleased that many new members of the committee are here tonight to support me and to contribute to the debate.
this has to be done consistently. otherwise those barriers will remain. that is why i want first of all to pay tribute particularly to the commission for the leading role it has played in managing and coordinating the whole process among member states of carrying out and transposing this legislation.
the transposition of this in a consistent and full way is absolutely vital for its effective operation.
in unleashing the power of the single market in a sector that comprises probably seventy of the european economy the jobs that it will create and the dynamic effect of that are sorely needed at the moment in the stagnant conditions that we face. this is a very wide ranging directive. it has many new features. it is complicated in many areas.
it has needed a lot of attention.
i do not think that this house needs any reminding about the importance of the services directive.
unless all colleagues move together to do this and all countries move together to do this that discrimination is going to remain.
at the very core of this directive is the fact that member states will remove barriers to business and in particular measures in their own national legislation that discriminate against service companies who want to do business.
we would like to hear tonight how the commission is proposing to approach that process.
we want to see that list.
that mutual evaluation process which is an entirely new one requires other member state authorities to look at each other at each other's discriminatory proposals.
i think it is important to understand however the perspective of my committee.
member states have been required to go through the screening process of their legislation to look as i say for those discriminatory elements.
i think that they have clearly set an example to many other people and in particular in the meticulous way in which they are ensuring that public authorities at all levels in sweden understand their obligations under european law in order to be able to authorise service companies coming from other places within the european union.
for us this is also the start of a process over the next five years of monitoring and sustaining political interest and pressure on all the member states to deliver this directive.
second is information and access to procedures through electronic technology.
member states are required to make that information and access to the procedures necessary for businesses to complete to allow them to trade through those systems. it is vital that we have full and complete systems set
but it is clear that an ambitious and thorough process of screening is crucial to ensure the internal market friendliness' of national legislation in each and every member state.
some stakeholder organisations have even organised regular surveys with their members on the state of implementation.
the extent to which the screening has contributed to an effective transposition of the directive is of course also somewhat difficult to assess at this stage.
businesses and consumers need to be aware of the applicable rules.
i remain convinced however that the glass is more than half full.
just over half of member states seem to be in a position to achieve the implementation of the services directive by the end of two thousand and nine deadline or in the beginning of.
so we need to find a method to ensure that this consultation is targeted and very concrete.
in this context the commission agrees with the importance of providing additional information and procedures through the points of single contact such as those related to workers rights and taxation.
it has a great potential to remove barriers to trade in the internal market and to modernise our public administrations and proper implementation becomes even more pressing in the current economic context.
it has been challenging because it involved the carrying out of several large scale projects such as the setting up of points of single contact' and the review and simplification of legislation relating to services. it has been challenging also because it involved intensive coordination between all levels of the administration
for our part the commission has delivered on its commitment to facilitate the implementation process.
this is not entirely satisfactory in particular for citizens and businesses wanting to make use of their rights in the internal market.
as regards the implementation of the directive in the area of social services to the extent that they are covered by it this does not seem to have raised particular problems.
two thousand and nine these will again not be totally perfect but they should form a solid basis.
so almost all member states have completed the process of screening' their national legislation.
but it must also be taken into account that perhaps more than for any other directive member states needed to address a huge amount of difficult legal and practical issues.
and it is also crucial for the competitiveness of our services sector in general. as regards the points of single contact it seems clear that most member states will at least have basic practical point of single contact solutions in place by the end of.
let me now reply in more detail to your question.
and given this the result that we hope to achieve by the beginning of next year may actually be considered as quite good.
member states should continue developing and upgrading the points of single contact which in the long run should become fully fledged e government centres.
be it at national regional or local level.
indeed some member states are already planning to do so.
although the situation is not unusual compared to other internal market directives it gives some reason for concern.
the directive itself contains mechanisms to ensure the specificities of these services are taken into account. finally i think it is clear that stakeholders have played a vital role throughout the implementation process. they have followed member states' efforts closely and have been involved in implementation in different ways and we will ensure that stakeholders are consulted next year during the evaluation of the results of the implementation.
but as you know this is not mandatory under the directive.
two thousand and ten some member states might be late.
finally many member states have had open consultation on the draft implementing legislation during the legislative process.
the transposition deadline has not yet expired and member states have not yet submitted their legislative changes to the commission.
let us say it is important to be realistic and honest at this stage of the process. a lot still remains to be done in the area of implementation and those member states who are behind schedule need to make extra efforts.
more than eighty bilateral meetings with all the member states were held and expert groups met in brussels over thirty times during the last three years. but the commission cannot carry out the implementation at national level.
other member states have enacted only a few amendments and the number of changes made of course depends on several factors including the existing regulatory framework and also the internal organisation of member states in federal states it is more complicated than for others.
and as was mentioned earlier this will remain a key action to making the internal market work better to deliver the growth and jobs we need.
to the commission's knowledge no member state is using the implementation of the services directive to reduce workers' rights. i would like to say that very clearly.
so this directive will benefit all businesses but smes will benefit most and at the present time smes very often decide to stay at home because of all the legal complexities and also because of the absence of transparent information.
but in the end it is also clearly the member states' responsibility to do the work and also allocate the necessary resources.
as regards next year i think it will be crucial to ensure that the process of mutual evaluation provided for in the directive is used in a constructive way. we will also have to assess the quality of implementation of the legislation as was asked monitor the functioning of the
they are the backbone of the eu economy and their concerns are at the heart of the services directive.
last but not least we may also need to resort to other enforcement mechanisms sometimes maybe to infringement cases but it is too early now to say that.
of course this also depends on the willingness of a member state to simplify laws and procedures.
and we will continue to follow member states' work and will also continue to provide technical assistance if desired by the member states.
mr president thank you again for raising this very important issue.
life. it is our responsibility to make sure that we do our utmost to see this happen.
the services directive is important.
some member states although it is not compulsory will provide information on working rights and labour laws at their contact points.
many member states are also making their own efforts in order to spread information about the directive. there is also an agreement to have a common logo to make it easier for users to navigate between the different websites and the contact points.
well they do not exist yet but the aim is for them to function in a user friendly and effective way and to contain all the relevant information that is needed both by the service suppliers and by consumers.
we deplore that of course but i know that all countries are working as quickly and swiftly as possible.
so what has been proposed today is something i support.
there is a shocking humanitarian shortfall.