Report (A5-0162/2004) by Christa Randzio-Plath, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 85/611/EEC, 91/675/EEC, 93/6/EEC and 94/19/EC and Directives 2000/12/EC, 2002/83/EC and 2002/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, in order to establish a new financial services committee organisational structure

Before the vote:

  Randzio-Plath (PSE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, please allow me, on behalf of the committee, to comment on a report which we have now unanimously accepted, because this has to do with an extension to the Lamfalussy procedure. What this means is that the legislative rights of the European Parliament will not be reduced without a provision in the European Constitution, so far only in Article 35 of the draft. What is at issue is that, if we delegate legislation to expert committees and the executive, we should at all times retain the right of review, so that, in the context of institutional balance, we are treated in exactly the same way as the Council. This has led to major problems on the issue of legislation on securities, but we have seen that this House has been able to remain in control of the legislative process, retain sovereignty of definition and draw a clear line between technical and political problems, so that the European Parliament, elected by the people, and therefore sovereign, has in fact also remained a co-legislator.

What is now at issue is its extension to the banking and insurance sector. Here, the institutions, the legislative participants of the European Council and the Commission with their right of proposal, have given us an assurance that they will respect the rights of the European Parliament as a participant in the legislative process, and they are now also both issuing a declaration to that effect, so that no privileged treatment of the other legislator arises.

We are prepared to adopt this procedure because legislation is becoming more and more complex, as will also be apparent in the area of telecommunications, but we cannot delegate sovereignty of definition and the political determination of legislation to experts or to the executive. Having received these guarantees from the Commission and the Council we will now proceed to vote on my report, which permits the expansion, but which at the same time makes it clear that the Parliament remains the legislator in the codecision process. That was not established with this degree of clarity prior to the Convention draft, but now we have here an agreement between the institutions, and I see this as a major step forward for this European Parliament.

  Roche, Council. Mr President, I would like to make a statement in relation to the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council to establish a new financial services committee organisational structure. In particular I wish to bring to the attention of the House the contents of a letter which was sent by the President-in-Office of Ecofin, Minister Charlie McCreevy TD, on 24 March to the Chair of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, Mrs Randzio-Plath. The contents of the letter are as follows:

'Concerning the proposal for a directive to establish a new financial services committee organisational structure, presented by the Commission on 5 November 2003, I would like to clarify a few points which have been raised during the contacts between the Council and the European Parliament. When in March 2001 the Stockholm European Council took the decision to apply the Lamfalussy approach in the securities sector, the following passage was included in the Presidency Conclusions: ‘The European Council notes that, within the framework of the comitology decision of 28 June 1999, the Commission has committed itself, in order to find a balanced solution for those cases of implementing measures in the field of securities markets acknowledged in the light of the discussions to be particularly sensitive, to avoid going against predominant views which might emerge within the Council as to the appropriateness of such measures. This commitment shall not constitute a precedent.’

'The Council, noting that this commitment on behalf of the Commission does not constitute a precedent, and taking into account the function of the Lamfalussy approach in the securities sector, will not ask the Commission to make a similar undertaking within the framework of the extension of the Lamfalussy approach to the banking and the insurance sectors.

'Concerning the question of interinstitutional balance, you will recall the statement of the representatives of the governments of the Member States meeting within Council on 9 December 2002, wherein they decided that they would draw the attention of their Heads of State and Government to the importance of a revision of Article 202 of the EC Treaty and invited them to consider this question in the preparation of the Intergovernmental Conference. We now have on the table of the Intergovernmental Conference a draft Constitutional Treaty which regulates the delegation to the Commission of the power to enact delegated regulations. The Treaty is not agreed yet, but I can affirm to you that the representatives of the governments of the Member States meeting within the Council favour the idea of a balanced legislative system in accordance with the principles set out in Part I, Article 35, of the draft Treaty.'

(Applause)

  Bolkestein, Commission. Mr President, the proposed directive before you, while largely technical, is of considerable importance for the success of European financial integration. Over the last few years we have moved to a whole new approach on the European regulation of securities designed to ensure that Europe can react quickly and effectively to market developments and opportunities. With this in mind, the Commission put forward the proposal designed to establish a coherent and effective regulatory system across the financial services area. In doing so, we were mindful of the reservations of Parliament and, in particular, of your concerns on ensuring institutional balance with the Council.

I must, therefore, congratulate you for the very cooperative way in which your Members and the Council, and in particular the Irish presidency, have worked with us to reach a solution. With this in mind, I now wish to make a formal declaration on behalf of the European Commission.

(FR)The integration of the financial services markets is essential to strengthen the European economy, as was stated by the European Councils of Lisbon and Stockholm. The implementation of the financial services action plan by the date set in the Councils' conclusions, that is, 2005 for the entire action plan, is crucial if this objective is to be achieved.

The Commission is very pleased with the close cooperation among the Community institutions and expresses its confidence in the continuation of this cooperation for the implementation of the Commission's proposals in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee of Experts chaired by Baron Lamfalussy. The Commission notes that the second intermediate report of the interinstitutional securities markets monitoring group, the follow-up committee, declared that the Lamfalussy process proves to be a viable instrument for improving the efficiency and speed of legislation on, and regulation of, financial markets within the European Union.

In a general way, the Commission, in its White Paper on governance, declared that its executive responsibilities must be more clearly established and that the Council and Parliament should have an equal share in the control of the manner in which the Commission fulfils its executive task. The Commission emphasises its commitment to placing Parliament and the Council on an equal footing in the control of the competences delegated by joint decision. It states in this respect that, since the statement of President Romano Prodi during the plenary session of 5 February 2002, it has made concrete proposals to revise Article 202 and, in anticipation of the possible adoption of the new constitutional treaty, to modify the ‘comitology’ decision of 1999, thus demonstrating its objective, that of reaching a well-balanced solution.

Meanwhile, while awaiting the possible adoption and entry into force of the draft constitutional treaty, there is a need, in the field of financial services, without this establishing a precedent, for flexible regulating mechanisms, although the institutional balance must be fully maintained. In this respect, as regards the area of securities, a letter was sent on 2 October 2001 by the commissioner responsible to the Chairman of Parliament's Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. This letter was followed by a formal declaration delivered on 5 February 2002 at a plenary session in Parliament. In the specific context of an extension of this approach to the area of banks, insurance companies, and professional pensions, as well as OPCVMs (mutual fund schemes), the Commission is in a position to reiterate the following. Take note of the intention of Parliament to limit to four years ...

(Applause)

... from the coming into force of each directive concerned, the duration of a delegation of new enforcement jurisdictions to the Commission, subject to a continuation proposed by the latter and accepted by Parliament and the Council. The Commission may be able to accept future amendments adopted by Parliament to this end. It could make sure that Parliament is granted a period of three months from the first transmission of the drafts of the enforcement measures to allow it to examine them and give an opinion on them. However, in the case of a duly justified emergency, this period may be shortened. The Commission can ensure complete transparency in relation to Parliament during the entire procedure of adopting the enforcement measures, and also guarantee wide public consultation prior to working out the drafts of the enforcement measures.

The Commission would welcome the creation of groups of market participants within the Committee of European Banking Supervisors, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Committee, as well as the Committee of European Securities Regulators. It recalls its political will to see to it that Parliament benefits from identical treatment. The Commission reaffirms its commitment to ensure effective cooperation between institutions, to keep the strictest account of the position of Parliament and the resolutions that it could adopt respecting enforcement measures that would exceed the jurisdiction provided in the basic act and its objective, in these cases, to reach a well-balanced solution.

(Applause)

(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)

⁂

Motion for a resolution (B5-0153/2004), on behalf of the Committee on Development and Cooperation, on Sudan

(Parliament adopted the resolution)

⁂

Report (A5-0223/2004) by Mr Berenguer Fuster, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the proposal for a Council decision on the position of the European Community on the draft Regulation of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe concerning the uniform prescriptions applicable to the approval of internal combustion engines to be installed in agricultural and forestry tractors and in non-road mobile machinery, with regard to their net power, net torque and specific fuel consumption

(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)

⁂

Report (A5-0120/2004) by Mr Obiols i Germà, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of a Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republics of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama

(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)

⁂

Report (A5-0119/2004) by Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, on the proposal for a Council decision on the signature of a Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Andean Community and its Member States, the Republics of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, of the other part

(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)

⁂

Report (A5-0199/2004) by Mr Seppänen, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2728/94 establishing a Guarantee Fund for external actions

(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)

⁂

Report (A5-0198/2004) by Mr Böge, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the proposal for a Council decision amending Decision 2000/24/EC to take into account the enlargement of European Union and the EU's Wider Europe – New Neighbourhood policy

Before the vote:

  Böge (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, I refer to Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure. This report on ‘the new policy for the neighbouring states’ involves reorganising the lending facilities of the European Investment Bank. In consultation with the majority of the coordinators, I would like to request that the plenary should vote on the individual amendments, but should postpone the vote on the draft legislative resolution, so that we again have an opportunity to negotiate with the Commission and the Council on our amendments and so that the views of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy can also be taken into account, to the effect that the negotiations should impose new priorities in connection with Russia and the new Independent States.

(Parliament decided to defer the vote on the legislative resolution)

⁂

Report (A5-0225/2004) by Mr Berenguer Fuster, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the proposal for a Council decision providing macro-financial assistance to Albania and repealing Decision 1999/282/EC

(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)

⁂

Report (A5-0219/2004) by Mrs Sanders-ten Holte, on behalf of the Committee on Development and Cooperation, on Governance in the European Union's development policy

(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)

⁂

Report (A5-0139/2004), on behalf of the European Parliament delegation to the Conciliation Committee, on the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee for a European Parliament and Council directive on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage

(Parliament approved the joint text)

⁂

Report (A5-0133/2004) by Mrs Keppelhoff-Wiechert, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down requirements for feed hygiene

(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)

⁂

Report (A5-0147/2004) by Mrs Thors, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on materials and articles intended to come into contact with food

(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)

⁂

Report (A5-0132/2004) by Mrs Maes, on behalf of the Committee on Development and Cooperation, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on Amending Regulation (EC) no 1726/2000 on development cooperation with South Africa

Before the vote:

  Nielson, Commission. Mr President, the Commission believes that there is a good basis for agreement between Parliament, the Council and the Commission on this amended regulation on development cooperation with South Africa. Amendment No 3 is the only obstacle to approval by the Commission and – I should note – by the Council.

  Maes (Verts/ALE), rapporteur. – (NL) Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for his explanation. In these circumstances, we can withdraw Amendment No 3 and can also announce that Amendment No 2 will be replaced by Amendment No 4.

(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)

⁂

Report (A5-0172/2004) by Mr Goodwill, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on certain fluorinated greenhouse gases

(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)

⁂

Report (A5-0190/2004) by Mrs Korhola, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on the application of the provisions of the Århus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to EC institutions and bodies

(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)

⁂

Report (A5-0189/2004) by Mrs Schörling, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on access to justice in environmental matters

(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)

⁂

Report (A5-0177/2004) by Mr Sjöstedt, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the management of waste from the extractive industries

(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)

⁂

Report (A5-0173/2004) by Mrs Korhola, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision making and access to justice regarding environmental matters

(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)

⁂

Report (A5-0209/2004) by Mr Radwan, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the proposal for a Council Regulation on the establishment of structures for the management of the European satellite radionavigation programme

(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)

⁂

Report (A5-0214/2004) by Mrs Paciotti, on behalf of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a Council framework decision on the European Evidence Warrant for obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters

(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)

⁂

Report (A5-0091/2004) by Mrs Hazan, on behalf of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, on the initiative of the Italian Republic with a view to adopting a Council Decision on the organisation of joint flights for removals, from the territory of two or more Member States, of third-country nationals who are the subjects of individual removal orders

Before the vote:

  Hazan (PSE), rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, in this report, I propose rejection of the Italian initiative organising joint flights for the removal of illegal nationals, and I do so for two reasons. Firstly and fundamentally, the main point of my report is to emphasise that the European States cannot just extend the repressive aspect of the asylum and immigration policy, while, at the same time, neglecting whole sections of it regarding legal immigration and the integration of nationals from developing countries who have legally settled in our countries. Moreover, this initiative proposed by Italy does not at all constitute added value for European action in this area.

I would like to say formally here that the mass returns are a lamentable practice ...

(Applause)

… that should be used only exceptionally, while this initiative would tend to make more general, and therefore commonplace, this type of measure. Furthermore, it seems to me truly deplorable that the only elements constituting a guarantee for the preservation of the rights of the expelled persons are, in this resolution, placed in a non-binding appendix, which is particularly revealing of the Council’s intention to build a Europe that is nothing but a fortress.

Finally, on its form, the Council may not, as it has done, disregard Parliament's opinion on a subject that touches on so many fundamental liberties. Parliament's consultative role, which is already only a formality in this area, would become totally superfluous for proposals of this sort, which proves – if there were still need to do so – the need for reform of our institutions, whose victims are, in the first place, the citizens whom we represent.

It is for these reasons that I ask you, ladies and gentlemen, to reject this initiative.

(Applause)

(Parliament rejected the initiative)

  Hazan (PSE), rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, I wanted to indicate that I am in favour of sending this text back to the committee.

⁂

Report (A5-0208/2004) by Mrs Sbarbati, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 337/75 establishing a European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training

(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)

⁂

Motion for a resolution (B5-0156/2004) by the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs on the protection provided for personal data of airline passengers

Before the vote:

  Cappato (NI). – (IT) Mr President, on this matter the European Commission has chosen an illegitimate course of action, which has taken away the European Parliament’s powers by well and truly surrendering European sovereignty to the United States of America. At this point I would, therefore, ask the Commission whether, instead of going through the motions of making us vote, it might not consider it better to hand over the issue to the only democratic institution with decision-making powers that is involved in this case, that is to say the United States Congress.

(Parliament adopted the resolution)

⁂

Report (A5-0193/2004) by Mrs Paulsen, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on a European Environment and Health Strategy

(Parliament adopted the resolution)

⁂

  Nicholson of Winterbourne (ELDR). – Mr President, you are right that we must investigate transparency and accountability. Could we also investigate whether we are within the law with regard to employment? I have been continually concerned at the lack of an assistants' statute. Does this not give us an opportunity to check and confirm that we are within the employment legislation?

  Zimmerling (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I am one of the victims of Mr Hans-Peter Martin’s libels, and I am no longer prepared to put up with this sort of thing. I accordingly request – and wish to have it on the record – that Mr Hans-Peter Martin’s parliamentary immunity be suspended. I will be bringing criminal proceedings against this Member for libel, defamation, insulting language, damage and all other offences that may be considered relevant. I therefore ask that his parliamentary immunity be suspended, so that the proceedings can be brought.

⁂

EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE

- Randzio-Plath report (A5-0162/2004)

  Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) It should be noted that what is known as the Lamfalussy process for adopting legislation on the financial markets was accepted by the European Parliament, which meant that the basic political choices involved in the process would be taken by codecision and that the technical measures for implementing them would be adopted by the Commission.

The main aim of this process is to speed up the implementation of the financial services action plan, in order to create a single market, as an integrated capitals market, by 2005. This process would benefit the main market operators because it would give them substantial influence over lawmaking and would liberalise the movement of capital and financial instruments in order to feed speculators’ greed. The European Parliament accepted this process because it agreed with its aims, thereby placing its legislative power in the hands of others. We cannot, therefore, complain or call this process a simple comitology procedure.

By establishing a new organisational structure for committees responsible for financial services, the European Commission is attempting to apply the Lamfalussy process to the banking sector, to insurance and to collective investment undertakings. The European Parliament is once again critical, but once again approves the process because, once again, it agrees with the stated aims. This is a good lesson for those who are such vocal advocates of codecision.

- Obiols i Germà report (A5-0120/2004)

  Queiró (UEN), in writing. (PT) The background to producing this Association Agreement – the aim of which is to improve EU-Central America relations – is that, having concluded association agreements with the countries of Central America and the Andean Community which are identical to those already concluded with Mexico and Chile and to those currently being negotiated with Mercosur, we wish to establish a basis for an overall interregional agreement that will facilitate the creation of an EU-Latin-American Association, including a Free Trade Area. The intention is thus to increase the EU’s influence in that region, providing a counterbalance to the powerful influence that the United States already exerts there by focusing its interests, firstly on creating a US-Central America Free Trade Area and then on establishing what is known as the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). Whilst I am aware of these developments, I do believe that competition is always a good thing and that all relations that can be established with these countries will be mutually beneficial, both for the Member States involved and the EU as a whole, and for the balance of socio-economic and geostrategic relations in the intercontinental context. I therefore voted in favour of this report.

  Ribeiro e Castro (UEN), in writing. (PT) There is a clear need for the third EU-Latin America summit in Mexico to set the date for the opening of negotiations on association agreements with the countries of Central America and the Andean Community, with identical characteristics ‘mutatis mutandis’, to those already concluded with Mexico and Chile, or to those currently being negotiated with Mercosur.

I share the rapporteur’s opinion on the fundamental role that these agreements could play for a subsequent global interregional agreement leading to the creation of a Euro-Latin American partnership, including a free-trade area, by 2010 at the latest, as the European Parliament requested in its resolution of 15 November 2001.

The main aims of the new agreement are to strengthen relations between the EU and Central America by developing political dialogue and reinforcing cooperation, and to create the conditions under which, building on the outcome of the Doha Work Programme, a feasible and mutually beneficial association agreement, including a free trade agreement, could be negotiated between the parties.

I voted in favour.

- Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra report (A5-0119/2004)

  Queiró (UEN), in writing. (PT) The views I expressed in my explanation of vote on the Obiols i Germà report also hold true for this report, in other words: the context in which this Association Agreement has been produced consists of laying the foundations for a global interregional agreement that will help to create an EU-Latin America Association, including a Free Trade Area, thereby increasing the EU’s influence in that region and acting as a counterbalance to the influence that the US has or wishes to have there. Unless this association is established, the interests of the countries in that region will become polarised, firstly on creating a US-Central America Free Trade Area and then on setting up what is being called the Free Trade Area of the Americas. We should, therefore, promote relations with those countries that are mutually beneficial, both to the countries and Member States involved and to the EU as a whole and also to the balance of intercontinental socio-economic and geo-strategic relations. I have therefore voted in favour of this report.

  Ribeiro e Castro (UEN), in writing. (PT) I share the concern expressed by the rapporteur as regards the strategic need for the European Union to establish closer cooperation with Latin America as a whole. This must be a geo-strategic priority for Europe.

I regret the fact that the Commission has failed to make more progress on stepping up or improving relations with that part of the world, which shares Europe’s values and history. This is something that Parliament has been calling for.

From this point of view, I welcome the new agreement on political dialogue and cooperation that has been proposed, which is intended to strengthen relations between the Union and the Andean Community by extending political dialogue and enhancing cooperation and by establishing conditions that will enable us to negotiate a ‘viable and mutually advantageous’ association agreement, which would include signing a free trade agreement.

I am particularly concerned to note the worsening political and social situation in Venezuela, and believe that concluding this agreement could give the European Union greater power to act in order to promote democracy and social stability in that country.

The forthcoming Guadalajara Summit could be a good opportunity to promote this relationship, setting a realistic timetable for establishing a genuine association between the European Union and Latin America.

I voted in favour.

- Seppänen report (A5-0199/2004)

  Flemming, Karas, Pirker, Rack, Rübig, Schierhuber and Stenzel (PPE-DE), in writing. (DE) In relation to Amendment No 1 of the report on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC, Euratom) N° 2728/94 establishing a Guarantee Fund for external actions (COM (2003) 604), I would like explicitly to emphasise that ‘new’ atomic power stations also includes those that are to be ‘completed’ (such as Cernavoda in Romania). I would like to make it clear once again that a ‘new’ atomic power station is also to be understood as meaning the ‘completion’ of an existing one.

  Queiró (UEN), in writing. (PT) This report proposes to amend Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2728/94 establishing a Guarantee Fund for external actions, in light of the accession of new Member States on 1 May 2004.

The Guarantee Fund covers guaranteed loans granted to third countries and the guarantees for these loans. With ten countries soon to join the EU, in 2004, the Fund will be affected by the fact that various countries have benefited from European Investment Bank (EIB) loans, guaranteed by the EU budget, which means that these will be covered by the target amount from the moment they join the Union. The guarantees will remain in place, but the associated credit risk will now be transferred to the Union budget. This proposal for an amendment establishes rules to address all of these situations and to ensure an ordered transfer of these responsibilities from the Fund to the budget. In terms of the financial implications, this is an exceptional and inevitable financial operation, because it is linked to the process of enlargement, and I have consequently voted in favour.

  Ribeiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The Guarantee Fund was originally established as a way of protecting the EU budget from potential risk in relation to its growing external loans. The guarantee fund mechanism covers three different types of lending in third countries: guarantees for EIB lending, for EU macro-financial assistance loans (MFA) and for Euratom external lending.

In this context, the Fund is also an important instrument for our policy of cooperation with third countries. The aim of this proposal is to remove the new Member States from the coverage of the fund, provided that they do join the European Union, and to establish a uniform framework for future rounds of enlargement. We have no objections to this.

We do, however, agree with the rapporteur’s view that the funds’ parameters should be set more appropriately, because they could be seen as being over-cautious.

Amongst the amendments that are proposed, we feel that it would be useful but somewhat unrealistic slightly to relax the provisioning rate of the Fund before the current financial perspective runs out. As the rapporteur confirms, the Commission should carefully assess the fund’s financial parameters and submit proposals that are more in line with the real risks within the post-2006 framework.

  Ribeiro e Castro (UEN), in writing. (PT) This proposal for a regulation arose from the need to amend Regulation 2728/94/EC/Euratom establishing a guarantee fund for external actions, with a view to new Member States joining on 1 May and their ensuing new status. This guarantee fund covers guaranteed loans to third countries and guarantees for these loans.

The guarantee fund mechanism was originally established in conjunction with the financial perspective for the 1993-1999 period as a way of protecting the EU budget from the potential risk associated with the increasing number of external loans, and so the fund only covers risks for loans and guarantees to third countries.

In tandem with this proposal, the Commission submitted a general report on the workings of the guarantee fund, which concludes that the fund continued to meet its main objectives during the 1998-2002 period.

I have, therefore, voted in favour of this proposal which, as a technical budgetary instrument, pursues a policy with which I fully agree and which strives to ensure that the European Union must pursue firm external action, to support development and to promote the well-being of peoples and nations beyond Europe’s borders.

- Böge report (A5-0198/2004)

  Ribeiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The Commission proposes that the European Investment Bank’s mandate to grant external loans, guaranteed by the Community budget should be revised, so as to take account of the New Neighbourhood policy in the context of an enlarged Europe, which is included in its proposals for a political and financial framework for 2007-2013.

If we consider the ceiling for loans, which stands at EUR 20.260 million, we will rapidly conclude that the report accompanying this legislative proposal adds little to the underlying geopolitical considerations and objectives, particularly that of creating a pan-European-Mediterranean free trade area, in which the European Union can exert political, economic and military influence at regional level.

The neighbourhood policy includes Russia as a matter of priority, for which the rapporteur proposes an increase of EUR 500 million in the provisional share-out, and the countries of the Mediterranean basin. These loans would clearly serve a policy of influence, self-interest and regional interference on the part of the European Union. This is an objective that we reject.

More worrying still, however, is the fact that this policy of good neighbourliness has appeared at the expense of the EU’s cooperation and development policy, particularly with the ACP countries, Latin America and Asia.

  Ribeiro e Castro (UEN), in writing. (PT) This proposal is concerned with the revision, by the end of the last remaining period of the mandate, of the Community banking guarantee for the European Investment Bank (EIB), designed to cover loans granted by this bank, on the basis of Community own resources, to non-Member countries.

The Union’s enlargement, on 1 May 2004, will increase the EIB’s lending capacity, without increasing the ceiling for its mandate to provide external loans, which will be particularly favourable, at a time when the European Union is stepping up cooperation with the potential candidate countries from the Western Balkans and is preparing gradually to extend its relations with other neighbours, to the South and East.

According to the EIB’s Banking Activities Plan (BAP), the use planned for the various regional packages during the remaining period of the mandate suggests a total volume of loans that is greater than the overall amount that has been set.

Bearing these projections in mind, the Commission has proposed a new geographical distribution of the volume planned for the mandate, maintaining the current limit of EUR 19.46 million.

Given the need to improve the Union’s relations with its closest neighbours, I have voted in favour of the amendments that have been tabled.

- Sanders-ten Holte report (A5-0219/2004)

  Ribeiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) This is a report of a theoretical, conceptual, and even ideological nature.

Reading the explanatory statement gives one the impression that we are living in an idyllic world. This world can be divided into ‘donors’ and beneficiaries of the philanthropy of these ‘donors’. Nevertheless, the ‘donors’ should be accountable to their taxpayers, which would impose conditions – and rightly so – on their capacity to provide aid.

This is why in this world, there is a real need to ensure that this aid is not misused and why the concept of ‘good governance’ was introduced by the World Bank in 1991, with a definition of its main aspects.

Both the Commission communication and the critical assessment made in this report (extending the idea beyond the sphere of the State, which is seen simply as the ‘supplier’ to ‘civil society’), consider ‘good governance’ to be a terminological concept which is more pragmatic than that of democracy, for example, and that this concept should underpin the EU’s development policy.

The real world is far from idyllic, however. There are opposing interests in conflict with one another, and no amount of ‘good governance’ can conceal the scant importance attached to cooperation in the entire range of Community policies, the absence of any concept of solidarity or respect for what is ‘different’, and the constant presence of conditionality, which imposes economic and social models.

We therefore feel that this report is dangerous, because it portrays the world as those acting in good faith would like it to be or could be and not as it is.

  Ribeiro e Castro (UEN), in writing. (PT) I have voted in favour because I believe that the European Union must continue and step up its efforts to promote democracy as a crucial strand of its development policy.

Promoting genuinely democratic governance, at local, regional and national level is an unequivocally important factor, which can never be overemphasised and without which we will not see the desired harmonisation of public administrations. For this reason I would highlight the absolute need for the greater involvement of civil society, which will enable us to undertake ongoing electoral and parliamentary reforms, in order to ensure that political activity is broader-based and more effective. In this regard, I support the rapporteur’s statement on the need to end impunity, which will only happen if independent judicial systems are established or strengthened and civil and political freedoms are fully respected.

Without prejudice to the greater or lesser ability of individual States, I would lastly endorse the idea that refusals to provide assistance must be limited to cases in which governments ignore or are responsible for ongoing breaches of the basic universal rights of men, women and children. This, must not, of course, preclude pursuing dialogue and providing humanitarian assistance or food aid.

- Manders report (A5-0139/2004)

  De Rossa (PSE), in writing. I wish to record my support for this report as a major step forward in facilitating the application of the 'polluter pays' principle. When environmental damage occurs, the first question always is: who is going to pay? This report makes it possible to apply the 'polluter pays' principle, a principle which must be used with great consistency and efficiency.

The requirement for the Commission to present a report, within six years, will also give us the option to revisit this important area and properly assess its impact in practice.

In an ideal world I would expect that citizens would be protected from any risk of environmental damage – and thankfully we are making progress in terms of some real preventative measures. But, unfortunately, far too much environmental damage still occurs and we must have tough measures to make sure those who cause such damage really do pay the cost. The measures included in this report will also ensure that polluters face similar requirements, and penalties, right across the European Union.

  Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) This is a process that has now reached the third and final stage of negotiations between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. This is a process that has been marked by pressure from big business – see, for example, the opinions of UNICE, the European employers’ federation – in order to avoid liability for direct damage to the environment, with the governments of some EU countries having defended these interests in the negotiations on this directive.

Despite the fact that the agreement fails to include some of the proposals tabled by the European Parliament, by my parliamentary group in particular – and without going into detail on the fundamental issues it raises, on the concepts that it adopts, on its proper implementation and on all its consequences, in particular for small- and medium-sized enterprises this is a compromise that could help us better to combat damage to the environment, paying particular attention to damage caused by big business.

As I have pointed out, policies on protecting the environment and natural resources are crucial to everyone’s future. Priority must be given to active policies and measures targeting prevention, research and support for access to technology, with particular emphasis on the problems and needs of micro, small- and medium-sized businesses.

  Ribeiro e Castro (UEN), in writing. (PT) As I said at first reading when we voted on this proposal for a directive (14 May 2003), it is extremely important that we adopt a global Community system for preventing and remedying environmental damage, including water pollution, damage to biodiversity and soil contamination, which poses a serious risk to human health. After several years of debate and repeated environmental disasters, we have reached a crucial point for effectively preventing and remedying environmental damage; in other words, a real watershed.

I welcome the agreement reached in Conciliation on a financial guarantee (the compromise reached with the Council lays down that, six years after the Directive’s entry into force, the Commission will present a report on the situation concerning the mandatory financial security instruments). I also welcome the gradual approach and the exclusion of low-risk activities.

In the planned future revision, the European Commission must pay particular attention to the differences between levels of liability in the various Member States without overlooking the need closely to observe the principles of subsidiarity and of proportionality as regards the action of the Member States.

This common position improves on the legal framework for environmental protection.

I therefore voted in favour.

- Keppelhoff-Wiechert report (A5-0133/2004)

  Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The contamination of animal feed can have the consequence of impairing food intended for human consumption. The case of BSE is a good example, in which the use of animal meal led to one of the most serious food crises ever seen in the European Union. The same could be said of nitrofurans, dioxins, the hormone MPA (medroxy-progesterone acetate), or of antibiotics, with consequences, upstream, for human health. We are facing an extreme case today in the shape of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) because the meat or milk of cattle fed with products containing GMOs are not covered by the labelling and traceability procedures.

I believe that the principle of primary responsibility for compliance with food legislation and food safety lies with the animal feed businesses. In conjunction with traceability, this principle could allow for rapid action that would put an end to risks to human and animal health and to the environment. Nevertheless, how we ensure the financial liability of operators whose activities cause economic damage to the animal feed sector is a key issue, bearing in mind that these operators are frequently supported by public funds.

The Commission proposes that there should be a financial guarantee, in this case an insurance, although we have reservations about this point, because an assessment must first be made of the socio-economic impact of this measure, which must not invalidate an effective system of financial liability. There must be monitoring and the law must be observed.

  Ribeiro e Castro (UEN), in writing. (PT) The proposal for a Community regulation must match the commitments given in the White Paper on Food Safety, provided that it sets requirements for a complete system for registering all operators of businesses in the animal feed sector and requirements for animal feed production.

This proposal establishes requirements in the field of animal feed hygiene at all stages of use, production, processing and distribution of animal feed and upholds certain requirements for imports from third countries which stipulate that these countries must meet standards at least equivalent to those set out in the regulation (measures to be implemented under the comitology process).

In my view, without wishing to play down the importance of food safety, we must avoid measures that are excessively restrictive or harmful to animal feed producers and which are unreasonably harsher than those that apply to producers of food for human consumption.

For these reasons, I voted in favour.

- Thors report (A5-0147/2004)

  Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) This regulation is aimed at updating legislation on materials that come into contact with foodstuffs, establishing a framework regulation that sets out the rules by which packages and materials should be covered, the safety standards to be achieved and the procedure for the authorisation both of materials and methods. It also includes new provisions on active and intelligent packaging. This regulation forms part of the overall package for enhancing food safety.

Food safety is highly dependent on packaging, which not only protects food from light, micro-organisms and air, but also helps to preserve the taste and freshness of food. Special care must, therefore, be taken with the materials that come into contact with food, and also with the functions of these materials.

Nevertheless, as regards the key premise that all packaging must conform to Community food safety legislation, and must not mislead consumers, we have major reservations about the concept of active packaging. Active packaging means changing the condition of food; adding aromatic substances, removing odours or adding preservatives to extend the shelf-life of products. This could disguise the true condition of the food. We therefore agree with Amendment No 6, but feel that more rigorous studies should be carried out on the use of this type of packaging and of its active materials.

  Ribeiro e Castro (UEN), in writing. (PT) We are now seeing the emergence of what are known as ‘active’ and ‘intelligent’ packaging for food preservation, but European legislation has not always kept pace with these developments.

This is an attempt better to preserve consumer health and to facilitate the free movement of goods, by establishing a legal framework for technological development, issues currently governed by a directive that dates back to 1989 and which is now under review.

The draft defines as ‘active’ packaging designed to interact with food to preserve its qualities and to extend its shelf-life and as ‘intelligent’ packaging which is able to provide information on the condition of the food content. Account is also taken of other recent materials and products.

Taken together with the specific traceability measures proposed, these food safety measures will contribute to a real improvement in the quality of food products, to greater confidence on the part of European consumers and, of course, to higher food safety standards.

I therefore voted in favour.

- Maes report (A5-0132/2004)

  Bordes, Cauquil and Laguiller (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The explanatory statement quite rightly denounces the ‘social’ apartheid that continues apartheid pure and simple, and claims to act to ‘reduce the gap between the poor and the rich.’

If this were even slightly true, we would vote in favour of this report, but we have our doubts, because the main sector mentioned as destined to receive a restructuring benefit of EUR 15 million is the South African wines and spirits sector. It seems doubtful that this type of assistance will reach the townships, the squalid and crowded districts where the poor live.

The report does not even make it possible to rule out the hypothesis that, among the wine producers in question, besides rich South Africans, there are also big Western companies.

Furthermore, nothing makes it possible to verify that the ‘direct budgetary support’ is indeed going toward social budgets or public utilities and not, for example, toward the purchase of arms and military and police equipment to confront the poor.

This being so, we prefer to abstain.

  Ribeiro e Castro (UEN), in writing. (PT) I have for a long time monitored developments in South Africa’s socio-political situation and I believe that reinforcing cooperation with the major countries of southern Africa could promote development and strengthen democracy in that region.

I share the rapporteur’s view that trade and development policies must be geared towards combating poverty, to promoting employment and social justice, to creating wealth, to ensuring a fair distribution of income and to general economic, social and cultural development.

It is, however, crucial that, in this context of combating the social causes of the insecurity currently facing that country, we do not overlook measures for effectively halting the spiral of violence, which has resulted in countless innocent victims, including many citizens of Portuguese nationality or extraction.

I believe that allocating EUR 15 million of EU funds for restructuring the wines and spirits sector must take account of the breach of industrial property rights arising from the illegal use of traditional European wine names, such as those associated with Port wine, by South African producers.

In order to reaffirm the desire for EU cooperation with southern Africa to promote democracy and development there, I voted in favour.

- Goodwill report (A5-0172/2004)

  Ribeiro e Castro (UEN), in writing. (PT) The European public has fortunately been paying greater attention to climate change, which has helped to improve research conditions. This will enable us in future to adopt better technical and technological solutions, which provide guarantees both for human progress and for the sustainability of this development.

According to experts in the field, this proposal for a regulation is crucial to the first phase of the European Climate Change Programme (ECCP) and is intended to establish a legislative framework for reducing hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), which are powerful greenhouse gases covered by the Kyoto Protocol.

Fluorinated gases currently account for 2% of all greenhouse gas emissions in the European Union. Nevertheless, their potential for global warming is considerable, because many of them have a long atmospheric lifetime (up to fifteen years). The proposal must make it possible, in line with the forecasts, to reduce fluorinated gas emissions by 2010 and then effect even larger reductions.

Various studies are being conducted in this field and must, of course, receive appropriate support from the European Union, in particular financial support, in order to fulfil the obligations established at the Johannesburg Summit in 2002: political coherence, sustainable management of natural resources and promoting methods of consumption ...

(Explanation of voted abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

- Korhola report (A5-0190/2004)

  Ribeiro e Castro (UEN), in writing. (PT) In 1998, the European Community and its fifteen Member States signed what was called the Århus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, the main aim of which was to allow the public to become more involved in environmental matters and to actively contribute to improved preservation and protection of the environment. Signing the Århus Convention requires measures to be adopted that are legally binding on the European Community’s institutions and bodies, and this regulation does this specifically as regards the three pillars of the Convention: access to information, public participation in the decision-making process and access to justice in environmental matters.

Access to high-quality information (preferably made available on public electronic databases), must today be considered to be a standard prerogative of citizenship. Only by establishing rules for this access will we effectively contribute to ensuring public control in an area that concerns everyone – a genuine citizenship of the environment, including access to justice in environmental matters at Community level.

- Schörling report (A5-0189/2004)

  Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) This proposal comes in the wake of two other initiatives – public access to environmental information and public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment – intended to contribute to the implementation of the Århus Convention of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UN/ECE) on Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters.

The European Parliament report contains some aspects that I welcome, in particular expanding the definition of ‘qualified entity’ (specifically to cover local authorities), the possibility of involving private organisations, as it states, ‘to respond to the increasing privatisation of traditionally public functions’, or the guarantees for the participation of bodies that lack the financial ability to bear the costs.

This is an instrument of last resort, which could contribute to reinforcing the action undertaken by communities in order to protect their living conditions and the environment in which they live.

  Ribeiro e Castro (UEN), in writing. (PT) This report should be seen against the backdrop of the important package on the ‘environment’ and, more specifically, on the European Union’s incorporating into its legal system the Århus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Justice in environmental matters (III pillars). It also aims to remedy various shortcomings in monitoring the implementation of environmental legislation.

The Directive now being proposed establishes minimum conditions for access to civil and criminal proceedings in environmental matters and explicitly defines the criteria capable of ensuring a better transposition of environmental law with the least possible impact. As I said, specifically in my explanation of vote on the Korhola report, there must be effective public control in an area that is of concern to us all – a genuine ‘Citizen’s Control’ to protect our environmental heritage. This proposal formalises the terms in which this control could be undertaken in a democratic way.

Nevertheless, I abstained in the final vote, because the report does not make clear its position on the Convention, which has already been signed by the Member States and this led me to harbour some reservations.

- Sjöstedt report (A5-0177/2004)

  Caudron (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I am very pleased with this European Commission proposal. Up until now, there has in fact been no specific legislation applicable to the extractive industries. The existing directives were used, in particular the framework directive on waste and the landfill directive. That was not really satisfactory, however, especially since the extractive industries produce large amounts of waste. It is easy to imagine the chain of harmful effects on the environment that might flow from bad management. It was therefore high time that these activities were regulated and the specific needs of the sector met.

Generally speaking, the extractive industries view this proposal favourably. I know that some differences have emerged concerning the classification of waste. The most important thing is to establish criteria for determining which kinds of waste are hazardous and which are not. It is also important to look to the future and encourage research into more sustainable production that produces less waste. I also support the creation of a financial guarantee to pay for the rehabilitation of sites after closure.

  Ribeiro e Castro (UEN), in writing. (PT) As a follow-up to the Commission communication which addressed, amongst other matters, the management of mining waste, given the specific characteristics of mines and the considerable disparities between subsectors of the extractive industries, work was undertaken on re-assessing Community environmental policy, in light of recent mining accidents, for example at Baie Mare, in Romania, and at Aznacollar, in Spain.

Of course I support this proposal, because it sets minimum requirements for improving the management of waste from the extractive industries, including, to be specific, for the environmental and human risks related to waste processing and elimination operations.

Furthermore, the form of waste recovery that the proposal advocates is aimed at preserving resources, reducing the pressure that is exerted on the exploitation of natural resources.

The Directive’s provisions seek, therefore, to cover the sectors that present serious risks to the environment and to health or which present potential risks of serious accidents, paying particular attention, for this reason, to the structural aspects of an environmental policy which, as the European Union proposes, should be sustainable.

Lastly, I would emphasise the introduction of some important amendments aimed at upholding the interests of small quarries that have to meet the demands of the directive.

I voted in favour.

- Korhola report (A5-0173/2004)

  Ribeiro e Castro (UEN), in writing. (PT) In order to meet its international commitments, the European Union must formally approve the decision on the conclusion of the Århus Convention.

The aim of the Convention adopted at the Ministerial Conference ‘Environment for Europe’, which took place at Aarhus, Denmark, on 25 June 1998, is to facilitate access to information on the environment and improve public participation in decisions that could have consequences for the environment, to which we could add a ‘third pillar’: access to justice in environmental matters.

The Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment, of 16 June 1972, stated that everyone has the right to live ‘in an environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being’ (...). In the Maastricht Treaty itself, the Union gave a commitment to consider environmental protection in all its policies.

This measure complies, therefore, with Article 175(4) of the EC Treaty, which explicitly stipulates that the Member States must ensure that environmental policy is implemented and this also constitutes a further important step towards the desired sustainability of development in the EU.

- Radwan report (A5-0209/2004)

  Ribeiro e Castro (UEN), in writing. (PT) This proposal for a regulation on the European satellite navigation system proposes creating a management structure for this system that is as effective and reliable as possible. The Commission therefore suggests creating two bodies: a Supervisory Authority and a Safety Centre. The proposed Supervisory Authority is to be a Commission institution; as the Commission owns the Galileo infrastructure it is also to be responsible for controlling the satellite navigation system. For its part, the Security Centre is to guarantee the system’s operational and external security.

I agree with the rapporteur’s suggestions that the know-how acquired by already-existing structures should be incorporated into the institutions to be created, specifically by transferring the knowledge of the European Space Agency (an organisation that has been very closely involved in this programme), to the Supervisory Authority.

I also share the rapporteur’s concern to strike a balance between the independence of the Supervisory Authority and the transparency of its appointment procedures. I agree, in particular, with the statement that an annual report from its director to the European Parliament would not in itself constitute a sufficient guarantee of this transparency.

I therefore voted in favour.

- Paciotti report (A5-0214/2004)

  Coelho (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) I support this measure, because it constitutes a step forwards in establishing a system of judicial and police cooperation, which is necessary if the area of freedom, security and justice is to come into being.

This framework decision is aimed at replacing simple cooperation in criminal matters, by implementing the principle of mutual recognition. It must consequently allow for more rapid and effective cooperation and, at the same time, render the European arrest warrant more effective. It will enable a European Evidence Warrant to be issued to obtain objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters, provided that these items are already available in the executing Member State.

Measures such as the European arrest warrant and the European Evidence Warrant will only be effective, however, when they are implemented by all Member States. We can, therefore, only regret the fact that the framework decision on the European arrest warrant has not been implemented throughout the EU by 1 January 2004. Only eight Member States have implemented it.

I thus welcome the fact that the recent European Council set a deadline for June for implementing measures to combat terrorism that have already been adopted, including the European arrest warrant. I hope that this time, finally, the measures set out following 11 September 2001 are transposed and implemented. Everything depends on the political will and the political will does appear to exist!

  Crowley (UEN), in writing. I, like other Members of the House, fully understand the desire to see closer cooperation between the judicial authorities in all the Member States. In particular, I wish to see mutual recognition and respect for decisions and judicial processes. Since the Tampere Summit, and following the September 11 and March 11 atrocities in the USA and Madrid, there is an understandable wish to take action against alleged criminals and terrorists.

However, all these initiatives must be predicated on the principle of protection of civil rights and fundamental freedoms. I am greatly concerned that these basic protections are not sufficiently enshrined in this current proposal.

I have a number of concerns which include a major doubt about the legal bases; serious questions concerning the lack of protection and safeguards, particularly the use of surveillance measures and coercive methods; permitting evidence to be used that would be inadmissible in an Irish court; undermining Irish Constitutional protection for defendants; allowing self-incrimination.

Parliament does not have legislative powers in the area of criminal law, which is best decided at national level. For these and many other reasons I voted against the report.

  Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) It is regrettable that the EP has not taken the opinion of its Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market and rejected this initiative from the European Commission.

This proposal falls in line with the federalist approach, which seeks to remove fundamental powers from the Member States, powers that go to the heart of their sovereignty. This would jeopardise their citizens’ rights, guarantees and freedoms.

The European Evidence Warrant is a ‘relative’ of the European arrest warrant, which was approved, let us remember, on the pretext of ‘combating terrorism’.

As has been stated, the European Commission’s main aim is to replace current legal assistance mechanisms, based on international conventions, with a system of mutual recognition, requiring a judgment in one Member State to be recognised directly, without it having to be converted into a national judgment.

As has been pointed out, the process is moving ahead without any safeguards being provided to protect the rights of the citizens of each State because, if the prospect of cooperation between States is jeopardised, the guarantees that are safeguarded at this level are also in danger.

It is also to be regretted that amendments have been rejected seeking to ensure compliance with rights, guarantees and freedoms enshrined under the sovereignty of each people in each State.

  Ribeiro e Castro (UEN), in writing. (PT) The report refers to a proposal aimed at enabling a Member State to issue a European Evidence Warrant, which may be executed in other Member States. The European Evidence Warrant is, in other words, a judicial order issued in one Member State, for the specific purpose of obtaining documents and data for use in criminal proceedings, which may be executed within other Member States, without its having to be converted into a judicial order in the Member State concerned.

In its proposed form, the European Evidence Warrant will make it possible to obtain evidence that is already available in the State of execution. It cannot, however, be used in order to initiate action or to request the performance of investigations in the form of interrogations, hearings, interception of communications, monitoring or surveillance of individuals, and so on.

Overall, I welcome the report in as far as it addresses the issue of the European Evidence Warrant. I do not welcome, however, references made to procedural safeguards in Amendments Nos 5 and 7. This report is concerned with the European Evidence Warrant, and, given that this document is not the appropriate place to address the issue of procedural safeguards, I have no choice but to vote against.

  Turco (NI), in writing. (IT) The radical Members of the Lista Bonino believe that the proposal for a Council framework decision on the European Evidence Warrant for obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters is premature. As with the European Arrest Warrant, we simply believe that we cannot continue to integrate criminal law and apply the principle of mutual recognition of measures and decisions in criminal matters between the Member States without simultaneously stepping up safeguards and rights of defence in Europe.

The Commission had promised to submit a framework decision on safeguarding the rights of suspects and defendants in the European Union. This is something that Parliament has repeatedly called for but this proposal is currently blocked. Given this situation, the decision that we would have pushed for would have been to reject the proposal in question or to make its entry into force conditional on the approval of the framework decision on safeguards, in order to ensure full respect for procedural safeguards in criminal proceedings, which are key to effectively protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe.

- Hazan report (A5-0091/2004)

  Bordes, Cauquil and Laguiller (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) Obviously, we voted against this Italian Government initiative for several European countries to organise joint charter flights to return ‘illegal nationals’ to their countries of origin, not only because its brutality really does give the European Union a ‘fortress Europe’ image, but also and in particular because we reject the very idea of a fortress Europe surrounded by barbed wire and using military force to expel undesirable migrants.

We want a Europe where there are no obstacles to movement or residence within and which is also open and welcoming to the world outside. Among other things, this means granting official papers to those who are denied them wherever in the European Union they may be.

  Boudjenah (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The Italian Government’s initiative seeks to organise European charter flights for the ‘mass’ expulsion of third-country nationals. The European Council approved it even before receiving Parliament’s opinion. The Commission has announced EUR 30 million: this is an unacceptable way to proceed. It is the very idea of this initiative that must be rejected, however, as hundreds of organisations and thousands of European citizens have rightly demanded.

The discriminatory, humiliating and degrading nature of this method of removal is a betrayal of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. More widely, an excessively security-conscious and repressive immigration policy is a threat to migrants, to international relations and to Europe itself. As Kofi Annan recently reminded us, we cannot close our doors and eyes to the world around us. On the contrary, Europe must be open to those who are prepared to risk everything to flee war, poverty and sometimes death. Europe’s need for an ambitious, humane and supportive common policy means instead that migrants should be considered agents of development. For that to be the case, we must abandon ‘fortress Europe’ as a matter of urgency and make sufficient money available for genuine cooperation and mutually advantageous development.

  Krivine and Vachetta (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) We rejected the Italian Republic’s initiative on ‘European charters’, which are a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights and referred to discreetly as ‘joint flights’. We are outraged by the determination that the European Union in general and some of its Member States, such as France, Germany and Italy, are showing in seeking an arrangement for rationalising the removal of third-country nationals by organising joint flights at any price. We find the idea of providing EUR 30 million to pay for this type of operation, as the Commission and Council propose, scandalous. This fortress Europe policy is nothing but shameful.

We would prefer to see the same determination, the same effort, devoted to fighting unemployment, inequality and poverty in the EU. That does not seem to be the priority of the Fifteen, however. They prefer to pander to the electorate’s populist and xenophobic tendencies by describing immigrants as our societies’ number one problem.

In this context, however, together with human rights and anti-racist organisations, we continue to reaffirm the need for a different immigration policy in Europe, a policy based on open borders, respect for the right of asylum and equal rights.

- Sbarbati report (A5-0208/2004)

  Bordes, Cauquil and Laguiller (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I have nothing against developing vocational training by harmonising it at European level. However, that vocational training must include a large portion of general knowledge, language learning and so on, which means that the big employers must not be involved in the running, management or even the inspiration of that training. Otherwise, we will simply be manufacturing labour to meet the changing needs of the bosses and not to serve the interests of young people.

  De Rossa (PSE), in writing. I am pleased to support this report, which recognises that Cedefop's achievements to date demonstrate its ability to make a valuable contribution to the development of the Community's vocational training policy.

The Agency, created in 1975, provides excellent services for the European Commission, the European Union Member States and the social partners, as well as for the associated countries of Norway and Iceland. Cedefop provides policy makers, researchers and practitioners with information to promote a clearer understanding of developments in vocational training and thus enable them to take informed decisions for future action.

I believe the proposed amendments will improve the efficiency of Cedefop's administrative procedures, and am particularly glad to see that they will lead to a balanced representation of men and women by addressing this issue in the whole chain of the nomination and election procedure.

  Ribeiro e Castro (UEN), in writing. (PT) As successive external evaluations have shown, the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop), an EU Agency that was created in 1975, has, over the course of the years, made a vital contribution towards developing the Community’s vocational training policy.

The tripartite composition of its Board is reflected in the participation of government representatives, employers’ organisations and employees’ organisations, with the Commission as the fourth participant on the Board, which gives its opinions greater legitimacy and enables it to make better-informed and more effective decisions on the ground.

The proposed amendments to the basic Regulation of Cedefop are intended to increase its ability to respond, in view of the impending enlargement, and to provide an institutional framework that is more efficient, more flexible and more effective.

I wholeheartedly welcome the fact that all of the social partners will be involved in consultations on a social project that will lead to an increase in professional qualification and jobs, and will, in turn, lead to improved quality of work. For this to happen, I feel that greater emphasis must be placed on informing the citizens of Europe about the work of this and other agencies, in order to raise awareness of the enrichment, both individual and collective, that can be derived from ongoing vocational qualifications.

- Resolution: Protection of personal data (B5-0156/2004)

  Arvidsson, Cederschiöld, Grönfeldt Bergman, Stenmarck and Wachtmeister (PPE-DE), in writing. (SV) The Moderate Party delegation has opted to abstain from voting on the above matter.

The fight against terrorism and the protection of privacy are not opposed to each other. A far-reaching, effective fight against terrorism requires respect for fundamental rights.

The United States’ requirements have put airlines in an impossible situation, as the requirements infringe EU privacy protection, or obstruct air transport. The Commission has tried in an exemplary way to find a solution. We do not, therefore, support the resolution’s call for the Commission to withdraw the draft. The draft improves the present situation, but still has serious shortcomings.

The data-protection commissioners in the Member States and the EU, the Article 29 Committee, point out the worrying lack of data protection. The draft necessitates a thorough legal revision, and consequently we support an examination by the Court of Justice of the European Communities. A prompt changeover from the ‘pull’ to the ‘push’ system is necessary in order to remedy the lack of data protection. Preconditions for a satisfactory agreement are that passengers be guaranteed information on which data is transferred to the US authorities, and that passengers have the option in practice of giving voluntary consent to such a transfer of personal and economic data, and to inspect the data recorded.

  Atkins, Callanan, Dover, Hannan, Kirkhope and Stockton (PPE-DE), in writing. Conservative MEPs fully support the fight against terrorism and all the means which can be deployed to meet this end.

We are aware of the fact that considerable negotiations have been underway between the European Commission and the US authorities regarding passenger information. We are satisfied that the agreement which has been reached provides the right balance between privacy and the means of protecting our lives and liberties.

Whilst we understand that passengers may find this inconvenient from time to time, recent events have shown that we must all remain alert and vigilant. We are all in this fight together.

  Berthu (NI), in writing. – (FR) In repudiating the Commission, which had negotiated an agreement with the United States allowing it to consult the ‘passenger files’ of airlines providing transatlantic flights for the purpose of combating terrorism, Parliament has taken a decision that may be criticised on two counts.

Firstly, it can only confuse our partners by making them doubt our determination to combat terrorism, when only last Friday the European Council adopted a seemingly very resolute declaration to do precisely that. Secondly, it overstates the sensitivity of the ‘passenger files’ problem, since that data is hardly confidential, especially so far as the police authorities responsible for protecting the lives of those very same passengers are concerned.

The European Parliament has made this false move because it wants to boost its own importance and acquire the image of a defender of freedom; it may also be due to an element of anti-American demagogy and, lastly, to provocation from the Commission, which has clearly exceeded its powers. To crown it all, the national parliaments have been sidelined completely. It is a fine mess for something that seemed so simple at the outset.

  Cappato (NI), in writing. (IT) The radical Members of the Lista Bonino are greatly satisfied with the adoption today by the European Parliament of the resolution prepared by Mrs Boogerd-Quaak on the transfer of passenger data to the US authorities. Indeed, the resolution deems wrong the Commission’s decision, which considered ‘adequate’ the US system that regulates the issue of privacy associated with handling passenger data collected in European territory. It also claims that the Commission exceeded its powers and calls on it to withdraw its decision. Furthermore, the resolution states that Parliament could decide to ask the Court of Justice for an opinion on the legality of the draft international agreement with the United States. We believe that today, in spite of strong pressure from the Commission, national governments and the United States, the European Parliament has boldly and fully accepted its role as representative of the European citizens and defender of their rights and freedoms, democracy and the rule of law.

  De Rossa (PSE), in writing. I have voted for the terms of this agreement which would prevent an unacceptable amount of personal passenger data being transmitted to the US authorities.

While I fully respect the need for the highest possible level of vigilance against terrorism, the terrorists will have won if we sacrifice civil liberties and human rights under the pretext of ensuring security.

The current draft agreement permits excessive personal data to be transferred: it also allows unlimited access to, and retention of, such data. It denies passengers the right to correct incorrect data or lodge appeals with an independent authority if they are denied entry to the US.

I am very disappointed that Ireland voted for this agreement, thus giving the green light to unwarranted intrusions into the privacy of Irish passengers.

The Commission must modify its draft agreement text to ensure that European citizens' data protection rights are protected. Irish and European passengers deserve to know that their basic civil liberties will not be sacrificed in the fight against terrorism.

  Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) In December 2003, the Commission, exceeding its competences, concluded an agreement with the USA on transmitting air passenger data. Only later did it table its draft decision to the Council and to Parliament.

As we have previously stated, we are vehemently opposed to that agreement.

Under the pretext of the ‘war on terror’, personal data are to be transmitted to the USA, covering 34 areas – including telephone numbers, credit card details, political opinions, family background, religious convictions and state of health – without any safeguards or effective monitoring. This state of affairs only goes to show how the so-called ‘war on terror’ is used to undermine citizens’ rights, freedoms and safeguards.

As we have previously stated, this is an unacceptable and illegal agreement, which violates the European directive on data protection. The responsibility for ensuring the protection of people in terms of the basic data on air passengers currently lies with individual countries, yet this agreement seeks to remove from individual countries any responsibility effectively to block transfers in order to safeguard citizens’ rights.

We consequently agree with the overall thrust of this resolution, especially as it calls on the Commission to block the current system of transmitting data to the USA and to withdraw its proposal for a decision.

  Korakas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) Τhe resolution recognises, as the Communist Party of Greece has denounced, that the European Union, which has proclaimed itself the guardian of fundamental rights, is allowing privacy to be blatantly violated by passing on sensitive personal data from its airlines to the USA. Similarly, it notes the violation of the law by the Commission and the national authorities, which have not yet set the legal procedures in motion to prevent airlines from passing on this information. It also calls for the Commission to withdraw the draft decision, which basically subjects the ΕU to the American claims which were presented a few months ago following consultations with the American side.

In its conclusions, however, the resolution, instead of proposing a ban on any transmission of personal data, considers that there is a legislative gap and proposes that an agreement be concluded with the USA simply with less data, a shorter storage period and the right of persons whose data is on file to take action to correct information in their files. For the immediate future, it calls for passengers' consent to the transmission of 39 items of data. Any refusal would, of course, mean they would not be allowed to enter the USA.

Irrespective of the intentions of its authors, it again proves that the European Parliament accepts the terms of the USA, like a deputy sheriff.

For these reasons, the MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece abstained from the vote.

  Malmström, Paulsen and Olle Schmidt (ELDR), in writing. (SV) The fight against terrorism is crucial to our security and has our full support. The work in combating terrorism must be carried out globally and be preventive, but the fight must always be weighed up against respect for the privacy of individuals.

Today, the European Parliament has been voting on an agreement between the EU and the United States relating to the surrendering of data selected on no clear basis from commercial passenger lists, for forwarding to the US Bureau of Customs and Border Protection.

Amongst other things, we take issue with the amount of PNR (Passenger Name Record) data to which the USA wants access, the number of bodies that have access to these, the intended use of the data, the absence of the option of appeal for those refused entry to the United States on account of PNR data, and the United States having direct access to the data without needing to request it.

There is currently no legal basis in the EU that permits the use of PNR commercial data for protecting public security. Therefore, we propose instead that a real international agreement between the EU and the United States be drawn up that clearly stipulates purpose, data, guarantees and responsibilities.

The agreement in its current form threatens to eliminate the rule of law. Therefore, we support the report by Mrs Boogerd-Quaak and are voting against this agreement with the United States.

  Sacrédeus and Wijkman (PPE-DE), in writing. (SV) Terrorism is one of the worst scourges of our time, and must be fought vigorously and effectively at both national and international levels. If it is to be effective, international cooperation in combating terrorism must extend to personal data, particularly in the case of air transport.

We support the collection and handing-over of data on air passengers to the US authorities, but this must be carried out on the basis of clear rules of law (in the USA and Europe), it must be proportionate to the objective, and there must be clear provisions governing which data is collected. It must not take place automatically (the ‘pull’ system). It must be made clear which authorities have access to the data, and it must be laid down clearly how long the data may be stored. The airlines’ responsibilities to passengers must be laid down, and passengers must have the option of appealing to an independent authority.

It is regrettable that the personal data of European passengers is being surrendered to the USA without a legal basis, because this means privacy protection being disregarded. These irregularities must be addressed. The Commission should therefore withdraw its draft and present a new legislative proposal that pays attention to the above points. Only legislation of this nature can reconcile the fight against terrorism with respect for privacy and fundamental rights.

We have voted in favour of items 1 and 10 (adopted by 226 votes to 203 and 233 votes to 207, respectively) in the resolution, and in favour of the resolution as a whole (adopted by 229 votes to 202, with 19 abstentions).

- Paulsen report (A5-0193/2004)

  Arvidsson, Cederschiöld, Grönfeldt Bergman, Stenmarck and Wachtmeister (PPE-DE), in writing. (SV) In our opinion, the boundaries in matters of public health should as far as possible be drawn at national or local level where individuals themselves cannot make decisions.

We in the Moderate Party voted against the above report, as it is our opinion that matters concerning the local environment – in this case concerning the indoor environment and passive smoking, for example – should not be dealt with at EU level.

The principle of subsidiarity should also be applied to decisions on the protection of local water resources.

  Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) Many questions are raised by the Commission’s initiative and by Parliament’s corresponding report.

We welcome moves to achieve a greater understanding of environmental threats to human health, to identify disease burden caused by environmental factors and to plan policy responses to challenges that emerge.

I do wonder, however, whether we would be better advised to assess and to show evidence of the impact of current policies in force at EU level, examples of which include the effects of the common agricultural policy on large agricultural companies; the policies of liberalisation that encourage the privatisation of essential public services, such as access to water, which are entirely focused on profit (for the few); or the watering down of the Kyoto objectives by establishing a market of polluting emissions, with priority given to the interests of large corporations. There are indeed other examples. It is, consequently, a pity that the report makes a brief reference to the need for ‘an intersectoral approach’.

The report also places emphasis on the need to apply the precautionary principle, when the science is not conclusive but when there is a potentially serious or irreversible threat to health or the environment, especially in the context of the debate on genetically modified organisms (GMO).

  Ribeiro e Castro (UEN), in writing. (PT) The strategy before us is aimed at reducing diseases caused by environmental factors. Indeed, a recent report on the matter by the European Environment Agency revealed that, in large European cities, some 60 000 deaths per year may be linked to prolonged exposure to air pollution. The risks are greater among children than adults.

In line with the European strategy in the areas of the environment and health proposed by the Commission, the Council approved a range of conclusions, which are to be implemented in the SCALE strategy. Between 2004 and 2010, SCALE will focus on the four main problems of public health – childhood respiratory diseases, asthma, allergies; neurodevelopment disorders; childhood cancer; and endocrine disrupting effects – and on its three ultimate objectives, namely to reduce the disease burden caused by environmental factors, to identify and prevent new health threats caused by environmental factors and to strengthen EU capacity for policy-making in this area.

The Commission’s intention, therefore, is to establish an integrated European system that can monitor the area of the environment and health and intervene where necessary. This will create synergies and will facilitate the sharing of data and working practices, in order to achieve a better understanding ...

(Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

  President. That concludes the vote.

(The sitting was suspended at 1.45 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: MR COX
President