Verbatim report of proceedings

Thursday, 16 February 2006 - Strasbourg

7. Explanations of vote

- Report: Gebhardt (A6-0409/2005)

  Marta Vincenzi (PSE). – (IT) Mr President, I should like to stress the positive character of the common position reached by Parliament, which is giving Europeans back that sign of political unity and trust that they need.

I will highlight the positive impact that Article 31, in its amended version, will have on the very important area of tourist services. It is a question, in fact, of paving the way for large, balanced flows of incoming tourists, by carefully following a path that identifies the way in which to harmonise the huge numbers of tourists in the various countries. I therefore call on the Commission to thoroughly revise and relaunch a directive that many Member States have so far failed to comply with – Directive 320 of 1992 – so that the policy of high-quality services is fully realised and, with that, the objective of sustainable European tourism.

  Marc Tarabella (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, if, for the first time ever, I think it is a useful exercise to justify my vote, it is both because this report is important – perhaps the most important one of the parliamentary term – and because my vote is at odds with the position adopted by the majority of my group.

In actual fact, I have no difficulty in acknowledging the improvements made – and I congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Gebhardt – to Mr Bolkestein’s initial proposal. Nor do I have any difficulty in admitting that I have been left unsatisfied as a result of the uncertainties linked to Article 16. Although I voted in favour of the compromise amendments on this report, I cannot endorse it and I chose in the end to reject it because it symbolises a serious historic break with the principles that have, up to now, enabled European integration to be taken forward. Solidarity and regulations are giving way to competition among the countries and the peoples of Europe. I deplore this state of affairs.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE). – (FR) It was a new directive in favour of which our Parliament just voted this morning. Its scope has been narrowed, the country of origin principle has finally been deleted and labour law has been kept: we have transformed the spirit and the letter of the draft submitted to us, and I am pleased at this outcome.

The only European institution able to bring about this deep and inspired change is our Parliament. This is undoubtedly because we listened to our fellow citizens and to their anxieties and fears; and it is undoubtedly because we endeavour above all to champion a European model of common values and because we will always prefer upwards harmonisation to downwards dumping. We have done some good work, and the Commission and the Council will really have at last to take account of the strong political signal that we are sending today and that expresses our desire to complete the internal market, while preserving our social model. For our part, we will make sure that they do so.

  Frank Vanhecke (NI). – (NL) Mr President, it is beyond doubt that the version of the services directive that we have just voted to adopt is a good deal better than the original one; as I see it, the unacceptable country-of-origin principle may not have been done away with, but it has certainly been considerably undermined.

There is still, nonetheless, a great deal that is unclear in the document we have adopted today. At the moment, nobody knows precisely what the implications of much of it are.

For example, I am as yet far from convinced that this text cannot result in social dumping, and am particularly unhappy about the potential for monitoring compliance with it. The many abuses – committed not least by the institutions – in the implementation of ordinary European budgets cause us to be at least sceptical about the efficiency of monitoring at European level.

I have therefore abstained from voting, for, although this may well be a step in the right direction, and even a very considerable one, there are still too many unclear points that absolutely must be removed at second reading stage. I can only hope that I will have no difficulty in voting for it then.

  Koenraad Dillen (NI). – (NL) Mr President, it is of course a good thing that this House has, today, been able to amend the original text of the services directive, although it has to be said that many of the hundreds of amendments were not necessary. The original version of the directive may well have put social dumping on an institutional footing, but the present version, too, permits a form of the same thing, along with all sorts of other abuses and does not entrench the country-of-origin principle in an unambiguous form of words.

Does it not speak volumes that the request by the Union for a Europe of the Nations Group for the establishment of a monitoring centre to ensure that the directive does not open the door to social dumping, was rejected? By abstaining, we are sending a political message that my party, the Vlaams Belang, will, just as it did last month in the debate on the liberalisation of port services, resist at all costs any attempt to undermine the principle that one’s own country comes first.

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE). – (SK) The reason why I abstained during the voting on the Evelyn Gebhardt report on the Services Directive was that Amendment 250, presented by MEPs from the new Member States in the PPE-DE Group and considered to be a key point for new member countries, had not been adopted.

This amendment was to change the Directive by adding Article 35a as a replacement for Articles 24 and 25 on the posting of workers, which were removed from the Commission’s proposal during voting in the IMCO committee. The amendment would have simplified the procedures for posting workers, as the Posting of Workers Directive does not provide for any administrative cooperation between the country of origin and the country of destination.

I am pleased that the Directive was approved during the first reading in the European Parliament. But on the other hand, I am saddened that MEPs from the new member countries again failed to gain enough support.

  Véronique De Keyser (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, my vote against the Gebhardt report is no reflection on the extraordinary work done by the rapporteur. I truly believe that, faced with an atrocious text, Mrs Gebhardt performed some amazing feats. Despite all her efforts, however, she was unable to contain a liberal upsurge that threatens our entire social structure. With one compromise after another, this abstruse text has become unreadable. Yet, what remains clear to anyone willing to open their eyes is the way in which the Commission has abandoned a desire for harmonisation in favour of a case-by-case regulation of what can or cannot be done on behalf of the general interest.

Without a directive on services of general interest and services of general economic interest, this text leaves grey areas that will open the floodgates to countless legal appeals. Europe is becoming yet slightly further removed from the citizen.

  Francisco Assis, Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, Paulo Casaca, Fausto Correia, Edite Estrela, Emanuel Jardim Fernandes, Elisa Ferreira, Ana Maria Gomes, Joel Hasse Ferreira, Jamila Madeira and Manuel António dos Santos (PSE), in writing. (PT) The previous Bolkestein Directive has been radically recast, and this represents a clear step forward on the road to achieving an internal market in services.

We voted in favour of the revamped proposal, because we feel that it guarantees balanced progress towards achieving a European internal market for services. We also feel that the exclusion of services of general interest, lotteries and essential health services gives the Directive a better balance.

In its current form, the directive will be good for the Portuguese economy, particularly because the country of origin principle will no longer apply, the opening up of the European services market will create many jobs, and this text will finally put an end to what is known as ‘social dumping’.

The directive will lead to a reduction in the inexcusable red tape that exists in various Member States, and the provision of services will be subject to the rules of the country in which the service is provided. The exclusion of temporary work and the lack of interference with the directive on the posting of workers will also help to guarantee balance and social cohesion.

All of these factors led us to vote in favour.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour, at first reading, of the proposal for a directive on services in the internal market as rewritten by the European Parliament on the basis of the compromise negotiated between the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament. I should like to pay tribute to the considerable work done by Mr Harbour, who - along with my friend, Mr Toubon - followed the matter on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. There was an increasingly urgent need to legislate so as not to leave it to the Court of Justice’s magistrates to ‘lay down the law’ on the fourth fundamental freedom of the Union as it relates to services.

The compromise makes it possible to outline a framework supporting the competitiveness and development of service activities, which represent 70% of GDP and great potential in terms of growth and job creation, while combating the risks of social dumping. Mr Chirac, the President of the French Republic, was right to oppose the first text presented in January 2004 by the Prodi Commission, and the European Parliament did its job as co-legislator properly. This is a victory for responsible democracy and a major step towards the construction of a social market economy.

  Pervenche Berès (PSE), in writing. – (FR) After more than a year of debates in committee and within European public opinion, the European Parliament gave its verdict today on the Services Directive.

Remaining faithful to my beliefs and to the commitment made to the many citizens who questioned me about this directive, I voted, in the first instance, in favour of rejecting the directive, as did the entire French delegation of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament. This rejection was not upheld (153 to 486 votes).

The French members of the PSE had three basic requirements: that SGEIs be excluded from the scope of the directive, that the rule of the country of destination principle be explicitly referred to and that a framework directive on public services be referred to.

I therefore supported all of the amendments aimed at narrowing the scope of the text and at clearly excluding from it public services and the sectors crucial to our social model, notably education, culture, health care and so on. These amendments were also rejected.

As the compromise between the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament does not meet my requirements where preserving our European social model is concerned, I voted against the text in the final vote.

I also note that the support for the amendment aimed at rejecting the amended text was broader (215 votes) than the outcome of the first vote on the withdrawal of the text led us to predict.

  Emma Bonino (ALDE), in writing. (IT) I voted against the compromise reached on the Bolkestein Directive.

I voted ‘No’ for completely different reasons to those of Members from the left of this Chamber, as theirs was an ideological ‘No’ vote, which was ultimately a ‘No’ to Europe.

Commissioner Prodi’s proposal was not the product of Dr Strangelove, but of the Treaty and the guidelines that emerged from the Lisbon European Council.

What has been left intact?

Free movement does not apply to services of general interest, so they are excluded for a start. The same goes for financial services, which is a pity. Legal services are not in there; medical and health care services are not in there, nor are audiovisual services, for pity’s sake; taxation services are not even mentioned, nor are professional services – solicitors, lawyers and other professionals ought to take offence; and ‘national’ roulette balls must even be used when gambling. Lastly, transport services have also been excluded, although free movement for undertakers has been retained, which is perhaps symbolic.

As for the much-reviled country-of-origin clause, the text excludes both its principle and its innovative strength, which in fact applies to so many other economic sectors.

Corporative interests, the fears of Polish plumbers and the hypocrisy of those who say that, anyway, there is still the illegal work being done by immigrants have all triumphed today, but Europe has lost.

  Udo Bullmann, Matthias Groote, Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler, Jo Leinen, Willi Piecyk and Mechtild Rothe (PSE), in writing. (DE) The Bolkestein directive aimed at social dumping and deregulation. The Socialist Group in the European Parliament has succeeded in turning this directive into its precise opposite.

The country-of-origin principle has been dropped, to be replaced by indiscriminate market access. The labour laws of the place where the services are performed are to apply.

The directive on the posting of workers continues to apply without restriction and it will be necessary to amend it.

Derogations are in place for temporary work and contracting. We call on the Council to desist from standing in the way of European legislation.

The directive does not apply to services of general interest, and only in part to those of general economic interest. We call for a European framework directive with separate provisions applicable to this essential sector.

As the legislative process continues, a number of aspects will need attention.

For example, the fundamental freedoms of workers, as defined in the EU’s ‘Monti clause’, will need to take precedence over the rules of business life.

The rights of codecision and codetermination, being founded upon the law, must not be undermined.

Due regard shall consistently be had to the legitimate interests of the common good, as defined by Article 4.7a in conformity with the jurisprudence of the ECJ.

Legally founded obligations in the interests of workers from a given country and from elsewhere (mandatory contributions to trade associations, holiday funds, etc.) must apply to those performing services both at home and across frontiers.

Nothing must be done that might provide an opening for quasi-self-employment. Rules on the award of public contracts that stipulate quality standards must remain in full force.

  Charlotte Cederschiöld, Christofer Fjellner, Gunnar Hökmark and Anna Ibrisagic (PPE-DE), in writing. (SV) We Conservatives believe that the Charter of Fundamental Rights must always be respected, irrespective of the issue or legislation concerned. We are well disposed towards the Constitutional Treaty, which would have made this Charter legally binding on all EU citizens. We do not believe that only those parts of this Charter relating to labour law should be referred to in the Services Directive and have therefore abstained from voting on those issues in relation to which the Charter is mentioned.

  Richard Corbett (PSE), in writing. I voted to radically amend – rather than reject – the proposed services directive. We have sought, and I think largely obtained in this first reading, a balance. We want to remove the bureaucratic obstacles to the free circulation of services in our European market, but we do not want to create a situation that will undermine our social services, our labour standards, our health and safety provision or other essential features of protection. We want protection but not protectionism. The amended text achieves a balance that was absent in the original draft.

  Dorette Corbey (PSE), in writing. (NL) Article 16(1)(b) and (c) makes national legislation subject to tests as to its necessity and proportionality, which I regard as an unacceptable interference in national sovereignty. If I am right in my interpretation of the text, this creates legal uncertainty and hampers national authorities in their work. It is of course a good thing that legislation on such subjects as the environment should be proportionate, but that is always a matter of political judgment. It is not desirable that national policy-makers should have the EU and the European Court of Justice peering over their shoulders. I can, though, support this compromise with the exception of paragraphs (1b) and (1c).

  Mia De Vits (PSE), in writing. (NL) I voted against the draft directive on services and would cite three reasons for having done so.

1) This House may well have made improvements to the Commission draft, but I do not regard them as sufficient. It is wrong that it should still apply to a number of public service sectors, to what are termed services of general economic interest. This directive really should not apply to such operations as, for example, the collection of household waste and the supply of water. Moreover, framework legislation is needed to put the right to public service provision on a secure footing.

2) Certain points in the directive can be interpreted in more than one way. The public currently take a sceptical view of Europe and so legal uncertainty in legislation is the least we need.

3) What we need is a social and trustworthy Europe with the same harmonised ground rules across the whole of internal market, and this directive is no way to create one.

I am nevertheless pleased to see that such sensitive sectors as port services, employment agencies, care of the elderly, the health sector and childcare have been excluded from the directive’s scope and that, moreover, each country’s social achievements remain intact, thus making social dumping impossible. I have voted in favour of the amendments to that effect, as also of all those amendments that improved the text and made it clearer.

  Antoine Duquesne (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The adoption of the Services Directive constitutes a significant step forward for the European Union. Despite everything, it was possible to retain the bulk of the initial draft, and the text adopted will promote the success of the Lisbon Strategy, as shown by the most recent studies by the European Commission.

This directive will promote activity in the services sector, which is an extremely important source of jobs. The directive will be a crucial asset, particularly for the Belgian economy, which is very much geared towards services.

The amendments tabled by the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection made it possible to respond to the public’s main concerns by specifying the scope of the directive and to put an end to a long-running disinformation campaign. The first proposal for a compromise presented by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament made the proposal for a directive completely meaningless. Fortunately, the final compromise – even if it has not been received enthusiastically – constitutes a first step, which is better than nothing at all, and tackles the main concerns of those in favour of the directive.

It now falls to the Council to confirm and improve the final compromise reached by Parliament.

  Lena Ek (ALDE), in writing. (SV) Today, the European Parliament is saying what it has to say about how we are to create free movement of services within the EU - one of the four freedoms on which our common European cooperation is based. In an evermore globalised world economy with constantly increased competition, the European economy needs to make the most of those areas in which we are competitive. The services sector is one such area. The compromises on which the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament have agreed have unfortunately opened up new opportunities for making further protectionism legal and in such a way as will obstruct the trade in services between neighbouring countries and will deal a particularly hard blow to the newest Member States. In spite of everything, I have chosen to vote today in favour of the watered-down proposal, since it may be a first step towards what I hope will be a freedom of movement for services – which are already exposed to competition – that is worthy of our common European internal market.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) We are disappointed that our proposal to reject the Bolkestein Directive was not adopted. This Directive lies at the heart of the so-called Lisbon Strategy and is the linchpin of neoliberalism in the area of services. Its purpose is to serve the interests of the large economic and financial groups in the EU, as demonstrated by the stance of representative organisations of these groups, such as the employers’ association UNICE.

Whilst it is true that the struggle of the workers and the people have forced some concessions and rewordings, which we have supported when they have been positive, the appalling agreement between the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Socialist Group in Parliament has thwarted the expectations of those who trusted that Parliament would be able to reject a proposal as damaging to the workers and the people of the Member States as this one.

We accordingly voted against the proposal as a whole, and many of the specific points to which we are opposed, in particular in the following areas:

- the liberalisation of most services, including sensitive public sectors and services, such as water, social housing, energy, postal services, research, education and training, cultural services and security services; our proposals aimed at the removal thereof from the scope of the directive were rejected;

- the fact that the contractual arrangements of the workers, especially freelance workers, have become more precarious;

- the exacerbation of the difficulties in protecting the rights of consumers, the end-users of public services and the environment.

  Jean-Claude Fruteau (PSE), in writing. – (FR) The aim of the text put to the vote was to allow the creation of a genuine internal market in services. At the same time, its aim was to rectify a draft directive, the philosophy of which, being based on competition between the social and fiscal laws of the Member States, would have tragic consequences via the levelling down of the various social models.

While the first of these objectives was fulfilled, the same cannot be said for the second. Admittedly, Parliament helped substantially to modify the line of the initial text by deleting the country of origin principle, by excluding SGIs from the scope of the directive and by protecting labour law.

The fact remains that there are still a large number of grey areas. Social services and the economic component of public services (SGEIs) are still under the direct threat of unacceptable social dumping. The legal vacuum associated with the deletion of the COP presages, furthermore, a new situation, in which it is the judges of the European Court of Justice who will have the power to lay down social laws, with no guarantee of the outcome or democratic control.

Although I welcome the progress made on this matter, I am quite unable, for these extremely important reasons, to support the final text submitted to Parliament.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) The Services Directive as adopted today is still unacceptable because it is nothing other than a poorly disguised copy of the original directive.

The great majority of the activities of craftsmen remain subject to competition at a time when, in my country, this sector employs the most people and creates the most jobs. Even though the overly explicit references to the country of origin principle have disappeared, there are still areas in which this scandalous principle will apply in full or in part. The uncertainties, the grey areas and the inconsistencies that remain will give the Court of Justice in Luxembourg the power to apply its own interpretation to the directive. Well, the Court has always ruled in favour of those who considered that certain standards – particularly social ones – constituted an intolerable obstacle to competition. The Commission will have an excuse for pushing harmonisation downwards in areas lying outside its powers, such as social protection and labour law.

So, amended or not, I reject the Bolkestein Directive. I reject the absurd principles that underpin it; I reject social and legal dumping and the free competition that is praised to the skies but responsible for unemployment; I reject the planned relocations; and I reject this Eurocracy that refuses to take into account what the nations think, so that it can continue imposing unwanted policies on them.

  Hélène Goudin, Nils Lundgren and Lars Wohlin (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) The June List shares the view that the internal market for services is not complete. We welcome the Services Directive and believe that, irrespective of the country they come from, services companies should not be discriminated against in any EU country.

The core issue in the debate on the Services Directive is that of whether the directive should be guided by the country of origin principle (Article 16). The June List values both the internal market and national self-determination. The fundamental question is thus as follows: does the country of origin principle entail such decisive advantages that we are prepared to renounce national sovereignty? Our answer to that question is no.

The country of origin principle relates to significant, but strictly limited, areas such as construction, installation work and consultancy services. We welcome competition within these areas, but believe that it must take place on conditions that are fair to all parties. We believe that Swedish rules must apply on Swedish territory. We thus support what is known as the host country principle.

We are also of the view that national monopolies on services should be respected. Precisely what shape is to be taken by these services should be decided following broad discussion in the respective Member States.

It follows from the aforesaid position that we have chosen to support the compromise put forward by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the amended proposal. I hope that the vote on the Services Directive will shatter the mistaken belief put about that the European Commission has the last say on everything.

A text will not apply as it stands just because the European Commission proposed it. As a result of political arrangements dictated by circumstances to do with voting, the people of France were made to think that that was the case. The so-called ‘Bolkestein’ Directive is a symbol of popular manipulation. The European Parliament has shown today that the power to legislate belongs to the representatives of the citizens.

The European Commission proposal was not sound. We therefore amended it with a view to striking a balance between the economic benefits of liberalising services, on the one hand, and the absolute necessity of preventing all social dumping, on the other.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The majority in Parliament has adopted the compromise between the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, which sought to retain essential aspects of the proposed directive on the liberalisation of services, rather than to reject it, as we had been proposing.

As a result of the resounding condemnation of the worst aspects of this proposal and the workers’ campaign to have the directive rejected, the majority in Parliament has excluded some areas from its scope, putting a decision on them back to a later date and, in a feat of legal sleight of hand, has concealed the regulation applying the law on the country of origin of the service provider.

Nevertheless, although the ambitious plans of the large economic and financial groups have not all been realised, competition has been stepped up in a number of service sectors, including public services. This will have a damaging impact on workers’ rights and on the services provided to the people. In the same way, the sovereignty of individual countries is being cut back even further, strengthening the role of the Court of Justice.

The directive on the liberalisation of services has not yet been adopted. The Council, on which the Portuguese Government has a seat, needs to assume its responsibilities. As far as we are concerned, we shall continue to fight for the rejection of the proposed directive, which, if adopted, will undermine the interests of the workers and of the country.

  Jacky Henin (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) Everything comes down to two figures: today, in the Union, services represent 70% of added value but they only amount to 20% of the exchanges carried out within the Community.

Therefore, given the impossibility of relocating the majority of service companies, the abysmal wages are relocated instead and, to this end, the Bolkestein Directive was invented. Its aim: to reduce wages to the bare minimum, to level down social protections, to limit consumer rights and to dismantle public services. This is not even ultraliberalism any more; this is outright liberalism.

Far from settling the problem of the country of origin principle and far from protecting public services from the merciless law of the market, the compromise between the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament does nothing other than place the Commission and the Court of Justice in the role of final arbiter. Given the ultraliberal stance of the Commission and the Court of Justice, allowing them to assume such a role is like putting foxes in charge of a henhouse.

To accept the Services Directive would amount to signing the death warrant, in Europe, of employee and consumer protection and of public services.

The nations of Europe do not need a directive that takes the social and fiscal policy choices they made on a democratic basis and pits them against one another.

(The explanation of vote was abbreviated pursuant to Rule 163(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. The compromise package agreed by the Socialist and Conservative Groups creates an unclear result. For example, the two large groups refused to back an outright exemption of social services from the directive's scope, despite the deep concerns of many working in the social care sector. They did however exempt social services "such as social housing, childcare and family services". This non-exhaustive list of certain social services creates legal uncertainty and it is impossible to judge what social services will be affected by the directive outwith the fields of housing, childcare and family services.

The compromise failed to ensure outright exemptions of such key sectors as education, water and culture. The compromise threatens consumer rights by not permitting Member States to impose requirements based on consumer protection.

For these reasons I voted against the amended report.

  Karin Jöns (PSE), in writing. (DE) The Commission proposal for a services directive aimed at social dumping and deregulation. I am glad that my Group has succeeded in turning this directive into its precise opposite.

The country-of-origin principle has been dropped, to be replaced by market access without discrimination. The labour laws of the place where the services are performed are to apply. It is also significant that the directive on the posting of workers continues to apply without restriction and that there is a derogation for temporary work through agencies. It is now for the Council to desist from further blocking European legislation on this subject.

Although I am glad that the directive no longer applies to services of general interest, I do find it regrettable that services of general economic interest are still subject to it to some degree. We urgently need a European framework directive to lay down rules in this important area.

As the legislative process continues, a number of aspects will need attention.

The fundamental freedoms of workers, as defined in the EU’s ‘Monti clause’, will need to take precedence over the rules of business life. The rights of codecision and codetermination, being founded upon the law, must not be undermined.

Due regard shall consistently be had to the legitimate interests of the common good, as defined by Article 4.7a in conformity with the jurisprudence of the ECJ.

Legally founded obligations in the interests of workers from a given country and from elsewhere (mandatory contributions to trade associations, holiday funds, etc.) must apply equally to those performing services both at home and across frontiers.

  Timothy Kirkhope (PPE-DE), in writing. I and my British Conservative colleagues are long-standing and strong supporters of measures to complete the Single Market in the European Union. The liberalisation of services in the internal market is a major step towards this end and offers the successful British services industry many new opportunities to flourish in the future.

Although we have voted for the final package today, we are disappointed that an opportunity has been missed to agree a truly liberalising Directive. We therefore call on the Council and the British Prime Minister to take steps to reinforce the Directive without delay.

To have voted against this imperfect package and contribute to its failure would have given succour to those on the left in Europe who are ideologically opposed to liberalisation, free markets and economic reform. The European economy is urgently in need of liberalisation and we will continue to argue for this when Parliament considers this matter further at second reading.

  Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE), in writing. I voted against this report as I do not believe the final result offers the necessary clarity in a number of areas. It is not clear that we have removed the so-called country-of-origin principle: in fact, it is not clear what the applicable law will be for a company wanting to offer cross-border services on a temporary basis. It is also not clear where the dividing line is for services offered as a public service but by a private provider or sub-contractor. I welcome the removal of patient mobility from the directive - it should never have been included. In fact, the Commission's all-embracing proposal has been ill-considered and poorly thought through. I look forward to major amendments in their next proposal.

  Carl Lang (NI), in writing. – (FR) Ever since the Lisbon European Council in March 2000, at which France was represented by Mr Chirac and Mr Jospin and which has since been eclipsed by the work of the ‘Internal Market’ Council and by the Berger and Harbour parliamentary reports - both of which were adopted with the full backing of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament - the European liberals, conservatives and socialists have been the ones truly pushing for the so-called Bolkestein Directive.

As far as this affair is concerned, the Lisbon European Council was merely the wholesale reflection of a political class ideologically set on having the internal market in services implemented as quickly as possible.

When the people of the Netherlands and France suddenly took a stand to protect their social entitlements by rejecting the draft European Constitution, they thankfully stopped the time bomb constituted by the untrammelled liberalisation of services.

The Left, which embroiled itself in the mess of liberal Europeanism, is now drowning in a sea of pathetic confusion and internal contradictions.

The amended version of the Services Directive proposed to us only modifies the form of the text, without touching its content. This directive, whether amended or not, is bad, because the proposed strategy on the internal market is fundamentally harmful.

It is therefore on the basis of national and social considerations that we reject the Gebhardt report.

  Jean-Marie Le Pen (NI), in writing. – (FR) The vote on the European Constitution, held on 29 May 2005, really triggered things off politically and socially.

The real plan B was in fact the withdrawal of the Bolkestein Directive because, if it had not been for the ‘No’ vote in the referenda in France and the Netherlands, the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, the UMP and the UDF – which are all in favour of the European Constitution and of increased competition in Europe – would not have shown such determination to denounce the country of origin principle and the attacks on commercial and non-commercial public services.

The only aim of this political and media stage show is to make people forget about the u-turns performed by the PSE which, together with Mr Jospin, helped liberalise the Post Office, EDF and France Télécom. In this affair, we believe that the liberals and the classical or post-Marxists and internationalists are as bad as each other; they are all responsible and they are all guilty. Only the national structure that we champion can protect us from the Bolkestein Directive, from Mittal Steel or from the hostile takeover bids of multinationals or of US pension funds.

Europe is being torn apart over the Services Directive while it waits for the general agreement on trade in services at the WTO to get everyone to come to an agreement in the name of free competition and of the unimpeachable market.

  Fernand Le Rachinel (NI), in writing. – (FR) The Services Directive - or notorious Bolkestein Directive – is a device for creating unemployment. The French referendum on the European Constitution had enabled the people of France to learn all about the directive’s ultraliberal and job-destroying philosophy. Despite a few cosmetic changes, its content today remains unchanged.

The concept of the country of origin has been erased, but that does not mean that the concept of the freedom to provide services has disappeared. This whole matter is nothing other than a huge farce designed to push through what the liberals, the conservatives and the Left – all as zealously pro-European as each other – have been cleverly concocting with their respective national governments for nearly two years. Whether it is a question of the Bolkestein Directive, the Services Directive or the Gebhardt report, all of these texts that form the subject of controversies and of compromises extracted in extremis by the political groups of the European Parliament are the same and should be forcefully rejected.

We are resolutely opposed to this ultraliberal and anti-national vision of the internal market in services, the only aim of which is ultimately to destroy our craft industry and our small French businesses under the guise of ‘free and undistorted competition’.

  Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I voted against this text which, despite being something of an improvement on Mr Bolkestein’s draft, seriously threatens our social model.

The country of origin principle is only formally, and not actually, abandoned because the text’s legal vacuum reintroduces it through the back door – (with the de facto application of the Rome Convention and of the proximity principle) – and leaves it to the Court of Justice to deal with any arbitrations that legislators should really take on, applying the host country principle. Services of general economic interest remain within the scope of the directive, a state of affairs that threatens public services, which have already been severely damaged in Europe. The votes confirmed an ultraliberal bias.

The Member States are deprived of the resources needed to regulate certain professions and effectively to control the application of the directives such as the one relating to the posting of workers, which is a fragile barrier against social dumping.

The European Union needs an alternative draft that includes the upwards harmonisation of social, environmental and consumer protection rules and that excludes public services, which require a protective framework directive.

  Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I have told anyone who is willing to listen that I am in favour of a compromise, but I am not prepared to be taken for a fool.

I am in favour of the country of origin principle. The negotiators from my group promised me that the revised wording stipulating that the Member States must respect the service providers’ right to provide a service in a Member State other than the one in which they are established is identical to this principle. If such is the case, then I am in a position to vote in favour of the compromise. The negotiators from the Socialist Group in the European Parliament are, however, proclaiming loud and long that they have succeeded in killing off this principle, which they wrongly consider to be responsible for all economic and social ills.

The disappearance of the country of origin principle from Article 16 would lead to a state of legal uncertainty for the service provider, who would have to play it by ear under the control of the Court of Justice.

Moreover, the safeguard clauses in paragraph 3 go beyond the case law and give the impression that one can demand the application of the law of the country of destination on the basis of a simple ‘need’, without any tests carried out in terms of proportionality and non-discrimination. The resulting uncertainty about these crucial provisions leads me to reject certain parts of the compromise text relating to Article 16.

(The explanation of vote was abbreviated pursuant to Rule 163(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

  Cecilia Malmström (ALDE), in writing. (SV) The services sector is important, and I should like to have seen a bigger step forward in this important market. Unfortunately, today’s vote is only a modest step, and that is something I regret. An unholy alliance between Conservatives and Social Democrats paves the way for protectionist zones and legal disputes and will restrict the market for services. These are developments that would cause European employees and consumers to lose out. I regret the fact that we are sending out a signal to the new Member States that there is still an ‘us’ and ‘them’ mentality. It was with considerable hesitation that I voted in favour of the proposal, which is nonetheless a small step forward for the services market.

  Toine Manders (ALDE), in writing. (NL) The directive, in the form in which this House has adopted it, obliges the Member States to eliminate all kinds of obstacles that continue to hamper the free movement of services. It is because this represents progress particularly for SMEs that I have voted for the compromise.

The retention of the country-of-origin principle means that this does not disappear from the Treaty, unless we deny the continued existence of the internal market. I am confident that the Commission and the Council will respond to this by coming up with a better proposal.

Preferring as I would to see the market in services liberalised still further, I am disappointed by the stance taken by the Socialists and the Christian Democrats: the Liberals alone have, from the very outset, sent out a clear message to the effect that they support the free operation of the market in Europe and that they seek further liberalisation of the internal market. Both the Socialists and the Christian Democrats have sold the pass in order to keep in with the trade unions at the expense of consumers. Such protectionism puts our children’s future at risk.

  Jean-Claude Martinez (NI), in writing. – (FR) For 50 years, the freedom to provide cross-border services has featured among the four fundamental freedoms of the common market. That is what the Court of Justice confirmed by recognising a COP, a country of origin principle. For the blind among us, the General Agreement on Trade in Services, signed in Marrakech in April 1994, laid down, throughout the world, a ‘fourth mode’ of service provision, in the form of a cross-border provision of services, that is to say of a temporary switch to the social dumping conditions of the country of origin.

It is this old principle that the leaders of Europe are now pretending to discover, whereas this COP has been devastating European economies for decades. Seeking to maintain the French-influenced European social model, with its pensions, its health protection, its free schools, its post offices, its trains and its hospitals, demands that we not only oppose workers being paid the lowest possible wages, as practised in the most socially backward countries, but that we also oppose the idea of a market without customs protection, which is the real cause of social dumping. The rule of the COP is only one symptom of this social dumping. The starting point – the first rogue cell – of this social cancer is the idea of the single market, without the protection of customs duties. The country of origin rule is nothing other than a secondary cancer.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I am pleased with the outcome of this historic vote on the Internal Market in Services. It demonstrates the European Parliament's ability to handle complex legislation and make vital improvements that take into account the concerns of people in our community: here ensuring that workers and consumers' rights are not undermined by ambitious and forward-thinking legislation.

In voting for the amended Services Directive I supported measures that strike the balance of opening the single market whilst securing workers' social rights and safeguarding our vital public services.

Opening up the market in services is not merely about boosting big businesses but also about creating jobs and spreading potential economic benefits to consumers and producers of around EUR 30 billion. This legislation will give small and medium-sized businesses the chance to provide cross border services, enabling them finally to take advantage of the unique regional integration that a Union of 25 states offers without having to enter into costly legal wrangling in the Courts.

Faced with the challenges of thriving markets in services in third countries, such as is the case in India and China, Europe needed to grasp this opportunity to improve its competitive edge in a dynamic and growing sector.

  Arlene McCarthy (PSE), in writing. As Chair of the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee, I welcome today's historic vote to open up the market in services across Europe. This is the final piece in the jigsaw of establishing the internal market. For too long, small and medium-sized enterprises have been prevented by ludicrous red tape from doing business in other EU Member States. With more than 53 cases before the European Court of Justice, where businesses are arguing for their right under the Treaty to provide services across Europe, it is time for us to set down rules for the operation of the service market. Parliament has listened to people's concerns and fears and ensured that the freedom to provide services is not the freedom to undermine citizens' employment terms and conditions and their rights as consumers. We want to end protectionism but protect working people and consumers. We were happy to vote for and support a compromise which delivered this critical balance of interests for citizens across the EU.

  Kartika Tamara Liotard and Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), in writing. (NL) The former Commissioner Bolkestein’s conviction was that good laws and good collective wage agreements of the kind that are to be found in many EU Member States would be in permanent competition with the poor regulatory arrangements that prevail in others. Existing differences would be made into a factor in competition, the intention being that the worst would always win. This extremely neo-liberal approach was intended to wreck all that the labour movement had fought for and achieved over the course of a century.

The fact that the directive in its original form will not see the light of day is thanks to the mass action on the part of trade unionists and other organisations. Instead, there will be a vague compromise between the two biggest groups in this Parliament. In order that this House should not come to any unambiguous decisions, a great deal is to be immediately put in the hands of the Court of Justice, which may well promptly opt in favour of the highly-controversial country-of-origin principle. Those of us here who are members of the Socialist Party of the Netherlands have had no hand in this compromise. Although we vote to reject it outright, we will, until such time as the directive enters fully into effect, support all proposed amendments that the trade union movement regards as improvements. In the meantime, the struggle goes on; we, together with the trade union movement, will resist all attempts by the bosses at making it possible for people to be employed for lower wages.

  Claude Moraes (PSE), in writing. Labour MEPs voted in favour of the amended Services Directive to end protectionism but to ensure protection of workers and jobs.

The deal now on the table was exhaustively discussed to create an ideal outcome for workers and business in the UK.

The UK's markets are already liberalised for other EU countries. We must ensure that business, including London business in my constituency, can compete fairly in the rest of the UK.

Labour MEPs have worked hard to ensure that UK trade union concerns over terms and conditions have been seriously and faithfully taken up.

  Tobias Pflüger (GUE/NGL), in writing. (DE) We still aim to overthrow the services directive. Today saw the adoption by this House, by 395 votes to 215, of a ‘compromise’, cobbled together by social democrats and conservatives, which can be described as more than disreputable. The social democrats had already made enough disgraceful concessions to the conservatives, but, just before the end, they made another one, the consequence of which was that the directive would continue to apply to ‘social policy’ and ‘consumer protection’, just as the freedom to provide services already did to ‘services of general economic interest’. This is quite utterly unacceptable.

The text as adopted has ended up being not merely a licence for social dumping in Europe, but also a slap in the face for trade unionists, for campaigners for social justice, and for all those who, over recent days, weeks and months, have taken to the streets to express their opposition to the Bolkestein directive. The conduct of the German Social Democrats has been particularly shameful, in that they – unlike their French counterparts – were unswervingly loyal to the Bolkestein directive and sent their own natural supporters as lambs to the slaughter.

Only now, though, is the fight against the European social dumping directive getting underway. Over the coming months, we will be mobilising still more opposition to the plans that the Commission, the governments and the anti-social Great Coalition have for Europe.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The decision to allow service providers the freedom to offer their services in any other Member State, without extraordinary obstacles being put in their way, protects the interests of consumers, of workers, of service providers and of Europe as a whole.

The services market has the greatest potential for growth and development in the European economy, and our aim is to promote reforms that stimulate the economy, and to protect the rights of workers, consumers and the business community, in particular small and medium-sized businesses, which traditionally stand to lose out most from administrative, political and economic obstacles.

I endorse this report because I am in favour of true freedom to set up and provide services in the EU. If it is possible to procure goods and services freely in another Member State, there is no justification for preventing the service provider from moving, provided that they comply with a number of principles, principally of a public and social nature, which remain safeguarded in the adopted version.

In spite of the compromise – necessary in a political group with the responsibilities of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – the outcome is a well-balanced one and, more importantly, a clear sign that Parliament wants an economy that is more conducive to job creation, more effective, fairer and more competitive.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The European Parliament has undoubtedly marked the history of European parliamentary democracy today with its vote on the so-called Bolkestein Directive.

By reconciling the irreconcilable - the position of France and of Poland, that of the ETUC and of Unice and that of the progressive socialists and of the non-dogmatic liberals - this vote represents a step forward towards a citizens’ Europe. It is a step forward towards a European Union that refuses to compromise when it comes to social dumping, but that does not, for all that, forget about eliminating the protectionist barriers to the freedom to provide services and to freedom of establishment.

Yes, our Parliament has come out of this vote with increased stature. Not only has it totally fulfilled its role as legislator by, for instance, doing away with the country of origin principle, but it has also been able to avoid the trap set by a coalition of Eurosceptics and overcautious ‘No’ men who, suffering from a bout of memory loss, seem to have forgotten that, on 1 June 2004, we were celebrating European reconciliation.

By putting particular emphasis on a policy of friendly cooperation with our friends from the ten new Member States, we have done nothing short of bringing down a new Berlin wall – in our heads this time, and long may it last!

  José Albino Silva Peneda (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The proposal for a directive on the liberalisation of services gives tangible form to an idea that is almost 50 years old, given that one of the European Union’s earliest priorities was that the freedom of services should be a core element of the European project.

The solution that has been adopted is a victory for European democracy and resolves an impasse that until recently was thought to be insurmountable. Without this agreement, we would be in a situation in which nobody would dare touch this issue in years to come, which would have an adverse affect on economic growth and job creation.

The removal of a number of administrative and bureaucratic obstacles hampering the free movement of persons and services has in itself made the adoption of this directive worthwhile.

Small and medium-sized businesses will be the main beneficiaries of this, as they will no longer face the frustrations that they encountered when attempting to operate in a neighbouring country. Previously, they needed to have residency, an office or a subsidiary in the destination country, to have previously registered with some administrative authority, or to prove that they had a command of the language of the country. With this directive, those days are over.

  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE), in writing. (NL) Anyone who has closely followed the debate on the Services Directive will be surprised to find that the compromise between conservatives and social democrats has been interpreted in different ways. A group to the Right defends the compromise because it ‘does not affect the country of origin principle’, while the Left considers it to be a ‘definite departure from that self-same country of origin principle’.

We therefore have two views on opposite ends of the spectrum. What is more, this compromise does not make it clear to what extent Member States can impose hard and fast criteria on the provision of certain services on their territory so as to avoid social dumping.

Moreover, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament have scrapped the reference to social policy and consumer protection.

Whilst Parliament has managed to remove a whole range of services from the scope of the directive, it still applies to a large extent to services of general economic interest.

Since the rehashed Bolkestein Directive contains, in any case, many legal ambiguities, it will once again result in many lawsuits for the European Court of Justice. In no way does the revised document offer the transparency and legal certainty that are needed.

We Greens saw it as crucial that services of general economic interest be excluded from the final document and the country of origin principle deleted from it. Since our requests have not been accommodated, I have ultimately voted against.

  Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece voted against the directive on services in the internal market, known as the Bolkenstein directive.

We condemn the disgraceful agreement achieved between the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament and supported by the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, who voted in favour of the abortive directive on the 'liberalisation of services' at the demand of the UNICE.

The amendments proposed and voted for by the European People's Party, Socialist Group and Liberals strengthened the reactionary character of the directive, given that:

a) they extend the unaccountability of the monopolies in the service sector to choosing as their headquarters countries with an 'attractive business environment' – tax relief, low service standards, cheap, disenfranchised labour, no collective agreements and so forth – so as to maximise their profitability;

b) they strike a heavy blow at public/social services (education, water and waste management, storage of dangerous materials, postal services, cultural services, social welfare services and so forth) which are being privatised and coming under the full control of the monopolies;

c) they jeopardise the fundamental employment and social rights of the working class – collective agreements, insurance and pension rights, the sacred right to strike won by the working class through hard class struggle;

d) they hand the purchase of services over to monopoly capital, with disastrous consequences for small businesses and self-employed people, while leaving the quality and price of services to the voracious appetites of capital for excessive profits.

  Diana Wallis (ALDE), in writing. I voted against the inclusion of a new recital 13b in the services directive because stating that the consumer will always benefit from the protection granted to him by the consumer legislation in his Member State is misleading and a misrepresentation of the actual legal position.

  Anders Wijkman (PPE-DE), in writing. (SV) Today, the European Parliament has voted on one of the most important legislative matters we have ever dealt with – the Services Directive. The Services Directive is designed to remove the obstacles to two of the freedoms that have formed part of the EC Treaty since 1958: freedom of establishment for suppliers of services, and freedom of movement for services. The potential for the trade in services is huge, and Sweden is one of those countries that has most to gain from an efficient market for services.

The debate on the Services Directive has been wide-ranging. Swedish and European trade unions point out that the directive contributes to ‘social dumping’. That is not the case, because the directive does not deal with issues relating to labour law. The labour law aspects have, moreover, been clarified by Parliament’s decision.

I want to see a constructive Services Directive that clears away administrative rules and other barriers to trade. I also want the scope of the directive to be as broad as possible. I therefore voted in favour of areas such as private health care, temporary agencies and services of general economic interest being covered by the directive.

Today's decision by Parliament is based partly on a broad compromise. Compromises are seldom perfect but are often necessary if the objective in question is to be achieved. I hope that the EU Member States are successful in taking a decision on the issue later this year so that we might make progress on this very important issue.

  Tatjana Ždanoka (Verts/ALE), in writing. (LV) I voted against the amendments to the Services Directive which sought to back away from introducing the country of origin principle. At the same time I support the amendments stressing the need not to allow a reduction in service quality, ensuring that consumer interests do not suffer and safety and health considerations are borne in mind. I believe that backing away from the country of origin principle will significantly affect the free movement of services in the EU, restricting the opportunities of businesses from the new Member States to compete freely on the EU market in the services sector. To put forward unjustified requirements for a services provider established in one EU Member State and to create unequal circumstances is not compatible with the principles of the EU internal market and cannot be permitted.

The citizens of Latvia and also of the other new Member States believe that closing off the services sector in the older EU Member States, in practice, to our businesses and workers amounts to deception and reneging on promises which the EU gave to the new Member States in the accession process. The people of Latvia have paid too high a price for accession to the European Union. By fully opening its internal market to producers from the West, Latvia has destroyed its industry and agriculture.

I believe that we must achieve agreement on a directive based on solidarity between the older and newer EU Member States and the principle of equal rights.

- Report: McGuinness (A6-0023/2006)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the excellent report by my colleague, Mrs McGuinness, on the proposal for a Council decision on Community strategic guidelines for Rural Development (Programming period 2007-2013). In the framework of the common agricultural policy reform, rural development will become of paramount importance for 90% of the European Union’s territory and for 50% of its population. These guidelines are good on the whole, and I am pleased that the European Parliament should be gradually recognising that mountain areas require preferential assistance.

We will need to be very vigilant with regard to the resources - and, more specifically, the financial resources - that will be implemented. I regret that greater emphasis was not given to the need to ensure that the rural territories have an equal chance in the current economic and social competition, for example through the introduction of a policy of large-scale works linked to infrastructure, such as motorways, high-speed rail transport, the airline network and access to ports, as well as through the development of new information and communication technologies. The European Union must guarantee equal opportunities for citizens and businesses wherever they may be on European territory.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) We voted in favour of this report, given that we are broadly in favour of its thrust, although we are opposed to one or two of the points it makes.

That being said, the principle objective of the report is to address problems in the rural world. The report says that, owing to their disadvantaged status, special attention must be paid to rural areas, and highlights the large diversity of situations and specific characteristics in each Member State.

Special prominence needs to be given both to remote, mountainous and disadvantaged rural areas suffering from depopulation and decline, and to peri-urban areas under increasing pressure from urban centres. I also wish to highlight the inclusion of proposals aimed at supporting local initiatives, such as farmers’ markets and local food-quality procurement schemes, and the need for effective support for young farmers to improve transfer between generations.

Special treatment must be given to the outermost regions, where farms are small, isolated, often exposed to severe climate conditions and limited in their range of produce.

  Duarte Freitas (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The Community’s strategic guidelines for rural development will form the basis of future national rural development programmes, harmonising the objectives and measures to be implemented under the scope of this important European sector.

It is extremely important to set out the strategies clearly and thoroughly, with a view to boosting the development of Europe’s rural areas, improving the living conditions for people in those areas and enhancing the rural environment.

I warmly welcome both the Commission’s proposal, which offers a broad range of objectives and measures, and the McGuinness report, which fine-tunes the strategic guidelines in a number of specific areas, such as the protection of rural cultural heritage and the rural landscape.

  Hélène Goudin, Nils Lundgren and Lars Wohlin (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) Following discussion, in accordance with the conciliation procedure, of the Strategic Guidelines for Rural Development, the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has produced many commendable proposals. The European Parliament is trying, however, continually to exercise more control over the Member States’ agricultural and regional policies. That is something towards which we are unsympathetic.

We do not believe that the Member States can be bound by extensive target-setting documents where rural development is concerned. We have great confidence that the national or regional parliaments in the Member States can cope constructively and successfully with this issue.

We have therefore voted against those amendments that the European Parliament wishes to table to the Council’s document in relation to Strategic Guidelines for Rural Development.

  Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) Strategic Community guidelines are to be adopted for the next financial period 2007-2013, within the scope of the new regulation on rural development. I wish to stress the importance of rural development, especially as rural areas make up 90% of EU territory and 50% of the EU population live in those areas.

The purpose of these strategic guidelines is to define the areas in which EU funding can create the most value added at EU level, to translate the main EU priorities into rural development, to ensure consistency in programming with other EU policies, and to support the implementation of the new CAP and the necessary restructuring in the old and new Member States.

Like the rapporteur, I support this proposal for a Council decision, as it addresses the need to provide the Member States with clearer guidance on the implementation of the regulation. Nonetheless, special priority should also be attached to modernising the farming and forestry sectors, and to encouraging young farmers and their families not to leave rural areas.

  Jean-Claude Martinez (NI), in writing. – (FR) Is it possible to have rural development without country people? Will there be any villages and landscapes in the wine-growing South of France if our vines are uprooted, if our cooperative and private wine cellars are made to shut down and if the winegrowers’ farmhouses are replaced by housing estates?

Will the rural development of the south west and of the Périgord, Cévennes and Causses regions come about through the disappearance of farmers, shepherds and flocks of sheep, with only senior citizens from Great Britain, the Netherlands and northern Europe to replace them?

Rural development in the second pillar is just a smoke screen. It is the fancy name used to describe the disappearance of our agricultural production to the benefit of producers from Brazil, Australia or the South Pacific, with the consolation prize of modest jobs as landscape gardeners for the surviving members of France’s and Europe’s farming communities.

Rural development is just as hypocritical a concept as ‘multifunctional agriculture’. It is a pain reliever, a palliative remedy applied to women and men from the countryside, who are knowingly and disgracefully sacrificed to the all-important ‘global deal’. In the South Pacific, the focus is on agriculture; in Europe, the focus is on the illusory services market.

Having stupidly ‘sold out’ its farmers, Europe goes and invents a pharisaic ‘rural development’ policy in the human and economic desert that Brussels has created in our countryside.

- New financial mechanisms in the framework of the Millennium Development Goals (RC-B6-0119/2006)

  Marie-Arlette Carlotti (PSE), in writing. – (FR) The EU has a unique responsibility and opportunity where this matter is concerned. It alone can satisfy the two conditions for putting these new mechanisms in place: critical size and political will. The text submitted to us does not, I am afraid, live up to this expectation.

Admittedly, this resolution supports in principle the new sources of development funding by emphasising the need for these funds to supplement traditional public aid, and not to replace it. This position of Parliament is, however, very half-hearted.

The support is reluctantly expressed, and the central concept in this debate - a ‘global tax’ to fund development - is passed over in silence. The various projects on the table today, relating for example to taxation on financial transactions, CO2 emissions and arms sales, are not mentioned. No reference whatsoever is made to ‘Global Public Goods’, which these mechanisms should fund as a priority.

Given that it is a first step in the right direction, I will vote in favour of this draft resolution. I do, however, want to see it encourage swifter and more far-reaching action aimed at practically implementing these new tools at European level.

  Glyn Ford (PSE), in writing. I welcome this debate and resolution looking at innovative ways of raising finance to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, whether it be through a levy on air transport or through a Tobin-type tax on currency transactions. I have supported and campaigned for the latter for almost a decade now and welcome the fact that both France and Belgium have passed the relevant legislation, while it is under consideration in Italy, where last year I gave evidence to the Italian Senate's Finance and Foreign Affairs Committee on the subject.

Whatever the route used to raise funds they must be ring-fenced to help those living in deep poverty, the 1.2 billion living on less than EUR 1 a day, to obtain basic housing and education, water and health care.

I particularly welcome paragraph 7, which will help boost the work of the Stamp Out Poverty campaign run by David Hillman and the Tobin Tax Network.

  Hélène Goudin, Nils Lundgren and Lars Wohlin (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) Combating poverty is one of the big challenges that all countries have to engage with. The June List believes, however, that the work needs to be funded from individual countries’ national budgets. Neither international aid nor other commendable projects must under any circumstances lead to national taxation law being replaced by EU taxation law. We are therefore voting against the resolution.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) Although this motion for a resolution includes points on which we would raise serious questions, we support the most positive aspects of the resolution.

That being said, the Millennium Goals – to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, to achieve universal primary education, to promote gender equality and empower women, to reduce child mortality, to improve maternal health, to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, to ensure environmental sustainability and to develop a global partnership for development – will stand little chance of being achieved merely by implementing limited, window-dressing measures.

These urgent and worthwhile goals will only be achieved if there is a sea-change in the policies currently pursued by the main capitalist powers and by the international fora dominated by those powers, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. What is needed is an end to capitalist competition, the liberalisation of trade, privatisations, the reduction in workers’ rights and salaries, the stranglehold on national policies by the large economic and financial groups and the concentration of wealth among the few, at the cost of the exploitation and oppression of the people.

In order for these goals to be achieved, there needs to be a complete overhaul of the system – that is, capitalism – which foments exploitation, inequality, poverty, violence and oppression.

  Claude Moraes (PSE), in writing. I was a signatory to this motion, which I believe sets out a workable EU mechanism to achieve international development goals within the framework of the Millennium Development Goals. Achieving those goals has been important to many of my London constituents.

- Freedom of expression and respect for religious beliefs (RC-B6-0136/2006)

  Marcin Libicki (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, I wanted to refer to the resolution on freedom of speech. I was unable to support the resolution because those who initially offended the feelings of others acted in an arrogant fashion. When they were threatened with a boycott of their goods, they began to apologise and thus behaved in a cowardly manner. The text does not denounce either the arrogance or the cowardice and that is precisely the reason why I was not able to support the resolution.

(Applause)

  Francesco Enrico Speroni (IND/DEM). – (IT) Mr President, I did not vote for this resolution because I consider it to be extremely weak.

I should like, in particular, to stress that the reactions to the cartoons, whether or not they were offensive – that is something for the courts to decide – did not come from just the dregs of society, as they did in France, when the disturbances took place in its suburbs.

In this case there have been official reactions, such as the withdrawal of ambassadors and the official boycott of Danish products, which are European products. As the author, Oriana Fallaci, has already stressed on many occasions, this demonstrates that there is no such thing as a tolerant Islam, because a tolerant Islam would have laughed at the cartoons and would have ignored them. It would certainly not have reacted in this manner.

  Glyn Ford (PSE), in writing. I believe that one needs to restrict freedom of expression on only the rarest of occasions. Of course, it must be illegal to shout 'fire' in a cinema or to directly provoke racial hatred. I find it difficult to understand, on that basis, how Nick Griffin, the leader of the neo-fascist British Nationalist Party, was acquitted of promoting racial hatred earlier this month after his comments on both Islam and the murdered black teenager Stephen Lawrence.

Yet I am not sure I see the Danish cartoons that were published falling into that category. They were certainly offensive to many, but that does not mean they meet the same test as promoting racial hatred. Certainly, when I see opposition to their publication coming from the fundamentalist Christian right in Europe, I start to worry that the laws of blasphemy are being dusted off again across Europe. The correct position would have been not to forbid publication, but to condemn the content of many of them.

As for Mr Frattini's 'code of conduct' for journalists, it deserved the decision it received. Yet if we are going to protect people's deep-rooted beliefs from ridicule, attack or insult, maybe some of Britain's yellow tabloid press can start to respect my anti-racism, my hatred of homophobia, my socialism and my commitment to Europe.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) We are deeply alarmed at the stance adopted by the majority in Parliament as regards the increased international tension. Their stance glosses over the deeply provocative atmosphere surrounding the publication of the cartoons, of which the dangerous developments are ample evidence.

It is disgraceful to seek to justify the USA’s increasing interventionism in the Middle East by concocting an atmosphere of a clash of civilisations. Similarly alarming is the fact that the major powers in the EU are moving closer to the ambitions of the USA in the region. It should not be forgotten that the initiative to block a negotiated solution under the aegis of the International Atomic Energy Agency on Iran came from Germany, France and the United Kingdom, an objective long supported by the USA.

Unlike what some would have you believe, it is the USA and its allies, especially Israel, that have threatened peace and perpetrated war, aggression and occupation. They are the ones that occupy Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine, and have countless bases and thousands of troops stationed in the region. It is therefore crucial to take action to reverse the current cycle of incitement to violence, to promote détente in international relations and to protect peace.

  Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert (ALDE), in writing. (NL) Due to the subtle distinction that has been drawn, I was ultimately unable to give my endorsement to the proposal. I consider the edifying words in some paragraphs to be totally misplaced. The impression is once again being created that the free expression of opinion and freedom of the press are negotiable. I cannot, and indeed will not, put my name to that. To me, the free expression of opinion is an absolute right, and, in this connection, I would like to quote Voltaire, who said: ‘I may despise what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it’.

In European liberal society, the freedom of religion goes hand in hand with the freedom to criticise a religion, and certainly those things that flow from it. The Islamic world may well protest, but this message should be hammered home to it in no uncertain terms. After all, if we run away from the wolf, we will end up being eaten by a bear.

Through their schizophrenic and extremely guarded attitude, the EU and its Member States are bowing to the opinions of radical Muslims with a fundamentalist interpretation of the Koran. Never must threats and fear lead us to sell out our freedoms. History has taught us that problems do not so much arise through too many freedoms, but rather through their being restricted.

  Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE), in writing. I voted for this resolution as in many respects it provides a balanced response to the ill-considered action of the Danish newspaper in commissioning cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed for publication, knowing this would be considered an offensive act. It recognises that the reaction was largely orchestrated by political forces seeking to create hatred of some western governments and also acknowledges that the vast majority of Muslims reacted not with violence but with dignity and outrage at the violence, which they feel does not reflect the values of their faith. However, I note that once again Parliament has failed to criticise one of our own Member States, which has been criticised by the Council of Europe for raising the temperature on immigration. This has created a climate which raises tensions. Parliament must be consistent in its own approach to failures within its borders and not just outside them.

  Claude Moraes (PSE), in writing. I am disappointed that this resolution on an important controversy is unclear, ambiguous and does not properly address the context of the 'cartoon' controversy. Freedom of expression should be balanced by the responsible use of this power. It is of concern to many, including my London constituents to whom I have been replying individually.

  Athanasios Pafilis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The endeavour by the Commission, the Council and the political groups which support EU policy to present themselves as upholders of 'freedom of the press and respect for religious beliefs' is an insult to the peoples. In reality they are trying to hide political responsibilities and the objectives served by publication of the cartoons of Mohammed and the publicity which they were given by the European urban newspapers.

This is no coincidence. Republication is linked to the elections in Palestine and the step-up in imperialist aggression in Iran, Syria and the area as a whole. All those doing their utmost for the 'freedom of the press' deliberately overlook the fact that Mohammed and Islam are identified with terrorism in the cartoons, in order to prepare public opinion to accept new wars and imperialist interventions against countries with a Muslim population. They therefore rightly provoked the strong reaction and mass demonstrations by people who have paid and are paying for the imperialist interventions and wars by the USA and EU with rivers of blood.

The real conflict is between imperialism and the peoples, between the exploiter and the exploited who, irrespective of religion, colour and sex, must unite to fight and overturn the imperialist system as a whole.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The core value of the society in which we are proud to live is freedom. We see ourselves primarily as free and, by definition, responsible.

The crux of the matter regarding the recent events was not the exercise of freedom of expression, but the unacceptable reaction by those who claimed to have been offended. Although all indignation is legitimate, not all ways of expressing that indignation are. Our first priority is to speak out against these abuses and against the attacks on EU Member States. We condemn violence and wish to express our solidarity with Denmark and with the other Member States.

Furthermore, we are well aware that these events have been carefully orchestrated, and that they have had a huge impact on relations between the West and the Muslim world. Regardless of our freedoms, especially freedom of expression, any manifestation or promotion of hate, racism and xenophobia should be roundly condemned. All freedom should be exercised with responsibility, at this or any time.

We must not give any ground on our right to be free, but we will also not go seeking conflict. On the contrary, we shall avoid conflict because we know that peace and security in the world largely depend on our sense of responsibility.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) This is what we are reduced to: a maximum of 200 words because the group chairmen decided in a restricted meeting that our debate on the freedom of expression was to be deprived of that very freedom.

Allowing only one speaker per group is a real denial of democracy, just when this cartoon controversy is in the world news and is putting part of the world to fire and sword.

Has it been said often enough that the cartoon that sparked things off was depicting nothing other than what the terrorists do: perpetrate their acts in the name of Allah? This is not a cartoon depicting Islam; this is a cartoon depicting fanaticism.

Has enough been done to denounce the way in which a cartoonist, a newspaper, a nation and a government have been lumped together?

The freedom of the press and freedom of expression, which underpin our values, are being held to ransom. Yes, I want to tighten the links between our cultures, but I do not accept any bargaining whatsoever where our values are concerned. Human rights come before the law of Allah, or of any other God.

If any serious mistakes, abuses or incitements to hatred have occurred, then it is up to the courts to judge them, but I reject censorship. I give no one permission to extinguish the Enlightenment philosophies that I claim as my own.

  Wojciech Roszkowski (UEN), in writing. (PL)The crisis caused by the publication of cartoons depicting Mohammed and the extreme reactions of Islamic fanatics has revealed not only the extent of the cultural divide between Western civilisation and the Islamic world, where the principle of collective responsibility is applied and no respect is shown for religious freedom, but also a serious crisis of liberal democracy. Liberal democracy has proved unable to impose the rule of law on the Muslim communities in Europe or any respect for religious freedom on Muslim states. Instead, by making freedom of speech an absolute, it has managed to cause affront to the religious sensibilities of Muslims. Freedom without responsibility inevitably leads to conflict, however.

Respect for national and religious sensibilities provides the basis for respecting the people who express them, irrespective of whether we agree with these views or not. These sensibilities must not, therefore, be offended by blasphemous representations of the cross, of Mohammed or of the victims of the Holocaust. Mr Cohn-Bendit is not right in claiming that religions become ‘de-religionised’ in the public sphere. Religion will always be different from political debate, unless, of course, it stops being a religion and becomes an ideology. A cartoon depicting Mr Cohn-Bendit is not the same as a cartoon depicting Mohammed.

We simply cannot compel other actors in the public arena to divest themselves of their religious sensitivity. Any attempt to do so will have the same consequences as the publication of the Mohammed cartoons. This is why I voted against paragraph 5 of the resolution and why I abstain from voting on the resolution as a whole, as paragraph 5 was accepted.

  Gary Titley (PSE), in writing. The EPLP has abstained on paragraph 5 and the final vote on this joint motion for a resolution because we believe that this is a confused, repetitious motion which lacks clarity.

We believe firmly in the right to freedom of expression balanced by the right of journalists and others to use this power responsibly. The motion fails to balance clearly these competing aims and to convey accurately the context in which the current controversy has emerged.

The EPLP is in contact with those across the UK who have expressed concerns to us.

- Bosnia-Herzegovina (RC-B6-0095/2006)

  Jaromír Kohlíček (GUE/NGL). – (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Bosnia and Herzegovina is the country which experienced the most sustained effort from those who wished to destroy multi-ethnic coexistence in the Balkans, and to provoke conflict between people along religious lines. I wish to stress that this does not, in any way, involve relations between countries but, rather, relations between people belonging to the Muslim or Catholic faiths. The Jewish community was forced to flee the country at the start of the conflict and never became involved in it. A further peculiarity is that when the country came into being, most of the orthodox community lived in rural areas, whereas most Muslims lived in the cities. We ought to bear this in mind when we draw up EU aid programmes.

I therefore welcome Article 16 of the Resolution, calling for more attention to be paid to the special needs of rural areas. It is also high time to call on the Hague Tribunal to start pursuing those war criminals that were motivated by reasons other than religious belief. In the terminology used here, we are talking about the Serbs. We must admit that even this Parliament has sometimes failed to reach a just conclusion. For example, some passages of the Resolution before us, regarding the tenth anniversary of the events in Srebrenice hold only one side culpable of mass murder, in contrast with the established facts.

I am pleased that dictatorial methods that have been used by the current administrators in the country are now consigned to the past. This is another positive report attempting to support economic development, not least through the agreement of the Western Balkan states on the return of refugees and on compensation for damage to property. We accordingly supported it in the vote, with the proviso that the Resolution should be partly reworked.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) How does one interpret the rejection by the majority in Parliament of amendments tabled by our group, which stressed ‘the right of the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina to decide the future of their own country’ and called for ‘the removal at the earliest opportunity of all foreign troops’ from the country?

Bosnia and Herzegovina is currently a protectorate occupied by some 7 000 NATO/EU troops. It is under the control of a UN/EU High Representative with excessive, anti-democratic powers, whom Parliament ‘calls on’ to exercise those powers with ‘restraint’.

Against this backdrop, Parliament, in a disgraceful act of meddling and disrespect for the sovereign will of the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina, urges the Council and the Commission to become involved in the current process of constitutional reform and to open negotiations aimed at integrating the country into the EU. To this end, a list of specifications has been presented, which calls for, inter alia, ‘reform and reduction of the strict system of wage setting, especially in the public sector’, the process of privatisation to be speeded up, reform and liberalisation of the energy sector and restructuring and liberalisation of the rail sector’, to which we are opposed.

  Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), in writing. (NL) In Bosnia and Herzegovina, people have experience of different types of rule. The era of Turkish rule was to the benefit of the Muslims in the centre and North-West who regard themselves as the real Bosnians; the Roman-Catholics in the South-West, who call themselves Croats, did well for themselves under Austrian rule; and the Yugoslavian era benefited the Orthodox in the North and East, who describe themselves as Serbs. Bosnia was disbanded as an administrative unit in the 1920s and re-established after the Second World War as a mixed area in the centre of the federal state that was intended to help integrate the different peoples within Yugoslavia, of which it was itself a miniature version. That proved a complete washout. During the 1992-1995 war, each of those groups made unilateral attempts to impose their own wishes. Dayton was a panacea intended to provide peace and reconciliation, and, whilst it is an inefficient and costly structure, it was born from the need for conciliation between widely diverse aspirations, and so, despite all its flaws, it should not simply be discarded, but should instead be used to build a federal structure in which all can live sustainably in peace with one another. The people must be able to choose freely rather than being told what to do by Europe.

  Athanasios Pafilis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The ΕU is jointly responsible for the dissolution of Yugoslavia, the ΝΑΤΟ wars and the drastic situation of its peoples. Following the Dayton agreement, the peoples of Bosnia-Herzegovina experienced occupation by NATO, which was recently replaced by 7 000 Euro-army troops.

ΝΑΤΟ decided which political parties will operate and the ΝΑΤΟ administrator removed the country's elected president. In 11 years, unemployment reached 40%, while 50% of the people live below the poverty line, 50% have no medical or pharmaceutical care and 18% have no electricity. Over 600 000 refugees, mainly of Serb origin, have not returned home. Corruption, organised crime and the black market are flourishing. This 'democracy' was introduced by the imperialists. They converted the Balkan countries to protectorates which are now preparing to be annexed to the ΕU.

The motion for a resolution by the political groups which support the imperialist policy of the ΕU constitutes crass coercion of the peoples of the country to accept constitutional changes dictated by imperialism and to comply with its suggestions in the run-up to the parliamentary elections in October, with the threat of cutting off the crumbs from the Stabilisation and Association Agreement being negotiated.

The Communist Party of Greece considers that the peoples of the Balkans must fight directly, together with the peoples of the ΕU, for the occupying forces to leave.

- Situation in Belarus (RC-B6-0109/2006)

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) One might ask why Belarus is the country with the highest number of Parliament resolutions condemning its behaviour. Some might say in reply that it is due to the human rights situation.

Even if one accepts that view, however, one might also ask why Parliament does not adopt, with the same eagerness, resolutions on countries with situations that might be considered as serious, if not more so. Would that be because Belarus has until now refused to bow to the unacceptable demands and interference of the United States and the major EU powers?

Would that be because, unlike most countries in the region, it has blocked and reversed privatisations in key sectors of the economy, invested in agriculture and domestic production, improved the living conditions of its people – the only country in the former Soviet bloc, indeed, to have restored its 1990 GDP?

Would it be because Belarus is committed to setting up a union of equal states with Russia, a country with which it has a collective defence agreement?

Would it be, lastly, because this is a case of double standards, working in favour of the strategic interests and economic ambitions of the United States and its allies in Europe?

  Athanasios Pafilis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The sixth unacceptable and insulting motion for a resolution in succession within eighteen months forms part of the rabid attempts by the ΕU to overturn the Lukashenko government elected by the people of Belarus, which refuses to bow down to imperialist barbarity. It hypocritically presents as the repression of democratic rights the efforts of the Belarus Government to limit foreign imperialist intervention to overturn it through massive funding of political agents and the media.

The position on the failure to meet 'international standards' which, in the EU's estimate have nonetheless been met in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are under occupation, is an insult. With political impertinence it talks of 'registered candidates' when everyone knows that the candidate of the 'united opposition' was elected in the presence of the American ambassador and other ambassadors from EU countries.

It is calling on the authorities of Belarus to safeguard 'equal conditions' for all the political powers at a time when all the political parties are free, while in the 'democratic' Baltic Member States of the ΕU communist parties are banned and 40% of the people have no nationality or civil rights. In other words, the burglar is trying to convince everyone that the householder was to blame for the robbery.

We are voting against the motion for a resolution and we express our solidarity with the people of Belarus in its efforts to repel imperialist intervention and choose its own way forward.

- Report: Kindermann (A6-0015/2006)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the very interesting report, drafted by my fellow Member, Mr Kindermann, on the implementation of a European Union forestry strategy.

Currently, the issue of how forests and wood relate to the processes of environmentally friendly wealth creation and social progress is very inadequately covered in European public policies. It is time for the European Union significantly to support the projects based on the forest-wood sector in relevant geographical areas. The link between a forestry strategy and rural development must be established and, while we are on the subject, I regret that mountain areas should not have been singled out for attention. Equally, and this in the context of the Lisbon Strategy, the Union must take a greater interest in supporting research programmes linked to the use of wood, for example in the construction and energy sectors.

Finally, a study, as a precursor to action, should be conducted on the transportation of wood, which is a heavy product, so as to provide some coherence between forests, areas of consumption and road, rail and maritime transport infrastructure.

  Glyn Ford (PSE), in writing. I welcome Mr Kindermann's report on the implementation of the EU's forestry strategy because, although forestry is not actually dealt with in the Treaties, there is a need for an EU action plan for sustainable forest management that provides a coherent framework for the implementation of forest-related actions and serves to coordinate Community actions and the forestry policies of the Member States, which is drawn up in close coordination with the Member States and the various stakeholders concerned.

As someone who lives in one of the last important remaining oak forests in England, I am acutely aware of the need for sustainable forest management. Forests have a multi-functional role. In the Forest of Dean, the forest provides a beautiful environment and a natural habitat, opportunities for recreation and tourism, potential for work and industrial realities, as well as a home for people to live in. And yet, in the majority of cases, the multi-functional role, measured against the potential it offers, is not reflected in the economy of the areas concerned or in the income of their inhabitants. Rural development policy is the main instrument for implementing the forestry strategy at Community level and I support this.

  Hélène Goudin, Nils Lundgren and Lars Wohlin (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) We are of the view that the EU should not develop a common forestry policy. This policy area constitutes a very important national issue. We should have liked the European Parliament to have stated that the objective was for forestry policy to remain an area for national decision-making. We met with a certain amount of sympathy for this view in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety during the discussion of this report. Unfortunately, however, the majority of the European Parliament has, in accordance with its usual obsession with doing everything on an abnormally large scale, prepared a report which, for example, will cause the sector-specific Community policy and the Lisbon Strategy to have an impact on forestry and which recommends that an ‘objective report [be] drawn up to examine the scope for creating a separate legal basis for forests’ in the EU’s Treaties.

We decisively reject such shifts in the political statements made by the European Parliament. It should be explained once and for all that forestry policy is an area in which decisions are to be taken purely and simply on a national basis. We cannot vote in favour of a report that has a more or less hidden agenda to introduce a forestry policy at EU level that is to be conducted with appropriations from the EU budget.

  Jean-Claude Martinez (NI), in writing. – (FR) It is about time we had a forestry strategy, particularly in a France which, in the 21st century, was able to create one of Europe’s most beautiful forests, in the Landes region, and which has since been unable to manage its forest commercially.

When we see our forests destroyed by fire in Portugal, France and Spain and when we depend on Indonesia and Brazil for our industrial wood or our paper fibres, while all the time bemoaning deforestation and its associated climatic and biological disasters, we are reminded just how necessary the global political reaction is. What is required is a willingness to create a major wood sector in Europe and, more specifically, in France. To do this, preferred investments, trained and non-disadvantaged professionals, a long-term political vision and an intelligent approach to taxation are required.

  President. That concludes the explanations of vote.