Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 5 July 2006 - Strasbourg

6. Explanations of vote

– Report: Brepoels (A6-0222/2006)

  Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The purpose of this proposal is to strengthen the effectiveness of contacts between law-enforcement authorities and to maintain law and order in the different Member States in order to improve the planning of cross-border policing during certain international events.

The report proposes that, in the last quarter of the year, the Council Presidency draw up a list of the international events planned for the following year, along with the assistance that will be required.

The report also proposes that the Presidency produce a review of the assistance provided during the previous year, containing a list of the problems and difficulties experienced by the Member States and recommendations as to how such difficulties can be resolved.

I therefore support the Boepels report and the amendments that she has tabled. This is a justified, welcome report.

The necessary measures must be taken to ensure that security and law and order are maintained during international events attended by large numbers of people from more than one Member State, and that illegal acts may be prevented and combated.

  Gérard Deprez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) We are issuing our opinion today on a proposal for a decision on strengthening cross-border police cooperation with regard to meetings attended by large numbers of people from more than one Member State, including large international sporting events (the football World Cup, the Olympics, cycling tours etc.), but also religious events, State visits or international political meetings or summits.

Experience has clearly shown that cooperation, confidence, proper communication between the police forces involved, the availability of reliable information and good preparation are essential factors in the success of such events, particularly from the point of view of prevention.

The text takes account of each of these elements and specifically lays down the following stages. Before events: annual planning of expected needs. During events: cross-border cooperation and assistance amongst national police forces. Finally, after events: an evaluation and, if necessary, proposals for adapting the European legislation (particularly the Schengen Agreement).

At the moment of the second semi-final of the World Cup, which has so far taken place without any major incident, we must support this text in the hope that that remains the case as often as possible.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The proposal to draw up a list of international events taking place in the EU, attended by citizens from various Member States, requiring high levels of cooperation between the security services of the different Member States raises major concerns as to the real objective of this initiative and the use of this mechanism.

The recent attempts to prevent people from taking part in international events and demonstrations taking place for example alongside European summits, in protest at neoliberal and militarist policies or expressing solidarity with people fighting against imperialism, are very fresh in the mind. This ultimately demonstrates the potential meaning of the ‘provision of cross-border assistance’ between security services for ‘maintaining law and order’ and ‘combating criminal offences’.

This initiative forms part of the securitarianism that the EU is drifting towards, and follows the adoption of other measures which, on the pretext of the so-called ‘fight against terrorism’, undermine the citizens’ rights, freedoms and guarantees.

Our parliamentary group therefore voted against.

  Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) I should like to congratulate Mrs Brepoels on her timely report on the initiative by the Kingdom of the Netherlands with a view to the adoption of a Council Decision on strengthening cross-border police cooperation with regard to meetings attended by large numbers of people from more than one Member State, at which policing is primarily aimed at maintaining law and order and security and preventing and combating criminal offences, which has my full backing. I especially welcome the idea of adding an unanticipated event attended by large numbers of people from more than one Member State to the list submitted to the Council Presidency during the previous year.

A consequence of the free movement of persons is that the EU must think about judicial cooperation in criminal matters, so that an area of freedom, security and justice can be created.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. Good preparation is of vital importance in preventing or containing disasters. It is for that reason that I support the report aimed at making cross-border assistance as effective as possible.

Combating crime and protecting law and order falls essentially within the competence of the Member States. This proposal is solely aimed at improving cooperation between the different Member States in this area by establishing a uniform, transparent and effective framework for the exchange of information. It is primarily aimed at maintaining law and order and security and preventing and combating criminal offences during international events attended by large numbers of people from more than one Member State.

Every year, before 31 January, the Council is to produce a review of international assistance provided during the previous calendar year. The review will comprise an overview of the international events that have taken place, an overview of the assistance provided and received and an overview of the main difficulties observed by the Member States and recommendations as to how such difficulties could be resolved. This will ensure that national police forces work in the most effective way possible.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. (DE) There can be no doubt that the only effective way of combating organised crime and crime tourism is by strengthening cross-border police cooperation. In this connection, the Schengen Information System, or SIS, in particular, seems to have proved itself in everyday policing. Indeed, owing to its speed, many alerts are now being sent only via the SIS and no longer via Interpol.

On the other hand, we now have a juxtaposition of multiple forms of police cooperation: Schengen, Europol, Eurodac, CIS, many forms of bilateral cooperation and now the Prüm Convention, too. This gives rise to the question as to whether we may now be seeing some unnecessary overlaps here, and also whether we may be starting to lose sight of the overall picture. In any case, we must also ensure that sufficient attention is paid to the protection of personal data.

  Athanasios Pafilis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) New measures to strike at the grassroots struggle at national and European level are proposed in the report on the strengthening of cross-border police cooperation at international EU events.

It insultingly provides for a 'calendar of international events' to be held every year in order to programme and organise cooperation between the repressive mechanisms of the ΕU used to combat grassroots movements. Thus preventive repression is being promoted within the framework of the more general imperialist doctrine of preventive war at home and abroad, in the objective of 'protecting' summits and all kinds of international meetings of imperialist organisations from the enemy the people.

The people of Europe have first-hand knowledge of the murderous action of the EU's repressive mechanisms in Gothenburg, in Genoa and in other countries. Every day they have to deal with restrictions on their most fundamental rights and freedoms. The Greek Communist Party voted against the report. It will help to develop a movement of resistance from the working-class and grassroots movement at national and European level to defend grassroots freedoms.

Defiance, disobedience and the abolition in practice of the decisions of the ΕU and governments abolishing vested democratic rights are the right and obligation of the peoples.

– Report: Sommer (A6-0208/2006)

  Glyn Ford (PSE), in writing. I will be voting for this report, but the whole fate of inland waterway vessels in the UK is currently under threat. The UK has a derogation from the Energy Products Directive which allows the country's recreational boat owners to fill up their vessels with red diesel, taxed at 6.44 pence per litre. This derogation is due to expire on 31 December 2006, and in a Communication from the Commission to the Council on 30 June 2006, the Commission indicated it did not believe an extension to this derogation to be justified.

The benefits of ending this derogation are unclear. As leisure boaters' red diesel usage makes up less than 0.05% of the country's diesel consumption, the environmental benefits are essentially negligible. There is no evidence to suggest that the UK derogation affects or skews the internal European market.

Loss of the derogation will put a hobby and an industry at great risk. A survey by the Royal Yachting Association reveals that 54% of boaters 'would or may' be forced to give up boating due to the sudden price rise. The knock-on effects could seriously damage the 30 000 people employed in the boat industry, the 70 000 people whose jobs are supported by marine tourism and the GBP 700 million spent by boaters every year.

The UK requires a final five-year extension to address these issues.

– Report: Stockmann (A6-0212/2006)

  Oldřich Vlasák (PPE-DE). – (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to speak about the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation. This regulation provides for a range of technical provisions that will have a far-reaching impact on safety, which in general terms is to be welcomed. Some regulations on emissions, flight time limitations and administration are inadequate, however, and should be viewed in the broader context. Any moves towards further taxation on fuel or services would limit free competition among new airlines and airports. It should be remembered that in addition to improving safety and the quality of services, we must also ensure that entrepreneurship is facilitated, that bureaucracy is stripped away and that the cost of air transport is cut. Mobility is one of the prerequisites of economic growth and the rising cost of air transport would put us at a competitive disadvantage in the global market.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The majority in Parliament has rejected the amendments that we tabled, which were aimed at protecting workers’ rights and guaranteeing passenger safety. These amendments were as follows:

- No provision in the present regulation can be used or invoked, within the framework of relations between the Member States, to undermine the rights, and the salaries, working conditions, qualifications and training of the various strata of civil aviation personnel;

- a reduction in the flight duty period – a maximum of 160 hours in a period of 28 consecutive days, distributed as evenly as possible throughout this period and a maximum of 40 hours in a seven-day period, with two rest days – so that the flight and cabin crew are able to guarantee safety.

- certification of qualified cabin crew, with an appropriate, valid licence that is accepted by the relevant authority, which certifies that the person concerned has the appropriate qualifications and skills to carry out the duties allocated to them.

We deeply regret this.

  Jörg Leichtfried (PSE), in writing. (DE) I vote in favour of compromise Amendment 1.

As Mr Stockmann has done such a splendid job as rapporteur, I shall be voting in favour of compromise Amendment 1.

I take this amendment to be, among other things, an indication of the very particular need on the part of all parties for safety in the air. The new rules on flying times and rest periods is a milestone in terms of air safety and guarantees a marked enhancement of the safety not only of passengers but also of the crew. It is not only the passengers, but also the whole crew, who stand to benefit from the establishment of uniform standards in all European countries, which will make it possible, even though the number of people who travel by air is constantly increasing, for the same safety standards to apply wherever they do so.

  Seán Ó Neachtain (UEN), in writing. I welcome this report, which has been on the table for six years. One of the main points to be considered is to ensure that pilot fatigue does not endanger flight safety. Given the increased frequency of flights and the huge number of passengers flying nowadays, harmonisation of safety standards at the highest, scientifically supported safety level is imperative, in order to create a level playing field within the enlarged EU. When dealing with this type of legislation, we have to be mindful of its impact upon pilot fatigue. On that basis, I support a medical and scientific evaluation of the impact of such a law two years after this legislation comes into force.

I believe that this report clearly stipulates that this regulation can in no way constitute a legal basis to watering down existing safety protection in Member States.

It is important, in view of safety, that the Commission carries out an assessment of the impact of the regulation on rosters and operating models and, in the event that they are adversely affected, the Commission should carry out an assessment and propose an adjustment of the provisions regarding flight and duty time limitations.

– Report: Seppänen (A6-0174/2006)

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. (DE) Even though the nuclear industry has spent five decades looking for solutions to radioactive waste, we are, in this respect, still at square one. Nuclear waste is transported the length and breadth of Europe in convoys that cost the taxpayer millions, entail a high risk of accidents, and are an ideal target for terrorist attacks.

Risk-free storage over a period of millennia is an impossibility and the idea of it takes the argument about clean and cheap electricity from nuclear power to absurd lengths. All we would be doing would be to burden future generations with the potential dangers from these ticking time-bombs. Our scientists have not, as yet, even succeeded in agreeing among themselves as to what geological conditions are best suited to disposal, and so, for example, we see the desperate attempts at preventing radionuclides from escaping from the former Asse II salt mine in Germany, which are costing over EUR 120 million.

Over the coming years, the taxpayer will be required to invest some EUR 500 billion in the decommissioning of currently operational reactors in Europe; even if the atomic energy industry were to be obliged to bear the costs of storage itself instead of being able to shuffle them off onto the public purse, electricity generated by nuclear power would still be at least 20% more expensive and hence unprofitable. It really is high time that the billions in subsidy that keep this nuclear extravaganza afloat were cut off.

  Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM), in writing. Firstly, I wish to express my support for the efforts of the Community to strengthen the supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste within the EU.

Without a doubt, should it be our priority to ensure that our people are protected against the dangerous affects of nuclear waste.

However, I decided to abstain from the vote because the proposed Council directive does not take into account the dangerous effects of shipments and reprocessing of radioactive waste on nuclear-free Member States like Ireland.

The proposed directive focuses only on Member States who are active participants in the production of nuclear energy. The interests of passive bystanders like Ireland, a country which chose to remain nuclear-free and is not a transit state, are not covered by the proposal.

As a nuclear-free country, Ireland is affected by the waste coming from continental Europe to be reprocessed at Britain’s Sellafield plant. The waste is shipped through the Irish Sea, thus making it the most radioactive body of water in the world.

Ireland’s unique position is not included in the proposal for a directive on the supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste.

– Report: del Castillo Vera (A6-0204/2006)

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) I welcome the fact that Parliament has voted to adopt two proposals in the report, the first aimed at promoting a socially inclusive, knowledge-based society by supporting free, open-source software, and the second highlighting the fact that improved research and innovation policies must contribute to new employment opportunities through sustainable development. I wish to point out that these were proposals that were put forward by our group and to which we put our name during the debate in the relevant committee. We also welcome the focus on lifelong learning and the role of universities in creating and disseminating knowledge, and the attention paid to SMEs.

There are some less welcome points, however, such as intellectual property issues, the report's promotion of entrepreneurship from the early stages of education and the fact that the whole position is broadly based on competitiveness. Hence our abstention.

  Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The March 2000 Lisbon European Council set the objective of the EU becoming the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy by 2010. In 2006, it is a long way from achieving this objective.

I agree with the rapporteur’s proposal for Europe to enhance its performance via the creation, sharing and financing of knowledge.

I should like to highlight the current lack of investment in R&D, the lack of promotion of entrepreneurship with the emphasis on innovation and the lack of political and financial support for lifelong learning and ICT training.

Secondly, Europe is not sharing its knowledge. Major obstacles continue to prevent agents in the sector from working together both within and outside national borders.

Lastly, Europe is not financing knowledge. In this context, Community policy should strengthen programmes such as the CIP (Competitiveness and Innovation Programme) and JEREMIE (Joint European Resources for Micro- to Medium-sized Enterprises) financial instruments.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. The Lisbon Agenda 2000 resolved to make Europe the world’s most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy within ten years. However, the EU still continues to lag behind the US and Japan. I welcome this report, which attempts to improve the EU’s performance in three main areas.

Firstly, through financing and encouraging the creation of new knowledge: this will be facilitated through promoting the spirit of entrepreneurship, providing lifelong learning and ICT training and improving the image of scientific research as a rewarding career path.

Secondly, Europe is failing to share its knowledge. Human resources must be used in an efficient way and improving partnerships must remain at the forefront of European R&D policy-making. Resources must now be focused upon ensuring that the brightest minds are provided with adequate cross-border capital and human resources. Furthermore, organisations who continue to treat women as inferior workers should be named and shamed.

Thirdly, Europe is failing to finance knowledge. It is essential that a large proportion of EU budget resources for financial instruments are aimed at enhancing SME finance and tackling market failures.

Europe must now recognise its faults so that it can fulfil the aims of the Lisbon Agenda.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) Although this is an own-initiative report without legislative impact, the points and concerns that it raises are worthy of my support. The idea that research and innovation should play a central role in the new economic model currently lacking in Europe strikes me as crucial. One must admit, however, that there is a huge gap between the Lisbon goals and reality.

Europe has failed to respond adequately to the evidence that technology and investment in material and human resources in the area of research and innovation are vital components in development and growth, particularly given the current state of affairs in the world economy. This point, which is expressed in the resolution before us, along with a number of other proposals – for example on redefining research and innovation strategies – justifies my vote in favour. Words must now be transformed into action. There will not be a Europe of results without a Europe of investment.

  José Albino Silva Peneda (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour because I feel that the innovation and research sectors are vital components in creating more and better jobs in the EU.

The SMEs play a key role in this context in that they act as a conduit between the universities and the business sector.

The main factors standing in the way of meeting the goals set by the Lisbon Strategy are well known: poor performance by the Member States, fragmentation of the labour markets, inefficient, inadequate use of human resources and reduced mobility of Europe’s workforce.

Accordingly, I regret the fact that the Member States are not lending the necessary political and financial support to the creation of a flexible workforce capable of adapting to the new realities of the labour markets, and that they do not accord their researchers the prestige they deserve.

I am therefore in favour of putting an end to administrative and legal barriers in the way of greater mobility for researchers, and of creating better working conditions, that is to say, an attractive, prestigious ‘single market’ for researchers in order to stem the European brain drain.

I am also in favour of promoting entrepreneurship from the early stages of education, strengthening lifelong learning and actively encouraging the training of workers and the unemployed in new technologies.

– Report: Calabuig Rull (A6-0206/2006)

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) This report contains a number of contradictions.

On the one hand, it gives prominence to negative aspects, including the emphasis on issues of competitiveness and competition, and on measures aimed at industrial restructuring and modernisation, in the face of ‘fierce international competition’, the impact of which we know is terrible.

It also, on the other hand, contains proposals that we tabled in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, including the proposal to call on the Commission to refuse Community aid to companies which, after receiving such support in a Member State, transfer their manufacturing operations to another country without completely fulfilling the agreements entered into with the Member State concerned.

I should also like to highlight the inclusion of the proposal to accord the same weight to the working environment and the health and safety of workers as to ensuring the creation of more and better jobs, and the call for the rights of workers to be protected when manufacturing companies are restructured and hence for the availability of information to be fully guaranteed, for workers’ representative bodies.

Hence our decision to abstain.

  José Albino Silva Peneda (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of this report because I agree that a dynamic and highly competitive industrial sector is a vital prerequisite to improving social standards.

The Commission’s communication gives a detailed overview of the 27 manufacturing sectors and, with sensitivity, combines a range of sectoral actions with cross-sectoral policy initiatives.

Like the rapporteur, I am in favour of developing a coherent, European-level industrial policy that will enable us to meet the challenges of globalisation head on. Although the EU is an economy essentially based on the services sector, it remains an industrial power on the world stage.

It therefore makes perfect sense to develop European-level industrial competitiveness strategies, and to promote European entrepreneurship and corporate social responsibility.

I am convinced that the future of European manufacturing lies in increasing the added value and the quality of products, and in a qualified, flexible workforce.

I also welcome this report as it highlights the importance of increasing the regional concentration of manufacturing. I support close collaboration between regional and national authorities and the economic and social players to draw up local strategy plans targeted at making the best possible use of the primary wealth producing sector and any comparative benefits offered by each region.