Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 4 April 2006 - Strasbourg

9. Explanations of vote

- Laperrouze report (A6-0071/2006)

  Jan Andersson, Ewa Hedkvist Petersen, Inger Segelström and Åsa Westlund (PSE), in writing. (SV) We have voted in favour of the amendments concerning European coordinators, since we believe that a voluntary and temporary coordination function may fulfil a purpose, especially in the case of cross-border projects.

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) The June List believes that the EU Member States should cooperate on cross-border issues when cooperation contributes added value. Trans-European energy networks constitute such an issue, and we therefore also voted in favour of the report as a whole when it was debated earlier in Parliament. Quite a few of the amendments we voted on today are, however, unnecessarily bureaucratic, and the extra cost and the administrative burdens that these would entail are disproportionate to the potential benefits. We have therefore voted against these amendments.

  Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) I should like to congratulate Mrs Laperrouze on her firm and timely recommendation for a second reading on the Council common position for adopting a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down guidelines for trans-European energy networks.

I endorse the rapporteur's view that it is necessary to reinstate into the proposal before us the provisions providing for the declaration of European interest and the appointment of a European coordinator for such matters.

These measures are essential for properly completing the internal market for gas and electricity, which would guarantee security of supply.

Also in this regard, I wish to highlight the positions expressed on such matters in recent European Councils.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) This is a unique opportunity to show the citizens that we are ready to develop a genuine European energy policy. We must therefore ensure that we have all the necessary instruments and tools to meet this objective.

The trans-European energy networks will foster interconnections, interoperability and the development of energy networks in the enlarged Europe, and in turn stimulate the effective operation of the internal market.

The construction of the future internal gas and electricity market is perhaps the most relevant objective of the proposal for a decision before us.

Furthermore, the aim is to adapt the guidelines to the new shape of a European Union of 25 Member States, allow funding to be earmarked for projects of common interest, enable the internal market in gas and electricity to be completed, and, above all, to guarantee security of supply by means of interconnections between Member States and with neighbouring countries (south-east Europe, Mediterranean countries, Ukraine, Belarus). This approach to trans-European energy networks mirrors the approach followed for trans-European land transport networks.

I therefore voted in favour of the Laperrouze report.

- Kósáné Kovács report (A6-0086/2006)

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Mr President, there is no doubt about the importance of the campaign against undeclared employment as a means of counteracting negative trends in the labour markets, but the free movement of workers – contrary to what was hoped – will not enable us to get a grip on this problem. Those employers who want to get out of paying social security contributions will continue to do so in the future. Something else that is dubious is the way in which more and more businesses are forcing their staff into fictional self-employment as another way of attempting to evade standards on wages and minimum social security provision, and we must stop this development going any further.

Over and over again, we ram home the point that an improvement in the employment situation is essential, but, at the same time, the EU encourages workers to be mobile and more flexible, even though studies have proved that the reality is that new forms of work – such as part-time working – do nothing more than share out a scarcely-changing amount of work around more people. We are not being energetic enough in counteracting these developments, and it is for that reason that I have voted against this report.

  Alexander Lambsdorff (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, the MEPs belonging to the Free Democratic Party did participate in the vote on the report (No A6-0086/2006) on the guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States. We did this out of a desire to express solidarity with our colleagues in promoting our group’s concerns, whilst nevertheless remaining convinced that employment policy is not a matter for the EU, and that this should be dealt with by the Member States rather than by us here in Strasbourg or in Brussels. If the European Union wants to be successful, it must concentrate on its essential functions, in accordance with the subsidiarity principle, which needs, in future, to be taken seriously and adhered to.

  Lena Ek (ALDE), in writing. (SV) In principle I am opposed to this type of report in which, on eminently routine matters within a particular policy area, Parliament repeats already known positions and reaffirms its overall good will. This does not contribute to greater confidence in Parliament, and it legitimises the position of those who want to see ever greater EU intervention even in such areas of policy, in this case employment policy, that should be the province of the individual Member States and be exposed to competition.

I have, however, chosen to vote in favour, and for an important reason: freedom of movement of the labour force. Those decisions that have permitted transitional rules that discriminate against workers in the new Member States are a flagrant departure from the principle of the freedom of movement of labour and an absolutely disgraceful way of acting towards the EU’s new Member States which have been very enthusiastic about joining the EU.

Experience from countries that have had limited transitional rules, or none at all, has emphatically shown that there is no need for such rules and that the ‘invasion’ that certain political leaders had threatened would happen has to no degree materialised. Rather, there is a need to attract more people who want to work instead of putting obstacles in the way of those who wish to do so.

The need clearly to point all this out and clearly to express Parliament’s rejection of any form of extension of such obstacles is, for me, a perfectly good reason for supporting the report.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) Although the Kovacs report on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States, on which we are voting today, raises points relating to equality between men and women and fighting against discrimination, it does not mention what we consider to be the crucial issue, namely that of protecting workers’ rights.

Accordingly, taking account of the National Reform Programmes submitted by the Member States and the measures put forward for complying with these guidelines, we have tabled amendments to the report aimed at making the guidelines more workable and easier to timetable, thus ensuring effective implementation of women's rights, access to high-quality public education and training, the creation of stable jobs with rights, and more public investment in health and housing.

Unfortunately the majority in Parliament rejected our proposals. We were therefore unable to vote in favour of the report, although we do support some of the amendments tabled by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. We therefore abstained from the vote on the report, and voted against the legislative resolution on the employment guidelines, which appear to pave the way for openly liberal economic guidelines.

  Carl Lang (NI), in writing. – (FR) The reports produced by the European Parliament regarding employment and social policies rehash a tiresome vein of European sermonising that, apart from producing a mountain of paper, has had no results at all.

Besides the failure of the Lisbon process, which we see every day, this poorly finished replastering over the guidelines from a decidedly ‘indecisive’ decision by the Council is not going to save employment and the economy in France.

The dish proposed tries to please everyone. It retains the Commission's liberalism, but at the same time states that the European institutions should give themselves greater control over self-governed nations.

To make it more attractive, the whole thing is garnished with good intentions when it comes to protecting the weakest within this monstrous model, which they happily mix up with immigration, and have a history of not putting up with any arguments on this issue.

However, it is precisely on these points that we can find the answer to our problems. If our economy and employment are going to rise like a phoenix from the ashes, we need to put a stop to immigration for the purpose of increasing the population, pursue policies to increase the birth rate, and apply Community preference and protection in Europe and national protection in France.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The guidelines for Member States’ employment policies challenge the EU, rightly in my view, to respond to some of the essential employment issues. Their concerns rightly focus on the question of those excluded from labour markets, such as younger and older people and other similarly marginalised citizens, either in their own countries or in other Member States.

I feel, however, that there is a balance to be struck between challenging Community and national institutions and advocating appropriate, effective solutions. The debate on employment policies has a European dimension that should not be overlooked. This has, in fact, been a constant concern of mine as an MEP, because I feel that reformist synergies need to be created in the European area and that Parliament is one of the most appropriate institutions to achieve this objective.

- Lipietz report (A6-0065/2006)

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The primacy of competition is one of the pillars of the internal market and has underpinned the process of liberalisation and privatisation in key sectors such as energy, transport and communications. This process has been stepped up since 2000 with the adoption of the Lisbon Strategy.

It is clear that what has been implemented thus far has not only failed to bring the promised price reductions, improved access to and quality of services and an end to monopolies; far from it. It has, rather, served to exacerbate unemployment arising from restructuring and mergers of these sectors and the loss of State sovereignty in relation to key areas.

Although the report claims it seeks to combat dominant positions and monopolies, it accepts the guidelines of the Commission report for 2004, focusing on energy and telecommunications, and advocates once again the total liberalisation of the gas and electricity sector, a priority for the March 2006 Spring Council.

Furthermore, in the communications sector, which has already been substantially liberalised, the emphasis is placed on competition in the broadband sector and on the internationalisation of production. This will make it even easier to relocate production or links in the production chain.

We therefore voted against.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) The explanatory statement to Mr Lipietz's report is much more instructive than the report itself, which contents itself with heaping praise on the Commission's 'remarkable' work in hunting down the slightest hindrance to free competition.

The explanatory statement expresses regret at the lack of studies into the real effects of Commission decisions or into the dogmatic application of the rules on State aid. It mentions that the market, in other respects perfectly virtuous, may not be able on its own to achieve certain political and even economic objectives. It suggests that the liberalisation of certain markets has led to the good old public monopolies being replaced by private oligopolies, thus taking away the benefits without creating any added value for consumers. Finally, it emphasises the Commission's total lack of self-criticism when its ill-judged decisions lead to economic disasters, as in the Rhodia affair, for example.

The general impression that comes out, however, is that Brussels' competition policy is the expression of the Commission's ultraliberal doctrine against 'economic patriotism', paradoxically put into practice by a nit-picking bureaucracy that continually interferes in business strategies and national policies. In the context of vicious global competition, that will generate nothing but unemployment.

  Diamanto Manolakou (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) European competition policy has rules and objectives which will destroy small and medium-sized businesses and allow the European monopolies to take over, by financing and privatising them, rather than consumer interests, as you hypocritically maintain.

Moreover, the word 'competitiveness' is synonymous with greater exploitation of the workers, with the massacre of their rights and with reductions in the reward for labour, when contemporary requirements are increasing.

Legislation on competition is at the service of the anti-grass roots Lisbon Strategy and its objective is to control, prevent and shrink any subsidies or state aid to satisfy grass-roots requirements which the workers may have extracted with their struggles.

It is a lie that competition helps to reduce consumer prices. Experience to date has illustrated the opposite: the markets have been shared out, profits have increased for companies and prices have increased for the workers.

Is it not also in the name of competition that young people are being led into sweatshop working conditions which will be extended to all workers? Young people in France are right to protest and we stand by them. They constitute the hope for radical change against the exploitative policies of the EU and the governments, which is why we are with them.

- Hammerstein Mintz report (A6-0056/2006)

  Alexander Stubb (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I would like to say a few words about Hammerstein Mintz’s report and voting behaviour. I do support openness, but I am also in favour of a certain degree of realism. It is perfectly obvious that the Council meetings should be open, but in points 14 and 15 this Parliament voted in favour of the meetings of COREPER, the Permanent Representatives – that is to say the ambassadors of the EU – being open, and those of the Conciliation Committee too. We can certainly insist on this, but one would assume that the Council also has the right to insist that all our group meetings, preparatory meetings and all meetings of the Conference of Presidents should be open. I therefore support openness, but I do not think that it is realistic to insist on openness on the part of COREPER.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of Mr Hammerstein Mintz's report on the openness of meetings of the Council when acting in its legislative capacity. At a time like this, when it is becoming necessary to move towards a political Europe, it is increasingly difficult to understand why the European Council continues to meet behind closed doors when acting in its legislative capacity. Besides the fact that this position is contrary to Article 1(2) of the Treaty on European Union (Maastricht Treaty of 7 February 1992), which lays down the principle of open European decision-making, it also does not provide the openness that our fellow citizens expect from the running of the European institutions. We will never be able to reduce the divide between the European structures and the people by acting this way. Pending the ratification of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, the European Council must, as a matter of urgency, reform its own rules of procedure to anticipate this move towards greater openness in its deliberations when meeting in its legislative capacity, whilst maintaining privacy for exchanges between Heads of State or Government.

  Robert Goebbels (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I abstained from the vote on the openness of Council meetings, because I feel it deals with a false problem. By forcing the Council to work under the scrutiny of the cameras, we will end up with formal exchanges and backroom negotiations. All negotiations require a certain level of confidentiality.

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) We are of the view that the Council’s and Coreper’s meetings must be public when those organisations act in a legislative capacity. This is an important democratic principle if voters are to be able to hold elected representatives accountable.

Unfortunately, the draft report contains a number of points in support of the adoption of the draft Constitutional Treaty rejected in the referenda in France and the Netherlands. We have tried to get the relevant parts removed from the report by requesting separate votes on precisely these points.

Irrespective of the outcome of these votes, we wish however to vote in favour of the report as a whole since reforms relating to openness in the Council’s and Coreper’s work is a priority issue, and we wish to put pressure on the Council to alter its Rules of Procedure. We are, however, strongly opposed to the way in which, in the context of this important issue of openness, the European Parliament’s majority has interfered in the debate on the future of the Constitutional Treaty.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. This report is a result of the European Parliament Ombudsman's inquiry into the openness of the Council. The European Parliament Ombudsman considers that the meetings of the Council, when it acts in its legislative capacity, are not open to the public and the Council's refusal to decide to open up these meetings is an instance of maladministration.

This timely report follows on from the British Presidency's call for greater transparency. Moreover, public opinion polls and statements by NGOs, civil society and the academic world underscore citizens' wishes for increased accountability of their governments regarding EU issues.

I agree it is unacceptable that an important lawmaking body of the EU still meets behind closed doors when acting as a legislator, especially at a time when the EU sees itself as a promoter of democratisation and accountability. I am therefore in favour of public meetings of the Council to be broadcast and webcast, as well as for official transcripts of the legislative meetings to be issued.

The requested amendments to the Council should be regarded as a long overdue adaptation of the Council to the European reality and institutional equality in lawmaking.

  Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE), in writing. I heartily congratulate my Group colleague, Mr Hammerstein Mintz, on this crucial report, as it cuts to the heart of so many of the problems the EU faces today. In Scotland where I come from, as in so many countries the biggest confusion about the EU is the lack of transparency and the feeling that the EU is somehow not accountable; and to my mind all of this stems from the Council of Ministers meeting behind closed doors, often in the dead of night.

For an organisation that talks so much about openness, we see little of it in practice outside of this House, and opening the doors of the Council would go so far towards informing the people of Europe about what is being done in their name. This report is only the start of that process and we must continue to press this crucial issue.

- Cashman report (A6-0052/2006)

  Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) I should like to congratulate Mr Cashman on his important report containing recommendations to the Commission on access to the institutions' texts, to which I lend my backing. I particularly welcome reference to the need for the Commission to submit a legislative proposal on ‘the right of access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, and general principles and limits on grounds of public or private interest governing this right of access’. This proposal must be prepared in interinstitutional debates and must follow detailed recommendations.

We also share the view that the new rules on access to documents should be implemented only after the amended regulation has entered into force, without any retroactive effects.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. Since ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty and entry into force of Article 255 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), transparency has become a fundamental principle of the European Union, the primary aim of which is to strengthen the democratic nature of the European institutions.

This report calls on the Commission to create a legislative proposal on the right of access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. Through this proposal, the report seeks to adhere to the principle of subsidiarity, the fundamental rights of citizens, the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, particularly on Article 8, and Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

I am fully supportive of this report as I believe the EU not only has an obligation to be as open and transparent as possible to its citizens; it also has to take a leading role in setting an example to governments and parliaments of Member States as well as to those of accession and candidate countries.

  Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE), in writing. I congratulate Mr Cashman on this report and was pleased to support it today. The problems many Members have had over access to documents have been an issue all across the House and it is only right that we should be starting to address it here. I only hope we will see the aims of this report backed up by action.

- Papastamkos report (A6-0051/2006)

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Mr President, in the WTO, the EU is under pressure in various areas. On the one hand, we will have to accept certain changes in the interests of combating poverty in the poorest countries, while, at the same time, we are not allowed to be too generous in the unilateral concessions we make. The ACP countries, with their demands for reduced tariffs, risk harm to themselves. Since that surely cannot be what these negotiations are intended to achieve, I have voted against this report.

At the same time, we have to prevent the threatened lifting of the ban on the import of genetically modified materials from being put into effect. The European Union has the chance to accomplish this by acting as a strong community on the international stage. Finally, we also need to resolve without delay the problem with the Chinese imposition of customs duties on motor vehicle components and replacement parts, or else the last car manufacturers will end up leaving Europe and heading for China.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the outstanding report by my colleague and friend Mr Papastamkos on the assessment of the Doha Round following the December 2005 WTO Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong. I feel that economies, and in particular western economies, should support the Doha development programme, which provides for a kind of open and fair trade that is designed to reduce poverty around the world by helping both developing and developed countries to move forward. If we do not do this, there will be a high political price to pay, in particular through the rise of extremism. I welcome the fact that these negotiations have recognised the ability of multilateralism and international trade to create wealth and, in turn, social progress. We will all be able to see how a unified, strong political European Union can play a prominent role on the world stage in this fight against a situation in which national self-interest prevails over weakened international institutions.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) The WTO is now trying to find solutions to problems that would never have existed at all without it and its attempts to force global free trade upon us, regardless of the cost to the people: dumping of all kinds, problems with counterfeiting, access to the market barred to most countries apart from those in the European Union, transparent subsidies (in Europe) or disguised ones (everywhere else, particularly in the United States) that distort competition, and so on. The global market is a jungle in which the weakest, the poorest, are the targeted victims, and the only region that actually respects the rules of the game, Europe, is a collateral victim. In order to support the development of the least-developed countries, we must not integrate them into the WTO, but protect them from it.

Like certain Nobel economics prize-winners, we feel that free trade can only benefit all sides when it is between countries at the same level of development, and that trade between other countries needs to be regulated; this, by the way, does not rule out favourable trade provisions for the developing countries. Neither does it mean that each 'zone' formed in this way needs a common trade policy centralised in the hands of a supranational bureaucracy. In short, free trade is not an end in itself.

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) This own-initiative report sheds light on the EU’s double standards in international trade policy. There is a lot of enthusiastic talk about the need for developing economies to open up their markets to European companies. At the same time, the rapporteur says that EU agriculture has a ‘multifunctional character’, which there is a ‘need to respect’.

We believe that, in the long term, free trade leads to a better world. Account must, however, be taken of different countries’ levels of development. If, at the beginning too of the development process, trade is to have the effect of reducing poverty, the EU must modify its trade policy by abolishing agricultural aid and allowing poor countries to compete on good conditions.

Because the report for the most part contains negative wordings, we voted against it in today’s vote.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) With this resolution, the majority in Parliament has sought to pave the way for the liberalisation of international trade – in the agriculture sector, non-agricultural products and services – in the current round of WTO negotiations, which it is hoped will be concluded by the end of 2006.

The deepening of trade liberalisation – circumventing the current contradictions or weakening the positions that some of the so-called developing countries have hitherto advocated – would have extremely serious consequences for the workers and for people in general.

Take the example of services. By 28 February, either the EU or the USA had submitted applications for the liberalisation of the following sectors: transport (air and sea), audiovisual and culture, information technology, construction, teaching, energy, the environment, telecommunications, distribution, architecture and engineering, postal, financial and legal services.

This means that in relation to these sectors attempts are being made to remove any restrictions to foreign investment, cross-border establishment and provision of services, nationality requirements and limitations on competition.

In other words, attempts are being made to remove mechanisms that are fundamental to less (or more) economically developed States being able to guarantee their development and meet the needs of their people. This will delight the large economic and financial groups in the EU and the USA, in their exploitative, inhuman greed.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. This report on the outcome of the Hong Kong WTO meeting comes at a crucial time, as the negotiations currently hang in the balance. We voted today to send a strong political signal to the negotiating parties, including the EU, to honour commitments to a successful conclusion of this round geared towards the poorest countries, as agreed at Doha.

As Labour's spokesperson on International Trade, I submitted a number of amendments to this report at its committee stage. Then, as now, I called for the exclusion of key public services (including water) from liberalisation drives. On the paragraph relating to NAMA, I called for flexibility in the number and range of coefficients used in formulating tariff cuts, so as to leave adequate policy space for developing countries to choose the rate at which they liberalise. I voted for a similar amendment today.

On agriculture, whilst I agree with the Commission's assessment that negotiations should be pursued in parallel with those of other sectors, I could not vote in favour of calls by some colleagues for the current EU offer to be made conditional and even retractable. I believe the current offer should at least be maintained.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The Papastamkos report on the WTO ministerial conference in Hong Kong has led us to make two remarks. Firstly, it should not be difficult to understand that international trade has tremendous potential to promote development and prosperity. On the one hand, the more commercial transactions, the higher the level of dependency and cooperation between the Member States. On the other hand, the more intense the international trade, the greater the economic prosperity of the various countries, which will help to improve people’s living conditions and to make the world a safer place.

Secondly, the inevitable conclusion is that anyone wishing to see a world with more trade and more fair trade, a world in which the rules are complied with, will almost certainly leave the summit disappointed. As 2006 goes on, we are further and further away from the objective of successfully finishing the round, begun in 2001, by the end of this year. If this aim is to be achieved, however, we need to reach agreement on the advantages of free trade and on the rules to which that free trade needs to be subject.

  Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE), in writing. This report has been amended so much that it was not possible for me to support it, even though I agree with some of the points. The aims of the 'Make Poverty History' campaign and the march in Edinburgh last summer have so comprehensively not been met that it is a sorely missed opportunity. We could have sent a louder, clearer message today to our governments and to the European Commission. Instead we have virtually endorsed the status quo which I do not want to see continue.

  Marc Tarabella (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I should like to explain why I ultimately voted against the report in the final vote.

It was because Amendment 22, which condemned the Commission's insistence on liberalising services within the EU and elsewhere without supporting this with appropriate social and environmental legislation, was rejected.

I fully agree with the fact that no country should be forced to liberalise any service sector and that sectors such as health, water supply, education and audiovisual services in particular must be excluded from liberalisation.

This part of the amendment was narrowly defeated: 291 in favour, 299 against and 20 abstentions. For that reason, I did not want to vote in favour during the final vote.

  Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) Τhe Kommounistiko Komma Elladas voted against the report on the assessment of the Doha Round, because it moves in and repeats the reactionary, anti-grass roots framework of the WTO Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong and the extravagant claims of Euro-unifying capital, as defined and promoted in splendid cooperation with the USA. The objective of the ΕU and the USA during the negotiations which are under way is even greater exploitation of the peoples and the wealth-producing resources of the developed, capitalist countries and even more of the developing and less developed countries.

The ΕU and the USA, together with the other imperialist powers, are proceeding with the selective opening of the markets and the abolition of subsidies for agricultural products, to the detriment of small- and medium-sized farms, so that monopoly capital can penetrate the markets of the developing and less developed countries for full control of industrial products, the provision of services and the extortionate exploitation of water, energy and so forth, in order to maximise its profitability.

- García-Margallo y Marfil report (A6-0077/2006)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the excellent report by my colleague Mr Garcia-Margallo y Marfil on the situation of the European economy as part of the preparatory report on the broad economic policy guidelines for 2006, which underlines the conditions necessary for sustainable economic growth.

This report is vital for a proper understanding of why Europe is one of the areas of the world, particularly of the developed world, where growth is weakest. The excessive red tape that makes our economy less flexible, the fact that we do not have enough world leaders and that our small and medium-sized enterprises are progressing less quickly than those in the United States of America, low unemployment levels and low mean working times, and, finally, weak investment in vocational training, research and development: all of this to a large extent explains the current situation.

In the global economic and social competition with which Europe is faced, it is a matter of urgency for the Member States, via their national reform plans, to work with the European Union to create the conditions for achieving the Lisbon objectives that aim to make Europe the strongest economy in the world.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) Here we have yet another report on the economic situation; yet another reaffirmation of falsehoods; and solutions simply offering more of the same. The economic and social situation remains precarious, with increasing inequality, unacceptable levels of poverty and unemployment, and economic growth remaining slow and unstable.

What we are seeing is the financial side prevailing over the actual economy, whereby the emphasis is placed on the need to inspire confidence via the narrow implementation of monetary policy by the European Central Bank and the Stability and Growth Pact, and on the need to reduce taxes for businesses. These positions are liberalism in its purest form, and we utterly reject them.

What has happened in the name of globalisation? The rights of the workers and social security have been undermined, greater flexibility in labour markets have been imposed (the magical concept of ‘flexicurity’, the CPE (First Employment Contract) in France being a prime example), the increase in the actual and official retirement age has been justified, the liberalisation of the energy sector has been promoted and the liberalisation of services has been called for, thus contributing towards labour deregulation and social and environmental dumping.

This is great news for the economic and financial groups. As usual it is the workers and the least privileged sections of society that have to bear the brunt of the problems.

Hence our vote against.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) Just like every year, the European Parliament's report on the broad economic policy guidelines is, in its observations, a catalogue of truisms and, in its proposals, a list of recommendations that Members on both the left and the right of this Parliament will adopt enthusiastically, but that the parties they belong to are careful not to apply when they are in power in their own countries.

Besides this hypocrisy, I should like to underline three points that I found surprising: there is a complete lack of reference to the European Central Bank's unjustified increases of interest rates, which are contributing to the stagnation of the eurozone; the report views the European Union as a perfectly homogeneous area, made up of countries facing absolutely identical problems, while in fact the situation has become extremely heterogeneous since the last enlargement; and the call for European legislation that is 'compatible with that of our competitors' could constitute an unacceptable call for the lowest common social and environmental denominator.

Even if we did not already consider that it was the policies of Brussels as a whole that were largely responsible for our economic difficulties, these three points would have been enough to justify our 'no' vote.

  Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I did not approve the broad economic policy guidelines, which, for a number of years, have done nothing but endorse the EU's liberal tendencies and are at the root of the weak growth, unemployment, uncertainty for employees and the withdrawal of our social protections.

The report does not support any of the guidelines that would allow an alternative policy: maintenance of purchasing power, revaluation of salaries to revive consumer spending and growth, support for ambitious public investment in modernisation and employment, upward harmonisation of taxation and social standards to combat dumping, and the creation of a real economic government that has weight with the European Central Bank.

  Diamanto Manolakou (GUE/NGL) , in writing. – (EL) The EU broad economic policy guidelines for 2006 include all the anti-grass roots measures which will bring about higher prices and greater inequality, poverty, uncertainty and unhappiness for the working class and grass-roots classes and greater wealth for Euro-unifying capital.

This has been safeguarded in the National Reform Programmes, so that the noose of capitalist barbarity preached in the Lisbon Strategy can throttle the people quickly and with precision.

There are numerous alibis: the ageing of the population in order to increase retirement ages, energy security in order to privatise the energy sector and convert it from a social to a commercial commodity, reduction in deficits as required under the Stability Pact by 'containing' public spending on grass-roots requirements and salary/productivity links in order to safeguard reductions in wages and pensions.

At the same time, we have tax relief and simplified procedures in order to set up companies, flexible forms of work, lifelong training for market requirements and state aid and research at the service of companies, not the needs of society.

It is the new attack by the ΕU on the working class and young people which only a strong mass movement can rebut; only a strong mass movement can open up new paths by putting into practice the huge wealth which is produced and must be reaped by its creators, the workers, not their exploiters.

  Claude Moraes (PSE), in writing. I have supported this report in its intention to alleviate the costs for many of the poorest countries for healthcare and drugs. Whilst I support the intention of Amendment 3 in alleviating these costs, the amendment is inappropriate as it provides for a blanket limit to all patient protection for products related to this field which could distort markets at a global level and potentially harm further development.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) I welcome the thrust of the concerns and recommendations contained in the broad economic policy guidelines for 2006. At this time, the debate should focus on workable decisions aimed at making the economic environment more conducive to growth, jobs, competition, innovation and wealth creation. We should not be wasting our energy on peripheral matters or, equally seriously, on what should be self-evident.

The EU Member States, and their political leaders, have a duty to promote a political environment that is favourable to economic reform. What is urgently needed is discourse characterised by truth, courage and results. We need to be bold and to challenge our societies to invest in the future and in themselves. We need to be capable of creating the necessary conditions for that investment to take place. The future is not necessarily anything to fear. Yet most European governments appear fearful. It is because this report rejects that way of thinking and because it comes across as a challenge to take action with workable objectives and proposals, most of which I agree with, that I have supported it.

  Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM), in writing. I voted against the García-Margallo y Marfil Report because of its support for the Commission's Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base proposal, as stated in paragraph 16. This CCCCTB proposal clearly sets out the path to tax harmonisation, that great but mostly unspoken threat to Irish prosperity. Likewise I am opposed to the Home State Taxation scheme for SMEs.

This harmonisation of taxes is directly opposed to the wishes of the Irish people. If we have a common European corporate tax regime, we will lose one of the greatest factors in maintaining our economic independence and our current state of prosperity. I see this as the thin end of the wedge to force a common European tax policy on Ireland. I have to advise the Irish Government to pay careful attention to this space, where our freedom is threatened, and to defend it most vigorously. It is the refrain from Irish Government circles that: No, there is no plan to harmonise taxes, and if there were, the Irish Government would reject it.

Well, here it is, sticking its nose over the horizon; it's time for you to prove your mettle.

  Peter Skinner (PSE), in writing. Whilst we support the intention of Amendment 3 to alleviate the costs of healthcare and drugs for many of the poorest countries, this amendment is inappropriate as it provides for a blanket limit to all patent protections for products related to this field, which could distort markets at a global level and, potentially, harm further development. These issues are best dealt with at the level of the UN and WHO.

The EPLP maintains its position on the issue of corporate taxation, which is not to support a recalculation of the corporate tax base. Whilst we seek greater coordination of tax authorities in trying to assist SMEs involved in cross-border trade, we acknowledge that this issue remains the competence of the EU Member States.