Verbatim report of proceedings

Thursday, 23 June 2005 - Brussels

30. Explanations of vote

- Report: Gargani (A6-0189/2005)

  Michl Ebner (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I have voted against this Statute, and have done so for five reasons. The first is that I think this is not the right time for it; while Europe as a whole is grappling with its future, we are concerning ourselves with the future of our financial arrangements. The second is that I am opposed to tax privileges. The third is that I see our having our pensions paid by the taxpayer as sending the wrong message. The fourth is that I do not think we should be getting a percentage of what judges are paid; rather, things should be the other way around, with judges being paid a percentage of what the freely-elected representatives of a sovereign people earn. After all, it would also sound much better if judges were to be paid 250% of an MEP’s salary. Finally, all this involves us looking into the future; we are taking decisions on behalf of future Members, and I do not find that exactly proper either.

As I do not regard this as a particularly favourable result, I have voted ‘no’. I am sure that many of my colleagues who have voted ‘yes’ today have done so not out of conviction, but in response to pressure from the media, and that, too, is a pity.

  Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, I, too, have voted against the Members’ Statute, which I regard as sending the wrong message – that is what we are doing if we adopt it in such haste while the current European crisis is raging around us. I also feel that it rather amounts to a load of eyewash, and to putting wine in old bottles, as I cannot see much of a difference in comparison to the draft with which the Rothley report presented us.

There has been a lot of talk in the past few days about the setting up of citizens’ forums to address the crisis situation in Europe. Why are we not setting up citizens’ forums to discuss the Members’ Statute? Why is there no consultation on the Internet? If we can have a pause for reflection during the process of ratifying the Constitution, why can we not have a pause for reflection on the Members’ Statute? I still do not think it right that it should be combined with travel expenses. These things can be dealt with separately; for that we do not need this Members’ Statute to be adopted so over-hastily and in such a headlong rush.

I would, though, ask for a vote to be corrected. I am of course in favour of not reducing the retirement age. That, too, is something there is no way we can get across to the public at a time of austerity measures and cutbacks in the social budget. I think we have done Europe a disservice today, and I do not believe that we will, in so doing, be able to rid people of their suspicions of the European institutions and of their weariness with our politics.

  Frank Vanhecke (NI). – (NL) Mr President, I think that we sent an entirely wrong message today by voting on the Gargani report on the Members’ Statute, not least because the impression is once again being created that this House’s real principal concern is with its Members’ benefits. Moreover, I think that what is described as the elimination of a number of abuses is a mere pretext, at best a palliative. In reality, Members are being endowed with new privileges, which nothing and nobody can justify, the planned pension fund scheme being one example that springs to mind.

Another reason why this message is the wrong one is that nobody in the whole of Europe is waiting for a common statute for all MEPs except a few MEPs themselves. We represent our peoples and our Member States here. Why should we be so insistent on having a statute that is different from that of our counterparts in the national parliaments, unless, of course, Europe is to be thought of as a superstate, which is not what I want it to be? If this report is a new stunt to bring even more people to resist what we are gradually referring to as the Eurocracy, then it has achieved its object.

  Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, at a time when the EU is mired in a profound crisis, when agreement on the European Constitution eludes us, when we are unable to decide on the EU’s future financial basis, at a time marked by great economic problems and high levels of unemployment in the EU, yet again, we in this House are focussing our attention on ourselves. European politics could hardly appear more distant from the real world!

I voted against the Members’ Statute on the ground that I am opposed to us MEPs enjoying tax privileges. I want to be taxed in the same way as those who vote for me and my fellow German citizens, and, as a German MEP, I want to be paid in the same way as my counterparts in the German national parliament, the Bundestag.

  Othmar Karas (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, having taken note of the result of negotiations between Parliament and the Council, we in the Austrian People’s Party delegation voted to adopt this Members’ Statute. We find it regrettable that the Council should have dictated to Parliament conditions in respect of the Rothley report, one of which was that the cut in salary should be compensated for by the pension scheme being made non-contributory. Every amendment that we have tabled here today would, from the Council’s point of view, have caused the Members’ Statute to fall. It was high time, following 10 years of negotiations, that this House should endow itself with a Members’ Statute, and for there to be equal pay for equal work. To this compromise we have agreed, even though there is without doubt room for improvement in many areas.

  Jens-Peter Bonde (IND/DEM), in writing. (DA) The June Movement is a strong opponent on principle of a common Members’ Statute, which would turn Members of the European Parliament into the EU’s representatives in the Member States instead of Denmark’s representatives in the EU.

The June Movement’s representative has proposed approximately 50 times that travel should be as per account rendered, and the present compromise now offers the chance to have this put into practice. We in the June Movement are therefore voting in favour of this compromise, at the same time as holding to our opposition on principle to the Statute, which was unfortunately approved by the Treaty of Nice.

  Udo Bullmann (PSE), in writing. (DE) I am in favour of enacting a single statute for all Members of the European Parliament. A functioning European Parliament depends to a large degree on a good uniform statute being in place.

Any such statute must, however, have at its heart modern, EU-wide rules on MEPs’ immunity from prosecution. In Parliament’s present motion for a resolution, the Member States are requested to revise the provisions laid down in a protocol in 1965. No such rule is to be found in the draft Statute itself.

Regarding this as a fundamental defect, I have – as I did in December 2003 – voted against the draft Statute. In the event of the Statute entering into force in 2009, I very much hope that this defect will have been, by that date, remedied by means of a rule on the immunity of MEPs that shall be binding, equal and uniform across the EU.

It was not only in this respect that Mr Rothley’s original draft was markedly superior to the present text, for it embodied a parliamentary law that was, in a whole range of other areas, more modern and more comprehensible to the public than national rules, including those obtaining in Germany, not least in such matters as the requirement that Members make a contribution to their own pensions, for which no provision is made in the regulations of many national legislatures.

  Lena Ek, Cecilia Malmström and Anders Wijkman (PPE-DE), in writing. (SV) Today, Parliament has voted on the long-debated Members’ Statute. There are some doubtful features, but it overwhelmingly constitutes an improvement on current rules applicable to, for example, travel expenses, taxes and pensions. Actual travel costs will be reimbursed, rather than a standard payment being made. The Statute also means that all MEPs will receive the same level of salary from 2009. That is especially important if our fellow MEPs from the new Member States are to receive reasonable salaries and if the earnings gap is to be reduced between those who earn least and those who earn most. Quite a few constructive amendments were tabled before the vote, demanding, for example, a common statute for MEPs’ assistants and the opportunity for those MEPs who wish to do so to receive back only their actual expenses from as early as 2007. We have for a long time supported developments towards a statute for assistants and the reimbursement of actual expenses. That is something we shall continue to do in the future too. In order to ensure that the Statute arrived at by compromise with the Council goes through, we have, however, chosen to vote today against all the amendments tabled in plenary and have voted in favour of the committee’s report. Any change to the compromise would jeopardise the unity in the Council and, thus, the possibility of being able to agree at all on the Members’ Statute.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) Following the commitment made on 3 June 2005 by representatives of the Member States and the Council regarding the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, plenary amended its decision of 4 June 2003, and called for the creation of a monthly parliamentary salary, set at a flat rate for all Members regardless of the country they represent. The salary will, in current terms, come to around EUR 7 000 per month, which is around twice the amount earned by members of the Portuguese Parliament. This would widen the gap between the Members of the European Parliament and politicians in the Member States, when in fact their work and their day-to-day functions are similar, and this is something to which we are opposed.

This decision has undergone one or two amendments, which we welcome, not least the call for greater transparency in reimbursement of travel expenses, indicating that the payment will be based on actual expenses.

Members of the European Parliament are elected nationally and are – and must continue to be – accountable to their national electorates. We are opposed to the federalist concept of the mandate of Members of Parliament, as it overlooks the differing social realities in EU Member States – in terms of workers’ salaries, for example – and consequently widens the gap between the politicians and the people that they represent.

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) We wish once again to indicate the position of principle we adopt on this issue.

We believe that Members of the European Parliament should receive their salaries from their respective national parliaments.

The principle of subsidiarity should serve as guidance. It is up to each Member State to decide what salary is to be paid to its parliamentarians. The national salaries paid to Members of the European Parliament are adjusted according to the actual situation regarding salaries and expenses that applies in each Member State. MEPs should be remunerated by their own countries, where they should also pay tax.

It is important for Members of the European Parliament not to be regarded as a privileged elite by the voters in their own countries. Instead, salaries should be more or less the same as those paid in those countries to people in corresponding positions.

The present system of travel expenses, which takes no account of actual costs and is based on standard payments, is, in our view, quite unfair. MEPs should only be reimbursed for the actual costs that arise in connection with journeys made. The travel expenses system can be reformed without a common Members’ Statute being adopted. We have voted against the proposal for a common Members’ Statute.

  Lissy Gröner (PSE), in writing. (DE) This House has for many years been calling for a single Statute for its Members. We have, on innumerable occasions, been critical of the extreme divergences in the remuneration of those who represent Europe’s people.

The process of making the EU more democratic must be of equal value to all its Member States. Now, for the second time, the Council has presented us with a compromise proposal, which we, the elected Members of this House, are supposed to agree to. It envisages basing MEPs’ income on a good third of the income of a European judge. Absent from this proposal, in my view, is any clear statement about what value Europeans themselves attach to the financial independence of their MEPs, and these same MEPs are instead exposed to an unworthy media campaign. At a time when all pro-European forces are concentrating on overcoming the problems involved in modernising the new, enlarged Europe, I do not intend expending any energy on ‘Project Statute’ if it means that we are reproached for feathering our own nests.

I will be abstaining from the final vote.

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE), in writing. (DE) In adopting a Statute for Members of the European Parliament, we are having the wrong debate at the wrong time.

At the present time, we are all well aware of the urgent need for the EU to discuss its fundamental objectives. The popular votes in France and the Netherlands clearly indicated, among other things, the need for the EU to draw closer to its citizens in order to restore credibility to the European project, and, in view of that, I am not in favour of a debate on the Statute for MEPs being on the agenda. To say the least, the time is not well chosen.

I welcome as an improvement the proposal that travel costs be reimbursed on the basis of the expenses actually incurred, and that the current payment of fixed amounts should cease.

I nevertheless take the view that it is difficult to have a statute for MEPs that differs from those binding on their national counterparts. How is the difference between the earnings of an MEP and those of a member of a national parliament to be explained and justified?

Current events lead me to abstain from voting on the Statute for Members of this House.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) We have always expressed our opposition to the creation of a monthly ‘parliamentary salary’, set at the same rate for all Members of the European Parliament regardless of the countries and the people that they represent.

Members of the European Parliament are elected nationally and are – and must continue to be – accountable to their national electorates. The creation of a single ‘parliamentary salary’ financed by the EU budget and subject to a Community tax, forms part of a federalist concept of the mandate of Members of the European Parliament, with a view to turning the current ‘national Member of the European Parliament’ into a ‘European Member’.

The social situation in the different Member States also varies markedly. A monthly ‘parliamentary subsidy’ set at around EUR 7 000 (around 1 400 000 escudos) would undoubtedly lead to deep inequality and disparity between the salaries earned by workers, national politicians (such as Members of the Portuguese Parliament) and local politicians, especially in Portugal, and we find this utterly incomprehensible.

Furthermore, we wish to restate our commitment to pursuing the fight for strict accountability with respect to the Members’ use of resources to perform their duties.

  Timothy Kirkhope (PPE-DE), in writing. I and my British Conservative colleagues have argued consistently for greater transparency and accountability with regard to Members' salaries and expenses. The package proposed by the Legal Affairs committee represents an important step forward in achieving a fair and open system.

Conservatives have always believed that we should be taxed at the same rate as our UK constituents (article 12, point 3), that our salary is equal to that of our colleagues in Westminster (article 29, points 1 and 2), and to ensure that travel expenses are only reimbursed for the actual amount incurred (article 20, point 2). Indeed, it was Conservative amendments, adopted in committee, which will allow Member States to adopt additional measures in order to place MEPs on an equal footing with members of national parliaments.

  Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (NL) On 17 December 2003, our party, the Dutch Socialist Party, voted against the then draft for a Members’ Statute. We were not opposed to a unified salary, but what was suggested at the time was far too high. Moreover, we considered it important that it should be possible to make this salary liable to national taxes and that the reimbursement of travel expenses should be restricted to those actually incurred. In our experience, on an annual basis, more than half can be recouped that way. In the Dutch parliament, we asked the government to reject this document in the Council.

The proposal that was amended as a result, on which we are voting today, is still not entirely what we want. Salaries must be below EUR 7 000 and we simply reject Article 9.3. We realise that voting ‘no’ at this stage will not yield any further improvements. Now that the maximum has been obtained, we consider this to be a victory in our long-term battle against inappropriate proposals. Acceptance of this proposal represents a defeat for those who for years resisted this Statute, thinking it beneath their dignity, the salaries and reimbursements of travel expenses too low, and the financial monitoring too intrusive. By voting against it, they will make it quite clear that they want, shamelessly, to line their own pockets.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The issue before us is an important one that needed to be addressed, given that the fact that the Statute for Members had not been standardised following the last enlargement had created unacceptable inequality. My vote was therefore based on what I feel to be the most relevant aspects of this proposal on the Statute for Members of the European Parliament.

There are two aspects, however, on which I feel I should enlarge.

The fact that this proposal does not cover the current legislature, and that it provides for a very long transitional period, has enabled me to act with freedom, in the knowledge that I am voting on an issue that does not affect me directly.

Lastly, there is the question of timing. When the report was put to the vote, I supported it, yet had the timing of the debate been put to the vote, I would have voted against. Among other things, politics is about symbolism, and the fact that Parliament decided to vote on this issue at a time of major crisis for the European institutions is not something that I welcome or applaud.

  Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), in writing. (SV) I am voting against Mr Gargani’s report because the proposed Statute would involve unacceptable salary increases, unduly generous pensions and an unduly long transitional period of two terms of office. The voluntary pension fund should also have been abolished with immediate effect.

Instead, the Conference of Presidents should implement plenary’s decision concerning the reimbursement of actual travel expenses instead of, now as before, blocking this reform so as to be able to use the issue of travel expenses in its negotiations with the Council.

  Eva-Britt Svensson (GUE/NGL), in writing. (SV) The Left Party believes that it is wrong in principle to vote on our own salaries and other remuneration.

The Left Party is in favour of proposals finally having been made to do away with the standard reimbursement of MEPs’ travel expenses. It is good that, in the future, reimbursement should be on the basis of actual costs.

The Left Party is not, however, in favour of the proposed salary, the level of which is too high. High salaries must not turn elected representatives into a financial elite.

Tax must, of course, be paid on a national basis, and there must be no EU tax.

An unduly favourable pension system should also come in for the same criticism.

For these reasons, I shall abstain in the final vote.

  Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE), in writing. – (NL) Mr President, despite the worst possible timing for handling this persistent problem that has been around for years and years about a uniform Members’ Statute, I took part in the vote and pressed the ‘plus button’. I voted in favour, not because I think this is such a wonderful Statute, for it is not. The degree of uniformity is not sufficient for starters. From all the times, though, that we have voted in Parliament and had to establish subsequently that the Council was incapable of reaching agreement, I have learnt that the communality we seek is not feasible and that there is no such thing as an ‘ideal’ Statute. The Statute proposed by the Committee on Legal Affairs, which apparently received the stamp of approval from the Council, is better than what we have at the moment in the sense that it provides the necessary transparency and that it gives us the only acceptable travel expense scheme, namely one that reimburses only expenses actually incurred. I am convinced that this alone is reason enough to vote in favour, even if this is done at the wrong time.

  Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The report on the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, by which we mean the creation of a new framework of privileges, is an insult to the peoples of Europe, while the recent rejection of the so-called European Constitution by France and the Netherlands expresses the general opposition of the peoples to the anti-grass roots policy of the ΕU. Consequently, the EU and the European Parliament do not have the credentials to take such decisions.

The MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece voted against the report, because they consider that Members of the European Parliament should be paid by the countries in which they are elected and which they represent and to which they answer and not by the ΕU. It is also an insult to the workers being crushed by the new EU anti-grass roots tempest to set the monthly salary of MEPs at EUR 7 000 while the monthly salary in Greece, for example, is EUR 572.30.

The working and grass-roots classes must draw their own conclusions from the common stand of the conservative and social-democrat parties, who are speeding up the attack on grass-roots incomes and their standard of living in order to increase the profits of big business and, at the same time, secure privileges for the political representatives of the plutocracy.

  Kyriacos Triantaphyllides (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) I wish to explain my abstention from the vote on the Gargani report. I am in favour of transparency on the subject of Members' salaries and expenses: of full transparency which is the product of dialogue which highlights the realities on which any decision must be based.

In the present instance, there was insufficient dialogue. Account was not taken of all the objective data. For example, the proposed reimbursement of travelling expenses does not take account of travelling time or inconvenience. The ratio between the salary of a Member of Parliament and a judge does not take account of Members' loss of income.

  Ralf Walter (PSE), in writing. (DE) I am in favour of the Members’ Statute being adopted without delay. All Members of the European Parliament should, as soon as possible, be subject to uniform terms and conditions.

I will not, however, be participating in the vote, as I shall not be availing myself of the new arrangements. I took my seat subject to the former conditions and will continue to regard myself as bound by them.

- Report: Cashman (A6-0188/2005)

  Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) I welcome both the implementation of the codecision procedure in connection with these proposals and the fact that the Court of Justice has issued rulings on areas relating to the border code, most importantly on the introduction of internal border controls.

One of the greatest triumphs of European integration has been freedom of movement without people being subject to internal border controls. Consequently, to reintroduce such controls would have to be an exceptional and temporary measure, and without prejudice to the normal police controls that may take place anywhere in the territory.

External borders must act as an effective filter to stop people who are a threat to our society from entering, without interrupting the normal flow of people. For border controls to be efficient and effective, Member States must be equipped with the necessary human and financial resources, and at the same time must ensure that human rights are upheld in full when these controls are taking place.

I therefore endorse this report by Mr Cashman, which supports the thrust of the Commission’s proposal aimed at communitarising the management of external borders, with a view to ensuring the same standards and the same conditions of entry for third-country nationals are complied with across the board when controls take place.

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) The June List broadly supports the compromise agreed between the Council, the Commission and Parliament. On many points, the Code clarifies previously unclear rules derived from a range of legal sources. We particularly welcome the increased protection against discrimination in the implementation of border controls, as well as the opportunities for third-country citizens who have been refused entry to a country to appeal against the decisions made.

We do not, however, share the rapporteur’s view that the EC Court of Justice should be given the power to give judgment on issues concerning the reintroduction of internal border controls, and we therefore welcome the fact that the Council has not accepted these proposals. The June List believes that each Member State should be allowed to reserve the right to reintroduce its border controls if it considers this to be necessary in order to combat drug smuggling and illegal human and other trafficking and if it is required to withdraw from Schengen cooperation.

  Athanasios Pafilis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The Community Code on movements across internal and external EU borders applies the racist and anti-immigration decisions taken in Seville and Thessaloniki, in order to turn the EU into a fortress which is hostile and inhumane towards the victims of the policy of imperialism and international monopolies who try and cross its borders.

It is not enough for foreign nationals wanting to enter and remain in the ΕU for no more than three months to be in possession of the necessary documents, to convince the authorities that they have legitimate reasons and enough money to survive for that period and to give detailed information on where and how they will live; they must also not be nationals 'for whom an alert has been issued in the Schengen Information System' and must not be considered 'a threat to public policy, internal security, public health or the international relations of any of the Member States'. Given that 89% of the entries in the Schengen Information System concern persons with no criminal record (they are based on unconfirmed accusations by 'informers'), this is an immensely arbitrary and repressive approach towards foreigners.

The anti-immigration policy of the ΕU is also reflected in the plummeting numbers of requests for asylum approved, in the preparations for the creation of immigrant concentration camps and so on. The ΕU is opening its borders just wide enough to serve the interests of big business in cheap labour.

The Communist Party of Greece voted against the Cashman report.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) Freedom of movement is one of the freedoms that the citizens of the EU hold most dear. At the same time, immigration is one of the political questions that we must address seriously and with cool heads.

That being said, I feel that the crux of the question addressed in the report, which in part verges on the technical, is, nonetheless, equally important. The practical rules governing both ‘internal border controls’ and ‘external border controls’ are of considerable significance. First and foremost, along with security and the exercise of authority comes respect for the citizens, be they nationals of EU Member States or otherwise. Nonetheless, I agree that there are exceptions, whereby a Member State may waive the rules, for perfectly valid reasons. I also back both the report’s support for the right of appeal against a decision to refuse entry, without prejudice to the immediate effectiveness of such a decision, and a set of rules on the procedures mentioned here.

  Britta Thomsen (PSE), in writing. (DA) The Danish Social Democrats in the European Parliament have today voted in favour of Mr Cashman’s report on establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (A6-0188/2005). We are, however, alert to the fact that the proposal concerns an area covered by Title IV of the EC Treaty and does not therefore apply to Denmark, cf. the protocol on Denmark’s position.

- Report: Martin (A6-0154/2005)

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) The report is designed to create a legal base for cooperation and commercial relations with the following industrialised countries: the United States, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. Cooperation is partly about supporting EU Centres. Trade cooperation is partly about exchanges, conferences and executive training.

We support the EU’s common trade policy but have difficulty justifying the budgeted costs of the efforts required, amounting to EUR 17 million between now and 2007. The results of the referenda in France and the Netherlands show that the EU bureaucracy must be slimmed down, so unnecessary expenses must also be dispensed with. In the light of all this, we are voting against the report.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) Commercial relations and cooperation with the countries involved in the programmes covered by this regulation are of major importance to the Union.

The evaluations of these programmes have proved very positive. For the purposes of workable and fruitful commercial relations, we must continue to support initiatives of this nature, which help to coordinate support for research activities, exchange programmes for young people and business missions. These programmes benefit today’s Europe and will benefit future generations.

- Report: Gauzès (A6-0181/2005)

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) This report forms an integral part of the package of reforms of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP). Statistical issues, such as the harmonisation of accounting rules and macroeconomic aggregates in the context of calculating the public deficit, were among the areas dealt with in most detail in the report entitled ‘Improving the implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact’ submitted to the Spring European Council of March 2005.

The plan to improve the European statistical system goes hand in hand with the attempt to restore credibility to the SGP, following cases of statistics being manipulated and numerous examples of creative accounting. For us, the crux of the matter is not so much the SGP’s credibility; we feel that the SGP should be scrapped in view of its social and economic effects.

The regulation before us, which has been improved upon by the amendments that have been tabled by Parliament, increases the powers of the Commission and Eurostat, both to define and certify the quality of statistical data and to verify and standardise calculation procedures. The most worrying aspect of this is that the Commission can put direct pressure on governments to implement monetary policies in the Member States.

Our vote against is thus consistent with our overall opposition to the so-called reform of the SPG.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) All actions that help to improve the governance of the EU should be supported and properly taken on board.

The report by Mr Gauzès forms part of the efforts that need to be channelled into reforming the Community’s statistical system, within the crucial context of the Stability and Growth Pact.

It is of paramount importance that exchanges of information be governed by transparency and trust between all of those involved in the process. The collection, exchange and analysis of data must therefore be guided by the principles of accuracy, coherence and quality, within the context of the trust and transparency on which relations between Member States and the institutions must always be based.

- Report: Cavada (A6-0186/2005)

  Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) I support this much-needed initiative to address the breach of the cease-fire agreement signed at N'Djamena on 8 April 2004. The purpose of this proposal, following UN Security Council Resolution 1591(2005), is to impose certain restrictive measures against Sudan, with a view to:

- freezing the funds and economic resources of persons impeding the peace process and

- preventing the entry into or transit through the territories of persons who may represent a threat to stability in that region.

We cannot allow violations of human rights, and of international humanitarian law, to continue. Nor can we stand by while all manner of atrocities are being committed. We must take all steps available to us to endeavour to re-establish peace in Darfur.

It must not be forgotten, however, that special attention must be given to one-off humanitarian emergencies.

- Report: Cavada (A6-0194/2005)

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The attitudes shown by countries and by international institutions are always worth more than the words that they speak. When it comes to conflicts, the victims know this better than anyone. Consequently, as well as voting in favour, I should also like to state that I hope that these measures will prove effective, and for this to happen we need the commitment of each of the 25 Member States. There is no national interest that comes before peace and human rights, and nor must there be.

- Reports: Cavada (A6-0186/2005) and (A6-0194)

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) The June List supports the two UN resolutions on Darfur and Congo whereby those who impede the peace process, commit violations of humanitarian or of human rights law or violate the arms embargo shall be prevented from travelling within the territory of the Member States, with funds, financial assets and economic resources that can be linked to them also being frozen.

We do not, however, wish to help develop a common foreign and security policy for the EU. All the Member States are obliged to implement those measures decided upon by the UN Security Council pursuant to Chapter VII of the UN Charter, and a joint decision at EU level is therefore unnecessary.

The June List has therefore voted against the reports.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The importance of this issue is in inverse proportion to the speed with which the international community has acted in response to the tragic situation in Darfur, Sudan. Although I have consistently called for Parliament to address this issue, I still feel that this report deserves my vote in favour and my hope that it will prove effective.

- Report: Karas (A6-0204/2005)

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) As I said at first reading, the reform of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) fell short of what was required. The same objectives and criteria were reaffirmed and indeed more time was given. What was really needed was the scrapping of the SGP and a clean break from the prevalent economic and monetary policies, in order to create a macroeconomic framework capable of fostering sustained economic growth and employment. This was not the case. The excessive deficit procedures continue to be implemented, not least in Portugal, the worst aspect of which is that it serves to justify the austerity measures contained in the stability programmes put forward. This is true of Portugal, where taxes have gone up and where there has been a concerted attack on public administration, and in particular on public officials.

There is still no desire to learn the lessons that need to be learned. Yet in spite of the cosmetic reform of the SGP, I welcome the rejection of the rapporteur’s maximalist proposals, the aim of which was to strengthen the SGP and to attach greater importance to the debt criterion, offsetting the data provided by national governments against the data provided by the central banks.

  Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) Not only is the Council’s refusal to take into account any of the amendments proposed by the European Parliament a cavalier action, it also goes against the spirit of the reform of the Stability and Growth Pact. Indeed, the balanced result achieved by the Luxembourg Presidency makes the procedure for excessive deficits more flexible, but at the same time includes increased surveillance of budgetary positions, with the simple, but sensible and honest, idea that we need to save during good times in order to face the lean times. Only, the affirmation of this principle must be translated into reality in these texts. There is the rub!

Following the unanimous agreement of the Council, certain Member States seem to be breaking their word and to be trying to go back on the particular attention that should now be given to public debt.

It is an appalling signal to give in these troubled times. The stability of the euro will suffer from it. Under these circumstances, the rapporteur proposes nothing less than re-specifying the commitment made with regard to public debt. I can only support him in that, even though I hold nothing against the Presidency, which is irreproachable in this matter.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) I supported the report by Mr Karas, because I feel that the problems that have surfaced in recent years with regard to the revision of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) must be resolved.

The reform of the SGP calls for more emphasis to be placed on debt and for comparisons between statistics provided by the national central banks to the European Central Bank and the data provided by the Member States to Eurostat to be taken on board.

The reform of the SGP must involve all those involved in the process and all information relating to the development of the economies of the Member States must be clear and transparent. As such we will be in a position to act promptly with economic measures and reforms aimed at helping our economies to grow and develop healthily.

- Report: Duchoň (A6-0156/2005)

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The report by Mr Duchoň addresses areas of major importance to the future of economic activities in Europe. It is vital that we protect the Community’s financial interests when combating fraud and other illegal activities with the potential to harm its financial interests.

I therefore feel that this report strengthens the existing measures for cooperation and exchange of information that are key to combating illegal activities of this nature. I also wish to highlight the key role played by OLAF, a body that is at the Union’s disposal, in facilitating the exchange of information. I therefore voted in favour of this report.

- Report: Gahler (A6-0182/2005)

  Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) Almost half of funds earmarked for helping poor countries comes from the EU and its Member States, making it the world’s biggest donor bloc. The Union also makes use of trade to foster development, by opening up its markets to goods from poor countries and encouraging them to step up trade amongst themselves.

The proposal for a regulation is designed to further untie Community aid in areas covered by tendering procedures for goods and services for the purpose of external aid.

The purpose is to ensure that suppliers have access to all development assistance programmes financed from the EU budget and to set down rules governing the eligibility of persons and goods under instruments, laying down criteria and derogations.

I therefore endorse the report by Mr Gahler, which points out that fully untying this aid could make it USD 2 to 3 billion more effective.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The most relevant aspect, to my mind, of the issue before us, and the aspect that led me to vote in favour, is the belief that untying Community aid makes it more effective. Beyond political considerations is the expectation – backed up by studies – that greater success can be achieved without enlarging the budget, simply by greater economic streamlining, and this is something that I welcome.

- Report: Kristensen (A6-0116/2005)

  Jens-Peter Bonde (IND/DEM), in writing. (DA) Regarding the matter before us, we believe that NAFO is right in stating the need for a rebuilding plan for Greenland halibut. We are not, therefore, voting against legislation by the EU. Nor, however, can we vote in favour of this, for it is extremely improbable that this rebuilding plan will work, any more than other rebuilding plans in the EU’s fisheries policy have worked. We believe that the EU’s fisheries policy has foundered for, in spite of extensive measures and bureaucracy, stocks are still threatened. This may be due to a situation in which an isolated intervention in the form of quotas has led to increasing numbers of discards. Then there is the hidden transfer and sale of quotas and rights and, in addition, the great uncertainty attached to bycatches in other fisheries. That is why we cannot vote, either, for a report that would have the EU’s fisheries policy continue unamended. We believe that there is a need for Parliament to demand a review of the EU’s fisheries policy, including the rebuilding plans.

  Duarte Freitas (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO) scientific council has adopted a 15-year rebuilding plan for Greenland halibut, which provides for a reduction of the total allowable catch (TAC) level of this species. Already provisionally transposed into Community legislation, the plan is now waiting for binding permanent status.

Although I feel that the legislative proposal is consistent with the new common fisheries policy, I do not agree with some points in the version tabled by the Commission, which I feel would penalise Community fishermen. I refer specifically to the reduction by 20 to a 5% margin of tolerance between the estimation of the quantities retained on board and that of the logbook figure. As this level has not been adopted by NAFO I have always felt that adopting this measure would have a detrimental effect on Community fishermen.

I therefore welcome the removal of Article 8 and feel that Parliament has given the document a better balance and made it fairer.

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) We oppose the EU Common Fisheries Policy. We have, however, chosen to support this report because Parliament’s position is closer to the rebuilding plan adopted by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO) than is the Commission’s proposal.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) This fishing zone, managed by the regional fisheries organisation in question, is of major importance to the Portuguese fleet.

The plan provides for a reduction in the total allowable catch (TAC) level and for additional control measures, which will obviously have social and economic repercussions. As with other rebuilding plans for fish stocks, we feel it is essential that, beyond the need to ensure that fisheries resources are sustainable and that scientific data is reliable, we implement much-needed social and economic support measures for the fleets affected by the reduction in fisheries or the temporary suspension of activities.

We welcome Parliament’s proposals improving on points on which we disagreed with the Commission’s proposal:

- the fact that fleets of EU countries that are bigger than other fleets working in the same waters do not impose their own limits (it is impossible to understand why the Commission seeks to be ‘holier than thou’ in adding further measures to the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation, and as such we object to a unilateral limit of tolerance margins);

- the guarantee that TACs can be adjusted upwards if that fish stock is deemed to have been restored.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The report by Mr Kristensen addresses an issue that is without doubt of key importance to Portugal. I voted in favour of this report on fisheries-related issues in an area in which the Community vessels operating are almost entirely Portuguese or Spanish.

European Council - RC-B6-0386/2005

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) It is appalling that most Members of this House insist on turning a blind eye to the crisis of confidence between the citizens and the European institutions, as evidenced by the recent referenda in France and the Netherlands on the ex-draft of the so-called European Constitution.

Similarly, they continue to press ahead with proposals such as the revision of the Lisbon Strategy, including the Bolkestein proposal for a directive, the organisation of working time and access to the port services market, rather than demanding that the Commission and the Council remove them.

They also support the Council’s decision on guidelines for employment, which, disgracefully, overlook equal rights and opportunities between men and women, with specific regard to access to jobs, salaries and career development.

They also continue to promote projects such as the Stability and Growth Pact and the flexibility of labour, to which we are opposed.

  Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE), in writing. – (FR) The true crisis eating away at Europe is unemployment, uncertainty and the destabilisation of public services.

The people are reminding their leaders of their existence. Those who voted ‘no’ in France are calling for a major change of direction for European integration and a renegotiation of the Treaty. The pause for reflection must be used for that purpose. The first requirement is social: to create growth and employment without making working conditions too flexible, and without pulling our social model down. The guidelines for growth and employment adopted during this Summit, however, run completely counter to this objective.

At a time when employees are demanding guarantees and an end to ultraliberalism, ‘we are carrying on as normal’.

We should have withdrawn the Bolkestein directive and the Working Time Directive and proposed a social Treaty in their place. The Council is deaf to the expectations of the people.

In order to extricate ourselves from the budgetary deadlock, we must increase the European budget in the interests of revival and cohesion.

As long as the budget depends on revenues from the Member States, the blockages will be stronger than the general interest. The alternative to a European tax is European borrowing.

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE), in writing. (SL) I was not able to support the resolution on the result of the European Council (Brussels 16 – 17 June 2005) as a result of its excessive formality and use of general officialese. It is couched in complex bureaucratic language that is practically devoid of meaning. The individual points made are not formulated in a clear and sensible manner which would provide comprehensible answers or ways out of the complex situation, in which Europe finds itself after the two unsuccessful referenda on the constitutional agreement and the failure to adopt the budget for the years 2007 - 2013. There was no mention of basic principles relating to the internal market, such as the approach to the Directive on services. It failed to mention the importance of a regional policy and the structural implements that are essential if the differences between the developed regions and those which are lagging behind are to be gradually removed. The Lisbon Strategy is once again a series of empty phrases and there is no mention of how it should finally be put into practice. If we want politics to be comprehensible to the citizens of Europe, we must change the bureaucratic rhetoric in our resolutions and word them in a language that is comprehensible to the people. Only then will we be able to regain their trust.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The fact that I voted against the resolution tabled on this issue is not, in any way, due to any dissatisfaction on my part with the Luxembourg Presidency. Indeed, I feel that we can all see how the widespread praise for the Luxembourg Prime Minister is justified.

Recent events, however, such as the double rejection of the Constitutional Treaty by the French and the Dutch and the inability to adopt the Financial Perspective for 2007-2013, cannot have gone unnoticed by Members of this House. Reality is no mere passing detail. Nevertheless, anyone reading the adopted resolution could be forgiven for thinking that either Parliament has had its mind elsewhere or that the citizens have. In fact neither is true, at least on my part and on the part of the group to which I belong.

The last European Council should have responded to the current crisis in Europe with great lucidity and a proper understanding of the feelings of the citizens. Unfortunately, it was not to be. One can only hope that this crisis can give rise to fresh, more appropriate, solutions. I believe that this is possible.

- Report: Klich (A6-0103/2005)

  Charlotte Cederschiöld, Christofer Fjellner, Gunnar Hökmark and Anna Ibrisagic (PPE-DE), in writing. (SV) The Moderate delegation has today voted in favour of the report on security research. We think it important to develop a structured and appropriate security research programme with a view, for example, to guaranteeing the EU’s credibility and an advanced intelligence capability within the framework of the European Security and Defence Policy.

We are, however, opposed to certain wordings in the report: firstly, those applying to the budget appropriations for security research, linked by the rapporteur to a percentage of GNP; and, secondly, those applying to worldwide observation and data collection.

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) The report is aimed at developing a European Security Research Programme (ESRP), to be introduced in 2007. We are not opposed on principle to joint research efforts at European level, but we object to the ESRP’s aim of contributing to an integrated European defence market. We therefore choose to vote against the report as a whole.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) This report concerns a European Parliament initiative to support the creation of a ‘European Security Research Programme’ by 2007, and the Community financing of that programme, within the framework of the ‘European Security and Defence Policy’ and what are referred to as the ‘European Security Strategy’ and ‘The Hague Programme’.

The aim is therefore to step up research in areas such as the gathering and storing of information, vigilance, spying, security and ‘crisis management’. It will be a further cog in the wheel of the current militarisation of the EU and its drift towards securitarianism, under the pretext of the ‘fight against terror’, conducted in conjunction with the USA.

Hence our group’s vote against.

  Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) In light of recent world events, the issue of security has taken on major importance, and Member States must address new threats to security.

There has nonetheless been a marked under-investment in research and development in the defence sector, in which spending has either remained unchanged or has in fact gone down over the past ten years.

I therefore congratulate Mr Klich on his report, which supports the Commission’s proposal to set up a European Security Research Programme (ESRP) by 2007, in order to address current security challenges, while contributing towards the growth and competitiveness of the European economy.

The ESRP will involve relevant security research stakeholders and will enjoy appropriate funding, so as to secure the greatest possible continuity over time and the best results.

  Athanasios Pafilis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The report also puts the research sector at the service of the imperialist policy of the ΕU and, at the same time, secures funding for big business in this sector by making EUR 1 billion available from taxes paid by the working and grass-roots classes in the Member States of the ΕU.

On the pretext of 'security' and 'threats', it promotes the further militarisation of Europe and improved technology to support the aggressive actions and enhance the military power of the ΕU, so that it is better placed to compete with the USA for control of markets and countries. At the same time, taking the view that the distinction between internal and external security is difficult to make, it also uses research to improve internal repression of the grass-roots movement in the Member States.

Every system, even in space, even the satellite positioning system, is being put at the service of the programme for security research.

The MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece voted against the report. The peoples of the ΕU must step up their fight against the ΕU and their disobedience to its imperialist policy.

  Tobias Pflüger (GUE/NGL), in writing. It is really no progress towards peace that the Klich-Report calls for a minimum annual community budget of €1 billion for armament and so called security research. The Parliament's Resolution is even worse than the Commission proposals. It is preposterous to try and aim to close the gap on armament spending between the EU and the United States. This would mean require the EU to spend still much more each year on armament research.

The EU is becoming more and more militarised. The spending of an additional one billion Euros on armament research would be yet a further step in this direction. In rejecting the Constitutional Treaty, the people of France and the Netherlands also rejected the EU militarisation envisaged in that Treaty. It is a scandal that the protagonists of this militarized EU are simply going ahead with their plans regardless. Instead of pretending to create jobs with huge spending on armaments, the EU should spend more on civil research programs - and not follow in the footsteps of the United States.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) Europe must get used to the idea that security comes at a price and that our need for security justifies paying that price. Without prejudice to our partnerships and alliances, especially with the United States, Europe needs to invest in the security of its citizens, and this cannot be done without investing in research, an area in which Europe has sadly proved lacking in commitment and competence.

In the context of the world in which we live, I feel that this report addresses the concerns that I have expressed, and advocates action that meets our needs. I therefore voted in favour.

- Report: Trautmann (A6-0172/2005)

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. (DE) We live in an age of headlong technological change, and, at the same time, criminal activity is developing with equal speed. One example of this is the latest theft of credit card data, which may well affect some 800 000 Europeans. The electronic health cards that we intend introducing may well end up being the next thing that the criminal gangs will have their eyes on. Cybercrime – in the shape of illegal downloads, spamming, spyware and child pornography – is flourishing, and only some 1 or 2% of the offences committed on the Internet ever come to light.

What makes this particularly disturbing is the widespread ignorance of such crime. Far too many users are still falling prey to e-mailshots that trick them into disclosing their bank details, thus credulously giving fraudsters access not only to sensitive data, but also to their own bank accounts.

The latest Eurobarometer survey showed that 40% of Austrian parents had no idea where to get information on safe use of the Internet and where to report prohibited material. In that, though, they are not alone, for investigations have revealed that the US authorities are equally ignorant of when and to whom they should report cases of cybercrime.

Tracking down cyber-crooks is like looking for a needle in a haystack. This makes it all the more important that we should mount an information campaign that would enable users not only to avoid the traps in the Internet, but also to play their part in combating the crime that goes on there.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of the report by Mrs Trautmann.

I feel that issues of Internet governance and mechanisms for financing the new technologies should be at the forefront of political debate in Europe and the rest of the world. The information society is of twofold importance in meeting the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy: firstly because it will help to fulfil the aims of economic growth accompanied by major investment in the new technologies and secondly because a Europe that seeks to be at the cutting edge of technology needs to be a regular presence and a proactive player on the international stage.

I believe that any initiative that fosters the exchange of ideas and information and puts us on the road to technological development should be supported. Initiatives of this kind can only help to achieve greater growth and economic development in Europe.