Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 5 September 2006 - Strasbourg

10. Explanations of vote

Daul Report (A6-0244/2006)

  Jan Andersson, Anna Hedh, Ewa Hedkvist Petersen, Inger Segelström and Åsa Westlund (PSE), in writing. (SV) We have chosen to abstain. This is because, in our judgment, the proposed aid should not be funded as part of the agricultural budget since it does not have the character of an agricultural subsidy but, rather, constitutes regional aid.

– Stubb Report (A6-0261/2006)

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are many positive aspects in the Stubb report on multilingualism in our institutions. Mr Stubb is absolutely right to emphasise that multilingualism, of which the cost is naturally an important factor, is a political choice to preserve the characteristics of each of our particular identities and to prevent cultural uniformity, which would be the inevitable outcome were one language to dominate.

He should apply the same logic to the slightly higher cost of interpreting in Strasbourg, because the choice of Strasbourg is also a political choice, symbolic of German-French reconciliation.

I should like to take this opportunity to protest once again against the scandal of which non-attached MEPs are the victims. Non-attached MEPs are not afforded the same interpreting and translation resources as MEPs belonging to a group, which is at variance with the Court of Justice ruling. The Bureau has looked into this matter but, almost two years on, has yet to reach any solution. This discriminatory situation must stop.

(Applause)

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) Although respect for the official languages of all Member States is enshrined in the Treaties, repeated attempts have been made to restrict the number of working languages in the EU, with bias always shown towards the languages of the countries with largest populations. Take, for example, the recent case of the ‘European indicator of language competence’, which comprises only English, French, German, Spanish and Italian.

Although this report considers ‘multilingualism’ a ‘key feature’ of the EU, its overarching perspective is one of budgetary restriction, argued on administrative grounds, which may undermine this right enshrined in the Treaties.

We therefore reiterate that we staunchly oppose any attempt to restrict the use of any official (and working) language in the EU based on the idea that spending on interpreting is high.

We also criticise the criteria for deciding the languages to be used in the EU-ACP parliamentary assemblies, which obviate the use of Portuguese. This is discrimination.

Furthermore, we are opposed to the way in which, on the pretext of reducing the budget, the number of interpreters in Parliament, the Commission and the Council is being reduced, attempts are being made to create a single interpreting service and interpreters’ rights in respect of contractual obligations, timetables and working conditions are coming under attack.

  Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE), in writing. Mr President, I support the broad thrust of this report and criticism of inefficiency, though would stress my own commitment to multilingualism in our workings. Yes, it costs money to translate our workings, but it is a crucial component of mutual respect that each language has equal dignity to all others. Of course, it remains open to groups of MEPs to find other ways of working, this already happens and I would expect that process to continue and expand. As an institution we must maintain equal access for all, to do otherwise would undermine our democratic foundations.

  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE), in writing. (NL) Parliament is right in reiterating today that multilingualism reflects the cultural and linguistic diversity within the Union, which must be retained. It is also right to state that citizens are entitled to communicate with the European institutions in all the official languages of the Union.

It also underlines that those elected are entitled to speak in their own language during all official EP meetings. After all, linguistic expertise could never be an additional election criterion. I would take this opportunity to pay tribute to the many hundreds of interpreters who, day in and day out, do an excellent and high-quality job. The fact that all of this costs money is a normal price to pay for European democracy to function properly.

I support the proposals, where possible, to cut down on costs by discouraging very late cancellations and applications. Moreover, the fact that the average interpreting cost in the EP is higher than that in the Council or the Commission is also attributable to our forced monthly move to Strasbourg, where local resources are limited, so that Parliament’s interpreting costs in Strasbourg rise by 13%. We could therefore save money by calling a halt to this absurd monthly relocation.

  Catherine Stihler (PSE), in writing. Multilingualism is an essential part of being able to communicate in the EU institutions. The cost of being able to do this increases because of Strasbourg. To avoid this cost there should be one seat for the European Parliament and that should be in Brussels. The European Parliament is the only parliament in the world which has no say over where it sits. This has to change once and for all.

de Grandes Pascual Report (A6-0184/2006)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the excellent report by Mr de Grandes Pascual on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a seven-year multiannual funding for the action of the European Maritime Safety Agency, providing it with substantial financial resources for carrying out its new duties, which involve: combating accidental or deliberate pollution caused by ships. The Agency’s idea of chartering commercial ships, known as ‘stand-by ships’, which would interrupt their commercial activities in order to be used in the area of an accident, deserves to be tested. Nevertheless, we should carefully examine the interim reports on this system since I wonder whether it might be more effective simply to outsource this security service, which, by nature, will only be needed for one-off incidents. The sums in question are not inconsiderable. The cost of these ‘stand-by ships’ for 2007-2013 represents EUR 134 million of the 154 million granted to the agency. Finally, I unreservedly support the appropriations proposed for the establishment of a satellite imaging service which must support the Member States in their fight against illegal dumping and accidental oil spills.

  Hélène Goudin (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) The June List supports EU cooperation when it comes to cross-border environmental issues. However, we do not believe that additional resources should be allocated to the Maritime Safety Agency. The important activities that the rapporteur proposes be allocated to the Agency can better be taken care of outside the framework of the Agency. The June List is critical of the huge number of agencies, authorities and decentralised bodies that have been set up within the EU. I have thus voted against this report.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) This report places the activities of the Lisbon-based European Maritime Safety Agency within the context of actions aimed at improving maritime safety and preventing pollution caused by ships in the waters of EU Member States.

These activities are defined as being additional to, and in support of, the work done by coastal countries in the fight against, and prevention of, marine pollution. They help to improve the early detection of pollution and to identify the vessels responsible.

The better the public resources given to the different coastal countries for appropriate, rapid and effective intervention, the more effective will be the prevention and combating of marine pollution.

Aside from the other important factors that must be assessed, this report proposes to broaden the scope of the regulation to include not only oil maritime pollution but also any kind of pollution caused by vessels including liquid noxious substances, and this is something we welcome.

The report proposes what it refers to as ‘minimum funding’ for this agency, and the fulfilment of the objectives for which it was set up would be hampered – still further, we would add – if this minimum funding were not forthcoming.

  Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) Given the recent environmental disasters caused by vessel spills, the proposal on which we voted just now is of particular importance.

The measures proposed by the report strike me as the most appropriate way of improving the functioning of the European Maritime Safety Agency. They introduce a new, long-term vision afforded by the fact that the budget is defined for a seven-year period (2007-2013), and provide for the contracting of stand-by ships for combating spills.

Of similar importance is the creation of a new imagery centre, proposed by Parliament, to help identify illegal spills and discharges, which will improve the speed and effectiveness of the response.

This proposal is of particular importance to Portugal, a country with a large Exclusive Economic Area, which hundreds of vessels pass through every day and which has previously suffered from accidental spills and environmental disasters.

  Catherine Stihler (PSE), in writing. Pollution caused by ships is extremely concerning. The proposal to allow ship-to-ship oil transfers in the Firth of Forth is something I have been campaigning strongly against. I have been in constant communication with the European Commission regarding these controversial transfers and it is aware of the strength of local feeling in Fife, as well as the very grave risks to the local environment. They have told me that the transfer of oil between vessels entails a considerable risk of oil being spilt into the sea.

We cannot allow ship-to-ship oil transfers to go ahead. I urge the rapporteur and the Commission to press for an early conclusion to be reached by the sub-committee assessing the risks attached to pollution from hydrocarbons.

Gröner Report (A6-0193/2006).

  Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, I wanted to explain that our objection to Amendment 68 on street children was not to this category per se, but to the categorisation of victims, which is something that the Commissioner emphasised.

Similarly, as regards Amendment 70, we want a 'hotline', not a 'help line'. As this is not clear, we opposed it, even though we agree with the idea of the European telephone line.

What I have just said concerns the amendments to the Gröner report.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report by my colleague, Mrs Gröner, on the draft legislative resolution, at first reading, of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing for the period 2007-2013 the specific programme ‘Fight against violence (Daphne) and drugs prevention and information’. I support Parliament’s initiatives aimed at separating the problem of violence from that of drug use. The European Union must, in a politically visible manner, improve the way it fights all forms of violence, particularly against women, children and adolescents. In the humanist civilisation that we are building, physical, sexual or psychological violence, including the threat of such acts, and the arbitrary deprivation or restriction of freedom, in public or private life, are a violation of the fundamental values of the Union, which include the right to life, to security, to freedom, to dignity and to physical and emotional integrity. It represents an obstacle to the safe, free and fair exercise of citizenship. With regard to the scourge of drugs, if we are not able to prohibit it effectively, I support any programme of prevention and increasing public awareness of this painful problem, particularly amongst the young.

  Carlo Casini (PPE-DE), in writing. – (IT) I abstained in the final vote because of the approval of Amendment 67. Otherwise, the document is acceptable and in many respects excellent, but I cannot consent that the fight against violence towards children be carried out partly through ‘the inclusion of new family models’, or that the European Union should ‘bring added value’ to the actions undertaken by the Member States partly by promoting new family models. In fact, everyday experience and a great deal of psychological and sociological research prove that the greatest violence perpetrated against children is the break-up of their parents' emotional relationships, the stability and certainty of which are assured – I mean to the greatest possible extent – by marriage. It is also well known that children need both a male and a female reference figure. The idea that encouraging homosexual unions and devaluing marriage means fighting to protect children from violence is therefore unacceptable.

  Edite Estrela (PSE), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of the Gröner report on ‘The fight against violence (Daphne)’ (2007/2013), given the need to provide continuity for this successful project in the fight against violence, which continues to affect children, young people and women in Europe and around the world, and to protect the fundamental rights enshrined in the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Preventing and combating violence against children, young people and women, and protecting victims and groups at risk (Daphne III) require a separate programme.

It is necessary to inform, and raise awareness among, the citizens regarding the problem of violence, for example by promoting the European Year against violence against women in 2007. The programme must be given the necessary mechanisms and must work closely with the various NGOs, which have an important role in society in this area.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) We welcome the adoption of our amendment aimed at strengthening the Daphne Programme. With the adoption of this proposal by our group, which I undersigned, the budget for implementing this instrument will rise to EUR 125 million for 2007-2013, from the EUR 116 850 000 provided for in the Gröner report. The rapporteur had proposed that this figure be increased to EUR 120 million, although she also voted in favour of our proposal, which led to its adoption.

Accordingly, the Daphne III programme has a better chance of helping to prevent and combat violence perpetrated against children, young people and women, and to protect victims.

Zero tolerance of violence entails greater political involvement, constant endeavour and consistent action in all Member States.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (PSE), in writing. (PL) All violence, whether physical, psychological or sexual, is a serious infringement of a human being’s right to life, security, freedom and dignity. When directed against the weak, namely children, young people or women, violence is also a serious threat to their physical and mental health.

These actions also have very serious consequences for the psychological and social development of whole families and communities. Unfortunately, violence is still an everyday occurrence in all the Member States of the European Union. So far, the joint action taken to prevent and to speak out about this problem, which has often been marginalised or viewed as shameful, has merely been the first timid step in the fight against violence.

A further programme, Daphne III, with a budget of 115 million euros, aims to prevent and combat violence in all its forms, both in the public and the private sphere. It aims to protect children, young people and women from violence through preventative measures and to provide support and protection for potential victims. In order for the Daphne programme to be successful, it must be visible to the citizens.

In addition to actions such as providing support and assistance to non-governmental organisations, institutions, organisations and associations, we also need to conduct effective campaigns to sensitise public opinion to the problem of violence and in particular to the problem of human trafficking involving women and children for the purpose of sexual exploitation.

Aid does not simply mean short-term actions, but also helping the victims of violence to gain access to the job market, for example, thereby facilitating their efficient integration into society. With this in mind, the initiative for a European Year of Combating Violence Against Women deserves our strong support.

  Hélène Goudin (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) Naturally, the June List wants to play its part in the fight against violence against women, but this report would mean that the EU would have a legal basis from which to interfere in the Member States’ most sensitive areas, namely legislation and preventative measures against violence. The current Member States do not share a common point of view in these areas, while their legal cultures also differ. What is more, this report has been drawn up in a vague way.

Parliament’s proposals contain too many unclear terms whilst at the same time explaining to the Member States how they are to conduct the fight against violence and the oppression of women. A clear example of this is Amendment 14, which would tacitly recognise that certain male groups are more inclined to violent behaviour towards their women than other, prosperous men of different ethnicity. This claim is not backed up either by statistics or references to scientific studies. Parliament’s proposals also fail to take account of the cultural and legal problems that they would cause the Member States.

The June List has thus voted against the report.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. I voted in favour of the successful amendments which call for the setting-up of a Europe-wide child helpline, and to continue the helpdesk service to NGOs. I also voted in favour of the amendment which includes the fight against domestic violence in the Daphne programme.

I welcome the overwhelming vote in favour of the report, and hope that the programme will succeed in strengthening the ongoing fight against violence.

  Timothy Kirkhope (PPE-DE), in writing. I and my British Conservative colleagues abhor all violence perpetrated against women and children. National programmes in this regard should be the primary means of countering this important social problem as national governments and parliaments and local agencies are best placed to have knowledge and understanding of the issues at stake.

While we support many of the sentiments and specific collaborative ideas in this report, we have decided to abstain on the final vote as it calls for the ‘identification of a legal basis for combating violence ... under current European legislation’. This statement and others in the report point to increasing communitarisation, which we do not believe is necessary or desirable as it risks undermining national and local counter-violence strategies.

  Katalin Lévai (PSE), in writing. (HU) First of all I would like to express my support for the position that the struggle on behalf of vulnerable groups continues to require separate consideration and a separate EU programme in the next budget cycle.

I fear that combining this problem – which in itself calls for joint and differentiated treatment – with other areas may endanger concerted and effective action on the part of Europe.

At the same time – partly as a result of past expansion and partly in view of the expansion still to come – one of Europe’s least often addressed social crises is the social protection and integration of the Roma. These groups as a whole already suffer from considerable oppression, but it is the Roma women and children who are particularly in danger, for they are daily exposed to the threat of violence.

The same may be said regarding refugee and migrant women and children, who are also visibly subjected to both external and internal oppression. To illustrate the humanitarian catastrophe linked to illegal migration, it should suffice to say that over a good decade and a half more than 5 000 people lost their lives in the Mediterranean migratory wave, within which, of course, the weakest groups are once again at greatest risk.

I should add that among society’s most marginalised members, the gravest danger is the horror of forced prostitution and sexual coercion, which are often linked to various forms of organised crime such as human trafficking and drug trade.

I am convinced that these various problems can be resolved only through long-term and complex plans of action and European-wide cooperation. I truly believe that the European Parliament will be at the vanguard of such efforts.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I welcome this report, which introduces a programme to prevent and combat violence against children, young people and women and to protect victims and groups at risk.

Physical, sexual and psychological violence against children, young people and women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or private life, should not be tolerated throughout the EU and should be seen as constituting a breach of their right to life, safety, freedom, dignity and physical and emotional integrity. Member States also need to recognise that genital mutilation constitutes a particular form of violence against women with short-term and long-term detrimental effects on their health, and that the main victims are members of minority communities.

In order to achieve the objectives of this report, I agree that clear and credible targets are required, such as halving the number of people who fall victim to violence and human trafficking over the next ten years. I welcome the establishment of a think-tank to provide guidelines to the Commission on the social, cultural and political context as regards the selection of projects and complementary actions which will aid the Daphne II programme significantly.

  Mary Lou McDonald (GUE/NGL), in writing. Violence against women, children and young people is an ever-increasing phenomenon and a fundamental breach of the human rights of some of the most vulnerable sections of our society. I particularly welcome the emphasis in the report on tackling the trafficking of people. Approximately 80% of the victims of such trafficking are women and girls, and up to 50% are minors.

My hope is that this strategy at European level can help assist and support those most at risk from violence.

  Cristiana Muscardini (UEN), in writing. – (IT) The Gröner report and the amendments tabled to it, which pinpoint the need for the fight against violence towards women and children to be more effective, certainly deserves our support and we shall vote for it.

On this occasion, however, Mr President, we want to emphasise that the issue cannot be addressed merely in terms of making funding available for projects designed to combat this enormous problem, but that a culture of respect for the weaker sections of society needs to be developed. That can only be achieved by means of an ongoing, effective information campaign, as well as regulation of the Internet to protect children from the risk of paedophilic and pornographic violence spread through sites that disseminate violent messages and images without any restriction or control.

In this context, I have tabled a written statement (39/2006) to illustrate a new system, based on a differentiated Childkey SIM card, designed to protect children who use the Internet and mobile telephones, because it allows providers to determine whether the user is a minor or an adult and to filter calls, blocking any that are anonymous or undesirable.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Daphne is a nice name for the European programme aimed at combating violence against women and children. It is a programme that will soon be ten years old and that has enjoyed some success, with more than 350 projects funded, mainly through NGOs involved in this field.

Violence against women is a terrible blight. It is alarming that in 2006 adult women still come into the ‘vulnerable people' category. Around the world, one woman in three has been victim of one of the numerous forms of violence. There are a number of weapons at our disposal in the fight against these barbarous acts: draconian legislative measures, zero tolerance, listening to the victims and awareness-raising campaigns.

Children are also affected. The appearance of the PNVD alone, a Dutch political party in favour of child pornography and sexual relations between adults and children, is testimony to the failures of our system and speaks volumes about the reforms that need to be carried out.

In ten years, the Daphne budget has increased fivefold and now totals EUR 25 million per year. This is still not enough in my view to combat this kind of violence, which is all too often trivialised and which affects the most vulnerable, namely women and children.

  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE), in writing. (NL) This proposal for the reinforcement of the Daphne Programme for 2007-2013 deserves our unqualified support. In my own country, we have in recent years, had to deal with many instances of unacceptable physical, sexual and psychological violence perpetrated against children, young people and women.

The recent killing of two innocent young children in Liège turns one’s stomach when one considers those perfidious acts. Organisations such as Child Focus, the European Federation for Missing and Sexually Exploited Children, the European Network of Ombudsmen for Children (ENOC) and the countless national and operational NGOs are doing a great job. Authors such as Chris De Stoop have shown us the coarse reality of human trafficking and forced prostitution. Despite the efforts made, a great deal remains to be done. It is also becoming increasingly clear that more attention will need to go to the situation of street children who not only become the victim of drug and human traffickers, but also suffer from violence and sexual abuse.

Accordingly, the Daphne Programme ensures that Europe is not a far-flung event, but offers concrete help to the weakest in our society. Everyone must continue to fight those who, lacking in any moral scruple, exploit, humiliate and even kill those who are least able to defend themselves. Human dignity must come first.

  Catherine Stihler (PSE), in writing. I would like to praise the rapportuer for her unstinting commitment to campaigning against violence affecting women and children. The Daphne programme provides an important tool in fighting against violence. In Scotland the ‘zero tolerance’ campaign highlighted that as many as one in three women had been affected by domestic violence. We have to do all that we can to condemn violence against women and children. Only by working together can we achieve an end to these crimes.

  Anna Záborská (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) By mistake and inadvertently, I pressed the wrong button of my voting machine. This is why I immediately corrected my final vote in the roll-call on the legislative resolution, using the procedure intended for this purpose. Indeed, it is impossible to vote against a programme which combats violence against woman and children and which promotes the dignity of every human being.

From the start, I have fought in favour of the Commission’s initial proposal being separated into two headings: ‘drug addiction’ and ‘violence against women’. All of us within the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality have every reason to be proud of our work and to congratulate ourselves on our close cooperation on such an essential issue.

Riis-Jørgensen Report (A6-0240/2006)

  Milan Gaľa (PPE-DE). – (SK) The aim of the proposed directive on passenger car taxes presented by the European Commission is to address the significant disparities in car taxation in the EU Member States and the environmental pollution caused by emissions from personal motor vehicles. The European Commission proposes to lift registration fees for passenger cars and replace them with taxes, which would include a CO2 tax element in the tax base.

In Slovakia, however, we do not apply registration fees or annual operating taxes to passenger vehicles. Introduction of the new tax would increase the tax burden on private individuals, besides which the calculation of an annual operating tax on passenger cars based on the level of CO2 emissions may not automatically lead to the purchasing of new, more environmentally friendly cars.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Member States have exclusive competence over tax issues, in line with the subsidiarity principle – which should be observed, I believe, in this case. For this reason, and also because the proposal would introduce a new tax in Slovakia, thereby increasing the tax burden on Slovak citizens, I have abstained from voting on the proposal.

  Jan Andersson, Anna Hedh, Ewa Hedkvist Petersen, Inger Segelström and Åsa Westlund (PSE), in writing. (SV) In matters relating to decisions on taxes, the Member States of the EU have the right of veto. We would see it as a positive thing if the Member States of the EU were able to agree on cooperation in relation to taxation on vehicles that minimises the impact that transport has on the climate and leads to a more efficient internal market.

It may be possible for us to accept registration taxes in the future if they are designed in such a way as to result in clear benefits for the environment.

  John Attard-Montalto (PSE), in writing. I voted in accordance with the PSE Group’s guidelines except for those amendments on which we, the Malta Labour Party MEPs, agreed to vote otherwise. I want to record the following in explanation. Carbon dioxide emissions by cars are more likely to be less voluminous in new cars. Car makers are now conscious of the need to reduce emissions and use the latest technologies. Registration tax when abused by government raises the price of cars exorbitantly. In Malta and Gozo, with the exception of Denmark, car prices are the highest in the EU. Car registration tax should be removed and until such time agreement should be reached on uniformity within the different states. The fee for the annual car licence should be based on the amount of carbon dioxide emissions. Revenues from car-related taxes should be used to improve and sustain car-related infrastructures, mainly road construction, maintenance, parking areas, safety measures and landscaping. Income from car registration in Malta and Gozo is comparatively very high whilst the road infrastructure is the worst in the EU. The problem of carbon dioxide emissions is especially acute in commercial and public transport vehicles.

  Jens-Peter Bonde (IND/DEM), in writing. (DA) I have voted in favour of the report in order to send out an important signal concerning the reorganisation of taxes for the benefit of the environment. Taxes should continue to fall within the national competence, and it is fortunate that a decision concerning Mrs Riis-Jørgensen’s desire to limit tax revenues for welfare services cannot lawfully be taken at EU level.

  Brian Crowley (UEN), in writing. VRT for Ireland is a national tax and setting the rate of taxation is therefore a national competence. The Irish rate of VRT has been sanctioned under EU law. It is not the right of Ireland or any other Member State or indeed the Commission to decide upon the tax policy of Member States.

This report suggests that the abolition of VRT will be good for the Irish consumer. This is not strictly true. Ireland gains EUR 1.15 billion from VRT. If it abolished VRT Irish motorists would have to bear the costs of its abolition by paying a 20 cent increase in the price of petrol or diesel, or an increase from EUR 400 to EUR 900 in their annual motor tax. I do not believe this would be in the interest of Irish motorists.

I can see the benefits of introducing tax incentives to motorists to purchase vehicles with reduced CO2 emissions and improved fuel efficiency. However, it should be up to each Member State to decide how this should be done. Preserving the flexibility of Member States to decide what taxes to apply and at what rates is vital in achieving the social and economic objective of a country.

  Proinsias De Rossa (PSE), in writing. I support both objectives of this proposal for a directive: to improve the functioning of the internal market while also taking the opportunity to achieve dramatic reduction in CO2 emissions. I also believe that the proposals could lead to significant improvement in road safety in that by providing motorists with an opportunity to pay less for new, more environmentally friendly cars, we would encourage the gradual replacement of the car fleet with safer vehicles.

In voting for the Riis-Jorgensen report today I also fully support the much more imaginative environmental demands made in this report. Whereas the European Commission has called for graduated taxes designed to penalise carbon dioxide emissions, the European Parliament calls for the focus to cover all pollutants and fuel efficiency. We need imaginative steps like this if we are to stand any chance of reducing the threat of global warming.

  Jonathan Evans (PPE-DE), in writing. British Conservative MEPs strongly support the objective of improving the natural environment in which we live. In addition to the environmental aspects of the report that we support, we also support the avoidance of British citizens being taxed double when they move abroad and the rights of consumers to benefit from an enhanced single market. Our decision to abstain on the final vote does not imply that we are opposed to the requirement for urgent measures to improve the environment. Many of the measures in the report can be supported, but we are opposed to passing new and additional powers to the European Commission and other European institutions when the same objectives can be achieved at national level.

Importantly, we cannot support the call in this report to give the European Commission tax powers at the expense of national governments and, for this reason, as well as our general opposition to handing more powers to the Commission, we abstained on the final vote.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The Commission’s strategy to harmonise taxes on passenger cars dates back to 2002. The central idea is to abolish vehicle registration tax – known as IA in Portugal – and gradually to replace it with a higher circulation tax, or stamp duty, binding the amount to the CO2 emission. The purpose of this is to penalise car use and to promote free movement in the internal market, encouraging the sale of cars and the replacement of used cars.

We agree that special measures need to be put in place for citizens who move from one Member State to another, but we do not accept the proposed tax harmonisation. Firstly, because of the federal question; this harmonisation undermines the tax sovereignty of the Member States and their political power in the area of transport. Secondly, the binding of the value to CO2 does not take account of the car's cylinder capacity and value. As well as penalising circulation, the tax will ultimately be regressive and will penalise commercial vehicles. Lastly, this strategy affects the value of used cars and the increased competition may have economic and social repercussions.

We cannot therefore accept the objectives contained in this directive.

  Robert Goebbels (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I abstained in the final vote because the votes have not produced a coherent result.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Riis-Jørgensen’s report on car taxation claims to impose a circulation tax based on emissions of pollutants from cars in order to encourage car users to use less polluting vehicles, while ensuring a market for manufacturers that is both more homogeneous and more transparent.

However, this tax only concerns private cars, which represent less than half of the CO2 emissions which are attributable to transport vehicles. Furthermore, the fiscal method does not seem to be the best solution to this problem of pollution, in the light of the prospects for technological development and the option of using standards. To crown everything, this directive will impose new taxes in countries like France, where taxation is already so crushing that car users feel like they are being milked like dairy cows, and also that they are being made into scapegoats.

This Europe, so ingenious at reducing its inhabitants to paupers by means of ultraliberal policies, must avoid multiplying the costs of acquiring and using a private car, since this is a direct attack on the free movement of people – something, incidentally, that it claims to protect.

Quite aside from the fact that we contest the right of the Europe of Brussels to any fiscal competence whatsoever, these considerations lead us to vote against this report.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. I abstained on all of the votes on amendments, and voted against the report in the final vote. I did so because I strongly believe that all powers over taxation, which are currently Member State competences, should remain with Member States.

Specifically, I look forward to the day when an independent Scottish government has the power over revenue-raising through taxation, including car taxation which, in Scotland, must take due account of the fact that car transport is absolutely essential to residents throughout our rural areas.

  Marie Anne Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE), in writing. (FR) Some governments worry about vehicle tax; others worry about maintaining a taxation system full of irregularities.

As regards this draft directive, I would like to emphasise the importance of encouraging a proactive approach. Is it necessary to debate the constricting measures to be adopted in order to slow down climate change?

To make progress, what is needed is to sweep aside the reluctance of the car and petrol lobbies. Environmental tax is a means to help both citizens and the planet itself. If implemented correctly, it will encourage innovation in the transport sectors and it will promote energy economies.

We must also stop the paralysis of our governments. Taxation cannot be the only solution. We must also develop regulations to reduce greenhouse gases. It is essential to make citizens responsible and to develop tools to evaluate our effect on the environment.

The Greens have voted for this project as the first step towards a CO2 tax. This could lead to the construction of an environmental taxation system on a sufficient scale to meet the challenges we face. The Greens want registration tax to be maintained. In Denmark, it has led to the reduction of the car park. The Greens remain sceptical about ‘budget neutrality’ and fear other impositions.

We regret that the European Parliament has not followed the Greens’ amendments requiring Member States to reduce their transport-related CO2 emissions.

  Peter Skinner (PSE), in writing. The EPLP is, in principle, in favour of a link between levels of taxation and our commitments to reducing environmental pollution.

Whilst the EPLP believes that this is an extremely important opinion that raises many relevant points in trying to develop a Europe-wide solution linking to pollution to consumption, the EPLP believes that taxation is a matter of national competence and therefore cannot support aims at harmonising taxation at an EU level to reach these aims without full unanimity. Therefore, the EPLP has abstained from the final vote.

  Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE), in writing. Mr President, as a proud Scottish European I believe passionately that we should work together across our continent where it makes sense, though do not believe it to be the case on matters to do with tax. Where I have much sympathy with the ideas in this report, it is important to consider also whether they should be dealt with at EU level. I believe they should not, so have accordingly abstained on the key provisions of this report which suggest otherwise.

  Catherine Stihler (PSE), in writing. There are a number of points which I disagree with and therefore I had to abstain on this report. Although I agree that we must reduce environmental pollution, I believe that taxation should be dealt with at Member State level.

  Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The Commission proposal to abolish passenger car registration taxes and replace them with enhanced annual circulation taxes is to the detriment of the working and grassroots classes and solely serves the interests and to increase the profits of the automobile industry and of the uniform internal market and to increase the anti-grassroots, indirect taxes levied by the European Union and governments on the pretext of emissions and the Kyoto Protocol.

The so-called reduction in initial prices will be cancelled out by a differentiated pricing policy on the part of the automobile industry and fluctuations in VAT. At the same time, the Member States will replace their revenue from registration taxes with increased annual circulation taxes.

The new underhand tax measure to the detriment of the workers will at the same time impose the principle of pollution tax, given that the criterion for annual passenger car taxes will be their emissions. This measure, which will obviously be ineffective in combating atmospheric pollution, will lead directly to an increase in tax revenue and sales of new cars to replace old cars, thereby putting an even greater burden on the family purse.

We voted against the report because, instead of protecting consumers, the proposed measures strengthen the profits of the automobile industry; instead of protecting the environment, they will put a greater burden on it, with increased numbers of cars, and instead of protecting grassroots income, they will help to fleece it in the name of the stability pact.

  President. That concludes the vote.