Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 26 September 2006 - Strasbourg

8. Explanations of vote

- Report: Mavrommatis (A6-0264/2006)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the excellent report by Mr Mavromattis on the important subject of relations between the media and development. Enshrined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948, freedom of expression and information is recognised as a fundamental right. Freedom of the media is essential to the good governance of public or private bodies and contributes to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals of creating a safe, poverty-free world by 2015.

Freedom of the media is essential to access to knowledge and to transparency and it must be entirely independent. It makes a great contribution to combating ignorance, that ancient scourge of humanity, and it prevents corruption. Although I regret that the issue of the responsibility of authors, holders, users and distributors of information has not been better incorporated, I welcome this report’s significant contribution to freedom, peace and democracy in the world.

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) In his report, the rapporteur discusses the important role played by the media in a country’s development. A democracy requires freedom of expression and of the press. Good access to the media for all groups in society is also required if a society is to function well.

There are, however, some elements in the report to which we are strongly opposed. Clearly, we remain solidly behind our view that aid should not be managed at Community level. It is a matter for the Member States. Moreover, the EU should likewise not be carrying out information campaigns within the Member States.

On the whole, however, we believe that the content of the report is sound. We have thus voted in favour of the report in today’s vote.

  Daniel Strož (GUE/NGL), in writing. (CS) I should like to comment on the Mavrommatis report, on which we voted without holding a debate beforehand. Although it offers a series of indisputably interesting ideas and conclusions, the report contains a great deal of empty, superfluous waffle that not only fails to reflect what is actually happening in EU Member States but also fails to contribute towards solving the problems that the Union should be addressing in this area.

I should also like to highlight the fact that in some Member States there are no media that one might remotely call independent or professional. The media in those countries are categorically not a ‘vital and fundamental process for human development’, to quote the words of the report. In the Czech Republic, for example, the media are merely components of the market and clearly an instrument of political manipulation used to misinform the public. It is no secret that the key media in the Czech Republic belong to foreign concerns and that the regional press belongs to a German publishing company.

One characteristic feature of this state of affairs is the marginalisation of, in the main, left-wing opinions, the treatment of whole sections of the population as criminals and pariahs, and the downgrading of the role of journalists to that of mere hired hands, who are forced unquestioningly to respect and defend the editor’s political platform. There are no restrictions applying to editors in respect of the concentration of media power.

The empty lip–service that is paid to ethics and humanity is clearly deeply naive and tantamount to turning a blind eye to the real problems facing the media sector in the EU.

- Report: Beazley (A6-0267/2006)

  Tomáš Zatloukal (PPE-DE). – (CS) I supported the Beazley report on support for initiatives to complement national school curricula providing appropriate support measures to include the European dimension. It is clear that the inclusion of European history, shared cultural heritage and a grasp of European current affairs must go hand in hand with the development of other areas such as support for multilingualism. I welcome the fact that Mr Beazley mentioned the education portal European School net and its activities. I should also like to highlight the eTwinning project, which is charged with linking up educational institutions from different European countries in order to set up joint projects. Over 17 000 European schools have signed up to eTwinning. This own-initiative report is a good way to help Member States incorporate European topics into their education systems.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the excellent report by Mr Beazley on initiatives to complement school curricula providing appropriate support measures to include the European Dimension. In terms of European construction, everybody knows how crucial it is to instil a European culture amongst the citizens, particularly young people: it is essential to the success of the European project in terms of creating a humanist civilisation. In addition to learning languages, the history and geography of the European Union should, together with the arts and citizenship, be disciplines whose European dimension should be brought to the fore. I entirely agree with this report’s suggestions, particularly on involving teachers with incorporating the European dimension into education. I believe that there should be a similar process for universities and for lifelong learning.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) Whereas, on the one hand, we accept that there are differences between and within the Member States as regards the inclusion of the European dimension in education, and that, given the crucial importance of languages, the COMENIUS and LINGUA programmes should be awarded more substantial Community funding, we disagree, on the other hand, that there is a single vision of so-called European history and values.

Each country has its particular characteristics and each people its own history, and yet even this can be viewed from different angles depending on one's perspective.

We feel that Europe’s richness comes from its diversity of its cultures and languages, and this is something that must be preserved. Any standardisation must be avoided.

Accordingly, although the report highlights some positive points as regards language and other skills, following up previous reports and existing Community programmes, we are opposed to any attempt at standardisation to which it might lead. Hence our abstention.

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) The June List has previously pointed out in the European Parliament – and now does so again – that the Member States have sole responsibility for the organisation of teaching and the content of education systems. The European Parliament has previously stated that, amongst other things, it wishes to get involved in language teaching and the adjustment of education systems to areas such as new technology and digitalisation. Now it is the European dimension that is to find its way into curriculums.

How is the European dimension in the common history and cultural heritage of Europe to be defined, however? And by whom?

We must act in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. It is for the Member States themselves to advocate democracy and tolerance in Europe when devising their school curriculums and addressing their citizens. These matters must not be regulated at EU level.

We have therefore voted against this report.

  Timothy Kirkhope (PPE-DE), in writing. This own-initiative report does not seek to interfere with national competences regarding education. Essentially, this report seeks to ask for clarification as to what is the 'European dimension'.

There are a number of programmes that exist for teacher exchanges and for students such as the ERASMUS/SOCRATES programme. However, in the UK there are large numbers of students who are not aware of these opportunities and the UK is falling behind other countries in sending students abroad.

Since the Labour government made GCSE languages non-compulsory, the number of students studying French and German this year alone was 14% less than in the previous year.

Due to the language of the oral amendment which is ambiguous, British Conservatives were not able to accept this report in its entirety.

  Bairbre de Brún and Mary Lou McDonald (GUE/NGL), in writing. Our support for the Beazley report reflects our desire to see a strong emphasis on the teaching of languages to inculcate a culture of multilingualism within our education systems in Ireland. We also believe that all citizens should have access to detailed and unbiased information about the European Union and how it affects their lives.

Sinn Féin's support of the Beazley report (A6-0267/2006) 'The European Dimension of school teaching materials' should not be viewed as an endorsement of an increased role for the European Union in the education system of Member States. Education is a responsibility for each Member State and should remain so.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The debate on the European dimension in schools could easily pass by unnoticed. Yet this is a debate that raises some fundamental issues.

We must not forget that any decisions we take in the area of education will have a decisive impact on future generations, and on their lives and their worldview.

I therefore feel that Mr Beazley’s comments on language skills are extremely apt, and would reiterate that the European Indicator of Language Competence must not give the wrong idea: to foster the widespread learning of just a few European languages would be counterproductive.

It is vital that we promote other European languages outside Europe. This is a treasure trove of knowledge that the whole of Europe should be promoting.

In this regard, we should be following the example of certain countries such as Austria, Spain, Portugal and Slovenia. The European dimension has a well-established place in the education systems of these countries, and people are encouraged to learn European languages.

The European dimension in schools must not be neglected, especially in view of Europe's place in the world, the new challenges of economic growth that we face and the objectives of policies on cooperation with the rest of the world.

  Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE), in writing. I congratulate our rapporteur on his initiative. Education is and must remain a Member State competence. Indeed, we in Scotland control our own education system and have for centuries. However, our rapporteur makes the very fair point that often our youngsters leave school ill-equipped to participate as citizens, and often know little about the EU or other governments which work for them. The steps set out in this report make interesting homework for teachers across the EU.

  Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE), in writing. While I support initiatives to enhance the study of foreign languages, to improve knowledge of the culture and history of the many European countries and to stimulate genuine debate about the nature of the EU, including its many fundamental flaws, I am strongly opposed to measures designed to inculcate support for the EU project of political integration and to construct some false identity of 'European' citizenship. The report confuses these various aspects. I therefore abstained.

- Report: Krahmer (A6-0234/2006)

  Richard Seeber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, it is no doubt true that clean air is a crucial issue for all of us, and we also have to bear in mind the certainty of the expense resulting from poor air quality in Europe being higher than the implementation costs incurred by business and industry, but the derogations and potential extensions contained in the compromise document are too complex and likely to present serious administrative problems, and it is for that reason that the delegation of the Austrian People’s Party has largely rejected these compromises. They also need to be considered in the light of ‘better regulation’, something that they cannot be said to achieve. It is for that reason that the whole package was largely worthy of rejection; we would prefer the Council position.

  Joseph Muscat (PSE). – (MT) My vote with regard to the Krahmer and Corbey reports was in favour of higher levels for the quality of air and for stricter controls in this area. The main motive for my decision is the way Maltese and Gozitan citizens are at present being treated by the country’s authorities. We are in a situation where not only are European standards not being respected, but people are not even being given the information they have a right to if they are to protect their health and the environment. A concrete example of this was the fact that it was only after an intervention on my part that the authorities publicly admitted that European directives regarding emissions from the country’s power-stations were being breached. Moreover, we have reached the stage where the equipment which gauges pollution from the Marsa and Delimara power stations has not been functional for months after it was reportedly hit by lightning. The Maltese daily l-orizzont yesterday revealed that we are still not taking adequate measures, given that the new apparatus has not been purchased yet. This is not acceptable and it is incumbent on the responsible authorities and the European Commission to follow this breach more closely.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Krahmer on the draft legislative resolution, at first reading, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe. This proposed directive is going to replace five different legal instruments and contribute to the ‘better lawmaking’ process, and that is a very positive step. Combating atmospheric pollution is a duty we owe to future generations and, in view of recent developments in science and health issues, it is perfectly natural to revise and simplify the current texts. We must welcome the efforts of transport manufacturers and firms that have applied rules that are sufficiently strict to meet the challenges facing us; not least the health of our fellow citizens. We must ensure that the Member States transpose the rules and apply them rigorously.

  Jens-Peter Bonde (IND/DEM), in writing. (DA) We support common minimum standards for air pollution. The Directive has a solid enough legal basis in Articles 175 and 176, which state that the Member States may retain or adopt provisions with a view to ensuring more extensive protection. However, Article 176 also states that such protection must be notified to the Commission, and must not be in contravention of the treaties. The limit values for air pollution may be in conflict with the internal market, for which reason we do not believe that a directive with Articles 175 and 176 as its legal basis is of itself a sufficient guarantee of the ability of the Member States to retain or adopt provisions with a view to attaining higher levels of protection.

We are nonetheless voting ‘yes’, as we find common minimum standards desirable, and we shall therefore be putting forward proposals during the second reading in Parliament providing a legal basis in the directive to safeguard the right of the Member States to adopt more stringent provisions and to make it clear that they have this right.

  Anne Ferreira (PSE), in writing. – (FR) Clean air for the citizens, their health and their quality of life is a good intention.

Unfortunately, the report which we have just adopted is not up to the task.

This text falls short of World Health Organisation recommendations and lacks the necessary urgency.

PM2.5 are the finest particles and the ones most dangerous to the body; that is why the limit should not be more than 12 micrograms.

Moreover, the implementation periods, extending as they do to 2015, do not reflect the seriousness of the problem and it is unacceptable that there should also be exemptions.

I also deplore the fact that this first reading was the direct result of compromise between the political groups, preventing Parliament from working properly and locking us into a position that falls far short of our political objectives.

Lastly, this report does not reflect the ambitions we have nevertheless clearly expressed in environmental matters, both in the international arena and to the European public.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The high level of air pollution in particular in urban regions and centres in the EU with high population density is, among other factors, responsible for countless respiratory diseases and for causing serious damage to ecosystems. Most at risk are children, the elderly and people living in the most populous cities or close to busy roads.

The pollution limit values put forward in the Commission’s first proposal were a step backward in relation to what was agreed in 1999, that is to say, in Directive 1999/30/EC. In this regard, I particularly wish to highlight fine particulate matter limits (PM2.5), which are very high and which exceed those set by the World Health Organisation.

The proposals tabled by the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left were unfortunately rejected in the debate in Parliament.

Accordingly, the document that has just been adopted is limited in scope, although it does contain some welcome proposals aimed at striking a degree of balance as regards combating pollution, albeit in watered-down form. Hence our abstention.

  Robert Goebbels (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I abstained on the Krahmer report, the main parts of which are impossible for ordinary mortals to understand, including the legislature that is supposed to make the law. If Parliament wants to commit itself to ambient air quality, it should be content to set the broad principles and the general framework, leaving it to the experts to set the limits.

  Vasco Graça Moura (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) Ambient air quality is a vital factor in the health and quality of life of Europe’s citizens.

This proposal is therefore of the highest importance. As part of the drive to simplify environmental legislation, it brings five of the existing provisions on air quality under one single directive. It also proposes more ambitious targets than the existing provisions.

We therefore endorse the introduction of new objectives for PM10 and, above all, the setting of target values for PM2.5, which is considered the most harmful particle matter to human health, but which is yet to be covered by European-level legislation.

We tabled a number of amendments introducing measures such as a five-yearly review of the Directive in order that the most up-to-date scientific findings can be taken on board, air quality guarantees, the exclusion of certain areas that we do not consider relevant because they have little public access or are already subject to proper checks, and, lastly, the simplification of roadside measuring criteria.

The Portuguese Social Democrat MEPs support the Krahmer report, with the above amendments.

  Sebastiano (Nello) Musumeci (UEN), in writing. (IT) The high number of respiratory diseases and of human lives lost due to a high level of air pollution demonstrates the urgent and pressing need for another Community legislative measure on health protection that will further limit emissions that are harmful to humans.

The abnormally high percentages of birth defects in some industrial regions of the European Union are of particular concern.

The case of the Sicilian petrochemicals plants is typical: of the 13 000 babies born between 1992 and 2002, almost 1 000 have heart, limb and digestive tract defects, while the mortality rate among males with stomach cancer is 57% higher than the Italian national average.

In some urban areas, too, such as in the city of Messina, which absorbs traffic day and night in the form of vehicles leaving Sicily bound for the European continent and vice versa, the situation has become unbearable.

The Union for Europe of the Nations Group’s position in favour of the Krahmer report is a further incentive for the fight against air pollution in Europe to be stepped up in the years to come.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Air pollution is a major public health concern. For example, the fine particles given off by some human activities are thought to shorten European life expectancy by around nine months. In Belgium alone, nearly 13 000 people die prematurely every year as a result of particles given off by diesel engines in particular. All these respiratory diseases can be avoided and the legislators ought to send out a simple message: clean air for Europe necessarily means stringent pollution standards.

That is not the message the European Parliament has sent out today by adopting Holger Krahmer’s report on the CAFE directive. I deplore the fact that in a matter of such importance to the public, the impact of pollution on human health, my fellow Members have lacked ambition, seeking in particular not to hit certain industries. I still hope that the European Parliament will rectify the matter at second reading, be more receptive to the arguments of environmental health experts and avoid the pitfall of setting standards that are not as strict as those in force today. With this vote, California has never seemed so far away.

  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE), in writing. (NL) It is positively scandalous that today sees Parliament considerably weakening existing air quality regulations. For the first time, this House is even adopting a weaker position than the Council. Despite this, there is sufficient scientific evidence to suggest that fine dust particles in air pollution account for some 3.6 million lost life years, which translates into 348 000 premature deaths.

By 2020, air pollution caused by ozone and fine dust will cost Europe EUR 189 to 609 billion annually! This House’s position is considerably less ambitious than the recommendations issued by the World Health Organisation, and those levels proved attainable in large cities in industrialised countries. What is worse, Parliament is offering Member States the opportunity of extending the number of calendar days during which the limit value for PM10 dust particles per calendar year can be exceeded from 35 days to 55, which is tantamount to burying your head in the sand. The USA, by issuing an annual limit value of 15 µg/m3 for PM2.5 since 1997, has demonstrated that a stricter approach is feasible. The limit must be attained by 2010 at the latest. The State of California, incidentally, is taking matters even further, for a limit value of 12 µg/m3 has been in force there since 2003. The European Parliament stands by its promise to attain 20 µg/m3 by ... 2015! If the Council does not offer enough in the way of counterweight against this weakening measure, the Commission will have no choice but to withdraw the proposal.

- Report: Ferber (A6-0280/2006)

  Richard James Ashworth (PPE-DE), in writing. British Conservatives note with approval the Court of Auditors' observation that progress has been made with regard to the integrity of the EU accounts. We are dismayed to note, however, that the auditors have indicated that there are continuing weaknesses in supervisory and control systems and we support the rapporteur's opinion that those weaknesses should be addressed as a matter of utmost priority.

With regard to the European Parliament's lease of the Strasbourg parliament buildings, we acknowledge and approve the fact that the report states that the parliament authority behaved correctly but that the City of Strasbourg had failed to act in good faith. However, we believe that the continued occupancy of two seats by the European Parliament represents poor value for money to the European taxpayer and, therefore, we can not support any proposal to purchase the Strasbourg parliament buildings.

For these reasons the British Conservatives have abstained on the final vote on the Ferber report.

  Robert Goebbels (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of discharge, but I abstained on the resolution because the Committee on Budgetary Control insists on mixing issues that are real with those that are not. Parliament cannot change a seat established by treaty simply by adopting a resolution.

The Committee on Budgetary Control has got it all wrong on the question of the rents paid and the purchase price of the buildings in Strasbourg. In a market economy, it is impossible to speak of a fair rent because all rents and all purchase prices are negotiated between the owner and the lessee or the purchaser. Even if the way Strasbourg behaved may be considered discourteous, there was no illegality or misappropriation. That is precisely what some Members and some of the media have claimed, obviously without a shadow of evidence. I wish to disassociate myself from these unsavoury individuals.

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) The June List is of the opinion that discharge should not be granted to the President for the 2004 financial year. There are two main reasons for this.

The first of these is that we believe the leadership of the European Parliament is just as responsible as the city of Strasbourg for the fact that, for years, too much rent has been paid for the premises in Strasbourg. This has cost EU taxpayers large amounts of money, and Parliament should, in this case, take a strong line to ensure that the excess rent is repaid. Since, as things stand, there is still a lack of information as regards the size of the excess payments (see paragraph 19 dash five of the draft report), we also believe that we have still not got to the bottom of this matter.

The second reason is that we believe that the European Parliament as an institution should not be made responsible for the shortfall in the MEPs’ additional pension scheme. The pension rights accruing to MEPs must be linked to the investment performance of their pension fund. That is how it works for ordinary citizens throughout the EU, and MEPs ought not to be given a special luxury perk in this respect.

  Silvana Koch-Mehrin (ALDE), in writing. (DE) The vote on the report on the discharge of the budget for 2004 (European Parliament) was postponed in order to look into the circumstances surrounding the lease of the Strasbourg building. Subsequently, the European Parliament has paid the City of Strasbourg up to EUR 60 million in additional payments, and there is no possibility of compensation for the losses it has suffered.

In addition, a lack of honesty, transparency and decisiveness has been noted. Despite these facts, we should make a decision on purchasing the Strasbourg building. The FDP in the European Parliament is of the opinion that it is wrong for Parliament to purchase the building in Strasbourg, because it would be irresponsible for it to tie itself to Strasbourg for the long term.

We have therefore rejected the corresponding amendments. The FDP supports the establishment of the European Technology Institute in Strasbourg, and advocates a single seat for Parliament in Brussels.

  Kartika Tamara Liotard and Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), in writing. (NL) This report is about more than rubberstamping the bill pertaining to the 2004 financial year. Without Amendment 9, it also gives this House’s Bureau licence to spend the reserve on the purchase of buildings in Strasbourg.

We have nothing against the calculation that shows that a purchase will prove more beneficial in the long run than extending the rental agreement. We would vote in favour if that were the only issue involved. More importantly, it makes a significant contribution to our being able to carry on the monthly part-sessions in Strasbourg in a sustainable manner.

These are now setting us back EUR 200 000 000 or more annually. In September 1999, the Dutch Parliament unanimously spoke out against the European Parliament continuing to sit in two different cities. As a result, the Dutch representatives across all EU bodies were urged to put an end to this practice at the earliest opportunity. That reflects what is being said in the Dutch media and the opinion which the public has held on this matter for years.

Whilst the Netherlands considers the purchase of buildings in Strasbourg as one of this House’s key decisions, the issue, that is concealed in the purchase authorisation, is not addressed separately after this item on the agenda. That is why we will be voting against.

  Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) The chief virtue of the Ferber report is that it ends an argument that has gone on for only too long. That is why I am voting in favour of discharge.

I am not happy about a number of things it says, however. While it is settled that the City of Strasbourg has not committed any legal irregularity, the charge of discourtesy is too convenient an excuse for some Members who simply want to take advantage of the occasion to raise the question of the seat again.

Having followed the matter of the buildings in every detail, it is clear to me that it has been dominated by bad faith. When the European Parliament, whose Members were inadequately informed about a complex legal arrangement, says it was not in the picture about the subletting of the buildings, that is quite simply untrue. It was never the City of Strasbourg’s intention to ‘fleece’ this Assembly.

Finally, the proposed purchase of the three buildings is good news for the European taxpayer.

I am sad to note that the Members’ pension fund has been the subject of unjustified attacks on the principle of ‘slander as much as you like, there will always be something left’.

  Cecilia Malmström and Anders Wijkman (PPE-DE), in writing. (SV) We have today chosen to vote in favour of Mr Ferber’s report on the discharge for implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2004. It has not been possible to confirm that any unlawful activities have taken place in connection with the renting of two of the buildings used by the European Parliament in Strasbourg. At the same time, it seems clear that the principle of ‘sound financial management’, as defined in the Financial Regulation, has not been fully respected.

To buy the current buildings is a good business deal in the long term, from a strictly financial point of view. Despite this, we believe that, given the current situation, it would be desirable to delay such a decision, especially in the light of the fact that Parliament’s twin seats are a much-debated topic. One million EU citizens have signed the citizens’ initiative aimed at ending the travelling circus between Brussels and Strasbourg. We wholeheartedly support the call for Parliament to have a single site, namely Brussels.

The report also deals with important issues such as MEPs’ allowances, secretarial allowances and the voluntary pension scheme. We have chosen not to join the pension scheme. In our opinion, it is unreasonable for European taxpayers to have to help fund a scheme completely regardless of whether it yields profits or not.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) We can only be delighted at the signing of the framework agreement that will allow Parliament to buy the WIC, SDM and IPE3 buildings outright for the sum of EUR 143 125 million. All the same, it will be hard for that agreement to dispel the suspicion and loss of confidence that have marred relations between Strasbourg and Parliament.

There are several lessons to be drawn. First of all, there must be no property transactions involving several players, because that entails highly complex legal and financial arrangements which are contrary to the principles of transparency. Likewise, Parliament’s property policy, and that of all the European institutions, should be thoroughly reviewed and a European Buildings Authority created with clearly defined tasks and powers.

So far as the current debate about a single seat is concerned, it should be pointed out that the relevant reference is still Protocol 12 to the Treaty of Amsterdam and that Parliament therefore has no competence in the matter.

Finally, it seems to me essential that the use of the secretarial assistance allowance should be more transparent and in particular that a statute for our staff should be proposed quickly to regulate working conditions and tax and social security matters. Social Europe starts with us.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The issue of where the seats of the institutions are located is not merely a geographical, logistical or economic issue. When a particular city is chosen as the seat of a Community institution, there are always political factors involved, too, which is totally justified, although it does not follow that any political decision is valid, irrespective of its economic or logistical rationale.

In the case of the European Parliament, the choice of Strasbourg was based on historical factors, but nowadays, in terms of economics and practicality, it is no longer viable. Although this is not the issue at hand, it is worth bearing it in mind.

One might have expected that the City of Strasbourg would pull out all the stops to help Parliament to settle in the city, even by bearing some of the costs, as the rules of hospitality in such circumstances often dictate. However, what we find – or rather, suspect, given that the authorities in question are not helping to clarify matters completely – is that having Parliament in Strasbourg is just a piece of real estate business from which the authorities earn a profit they do not deserve. The lack of good faith, decent hospitality and fairness that this reveals is something we should condemn outright and should be taken into account when decisions are taken as to where Parliament should be located.

  Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE), in writing. I voted against the suggestion that the European Institute of Technology should be sited in Strasbourg, because I think this is a silly idea. The EIT proposals are ongoing from the Commission, and worthy of serious consideration, they should not be used as an excuse for us to solve our own dilemma getting out of Strasbourg. The Parliament should have one site, in Brussels, and the EIT idea should progress further. The two are distinct issues and it is irresponsible to attempt to link them in this way.

  Catherine Stihler (PSE), in writing. The petition of one million signatures to have one seat for the European Parliament in Brussels must be welcomed. As it is the only parliament in the world which has no say over where it sits, the Council of Ministers must, once and for all, put an end to this situation. The people of Europe have spoken. Their voice must be recognised. The European Parliament must have one home and that should be in Brussels.

On a separate issue, I would like to put on the record my opposition to the second pension scheme. As Amendment 5 was rejected, I cannot back the report and will have to vote against it.

  Jeffrey Titford (IND/DEM), in writing. Given that the report describes this Parliament as “the democratic representative body in the EU”, let everyone be clear about just how little it deserves that description.

We do not have debates in this institution, but tightly controlled and orchestrated speaking time, without the opportunity for reply. We simply go through the motions in what is a pale shadow of a parliament.

There can be no better example of this than the one million-signature petition calling for an end to the utterly pointless and grotesquely expensive monthly pilgrimage to Strasbourg. Ignoring this entreaty from the people we are supposed to represent, this Parliament is seriously considering purchasing these buildings and making this bizarre arrangement permanent.

It is all very well for this report to question the City of Strasbourg’s ‘good faith’, but the reality is that this city worked out the best deal it could get for itself. This Parliament tamely signed it, without bothering to verify the terms or attempting to negotiate more favourable conditions. In other words, they saw us coming!

  Helga Trüpel (Verts/ALE), in writing. (DE) We voted in favour of the Ferber report today, even though it forms a basis for the purchase of the Parliament building in Strasbourg. However, our approval does not constitute a prior decision regarding the seat of the European Parliament. Along with more than a million other Europeans, we have supported the OneSeat.eu initiative, and, together with the citizens, we will also continue to advocate relocating Parliament's activities from Strasbourg to Brussels.

  Lars Wohlin (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) There is every reason to criticise some of the European Parliament’s activities. Nonetheless, it has not been possible to prove that any unlawful actions have taken place.

MEPs’ voluntary pension schemes are a form of supplementary pension insurance in addition to the basic MEPs’ pension. Under this system, European taxpayers have to pay for two thirds of all contributions (currently EUR 2 088 per month per MEP who has chosen to join this scheme). The remaining third has until now been paid from MEPs’ secretarial allowance, despite the fact that the Court of Auditors criticised this arrangement as long ago as 1999, stating that contributions should be made on an entirely private basis in order to prevent accusations of ‘public funds being used for private pension contributions’. This remark may in itself be considered peculiar, since the system is based on two thirds of all contributions being made from the EU budget. I believe that the whole system should be phased out as soon as possible.

Moreover, I have voted in favour of those amendments that will prevent Parliament from buying the parliament building in Strasbourg. In the short term, purchase of the building would lead to financial savings, but, in such a case, the aim would have to be to fund the purchase by selling the parliament building in Brussels. The most important thing is for the seat of the EU to be restricted to one site.

- Report: Prets (A6-0255/2006)

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Mr President, study abroad and distance learning are becoming increasingly popular, not least thanks to millions of Euro worth of EU subsidies. On the one hand, this is of great benefit to the students themselves, who gain the opportunity to develop their personal skills in addition to obtaining a specialist qualification, but, on the other hand, domestic universities have increasing numbers of foreign students. However, I find it quite astounding that, in Austria for example, despite the low percentage of the population with degrees, they form such a high proportion of the unemployed. In this connection, it would be worth considering whether we should provide greater support for practical internships abroad, and also extend opportunities for in-service training and distance learning. That is why I voted in favour of the Prets report.

  Tomáš Zatloukal (PPE-DE). – (CS) I backed the report on transnational mobility because of the bearing this activity has on the skills and competences acquired by students, and also because it is an important precondition for the successful implementation of these skills and competences in the workplace. I welcome the fact that the report includes principles that, if properly implemented, will enhance the effectiveness of all kinds of organised mobility in the area of education. Through the Europass, educational institutions and employers will obtain transparent information on the progress and quality of student work experience and specialist practice. The report is a welcome contribution to further support for general and specialist education.

  Christopher Beazley (PPE-DE), in writing. Given the significance of Mrs Prets' report concerning transnational mobility within the Community for education and training purposes, the British Conservative delegation of the EPP-ED Group will vote in favour of the report.

However, the delegation maintains its opposition to the wording 'political integration' referred to in Amendment 3 to Recital 1a (new), as this implies a constitutional settlement in the EU, which does not reflect the current position and which has not received the assent of the 25 Member States.

  Edite Estrela (PSE), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of the Prets report (A6-0255/2006) on the European Charter for Mobility because I am a strong advocate of adopting measures aimed at delivering a significant increase in mobility, which is an integral part of European citizenship.

The European Charter for Mobility should help to raise the overall quality levels of European mobility, develop recognition of periods dedicated to education or vocational training and the recognition of titles, qualifications and social security benefits, and establish mutual trust so as to improve and strengthen cooperation among the authorities, the organisations and all the stakeholders in mobility.

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) The June List is strongly in favour of increased mobility in Europe, particularly within the education and training sector. There are always questions to be asked, however, when officialdom gets hold of a good cause. We are voting in favour of the compromise, but we object to Amendment 47. This amendment makes the following addition: ‘The Charter, in the respective languages of the recipients, should be furnished to all students and persons undergoing training by the authorities, organisations and other stakeholders involved in mobility in countries of origin and host countries, and should be treated as a basic reference framework.’

We believe that it is the responsibility of the individual Member States to perform the tasks they have undertaken to perform.

  Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) I wish to congratulate Mrs Prets on her timely report on the proposal for a recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council on transnational mobility within the Community for education and training purposes: European Quality Charter for Mobility, to which I lend my full backing. I particularly welcome the amendments aimed at encouraging the public authorities in Europe to implement measures to improve mobility in Europe and facilitate the mobility of researchers, students and teachers in the EU.

Mobility in education and vocational training will, above all, help people to feel a sense of belonging to Europe and thus to develop a European awareness. Furthermore, it will provide a boost for European citizenship and for the creation of a society based on knowledge, innovation and entrepreneurship.

  José Albino Silva Peneda (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) When Europe's citizens take to an EU project, it is a sign of the project’s success. This has clearly been the case with the programmes aimed at fostering mobility among students. So many have joined up that people are already referring to the ‘Erasmus generation’, and numbers continue to grow year on year.

Indeed, it is this kind of success that makes one believe in the notion of European citizenship.

That being said, the EU’s political initiative was quickly overtaken by the success of Community programmes. It is now necessary to make up for lost time and adopt a series of measures aimed at removing the last remaining (legal, administrative and financial) obstacles, thereby deriving the maximum benefit from mobility in education and training.

I welcome this report because it advocates the adoption of a European Quality Charter for Mobility, which places the accent not just on increasing mobility but on improving its quality, and, in so doing, developing human resources to the full.

There is no doubt that any improvement in mobility in education and training will help achieve a knowledge-based economy conducive to creating jobs and sustainable development, which are the cornerstones of the Lisbon Strategy.

- Report: Trüpel (A6-0262/2006)

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Mr President, I abstained on the Trüpel report, because the acquisition of so-called key competences presupposes basic skills such as reading, writing, arithmetic and logical, critical thinking. As the PISA study shows, though, we have problems in this area. A high proportion of foreigners in school classes causes major problems in the acquisition of these basic skills.

If we do not soon lay down upper limits for the proportion of foreigners in classes, then those classes will not only continue to suffer from preconditioned conflicts between the various groups and cultures, but also find it increasingly difficult to acquire key competences.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report by Mrs Trüpel on the proposal for a recommendation, at first reading, of the European Parliament and of the Council on key competences for lifelong learning. It is crucial to the European citizens that, through training, they may have a reasonable guarantee of employability in the knowledge-based society defined in the Lisbon Strategy. I am pleased to note that the spirit of enterprise is one of the eight key competences that all Europeans should have available to them. Everybody should be aware that, while qualifications are necessary, they are no longer sufficient and ‘entrepreneurship’ must be instilled. That will be a considerable asset for those people who acquire it as a result of the Member States’ application of this recommendation.

  Christopher Beazley (PPE-DE), in writing. Given the significance of Mrs Trüpel's report concerning key competences for lifelong learning, the British Conservative delegation of the PPE-DE Group will vote in favour of the report.

However, notwithstanding its support overall for the report, with reference to Amendment 1 to Recital 4, the delegation does not agree that the setting of percentage targets for employment levels is an effective exercise in helping to achieve increased employment rates, but is aware that this amendment is merely a restatement of the European Council's position.

  Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) I wish to congratulate Mrs Trüpel on her report on a proposal for a recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council on key competences for lifelong learning, to which I lend my support. I particularly welcome the reference to the need to increase investment in education and training.

I also feel it is very important, in this regard, to offer Europe's citizens the tools needed to adapt to the kind of labour market that is characteristic of a knowledge-based society.

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE), in writing. (SK) Globalisation is increasingly confronting the EU with new challenges, which require that all European citizens constantly improve their knowledge and skills, as well as broader competences, both in their private lives and in their public and professional lives. The need for access to the key competences that constitute the basis of personal development, social inclusion, active citizenship and employment is dictated by the growth of the knowledge-based society in the context of the Lisbon Process and is associated with labour market placement.

For these reasons I have voted for the Trüpel report, including the Commission's recommendations, as it constitutes a European reference instrument for key competences and suggests ways of ensuring access for all European citizens to these competences, by way of lifelong learning. This document makes an important contribution to the attainment of the Lisbon Strategy goals for growth and employment and, in particular, the implementation of the Education and Training 2010 work programme.

  José Albino Silva Peneda (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) Coming, as I do, from a country in which there are still high levels of illiteracy and long-term unemployment, and in which 50% of pupils do not finish secondary education, I supported this report, which puts lifelong learning high on the agenda in the reform of labour markets.

The pressure of globalisation and new technologies has clearly highlighted a number of gaps in a range of key skills, which make it more difficult for workers to adapt to increasingly flexible labour markets.

With the adoption of a European reference framework, this becomes both an upstream action – insofar as it supports educating and training young people to give them the key knowledge they need to start their working lives – and a downstream action, developing and updating the key skills of workers by means of lifelong learning. The action is thus aimed both at acquiring the skills and at developing and subsequently updating those skills.

This initiative forms part of the Lisbon Strategy objectives of investing in growth and employment, and is to be funded by the new generation of Community programmes (2007-2013), such as the European Social Fund, of which lifelong learning is one of the priorities.

I welcome this report as it promotes a modern social policy, taking account of the new realities of the society in which we live and work.

- Report: Corbey (A6-0235/2006)

  Richard Seeber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I support the strategy elaborated by the rapporteur, but I would make two criticisms: first of all, the European strategy on air pollution has no mandatory targets, and it should do; and secondly, the Community should allow the Member States and regions to decide for themselves how to achieve those targets. This freedom of choice is restricted by a huge number of Community provisions: think, for example, of the Infrastructure Costs Directive, which does not allow tolls to be charged for heavy road vehicles in areas where there is serious environmental and air pollution.

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) In her report, the rapporteur discusses the Commission’s thematic strategy on air pollution.

The June List believes that cross-border environmental problems represent an issue that should be dealt with at Community level. Air pollution is an example of just such a problem.

Paragraph 25 calls on the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council to strike an interinstitutional agreement in which they express their dedication to the air quality targets. The June List clearly also wishes to see better legislation, but we believe that this will be difficult to achieve if the legislature and the executive power have agreed in advance which regulations are going to apply in the future. We have therefore voted against the report in today’s vote.

- Report: Hegyi (A6-0233/2006)

  Péter Olajos (PPE-DE). – (HU) Mr President, two-thirds of the population of my country, Hungary, live in cities. They are the ones who are most exposed to environmental damage caused by industry and transport. This in itself is sufficient reason for us to make special efforts to improve the urban environment.

The situation in Budapest is particularly bad, and therefore I considered it important to support this report, although it contains several objectionable elements. Mr Hegyi expects EU standards in quite a few areas which fall exclusively within the sphere of competence of the Member States or of local authorities. I understand his reasons since, like me, he lives in Budapest, where nothing has been done in recent years to improve the quality of the environment.

EU requirements can indeed serve as important incentives, and their observance needs to be monitored strictly. We cannot, however, expect the Union to solve the environmental problems of European cities with standards outlining detailed, specific programmes. This is the task of territorial local authorities, and Strasbourg or Brussels cannot compensate for their failures.

  Edite Estrela (PSE), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of the Hegyi report (A6-0233/2006) on the thematic strategy on the urban environment, because it is vital to boost the overall environmental performance of cities in Europe by reducing bureaucracy, by enhancing the efficiency of environmental policy implementation, and by encouraging long-term environmental planning.

Some 80% of Europe’s citizens live in urban areas, but their needs and interests are often under-represented in the Union’s funds, projects, initiatives and strategies. Consequently, with a view to raising the quality of life of Europe’s city-dwellers, Community law needs to go further, by adopting sustainable urban management and transport plans.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The report that has just been adopted in Parliament has some positive points that we support; for example, the more widespread use of more environmentally-friendly transport, encouragement to use public transport, reduction in the density of construction, more green spaces in urban areas, the renovation of run-down buildings and, more importantly, of historic centres, and better environmental performance of buildings in terms of insulation and the use of renewable energy sources.

It is also important, as the report says, to promote the exchange of best practice at Community level as regards sustainable urban management strategy and planning, and the increased involvement of the citizens in public debates at the planning stage.

Nevertheless, all of this presupposes that increased Community funding has been granted, which unfortunately is not the case. Far from it, in fact; the EU has been introducing more obligations and requirements without creating the appropriate financial resources, which may exacerbate the inequalities between the wealthiest countries and regions and other areas that lag behind.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) Accessibility is a key factor in sustainable development, and, as such, transport is at the core of any debate on urban policy.

Given that there are a number of ideas aimed at solving environmental issues and the congestion that our cities suffer are beset with, I feel that we should be channelling our efforts into addressing the impact on public health and the quality of life, in terms of socio-economic dynamism.

The idea of sustainable urban transport plans is undoubtedly important, yet we must not overlook the need to use this instrument flexibly and in a way that is appropriate to the specific characteristics of each city.

The use of environmentally-friendly means of transport and technologies is a key factor in achieving a cleaner environment. It will only become widespread, however, if local and national authorities exchange experiences and good practice.

It therefore strikes me as clear that in order to foster an integrated approach to urban policy, it is crucial to promote private-public partnerships and to effectively manage existing Community instruments to support urban policy.

Only with measures that are appropriate to the actual situation in each Member State will we be able to deliver a sustainable future for our cities and the harmonious growth of our societies.

  Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), in writing. (SV) I am voting in favour of this report despite the fact that it contains negative points such as, for example, green areas per capita and how music from domestic sources is to be reduced in the urban environment, these clearly being local issues that should be decided at local level. The positives within the report, such as congestion charging, reduced car use and local sustainability plans outweigh the negatives, however, and conservative governments may very well need a push from the EU when it comes to such matters.

That being said, the content of the report ought to remain advisory in nature and not give rise to comprehensive legislation.

  Renate Sommer (PPE-DE), in writing. (DE) As the shadow rapporteur for the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats on the report on the thematic strategy on the urban environment, I called on the members of my group to abstain from the final vote today.

The report tries to destroy the subsidiarity principle.

Nevertheless, I considered it unjustified to completely reject the report, because the majority of it describes existing regulations, calls for the sharing of experience between cities and simply calls on the European Commission to issue guidelines. Particularly in the new Member States, it is absolutely vital to improve the urban environment by means of such measures.

  Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE), in writing. (DE) I abstained from the vote on the report on the thematic strategy on the urban environment.

The report tries to destroy the subsidiarity principle.

Nevertheless, I considered it unjustified to completely reject the report, because the majority of it describes existing regulations, calls for the sharing of experience between cities and simply calls on the European Commission to issue guidelines. Particularly in the new Member States, it is absolutely vital to improve the urban environment by means of such measures.

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE-DE), in writing. (DE) I voted against this report, not because I wish to denigrate Mr Hegy's work, but because subsidiarity is being treated with contempt and the EU and its institutions are interfering in national matters. I do not think that this is justified. This tendency for Europe to continually interfere in the daily lives of its citizens, even when it is not necessary, is one of the primary reasons why people are becoming so disenchanted with Europe.

- Report: Thomas Mann (A6-0248/2006)

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) Given the importance to people seeking to move to other countries of mutual recognition of qualifications between the different EU Member States, a European Qualifications Framework could prove beneficial.

I share the report’s view that the setting of prescriptive criteria for learning pathways or for the duration and location of education and training courses must be rejected. We also welcome the idea that the organisation and validation of lifelong learning are a matter for the Member States and cannot easily be brought within the purview of the EQF.

Yet we must focus on the form in which the EQF is developed, the foundations on which it is based and the objectives that we are seeking to attain.

In this regard, the report contains some contradictions, for example, the attempts to bring the EQF into line with the so-called Bologna process and the so-called Lisbon Strategy, which as we know, is aimed primarily at pandering to the interests of the economic and financial groups. Hence our abstention.

  José Albino Silva Peneda (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) I support this report because I firmly believe that the creation of a European Qualifications Framework (EQF) will make a contribution towards the employability and geographical mobility of the workforce in the EU.

I welcome a European approach such as this because it meets the fresh challenges posed by a knowledge-based society head-on and seeks to address the new requirements of the European labour market. The underlying philosophy of the EQF is, after all, to promote the competitiveness of the European economy and social cohesion, in line with the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy.

I warmly welcome initiatives that will bring to the top of the agenda the citizens’ ability to gain employment, by encouraging professional mobility by means of the recognition, comparability and transferability of professional qualifications in the Community area.

I regret, however, that this initiative does not sufficiently reflect what is actually happening in the labour market and overlooks the importance of vocational training, focusing, instead, mainly on academic training.