President. – We shall now proceed to the vote. However, we will have to postpone the vote on the budget because, as you know, we are still awaiting confirmation of the agreement with the Council which is giving the matter some final consideration. We hope it will be inspired. We will only be able to vote on the budget once we have the Council’s response so that we can take this into account.

Report (A5-0090/1999) by Mrs Theato, on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control, on the appointment of eight Members of the Court of Auditors (C5-0231/1999, C5-0232/1999, C5-0233/1999, C5-0234/1999, C5-0235/1999, C5-0236/1999, C5-0237/1999, C5-0238/1999 – 1999/0820(CNS))

  Fabra Vallés (PPE-DE). – (ES) Madam President, I simply want to say that I would like it to be recorded in the Minutes that, for obvious reasons, I am going to abstain from this vote, since it affects me directly. Furthermore, not only am I not going to vote, but I am actually going to leave the Chamber.

  President. – Thank you, Mr Fabra Vallés. We wish you good luck.

(Parliament adopted the eight resolutions in successive votes)

⁂

Recommendation for second reading (A5-0099/1999) by Mr Murphy, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the common position adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a European Parliament and Council directive on combating late payment in commercial transactions (8790/1999 – C5-0125/1999 – 1998/0099(COD))

  Poettering (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, after careful consideration, I have the following to say about this report. This Murphy report, which is a very important report, was adopted in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy last Monday evening here in Strasbourg. That means that, as you all know, we are voting here in plenary in the same week. I would like to point out that this leaves too little time for proper discussion by the groups of the results of the vote in committee.

In specific terms, this means that if the committee tables proposed amendments, for example to points 18 to 22, and we in our group, and I assume that the procedure is the same in the other groups, are unable to discuss them before today and would like to take a separate vote on the various points, then we are stuck from a procedural point of view, i.e. we can no longer request a separate vote. Our group therefore takes the very decisive view, and I shall argue this in the Conference of Presidents, that we should only finalise reports here in Strasbourg which have already been dealt with during the normal session week of the committees in Brussels, so that the groups have sufficient time to discuss the reports.

(Applause)

This is in the interests of all the groups. I submit this point here because I do not only want to argue it behind the closed doors of the Conference of Presidents.

I do not wish to criticise the Committee on Industry or its Chairman, that is not my intention. On this matter we say, nonetheless, that our group will jointly vote in favour of the proposed amendments on which we must vote jointly, in the interests of small and medium-sized enterprises, so that we have a result for the conciliation procedure. I would ask, Madam President, that we deal with this request once again at the Conference of Presidents this afternoon, so that we have a procedure here in the European Parliament which allows each and every member of the groups to influence the decision-making process here in the European Parliament.

(Applause)

  President. – Thank you, Mr Poettering. Your intervention is totally justified and I am very happy to enter this item on the agenda of the Conference of Presidents’ meeting which is scheduled for this afternoon.

  Murphy (PSE), rapporteur. – Madam President, I have no comment to make. That was a procedural matter not actually related to the report itself. We should vote.

  President. – I agree. Mr Poettering was not actually opposing the vote on this report but, as you wished to speak, I gave you the opportunity to do so.

  Ribeiro e Castro (UEN). – (PT) Madam President, following on from Mr Poettering’s intervention, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that, yesterday, on the subject of Chechnya, I raised precisely the same kind of problem and drew attention to the need to strictly adhere to the Rules of Procedure. I regret that, at that moment, Mr Poettering was not as sensitive…

(The President cut the speaker off)

  President. – Mr Ribeiro e Castro, we will look at all these questions in the Conference of Presidents’ meeting.

  Swoboda (PSE). – (DE) Madam President, a brief comment on what Mr Poettering has said. In principle, we take exactly the same view. I should just like to point out that, if we adhere strictly to this principle, we shall have huge problems at the January plenary because a great deal has yet to be decided in the committees. I would ask Mr Poettering to use his influence in his group to ensure that the committees are able to vote on time. However, it is a perfectly tenable principle for the future.

  President. – We will consider all these questions in this afternoon’s Conference of Presidents’ meeting.

Commissioner, pursuant to Rule 80(5) of our Rules of Procedure, please tell us the Commission’s position on the amendments proposed by the European Parliament to the Murphy report.

  Schreyer, Commission. – (DE) Madam President, as my colleague Mr Liikanen explained during yesterday’s debate, the Commission is able to accept the following Amendments: Nos 1, 3, 4, 5, 7-17, 19, 21, 22, 24 and 26. The Commission can also accept Amendments Nos 6, 20 and 25 in principle. The Commission does not agree with Amendments Nos 2, 18 and 23.

  President. – Thank you, Commissioner. We shall now proceed to the vote.

(The President declared the common position approved as amended)

⁂

Report (A5-0101/1999) by Mr Papayannakis, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products (COM(1999) 487 – C5-0241/1999 – 1999/0205(COD))

  Papayannakis (GUE/NGL), rapporteur. – (FR) Madam President, I should like to take advantage of the fact that certain members of the Council of Ministers are present. The Council was not represented during the debate yesterday although its presence had been requested.

Would they please clarify the contents of the decisions taken yesterday or indeed the day before yesterday? These were of course taken before the European Parliament could give an opinion on the report now before us on the labelling of beef. According to my sources, the Council has decided to postpone the application of compulsory labelling for one year, whereas we believe this postponement should only be for a matter of months. It has also decided not to work on this issue with the European Parliament through the codecision procedure.

As the Council is now present, I should like an explanation because it is clear that this vote does not make much sense now.

(Applause)

  President. – Absolutely, Mr Papayannakis. This is an excellent suggestion and I shall give the floor immediately to Mrs Siimes.

  Siimes, Council. – Madam President, I can confirm that yesterday, the Council, for its part, formally and finally adopted the compromise package which was offered to COBU.

  President. – Mrs Siimes, what you have just said is very encouraging but it relates to a later matter.

(Applause)

Mr Papayannakis’s question concerned another issue, namely his report on the registration of bovine animals and the labelling of beef.

  Papayannakis (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Madam President, for the benefit of all our colleagues, I shall tell the Council and our Members about the two decisions which it took yesterday.

Firstly, the Council decided by qualified majority to postpone the application of compulsory labelling for one year, before Parliament had a chance to give its opinion. Commissioner Byrne did not formally tell us this. Secondly, and this is absolutely extraordinary, the Council says in its text that it believes the Commission has a third proposal. This is in addition to the proposal which we are now discussing and concerns the application of this regulation without consulting the European Parliament. This proposal is based on another article allowing a Council decision to be taken directly with the Commission, with the European Parliament’s opinion being disregarded. These are the two decisions taken yesterday.

Commissioner Byrne told us very clearly yesterday that these were merely guidelines. The text which I have read does not allow such an interpretation and is actually quite categorical.

(Applause)

  President. – Does the Commission wish to give any further clarification?

(The Commissioner present did not wish to speak)

(Protests)

  Graefe zu Baringdorf (Greens/ALE). – (DE) Madam President, if the Council and the Commission are not in a position to clarify this, then I shall endeavour to do so. The Council did not decide to postpone for a year, but a conclusion was accepted whereby if Parliament accepts a proposed amendment in this report on labelling and does not pass the Commission proposal without proposed amendments, then the Council will not accept any such amendments and will not proceed under the simplified procedure.

If we dare to accept a proposed amendment, the Council will agree to the Commission’s tabling another text which has already been dealt with in the Council. If it is tabled as an official Commission proposal in accordance with our procedure, then the Council will vote in favour of it. This proposal will state, in accordance with the procedure in Regulation 820/97, that compulsory labelling is not in fact postponed but that it is allowed, for the purposes of implementation, to continue using voluntary labelling for a further year.

This means that, to all intents and purposes, Parliament has been levered out, although the conclusion is such that we cannot say that they have already made a decision. A dirty trick has been used to keep us out of the codecision procedure. This is the second time because this was the case in 1997 when the Council bowled us out of the codecision procedure with a unanimous decision. We complained about this before the European Court of Justice. This time, where codecision applies quite clearly under Article 152 of the Amsterdam Treaty, it has used this procedure to bowl us out a second time. Most probably we shall again discuss renewed recourse to the European Court of Justice to protest against this illegal procedure by the Council.

  President. – Thank you, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, for this very clear yet very worrying explanation.

Mr Papayannakis, do you consider that we can vote on your report or do you wish to request its referral back to committee? Please indicate your position.

  Papayannakis (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Madam President, we cannot allow my report to be referred back to committee because a decision must be taken by 31 December. If nothing has been decided by 1 January, there will be a legal void which will cause chaos on the market.

A decision must therefore be made. It will probably be taken without us but it is right and politically correct, if I may use this term, for Parliament to make a decision. The Council will likely do whatever it wants but at least we can vote.

  President. – I completely agree.

  Whitehead (PSE). – Madam President, on behalf of my group I would like to say that we should have recorded a protest vote. We have to vote on this, we have been put in an impossible position, but it should not be left as an ordinary vote of this Parliament. It is a vote under protest and of protest.

(Applause)

  Jackson (PPE-DE). – I am sorry to delay things, Madam President, but there is another possibility. I understand that the Fisheries Council will be meeting tomorrow and that our opinion on the Papayannakis resolution will go to the Fisheries Council. Now, it is possible for the Fisheries Council, with some goodwill on their part, to take into account our amendments and to adopt the legal text with our amendments. I suggest that we vote on the Papayannakis report and then you select the most poisonous pen that you have in your armoury and you write on behalf of the Parliament to the Council with the expectation that the Fisheries Council will not simply nod through what was agreed yesterday but will take our amendments into account.

  President. – You can rely on me, Mrs Jackson. I will write very firmly on everyone’s behalf.

(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)

⁂

Report (A5-0098/1999) by Mrs Keppelhoff-Wiechert, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a Council decision concerning the placing on the market and administration of bovine somatotrophin (BST) and repealing Council Decision 90/218/EEC (COM(1999)544 – C5-0250/1999 – 1999/0219(CNS))

(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)

⁂

Proposal for a common resolution⁽¹⁾ on the Helsinki European Council

(Parliament adopted the resolution)

⁂

Proposal for a common resolution⁽²⁾ on Macao

(Parliament adopted the resolution)

⁂

– Before the vote on the budget

President. – Mrs Siimes, please make your statement. This is the right time as we are now going to vote on the budget.

  Siimes, Council. – Once again, I can confirm that the Council, for its part, has formally and finally adopted yesterday the package compromise which was offered to COBU.

(Loud applause)

  President. – Thank you, Madam President-in-Office of the Council. I now give the floor to our rapporteur, Mr Bourlanges.

  Bourlanges (PPE-DE). – (FR) I thank Mrs Siimes for this very clear statement. It should be noted that her early delivery of this statement represents the only time in the budgetary procedure when the Council has succeeded in being not only on time but actually in advance. I have rarely witnessed a budgetary procedure like this in which, until this positive statement allowing the agreement to be concluded, we were still faced with two lists of possible votes. One list would have been made in agreement with the Council and the other would have been established without agreement with the Council.

As soon as we have voted on the Colom i Naval report implementing the flexibility instrument, we can vote on the list agreed with the Council. No one will be happier than me at this point.

(Applause)

  President. – Thank you, Mr Bourlanges.

⁂

Report (A5-0103/1999) by Mr Colom i Naval, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the revision of the financial perspective annexed to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 6 May 1999 on budgetary discipline and improvement of the budgetary procedure (SEC(1999)1647 – C5-0322/1999) and on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the mobilisation of the flexibility instrument (paragraph 24 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 6 May 1999 on budgetary discipline and improvement of the budgetary procedure) (SEC(1999)1647 – C5-0314/1999)

(Parliament adopted the resolution)

⁂

2000 General Budget, as modified by the Council⁽³⁾

⁂

Report (A5-0095/1999) by Mr Bourlanges and Mr Virrankoski, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2000, as modified by the Council (all sections) (C5-0600/1999) and on Letters of Amendment Nos 1/2000 (11568/1999 – C5-0313/1999) and 2/2000 (13482/1999 – C5-0311/1999)

  Buitenweg (Greens/ALE). – (NL) Madam President, since an agreement has now been reached with the Council, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance will withdraw its three amendments. They are Amendments Nos 7, 8 and 9.

  President. – Thank you, we will note this.

(Parliament adopted the resolution)

  Wynn (PSE), chairman of the Committee on Budgets. – I was not expecting to speak but, as you have asked me, I will do so. First of all, I am mightily relieved that we have got the vote through. It has been a tortuous process this particular year for everyone concerned, especially the rapporteurs, Mr Bourlanges, Mr Virrankoski and Mr Colom i Naval – because of the agreements with the Council. It has been, at times, as Mr Bourlanges said earlier, rather nerve-wracking. Now that we have got it through I want to thank the Council for the decision that they have taken and thank the Commission for their help.

As a matter of information for Members, with the vote which has gone through now, the total payments will be 1.11% of Europe's GNP which is under the ceiling for the year 2000 of the financial perspective of 1.13% and under the ceiling for own resources of 1.27%.

  Bourlanges (PPE-DE), general rapporteur. – (FR) Madam President, I have three points to make.

Firstly, you have conducted this vote extremely well. Thank you for having made the effort to preside when your state of health should have kept you in bed. You have seen this vote through and will sign the budget for which I thank you on behalf of the whole House.

(Applause)

This vote illustrates once again that a difficult procedure can lead to an easy vote. The more difficult the procedure is, the better the solutions reached by the time we come to the vote. This has been true in this case and I must say that all those who participated in this procedure are experiencing some amazement at the ease of this vote given the conciliation difficulties.

On the substance, I believe that Parliament has gained about 75% of what it wanted. As we represent 50% of the budgetary authority, this seems a reasonable percentage!

I must say to the President-in-Office of the Council and the Commissioner that, given the difficulties and problems in the procedure, I am profoundly grateful for the efforts made by their institutions, and also by ourselves, to achieve this result. It is the result which counts and we can be satisfied at having reached an agreement.

Finally, I would repeat what I said at the conclusion of the first reading. We all have deep respect for the services of the Committee on Budgets which expended all their energies in both the first reading and the second reading. This House owes them a great debt of gratitude.

  President. – Thank you, Mr Bourlanges.

  Virrankoski (ELDR) rapporteur. – (FI) Madam President, this budgetary procedure has shown throughout that the European Parliament, together with the Council, can work constructively and observe good budgetary discipline. The last few days and hours have shown, in particular, that we have a sense of responsibility when attending to the European issues we have in common. I would especially like to thank the chairman of the Committee on Budgets, Mr Wynn, and the main rapporteur, Mr Bourlanges, for their excellent, constructive and patient cooperation in achieving our common objective. Similarly, I wish to thank Mrs Siimes, President-in-Office of the Council, and Michaele Schreyer, Commissioner responsible for this area, for their excellent show of cooperation with Parliament. Finally, I would just like to express my thanks also to all the officials on the Committee on Budgets, who have had to work very long hours and, at the same time, I thank Parliament as a whole and my own group in particular for their steadfast and energetic support at every stage.

  President. – Thank you, Mr Virrankoski.

The Commissioner wishes to say a few words so I gladly give her the floor.

  Schreyer, Commission. – (DE) Thank you, Madam President. I should like to thank the House for its extraordinary staying power. It still looked on Monday evening as if numerous wishes would not come true. It was touch and go with a very important declaration by Parliament, funding to reconstruct Kosovo had not been secured and the Council would have had to pay a great deal more. Now we have a situation where funding for the reconstruction of Kosovo has been secured, where Parliament has achieved a great number of important objectives and the cost to the Member States has been reduced. So we have a situation in which a no-win situation has quickly turned into a win-win situation and I think that is a wonderful position to be in for Christmas.

  Colom i Naval (PSE), rapporteur. – (ES) Madam President, this is the first time in fourteen years that I have acted as rapporteur for a budgetary procedure. I shall be brief. I simply want to express my agreement with the words of previous rapporteurs and remind you of a political rule: prudence will never make us traitors, and therefore I very much appreciate the solidarity and resolution of the Committee on Budgets, which has allowed us to safeguard the interests of this Parliament as an institution.

  Siimes, Council. – Madam President, you have just completed your second reading of the 2000 draft budget. There remain a few differences between our institutions on the classification of expenditure. However, the Council can accept the amendments you made to the Letter of Amendment No 2/2 000 as well as the maximum rate of increase which results from your second reading.

  President. – Thank you, Madam President-in-Office of the Council.

I too very warmly congratulate the Committee on Budgets and our rapporteurs for the excellent work which has been accomplished.

For my part, this is the first budget which I will have signed as President of the European Parliament and I must say that I am overjoyed by the remarkable result which has been achieved. Once again, I heartily congratulate and thank those who have contributed to this.

  Gröner (PSE). – (DE) Madam President, I do not know if you are aware of it, but this is an historic moment in the budgetary procedure of the European Union. For the first time, each of the three institutions is represented here by a woman.

  President. – I had not noticed that but it is true.

(Applause)

The Millennium is ending on a high note.

(The 2000 General Budget was signed immediately after)

(Applause)

IN THE CHAIR: MR DAVID MARTIN
Vice-President

EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE
- Colom i Naval report (A5-0130/1999)

  Fatuzzo (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, I voted for the Colom i Naval report as well as the one on the budget. The Commission representative said in conclusion: “this is a wonderful position to be in for Christmas”. Well, I hope that next year too we will vote on the 2001 budget a few days before Christmas, with at least an equivalent increase with regard to this year’s budget. Let us therefore hope that this type of Christmas present will become a tradition.

- 2000 Budget

  Lulling (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, the signature of the budget was a scene of satisfaction, adulation, peace and joy. However, because of a small cutback in funds, about which I wish to protest, I am not totally happy with this budget. I voted against the budget repeatedly during the last parliamentary term because, despite unanimously approved reports on the worrying situation of beekeepers in Europe, the Commission was simply not prepared to provide the appropriations for the measures which we demanded in order to preserve beekeeping. Since 1998 we have had a mini-heading of EUR 15 million in the budget to finance 50% of the national programme to improve the production and marketing of honey, based on a regulation which we have criticised as inadequate. Now we have seen this mini-heading of EUR 15 million for 15 countries reduced by a third to 10 million. I fail to understand how this could happen, given that the Commission itself quoted a funding requirement of 15 million per annum in its justification of the regulation.

I am grateful to the rapporteur for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, Mr Görlach, who also protested about this reduction in his letter to the chairman of the Committee on Budgets. I should like here to register my protest that the Committee on Budgets has failed to take account of this. I hope that a way can be found in the Council of Ministers of increasing this budget line to EUR 15 million, as in 1998 and 1999. I shall, of course, continue to lobby steadfastly until the Commission finally proposes the various measures demanded unanimously by this Parliament to preserve beekeeping in Europe – pollination premiums, inclusion of beekeeping in the structural programmes ...

(Interruption by the President)

... cost EUR 65 million. That is peanuts in a budget of 90 billion, a mere 0.072%.

(The President cut the speaker off)

⁂

  Carlsson (PPE-DE). – (SV) Mr President, I am staying here because I have been told that, if one is to hand in explanations of vote, one should be present in the Chamber. I therefore demand that explanations of vote from those who are not present should not be valid.

  President. – Strictly speaking, that is true. We generally ensure that Members who ask for an explanation of vote are in attendance at the vote. Normally, provided they have attended the vote we are liberal in the interpretation of the Rule. Strictly speaking, however, they should be here for their name to be read out.

  Färm (PSE). – Mr President, I am presenting a written explanation of vote on behalf of seven Swedish and Danish Members. We were never told that everyone had to be here when we hand in the explanations of vote so I suggest that this should be valid for all those seven Members.

  President. – On this occasion, I am happy to accept that, although I should remind Members that technically they should be in the Chamber to hear their name read out. We have this procedure at the end of votes where I read out the names of those who have asked for written explanations. Members do not have to stay through the whole process but they should be here until their name is read out.

⁂

  Martinez (TDI). – (FR) Mr President, the President of the European Parliament has just signed this budget for over EUR 90 billion. It would be good if she could also sign the rather more modest payment orders for the taxi drivers who bring Members here to this House.

I would remind you that these taxi drivers earn about FF 10 000 per sitting or roughly EUR 1 500. However, they do not receive this payment until three or four months later! During this time they have to pay VAT at 20.6% and so are effectively giving Parliament a cash advance. Over three or four months this amounts to about EUR 5 000. By not being able to invest this money, given the free movement of capital which we have authorised, they are losing in the order of FF 1 500 per month. I am delighted that everyone is rejoicing, including Mr Colom I Naval and Mrs Fontaine, but our taxi drivers and chauffeurs cannot rejoice. I would remind those who were driven here by these taxi drivers in November that they will not be paid until March.

Mr President, I believe this affects you as much as the rest of us. It would be good if the taxi drivers, like the beekeepers, could also participate in the joy of Mrs Fontaine and the European Parliament which has achieved what we could call a victory over the Council.

  Andersson, Blak, Färm, Hedkvist Petersen, Lund, Schori and Theorin (PSE), in writing. – (SV) We are supporting the Budget adopted by Parliament for the year 2000, the interinstitutional agreement and the Berlin Agreement concerning the long-term Budget. Following today’s decision in the European Parliament, the EU’s Budget for the year 2000 is an important step in the right direction, that is to say in the direction of the EU taking ever greater responsibility for its citizens. The Budget provides for significant investments in what are, for us, important areas.

We are delighted to note that our proposal for establishing a separate Budget item for local and regional measures for the areas of the Baltic and the Barents Sea have been voted through by Parliament.

We support the efforts made by Parliament’s Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities during the Budget debate when it comes to financing the EU’s equality programme. Among other things, it is important that non-governmental organisations such as the European Women´s Lobby should not see a deterioration in their opportunities to operate at European level.

We are pleased about the increased resources for dialogue between the two sides of industry, especially with a view to the importance of beginning to construct a well-functioning labour market in the applicant countries, with strong trade-union organisations and good social conditions.

The efforts made in the Budget to reform the common agricultural policy and reduce its costs are a step in the right direction. We nonetheless call for further efforts to make agricultural policy more oriented to the environment and the consumer, as well as better adjusted to the market. We call for far-reaching reform, not least with a view to the forthcoming enlargement. The EU’s agricultural and consumer policies must accord better with one another, especially when it comes to measures in the veterinary area and to measures for the protection of plants. It must be possible to guarantee food safety throughout Europe.

We are also definitely against the support being given to tobacco cultivation. Support for tobacco cultivation must be phased out and replaced by support for the cultivation of alternative crops.

When it comes to refunding the travel expenses of Members of the European Parliament, we maintain our view that only actual expenses which have arisen in connection with journeys on official business should be refunded.

We look especially positively upon the resources which have now been allocated to the reconstruction in Kosovo, Turkey and East Timor. We have worked hard to ensure that it might be possible to procure these resources for the whole of next year. With a view to financing these initiatives, which are so important, we have in the first place endeavoured to revise the Budget plan, especially in view of the fact that the reconstruction of Kosovo in the course of the next few years will require a lot of aid from the EU over a period of several years.

The Budget process has nonetheless been very complicated and entailed major examinations in cooperation with the Council of Ministers. In the run-up to next year’s Budget negotiations, it is important that cooperation between Parliament and the Council should be strengthened for the negotiation process. Better cooperation in the Budget negotiations is a prerequisite of the European Union’s activities being as effective as possible.

  Arvidsson, Carlsson, Cederschiöld and Stenmarck (PPE-DE), in writing. – (SV) With today’s decision, the European Parliament is adopting the EU’s Budget for the year 2000. This is happening within the Budget framework established at the Berlin Summit in May of this year. This has been our moderate objective throughout the Budget process. Had a decision of a different kind been made, there would have been a risk of negative consequences for the EU which would have damaged the EU’s reputation. If it had been decided to introduce a new financial framework, there would have been a danger of this too proving expensive for the Member States.

With this Budget, the reconstruction of Kosovo will be successfully financed during the year 2000 within the Budget framework. Before the end of April, the Commission is to come back with proposals to finance the long-term reconstruction work in Kosovo and the western Balkans.

In the first reading of the Budget for the year 2000, the Council of Ministers proposed a 10 per cent linear reduction in category four. This made it possible to finance the unforeseen expenditure on Kosovo, Turkey and East Timor. In certain cases, however, there were less than welcome consequences for those Budget items affected by reductions. In a number of cases, these reductions were subtly modified in the second reading. This is the result of the Budget authorities’ jointly having set necessary priorities. We view this as something positive.

We are afraid that, at the same time as the needs in Kosovo demand sacrifices and purposefulness, many will want to expand the EU’s Budget and introduce new Budget items.

  Sacrédeus and Wijkman (PPE-DE), in writing. – (SV) The Budget compromise for the EU’s expenditure for the year 2000 which has been reached between the institutions of the Union is relatively well balanced and therefore welcome. What constitutes a success, above all, is the fact that a solution has been found to the question of financing the reconstruction in Kosovo. The previously agreed Budget framework is being maintained, and the same applies to the interinstitutional agreement. Reductions in Category IV – External Measures (principally Aid) – are now significantly smaller than in the Council’s original proposal.

It is, however, unfortunate that there is an inbuilt rigidity in the Budget negotiations which makes it impossible at this stage to redistribute resources between different Budget categories. This also applies in the case of unforeseen and exceptional occurrences in the world around us. It would, of course, have been more reasonable to have financed the reconstruction in Kosovo by means of reductions in categories of expenditure other than that of External Measures. We must ask ourselves what kind of solidarity we have with the world around us when aid to a neighbour is increased by reducing aid to other countries in need.

It would have been possible to achieve significant savings within both the areas of agriculture and of structural and regional policy, as well as within other areas affecting the domestic market, if the preliminary Budget proposal had been complied with to a greater extent.

In spite of this, we see the compromise as a solution which all parties can live with. We accept that a review of the long-term Budget framework may become necessary during the spring of the year 2000 when a more thorough and stable calculation of the costs of reconstruction in Kosovo and the Balkans will be available. It is important to combine Budget discipline with a flexibility which allows the European Union to act with solidarity in the case of unforeseen events in the world around us.

- Bourlanges/Virrankoski report (A5-0095/1999)

  Coûteaux (UEN), in writing. – (FR) For the second time this year, the EU’s credibility is at stake in the Balkans. The budget for the reconstruction of Kosovo has emerged as the main difficulty at second reading.

The conflict has been extensively discussed in recent weeks by Parliament and the Council but there are certain essential aspects which we must not forget. With regard to the aid granted to Kosovo, it is surprising that this is not conditional on the definitive restoration of peace which has unfortunately not yet been achieved, as indicated by a recent OSCE report. As for the sums allocated, the members of the Committee on Budgets have participated through the committees in some real bargaining. The institutions have juggled with millions of euros without anyone really taking the trouble to assess the region’s needs, yet everyone agrees that Kosovo could not actually absorb such sums which are equivalent to half its GNP.

In this respect, we must deplore the lack of rigour shown by the Commissioner responsible for the budget. When questioned by the Committee on Budgets, he was incapable of estimating the amounts needed in euros and could only give these in dollars.

This is not particularly serious and would even raise a smile if, at the same time, the EU’s budget policy and the risk of a review of the financial perspective did not seem to be so contrary to national interests. The same is true of the rigorous budgetary discipline imposed on the Member States even though the EU is not so strict on itself. This budget 2000 will cost the Member States very dear and the agricultural line is once again the main reason for the increase in external actions.

You can understand the anxiety of European farmers faced with the new priorities set by all the institutions. Who can they turn to? Certainly not the Commission, as it clearly showed in Seattle, nor the Council, which at second reading trimmed EUR 450 million off compulsory expenditure. Yet, unfortunately, nor can they rely on Parliament which, through its rapporteur, intends to challenge the existence of compulsory expenditure.

The budget is a fundamental act which makes political choices. We reject these choices and so will vote against the 2000 budget.

  Kauppi (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FI) I think it would be sensible if next year the financial needs of the crisis in Kosovo are addressed by demonstrating flexibility now, and we should not yet start to amend the financial perspective in Category 4. The maximum figure for Category 4 does not have to be amended permanently other than by using a flexibility clause to the full. On the other hand, the position of Parliament that was adopted here today will mean enormous challenges for Portugal, as the final decisions on the financing of external actions are being left until next spring.

- Theato report (A5-0090/1999)

  Malmström, Paulsen and Schmidt (ELDR), in writing. – (SV) In connection with the account of the Court of Auditors’ annual report, it emerged that the Court of Auditors’ current President, Jan O. Karlsson, had taken steps against the person who had supplied the mass media with information about the content of the annual report.

We Swedes have a lot to learn within the European partnership. The EU in turn has something to learn from the way we handle some things in Sweden. Openness and public access to official records are one such area. It is therefore unfortunate that, instead of upholding our traditions, Jan O. Karlsson should have chosen to adapt to what unfortunately applies in Brussels.

There may be different views as to how far it was right or wrong of an official in the EU’s Court of Auditors to reveal in advance the contents of the annual report. What is really important, however, is that we should together fight for the right to do this. We are concerned here with the freedom to supply information which the Government so often says it wants to uphold in the EU context.

It is, to say the least, worrying that the Swedish head of the EU’s Court of Auditors should choose to adapt to the worst aspects of the EU administration’s culture, namely secrecy and the desire for revenge upon employees who choose to speak out.

In the Swedish constitution and in Swedish debate, the freedom to supply information is acknowledged as an indispensable part of any effective supervision of the democratic and public system. We believe that this is important for democracy. We think there is a need for more EU employees who dare to reveal cheating and irregularities. For each time an EU official is reprimanded because of his openness, we lose ground in our work for an open EU.

Against the background of the above, we have not been able to support the re-election of those Members who are at present Members of the Court of Auditors and who obviously consider that it is perfectly correct to act in this way. We have therefore chosen to abstain from voting when it comes to appointing Giorgio Clemente, Jørgen Mohr, Aunus Salmi and Jan O. Karlsson.

- Murphy recommendation for second reading (A5-0099/1999)

  Fatuzzo (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, I voted for the Murphy report. It is right and proper that the European Parliament is trying to avoid delays in the payment of commercial transactions. As the representative of the Pensioners’ Party, I nevertheless hope that one day, Parliament will also address public administrations which must pay pensions to eligible people in the fifteen Member States. In Italy, for example, 10, 15 or even 20 years go by before an elderly person, even a 90 year-old, receives their due. It would not be amiss if public administrations in the fifteen Member States were subject to the same attention as private administrations.

  Ferrer (PPE-DE), in writing. – (ES) Strengthening small and medium-sized enterprises and favouring measures which will contribute to improving their competitiveness has been one of the objectives of this Parliament, because of the fundamental role they play in the creation of jobs and because any actions aimed at small and medium-sized economic operators promote European economic growth in general and provide a safe path towards achieving economic and social cohesion in the Community.

The proposal for a directive combating late payments in commercial transactions is, in this sense, an effective instrument in terms of ending the excessive and often abusive time limits for payment which are used in certain fundamental sectors and which are the main cause of bankruptcy and financial and investment difficulties which SMEs have to face.

This is why I have a very positive view of the Murphy report and have voted in favour of it, since it reintroduces aspects which the Council had eliminated in drawing up the common position, but which are of unquestionable benefit to SMEs, in particular the obligation to legislate for the establishment of standardised payment terms in commercial transactions and for this obligation to also be incumbent upon public entities. Let us hope that the Council listens to Parliament and that we can at last lay down harmonised contract rules at a European level, which will put an end to late payment and the dominant position of some creditors with regard to payment terms, and thereby improve the competitiveness of SMEs.

  Titley (PSE), in writing. – Mr President, I strongly support this excellent report by my Labour colleague, Simon Murphy. It offers yet further proof of Labour's commitment to create an environment across Europe where entrepreneurs and businesses can flourish.

Late payment regularly throttles many viable businesses, especially small businesses. Many, through no fault of their own, are tragically forced into receivership as a result. Entrepreneurs are needlessly ruined, jobs are lost, needlessly lost, economic vibrancy is needlessly deadened.

This measure, however, will help allow small businesses to fight back. Creditors will be entitled to charge a statutory interest rate on their debts, encouraging debtors to pay early. Furthermore, if debts are not repaid, creditors will also be able to recoup their costs for collecting bad debts.

By introducing greater certainty in business transactions Europe-wide, small businesses will feel more confident to trade not just across Britain but also right across the European Single Market.

Membership of the Single Market, the largest trading bloc in the world, is crucial for jobs in the north-west. Nearly 40% of small and medium sized enterprises in the region have trading links with other EU Member States. As a part of the EU Single Market, they have access to over 370m potential customers – over 6 times more than in Britain alone. In a few years time, following the enlargement of the European Union, they will have access to a potential 500m customers – as big as the American and Japanese markets put together.

The Labour Government is determined to make the Single Market work for British business. By giving UK businesses the confidence to reach into these markets, this measure will help in this task and increase trade, growth and employment across both the north-west and all of Britain.

- Papayannakis report (A5-0101/1999)

  Berthu (UEN). – (FR) Mr President, the Commission could not have produced anything better than this text on labelling as evidence that France is right to keep its ban on British beef.

We have at times been told that this ban is not really necessary and that beef only needs to be labelled properly to ensure that the reasonable consumer does not buy British beef. Yet this is strange reasoning given that it is tantamount to accepting the deaths of those consumers who misread the labels and is clearly an unacceptable abdication of the State’s responsibilities. However, this reasoning is now invalidated by today’s text as we are being told that the beef labelling obligation is to be postponed.

What is going on? At the beginning of 1997, in the middle of the mad cow crisis, the Council decided to implement an identification system for bovine animals from the place of production. It also decided on the labelling of beef which would initially be optional but would become compulsory from 1 January 2000. With this fateful date now approaching, the Commission confesses that nothing is ready and the obligation cannot be applied for another year.

This means that, after years of negligence, we are still incapable in the European Union of ensuring the effective traceability of beef. A French consumer who buys ravioli from Italy cannot be absolutely sure that this does not contain meat from mad British cows.

In view of such negligence, we are stunned that the Commission is daring to bring France before the Court of Justice for having kept its ban. We have never before realised to what extent the free movement of goods predominates over any other consideration in the single market.

It is true that the French Government has allowed itself to become legally trapped by accepting the Treaty of Amsterdam which deprives France of its right to protect itself. Yet this right is sacred. It is not too late for us to pull ourselves together and win back this right from the Commission.

(Applause)

  Fatuzzo (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, I am very pleased that this measure on the labelling and identification of beef has been approved, but I hope that the citizens, those poor souls, are labelled too, particularly the pensioners. I would like it to be known when they were born and what they are like, given that – and this is something I often notice – they are considered as numbers. Yes, bureaucracy views elderly citizens who want their pensions as numbers – I would remind you that I am the representative of the Pensioners’ Party and I have seen this many times – which is why I hope that the photographs of these citizens will be put onto documents and that our citizens will be labelled and considered to be at least equal to livestock.

  Martinez (TDI), in writing. – (FR) The beef labelling proposal is now before us as the labelling of GMOs was previously. Labelling has become the wonder tool. Through it, food safety will reign, the consumer will be protected and our Green colleagues will be satisfied at having ensured the survival of humanity, at least in terms of food …

In reality, labelling is one of those tricks so well loved by the leaders of Europe for calming people’s anxieties without actually solving any problems.

The labelling of GMOs should already be ringing alarm bells. We have no idea what to put on the labels. For example, do we put ‘product of biotechnologies’? If we put both ‘bio’ and ‘techno’ on a product’s label, consumers will fall over themselves to buy it.

This beef labelling proposal is therefore revealing the length of the Commission’s nose like a Community Pinocchio. This is the Brussels institution which, in 1997, decided on labelling for beef. Yet it is only now telling us that it is not technically capable of identifying the origin of bovine animals.

If the origin of bovine animals cannot be identified, how can we be sure that British beef presents no risk? We have to go one way or the other. If we know the provenance of bovine animals, then the lifting of the ban on British beef can be guaranteed and these animals can also be labelled. Yet, if we cannot label these animals because we do not know the origin of the meat, how can we then lift the ban? In other words, in the same week, France cannot be forced to lift its ban because the meat is traceable to a certain extent, while the request for labelling has been turned down on account of the technical impossibility of tracing the animals.

Who can actually believe that in the three years since 1997 we have not managed to label meat by indicating the origin of the animal? Despite the fact that we can already indicate the location of the slaughterhouse, we cannot give the provenance of the slaughtered animal.

The European Commission really does not care about consumers or the people. Brussels wants one thing only which is to ensure the free movement of products, capital, people and now contaminated British beef, at any price and without any obstacles. It is clear that labelling would result in the de facto boycott of British beef by consumers who do not want to compromise what remains of their brains after being fried by television news.

In essence, the slogan of the European Commission and of the whole concept of European construction is ‘profit before life’ and has been so since ‘the Europe of our brainless forefathers’. This is so obvious that the only label which might ensure safety would be one which read ‘official from Brussels’.

  Schnellhardt (PPE-DE), in writing. – (DE) The regulation to be amended at the Commission’s proposal was described two years ago in the wake of the BSE crisis as a central issue and an important decision within the context of European consumer protection.

The stated purpose of the regulation is to protect animal and human health and to increase or restore consumer confidence in the quality of beef and meat products.

What was it that persuaded the Council to adopt this regulation when it did? Was it perhaps a way of saying to the public, look here, we are doing all we can to end the BSE crisis, while never really having any serious intention, either then or now, of implementing the regulation. Unfortunately, it was just that. The public has been cheated and, on top of everything, a disservice has been done to European consumer protection. To be sure, some speakers voiced their concern during the first and second readings that the text of the law was perhaps too strict and that there would be problems with its transposition. So there were signs. If that was the problem, we had the chance to rectify it but, unfortunately, we did not make use of that chance. The errors on the part of individual Member States, and I would be most interested to know which Member States, is only one side of the coin; the irresponsible conduct on the part of the Commission is the other. Allow me in this context to remind the Commission of a few agreed dates: the Commission should be managing an electronic data base on 31 December 1999, i.e. in 16 days’ time. Is this data base up and running? The same question arises in relation to the Member States’ reports on the implementation of the beef labelling system; these reports were supposed to have been sent to the Commission by 1 May 1999. Are they available?

Obviously the delay with all the stages of transposition has not come about overnight. The Commission must have been able to see at the beginning of the year that the deadlines set could not be kept. Why then was Parliament not informed of these developments earlier, as it could have been in July.

Today we are discussing postponing the entry into force of the regulation without really knowing how transposition is progressing in the individual Member States, without knowing how long implementation will still take and, more importantly, what action has yet to be taken.

The original intention of the regulation, which was to generate confidence in European consumer protection, would be reversed by this sort of measure. The Commission’s present proposal is, in my eyes, confusing and lacking in background information and I am therefore unable to support it.

  Titley (PSE), in writing. – Mr President, I am all in favour of the labelling of beef. Reforms in beef production introduced in Britain following the beef crisis now make British beef among the highest quality and safest in the world. In time, I am confident that consumers not just in Britain but throughout the EU will recognise this fact and actively search out British beef. Full labelling will therefore work to British beef farmers' advantage.

If such a confidence-building measure also speeds the end of the illegal French ban on British beef, then so much the better.

EU citizens will recognise good beef when they see it. They will also recognise law-breaking and hypocrisy when they see it. The French beef ban, as everyone but the French Government agrees, is illegal and totally unjustified. The French beef ban is also hypocritical and unworthy of a French Government that claims to be at the heart of Europe. Hence Labour MEPs dignified walkout during the official opening of the new Parliament building on Tuesday. MEPs should not make EU laws in a country that breaks EU laws.

In contrast, I can only praise the restraint and respect for the law shown by farmers in the north-west and Britain as a whole throughout this crisis. I urge them to continue to show such responsibility.

I also urge the Commission to institute fast-track proceedings against the French Government as soon as possible. Furthermore, I urge the Commission to investigate the possibility of compensation for hard-pressed British beef farmers, many of them driven almost to the wall by the beef ban. In this connection, I welcome new proposals by my Socialist Group colleagues for a European Small Claims Court to help people facing ruin due to EU disputes in future.

We should never forget, however, where ultimate responsibility for this crisis lies. It was the Tories who, through lax regulation, caused the crisis. It was the Tories, who, through their ludicrous beef war, escalated the crisis. And it is the Tories now, who, through irresponsible calls for illegal retaliatory boycotts, are trying to extend the crisis for their own party political gain. While the Tories continue to play politics, however, Labour continues to work, with the support of the NFU, to get the ban lifted.

- Helsinki European Council

  Maes (Greens/ALE). – (NL) Mr President, the Members of the European Free Alliance have also approved the text concerning the Helsinki Summit. Nevertheless, by way of an explanation of vote, I would like to make a few observations. Parliament has taken note of the fact that Turkey has been included as a candidate country. This turn of phrase clearly hints at the wave of criticism this has met within this Parliament. On behalf of the European Free Alliance, I would like to explicitly subscribe to this criticism. We thought it was far too soon, given that the Kurdish issue is nowhere near a stage where it could be resolved in the light of the right to self-determination of the Kurds and human rights are still being violated with no end in sight. The fact that the winner of the Sakharov prize, Leyla Zana, is still in prison herself, clearly indicates that the right to freedom of speech in Turkey and human rights are still being neglected. This is why it was not the right time. We do wonder if there is ever going to be a right time.

My second observation concerns our disappointment regarding institutional reform. As far as we are concerned, regions which have sovereign power, based on their own constitution, should also be able to execute it within Europe. Europe is not just a sum of Member States. Democracy within Europe must gain more depth.

  Berthu (UEN). – (FR) Mr President, in our opinion the most striking feature of the Helsinki European Council was the absence of any long-term political vision among the Heads of State and Government. They decided to enlarge the Union to a previously unimagined extent, possibly adding thirteen new members, without giving any consideration to the conceptual tools which would make it possible to envisage the institutional structures capable of coping with this enlargement.

The contradiction has now reached its limit with the inclusion of Turkey on the list of official candidates. The Turkish Prime Minister declared the day after the Summit that membership of the European Union was, and I quote, a “birthright” for Turkey. This gives us an idea of the restraint which he is ready to show in pushing open the door to the European Union. Yet it is clear to all freethinking observers that the arrival of Turkey will profoundly alter the nature of the Union.

Can you, for example, imagine the free movement of persons between Turkey and the countries of western Europe, virtually without any controls as is now happening within the EU? The Heads of State and Government who are supposed to be responsible must be very far removed from reality to imagine for one instant that this could happen.

Yet they continue to advocate an almost unique solution with the extension of qualified majority voting, as reiterated the day before yesterday by the French President, Jacques Chirac, before this House. The federalists are simply reeling off the same old recipes by rote, without thinking about what they are saying.

We have the impression of an institutional system that is going downhill and which has no concept of its future, unless the Council has one without daring to tell us. It seems to be a prisoner of the consequences of an enlargement decision which it cannot control.

The Turkish Prime Minister has boasted of having been supported by Washington in his attempt to accede to the European Union, and it is true that this intervention was effective. He has even added that less time will be needed than was thought for Turkey to become a full member of the Union. At this rate, it will also take less time than we thought for the Union to self-destruct.

(Some applause)

  Nassauer (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, it is with great regret that the CDU/CSU group acknowledges the decision to grant Turkey candidate status. We consider this Council decision to be a fatal error because it will permanently encumber rather than foster relations with this important and reliable ally. Even the Council knows that the criteria for integration have not been met and will not be met in the foreseeable future because Turkey is not even prepared to amend fundamental clauses in its constitution, such as the influence of the military. The expectations raised in Helsinki are therefore bound to end in disappointment.

This is why we want relations with this important partner to be based on a partnership within as close an economic framework as possible, i.e. by meeting the obligations of customs union, rather than on illusionary prospects of membership.

Relations with Turkey are too important to be founded on the hypocritical act of Helsinki!

(Applause)

  Blak and Lund (PSE), in writing. – (DA) The Danish Social Democrats have today voted for the resolution concerning the results of the European Council’s meeting of 10-11 December in Helsinki.

The most important result of the Summit was that the EU has confirmed the ambitious plans for the enlargement of the EU, meaning, among other things, that an Intergovernmental Conference is now to be called to facilitate the accession of new Member States. Throughout the preparations for the Summit, as well as with a view to the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference, we have attached importance to a realistic agenda being established which will make it possible to achieve a result before the end of the year 2000. We are therefore very satisfied with the conclusions which were reached in Helsinki in this area. It is important that, in the course of the Intergovernmental Conference, a lot of new matters should not be brought up which make it impossible to comply with the very tight timetable. The best example of the difficulties that can be caused by introducing new subjects is probably the issue of the so-called tax package. It is annoying that a result in this area should not already have been achieved in Helsinki, but it will hopefully be possible to solve the matter no later than at the forthcoming Summit in Lisbon in the summer.

In the period leading up to the Summit, we warned against the EU turning itself into a fully-fledged defence alliance on a number of occasions. We therefore noted with satisfaction that the European Council resolved that no European army should be established but that the focus should be upon conflict prevention and civil crisis management.

  Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We wish to highlight four decisions taken at the Helsinki European Council meeting of 10 and 11 December, regardless of latter considerations, which merit the following comments:

We are concerned to note the definition of the outlines of the next Intergovernmental Conference, which may clear the way for the reality of “boards of management” and for the deepening of the EU’s federalist tendency.

Whilst we regret the fact that the Council decided to accept Turkey as a candidate for accession, we hope that at least no new steps are taken until its government takes the necessary measures in the area of human rights, international law on the fixing of borders, the application of the UN resolutions on Cyprus and a political solution to the Kurdish question.

We criticise the decision to develop the European Union’s resources for military crisis management, in the framework of a strengthened European common policy on security and defence, conceived as the development and strengthening of NATO’s European pillar, as we also reject the militarist vision of resorting to warfare in order to resolve international conflicts. What was necessary was to have created initiatives for disarmament and the banning of nuclear testing.

Finally, we feel that it is crucial to pay greater attention to the quality of employment, to reducing working hours and to giving dignity to workers and that we do not continue to insist on flexibility at work and on moderation in wages.

  Queiró and Ribeiro e Castro (UEN), in writing. – (PT) We voted against the motion for a common resolution on the Helsinki European Council because it rejected amendments – particularly those proposed by the UEN Group – which would have improved, it in the chapters “Enlargement”, “Intergovernmental Conference” and “External Relations”.

We agree specifically however with paragraph nos 19 to 27 (competitive economy and employment) and nos 29 to 34 (environment, public health and combating organised crime and drugs).

For our part, we take pleasure in the fact that the European Council has maintained and seems to want to maintain the intergovernmental method at the centre of the Union’s international system; and we reject the blindness that has led many to claim all the glory for the European Parliament, scorning the role of national governments and cutting them out of the European process, which is an unacceptable mistake.

We also disagree with the urgency where Turkey is concerned.

In terms of external policy as well, we particularly regret the lack of any mention of the very grave situation in Angola as well as the fact that no reservations have been expressed about the agreement reached with Mexico, which could give a worldwide advantage to NAFTA countries, exacerbate the disequilibrium in reciprocal access to the markets and seriously damage the interests of European industries. We also regret the fact that nothing has been said about Russia to correct the tone of some obvious exaggerations in the resolution on Chechnya.

  President. – That concludes the explanations of vote.