Li jmiss 
 Test sħiħ 
Proċedura : 2002/0222(COD)
Ċiklu ta' ħajja waqt sessjoni
Ċikli relatati mad-dokumenti :

Testi mressqa :


Dibattiti :

PV 15/01/2008 - 7
CRE 15/01/2008 - 7

Votazzjonijiet :

PV 16/01/2008 - 4.2
PV 16/01/2008 - 4.4
CRE 16/01/2008 - 4.2
CRE 16/01/2008 - 4.4
Spjegazzjoni tal-votazzjoni
Spjegazzjoni tal-votazzjoni

Testi adottati :


Rapporti verbatim tad-dibattiti
L-Erbgħa, 16 ta' Jannar 2008 - Strasburgu Edizzjoni riveduta

5. Spjegazzjonijiet tal-vot

Oral explanations of vote


- Report: Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf (A6-0508/2007)


  Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE). – Madam President, as someone who has followed, through the Committee on Budgetary Control, a number of the Court of Auditors’ reports concerning misappropriations and fraudulent spending of monies from the agriculture budget, I must say how pleased I am to see this Parliament welcoming new technology in many different ways, especially in this field of agriculture.

I hope that in future years this information – as one of the amendments in this report suggested – can be spread via the internet to all those people across the European Union who would like to see it, especially to the various national audit authorities in each Member State so they can see, for example, if in Greece they are claiming more acreage for olive-producing land than they actually have.

I am also standing up because I want to talk about the Constitutional Treaty. I want to make sure that this House gets a say and that people get a referendum in the future, and that is why I am giving explanations of votes on all reports.


  Syed Kamall (PPE-DE). – Madam President, it may not be obvious why, as a representative of London, I am giving an explanation of vote on a matter concerning farming and the common agricultural policy. But we have to recognise that the common agricultural policy also affects consumers right across the EU in the form of higher prices.

Therefore it is incumbent on all of us to make sure that we are monitoring how taxpayers’ money is spent in a number of areas, including the common agricultural policy.

I understand that, in response to the common agricultural policy management needs, there is considerable need for information on land use, and that is why I think we all welcome the use of better technology. I hope that many of my constituents will benefit in terms of providing that technology.

I also have to agree with my colleague that one of the reasons I am giving an explanation of vote is because the people of Europe and the people of Britain should be given a say on the Constitutional Treaty in the form of a referendum.


  President. − I would like to remind colleagues that we are taking explanations of vote on the reports concerned. If anybody tries to speak about anything else, I am afraid I will stop your speech, in accordance with the Rules.


  Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I will with pleasure speak on the report itself. The Graefe zu Baringdorf report, explaining as it does the new methods to address fraud and agrarian policy under the common agricultural policy (CAP), is dealing with one of the most inefficient, expensive, wasteful, bureaucratic and amoral systems of farm support known to man, and no amount of agro-meteorological gimmickry can rescue it. Extrapolate from the experience of the CAP; infer from it.

Before handing new powers to any organisation, we should first look at how it exercises the powers it already controls. Agriculture has been, since 1960, the European Union’s chief competence. Look at the mess it has made – the ecological destruction, the destruction of surpluses, the poverty inflicted on Africa. Is this the institution that we now want to put in charge of foreign policy, of criminal justice, of defence, and if it is, should we not consult the people in the referendums that we were promised?

The Elder Cato is supposed to have ended every speech, whatever its subject, with the demand that Carthage be destroyed. I shall end mine with the demand that the Lisbon Treaty be put to the people: Pactio Olisipio censenda est!


  Jim Allister (NI). – Madam President, I do not think any of us should be unduly concerned about new technology, but it is important that it is properly used and not abused.

But there is much abuse, particularly in southern Europe in regard to the common agricultural policy, and I trust this technology may do something towards eliminating this. If it does, we could save much more than the EUR 400 that someone complained about when it comes to bringing transparency to voting.

I note that this report talks about remote sensing. Well, I would also say this: if Europe could get a sense of democratic sensing, then it would sense across Europe a great resentment at the shutting out of citizens and the denying to them of the right to express their opinion on the most important matter, namely the matter of how they should be governed.


  Roger Helmer (NI). – Madam President, the common agricultural policy is a leftover from the 20th century. We are seeing more and more demand for agricultural products driven by demographics and biofuels. The idea that we as the European Union should spend a large part of our budget on subsidising agricultural production is, quite simply, out of date and, therefore, there is no reason why we need better technology to do the wrong thing. We should stop doing the wrong thing.

I have to say that I voted in favour of this measure as a loyal Conservative following the whip, but I did so with great reluctance.

In addition, I have to question the right of this House – the democratic legitimacy of this House – to adopt this measure and any other measure given that we reject the verdict of the people on the Lisbon Treaty.


  Nirj Deva (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I sense that this measure of remote sensing would actually be very efficient with regard to cutting out the bureaucracy that some of my farmers in the South East of England have to suffer at present with regard to tagging. If this mechanism is to work properly, I recognise that it would be more efficient in the operation of the extremely inefficient bureaucratic system which we recognise as the CAP. So in that regard, as a loyal Conservative, I followed the whip and supported this measure. However, I recognise that an overhaul of the complete CAP system is long overdue and I call upon our colleagues in this Parliament who recognise the same thing to accelerate that process. I do, however, sense – and I feel – that if we can remote sense cows, why do we not remote sense the people’s views about the referendum?


  Derek Roland Clark (IND/DEM). – Madam President, I am very happy to rise to explain my vote on the Graefe zu Baringdorf report, where I voted against it. I did so because any kind of remote-sensing apparatus is bound to lead to longer-distance surveillance. Where will that end? We do not wish the people of Europe to be surveyed by some kind of remote sensor – cameras in the sky – because that is exactly what the Graefe zu Baringdorf report will lead to by extension.

Is this, we have to ask ourselves, an excuse to give work for the Galileo project, the enormous expense of which, if not used there, would have paid for all the roll-call votes in this House for the next ten years?

If the EU wants to survey anything, let it survey the wishes of the people of Europe and hold a referendum on the new Constitution signed in Lisbon, without delay.


  Godfrey Bloom (IND/DEM). – Madam President, I know you actually share our views on this referendum because I know you personally want one yourself, because it would give legitimacy to this place. But leaving that political difference aside, I – happily – am not a Conservative, therefore I do not have to vote blindly for complete nonsense. I can vote with common sense, and I voted against the Baringdorf report because I find the whole idea of the spy in the sky and satellites deeply distasteful and extremely frightening. I think it can only lead to long-term abuse. It is bound to happen – and I know our lady friend down here, who is all motherhood and apple pie, thinks it is absolutely wonderful – but of course we have got to look at the next generation. I am afraid I have a deep distrust of politicians. If they can abuse a power, they always do, and I see this as being absolutely no different, so I voted against.


  Graham Booth (IND/DEM). – Madam President, I should like to explain why I voted against the report by Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf. The CAP has done nothing but ruin our farming industry in the UK for well over 30 years; we do not want interference from the EU; this will extend their interference yet again. So the reason for voting against it is that we would like to get the powers of running our own agriculture back to Britain. However, there is very little chance of that while we ignore the votes of the people in France and Holland in the referendum that we should be given on the Constitution.


- Report: Kurt Lechner (A6-0504/2007)


  Jan Březina (PPE-DE). – Chtěl bych zdůraznit, že jsem hlasoval pro zprávu o spotřebitelských úvěrech, protože se domnívám, že se ubírá správným směrem. Oceňuji, že jsme zkrotili regulativní nadšení Komise a Rady prosazující detailnější právní úpravu, která je podle mého názoru nežádoucí. Mezi členskými státy totiž existují rozdíly vycházející z odlišných právních tradic a kultur financování a snaha násilně tyto rozdíly smazávat by podle mého názoru k úspěchu nevedla. Je proto dobře, že se Evropský parlament soustředil na základní prvky: principy harmonizace spotřebitelských úvěrů, z nichž bych rád vypíchnul právo na zrušení smlouvy a možnost předčasného splacení bez finanční újmy pro spotřebitele. Stanovení dvoutýdenní prekluzivní lhůty pro jednostranné zrušení smlouvy považuji za nezbytné z hlediska právní jistoty všech zúčastněných subjektů. Zároveň je důležité, že u vázaných úvěrů může tato lhůta na žádost spotřebitele být zkrácena na 3 dny, což spotřebiteli umožní dřív převzít koupený výrobek. Myslím si, že bohatě stačí ustanovení garantující, že předčasné splacení úvěru nemůže být pro spotřebitele poškozující. Toto ustanovení budou státy povinny zpracovat do národních legislativ, takže zájem spotřebitele bude chráněn.


  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). – Dámy a pánové, těší mě, že jsme dnes vpustili do Evropy po šesti letech diskuzí společná úvěrová pravidla. Zvýší se ochrana spotřebitele, a to i přeshraničně, a možná to trochu pomůže snížit nechtěnou zadluženost domácností. Pomoci by měla čtrnáctidenní lhůta pro bezplatné odstoupení od smlouvy a hlavně povinnost dát předem kupujícímu standardizované informace o veškerých nákladech na půjčku. Novinkou je právo na její předčasné splacení. To, co nás nejvíce rozdělovalo, bylo jak zajistit, aby si banky za to neúčtovaly nehorázné poplatky. Jejich výše by měla nyní odpovídat jen skutečným nákladům, ale myslím, že je správné, aby jejich výše byla také omezena s ohledem na zbytkovou hodnotu úvěru tak, jak jsme dnes odhlasovali.


  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE). – Vážená pani predsedníčka, hlasovala som za spoločnú pozíciu Rady zmenenú správou Kurta Lechnera.

Smernica o zmluvách o spotrebiteľskom úvere po viac ako 6-ročnej legislatívnej práci znamená významný krok vpred v ochrane zmluvnej slobody a posilňovania zodpovedného rozhodnutia spotrebiteľa. Je potrebné mať na mysli, že väčší počet predpisov neznamená automaticky vyššiu ochranu spotrebiteľa. Priveľa informácií môže spôsobiť práve u neskúsených spotrebiteľov väčší zmätok a minie sa účelu jednoduchosti a transparentnosti. Navyše sú s nimi spojené aj zvýšené náklady, ktoré v konečnom dôsledku musí znášať spotrebiteľ.

Aj napriek pretrvávajúcemu záujmu predaja na splátky a využívania produktov spotrebiteľského úveru si málokto zo spotrebiteľov uvedomuje riziká, ktoré sú spojené so spotrebiteľským úverom, napríklad že by ho v dôsledku choroby či straty zamestnania nedokázal splácať. Verím, že táto smernica pomôže spotrebiteľom urobiť dobré rozhodnutia na základe rýchleho a jednoduchého porovnania viacerých ponúk domácich aj cezhraničných poskytovateľov.


  Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE). – Madam President, on the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection where this report has been gestating for a long period of time in both readings, it is well known that I have had some severe criticism of it from its early stages where it was confusing new products that are available in one market – such as the UK market, such as mortgages where you can offset your credit balance with the same bank against your mortgage – which under initial proposals would have been banned in this report, to where we have now, after six years, new concerns – even though we have been talking about this report for six years – about the early repayment of credit costs.

This is an amazingly important piece of legislation. It will affect huge numbers of people including anyone that owns a home in my constituency. I was talking about it in a Conservative meeting in the village of Harpole at the house of a man called Michael Orton-Jones who raised it with me personally, about the consumer credit directive and the money-laundering directives that are passed in this House.

We have got to be much more careful in the way that we deal with this sort of very important legislation.


  Syed Kamall (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I represent London, the greatest city in the world, which happens to be home to Europe’s two largest financial districts: firstly, the City of London, which, as we all know, is the pre-eminent financial force in the world, and, secondly, the Docklands – Canary Wharf – which used to trade in all manner of goods all over the world, and now it trades in financial services all over the world.

I think it was that great group of Swedish philosophers who said: ‘Money, money, money, I work all day, I work all night to pay the bills I have to pay, ain’t it sad. But in my dreams I have a plan. I’ll get myself a wealthy man.’

In my case that is not going to be true, because I do not happen to subscribe to that particular taste. But what I will say is that it is important for consumers right across Europe that we continue to look at ways to make it easier to have access to consumer credit, not only for my constituents in London but also for the financial services industry.


  President. − Mr Kamall, I am trying to take this very seriously, but I hope it is not going to degenerate into the radio programme Just a Minute that we know so well in the UK.



  Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE). – Madam President, one minute without repetition, deviation or – what was the other one? Hesitation! Quite so.

Let us start, then, from first principles. Why does the European Union need to have a policy on the harmonisation of consumer credit laws? There seems to me to be a contextual misunderstanding behind this report. Free trade and open markets do not require common laws on every aspect of commercial activity. In fact, if anything, the opposite is true. Free markets depend upon diversity, variety, pluralism and, although a degree of light regulation at national level may sometimes be in order, that does not equate to euro-harmonisation of every aspect of market activity.

This is important because it seems to me that the same conceptual error lies behind the extension of EU jurisdiction in the various fields proposed in the Lisbon Treaty. As in the field of consumer protection, so in the fields of justice and home affairs, foreign affairs, defence and all the rest.

If these areas are to be transferred largely or wholly to Brussels, we ought at least to have the courtesy to consult our constituents first. The Treaty of Lisbon should be put to the people: Pactio Olisipio censenda est!


  Jim Allister (NI). – Madam President, harmonisation, as we all know, has been a primary tool of the EU since its inception. It has reached into every facet of our lives and it is quite clear that it is a strategy – a strategy, of course, to diminish the relevance and the import of national decisions and the ability to take national decisions and thereby diminish national institutions.

So it has been the modus operandi of intensifying European integration and it is something therefore which I come to with quite a hostile attitude. Because fundamentally I believe in the right of Member States to govern within their boundaries that which affects their citizens.

There is one aspect of harmonisation we could help on. We could harmonise giving to the citizens of Europe the right to have their say on the Lisbon Treaty.


  Roger Helmer (NI). – Madam President, I think it is relevant when making an explanation of vote actually to say how we voted. In my case I voted in favour of this measure, again as a loyal Conservative, again following the whip and again, had I been left to make my own decision, I would have voted against it, for the reasons very clearly set out by some of my colleagues, particularly Mr Hannon’s reference to free markets requiring diversity.


  Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I can ask the honourable Member if he can give way to me. I just wondered if he could maybe re-assess his comments because, this being a second reading report, there was a ...

(The President cut off the speaker)


  President. − Sorry, but we will have the explanation of vote from Mr Helmer. Each speaker has one minute in which to give an explanation of vote. Mr Helmer, please continue.


  Roger Helmer (NI). – Madam President, I agree that credit should be a matter for national governments to decide, subject to local custom and practice. The amount of credit taken across borders is not sufficient to justify harmonisation, but may I suggest that the European Union itself is running out of credit with citizens because it refuses to take the necessary action, through referendums, to legitimise itself?


  Nirj Deva (PPE-DE). – Madam President, this reminds me of my days in the House of Commons. If this report in the slightest way could have helped Mr Brown and this inept Labour Government back home not to have had the Northern Rock crisis, if this report had been in any way useful in teaching this Labour Government back home how to run an economy, well, I might have said this report is a good one.

But, being a loyal Conservative I had to support it; I followed the whip. But if we talk about credit, credit means trust, and if the European Union cannot trust its citizens and the citizens of Europe cannot trust the European institutions, is that why we are not going for a referendum? Because we do not trust our citizens to decide in the right way?


  Derek Roland Clark (IND/DEM). – Madam President, I voted in this report in order to help Member States and I therefore pick out these bits: Amendment 46, split vote – Member States’ own laws may not be waived. I voted for that and I am glad to see that I was supported. I voted for Amendment 9, part 1 – extending areas in which an obligation shall not apply. I am sorry to see that failed. I voted for Amendment 29, where it states that compensation must be according to national law. I am sorry to see that failed as well.

I voted, therefore, in order to help Member State governments, but that should not be read to mean that I want a Member State government to interfere in the affairs of finance houses and banks. As my colleague Mr Deva pointed out, they are signally ill-equipped to do so. In the case of Northern Rock, they have spent half the Treasury money on trying to rescue it, and who knows if that is at an end. What we know is at an end are the referendums on the Lisbon Treaty, and that should not be so.


  Graham Booth (IND/DEM). – Madam President, I have a confession to make. I have absolutely no qualifications whatsoever for this job and yet I find myself sitting here helping to make legislation that affects around 400 million people. When I look around the full Chamber, I fear that very many of the Members share my lack of qualifications, looking at the level of debate we seem to get here. The people, the citizens of the Member States, have an enormous amount of intelligence collectively, yet we deny them the right to make their own decisions. In my view, this is in an area that politicians should keep well out of and give the people their own decisions; in particular, please let them have a referendum on the EU Constitution.


- Report: Roberta Angelilli (A6-0520/2007)


  John Attard-Montalto (PSE). – Jiena xtaqt illi nagħmel dawn iż-żewġ kelmiet u nispjega l-mod kif ivvutajt biex niġbed l-attenzjoni ta' l-awtoritajiet f'Malta. Niġbed l-attenzjoni għal żewġ każijiet partikulari. Wieħed, il-każ ta' dak it-tifel Għawdxi, tas-Sur Attard, li laqat il-midja f'dawn l-aħħar sentejn minħabba l-mod kif qiegħed jiġi preġudikat il-missier milli jottjeni l-paternità tiegħu bħala persuna missieru u jġib lil dan l-istess tifel biex jirriżjedi f'pajjiżu, Għawdex. It-tieni, dan l-aħħar kien hemm każ kriminali ta' tifla ta' tlettax-il sena u l-awtoritajiet ma kenux jafu fejn se jibgħatuha; l-ewwel intbagħtet il-ħabs, imbagħad intbagħtet ‘mental institution’. Dan huwa nuqqas kbir. Nirringrazzjak.


  Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE). – Frau Präsidentin! Ich spreche im Namen des ÖVP-Europa-Clubs. Wir haben gegen alle Artikel gestimmt, die das Recht auf sexuelle und reproduktive Gesundheit inkludieren, weil in der Interpretation dieses Textes natürlich auch Schwangerschaftsunterbrechungen zu jedem Zeitpunkt gemeint sein können und wir dagegen sind.

Wir haben für Ziffer 127 gestimmt, die sich auf das Kopftuchverbot bezieht, weil Jugendliche nicht dazu verhalten werden sollen, politische Symbole zu tragen, und weil wir garantieren wollen, dass Wahlfreiheit und Entscheidungsfreiheit für Jugendliche gewährleistet bleiben.

Wir haben auch für Ziffer 116 gestimmt, aber das bedeutet nicht, dass daraus zwingend rechtliche Konsequenzen abzuleiten wären.


  Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I came to this report actually with some trepidation, because I am always aware that many of these reports call for an extension of powers in this place that we do not actually have already.

In my constituency I represent a town called Rothley in Leicestershire, which is where the McCanns live. They have been very active in calling upon this Parliament to be more active in holding registers of missing children and various other matters.

I also represent in the town of Northampton a new charity called ‘KidsAid’ founded by a gentleman called David Mackintosh, who again had strong opinions that most of this report was actually very, very good.

However, as is always the case in this House, political correctness took over, and you look at amendments 162, 163 and 164 and you see how this place tries to extend its powers.

There is a motto which is used around this place: if you do not succeed, redefine success. It is what you have done on the Lisbon Treaty, and I very much hope that the people in my constituency get to have a say on that.


  Syed Kamall (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I rise to offer an explanation of vote on the Angelilli report ‘Towards an EU strategy on the rights of the child’. I note in the explanatory statement that the rapporteur says she ‘wishes to point out that the aim of this report is not to draw up a list of problems to be resolved or rights to be taken into account as a matter of priority’.

I represent a constituency, London, the greatest city in the world, capital of the greatest country in the world, and there are a number of children in my constituency. In fact, I am the father of two children and, as the great philosopher once said, I believe that children are our future. Therefore, it is important that we do take account of the rights of children. But I really have to question whether this should be done at EU level.

Let us look, for example, at whether we want young adolescents to be given information and education on that dirty word ‘sexual and reproductive rights’. I think we should be very careful in looking for local solutions – and give the people of Britain a say on a referendum on the Constitution.


  Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE). – Madam President, Disraeli once replied to a delegation with the phrase ‘to the liberalism that they profess, I prefer the liberties we enjoy, to the rights of man, the rights of Englishmen’.

Our national tradition of rights is not merely different from the European conception of universal entitlements; it is incompatible. We point to specific liberties, ones at specific moments guaranteed in specific charters, whether Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights or in simple statute acts; we do not put our faith in universalist human rights codes interpreted by judges for whom we cannot vote.

I have to say, our tradition has had more success than that pursued by some of the continental states which have taken the universalist path. We have not fallen, as other countries have, either to revolution or to dictatorship. We believe that all rights are residual in the individual.

As Aldous Huxley once put it, ‘liberties are not given, they are taken’. That is why I fundamentally oppose the incorporation of the EU Charter in the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum. The people must be consulted: Pactio Olisipio censenda est!


  Jim Allister (NI). – Madam President, there are serious issues here and there are serious moral issues. Certainly my vote was motivated in great measure by consideration of some of those. I find portions of this report offensive. I find it offensive to take the position that one must impose upon children what someone perceives to be, in their view, the reproductive rights for adolescents that we find in recital L and in paragraphs 162, 163 and 164 etc.

It does seem to me wrong and inappropriate to have foisted upon one society ideological and morally prejudicial values which might be at variance with the established ethical outlook of a particular region. It is that which I fundamentally object to and, as Mr Hannan has said, it is that which the Charter will bring to us more and more. That is why I want my citizens to be able to agree or disagree.


  Roger Helmer (NI). – Madam President, I voted against this measure. For the first time we come to an item where the Conservative whip was a free vote and I took advantage of that freedom.

I agree very much with what my colleagues have already said. This measure contains much that I agree with: it contains a great deal of motherhood and apple pie, and we all agree with motherhood and apple pie.

But, on the other hand, it proposes that we provide sex education for children in order to reduce teenage pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. It is my experience that if you tell children about something and teach them how to do it, the first thing is that they want to go out and do it, and we should not be surprised if they do! We hear far too much about adolescent reproductive rights and not about reproductive responsibilities. We should be more responsible in our approach to children, and it should be exercised by parents and locally.

In conclusion, I believe that, before we go ahead with this, we should have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.


  Nirj Deva (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I am very disappointed by this report and I have to say, taking advantage of the free vote, I voted against much of the report. This report is not about the rights of children. It is about the right of children to have sex and the right of children to have abortions, which I find quite difficult to accept.

But what about the rights of children and their parents to decide the future of Europe, and the future of the Lisbon Treaty, and the future of where we are going? After all, all these institutions are not being built for us – they are being built for our children. Are we going to ask what they and their parents feel and want to say about how Europe is going to develop? No. We shall decide, without any rights being conferred on them to tell themselves or us what their own destiny should be. This is all wrong.



  Frank Vanhecke (NI). – Voorzitter, ik wil alleen noteren dat ik tegen het verslag van collega Angelilli heb gestemd. Uiteraard niet omdat ik tegen kinderrechten zou zijn - verre van dat. Ik vind het zelfs positief dat in het verslag eens een paar taboes van dit Huis zijn gesneuveld, bijvoorbeeld het taboe van het structurele geweld tegen meisjes binnen de islamitische gemeenschap. Er wordt zelfs mijns inziens terecht in het verslag gesteld dat het verplicht dragen van een hoofddoek in de islamitische gemeenschap schadelijk is voor de ontplooiing van meisjes binnen die gemeenschap.

Ik ben het daar allemaal mee eens, maar ik heb tegen dit verslag gestemd, omdat hieruit nogmaals een enorme Europese bemoeizucht blijkt. Ik denk dat al die zaken beter op nationaal niveau kunnen worden geregeld en dat Europa daarmee allemaal niet teveel van doen heeft.

Ik geef een enkel voorbeeld: in dit verslag wordt zeer streng gepleit tegen gevangenisstraffen voor minderjarigen. In míjn land is daarentegen sprake van een grote consensus bij de bevolking om ook minderjarige zware criminelen, waarmee wij geconfronteerd worden, met gevangenisstraffen op betere gedachten te brengen.


- Report: Doris Pack (A6-0502/2007)


  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE-DE). – Vážená pani predsedníčka, vedomosti je potrebné obnovovať počas celého pracovného života, nielen počas rokov strávených v škole.

Vzdelávanie je dôležité kvôli osobnému rastu a lepším možnostiam zamestnania. Ak podniky odhadnú potreby nových kvalifikácií a požiadaviek pracovného trhu, vzdelávanie dospelých sa týmto požiadavkám prispôsobí, čo pomôže prekonať nesúlady na trhu práce. Toto všetko zohľadňuje návrh Komisie na akčný plán pre vzdelávanie dospelých, a preto som ho v hlasovaní podporil. Som za to, aby členské štáty Európskej únie pomohli vzdelávaniu dospelých aktívnymi opatreniami a tým občanov motivovali k vzdelávaniu a zamestnávateľov k poskytovaniu vhodných podmienok pre vzdelávanie. Malo by ísť o ekonomické stimuly v podobe grantov, daňových úľav, príspevkov či spolufinancovania.

Takisto na tento účel je potrebné aktívnejšie využívať štrukturálne fondy a najmä Európsky sociálny fond. Za mimoriadne dôležité pokladám, aby sa do celoživotného vzdelávania zapojili aj starší ľudia, a takto sa mohli uplatniť na trhu práce.


  Toomas Savi (ALDE). – Madam President, I voted in favour of the Pack report, since one of the purposes of lifelong learning is to increase the flexibility of the labour market. For people over 50, which also concerns me, such a policy creates a wider range of opportunities to react to changes in the labour market and adapt to the situation without major repercussions. The report emphasises the positive effect of lifelong learning on social inclusion and employability, which in any case should not be disregarded in an ageing society, for example in my home country, Estonia.


  Agnes Schierhuber (PPE-DE). – Frau Präsidentin! Der Bericht von Frau Pack „Erwachsenenbildung – Man lernt nie aus“ ist meiner Meinung nach eines der wichtigsten Aktionsprogramme der Europäischen Union: die Motivation zur Teilnahme an den Erwachsenenbildungsprogrammen, die Erlernung von Fremdsprachen, die Motivation zum Hochschulabschluss und damit die Chance auf bessere Beschäftigungsmöglichkeiten und damit auch ein besseres Einkommen, sowie die Chance der verbesserten Integration von Zuwanderern. Wichtig ist aber vor allem für die Frauen, dass die entsprechenden Rahmenprogramme zur Kinderbetreuung hier vorhanden sind.

Insbesondere müssen wir auch der Möglichkeit des Wissensaustauschs zwischen den Generationen große Aufmerksamkeit schenken. Daher hat der Europa-Club der österreichischen Volkspartei diesem Bericht gerne zugestimmt.


  Nina Škottová (PPE-DE). – (Začátek vystoupení nebylo slyšet) v úvodu této zprávy o vzdělávání dospělých zcela jasně indikuje pozornost, která je celoživotnímu vzdělávání věnována ve všech institucích Evropské unie. Hromadění dokumentů, pěkných slov, apelů a hlasování pro, jak jsem i já učinila, však nestačí. Motivujme vzdělávací instituce, aby se skutečně koncepčně zapojily do procesu celoživotního vzdělávání. Tento proces nemůže být považován za nějaký přílepek klasického školství, ale měl by se stát součástí vzdělávacích systémů, a to vyžaduje závažné změny. Proto tento proces s sebou ponese v každé zemi výrazné finanční zatížení, které může být limitujícím faktorem rozvoje vzdělávání. Při rozvažování, kam směřovat finance při změnách financování jednotlivých politik EU, by se na tento okruh, a zejména univerzity jako přirozená centra vzdělanosti, nemělo zapomenout.


  Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE). – Madam President, this report is entitled ‘Adult education: it is never too late to learn’. I wish the European Commission and those who want the Lisbon Treaty to go through would learn from that statement themselves.

Adult education is one of the most important parts of the education system. Lifelong learning is something that I think most in this House will agree is a very good thing.

We all had amazing teachers when we were at school and we all remember them. I had a brilliant mathematics teacher who taught me there were three kinds of people: those who can count, and those who cannot.

I had a brilliant science teacher who taught me that radioactive cats had 18 half lives. But the most important thing is, I guess, a phrase that you will recognise, a phrase that the youth of today are using more and more. ‘We don’t need no education; we don’t need no thought control’.

What we are doing with the Lisbon Treaty is putting another ‘brick in the wall’ between the voters who put us here and the European elites who abuse them.


  Syed Kamall (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I should just like to acknowledge how patient you have been during these explanations of vote. Thank you very much for laughing at some of the jokes as well.

You may be aware that I represent London, the greatest city in the world, capital of the greatest country in the world. In London there are a number of educational institutions. I myself went to school in London; I went to the London School of Economics to do my Master’s course.

However, what I would like to say in regard to this particular explanation of vote is that we should not underestimate the role of the further education sector in lifelong learning. In particular, there are some very excellent institutions: Bromley College, with its excellent head, Peter Jones – I would like to put that on record – and Westminster College. We all deserve a say on the referendum on the Constitution.


  President. − I could return the flattery and say that up until now I thought we were doing quite well, but it is beginning to get a little repetitive.


  Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE). – Madam President, may I add my thanks, alongside those to yourself, to your staff and to the interpreters for patience and good humour.

Let me ask what any of this has to do with Brussels? Under what Treaty article, indeed under what possible consideration of common sense is adult learning an EU competence?

Most of us accept that there is a case for multi-state initiatives to deal with plainly cross-border issues; I can accept that argument – or at least an argument for a coordinated European strategy on, let us say, pollution or tariff reduction, perhaps elements of aviation and so on. Although, even here, European coordination does not equate to EU jurisdiction.

But, adult learning? Surely this, of all fields, is one that ought to be determined by national electorates through their own proper democratic mechanisms and procedures.

Why do we always assume that the gentleman in Brussels knows better than the ordinary voter? That same unlovely assumption lies behind the EU Constitution, now called the Lisbon Treaty, and that is why we should put that Treaty to the people: Pactio Olisipio censenda est!


  Jim Allister (NI). – Madam President, there is much of apple pie and motherhood about this report. But the fundamental importance of it is this: it signifies and typifies a belief that Brussels has a right to set agendas and to dictate to Member States how they should prioritise issues and expenditure that quite patently are within their own domain and should be exclusively so, because any region has the right to decide within its limited budget what its priorities are. If adult learning and increased expenditure is a priority, it should be so decided by that region or that nation, not by Brussels and not because of Brussels but because it is right for those circumstances in itself.

We all learn – I have learnt much since I came here in 2004. What I have learnt most is the utter contempt in which the European elite hold their citizens and that is why they are denying the citizens the fundamental right of a vote.


  Roger Helmer (NI). – Madam President, I can tell you that, on this occasion, I voted against the measure, but I also voted in line with the Conservative whip, and this time I did so with a good will because I would have intended to vote against it anyway for the reasons that have been so clearly set out by my friends and colleagues, especially by Mr Hannan and Mr Allister.

This is nothing to do with the European Union. I am in favour of education. I am in favour of adult education. I am absolutely against Brussels deciding how it should be done. Like Mr Hannan, I am unable to work out any basis in the Treaties on which it should be done. We have no legitimacy in terms of the Treaties for passing a measure like this.

We equally have no legitimacy in the face of the rejection of the Constitution in France and in Holland for passing the same measure. We should now have referendums across the European Union on this question.


  Thomas Wise (IND/DEM). – Madam President, on a point of order, could I, being an adult and having had some education, ask Mr Hannon, who has, obviously, greater education than I, what his Latin expression means?


  President. − I am sure he will tell you after we have closed the sitting!


  Nirj Deva (PPE-DE). – Madam President, this has been one of the liveliest debates in this European Parliament since its inception. Had we done this before we might have had the television cameras here and our constituents might find out what we are doing instead of these boring, turgid things we do day in, day out.

Let me now turn to adult learning. It is never too late to learn, it says. This surely is a matter for subsidiarity: it is up to the nation states to decide what their priorities are. It is surely not for the Brussels Commission, surely not for the European Parliament to decide whether adult learning is imperative or not!

But it also says – does it not? – that it is never too late to learn, and surely one of the things we need to learn very fast is that we cannot divide the people of Europe from their decision-makers. We must enjoin them on how we want to run the European Union and, therefore, we must have a referendum.


  Derek Roland Clark (IND/DEM). – Madam President, I voted against this measure and I did so primarily because, you see, I am a schoolmaster. This measure without doubt leads directly, by linkage, to the European Qualifications Framework, which is a hijack. It is going to get people to study at their traditional universities, take their qualifications there, and then overstamp them with a new document with the EU logo, the EU crest, the EU motto, with no reference to the great university or college from which they got their learning. That is a distinct and very terrible denial of a seat of learning – and I make that remark for all the universities of Europe and not just those famous ones in Britain.

To get back to the question of adult learning, I have a suggestion to make to you. Let us by all means encourage adult learning. Give every adult in the EU a copy of the Lisbon Treaty and then ask them to vote on it.


  Graham Booth (IND/DEM). – Madam President, yes, I voted against this report. My explanation is that the UK Independence Party supports the return of the grants system for the UK, and I would like to point out that it is our membership of the EU that caused it to be abolished in England and Wales in the first place. However, it is up to Member States, and not the EU, to decide on tax incentives and cuts for employers who cooperate with adult learning. As with most things, we need less interference from the EU, not more.

As I see that I am very well within my time, may I add that the coming ratification of the European Constitution, despite its rejection in two referendums, is undemocratic, cowardly and illegitimate.


  President. − Time, but not your subject.


  Philip Claeys (NI). – Voorzitter, ik heb tegen het verslag-Pack gestemd. Uiteraard niet omdat ik tegen levenslang leren ben, integendeel: geen zinnig mens kan het grote belang van volwassenenscholing in onze voortdurend evoluerende wereld ontkennen.

Wel vind ik dat Europa, in de eerste plaats de Europese Commissie, zich niet teveel moet bemoeien met een bevoegdheid die aan de lidstaten toebehoort. Dat is niet alleen een kwestie van gezond verstand; het is ook vervat in het subsidiariteitsbeginsel, dat hier altijd wel gehuldigd wordt, maar in de praktijk meer en meer een dode letter blijkt.


- Report: Roberta Angelilli (A6-0520/2007)


  Milan Horáček (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin! Ich möchte eine Stimmerklärung zu dem sehr guten Bericht Angelilli über die EU-Kinderrechtsstrategie abgeben. Besonders wichtig ist die gründliche Behandlung der Themen Kinderprostitution und Sextourismus. Die Opfer solcher Straftaten finden sich auch vor der eigenen Haustür. Im Grenzgebiet von Deutschland, Tschechien und Österreich zum Beispiel stieg die Prostitution von Frauen und zunehmend Kindern nach der Öffnung der Grenzen massiv an. Dennoch wurde dieses Thema auf EU-Ebene lange nicht beachtet.

Zentrale Problematiken der Kinderprostitution wie die Vernetzung der Täter durch das Internet sowie die mangelnde Kooperation bei grenzüberschreitender Überwachung und Strafverfolgung können nur auf europäischer Ebene bekämpft werden. Der Bericht nimmt diese Bereiche auf und bettet sie in die umfassende Strategie ein. Auch wenn gegen den Kindermissbrauch noch vieles getan werden muss, ist dies ein ermutigendes Zeichen.


Written explanations of vote


- Report: Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf (A6-0508/2007)


  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), par écrit. – J’ai voté en faveur de la résolution législative prise sur le rapport de mon collègue allemand Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf et relative à la proposition de règlement portant sur les actions à entreprendre par la Commission européenne, pour la période 2008–2013, par l'intermédiaire des applications de télédétection mises en place dans le cadre de la politique agricole commune.

Je soutiens la proposition que les activités de télédétection doivent être financées par un budget propre et non via le fonds européen agricole de garantie (FEAGA). Même si mes collègues considèrent qu'il vaut mieux s'attacher à améliorer le site internet existant de l'unité agriculture du Centre commun de recherche de l'UE de manière à ce que toutes les données pertinentes collectées dans le cadre de ces recherches puissent être mises librement à la disposition du public, je suis très favorable à la création d'une infrastructure de données spatiales et d'un site informatique tels que le proposent les objectifs de la commission européenne.

Je soutiens les propositions de création d'un inventaire de l'ensemble des données spatiales, des projets de télédétection et d'agro-météorologie, et la consolidation de l'infrastructure et des sites informatiques existants en matière de données spatiales à usage agricole.


  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), por escrito. A Comissão Europeia considera que, para dar resposta às necessidades de gestão da política agrícola comum, interessa dispor de informações sobre a utilização das terras e o estado das terras e das culturas. Por isso apresentou a teledetecção como um método de pesquisa para obter um acesso mais fácil às informações incluídas nos sistemas clássicos de estatísticas e previsões agrícolas.

Nesta proposta teve em conta um projecto-piloto sobre técnicas de teledetecção, ao abrigo da Decisão 1445/2000/CE do Conselho, que se iniciou entretanto. Segundo a Comissão, este projecto permitiu ao sistema agrometeorológico de previsão do rendimento das colheitas e de acompanhamento do estado das terras e das culturas (MARS) alcançar uma fase de desenvolvimento avançado.

Agora, a Comissão propõe a prossecução destas aplicações de teledetecção na agricultura para o período compreendido entre 2008 e 2013 no domínio do acompanhamento dos mercados agrícolas. O projecto seria aplicado a partir de 1 de Janeiro de 2008 por um período de seis anos. As aplicações de teledetecção constituiriam, assim, uma ferramenta ao dispor da Comissão para a execução e o acompanhamento da política agrícola comum, embora com informações que podem ser úteis para os Estados-Membros.

A questão que se coloca é saber como vai ser utilizado e a quem serve. Daí a nossa abstenção.


  Duarte Freitas (PPE-DE), por escrito. Não deixando de concordar, em traços gerais, com a proposta da Comissão Europeia, voto favoravelmente o relatório Graefe zu Baringdorf uma vez que este introduz algumas considerações pertinentes.

Compreendo, por exemplo, a preocupação do relator relativa à impossibilidade de comparação dos dados entre Estados-Membros diferentes devido a uma diferente frequência de análises.

Aprovo ainda a proposta de criação de um inventário e a consolidação da infraestrutura de dados espaciais e respectivos websites, assim como o melhoramento do website da Unidade de Agricultura no sentido de tornar públicos os dados.


  Hélène Goudin och Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), skriftlig. − Vi röstar nej till detta betänkande, då Europaparlamentets jordbruksutskott i vanlig ordning lagt fram ändringsförslag som syftar till att mer pengar ska tillföras jordbrukspolitiken ur EU:s budget. I ändringsförslag 4 från jordbruksutskottet föreslås att 9,2 miljoner euro ska upprättas i en egen budget i stället för via Europeiska garantifonden. Vi kan inte tolka det som något annat än att man är ute efter budgetökningar.


  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report. I feel that the prolongation of any proposal seeking to contribute to making the Common Agricultural Policy more precise in its distribution can only be a positive step to ensure a fair deal for Scottish farmers. The ability to more accurately estimate yields and make related information more freely available will allow for the improvement of a policy that so far lacks an image of fairness, transparency and environmental sensitivity.


- Report: Gurt Lechner (A6-0504/2007)


  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), par écrit. – Sur la base de l’excellent rapport de mon collègue allemand Kurt Lechner, j’approuve l’adoption par le Parlement européen, en 2ème lecture de la procédure de codécision, d’une résolution législative relative à la position commune du Conseil en vue de l’adoption de la directive concernant l’harmonisation des dispositions législatives, réglementaires et administratives des Etats membres en matière de crédit aux consommateurs et remplaçant le cadre communautaire de 1987 modifié à deux reprises. Je salue la volonté de la Commission européenne visant à établir les conditions nécessaires à un véritable marché intérieur du crédit à la consommation, garantir un haut niveau de protection des consommateurs et clarifier la réglementation communautaire en procédant à la refonte des trois directives de 1987, 1990 et 1998, existant sur ce type de crédit.

Je salue l’important travail accompli par mon collègue français Jean-Paul Gauzès qui par la sagesse et la force de ses convictions a largement contribué à cet important compromis utile à la croissance économique, à la protection des consommateurs et aux établissements de crédit.


  Gérard Deprez (ALDE), par écrit. – Après cinq ans de discussions, les consommateurs européens disposeront bientôt d'informations identiques sur les crédits à la consommation, leur permettant de comparer davantage les offres étrangères pour s'acheter une voiture, un lave-vaisselle ou un canapé-lit.

Si les Européens ont déjà la possibilité d'aller contracter à l'étranger des emprunts bancaires pour acquérir des produits de grande consommation, très peu en profitent: moins de 1% du volume total de ce type de crédits est actuellement souscrit hors frontières. Pourtant, les taux peuvent varier actuellement du simple au double (Portugal 12%, Finlande 6%)! Les grands freins identifiés sont le problème linguistique, la distance et le manque de confiance des consommateurs.

La directive, que je soutiens, devrait contribuer à renforcer cette confiance, à mieux informer les consommateurs et à faciliter leurs choix, tout en les faisant bénéficier de règles uniformes de protection (remboursements anticipés, droit de rétractation, etc.).

Deux questions pour conclure:

Ne risque-t-on pas de favoriser le surendettement si on ne renforce pas davantage les conditions de vérification de la solvabilité des clients par les établissements prêteurs? N'est-il pas urgent d'ouvrir le chantier de la concurrence transfrontalière pour les prêts immobiliers?


  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), por escrito. Esta votação refere-se à segunda leitura da proposta inicialmente avançada pela Comissão Europeia em 2002. Estes compromissos visam o acordo com o Conselho em torno de um texto que pretende revogar a Directiva em vigor 87/102/CEE e introduzir um quadro jurídico comum em matéria de contratos de crédito a consumidores.

Trata-se de facilitar a abertura dos mercados nacionais e de promover a concessão de crédito ao consumo transfronteiriço, em nome do reforço da concorrência e da "melhoria" do mercado interno.

Entre outros aspectos, define a fórmula de cálculo da taxa anual de encargos efectiva global (TAEG), estabelece as condições em caso de reembolso antecipado e as informações a prestar aos consumidores relativas aos contratos de crédito.

Votámos favoravelmente as propostas que procuraram melhorar a defesa dos consumidores, o que é particularmente importante para Portugal, num contexto em que o endividamento das famílias não pára de aumentar, ultrapassando mais de 124% do rendimento disponível, e em que se registam lucros escandalosos dos principais grupos financeiros.

Votámos contra todas as propostas que visam facilitar a abertura dos mercados financeiros e facilitar o crédito transfronteiriço, que pretende eliminar os obstáculos à entrada dos principais grupos financeiros e não proteger os consumidores.


  Françoise Grossetête (PPE-DE), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur du rapport proposant une harmonisation des législations des États membres relative au crédit à la consommation.

Si les ménages européens ont déjà le droit d'aller chercher à l'étranger des emprunts bancaires pour acquérir des produits de grande consommation, très peu en profitent. Les problèmes de langue, la distance ou le manque de confiance constituent les freins les plus puissants.

La nouvelle directive accroîtra la transparence du marché au profit des consommateurs pour des crédits compris entre 200 et 75 000 euros. Les consommateurs disposeront des informations dont ils ont besoin pour choisir en connaissance de cause s'ils décident d’acheter au-delà des frontières.

Dans le cas des offres de crédit, les informations communiquées aux consommateurs seront contenues dans un nouveau formulaire européen d'information sur le crédit. Les consommateurs bénéficieront aussi, à terme, d'un taux annuel effectif global unique et comparable dans toute l'UE.

La directive fournira aux consommateurs des informations de base de bonne qualité et faciles à comparer. Le droit de rétractation et le droit de rembourser par anticipation sans payer de frais excessifs, ainsi qu'une présentation transparente des leurs droits et obligations, leur donneront la confiance nécessaire pour comparer les prix.


  Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE), par écrit. – Le compromis sur lequel le Parlement doit se prononcer est certes une amélioration par rapport à la position du Conseil, mais il demeure déficient sur bon nombre de points essentiels du domaine des contrats de crédit aux consommateurs.

Le plancher de 200 euros, montant du crédit à partir duquel la directive s'applique, est à mon avis beaucoup trop bas vu le niveau de vie dans la plupart des États membres.

De même, il n'y a pas lieu d'harmoniser les dispositions régissant les indemnités en cas de remboursement anticipé. Les divergences entre les États membres sont trop importantes. Le soi-disant compromis négocié par le Conseil n'est que l'addition de différentes dispositions nationales et apporte plus de complications que d'harmonisation.

À mon avis, la directive est beaucoup trop bureaucratique, à la fois pour les entreprises, les établissements de crédit et les consommateurs. La quantité d'informations minimales qu'elle prévoit est trop élevée et indigeste. Cela risque de semer la confusion auprès des consommateurs avertis.


  Toine Manders (ALDE), schriftelijk. − Met de uitkomst van de stemming vandaag in het Europees Parlement is er na ruim vijf jaar een akkoord bereikt over de richtlijn voor consumentenkredieten. Eind vorige week nog mislukte het overleg tussen Europese Commissie, Raad en Parlement, omdat de rapporteur onoverkomelijke bezwaren had tegen een compromisvoorstel aangaande vervroegde aflossing, waarmee alle andere betrokkenen wél konden leven. Het daarop gesloten compromis tussen de onderhandelaars van de PSE en de ALDE, waarmee ook de Europese Commissie en de Raad konden leven, heeft vandaag brede steun gekregen van het Parlement. Ik ben verheugd dat de PPE alsnog heeft besloten het compromis te steunen, omdat ik ervan overtuigd ben dat dit compromis het best haalbare is voor consumenten en bedrijfsleven. Ik zou alle betrokkenen, en in het bijzonder de rapporteur, willen bedanken voor hun inzet gedurende het hele proces.


  Διαμάντω Μανωλάκου (GUE/NGL), γραπτώς. – Τον ετήσιο προϋπολογισμό της ΕΕ πλησιάζουν τα καταναλωτικά και στεγαστικά δάνεια (95 δις ευρώ) στην Ελλάδα, όπου η καταναλωτική πίστη αναπτύσσεται με τους μεγαλύτερους ρυθμούς στην ευρωζώνη, δείγμα της αυξανόμενης φτώχειας.

Δανειολήπτες είναι 2.000.000 νοικοκυριά, όπου το 3-4% αδυνατεί να εξυπηρετήσει το χρέος του. Στο μεγαλύτερο ποσοστό το χρέος ξεπερνά το 40% του εισοδήματος, με αποτέλεσμα συνεχείς κατασχέσεις. Τα ίδια ισχύουν και για τις μικρομεσαίες επιχειρήσεις που αναγκάζονται να προσφύγουν σε δανεισμό.

Οι τράπεζες ληστρικά αποκομίζουν υπέρογκα κέρδη από υψηλά επιτόκια δανεισμού και χαμηλά επιτόκια καταθέσεων, παράνομες και παράτυπες κρατήσεις και έξοδα, παραπλανητικές διαφημίσεις κ.ά., οδηγώντας στην υπερχρέωση των εργαζομένων.

Η ΕΕ στηρίζει τα χρηματοπιστωτικά ιδρύματα εξασφαλίζοντας κέρδη, αλλά και απαλύνοντας τις συνέπειες της αντιλαϊκής πολιτικής της, που περιορίζει την αγοραστική δυνατότητα των εργαζομένων και υποβαθμίζει την ποιότητα ζωής τους.

Η προτεινόμενη οδηγία κατοχυρώνει την αρχή της ελευθερίας των συμβάσεων, παρά την άνιση διαπραγματευτική ικανότητα. Ενισχύει το χρηματοπιστωτικό κεφάλαιο, μεταφέροντας τις ευθύνες στον καταναλωτή. Κατοχυρώνει την αποζημίωση για τα προώρως αποπληρωθέντα ποσά, προωθεί την εναρμόνιση νομοθετικών διατάξεων και το άνοιγμα εθνικών αγορών στον τομέα της καταναλωτικής πίστωσης, είναι ηθελημένα περίπλοκη και ακατανόητη στους δανειολήπτες.

Οι ευρωβουλευτές του ΚΚΕ καταψηφίζουμε την ενίσχυση του χρηματοπιστωτικού κεφαλαίου και παλεύουμε για πραγματική λαϊκή οικονομία προς όφελος των εργαζομένων.


  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − The call for a harmonisation of the laws on consumer credit across Europe is one that I agree with. The report not only creates an internal market in credit for consumers but also outlines a set of requirements to ensure a fair deal for both the consumer and creditors. The rules in this area need to be consumer friendly, especially on the subject of early repayment and compensation, and in my opinion the report adequately addresses these concerns. The harmonisation of advertising will also help ensure that customers across Europe are equally well informed when taking consumer credit related decisions.


  Béatrice Patrie (PSE), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur du compromis dégagé par le groupe PSE avec le Conseil (amendement 46), car il permet de maintenir les équilibres atteints au cours de la Présidence allemande au printemps dernier.

Je me réjouis que les crédits à la consommation définis dans ce projet de directive aient un montant minimal de 200 euros et maximal de 75 000 euros. J'aurais toutefois préféré que le plafond soit fixé à 50 000 euros.

Je me réjouis tout particulièrement de la majorité qualifiée obtenue en plénière pour garantir que les intérêts des consommateurs soient clairement préservés en cas de remboursement anticipé du crédit. Les indemnités que la banque pourra demander seront strictement encadrées et pourront être interdites pour les crédits inférieurs à 10 000 euros.

Dans tous les cas de figure, il conviendra que la lutte contre le surendettement reste une priorité et que le retour aux crédits se fasse de façon raisonnable. Il est illusoire de penser que l'on peut relancer la consommation à travers les crédits des familles: une telle approche ne conduit qu'à paupériser les consommateurs les plus fragiles.

L'objectif de la relance de la croissance par la consommation passe par la hausse des salaires et non par la multiplication des crédits!


  Pierre Pribetich (PSE), par écrit. – Le rapport de Kurt Lechner concernant l'ouverture du marché européen des prêts à la consommation a été adopté mercredi 16 janvier.

Il me semble que le passage d'un marché jusqu'à présent fortement national à un cadre européen, tout en maintenant une haute protection du consommateur, est un premier pas vers l'harmonisation des règles du crédit à la consommation.

Le risque d'endettement pour le consommateur demeure bien trop élevé. Un contrôle et une transparence par la mise en place de bases de données de la solvabilité de chaque client apparaissaient indispensables.

J'ai cependant voté en défaveur de l'amendement 29 concernant l'article 16, comme la majorité de mes collègues, et je me félicite qu'il ait été rejeté. À mon sens, ce point pénalisait réellement le consommateur ayant décidé de rembourser son crédit de manière anticipée.

En effet, cette possibilité offerte au consommateur de dénouer un crédit avant échéance constitue une bonne initiative. Elle ne devra pas être entachée par une option permettant au prêteur de réclamer une indemnité pour les coûts éventuels en l'absence de motifs justifiés et équitables.

Il était donc nécessaire de fixer des limites. Le prêteur ne pourra donc pas réclamer une indemnité supérieure à 1% du montant du crédit.


  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), por escrito. Um quadro jurídico comum ao nível do crédito ao consumo deve estabelecer normas claras, simples e concisas, de forma a proporcionar as mais-valias europeias em termos de reforço do mercado interno.

Hoje quero, por isso, felicitar este Parlamento pelo acordo positivo alcançado no âmbito desta legislação. Considero da maior relevância a abertura dos mercados nacionais ao sector do crédito ao consumo, reforçando a concorrência, com consequências muito positivas para quem a ele recorre.

Com esta nova proposta a UE favorece claramente a concorrência entre entidades financiadoras e introduz a transparência necessária na divulgação da informação pré-contratual e contratual da oferta de crédito, dados que considero fundamentais para a protecção dos consumidores, permitindo ainda um previsível abaixamento das taxas de juro por via do aumento da oferta existente, sobretudo nos mercados de menor dimensão.

São ainda de referir, como elemento muito positivo para o mercado português, os níveis de plafonds de crédito estabelecidos neste acordo. Estou convencido de que com o novo enquadramento serão facultadas mais oportunidades de crédito, sendo agora necessário assegurar adequadamente a protecção e a solvabilidade dos consumidores, prevenindo a excessiva exposição ao sobreendividamento, num contexto de uma política social sã. As vantagens são para se usufruir e não para tapar problemas com outros problemas.


  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), par écrit. – C'est une directive hautement controversée, "au frigo" depuis presque 6 ans, qu'a votée aujourd'hui le Parlement européen. Pourtant, il s'agit d'un texte très proche des préoccupations des Européens puisqu'il prévoit d'harmoniser le marché du crédit à la consommation.

Un marché de 800 milliards d'euros (deux Européens sur trois ont recours à des crédits pour acheter des meubles, une télévision ou une voiture), des taux qui varient actuellement de 6 % (en Finlande) à plus de 12 % (au Portugal) et pourtant, des transactions jusqu'ici essentiellement nationales, moins de 1 % des crédits étant aujourd'hui transfrontaliers.

La directive ouvre les frontières européennes au consommateur à la recherche du meilleur crédit: il pourra choisir la meilleure offre, tout en se voyant garantir les mêmes droits et les mêmes normes en matière d'information, de comparaison et, surtout, de protection contre le surendettement. Évaluation de la solvabilité de l'emprunteur, information rapide et gratuite en cas de refus et droit de rétractation de 14 jours en principe sont quelques-uns des objectifs principaux de la directive.

Un regret pourtant, et il est de taille, à savoir le flou qui entoure les modalités du remboursement anticipé. Pénaliser lourdement le consommateur qui y aurait recours rendrait les autres avantages de l'harmonisation parfaitement... inutiles!


  Luca Romagnoli (NI), per iscritto. − Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, esprimo il mio voto favorevole alla relazione Lechner sul credito al consumo. Ritengo fondamentale, infatti, che l'Unione Europea si doti di un quadro generale di riferimento volto alla tutela dei cittadini in un settore che negli ultimi anni ha registrato un notevole sviluppo.

In Italia, in particolare, il ricorso allo strumento del credito al consumo ha registrato un aumento esponenziale del giro di affari. E molto spesso i consumatori, anche sulla scia di seducenti campagne pubblicitarie, vi hanno fatto ricorso senza conoscere pienamente i loro diritti e le condizioni contrattuali, ritrovandosi poi vincolati da tutta una serie di clausole e obblighi. In tale contesto sottolineo pertanto l'opportunità di aumentare il livello di tutela dei consumatori, anche attraverso lo strumento della direttiva.


  Andrzej Jan Szejna (PSE), na piśmie. − Głosuję za przyjęciem raportu posła Kurta Lechnera w sprawie rekomendacji do drugiego czytania odnośnie do wspólnego stanowiska Rady w celu przyjęcia dyrektywy Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady w sprawie umów o kredyt konsumencki i uchylającej dyrektywę 87/102/EWG.

Uważam, że kompromis wypracowany podczas kolejnych negocjacji jest zadawalający. Zaproponowane rozwiązanie ma na celu uproszczenie procedury przyznawania kredytów oraz ułatwienie dostępu konsumentów do kredytów na całym obszarze Unii Europejskiej. Harmonizacja i ujednolicenie standardów przyczyni się do zwiększenia konkurencyjności między instytucjami udzielającymi kredytów, obniży koszty, a także utworzy prawdziwy rynek wewnętrzny w zakresie kredytów konsumenckich.


  Jacques Toubon (PPE-DE), par écrit. – Le vote du projet de directive sur le crédit aux consommateurs marque un progrès significatif aux yeux des députés français UMP.

En effet, grâce à l'apport du Parlement européen, et en particulier du rapporteur Kurt Lechner, le texte définitif favorise l'ouverture des frontières dans un domaine majeur pour la vie quotidienne tout en préservant le droit acquis des consommateurs, notamment du consommateur français.

La transposition de la directive permettra donc de proposer, à l'avenir, de meilleures conditions de crédit et de limiter les risques de surendettement.


  Bernadette Vergnaud (PSE), par écrit. – Six ans après l'arrivée de l'euro, l'Europe ne disposait pas encore, au niveau bancaire, d'un marché unique bénéficiant aux consommateurs et leur permettant de rendre plus tangibles les avantages de la monnaie unique.

Les informations concernant les taux pratiqués et les conditions d'octroi du crédit seront standardisées afin de mieux comparer les offres. Ainsi, les consommateurs pourront choisir en toute connaissance de cause et obtenir de meilleures conditions de prêt.

Le prêteur devra aussi informer clairement son client des avantages et des inconvénients de son offre de prêt. La question du droit de rétractation en cas de crédit lié (livraison immédiate du bien) et celle du montant des pénalités imposées en cas de remboursement anticipé du prêt sont clairement encadrées. Ces pénalités devront être "équitables et objectivement justifiées". Elles ne pourront excéder 1 % du montant du crédit faisant l'objet d'un remboursement anticipé et ne seront pas autorisées en cas de prêt à taux variable. Je me réjouis d'autant plus que les États membres pourront prévoir, comme cela est actuellement le cas en France, qu'aucune pénalité ne soit demandée pour les crédits de moins de 10 000 euros et c'est pourquoi j'ai voté pour.


- Report: Roberta Angelilli (A6-0520/2007)


  Charlotte Cederschiöld, Christofer Fjellner, Gunnar Hökmark och Anna Ibrisagic (PPE-DE), skriftlig. − Moderaterna har röstat för förslaget om en EU-strategi för barnets rättigheter. Vi anser att barns rättigheter ska respekteras på samma sätt som mänskliga rättigheter och vi stöder naturligtvis kampen mot t.ex. barnpornografi, och sexuellt utnyttjande av barn. Vi vill dock understryka att många av punkterna i betänkandet berör områden som ska regleras på medlemsstatsnivå, t.ex. hanteringen av adoptioner. Dessutom behandlas ämnen som redan regleras i existerande EG-lagstiftning, såsom t.ex. TV-reklam och märkning av varor.


  Proinsias De Rossa (PSE), in writing. − I voted for this report because I believe it makes a good contribution to the fight against all forms of violence and abuse against children, including poverty, discrimination and access to education.

I particularly welcome EP advocacy of a mechanism whereby suppliers of products manufactured with child labour can be prosecuted in Europe. I too urge the Commission to urgently bring forward mechanisms that make the main contractor in a supply-chain liable for violations of UN conventions on child labour.

However, I deplore the attempts to remove references in the report to adolescents' right to sexual and reproductive health and family planning education and services.


  Edite Estrela (PSE), por escrito. Votei favoravelmente o relatório Roberta Angelilli "Rumo a uma estratégia da UE sobre os direitos da criança" porque é importante chamar a atenção para o facto de que muitos instrumentos adoptados ao nível da União Europeia afectam, directa ou indirectamente, os direitos da criança. Considero, por isso, fundamental a criação de um quadro legislativo que permita reconhecer os direitos da criança e codificá-los do ponto de vista jurídico.

Neste contexto, o presente relatório constitui um importante contributo para a garantia do respeito dos direitos da criança, na medida em que defende uma legislação comunitária, que proíba todas as formas de violência contra as crianças, e sublinha a importância de áreas como a educação, a saúde, a adopção, a luta contra a pobreza e a discriminação. Além disso, importa salientar que o novo Tratado de Lisboa disponibiliza uma base legal para os direitos da criança, agora incluídos nos objectivos da União Europeia.


  Hélène Goudin och Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), skriftlig. − Barnens rättigheter är utan tvekan en universell och okränkbar rättighet, och det är med glädje som Junilistan konstaterar att samtliga EU-medlemsstater har ratificerat FN:s barnkonvention. Detta innebär att det redan idag finns bindande rättslig internationell lagstiftning som skyddar barn mot barnarbete, trafficking, våld och en rad andra ingrepp i barnens liv. Barnrätten är dessutom ett område inom svensk rätt som kompromisslöst ställer barnets bästa i främsta rummet.

Vi har valt att lägga ner vår röst i omröstningen om betänkandet av den enkla anledningen att föredraganden helt verkar ha tappat fokus på barnens bästa i sitt betänkande. Betänkandet fokuserar nästan uteslutande på vilken specifik social modell som medlemsstaterna bör införa i sina respektive länder för att uppnå vad just Europaparlamentet anser vara den bästa lösningen. Allt från förbud mot våld i TV och försäljning av våldsamma dataspel till tvångsäktenskap, olagliga adoptioner och olaglig verksamhet behandlas i detta betänkande.

Vi har självklart röstat för de ändringsförslag som poängterar vikten av att följa FN:s barnkonvention fullt ut som garant för barnens rättsäkerhet och deras mänskliga universella rättigheter.


  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), por escrito. Este relatório com quase duzentos artigos integra aspectos que apoiamos e outros com que discordamos. O nosso voto deve ser entendido com base neste pressuposto.

No entanto, não podemos deixar de apontar que o relatório falha na denúncia das causas de situações que, por vezes, diagnostica.

O relatório não critica as políticas neoliberais da UE - branqueando os seus responsáveis - que estão na causa da pobreza de milhões de pessoas, nomeadamente de crianças. Políticas que estão na origem das profundas e inaceitáveis desigualdades sociais, fruto da exploração e da concentração capitalista. Políticas que promovem a contenção salarial, com a perda do valor dos salários dos trabalhadores; a facilitação dos despedimentos e a precarização dos vínculos laborais; o aumento do tempo de trabalho e da flexibilização do horário de trabalho; ou ainda a liberalização e privatização dos serviços públicos. Políticas que têm profundas e negativas consequências para os rendimentos e as condições de vida dos trabalhadores, das suas famílias, logo, das suas crianças.

O respeito e pleno exercício dos direitos da criança exige, entre outros aspectos, uma justa repartição da riqueza, empregos com direitos, salários dignos, a redução do tempo de trabalho, o desenvolvimento de fortes sistemas públicos de segurança social, de saúde e ensino universais e gratuitos.


  Marian Harkin (ALDE), in writing. − While I voted yes on this, I want to clarify my position on paragraph two of the report. This states that the IGC decision of 19th October 2007 incorporating children's rights as one of the objectives of the EU in the Treaty of Lisbon provides a new legal basis for children's rights. According to Commissioner Fratini’s response to my question on this during the plenary debate, Lisbon does not bring in a specific legal base and it is important to clarify this. Regarding paragraph 127 I am not supporting this as I do not support a ban on headscarves and hijabs.


  Milan Horáček (Verts/ALE), schriftlich. Ich möchte eine Stimmerklärung zum Bericht Angelilli über die EU-Kinderrechtsstrategie abgeben. Es handelt sich um einen sehr guten Bericht. Besonders wichtig ist die gründliche Behandlung der Themen Kinderprostitution und Sextourismus.

Die Opfer solcher Straftaten finden sich auch vor der eigenen Haustür. Zum Beispiel im Grenzgebiet von Deutschland, Tschechien und Österreich wuchs die Prostitution von Frauen und zunehmend Kindern nach der Öffnung der Grenzen massiv an. Dennoch war dieses Thema auf EU-Ebene lange keine Priorität.

Zentrale Problematiken der Kinderprostitution können nur auf europäischer Ebene bekämpft werden: die Vernetzung der Täter durch das Internet sowie die mangelnde Kooperation bei grenzüberschreitender Überwachung und Strafverfolgung.

Der Bericht nimmt diese Bereiche auf und bettet sie in die umfassende Strategie ein. Auch wenn gegen den Kindermissbrauch noch vieles getan werden muss, ist es ein ermutigendes Zeichen.


  Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report because I believe it to be a comprehensive statement, full of good proposals. I especially welcome the recognition of a child's right to be involved in decisions that concern them directly and for them to be properly represented in legal or administrative hearings. The report is strong on the need for a healthy environment and the right to play. It also recognises that those children with the legal right to work should be paid on a basis of equal pay for equal work: too many young people are used to provide a cheap alternative to other workers when they work as well and as hard in many sectors. I voted to remove the paragraph referring to encouraging states to outlaw the wearing of the hijab for young girls. I believe this to be a misplaced proposal of the Women's Committee, assuming the hijab to be an automatic sign of female subjugation, which it is not. Personally, I am offended by seeing pre-pubescent girls wearing clothes with sexual invitations written on them but I would not seek to ban this via a Parliamentary report. I am pleased the report passed without that paragraph.


  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I strongly support the idea of a comprehensive and coherent European strategy on the rights of the child. The fight against all forms of violence, poverty and discrimination suffered by children is something that should not simply be treated on a national level. The protection of a child’s right to education, health and adoption are all rights that Europe as a whole should continue to recognise and protect.


  Andreas Mölzer (NI), schriftlich. In den Parallelgesellschaften mit muslimisch-archaischer Tradition gedeiht Gewalt. Kinder leben den ihnen eingeimpften Hass auf die dekadente abendländische Kultur dann in Gewaltakten auf dem Schulhof und auf der Straße aus oder werden gar zu potenziellen Terror-Aktivisten. Hier hat man aus falsch verstandener Toleranz erste Warnzeichen ignoriert und eine explosive Eigendynamik zugelassen.

Besorgniserregend ist auch der Zuwachs bei Kinderhandel und Pornographie – gerade Triebtäter weisen bekanntlich eine hohe Wiederholungsrate auf. Aufgeflogen sind in diesem Zusammenhang fragwürdige Adoptionsverfahren für Kinder aus Dritte-Welt-Ländern, bei denen auch vor Kinderhandel, Organhandel oder Prostitution nicht zurückgeschreckt wird.

Angesichts einer Vielzahl von Waisenkindern – vor allem im Osten –, die auf Adoption warten, und Millionen ungeborener Kinder in Europa wäre ein striktes Verbot der Adoption nichteuropäischer Kinder ein wichtiger Schlag gegen den Kinderhandel, ebenso wie die Einführung einer europaweiten Sexualstraftäterdatei und die Erhöhung der Strafen für Sexualkontakte mit Kindern sowie für Besitz von Kinderpornos. Nicht zuletzt ist häusliche Gewalt auch in Migrantenfamilien zu bekämpfen und der Ausländeranteil an Schulen zu begrenzen, um die Gewaltspirale zu entschärfen.


  Baronesse Nicholson of Winterbourne (ALDE), in writing. − While the Treaty of Lisbon sets the promotion of children’s rights as a broad EU objective, it does not create new legislative powers for this purpose. I believe that any movement in this field should be within the existing legal framework. There are significant areas in this report which step outside these boundaries. Nor is the report offering feasible solutions to children’s problems. One example is institutionalised care. We have voted to restrict this to a temporary measure. Yet hundreds of thousands of children throughout Europe are born with or acquire such significant physical or intellectual handicaps that it is a medical or social necessity for them to have long-term institutional care. A quadriplegic, spina bifida or hydrocephalus afflicted child can have a life of dignity and happiness with expert staff care and family visits. Strengthening the system is the priority, and not its abolition.

We in Europe are bound to follow the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This report distorts several important messages contained in the Convention. With regret, therefore, I found myself unable to support this report, though I share the concern for children’s welfare that its supporters expressed.


  Αθανάσιος Παφίλης (GUE/NGL), γραπτώς. – Η πολυσέλιδη, γεμάτη φιλολογικές περιγραφές έκθεση προσπαθεί να κρύψει τις ευθύνες της ΕΕ και των κρατών μελών της για την βάρβαρη πολιτική τους που έχει σαν συνέπεια τις απάνθρωπες συνθήκες που βιώνουν τα παιδιά και οι γονείς των λαϊκών οικογενειών. Αποτελεί μνημείο υποκρισίας το ενδιαφέρον της ΕΕ για τα δικαιώματα των παιδιών, την ίδια στιγμή που η πολιτική της συντρίβει του εργαζόμενους με την ανεργία, την μερική απασχόληση, την πτώση του βιοτικού επιπέδου, την ιδιωτικοποίηση της υγείας, της παιδείας, την εμπορευματοποίηση του αθλητισμού, του πολιτισμού. Οι ηθικοπλαστικές αναφορές ενάντια στη βία σε βάρος των παιδιών, την παιδική πορνογραφία κ.α. δεν μπορούν να κρύψουν ότι το σύστημα -που σαν υπέρτατη αξία του έχει το κέρδος του κεφαλαίου- είναι αυτό που αντιμετωπίζει ακόμη και τα παιδιά σαν πηγή κέρδους. Εμπορευματοποιεί την υιοθεσία, ωθεί στην παιδική εργασία, στην πορνεία, στο εμπόριο οργάνων. Αποτελεί πρόκληση να μιλάνε οι θιασώτες της ΕΕ για τα δικαιώματα των παιδιών, όταν τα αεροπλάνα ΕΕ - ΝΑΤΟ βομβάρδισαν ακόμη και την μαιευτική κλινική του Βελιγραδίου. Όταν τα ευρωνατοϊκά στρατεύματα δολοφονούν χιλιάδες παιδιά στο Αφγανιστάν, στο Ιράκ και αλλού. Όταν καταδικάζουν σε θάνατο, από την πείνα και τις αρρώστιες, εκατοντάδες χιλιάδες παιδιά στην Αφρική, την Ασία, σ' ολόκληρο τον πλανήτη, εγκλήματα που η έκθεση βέβαια αποσιωπά.


  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE), písomne. − Deti sú osobnosti s vlastnými právami už od svojho počatia. Každé dieťa má právo na rodinu, ktorá je základom jeho výchovy. Nesmieme zabudnúť ani na deti ulice a deti migrantov, ktoré sú najviac vystavené násiliu. Práva detí musia byť kľúčovou prioritou EÚ. Vítam iniciatívu na zriadenie horúcej linky dôvery.

V hlasovaní som vyjadrila svoj súhlas stratégii EÚ v oblastí práv dieťaťa, ktorá je predmetom kvalitnej správy kolegyne Angelilli s vypovedacou hodnotou.

Musíme si uvedomiť, že stále nám chýba právny základ, preto popri dlhodobej stratégii je potrebné prijať v oblasti práv dieťaťa konkrétne opatrenia a urýchlene ich zaviesť do praxe. Ratifikáciou Lisabonskej zmluvy sa právne záväznou stane aj Charta základných práv EÚ, v ktorej článok 24 sa odvoláva výslovne na práva dieťaťa.

V nasledovných dňoch stoja pred nami výzvy: čo najrýchlejšie zminimalizovať internetovú kriminalitu, skoncovať s detskou pedofíliou a sexuálnym zneužívaním detí a maloletých, vytvoriť pravidlá pre medzinárodnú adopciu, ktorá musí byť v záujme dieťaťa, a nie v záujme dospelých. Akákoľvek forma násilia musí byť zakázaná.

Nastal čas, aby sme premenili slová na činy. EÚ musí načúvať deťom, ktoré sú základom spoločnosti zajtrajška. Európsky dom musí byť bezpečným domom pre deti. Keď budeme mať šťastné deti, bude šťastná aj spoločnosť.


  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), por escrito. No contexto do debate sobre a construção de uma estratégia europeia sobre os direitos da criança, considero prioritário sublinhar o conceito de "interesse da criança", não por oposição à ideia de direitos, mas em complementaridade e também enquanto fio condutor de tal estratégia.

As ameaças aos direitos das crianças são, tanto ao longo do Mundo como por toda a Europa, de diferente natureza e grau. Se nuns lugares é prioritário agir sobre a miséria e as suas causas ou sobre a utilização de meninos soldados e a exploração sexual, noutros casos trata-se de assegurar o direito de acesso à saúde, a protecção contra os abusos sexuais, o tráfico de menores ou o direito a ser adoptado em tempo útil e segundo regras transparentes, e a valorização do papel da família. Nuns casos e noutros, todavia, o critério deve ser o do "superior interesse da criança".

É esse o padrão, o critério, pelo qual se deve aferir da utilidade, necessidade e bondade de qualquer decisão, legislação ou intervenção. Creio, pois, que o mais importante na formulação da referida estratégia é consagrar esta ideia, a que se devem subordinar os elencos de direitos, que nem sempre são razoáveis, realizáveis ou adequados.


  Lydia Schenardi (NI), par écrit. – Ce rapport a le grand mérite de définir avec clarté les droits de l'enfant, mais surtout de dénoncer de façon quasi-exhaustive les dangers auxquels ils sont soumis: de la confrontation, au plus jeune âge, à des images d'horreur, de pornographie et de violence véhiculées par les médias aux crimes d'honneur, mariages forcés et mutilations génitales pour des motifs d'ordre culturel ou religieux.

Sans jamais citer formellement le mot "islam" ou encore "islamisme", termes décidément tabous car le politiquement correct et la peur des représailles interdisent totalement les commentaires sur cette religion et encore moins les critiques, le rapporteur se livre toutefois, sous couvert de propos généralistes, à la condamnation en règle de toutes les discriminations qu'engendre la pratique de l'islam. Ainsi sont dénoncées les interdictions faites aux filles de participer à certains enseignements et aux cours de sport, tels que la natation, ainsi que toutes les pratiques traditionnelles barbares et néfastes pour les jeunes filles de religion musulmane.

Nous nous en félicitons. Ce rapport est un premier pas vers un début de liberté d'expression et de clairvoyance. Nous voterons pour.


  Olle Schmidt (ALDE), skriftlig. − En punkt ställde till bekymmer för samtliga grupper. I punkt 127 i det ursprungliga betänkandet fanns ett förslag som uppmanade samtliga EU:s medlemsstater att förbjuda barn att bära slöja i skolan. Som privatpersoner känner vi sympati för grundidén, dvs. att skydda barns rättigheter att leka fritt, delta i skolgymnastiken och att även som omyndiga åtnjuta ett visst skydd gentemot föräldrars tvångsmakt. En så komplicerad och känslig fråga kan emellertid knappast lösas på EU-nivå. Europas stater viktar barnens, föräldrarnas och statens rättigheter och skyldigheter utifrån sin egen historik och politiska situation. Vi är helt överens om vikten av att EU skapar ett gott ramverk. Punkt 127 ligger rimligtvis utanför ett sådant.


  Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM), in writing. − I was pleased that the committee and the ensuing report took on board a strong focus on family and recognised the family’s position in relation to children. I also welcome the strong defence of children in relation to trafficking, institutionalisation, pornography and disability.

However the report ties EU policy into the UN International Convention on the Rights of the Child which changes competence for children from parents to the state. Although not explicitly referred to it is a seismic shift of great concern.

Despite the positive elements of this report, like those mentioned above, the report was regrettably used to promote the sexual and reproductive rights agenda (which for the UN Convention includes abortion) which was particularly incongruous because we are dealing with children and the protection of children. Though I very strongly support all protections for children I found myself unable to support this report.


  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE), schriftelijk. − Ondanks het VN-Verdrag voor de rechten van het kind dat vele lidstaten ondertekenden, worden de basisrechten van jongeren en kinderen nog teveel geschonden.

Dat de Commissie nu met een Europese strategie komt, is daarom een zeer toe te juichen initiatief. Hoewel kinderrechten de bevoegdheid blijven van de nationale staten, duiden zowel de Commissie als rapporteur Angelilli voor het EP op enkele dringende punten, zoals het tegengaan van elke vorm van geweld, het bestrijden van armoede en discriminatie bij kinderen en respect voor de rechten van migrantenkinderen. De Verts/ALE-Fractie heeft aan het verslag nog de volgende punten kunnen toevoegen; meer aandacht voor het recht op participatie van kinderen in beslissingen die hen aanbelangen, erkenning van een ombudsman voor kinderen, verbod op kinderarbeid, gelijk loon voor gelijk werk voor jongeren onder de 18, erkenning van de rechten van vluchtelingenkinderen en het recht op een schoon en beschermd milieu.

Dat het Parlement de tijd uittrekt om hierover te debatteren, verheugt me zeer; ik steun dit verslag overigens ten volle.


  Konrad Szymański (UEN), na piśmie. − Nie mogłem poprzeć raportu o strategii na rzecz praw dzieci, ponieważ na wniosek lewicy umieszczono tam aż pięciokrotne odniesienia do tzw. praw i zdrowia reprodukcyjnego, co implikuje między innymi dostępność aborcji.


  Jeffrey Titford (IND/DEM), in writing. − I am in favour of the EU promoting the rights of the child. One recent example I would again draw to the Commission’s attention is discrimination against children’s right to travel with airlines withdrawing facilities for unaccompanied minors to fly. If they did the same for the disabled or any other similar group there would (properly) be an uproar, but apparently the EU thinks it is perfectly in order to remove children’s rights in this arbitrary way.

At the same time there has been some controversy over paragraph 127 calling for ‘Member States to ban headscarves and the hijab, at least at primary school’. I voted against the paragraph because of both the ambiguous wording and the fact that I believe this is too important an issue to be dealt with as a peripheral part of such a report. Nevertheless I would be disappointed if such a practice was to become common in Europe’s primary schools.


  Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE), in writing. − I am the strongest defender of the need to give children a good upbringing in a strong, loving and secure family environment, to protect children from harm and abuse, to give them moral guidance and a first class education, and the best of opportunity in their lives. I believe that the role of the state in this is a limited one – it should not seek to abrogate the rights and duties of parents, of the churches and of schools. I certainly, therefore, see no reason for the EU to get involved. I regret the deletion of the call for a ban on headscarves and the hijab at least at primary school – what hope is there of proper integration into our mainstream western societies if such dress is allowed? I regret also the inclusion of language relating to adolescent sexual ‘rights’ – a further erosion of the very concept of childhood. For these and many other reasons, I voted against the report.


- Report: Doris Pack (A6-0502/2007)


  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), par écrit. – Sur la base de l’excellent rapport de ma collègue allemande Doris Pack, j’ai voté la résolution du Parlement européen sur l’éducation et la formation des adultes et répondant à la communication de la Commission intitulée « Éducation et formation des adultes : il n’est jamais trop tard pour apprendre ».

L’éducation et la formation, notamment des adultes tout au long de leur vie, sont des facteurs essentiels pour la réalisation des objectifs fixés dans le cadre de la stratégie de Lisbonne, qui consistent à accroître la croissance économique, la compétitivité et le progrès social. Que ce soit en termes de compétitivité, d’inclusion sociale des adultes que des défis liés aux évolutions démographiques, cette démarche, qui date de 2001, est une bonne nouvelle pour l’Union européenne et ses citoyens.

Concernant l’apprentissage et, plus généralement, les sujets liés aux entreprises, je suggère de confier ce sujet aux partenaires sociaux lesquels, il faut sans cesse le rappeler, disposent, dans le cadre des traités actuels avec les articles 137 et suivants du traité instituant la communauté européenne (TCE) et cela a été confirmé par le traité de Lisbonne en cours de ratification, d’instruments juridiques permettant la construction d’un droit social européen.


  Proinsias De Rossa (PSE), in writing. − I voted for this report because the scale of current economic and social change, the rapid transition to a knowledge-based society and demographic changes resulting from the ageing population in Europe are all challenges which demand a new approach to education and training, within the framework of lifelong learning.


  Edite Estrela (PSE), por escrito. Votei favoravelmente o relatório Doris Pack sobre a "Educação de adultos: nunca é tarde para aprender", porque considero que a educação dos adultos, através da aquisição de competências essenciais, é determinante para atingir os objectivos da Estratégia de Lisboa de mais crescimento económico, mais competitividade e mais inclusão social.

Por outro lado e complementarmente também concordo com a perspectiva de que a aprendizagem ao longo da vida é fundamental para responder aos actuais desafios das mudanças económicas e sociais, da rápida transição para uma sociedade baseada no conhecimento e das mudanças demográficas resultantes do envelhecimento da população.


  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), por escrito. É importante dar mais atenção à educação de adultos. A agenda da educação de adultos precisa de receber um novo impulso dado que a sua participação na educação e formação não é suficiente para atingir o objectivo de referência de 12,5% de participação na educação de adultos até 2010.

Mas é preciso assegurar a qualidade da educação dos adultos, dando especial atenção às várias dimensões da qualidade na aprendizagem, principalmente ao desenvolvimento dos educadores, aos mecanismos de garantia de qualidade e aos métodos e materiais de ensino.

Como refere o relatório, a educação de adultos constitui uma componente essencial da aprendizagem ao longo da vida e é um domínio muito complexo. Os adultos precisam de associar a aprendizagem aos seus conhecimentos, experiências e origens culturais.

Por último, é importante que se sublinhe a igualdade de género em relação aos programas de aprendizagem ao longo da vida, para que tanto homens como mulheres possam tirar igual proveito das possibilidades oferecidas por esta aprendizagem, e que se apele para que se utilizem todos os instrumentos disponíveis para velar pela igualdade entre homens e mulheres nas medidas de preparação da política de educação para adultos, em colaboração com o Instituto Europeu para a Igualdade de Género.


  Hélène Goudin och Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), skriftlig. − Vi hyser ett stort förtroende för medlemsstaternas kompetens att handlägga frågor runt den mycket viktiga vuxenutbildningen. Det är viktigt att utbildningsdepartementen i medlemsstaterna har tillräckliga ekonomiska resurser för att utveckla vuxenutbildningen. Ett sätt att tillföra ekonomiska resurser till dem är att minska medlemsstaternas avgifter till EU:s budget, så att de får ökat utrymme för satsningar inom vård, skola och omsorg.

Vi påpekar än en gång att den federalistiska majoriteten i Europaparlamentet inte respekterar medlemsstaternas exklusiva ansvar för undervisningens organisation och utbildningssystemens innehåll.

Detta ”tyckandebetänkande” från Europaparlamentet hade aldrig behövt utarbetas och kan inte ses som annat än ett sysselsättningsprojekt för Europaparlamentets utskott för kultur och utbildning.


  Janusz Lewandowski (PPE-DE), na piśmie. − Głosowane sprawozdanie dotyczy kształcenia dorosłych, czyli sprawy, która nabiera ogromnego znaczenia w całej Unii Europejskiej, a w moim kraju stało się czymś więcej - pożyteczną modą i pasją tysięcy ludzi. Nie zawsze jest to podyktowane czysto komercyjnymi względami. Pragnę zwrócić uwagę na jeden aspekt ciągłego kształcenia dorosłych, który ma związek zarówno z współczesnymi wyzwaniami demograficznymi i cywilizacyjnymi, jak i z dziedzictwem dawnego ustroju. System socjalistyczny wymuszał szczególny model kształcenia, który w dziedzinach humanistycznych nasycony był propagandą i ideologią, a w innych dziedzinach odzwierciedlał odcięcie od światowych trendów. Z tych powodów kształcenie dorosłych w nowych państwach członkowskich jest zarazem szansą nadrobienia powyższych słabości socjalistycznego modelu szkolnictwa i prawdziwym otwarciem na świat.

W zakresie znajomości języków obcych, gotowości podejmowania ryzyka przekwalifikowania i zmiany pracy oraz upowszechnienia europejskich standardów edukacyjnych jest to oczywista przesłanka mobilności i szansy pozyskania zatrudnienia - co tłumaczy szerokie zainteresowanie dalszym kształceniem wśród moich rówieśników z Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej.


  Bogusław Liberadzki (PSE), na piśmie. − W swoim sprawozdaniu posłanka Pack wzywa do edukowania się przez całe życie zawodowe, a nie ograniczania się do nauki tylko w latach szkolnych.

Zgadzam się ze stwierdzeniem, że obecne tempo zmian gospodarczych i społecznych wymusza potrzebę stałego, długoletniego rozwoju osobistego. Faktem jest również, że kształcenie dorosłych pozytywnie wpływa na ich poczucie własnej wartości, przyczynia się do lepszej integracji społecznej oraz buduje dialog międzykulturowy.


  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I feel that the report's goal of ensuring Member States reach a 12.5% target for participation in adult learning by 2010 will improve not only the EU's competitiveness, but will also allow for greater social inclusion and intercultural awareness: exactly what is needed for the year of intercultural dialogue. The greater use of technology and proposals to increase childcare facilities will improve opportunities for everyone to truly benefit from education. I therefore voted in favour of this report.


  Andreas Mölzer (NI), schriftlich. Es ist kontraproduktiv, einerseits das eigene Volk zum Lernen anzuhalten und andererseits aber mit den Blue-Card-Plänen aufzuwarten. Denn durch die Zunahme an atypischen Verhältnissen und dem verstärkten Konkurrenzdruck ist eine gute Grund- und weiterführende Ausbildung jetzt schon kein Schutz mehr vor Arbeitslosigkeit. Es gibt genug gut ausgebildete Leute, die von den Unternehmen nur deshalb abgelehnt werden, weil letztere auf der Suche nach Billigst-Mac-Job-Doktoren oder -Magistern sind, bzw. nur mehr atypische Arbeitsverhältnisse anbieten wollen.

Grundsätzlich ist der als Vorwand genommene Facharbeitermangel durch Ausbildungsoffensiven zu beseitigen. Falls dies unmöglich ist, ist ein Saisoniermodell zu bevorzugen. So wird sichergestellt, dass es zu keiner weiteren Massenzuwanderung kommt.

Den aufgezeigten Widersprüchen in den EU-Zielen zum Trotz sind natürlich Bestrebungen und Programme im Bereich des lebenslangen Lernens unterstützenswert.

Avviż legali - Politika tal-privatezza