Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 16 December 2003 - Strasbourg

3. Vote

  President. The next item is the vote.

Report (A5-0421/2003) by Sir Neil MacCormick, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, on the request for defence of parliamentary immunity and privileges submitted by Giuseppe Gargani (2003/2182(IMM))

(Parliament adopted the text)

After the vote:

  Gollnisch (NI). – (FR) The next item on the agenda is a vote on two questions concerning parliamentary immunity. I think it is right that our Assembly should allow the Members in question to address the full Assembly in the same way as they are able to do in committee. It seems to me that, in institutions that are rightly very concerned about rights of defence, that would be a natural guarantee and I will shortly be lodging with the competent committee a proposal to amend the rules to that effect.

  President. Your wish is well within the Rules, Mr Gollnisch. I should like to point out, however, that we have had the debate on this matter: we are now dealing with the vote.

⁂

Report (A5-0450/2003) by Sir Neil MacCormick, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, on the request for defence of parliamentary immunity and privileges made by Olivier Dupuis (2003/2059(IMM))

(Parliament adopted the text)

⁂

Report (A5-0454/2003) by Giuseppe Gargani, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market on the proposal for a Council regulation establishing a Cohesion Fund (codified version) (COM(2003) 352 – C5-0291/2003 – 2003/0129(AVC))

(Parliament adopted the text)

⁂

Report (A5-0416/2003) by Joseph Daul, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a Council Regulation setting aid rates in the seeds sector for the 2004/2005 marketing year (COM(2003) 552 – C5-0459/2003 – 2003/0212(CNS))

(Parliament adopted the text)

⁂

Report (A5-0415/2003) by Joseph Daul, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1453/2001 introducing specific measures for certain agricultural products for the Azores and Madeira and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 (POSEIMA) with respect to the application of the supplementary levy in the milk and milk products sector in the Azores (COM(2003) 617 – C5-0500/2003 – 2003/0244(CNS))

(Parliament adopted the text)

⁂

Report (A5-0460/2003) by Joseph Daul, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a Council regulation derogating from Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 as regards the set-aside requirement for the 2004/2005 marketing year (COM(2003) 691 – C5-0559/2003 – 2003/0271(CNS))

(Parliament adopted the text)

⁂

Report (A5-0462/2003) by Joseph Daul, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 on the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco (COM(2003) 633 – C5-0517/2003 – 2003/0251(CNS))

(Parliament adopted the text)

⁂

Report (A5-0436/2003) by Luis Berenguer Fuster, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the proposal for a Council decision concerning the conclusion of an Agreement aimed at renewing the Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and the Government of the United States of America (COM(2003) 569 – C5-0503/2003 – 2003/0223(CNS))

(Parliament adopted the text)

⁂

Recommendation for second reading (A5-0432/2003) from the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the Council common position adopting a European Parliament and Council directive on amending Council Directives 70/156/EEC and 80/1268/EEC as regards the measurement of carbon dioxide emissions and fuel consumption of N1 vehicles (5997/1/2003 – C5-0491/2003 – 2001/0255(COD)) (Rapporteur: Robert Goodwill)

(The President declared the common position approved)

⁂

Recommendation for second reading (A5-0430/2003) from the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, on the Council common position adopting a European Parliament and Council regulation on drug precursors (9732/1/2003 – C5-0462/2003 – 2002/0217(COD)) (Rapporteur: Hubert Pirker)

(The President declared the common position approved)

⁂

Report (A5-0417/2003) by Michel Rocard, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council decision amending Decision No 508/2000/EC of 14 February 2000 establishing the 'Culture 2000' programme (COM(2003) 187 – C5-C5-0178/2003 – 2003/0076(COD))

(Parliament adopted the text)

⁂

Report (A5-0426/2003) by Astrid Lulling, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on the statistics relating to the trading of goods between Member States (COM(2003) 364 – C5-0285/2003 – 2003/0126(COD))

Before the vote:

  Lulling (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (FR) Ladies and gentlemen, please do not object if I speak now, since we have no hesitation is losing five minutes for a photograph to be taken, one where there was no gender mainstreaming, although there was at least one Luxembourger, the usher. You can therefore easily give me two minutes.

(Applause)

(DE) Mr President, since 1993, when the internal market became operational and border controls were abolished, the Customs authorities have ceased to be a source of basic statistical information on the trading of goods between Member States, but such information is still needed, and that is why the system known as Intrastat was set up. It could have celebrated its tenth anniversary this year, but the people at Eurostat are at present not in a celebratory mood.

If, though, the changes over the past few years are to be taken into account, then the 1991 Regulation urgently needs to be adapted; the proposal put before us by the Commission is a good one, and one that we can largely accept. Above all else, both its text and its rules have become simpler and more comprehensible. The scope has been more clearly delimited, and that is something that we do not always see. The Member States have been left more room for manoeuvre where the collection of statistics is concerned. Finally, we can welcome the way in which the Commission’s text takes account of the SLIM programme in lessening the burden on firms. Despite this, I tabled a handful of amendments, which were adopted unanimously, and I might add that I did this with the agreement of the Italian Presidency of the Council.

For a start, the threshold at which firms are exempted from providing information is raised by 1%, which will allow thousands of small and medium-sized enterprises to cut costs without the quality of statistics being adversely affected. Another amendment is aimed at excluding goods which are imported into a Member State only temporarily but without being altered there. Such would, for example, be the case if I were to get married and hire my wedding dress in a neighbouring country, and then take it back there. That would not be included in the statistics.

(Laughter and applause)

  President. Thank you very much Mrs Lulling! You always keep the House up to speed. I am sure we are much better informed on this matter now.

(Applause)

(Parliament adopted the text)

⁂

Recommendation (A5-0414/2003) from the Committee on Budgetary Control, on the decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States concerning the discharge to be granted to the Secretary-General of the Convention in respect of the implementation of its budget for the financial year 2002 (C5-0406/2003 – 2003/0903(AVC)) (Rapporteur: Helmut Kuhne)

(Parliament adopted the text)

⁂

Report (A5-0427/2003) by Hans Blokland, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 77/388/CEE concerning the common system of value added tax, as regards conferment of implementing powers and the procedure for adopting derogations (COM(2003) 335 – C5-0281/2003 – 2003/0120(CNS))

(Parliament adopted the text)

⁂

Report (A5-0472/2003) by Othmar Karas, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 90/435/EEC on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (COM(2003) 462 – C5-0427/2003 – 2003/0179(CNS))

(Parliament adopted the text)

⁂

Report (A5-0440/2003) by Struan Stevenson, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the amended proposal for a Council Regulation laying down certain control measures applicable to fishing activities in the area covered by the Convention on the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources (COM(2002) 356 – C5-0356/2002 – 2002/0137(CNS))(COM(2003) 384 – C5–0430/2003 – 2002/0137(CNS))

(Parliament adopted the text)

⁂

Report (A5-0437/2003) by Struan Stevenson, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the amended proposal for a Council Regulation laying down certain technical measures applicable to fishing activities in the area covered by the Convention on the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources (COM(2002) 355 – C5-0355/2002 – 2002/0138(CNS)) (COM(2003) 384 - C5-0431/2003 – 2002/0138(CNS))

(Parliament adopted the text)

⁂

Recommendation for second reading (A5-0387/2003) from the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the Council common position adopting a European Parliament and Council directive on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells (10133/3/2003 – C5-0416/2003 – 2002/0128(COD)) (Rapporteur: Peter Liese)

Before the vote on Amendment No 38:

  Liese (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this amendment requires clarification. I personally am in favour of its substance, and, like the majority in this House, I also voted in favour of it at first reading stage, but the Council could not be persuaded to accept it. We have just voted on a compromise with the Council. Amendment No 38 is not part of the compromise package agreed with the Council, but Amendment No 58 is, and replaces it.

I believe that if we vote in favour of Amendment No 58, we will be making it possible for the directive to be adopted without a conciliation procedure. That does not mean that Parliament has changed its mind in this matter; indeed, we made this clear not only at first reading but also, repeatedly, on other occasions. In this procedure, though, we should not insist on the amendment.

Somebody asked me, ‘How, if you have principles, can you compromise on such important issues?’ I believe that Europe demands compromises of us in matters of policy in order that we may make progress. I do not believe that politics should be left to people who have no principles. That is why I ask you to vote against Amendment No 38 and in favour of Amendment No 58.

(Applause)

(The President declared the common position approved as amended)

⁂

Report (A5-0469/2003) by Klaus-Heiner Lehne, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on takeover bids (COM(2002) 534 – C5-0481/2002 – 2002/0240(COD))

(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)

After the vote:

  Buttiglione, Council. – (IT) I am taking the floor to thank Parliament, and particularly the rapporteur Mr Lehne and all the committee members, for this important vote which at last gives us a European rule on takeover bids. We have been trying to achieve this result for 15 years. At last we have succeeded. It is an important step towards unifying the markets and providing greater efficiency. It is the outcome of hard work, and I should like to express the Presidency’s satisfaction.

(Applause)

⁂

Report (A5-0467/2003) by Olle Schmidt, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 77/388/EEC as regards value added tax on services provided in the postal sector (COM(2003) 234 – C5-0227/2003 – 2003/0091(CNS))

(Parliament rejected the proposal)

  Vitorino, Commission. I am supposed to say the following: I regret the outcome of the vote.

(Laughter)

I have taken note of the position expressed by a majority of Members. In accordance with the arrangements between Parliament and the Commission, I will raise the issue in the College of Commissioners in order to consider carefully the Commission's position under these circumstances.

The Commission will, in due course and in an appropriate way, inform Parliament of the outcome of these considerations. Have a nice lunch!

(Laughter and applause)

  President. Commissioner, I can only assume that means you are not withdrawing the text.

(The report was thus referred back to committee under Rule 68(3))

⁂

Joint motion for a resolution⁽¹⁾ on market regulations and competition rules for the liberal professions

(Parliament adopted the joint resolution)

⁂

President. That concludes the vote.

EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE

Report: Gargani (A5-0454/2003)

  Ribeiro e Castro (UEN), in writing. (PT) As has been stated many times on this matter, it is crucial to undertake a thorough streamlining of Community law, in order to make it more accessible and understandable to the citizens.

This idea is all the more relevant in the context of the Cohesion Fund, which involves various actors, both institutional and private. It is only by simplifying the bureaucracy, which is directly linked to the intelligibility of legislative texts, that the aims of these mechanisms will be effectively served.

Consequently, the clarity and transparency of Community law also depend on codifying legislation that has been amended many times – legislation that has, in the case in question, been preceded by consolidation in all the official languages of the European Union. This proposal for codification therefore warrants my applause and full support.

Report: Daul (A5-0415/2003)

  Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) Milk is a product of strategic importance to the economy of the Azores, due to the economic activity and jobs that it creates, accounting for 80% of regional gross agricultural product and 25% of national milk production and because it provides income for around 5 000 highly productive milk producers.

Since the 1999/2000 season, the level of production has reached 500 000 tonnes, and even attained around 523 000 tonnes in the 2002/2003 season, which would have led, if the derogations had not been secured, to producers having to pay supplementary levies for exceeding their quota, causing many to go bankrupt.

Given the specific characteristics of the Azores, the milk quota for this area needs to be increased, particularly because there are no viable economic alternatives in this outlying region.

The agreement reached at the Luxembourg Agriculture Council of 26 June 2003 still fails to meet the Azores’ needs. The additional quota of 50 000 tonnes from 2005/2006 to 2014/2015 and the derogation from the 23 000-tonne exemption threshold for supplementary levies are not enough. The fairest thing to do would be to turn this exemption into a quota and guarantee its permanence. The Portuguese Government acknowledged the need to increase the quota by 100 000 tonnes, but deplorably accepted considerably less.

  Ribeiro e Castro (UEN), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of this report because I believe that account must be taken of the special circumstances and needs of this beautiful Portuguese island region – the Autonomous Region of the Azores – where the milk sector plays a crucially important role.

The process of stabilising the milk and dairy products market must be achieved whilst ensuring that Azorean farmers have a reasonable amount of time in which to adapt to the constraints imposed by the regulatory instruments and that their traditions and way of life are respected, in a broad framework of understanding for the specific problems arising from their location in an outlying region.

Because I am aware of the reality of the situation in the Azores, I believe it is crucial to allocate to this region a supplementary quota and temporarily to extend this derogative system because, in coordination with national and regional authorities, the Union must promote the dissemination and adoption both of viable alternative forms of production and of other ways of keeping farmland profitable without condemning it to abandonment and desertification, for the sake of the much-trumpeted and rarely observed economic and social cohesion.

Without this effort, the unemployment, loss of character and the (e)migration that result from the potential decline in the milk sector could threaten the Azores, as has already happened, specifically at the time of the ‘orange crisis’, which had a devastating effect on the archipelago in the nineteenth century.

Report: Daul (A5-0462/2003)

  Patakis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) We voted against the Daul report on the 3% reduction in the tobacco harvest premium in order to fund the Community Tobacco Fund, because this retention will reduce even further the already miserly incomes of the poor tobacco producers, especially in Greece, in order to promote research into how tobacco farmers can diversify into other crops or professions. In brief, they are asking tobacco producers to uproot and to pay for the privilege.

The proposal for the Community Tobacco Fund is in keeping with the imminent reform of the regulation, which aims to shrink tobacco farming until it no longer exists. However, any such move would spell ruin for tobacco-producing countries such as Greece, because the areas farmed with tobacco are not suitable for other crops, in that they are mainly located in barren mountain areas and are almost the only form of employment and method of survival available to the people who live there.

In 2005, when the new reform of the CAP will apply, the sums which the Fund will have collected will be enormous and will be used to deceive and uproot tobacco producers · at their own expense. At the same time, they will support the American tobacco multinationals, which supply 70% of the tobacco consumed in the ΕU.

The hypocrisy and cynicism of the ΕU have reached their zenith in the name of a senseless anti-tobacco offensive, not a responsible anti-smoking campaign, which we support.

Report: Berenguer Fuster (A5-0436/2003)

  Ribeiro e Castro (UEN), in writing. (PT) I welcome the renewal of the Agreement on scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and the Government of the United States of America, which was adopted by the Council in its decision of 13 October 1998, and which entered into force on 14 October 1998.

Because I am aware of the common heritage and values that bind us, I have stated the importance of the transatlantic relationship and the need for the Union to maintain and improve its partnership with the USA. This agreement, the implementation of which already demonstrates clear mutual benefits in the field of science and technology, is a step closer towards achieving this.

In the hope that this agreement becomes even more advantageous to both parties, which is a very real possibility, particularly if its existence is given more publicity and if awareness of it is raised, I naturally voted in favour of this report.

Recommendation for second reading: Pirker (A5-0430/2003)

  Coelho (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) I support this proposal, and the work carried out by the rapporteur, Mr Pirker, and I congratulate the Council, which took account of most of the proposals tabled by the European Parliament at first reading.

This initiative is intended to turn Directive 92/109 into a regulation, so as to enable the legislation to be simplified, making it easier to apply in a uniform way and at the same time. This has become even more relevant with the enlargement of the Union, because otherwise, for every amendment tabled to this Directive or to its annexes, national implementing measures would have to be established in 25 Member States.

This is, therefore, an attempt to achieve the harmonised monitoring of the trade in drug precursors and to prevent their being diverted into the illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs. The intention is also to facilitate legitimate trade in precursors within the internal market, used for legal and legitimate purposes, such as the manufacture of medicines.

Given the growing increase in the production of and trade in synthetic drugs, effective and rigorous monitoring of the manufacture and marketing of these substances must be set up, as they can be diverted to the illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. At the same time, there must be close cooperation between the competent authorities and the economic operators in the chemicals industry.

  Ribeiro e Castro (UEN), in writing. (PT) Given the increased consumption of synthetic drugs, I believe that the measures that have been taken represent a significant step forward for the flexible and effective monitoring of many types of precursors available in the Community area in large quantities, thereby preventing their illicit use.

The recommended simplification of legislation, which seeks to remedy shortcomings in the current system, could facilitate improvements in monitoring and control, which would mean progress in the fight against drugs.

Similarly, and given that these substances are not used exclusively in the illicit manufacture of drugs, but also for legal purposes, we must ensure closer cooperation between the industry and the public authorities.

I voted in favour because I believe that there has been a significant improvement between the first and second readings, which is duly reflected in the unanimous vote that the latter received in the committee.

Report: Rocard (A5-0417/2003)

  Arvidsson, Cederschiöld, Grönfeldt Bergman, Stenmarck and Wachtmeister (PPE-DE), in writing.

(SV) We Moderates believe that cultural policy is not best conducted at EU level. Culture is a part of our society that operates best without political interference.

We are therefore voting against this report.

  Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The ‘Culture 2000’ programme was set up to provide a single funding and programming instrument in the field of cultural cooperation in the European Union, replacing existing sectoral programmes, namely Rafael, Ariane and Kaleidoscope. Culture 2000 was given around EUR 167 million and will end on 31 December 2004. The new framework programme for Culture is not due to start until the beginning of 2007. The Commission plans to extend the current programme to 2005 and 2006 in order to ensure continuity in the actions that have been undertaken, which we believe is a positive step and we consequently voted in favour of this proposal.

We feel, however, that the sum allocated to this single instrument is clearly insufficient to meet the needs in the field of cultural cooperation. The sum proposed for 2005 and 2006, of around EUR 67 million, is particularly low, given that enlargement will have taken place.

An evaluation of the impact of the current programme is becoming crucial because, as the Commission admits, some changes will have to be made. Examples are: greater support for preserving and restoring cultural heritage of European interest that is considered to be cultural heritage by UNESCO; greater participation and support for cultural cooperation initiatives by local associations and institutions, greater support for acquiring cultural equipment by local associations.

  Ribeiro e Castro (UEN), in writing. (PT) We should support the Commission proposal to extend the Culture 2000 programme, which combines the three previous cultural cooperation programmes, namely, Rafael, Ariane and Kaleidoscope, creating a single funding and planning instrument in the field of cultural cooperation.

This framework programme seeks to establish a common cultural space, by promoting cultural dialogue and knowledge of the history, creation, and dissemination of culture and the mobility of artists and their works, Europe’s cultural heritage, new forms of cultural expression and the socio-economic role of culture.

Bearing in mind the consolidation of the European project – something we all wish to see – I would highlight the usefulness of this intercultural dialogue and the need to maintain, promote and disseminate the cultural diversity of the Member States, which constitutes one of the Union’s greatest assets.

When implementing a policy of cultural cooperation we must, therefore, shun narrow-mindedness, the cultural ‘monologue’ and, above all, historical revisionism in the light of utopian projects.

I voted in favour of this report.

Recommendation for second reading: Kuhne (A5-0414/2003)

  Berthu (NI), in writing. – (FR) The vote on the discharge in respect of the Convention budget provides an opportunity to point out that, despite the praise lavished on it by the federalists, that body was largely responsible for the final deadlock in the Brussels Council on the European Constitution.

First of all, its membership did not at all reflect European public opinion, since the separatists were hardly represented. Gisela Stuart, the British representative who was nevertheless a member of its Praesidium, recently referred to it as a ‘self-selected elite’.

Its conclusions were not inspired by a consensus at all. On the contrary, they were manipulated by the European institutions. Countries or individuals that did not agree were marginalised in accordance with Valéry Giscard d'Estaing’s formula that ‘consensus is less that unanimity but more than the majority’.

In those surroundings, a microclimate developed, a kind of infectious euro-enthusiasm driven by the federalists; it caused many members to lose sight of their national positions and interests and they had their revenge later.

Finally, to completely rewrite the treaties was over-ambitious and at the last moment it became evident that a good number of problems had not been dealt with properly.

Report: Blokland (A5-0427/2003)

  Bordes, Cauquil and Laguiller (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The report deals with the procedure for adopting derogations concerning the creation of a common system of value added tax.

If the European institutions were concerned about the interests of the majority of the public then they would standardise VAT by proposing to abolish it, which would simplify the procedure at the same time.

Of course, though, the European institutions, like the individual States, chiefly want to exempt private companies and the privileged social classes from the tax burden by making the public, including the poorest people, bear the bulk of it. Indirect taxation, in particular VAT, serves to do this. It is especially unfair because, since it is not proportional to income, then it hits the poor harder than the rich.

We obviously voted against the report.

Report: Karas (A5-0472/2003)

  Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The apparent aim of this proposal for a directive is to prevent the double taxation of company profits, to be precise, ensuring that profits taxed and paid as dividends by a subsidiary to its parent company are not taxed twice. In fact, however, the proposal seeks to resolve the ‘disadvantage’ in taxation between multinational groups and national groups, thereby responding to requests from the ‘business community’.

The proposal’s base consequently seeks to extend the directive’s scope to cover more types of company and to lower the minimum participation threshold from 25% to 10% for one company to be considered the parent and the other as its subsidiary, with the aim of guaranteeing exemptions, for example, from deduction at source. The rapporteur, who would prefer there to be no threshold, suggests one of 5%, which is lower than the one proposed by the Commission.

In other words, the issue at stake is not so much double taxation, but one of providing the legal means for multinational groups to manage their tax benefits, enabling them to use cross-border exemptions and deductions actually to reduce tax on their profits, thereby increasing the ‘legal’ possibilities of tax evasion, which is not acceptable. Portugal is one of three countries where the threshold stands at around 25%, which means that this directive will increase pressure for amending arrangements that apply to national groups.

Recommendation for second reading: Liese (A5-0387/2003)

  Alavanos (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The proposal for a directive on high standards of quality and safety in connection with human tissues and cells fills a huge gap in Community legislation to safeguard a high level of quality and safety for tissues and cells intended for transplants or any other uses which need to be accurately defined. Similarly, it will result in comparable levels of quality and safety in all the Member States. On the basis of the positions of my group, the GUE/NGL, I voted against block Amendments Nos 1, 3 and 4 and Amendment No 38 and I voted in favour of block Amendment No 2 and Amendment No 58. The European Parliament should not restrict the operational breadth of the directive for reasons of conservatism but should safeguard high levels of safety and quality.

  Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The main thrust of the report is to advocate the non-commercialisation of human tissue and human cells, preventing the human body or its parts from becoming a source of financial gain, ensuring that tissue and cells are not collected for the purpose of making a profit.

This would provide a guarantee that such tissue and cells are donated, that the donation is voluntary and unpaid (as in the case of transplants) and cannot be paid for. This means combating trafficking and the huge profits of the health-related industries and groups involved in such tissue and cells.

We must combat the attitude that life can be turned into a commodity, which means that transparent criteria and rules are needed, without jeopardising scientific research for therapeutic purposes. This is why my group supported the compromise solution that was voted for.

  Meijer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (NL) The lifting of the anonymity of sperm donors is the least controversial point in this proposal. The correction of defects and injuries of the human body by means of tissues and cells, on the other hand, remains a sensitive issue. There is, quite rightly, strong opposition to the creation of children with a view to having embryos available, by means of abortion, as suppliers of human repair material, and an equally justified aversion to commercial exploitation, whereby people sell material from their body as a means of making money, as has been the case for a long time with blood donors in America. I support rules that are intended to prevent human material being obtained by these means, but I do not approve of attempts to make the rules stricter, so that research of stem cells, for example, is banned. If it transpires that by means of stem cells, defects and injuries of the human body can be corrected, then it is short-sighted to rule out this alternative in advance. The same criteria should apply to organ transplantation, for which a separate arrangement is underway. I respect the view that man should not try to improve on God’s creation, but if we follow this line consistently, then some elements of existing health care also become illegal.

  Ribeiro e Castro (UEN), in writing. (PT) It is impossible to set standards for quality and safety on an issue as sensitive as human tissue and cells, in which the main concern is to ensure a high level of health protection, without laying down some ethical standards at the same time.

The absolute need for ethical standards should not be questioned, and furthermore, as the rapporteur rightly states in his explanatory statement, many of the amendments containing ethical considerations that have been tabled seek precisely to guarantee a minimum level of health protection.

Consequently, I do not believe that the legal basis set out in Article 152 of the Treaty is breached by tabling a certain type of amendment, such as the voluntary and unpaid donation of human tissue and cells, or the ban on making the human body or its parts a source of financial gain.

Unless the common position takes account of these important aspects outlined by the European Parliament at first reading, it will be very hard to accept. Nevertheless, as I am aware that this directive is of the utmost importance, I supported the compromise that was achieved, which is also supported by the Union for Europe of the Nations Group, of which I am a Member. Although this is not a perfect text for this issue, it sets a reasonable level of health protection and achieves a balance that is better than nothing.

  Zrihen (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this report and I am glad that a large majority of Parliament did the same. Thanks to the compromises negotiated with the Council and Commission, everything is ready for this directive on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells to be quickly adopted and implemented. This is excellent news for the fight against a number of incurable diseases, which can increasingly be treated by transplanting human cells and tissues, and it gives new hope to many of our fellow citizens. There does of course need to be transparent and strict regulations for such therapeutic practices and medical research both in order to minimise the risks and to ensure that ethical principles are followed. The result obtained is quite satisfactory in this respect. The principle of voluntary and unpaid donation is therefore established. The principle that the human body is not to be treated as a commodity is also recognised, avoiding it being regarded merely as a source of financial gain.

Report: Lehne (A5-0469/2003)

  Fatuzzo (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, there are too many Members in the Chamber. I am not used to giving my explanation of vote with so many members present. If you want us to wait until everyone leaves, I am happy to wait. Otherwise, I shall begin to give my explanation of vote.

  President. Mr Fatuzzo, the order of the House requires me to call you now. It seems you have a larger audience now than you sometimes might have had in the past!

  Fatuzzo (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President. I voted in favour of Mr Lehne’s proposal on takeover bids, but I thought about savers, both pensioners and those who are not pensioners, who, I am sorry to say, have not been protected, in the case of Argentinian debts, from huge losses in their savings and from money invested in Argentinian bonds.

This has led to the impoverishment of a large number of pensioners, workers and citizens and I hope the European Union takes steps to ensure that no similar situations occur and intervenes to tackle problems affecting citizens of all European Member States who placed their trust in their governments’ controls.

  Arvidsson, Cederschiöld, Stenmarck and Wachtmeister (PPE-DE), in writing. (SV) The right of ownership is a fundamental prerequisite of the market economy. The fundamental prerequisite of the control that will take place though the directive on takeover bids must be respect for the right of ownership. For many years in Sweden, we have had a system that works, involving a division into A and B shares. The control to be carried out must provide an opportunity to retain this system.

  Berthu (NI), in writing. – (FR) After years of discussion concerning harmonisation of the law in respect of takeover bids in Europe, we have finally reached the only common sense conclusion: that it is better not to seek harmonisation on the sensitive points, but to allow States the freedom to choose the system that best suits their economic and cultural context. What a lot of time has been lost in getting there!

In particular, we support the compromise that was found on defensive measures against hostile takeover bids. Some Member States will be able to allow boards room for manoeuvre, others will leave it solely to the general meeting of shareholders. Let us hope that this provisional compromise will become the norm: it in fact foreshadows a more pragmatic and less standardising view of the European market, which in our view is the right one.

We regret, however, that this compromise did not include the question of ‘golden shares’ or actions spécifiques in French, which some States use to maintain a public interest in large privatised enterprises, especially when there is a risk of foreign takeovers. The Commission and the Court of Justice are fiercely against the system, but it affords protection and it should be given greater legitimacy.

  Bordes, Cauquil and Laguiller (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) In the case of takeover bids, some Members would like staff representatives of the businesses concerned to be better informed than this directive provides for them to be. So be it, but why then does one of these amendments simultaneously propose the acceptance of ‘confidentiality clauses’, which in the end means restricting information to certain delegates and denying it to the workforce as a whole?

In addition, even if these amendments were adopted, that would not protect workers at all from the tragic consequences of buyouts, in particular, mass redundancies under the pretext of restructuring.

European authorities are concerned with bringing some degree of unity to this jungle-like system, as this House is doing regarding takeover bids. They are, however, wildly scorning those who, year after year, takeover bid or not, find themselves in ever greater numbers back on the streets because reducing the workforce, and therefore the salaried masses, is one of the ways in which those who possess capital can increase the price of their shares on the Stock Exchange.

Only a ban on mass redundancies could protect workers from the tragic consequences of takeover bids for jobs. We voted against this report.

  Lulling (PPE-DE), in writing. (DE) For over a decade now, we have been debating the takeover directive, the first version of which, as we know, was unable to get over the last hurdle in this House. I am glad that, thanks to the negotiations involving the Council and our rapporteur Mr Lehne, the adoption of this important text is now, at last, within our reach.

The Portuguese-Italian compromise arrived at in the Council and adopted in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market and in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs strikes me as the best possible result in a complex situation. Stipulating the Europe-wide applicability of Articles 9 and 11 whilst allowing the Member States the option of not making them binding on their businesses, although not ideal, is the only compromise possible, to which the alternative would be not having a directive at all, and nobody wants that. A small step in the right direction is always better than marking time on the spot for years. I would argue that there are a few highly strategic areas in which the Member States should be accorded special rights, which they would be entitled to use in the event of takeovers. The report before us indirectly covers the possibility of the Member States availing themselves of the right already referred to, and also solves the specifically Scandinavian problem with securities with multiple voting rights without jeopardising the important level playing field, which guarantees enterprises equal opportunities.

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

  Manders (ELDR), in writing. (NL) Although I have voted in favour of the directive, I have great difficulty with it and I have been tempted to vote against.

A few elements, such as the compulsory bid as a means of protecting minority shareholders, constitute a slight improvement.

After years of political tug-of-war, the legislative proposal has degenerated into a watered-down compromise. In fact, the term 'directive' is not even justified; 'empty shell' would be a more accurate label. The directive's original goal, namely to create equal conditions for company takeovers across the entire EU, has been completely eroded away. Since it is up to Member States to decide whether they want to transpose the directive into national legislation, defensive mechanisms in the EU will continue to form a barrier to the free movement of capital. As a result, the internal market's desperately-needed dynamism is under-used.

The fact that the Council and Parliament have accepted this proposal demonstrates once again that national interests still prevail over enhancing the competitive capacity of the EU as a whole. With this, some of Europe's powerlessness is once again exposed in a painful manner.

I have from the very outset pleaded in favour of a complete breakthrough rule. Only a complete breakthrough rule guarantees a fair internal market for takeovers, which is of crucial importance for optimising the EU's competitive position compared to the rest of the world. This is also the view of all the Members belonging to the VVD, the Dutch People's Party for Freedom and Democracy.

  McCarthy (PSE), in writing. The EPLP is disappointed that additional amendments to strengthen information and consultation provisions in the directive were narrowly defeated by a PPE and Liberal led coalition. The EPLP supported amendments affording employees more extensive rights of information and consultation during the bid process.

Nonetheless, we accept that this directive does represent an improvement for employees on information and consultation, compared with the July 2001 directive.

Articles 6, 9 and 13 represent an improvement on employees' rights. Indeed the original Commission proposal provided that the provisions of the information and consultation directive would be without prejudice to the takeovers directive, now it is explicit that the takeover directive is without prejudice to the information and consultation directive.

For the EPLP, it comes down to question of political judgement: Is it better to have no directive thus allowing the continuation of an unregulated market for takeovers, with no disclosure or transparency of corporate structures and little or no guarantee of employees' rights to information and consultation, or, is it better to vote in favour of a directive allowing substantial progress on creating a open, transparent framework for takeovers, introducing new standards to guarantee both employees' and investors rights? We voted for the latter.

  Meijer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (NL) In the past, companies were meant to last. Despite conflicts of interest, entrepreneurs and workers agreed that their companies would provide jobs for future generations. The entrepreneur who had founded the companies saw this as his life’s work. He believed in his product and in his contribution to progress for his town or region. For the workers, it was the place that provided them with a source of income and brought them and their colleagues together. More say in the business and a better income were the future. These days, companies are commodities. They are bought, closed down or plundered to release the capital for activities that yield more profits for the owners. Anonymous international forces are quick to call an end to all the old certainties. Legislation about takeovers can serve very different goals, one of which is to protect the employees and their permanent living environments, while another is to facilitate the trade in companies in order to yield maximum benefit for their shareholders. These two goals are not very compatible. This is why those who claim that the fact that a directive on takeover bids is being introduced is more important than its content are wrong. As in 2001, I am once again voting for everything that contributes to a directive of the former kind and against everything that leads to one of the latter.

  Queiró (UEN), in writing. (PT) On 4 July 2001, I took part in the Conciliation Committee meeting on this matter, at which the agreement between the EP and the Council was blocked. At the time, the issue at stake was that of forcing the management boards of companies subject to a takeover bid to refrain from adopting defensive measures against the offer or company.

Today, the European Parliament has basically adopted a set of rules in this field which mean that Member States and companies will have the option – but not the obligation – to make these defensive measures illegal unless they have been formally approved at a general shareholders meeting.

This new wording, designed to protect minority shareholders in the event of a takeover bid and which unblocks this issue, which is of importance to company law and to international economic and financial life, leads me to consider that this report warrants my favourable vote.

  Ribeiro e Castro (UEN), in writing. (PT) This proposal seeks to integrate European markets, to harmonise conditions for company restructuring, to strengthen the legal certainty of cross-border takeover bids in the interest of all concerned and to ensure protection for minority shareholders in the course of such transactions, thus increasing the transparency of defensive structures and mechanisms.

This is the third proposal for a Directive and I have given it my support because what we are now seeing is the outcome of overcoming many obstacles and heated debates, in the context of institutional cooperation and consultation, which I welcome.

In fact, strengthening the internal market and the vitality of European competitiveness – particularly in relation to the USA – will lead to gradual improvements in our own financial services, which promote a healthy competitive environment between European operators, in a context of fairness, transparency and sustainable growth.

I also believe that the main obstacle to this directive’s adoption in 1989 and 1996 – the effect of takeover bids on employment and their social repercussions in general – must remain at the heart of regulatory concerns. This is the only way of understanding the scale of the Union’s fight to achieve real ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’. This is furthermore the only way we will attain the goals of economic dynamism and competitiveness, which are intended to create more and better jobs and greater social cohesion.

  Sacrédeus (PPE-DE), in writing. (SV) I have chosen to vote against the report and the proposal for a directive, which was however adopted by 325 votes, with 221 votes against and 7 abstentions.

A certain harmonisation of the EU countries’ rules governing the financial markets may be needed in order to favour the internal market and, thus, growth. The directive on takeover bids is, however, along the wrong lines.

If the directive is adopted, the Swedish system of A and B shares will continue as an exception. The directive is to be reviewed after five years, with an obvious risk of the Swedish system again being brought into question and abolished once and for all.

The system of A and B shares is open and non-discriminatory and based upon purchasing agreements freely entered into. There is no evidence for assertions to the effect that the system involving differentiated vote values impedes company takeovers. A more principled objection is that forms of ownership should not be decided upon at EU level, nor the right of ownership brought into question nor long-term shareholder liability in a company impaired.

I have also voted in favour of amendments aimed at giving company employees an opportunity to give their views of a takeover bid through having the company’s board consult their representatives.

  Zrihen (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I voted against this directive because three crucial amendments were rejected that were aimed at ensuring that the workers of both the bidding company and the target company were fully informed and consulted in good time in the event of a takeover bid. Some claim this is already guaranteed by other directives and that there is therefore no point in dealing with the matter in this directive. That view is shared by Commissioner Bolkestein. I am not convinced and it is hard to understand why the introduction of a minimum amount of social dialogue into this directive should meet with such opposition. But I do agree entirely with Mr Bolkestein that this directive, as it has been adopted with the Commission’s and the Council’s agreement, is not a social directive, it is even a clearly antisocial directive! After more than 15 years of debates, I regret to note, like the ESC, that neither the Council, nor the Commission, nor the majority of Parliament have been able to understand something so simple and obvious as that workers are just as important as shareholders and that they have in particular the right to be informed and consulted over mergers. It is a sad day for the European social model.

Report: Olle Schmidt (A5-0467/2003)

  Fatuzzo (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, this document refers to VAT, value added tax, on postage stamps. I had a vision: it was the year 2013 and I was still a Member of this Parliament and Mr Schmidt was again presenting a report on stamps. In the future, however, increasingly fewer European citizens used – I am speaking as if the year were 2017 – postage stamps and the ordinary postal services so Mr Schmidt’s directive made provision for financing people who write letters by paying them the postage on their correspondence. I mean to say, Mr President, that postage stamps and postal services are becoming so rare that letters will become antiques, just like vintage motor cars.

That is my last statement today; indeed it is my last statement of 2003. Thank you and bon appetit.

  President. Thank you, Mr Fatuzzo. I think you have brought the House to silence with your remarks.

  Alavanos (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) I do not agree that, in the name of competition between state and private services provided in the postal sector, we should be led to increase the cost of postal services to citizens and to a complete denial of the utility function of state post offices. That is why I too, like the whole of the GUE/NGL Group, voted against the amendments by the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the proposal as a whole.

  Attwooll, Clegg, Davies, Duff, Huhne, Lynne, Newton Dunn, Nicholson of Winterbourne, Wallis and Watson (ELDR), in writing. The Liberal Democrat delegation did not vote with the rest of the ELDR Group on the Schmidt report. We voted against Amendments Nos 1 to 13 and the proposal, as we wished the proposal in its current form to be withdrawn. Our reason for doing so is that we believe VAT on postal services, especially in respect of securing a universal service for packages below two kilogrammes, is a matter best left to national governments under the principle of subsidiarity. However, we remain open to considering future proposals aimed at ensuring greater competition.

  Bordes, Cauquil and Laguiller (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The report concerns itself only with those distortions of competition that are liable to be detrimental to the private enterprises that are taking over the postal sector; in no way does it reflect the interests either of users or of postal workers.

For over a century, the European states have established public postal services that worked in more or less acceptable fashion until criteria of public service began to give way to those of profitability. The efficient running of public services, and of the postal services in particular, has for some considerable time been one of the most reliable indicators of a country’s level of development, and, dare I say it, of its level of civilisation.

It was precisely because the postal services were to some degree sheltered from competition and from the pursuit of profit that they were able to perform their role; it was because they did not exist to be profit-making but to provide a service that they served the most secluded villages and criss-crossed the land with a dense network of post offices. Such is the progress that both the nation-states and the European institutions are engaged in systematically demolishing.

We are absolutely opposed to this exercise in the destruction of public services, which is both regressive and socially unjust.

To this fundamental reason for voting against this report, we would add another, namely that we are opposed to VAT and hence to its being applied, as also to the price increases that it will entail, and from which users on lower incomes will suffer most.

  Esclopé (EDD), in writing. – (FR) In the present European context, especially with regard to the problems raised by taxation and indirect taxation in particular, I cannot accept the Commission’s proposal to remove the VAT exemption for postal services. How can such a proposal be made, knowing that the 1977 sixth directive has still not been updated, that the problems of harmonising VAT rates persist, and that an impact assessment has still not been made of liberalisation in the postal sector? Regardless of the matter of VAT liability, how are we to believe in healthy competition to the sole benefit of users in the Member States when the Commission proposes an optional reduced rate for conventional postal services, which can only highlight the technical problems relating to weight and the disparities in rates between Member States. Once again, the Commission is putting the cart before the horse and trying to persuade us by autosuggestion. Well, we are not stupid and we reject this text.

  Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) This Commission proposal seeks to remove VAT exemption for postal services, which has been in place since the sixth directive on VAT of 1977. The Commission is thereby seeking to achieve two things: to continue the process of establishing a single VAT system and to contribute to the current process of liberalising postal services at EU level, as recommended in directive 2002/39/EC. Consequently, as a result of this process of gradual liberalisation which I reject because this undermines public service and its universal scope the effect of removing this exemption, which would oblige public operators to charge VAT at the full rate, would be higher costs for the services provided, especially for private individuals and would encourage the subcontracting of external services.

I therefore agree with the recommendation by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to reject this Commission proposal, even though this is not the position held by the rapporteur. Consequently, I welcome the rejection of the proposals for amendment tabled by the rapporteur himself, with the support of his group and of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, which sought a compromise that would make it possible to adopt this proposal for a directive.

  Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. I opposed the Commission's proposal to harmonise VAT between state postal services like the Royal Mail and private sector delivery services. The Commission’s bad timing was not lost on Scotland with the debate taking place in arguably the busiest week for postal services across Europe and I am glad it got the knock-back it deserved.

It is often rightly assumed and argued that many of us now have access to e-mail and other communications technology and that the cost of postage stamps is irrelevant. However, many pensioners and low-income households still depend on reliable and affordable postal services. It would be their pockets which would be hit hardest if VAT was put onto the price of a stamp.

I call upon the Commission to reflect on this and shelve the proposal.

  President. That concludes the explications of vote.

(The sitting was suspended at 1.05 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: MR VIDAL-QUADRAS ROCA
Vice-President⁽²⁾

  Patakis (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, at the start of the part-session yesterday, I wanted to make a proposal and I asked for the floor. However, I was not given it due to a lack of time. I wish to make that proposal now. Would that be possible?

  President. I am afraid that I cannot give you the floor, Mr Patakis, because you were not originally given the floor, and in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, I cannot give it to you now.

  Patakis (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Can you tell me, as you do not now know, if I will have the opportunity to express my position during this part-session, and if so when?

  President. I will pass on your request, Mr Patakis, and I am sure we will find a way for you to take the floor.

(1) Tabled by the following Members: Willy C.E.H. De Clercq on behalf of the ELDR Group, Manuel Medina Ortega on behalf of the PSE Group and Klaus-Heiner Lehne and others on behalf of the PPE-DE Group, seeking to replace motions for resolutions B5-0430/2003 , B5-0431/2003 and B5-0432/2003 with a new text.

(2) Approval of the Minutes of the previous sitting: See Minutes.