kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
the oecd due diligence guidelines are not onerous and application throughout and across the supply chain would create a level playing field for all businesses and all companies.
as for the idea of certification it must be ensured that the certification within each jurisdiction is recognised.
the lack of mutual recognition can lead to a double reporting obligation.
i should emphasise that impositions on european companies covered by the regulation excessive legal obligation can lead to the loss of competitiveness in relation to businesses operating outside of the eu.
that is why we need effective measures to break the link between the world's most terrible conflicts and the role the trade in minerals plays in them;
a link that currently leads from war to our living rooms.
we must make a clear distinction between legitimate mining and trading in blood stained minerals globally. for our group the commission proposals which were mostly voluntary measures did not go far enough.
we put forward amendments with mandatory schemes for smelters and refiners which are the key players in this market and cover most of the global market.
we also called for support mechanisms for small and medium sized enterprises in their efforts to ensure due diligence and compliance because consumers deserve transparency.
through a review we ensure that adequate enough mechanisms are in place to make sure that we accomplished in practice what we hope to accomplish now with this regulation.
there are important lessons to be learned from the past such as from the dodd frank act which unintentionally led to congo free instead of conflict free implications and hurt many people in their legitimate work and livelihoods.
we should not hurt people with our good intentions.
some people may want to vote for a mandatory scheme. they will sleep well at night and they will have a nice press release not considering the full impact of what it is going to have on the ground.
due diligence does indeed work. what i find what i pity is that people on the other side of this house are trying to make excuses as to why due diligence would not work in this situation.
the interests of people and communities caught in war and conflict cannot be served by an eu regulation alone;
we need individual responsibility when engaging stakeholders;
we need to distinguish clearly between experts and activists.
about twenty years ago we agreed to have the four freedoms throughout the european union.
in my constituency there are many people of italian origin one of whom is a teacher and obviously a fluent italian speaker. he returned to his family home in italy and was forbidden to teach in his family's native country because his training was undertaken in england.
i think she and i now over a period of two or three years have enjoyed working together on this report on behalf of parliament.
that cooperation i have enjoyed;
i do not enjoy the fact that we seem to end up every year repeating much the same things and having a certain sense that we are going round and round in circles.
it ought to be pretty simple because this is about our citizens being able to see what european law is;
when there is a problem to be able to see what the enforcement process is;
and finally to see the result of that enforcement.
but as it is we seem to have to keep trying to invent new mechanisms all the time to actually deal with a process that is already there but is not obvious and is not transparent.
we have made some progress in that the beginning of the process in the sense of making eu law understandable has now been taken on board by the commission and i am pleased that we now see with some regularity so called citizens' summaries prefacing pieces of legislation so that we can all see and those we represent can see where we ought to be heading and what the law ought to achieve.
but when it comes to the enforcement process we still seem to be in a position where the decision to enforce or not is less than obvious why that decision may or may not be taken and citizens are often left wondering.
that is the point if we do not get this right we bring the whole of european law and the whole of our institutions into disrepute.
all of us as members in these last days of this mandate are spending our time tearing around going from trialogue to trialogue and first reading agreement to first reading agreement arguing about sets of words the contents of sentences in legislation.
all of our institutions have a responsibility concerning the monitoring of eu law.
you the commission have the primary responsibility and i wish in a way that we did not have to have this debate in this style every year.
now will croatians join bulgarians and romanians in having first call on jobs in preference to third country nationals as in the commissions statement of april last year?
i think it is also extremely important as ms steinruck emphasised that the existing concerns and temporary difficulties can be addressed on both sides the sending and the receiving side by using eu financial instruments especially the european social fund. to mr clark
for example the fact that in this house there are no chinese or australian members does not mean that there is any discrimination against chinese or australian nationals; it simply means that these countries are not members of the european union. the fact that chinese or australian nationals do not enjoy the same rights under the free movement of workers in the eu is also simply associated with the fact that these countries are not eu members.
abuse if it exists has to be fought but we believe that it is possible to do this on the basis of existing eu law.
we believe that very often these concerns are exaggerated.
in addition many mobile eu workers and their families encounter difficulties in finding information about their rights.
in spite of the clear legal framework no one can deny that there is a gap between the legal rights and the reality on the ground.
and thirdly the proposal provides measures to ensure the effective protection of mobile workers rights so they can seek redress in the same way as nationals of the host member state.
for all these reasons the commission presented last year a proposal for better enforcement at national level of the rights conferred by eu law.
when they are confronted with a specific problem they often lack information and support on how to enforce their rights.
this proposal focused on three main aspects.
article forty five of the treaty on the functioning of the european union provides a clear legal framework for the free movement of workers and requires member states to admit workers from other member states to their labour markets without any discrimination. the two thousand and eleven regulation on freedom of movement for workers
indeed over the years the commission has received numerous complaints about the application of eu law at national level.
the problem is that in different member states workers coming from other member states are still discriminated against and are facing unjustified obstacles. recognising the problems in this field the commission decided to propose this piece of legislation in order to facilitate the free movement of union citizens by enforcing the existing regulation.
avoiding this we have agreed with the council to use the term union workers' so that it is crystal clear that the directive is applicable only to union citizens.
furthermore this directive deals with discrimination based on nationality and residence and does not include other forms of discrimination.
the massive influx of immigrants produces an oversupply adding to the unemployment problem reducing job availability and reducing pay for working people.
these rules take control away from uk authorities making management of the infrastructure impossible.
britain has not discriminated against foreign workers and those willing to integrate with the existing population have been accepted but now enough is enough. you say the free movement of workers is a fundamental freedom of eu citizens a cornerstone of the internal market.
i say a fundamental right of the uk is to roll away this stone and gain independence from europe.
we need our independence now.
this directive will facilitate the application of this fundamental freedom and will make everyone more aware of what their rights are rather than the myths they have heard.
for example a young person from birmingham in my constituency could decide to teach english in spain without worrying that she will have to jump through extra hoops to access employment. if she does or if she finds a job where she is paid less than a national worker doing the same job there will be a body in that member state ready to advise her and she will have access to judicial redress if necessary.
if a man from shropshire finds a job in austria to be with his austrian wife he will not be prevented from accessing vocational training programmes offered to national workers because of his nationality.
these are the opportunities which eu citizens must be able to access and which member states should uphold.
i know that citizens have concerns about the effects of labour mobility on local services and these concerns need to be heeded.
we need to ensure that abuse by eu or national citizens is strongly dealt with at national level and that successful local integration as well as efficient local services are central to any action taken.
we should be open proactive and engaging when dealing with these local issues rather than considering that pulling up the drawbridge and preventing our citizens and our young people from accessing these opportunities is the way forward.
for many people it is probably the most diverse and open city in the world which has welcomed people from all over the world for many centuries.
but when i speak to my constituents about freedom of movement they tell me that they welcome anyone who comes to our country and our city to contribute to work and to contribute to society in a positive way but they have two concerns. the first concern is over numbers the impact on integration and the impact and strain on public services.
the second is so called benefit tourism no matter how small or large the numbers.
this whole house works by the written regulations!
only recently we have had two examples in voting in this committee where a rapporteur was overturned in his request because he had not conformed to the exact written requisition that he was asking for.
the whole point is that this place runs by written regulation and i repeat the regulation about workers from bulgaria and romania having pride of place over third country nationals was in a commission document of april last year and mr andor will confirm that.
they did exceptionally well in the trilogue.
the end result is a very consensual and very good directive. this directive is not going to rock the world but it will benefit eu workers in several ways on the ground and that is where it matters because having rights
does not mean that people can actually live out their rights and i think we have made progress towards that. people will have more access to the information they need to exercise their rights.
they will have more access to judicial procedures and also to group claims.
they will have more access to equality bodies and these equality bodies need to be properly funded to execute these tasks.
it is unfortunate that many people many populist groups mainly do not understand that problems with replacement and exploitation and the other problems connected to free movement can only really be combated by ensuring workers' rights
and i think that this directive has been a good step in that direction.
anybody from bulgaria or romania applying shall be given first choice over anybody from outside the european union.
that is what i said and that is what i meant and that madam is discrimination outlawed under the lisbon treaty and i want to know why it continues.
more important than what the auditors tell us today is what they do not tell us.
this parliament joins the commission in blaming member states but has no problem in appointing bureaucrats imposed by these same member states even when their background makes the candidate highly inappropriate.
the european commission fails to ensure taxpayers' money is paid to the right person for the right purpose. then it blames the member states for any irregularities that surface.
i am not holding my breath about my colleagues rejecting ireland's nominee for the european court of auditors mr cardiff who was responsible for a eur.
they do not seem to have fuelled any growth in that country.
having available data for previous years will help us through comparisons to improve our data analysis and finally improve the quality of our recommendations.
two thousand and ten it is regrettable that this year reports were not made available on time to members of the committee on budgetary control since previous years' reports clearly represented an added value for the ep discharge procedure.
in relation to the parliament's discharge i would like to raise several issues for the parliament's consideration in today's discussion.
fourth an important issue mentioned in the court of auditors' annual report is the question of visitors' groups and the methodology for calculation of the subsidy schemes for these groups.
what other concrete measures and what steps will be followed to implement an efficient security system for all of us?
i believe we still need to improve the process through a more transparent and effective reimbursement system.
we will discuss all of them in more detail in committee but i want to highlight that in these difficult times of budget constraints and challenges everybody has to make their utmost effort to save eu taxpayers' money. we rely very much on the european court of auditors to provide us with high quality information about the spending of all eu institutions including the spending of the european parliament.
the new financial period may eventually benefit from simple rules and more effective mechanisms but minimising the costs of control cannot lead to there being no adequate accountability from those responsible either in member states or in the commission;
i think you have a good example with the european stability mechanism.
can take your own responsibilities to ensure that the rules are indeed implemented by all those responsible in the commission and in the member states.
we have a lot of new interinstitutional instruments where a lot of public funds are committed and we need to ensure that there is sufficient accountability and public audit.
so we need to fully implement current legal frameworks but we also say that we need to simplify.
other proposals will follow until the end of this year and will include as well the necessary provisions to improve further the financial management of eu funds.
our discussion today indicates that part of our efforts needs to be focused on those european programmes where management is shared with the member states in particular in the area of cohesion.
you will find in these proposals how the commission has duly taken your recommendations into account.
i would also say that one of the biggest critics of cohesion policy is the uk government yet its error rate for some structural funds is higher than most other member states.
seven the benefits of structural funds can be seen right across my country of wales and it is often the most visible sign of the european union. therefore it would be a great shame if high error rates allowed critics of cohesion policy to undermine it.
of course this would not apply to wales which has an excellent record on spending its eu funds.
that is why it is important that issues around procurement policy eligible projects eligible costs supervision and audit are resolved quickly.
the establishment of the european stability mechanism was identified as an opportunity to apply these principles.
this year for the first time the court presents the results of its review of the performance reporting on three directorates general responsible for much eu spending. the court recommends that the commission puts more focus on performance in annual activity reports including on economy and efficiency
in addition the court makes recommendations in areas of shared management for improving the definition of objectives and indicators and the monitoring of progress and results based on the main performance audit results in the court's special reports.
in those reports the commission includes a number of reservations highlighting areas of risk.
however the court finds that the scope and scale of those reservations made for the two thousand and ten financial year should have been greater in several areas including in cohesion where the court considers that the commission's approach may lead to an underestimation of the amounts at risk.
there continues to be room for improving member states' correction mechanisms and audit activities not least because some of the errors found could have been detected or corrected by member states on the basis of available information before payments were made.
while also reducing the costs of control and ensuring adequate accountability.
the relevant accounting rule and take further action to ensure that the necessary information is available from member states to improve the commission's supervision of those financial instruments.
as regards the reliability of the european union accounts the court concludes that the two thousand and ten accounts present fairly the financial position of the european union and the results of its operations and cash flows at the year end. nevertheless there remains scope to improve the quality of financial reporting and the underlying information systems not least with respect to financial engineering instruments in relation to which the court considers that the commission must revisit
for research and other internal policies and external aid development and enlargement the court concluded that payments were not materially affected by error although systems remained only partially effective and there was a significant risk of error for interim and final payments.
in addition there have been a number of significant developments in european union economic governance that risk giving rise to gaps in public accountability and public audit.
the commission provides its own assessments of the capacity of internal control systems to ensure the regularity of spending in the annual activity reports of the directorates general and in its synthesis report.
the annual activity reports of the directorates general also provide a self assessment of performance including the results achieved from european union spending.
after many years of incremental improvements in systems there remain significant risks to the regularity of payments and scope for improving the results obtained from european union spending. the proposals for sectoral legislation governing spending after two thousand and thirteen provide an opportunity to address those risks by reforming legislative frameworks and redesigning control systems. reforms should focus on improving both regularity of the performance
and that it sets appropriate targets for assessing progress towards achieving multiannual objectives.
especially as people are witnessing severe cutbacks in public services.
this just underlines how outrageous it is that the european commission is seeking another increase in its budget when there are question marks over billions of euros of its expenditure.
therefore identification of objectives targets milestones and key performance indicators are now systematically included in all our legislative proposals for the next financial period.
as regards the effectiveness of the systems it is worth noting that the court found that more than ninety of the errors are identified outside the commission at the level of beneficiaries.
this is of particular importance when we know that eighty of the budget is spent under shared management. that said the commission agrees with the court that the definition of objectives and indicators and the monitoring of progress and results need further improvement.
track. despite these rather good results there remains ample room for improvement and the commission takes full responsibility for addressing these areas together with the other financial actors involved in particular the member
in the meantime the problems identified by the court of auditors have been addressed. the necessary adjustments have been made in due time before the closure of the two thousand and ten accounts.
whether these measures will become eu law depends now on the co legislators the council and this assembly.
for the next financial period the commission has proposed the definite reduction of the financial allocation to member states that do not address effectively the weaknesses in their systems.
the commission agrees that the principles of transparency accountability and public audit should be respected when public funds are at
for two thousand and ten the accounts are clean;
the commission considers that it is not primarily the design of the programmes that is wrong but the way they are implemented on the spot.
by way of an example both iceland and the faroe islands were previously responsible for the overfishing of blue whiting over a number of years and of course that resulted in the collapse of the stock.
one two million tonnes for this coming year. this reflects a recommendation by ices to increase the overall tac.
a long term solution is desirable for the sustainability of the mackerel stocks for the socio economic interests of the fishing and the processing sectors.
this represents a sixty increase in the provisional quota issued at the start of the year.
my report was adopted by this house as i said by an overwhelming majority.
this is totally unjustified and must not result in long term losses for the european sector and indeed for the sector in my own country.
yesterday evening in london after many meetings an agreement was finally signed between the european union norway and the faroe islands concerning the sharing of mackerel in the northeast atlantic.
as such i firmly believe that real sanctions must now come back on to the table.
ireland's mackerel quota will increase from fifty seven thousand tonnes to one hundred and five thousand tonnes.
but we must be very grateful to norway.
it is not good enough that the commissioner had the set of tools required to introduce sanctions against these countries when the majority ninety eight of this house voted in favour of those sanctions.
it is disappointing that iceland has once again refused to cooperate with the other coastal states.
but it was no surprise to me that she reneged on her word and went on to pursue a strategy behind the back of norway against the best interests of the european industry.
in may two thousand and thirteen the commission used this instrument against the faroe islands due to their over fishing of anglo scandia herring also in the north atlantic.
from an irish perspective of course i am very pleased and the agreement is good news for my country and for my constituency.
she told the conference of presidents that she had to be in thessaloniki at the international fishing capacity conference. the conference of presidents if anyone should be the ones that we attack.
one two million tonne tac which is double what it was four years ago.
agreement. this was after long intensive discussions between the commission and the other interested
problem. now we have a sharing agreement for five
on the quota available to irish fishermen again there is some good news here it increases by over sixty from the current sixty five thousand tonnes to one hundred and five thousand tonnes.
madam president commissioner this morning we all welcomed the agreement reached in london yesterday evening between the european union norway and the faroe islands because we want to see an end to this irresponsible fishing which has taken place.
at the end of the financial perspective the programmes are gaining maturity and the payments are accelerating so the bigger need for payment.