Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 15 November 2005 - Strasbourg

21. Explanations of vote

- Daul report: (A6-0300/2005)

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) Given the enormous importance of the wine market to Portugal, both politicians and those more directly involved should give this issue the prominence that it deserves. I voted in favour of this proposal, as Portuguese farmers have not raised any underlying objections to it and there is broad support for it.

  Luca Romagnoli (NI), in writing. (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the aim of the technical amendments that the Daul report proposes to introduce in the regulation concerning the common organisation of the market in wine is to develop further the practices relating to the treatment of wine. In my opinion, therefore, the amendments seem to lead, as I would wish, to a major increase in the European supply of products in this sector.

We have furthermore a mandatory obligation to protect the consumer, now that fraud and imitations of foodstuffs are on the increase despite the efforts of the institutions and relevant control bodies. We must also safeguard the competitiveness of European products, which can hold their own in the international market only by rising to the challenge of quality. That being so, it is vital to guarantee better control of the production process and the subsequent stages of product storage.

I also approve of the proposed derogations concerning sparkling wine production since they favour not only the Italian wine market but also culture and rural tradition, both of which I shall continue to defend vigorously. Finally, I consider that the proposal to add to the information on product labelling is very useful. I have therefore supported it and have also requested the Non-attached Group to support Mr Daul’s excellent report.

- Daul reports (A6-0295/2005), (A6-0299/2005), (A6-0300/2005)

  Hélène Goudin, Nils Lundgren and Lars Wohlin (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) We have voted against the three Daul reports. True, they involve fewer alterations to existing regulations. We wish, however, to emphasise our opposition on principle to common organisations of the markets in seeds, hops and wine. The whole of the common agricultural policy is an absurd creation and must be abolished.

- Berès report (A6-0298/2005)

  Glyn Ford (PSE), in writing. I support my colleague Mrs Berès' report amending the Agreement establishing the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) enabling the bank to finance operations in Mongolia. I had the opportunity in May this year to visit Mongolia for the first time as a participant in the Socialist International's Asia-Pacific Committee in Ulan Bator.

In Mongolia since the fall of Communism, unlike in many of the other countries of Central Asia, we have seen the establishment of a vigorous democracy where political power was transferred from one party to another on several occasions in a peaceful manner. It is a poor country where recent droughts have posed enormous problems. It urgently needs help with the current government's ambitious development programme. Today's vote will help this process and I strongly support it and hope it will mean funds will flow.

- Zappalà report (A6-0313/2005)

  Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The Athens Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2004 were the first to take place in an EU Member State, part of the Schengen area, without internal border controls.

Regulation 1295/2003 was therefore adopted aimed at simplifying both the procedures for applying for and issuing Schengen visas for members of the Olympic family participating in the 2004 Olympic and Paralympic Games in Athens.

In practical terms, it was designed to enable them to enter the territory of the State where the Games were held without being subject to other procedures or formalities, and to hold an Identity and Accreditation Card, alongside passports or other official travel documents.

The report on its implementation in Greece concluded that the derogation system was successful and constituted a flexible and efficient process, which would not compromise the level of security required in the Schengen area.

I therefore lend my backing to this proposal, which adopts an almost identical system, albeit this time by the codecision procedure, with some changes designed to adapt it to the Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games in Turin.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. The adjustment of visa requirements for athletes taking part in the 2004 Athens Olympics to allow Greece to meet both its Schengen requirements and its obligations to respect the Olympic Charter proved a great success. I am delighted to see this proposal to grant the same conditions to the athletes taking part in the 2006 winter olympics and the paralympics.

- Toia report (A6-0293/2005)

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) We voted in favour of this report, which improves upon the Commission’s proposal to update Regulations Nos 1408/71 and 574/72 to take account of changes made in national social security legislation, particularly those introduced in the new Member States after the accession negotiations had been concluded. It also seeks to update the list of provisions of social security agreements which continue to apply and have not been replaced by Regulation 1408/71, and proposes technical modifications.

Broadly speaking, the proposals that have just been adopted improve upon the existing legislation, guarantee legal certainty until the new regulation enters into force, and help to enhance the protection extended to workers who opt for mobility within the EU.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. I supported this report which, although of a technical nature, draws attention to circumstances which can inhibit the fundamental right of free movement which EU citizens supposedly enjoy.

While I am not in favour of the EU having competence over Social Security provisions, I do believe that more could be done to facilitate the portability of certain entitlements.

For example, disabled people are effectively denied their right to free movement - to seek employment for example - because the level of support currently provided may not be available in a new location. This is one of many issues which require to be addressed.

  Christa Klaß (PPE-DE), in writing. (DE) The object of the amendment of Regulation 1408/71/EEC is to carry out an annual update in order to improve EU citizens’ standard of living and the conditions under which they work. I voted in favour of it.

We must not, however, forget to consider the substantive amendments that are so urgently needed.

It is, then, to give one example, contrary to the spirit of the Regulation for German employers to be required to grapple with an intolerable amount of red tape in order to remit to Poland social security contributions totalling 47.85% (20.64% from the employer, 27.27% from the employee) of the earnings of Polish seasonal workers, particularly when, under German law, no such contributions were payable in respect of their work prior to the accession of Poland to the EU.

For the businesses that employed them, the outcome has been dramatic increases in costs, liable to put the businesses’ continued existence at risk, and which they cannot offset by increasing prices. For their part, the seasonal workers will be unwilling to work for net wages reduced by 27%. The consequence is that few of them are recruited, and that has a negative financial impact on the development of the new Member States.

Experience has shown that the demand for seasonal labour cannot be met on the German labour market, and so people are losing out on every side. The simplification that is so urgently needed could, with the Commission’s help, be accomplished either directly, by means of bilateral agreements, or by a derogation completely removing such traditional seasonal work as helping with the harvest from the scope of Regulation 1408/71 or its successor, Regulation 883/2004/EC, and that of the implementing regulation that is yet to be adopted.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. While this report is largely a technical adjustment it should not be underestimated in terms of its importance to obtaining genuine free movement of individuals in the internal market. The report will assist with the simplification of regulations concerning social security schemes across the EU. Its purpose is also to complete the simplification of procedures on receiving medical care abroad by extending some of those modifications to the identical procedures regarding benefits for accidents at work and occupational diseases.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) As the explanatory statement to this report rightly points out, ‘the regulation plays the important role of establishing one of the four fundamental freedoms of the EU, namely the free movement of European citizens. The possibility of living, working and moving freely within the EU, and the removal of as many financial and administrative obstacles to doing so as possible, is indeed a tangible benefit conferred on the citizens of Europe by EU membership’.

This is indeed the case. The inherent possibilities in the social protection afforded to citizens of EU Member States has been a key factor in the promotion of genuine freedom of movement.

The issue here is not one of social security models or the rules governing different systems, but is, rather, one of adapting and updating what needs to be adapted and updated in the current regulation. I voted in favour, given that this adaptation is consistent with the objectives and principles of the regulation in question.

- Maat report (A6-0284/2005)

  Glyn Ford (PSE), in writing. I voted in favour of the Maat report with a degree of disappointment as it really fails to go far enough. In the Forest of Dean, which I represent, 40 years ago elvers (glass eels) were fished in abundance by the local population and sold on the streets for consumption as part of a traditional breakfast with bacon and eggs. More recently, while stocks have declined, demand from primarily the Far East, the Baltic states and the rest of Europe have removed elvers from the local menu as they have been exported to eel farms. This is unlikely to change, but a small but important industry can be helped and aided.

The major problems seem to be: first, a lack of scientific information on the life cycle of elvers - we are not even sure where their breeding grounds are, although the Sargasso Sea is the prime suspect; second, increased levels of pollution and barriers to the eels accessing the streams, rivers and ditches where they flourish and grow. Stocks of elvers wax and wane even if there is a downward overall decline. What works best is not clear. What is wanted is more research.

I hope this report will ensure that the European Commission finally starts to do what it can to help.

  Duarte Freitas (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) In recent years, eel stocks in Europe have declined dramatically. Given the European eel’s complex reproduction process, it is crucial that steps be taken to reverse the increasingly apparent trend towards the extinction of this species.

Alongside a number of emergency measures that need to be taken immediately, there is also a range of medium- to long-term measures that should also be adopted, in order to ensure that eel stocks are first recovered and then properly managed. To this end, this report puts forward a range of proposals, which have my wholehearted support.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) We welcome the Community action plan to support the recovery of eel in the form in which it is proposed. The plan takes account of the need for socio-economic measures to help fishermen, the Community financing of measures – note, with their own budgetary heading – reliable data on the state of fish stocks, and research into other reasons behind the decline in stocks, such as pollution.

These are measures which, as we have been proposing, should be transposed to form part of the wider body of recovery programmes, a move that was incomprehensibly rejected by the majority in Parliament.

With regard to the national plans in individual Member States, however, we should like to emphasise three aspects:

- the precautionary nature of the plans, given the lack of scientific knowledge regarding eel stock numbers and the spatial distribution of successive generations of eel;

- the need to integrate practical measures to combat the development of physical obstacles that may hinder or limit the migration of eel in waterways;

- the need for increased scientific research and gathering of data on fish, aquaculture and exports.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. This report outlines the dramatic decline in European eel stocks. This does not appear to be the result of over fishing but linked to environmental factors. It is clearly important to know the precise cause be it pcbs, global warming or fish diseases. We need this information not just so that action can be taken to protect eel stocks but because of the wider environmental concerns and problems this might highlight.

  Jean-Claude Martinez (NI), in writing. – (FR) Under the pretext of protecting European eels and legitimately ensuring that they can migrate to the sea, following a reduction in stocks, the European Commission presented, on 1 October 2003, a management plan for yellow eels and silver eels.

In France, for example, 399 tonnes of eels were caught, compared with 2 064 tonnes in Egypt. On top of that, though, came eel farming in the Netherlands, with production of 3 800 tonnes. It is quite understandable for Mr Maat, as a Dutchman, to take an interest in this and to produce a report.

However, given that Dutch eel farms live off alevins and glass eels caught in the coastal lakes of the Mediterranean, we have cause for concern.

The fishermen of Languedoc-Roussillon, for example in Palavas or Pérols, are worried that they will see their traditional practices, which conserve future stocks, brought into question. They want to fish for adult eels, not glass eels, the ban on the fishing of which 10 years ago enabled stocks to recover.

The bureaucratic proposals on controls, restrictions, supervision, declarations and fishing bans are threatening the survival of traditional fishermen. I therefore oppose this report to save this free men’s trade.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The issue before us is of major importance to Portugal and to Portuguese fishing communities, and I share the concerns voiced by the rapporteur. Among other equally important points, I feel that there are valid reasons to support the presentation of proposals on forms of socio-economic compensation for those affected by fishing restrictions and limits on exports of European eel.

I therefore voted in favour.

- Gargani report (A6-0316/2005)

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI). – (FR) Mr President, I have a request to give an oral explanation of vote on the Gargani report. The criminal division of the French Court of Cassation, which more than ever is living up to its name, has committed what can only be described as an absolute abuse of authority. The judgment delivered by the president, Mr Cotte, by the court reporter Mrs Caron, and by council members Mr Le Gall, Mr Pelletier, Mr Corneloup, Mrs Ponroy and Mrs Koering-Joulin, seriously and deliberately ignores Article 26 of the French constitution on parliamentary immunity by refusing to grant this immunity with regard to the illegal phone tapping committed against our former fellow Member Mr Marchiani. It goes without saying that I make no comment on the background to the case.

By acting in this way, these judges have seriously and deliberately violated the Protocol of 8 April 1965 and the Act of 20 September 1976, both of which are international treaties that, in accordance with Article 55 of the French constitution, take precedence over Acts, even internal ones. The judge’s shameless disregard for the law must be condemned as such and we hope that the unanimous resolution by Mr Gargani and the Committee on Legal Affairs will play a part in this.

- Brejc report (A6-0308/2005)

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Mr President, I would like – if at all possible – to make an oral statement on the way I voted on the Brejc report.

It was we who created the political conditions that made globalisation possible in the first place; we did so by our constant dismantling of trade barriers, combined with the advance of communications technology and reduced transport costs. Of all the goods transported around the world, one-third is accounted for by traffic between different workshops belonging to the same companies. We have been zealous in using EU funds to support their transportation across Europe, which has had such adverse effects as damage to the environment and danger to people along the transit routes, and, while so doing, have culpably neglected small and medium-sized businesses, which are Europe’s real providers of work. What I also regard as objectionable is that the Commission should set up a globalisation fund while seeking to curtail support for farmers, who are also affected by globalisation’s negative impact. Globalisation will continue to have us by the throat for as long as we, by means of our support programmes, send far too much money up in smoke, make it inevitable that jobs will go elsewhere, fail to apply proper sanctions to those who refuse to play by the rules and turn a blind eye to its real causes. It is for that reason that I voted against the Brejc report.

  Frank Vanhecke (NI). – (NL) Mr President, the Brejc report is yet another somewhat Utopian document and yet another typical example of the documents emerging from this institution and seeking all the answers in new international standards within new international institutions. In this respect, we cannot help but wonder if we have not got enough of these as it is and who will continue to pay for them all.

Moreover, on a practical note, I note that this year, we will be conducting accession negotiations with an Islamic country where child labour and discrimination against women is the norm. I think it would be better if we were to continue to focus on this instead of expressing noncommittal views about the social dimension of globalisation.

If we have to talk about this, we should actually mention China, that country we are so chummy with, that country from which parliamentary institutions of all European countries merrily travel back and forth. Well, that country belongs to the World Trade Organisation but rides roughshod over all fundamental social standards and rules whilst not being hindered in this in any way. It is a falsehood that we would be able to transform the social dimension of globalisation while we choose to do nothing about China. That will be the day.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I shall be brief. I voted against the Brejc report for the very reasons that some of my colleagues have outlined. This House does not appear to read its own documents. The common agricultural policy has been radically reformed, and this morning’s vote basically gives truth to the lie that if we reduced all EU agriculture subsidies the poor in Africa would be better off. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I have therefore voted against this report.

  Charlotte Cederschiöld, Christofer Fjellner, Gunnar Hökmark and Anna Ibrisagic (PPE-DE), in writing. (SV) The Swedish Conservatives have today voted against the report on the social dimension of globalisation because its basic approach to globalisation is wrong. Globalisation is an ongoing process of change that helps bring about freedom and prosperity for ever more people. Globalisation provides better preconditions for economic growth through free trade, increased international investment and the transfer of knowledge. Together with democratic development, opportunities are created for the developing countries to emerge from poverty. The EU is a positive example of globalisation, involving the free movement of goods, services, people and capital.

Dictatorships perceive the transformative power of globalisation as a threat to their own closed societies. We Conservatives welcome globalisation and its role as a catalyst for democracy.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) Unfortunately, the majority in Parliament rejected our most important proposals, which would have improved upon a report that was riddled with inconsistencies and deeply unsatisfactory, on an issue as important as the social dimension of globalisation.

Our proposals aimed at changing the current neoliberal economic and monetary policies in the field of international trade, and the proposal to combat financial speculation in the world’s capital markets, whilst promoting investment and wealth creation in the real economy were thus rejected.

Our proposal to condemn the mid-term review of the Lisbon Strategy and the Stability and Growth Pact, which have been instruments within the EU to foster liberalisation and privatisation of public utility services, to make labour markets more flexible and more adaptable, wage moderation and to open up most areas of social security, such as pensions and health, to private firms, was also rejected.

Nevertheless, the proposal emphasising the need for a social policy agenda geared towards development of cities focused on inclusion and cohesion, implying measures to foster sustainable development and respect for workers rights was adopted in part.

Hence our abstention from the final vote.

  Hélène Goudin, Nils Lundgren and Lars Wohlin (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) The resolution on ‘the social dimension of globalisation’ contains proposals that, in most cases, would lead to the EU being given more power. We object to this routine EU centralisation, carried out without proper analysis or justification.

A common EU policy on ‘the social dimension of globalisation’ cannot be drawn up because the EU Member States are so different from one another. This is true where, for example, tax levels and social protection are concerned. Instead of being forced to carry out a policy imposed from above, the EU countries should instead learn from each other through institutional competition. We believe that reforms need to have grass-roots support in each country.

We also believe that the less developed countries can be given the right to regulate their imports of agricultural products for the time being.

In view of the above, we choose to vote against the resolution in the final vote. However, we support the amendments to the effect that the common agricultural policy must be radically reformed and that export subsidies must be abolished. We also support the proposal that the EU must open up its market to goods from less developed countries.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. I voted for the position of the Employment & Social Affairs Committee, which had been improved by amendments at Committee stage.

Today I also supported amendments which sought to make social and environmental reporting obligatory and supported the kind of reform of the CAP which would "make poverty history".

  Toine Manders (ALDE), in writing. – (NL) The People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) delegation felt that it had to vote against the amended Brejc report concerning the social dimension of globalisation.

One amendment adopted, tabled by the Confederal Group of the European United Left, urges the Commission and the Council to promote a social policy agenda at European level. The VVD takes the view that social policy is something that falls within the remit of Member States. The Dutch referendum on the Constitutional Treaty was further proof that interference from Brussels is not wanted. Furthermore, an amendment by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance has been adopted in which a case is made in favour of the EU promoting socially responsible entrepreneurship. The VVD is convinced that this can be done far more effectively through the market, and EU action in this respect is totally unnecessary and, indeed, unwanted.

  Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) I should like to congratulate Mr Brejc on his timely report on the Commission communication entitled ‘The Social Dimension of Globalisation – the EU’s policy contribution on extending benefits to all’.

In the report, he advocates the idea that the EU model has always emphasised the strong social dimension in economic integration, as reflected in the Lisbon Agenda, and that, accordingly, certain aspects of good practice within the European social model should be transposed to other parts of the world.

It agrees that the EU can make a valid contribution, through both its external and internal policies, by shaping the process of globalisation and making it fairer for all.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I welcome this report on the social dimension of globalisation which is Parliament's initial response to the report by the World Commission on the social dimension of globalisation. It is important that those who are disadvantaged by globalisation are assisted to adapt to new circumstances. This applies to citizens of the EU as well as countries and citizens throughout the world. It is therefore pleasing to see this report recommend a number of internal and external policy actions.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) There are two possible approaches to the issue of globalisation. One is that it is an avoidable (and unwanted) reality, that if the workers of the 19th century had been more successful in their protests there would not have been industrialisation (which would have been a good thing), and that technological innovation is inherently a bad thing. The other, more realistic, approach is based on knowledge of history and an awareness of the responsibilities of each generation, and consists of making the most of the opportunities that globalisation brings. Globalisation is neither a good nor a bad thing in itself; it is a reality that can be used to positive or detrimental effect. In free and democratic societies such as ours, in which economic freedom prevails, the conditions are in place for globalisation to become an opportunity for worldwide growth and development; and not just an opportunity but a duty. This is the spirit in which globalisation should be approached.

  Luca Romagnoli (NI), in writing. (IT) Mr President, this report is yet further crazy proof of this Parliament’s conceited, damaging and vacuous claim to be unaware of and far removed from the feelings of the ordinary people of Europe whom they claim to represent.

Instead of ‘social dimension of globalisation’ it should read ‘defence of the criminal dimension of globalisation’. Rather than voting ‘No’, I should perhaps have simply left the room.

  Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE), in writing. I support the principle that the Common Agricultural Policy must be reformed, and that in line with the aims of the Make Poverty History campaign, which I strongly support, we must not export our own poor policies into the wider world. Of course, we must also safeguard the welfare of European farmers and the security of Europe's food supply, though this is compatible with a more sensible Common Agricultural Policy, the status quo is untenable.

  Catherine Stihler (PSE), in writing. I fully support this report. The impact of globalisation has positive and negative consequences. We cannot forget the 20 million people unemployed in the EU at the moment, nor the fact that one in five children in the EU lives on the brink of poverty. We have a responsibility in this House to deal with these issues.