Stenograma dezbaterilor

Joi, 17 ianuarie 2008 - Strasbourg

8. Explicaţii privind votul

  Der Präsident. − Ich mache Ihnen folgenden Vorschlag zur Abstimmung: Wir beginnen mit den Stimmerklärungen, unterbrechen die Sitzung um 13.00 Uhr, und die dann nicht behandelten Stimmerklärungen werden heute Nachmittag, am Ende der gesamten Debatte nach allen Abstimmungen abgegeben.

(Lebhafter Beifall)

(Der Vorschlag wird angenommen.)

PRÉSIDENCE DE M. GÉRARD ONESTA
Vice-président

Explications de vote orales

- Rapport: Michael Cashman (A6-0514/2007)

  Roger Helmer (NI). – Mr President, I have to say that on this particular measure, I voted against. While Mr Cashman is a very charming gentleman, I must say that whenever I see anything with his name on it, I do look on it with some degree of scepticism.

The issue here is that we have a European Fundamental Rights Agency as if there were no such protection for human rights in the Member States. I question whether there is any need for this institution at European level. Is it not just a case of extending bureaucracy and creating new quangos, as we call them in Britain? This is a burden on the taxpayer which, in the view of many others, will not actually contribute to human rights.

Furthermore, in the absence of the constitution which we were promised, which you are now proposing to drive through without a referendum, there is no basis for it.

  Derek Roland Clark (IND/DEM). – Mr President, I voted against this report because the United Kingdom already respects human rights. It is a signatory to many international agreements; it does not need to be told how to behave by an EU that has overridden the results of the French and the Dutch referendums, which were perfectly constitutional.

They rejected the Constitution. It has been replaced by an equivalent Treaty that has now been approved even before it has been seen in full by those who signed it.

The EU clearly has no respect for democratic rights and cannot therefore be considered a safe or reliable custodian of human rights.

  Thomas Wise (IND/DEM). – Mr President, thank you for this opportunity to explain my vote. This is the first time I have done such a thing. I voted against this proposal because, whilst the committee in question may be called the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, it does not offer liberties to civilians, it does not offer justice, and it interferes in home affairs. We in Britain were promised a referendum. We are not going to get one. What is the European Union going to do about that?

  Syed Kamall (PPE-DE). – Mr President, thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to explain my vote on this important issue.

You may not be aware of this, but I represent the constituency of London, the greatest city in the world, capital of the greatest country in the world.

What one needs to understand is that London is actually a pretty diverse city. Let me explain: we already have 300 languages and 14 religions and, on the whole, we get along very well. So, the EU could actually learn a lot from London and how it has ensured human rights and that people’s dignity is respected.

We do not need those issues to be resolved at EU level. What could London, the most diverse city in Europe – and perhaps even in the world – learn from this institution? What could it learn about human rights? What could it learn about fundamental rights? Absolutely nothing!

Let me add the following. The forthcoming ratification of the European Constitution, despite its rejection in two referendums, is undemocratic, cowardly…

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE). – Mr President, on what legal basis are we constructing this agency? The Fundamental Rights Agency would have been given authority by the European Constitution. It would be given authority by the Lisbon Treaty. But the only legal base it has at the moment is a flimsy cat’s cradle of communiqués, of press releases, of resolutions in Council.

The European Union does not have a problem with the systematic violation of human rights. It does have a problem with the systematic violation of democratic rights. The problem we have is that a human rights charter written down on paper is meaningless unless there are also mechanisms to hold leaders to account.

If you look at the constitutions of the former East Germany and of the Soviet Union, they were full of these wonderful promises of liberty. But, as the peoples of those unhappy countries found, it meant nothing without democracy.

That is why, if you want to impose this human rights charter, you should consult the people first in a referendum. Pactio Olisipio censenda est!

  Jim Allister (NI). – Mr President, I too voted against this ludicrous proposal of an agency in respect of human rights in the EU.

We in the United Kingdom, like many other countries, are long-term signatories of the European Convention on Human Rights. Such rights as require external supervision are found there, and any court which is required is found in this city under that aegis, not under any aegis required by the EU.

So this is totally unnecessary, an utter waste of public money. Its primary intent is to provide another layer of apparatus of statehood to the EU so that it can parade itself as some sort of a superstate within a Europe that gives rights to its citizens, rights they already have.

If it wants to give rights, then let it recognise the fundamental right to vote on matters such as this: to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a constitution.

- Rapport: Agustin Diaz de Mera Garcia Consuegra (A6-0447/2007)

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE-DE). – Vážený pán predseda, pretože sa trestná činnosť stále vyvíja a hrozba terorizmu rastie, Europol potrebuje zväčšiť svoju flexibilitu.

Tri protokoly na zmenu a doplnenie Dohovoru Európy OĽPR z rokov 2000 – 2003 ešte stále nenadobudli platnosť. Organizácia presadzujúca právo predsa nemôže byť efektívna, ak zmeny jej základného právneho nástroja vstúpia do platnosti až niekoľko rokov po rozhodnutí o ich prijatí. Návrh rozhodnutia Rady túto situáciu rieši, preto som zaň hlasoval.

Významnou zmenou oproti súčasnosti je financovanie Europolu z rozpočtu Spoločenstva a uplatňovanie služobného poriadku Európskej únie. To zvýši účasť Európskeho parlamentu na riadení Europolu a zjednoduší spravovanie rozpočtu aj riadenie zamestnancov. Zároveň sa posilní aj postavenie Európskeho parlamentu pri zlepšení demokratického dozoru nad Europolom. Pritom finančné náklady Spoločenstva sú porovnateľné s tými, ktoré teraz znášajú členské štáty.

  Oldřich Vlasák (PPE-DE). – Vážený pane předsedo, dovolte, abych vysvětlil, proč jsem se zdržel hlasování u této zprávy. Za prvé si myslím, že EUROPOL na bázi bilaterálních dohod a bilaterální spolupráce funguje dobře. Za druhé jako Česká republika spolu s dalšími státy jsme vstoupili do schengenského prostoru a je potřeba si nejprve na tuto spolupráci zvyknout, analyzovat ji a potom vylepšit. Za další pro jakýkoliv integrující krok k přeměně EUROPOLU na Evropský policejní úřad potřebujeme navíc ratifikaci Lisabonské smlouvy. Teprve potom můžeme jednat o případné změně právního základu EUROPOLU.

  Roger Helmer (NI). – Mr President, I was interested to note that you cut off the microphone of my colleague, Mr Kamall, on the instant of 60 seconds, whereas you are much more generous when people are saying things you find more palatable.

One of the errors we make in the European Union is to confuse ‘cooperation’ with ‘supranationalism’. I am all in favour of police cooperation – any sensible person would be in this day and age. However, I am absolutely opposed to the creation of supranational authorities – such as EUROPOL is intended to be – which, as one of my colleagues said of the Fundamental Rights Agency, is one of the attributes of statehood that the European Union is claiming.

The trouble is that these organisations lack democratic legitimacy, and that is very dangerous. Both EUROPOL and the European Union will lack democratic legitimacy until you put the Lisbon Treaty to a referendum.

  Derek Roland Clark (IND/DEM). – Mr President, I could not disagree more with this report. I voted against. Cooperation between police forces, yes; forced cooperation and obligation, no; especially when this police force will have within its ranks armed police that can be sent anywhere in the European Union.

We do not have armed police as a rule in the United Kingdom. We will not suffer armed police coming in at the behest of EUROPOL. We do not believe in it. We run our country in a different way!

I am particularly disappointed to see that Amendments 56 and 57 were voted down, because, if passed, they would have removed immunity from that police force. In the United Kingdom, we are used to a police force which, if it causes damage to property or violates the individual or arrests without good reason, can be charged with offences afterwards. But then, I would not be surprised, because, after all, you are prepared to ram through a constitution without asking anybody either.

  Thomas Wise (IND/DEM). – Mr President, for the second time I rise to declare my vote opposing this motion.

In Britain, there is a simple philosophy: no man is above the law; not even the Queen, the monarch of England, is above the law. It will take due process. We have in this legislation created a situation where there are people outside the law, incapable of being pursued legitimately.

I have said in this House before: if the European Union is the answer, it must have been a bloody stupid question, and never was this so true as now.

I give you Kennedy’s comments: ‘Those who make peaceful protest impossible, make violent protest inevitable’.

  Nirj Deva (PPE-DE). – Mr President, it is vital to cooperate across transnational boundaries on international crime, terrorism, drugs and so on. EUROPOL is doing that job right now with other police forces.

However, creating a European police office which increases central powers will not solve the problems that have arisen in local communities around Britain. My country, my party, has voted against this resolution today as loyal Conservatives.

My party has also requested that we have a referendum on the EU Constitutional Treaty. I have no place other than this House to protest at what Mr Brown is doing in reneging on a pledge he gave to hold such a referendum.

I would therefore ask that we request Mr Brown to give the British people that referendum.

  Syed Kamall (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I understand that this proposal for a Council decision, as outlined in the report, provides for the conversion of EUROPOL into an EU agency.

We must recognise that this will have two consequences. First of all, funding will have to be provided from the Community budget, and EUROPOL staff will acquire the status of Community officials. The report also contains provisions for coordination, which we all welcome, and organisation and implementation of investigations and operational activities carried out in conjunction with the Member States’ relevant authorities or by joint investigation teams.

The Conservatives favour open cooperation between police forces across the EU and beyond in the fight against crime. But we really do not accept that the EU has any role in centralising such cooperation. Thus, EUROPOL is an agency which is not necessary since other organisations already exist to fulfil this function at a global level.

It is for this reason that I would like to add that the coming ratification of the European Constitution, despite its rejection in two referendums, is undemocratic, cowardly and illegitimate.

  Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I am glad to have this opportunity to make an explanation of vote. I put in for speaking time in the debate on this issue, but one of the consequences of my party’s unhappy mésalliance with the European People’s Party is that British Conservatives are systematically denied speaking time in important debates.

What I wanted to say was that this report is based on a conceptual misunderstanding. People say that, because we have cross-border crimes, and because crime is international, we need cross-border policing.

We already have it. The police forces of the nation states have for decades been collaborating to great effect. We have Interpol, we have the Hague Convention, we have extradition treaties, we recognise the time spent in another country’s prison as constituting part of a sentence, and so on.

The difference is that these things are based on democratic decisions between independent states, whereas what is being proposed with EUROPOL is the federalisation of what ought to be a sensitive national issue – namely the policing of criminal law.

If we want to do that, we should first ask people in a referendum, which is why we need a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

  Jim Allister (NI). – Mr President, some of the reasons propagated for this proposal on EUROPOL are quite bogus. It is suggested that we need to change the legal base; that we need to provide it with EU funding; that we need those it employs to be EU officials; that we need to expand its remit; and that we need an agency so that we can fight organised crime and terrorism. What utter nonsense! We have been fighting organised crime and terrorism quite effectively, through proper long-standing cooperation between police forces.

This is all about creating another aspect of the apparatus of EU statehood, so that it has an effective EU police force. That is what those officials will be, meddling in the internal affairs of Member States and – as has been pointed out – with immunity for their actions, beyond the reach even of judicial review in nation states. It is a preposterous proposal and utterly unnecessary.

- Rapport: Lydie Polfer (A6-0516/2007)

  Nirj Deva (PPE-DE). – Mr President, regarding the Polfer report, the Conservatives did vote with the rapporteur on the issue of the South Caucasus.

But it is again rather curious, is it not, that, while we are so anxious to protect the democratic freedoms and the rights of the people of the South Caucasus, and to ensure that they have a legitimacy and that they can express their self-determination, when it comes to the serious issue of the Constitutional Treaty of the European Union, Mr Brown of the Labour Party, who promised to give us a referendum, has now reneged on a referendum.

My party, the Conservative Party, is incensed that a promise has been reneged on and that is why I am standing here asking the Labour Government to give us a referendum on this important constitutional issue, just as we are concerned about what is happening in the South Caucasus.

  Syed Kamall (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I understand that this report welcomes the inclusion of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia into the European neighbourhood policy and the endorsement of bilateral European Neighbourhood Policy action plans.

I also understand that the rapporteur calls on the EU to develop a regional policy for the South Caucasus to be implemented jointly with the countries of the region. Of course, one of the watchwords that will appear in many of these reports is the word ‘democracy’. I represent London – you may not be aware of this. I represent London, the greatest city in the world, capital of the greatest country in the world, and we happen to have a very diverse community in London, including many people from Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia.

One of the things that they welcome about living in London is democracy and the right to have their say on vital issues. They ask me all the time, ‘Why is it that you are preaching to us about democracy, yet you deny that very right to your citizens in Britain when it comes to a referendum on the Constitution?’. So the Constitution, despite its rejection in two referendums, is undemocratic, cowardly and illegitimate.

  Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE). – Mr President, may I thank you for the patience and good humour you are exhibiting in this session. May I also, as yesterday, extend my thanks to the services and the interpreters for humouring us.

The big issue in the South Caucasus region at the moment is the dispute over election results. The West more or less connived at the Saddam-like election victory of the current Georgian Government the first time around with its vote of well over 90%, and now, when it claims re-election, we are arguing about whether that vote was free and fair.

What kind of example do we in the European Union hold up to these struggling democracies when we show such contempt for our own democratic process here in the European Union? It seems periodically necessary to remind this House that 55% of French voters and 62% of Dutch voters voted ‘no’ to the European Constitution, and yet we have the document coming back – this time without any referendums – as the Lisbon Treaty.

I say it again: it is necessary to give the people a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Pactio Olisipio censenda est!

  Le Président. – Monsieur Hannan, mon humour n'a d'égal que le vôtre. Je me demande toujours comment vous arriverez à replacer le mot "référendum". Vous y arrivez parfaitement, sur chaque sujet.

- Rapport: Roberta Alma Anastase (A6-0510/2007)

  Roger Helmer (NI). – Mr President, I voted in favour of this measure not because it was my considered wish to do so, but because, as a loyal Conservative, I was following the whip.

Left to myself I would probably have abstained or perhaps voted against. I have to say that issues concerning the Black Sea are not the top priority for my electors in the East Midlands of the United Kingdom, and I suspect not the second or third priority either. Therefore, you could in a sense say that this was not a matter of the very greatest importance.

However, I do not believe that the European Union should have a common foreign and security policy. I believe that nation states should have their own foreign policies, and am perfectly happy for them to work together in cooperation when that is in their interests – be this with states in the European Union or with states outside it.

In any case, the common foreign and security policy can have no democratic legitimacy if there is to be no referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

  Derek Roland Clark (IND/DEM). – Mr President, without doubt this new policy is aimed at facilitating, amongst other things, the supply of oil and gas through that region to Western Europe.

That would be Russian gas and Russian oil, and you are now allowing yourselves to be possibly taken hostage. We all know that Russia cut off the supply of gas to Ukraine two Christmases ago; once they get an even bigger share of Western Europe gas supplies, perhaps they might do it to all of us at some time.

At least here in France they have got the right idea, generating at least 70% of their electricity by nuclear power, and it is about time the EU formulated a policy to promote that right across the Union.

But instead, of course, you go dabbling in the south Caucasus, around the Black Sea, with regimes that are not terribly stable; with regimes that may not want us there. But of course, you would rather do that than promote a referendum on the new constitution amongst your own people.

  Syed Kamall (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I am pleased to say that I am still here, even if you and others may not share my pleasure at being here. I would like to thank you all for your patience.

I understand that this own-initiative report actually welcomes the Commission’s communication ‘Black Sea Synergy – a New Regional Cooperation Initiative’, which aims to enhance cooperation with and within the Black Sea region by supplementing existing bilateral policies with a new regional approach. It considers that, in order to adopt such an approach, the communication has to be followed by further consistent steps on the part of the EU to encourage a genuine regional dimension tailored to this era.

What region are we talking about? Let me just clarify – the Black Sea region comprises the EU Member States Bulgaria, Greece and Romania, as well as Turkey and ENP partners Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine, as well as the Russian Federation. The great philosopher Brook Benton – followed and copied by the great philosopher Randy Crawford – once said, ‘It’s a rainy night in Georgia’. Indeed, when the people of Europe are denied their vote and the people of Britain are denied their vote in a referendum on the Constitution, it is a rainy night in the EU for democracy.

  Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I appreciate your courtesy. I am glad to be able to speak on this report because it seems to me that the European Union, in its treatment of Turkey, is making a generational, a possibly epical mistake.

It now seems very clear that we are never going to admit Turkey to full membership. It is clear from the majorities in this House; it is clear from the promises of referendums in Austria and France, where there are majorities of 70% and 80% respectively against membership.

Had we said initially to Ankara that this was the case and we were going to work out some kind of alternative, we might have been able to go ahead in amity and partnership. Instead we are stringing the Turks along, imposing tens of thousands of pages of the acquis communautaire on them, making them grovel about Armenia, about Cyprus, about the treatment of their minorities and then, possibly 10 or even 15 years from now, after all of this, we will flick two fingers at them. In so doing, we risk creating the very thing we purport to fear: an Islamist state.

Turkey is more of a democracy than the European Union. It changed its government peaceably. I wish we would have the courage to consult our own people. Pactio Olisipio censenda est!

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE-DE). – Čiernomorský región má ako produkčná a tranzitná oblasť strategický význam pre diverzifikáciu a bezpečnosť dodávok energie do Európskej únie. Som presvedčený, že regionálna spolupráca by popri Turecku a Rusku mala ako rovnocenných partnerov zahŕňať aj krajiny Európskej únie, preto som hlasoval za.

Konflikty, ktoré stále pretrvávajú v tomto regióne a predstavujú ohrozenie stability a rozvoja oblasti, ma znepokojujú. Preto povzbudzujem Európsku úniu, aby sa aktívnejšie zapájala do úsilia o vyriešenie konfliktov v tejto strategickej oblasti najmä v mierových operáciách a užšie spolupracovala s vládami Ruska a Ukrajiny. Rezervy vidím aj v nerovnomernom rozvoji súkromného sektora v mnohých krajinách ležiacich pri Čiernom mori. V regióne je potrebné zlepšiť investičné prostredie pre miestne aj medzinárodné spoločnosti, a to zintenzívnením boja proti korupcii a podvodom a presadzovaním reforiem trhového hospodárstva.

  Le Président. – Conformément à la décision de la plénière, la suite des explications de vote aura lieu après les votes de cet après-midi.

Explications de vote écrites

- Rapport: Michael Cashman (A6-0514/2007)

  Alessandro Battilocchio (PSE), per iscritto. − Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, vorrei esprimere il mio totale sostegno a questa relazione, frutto di un lungo e di un ottimo lavoro svolto dall'onorevole collega Michael Cashman.

A seguito, infatti, della trasformazione dell'Osservatorio europeo dei fenomeni di razzismo e xenofobia in un'Agenzia incaricata della difesa e della promozione dei diritti umani e dopo che quest'ultima è stata ufficialmente istituita il primo marzo 2007, ad oggi non possiamo che riscontrare la totale non operatività della stessa dovuta alla mancanza di un direttore e di un quadro pluriennale.

In risposta a tale lentezza e inefficacia burocratica, il relatore propone di emendare il quadro pluriennale in un numero minimo di punti ed esorta la Commissione e il Consiglio ad accelerare il processo di selezione di candidati per il posto da direttore, al fine di facilitare il raggiungimento di un accordo tra le istituzioni UE, riconsegnando in tal modo questo strumento fondamentale per la difesa dei diritti umani ai cittadini.

Esorto dunque tutti gli onorevoli colleghi a sostenere questa relazione che rappresenta un primo passo verso l'operatività dell'Agenzia.

Il sostegno alle politiche UE per la difesa dei diritti umani ed al loro sviluppo non può e non deve dipendere da considerazioni e ritardi di derivazione politico-economica.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE), por escrito. − Apoiei, claramente, a criação (em Fevereiro de 2007) da Agência dos Direitos Fundamentais por acreditar que esta Agência poderá contribuir significativamente para aumentar a coerência e a coesão da política da UE em matéria de direitos fundamentais.

Foi oficialmente instituída em 1 de Março de 2007, mas continua a aguardar que lhe sejam atribuídos os elementos básicos para se tornar operacional, ou seja, a nomeação do seu Director e a aprovação de um quadro plurianual.

Esta iniciativa pretende fixar esse quadro plurianual que deverá orientar o funcionamento da Agência nos próximos 5 anos, definindo os domínios temáticos onde ela deverá actuar.

Apoio, assim, o enorme esforço que o relator - o Senhor Cashman - fez no sentido de facilitar as negociações e espero, tal como ele, que isso incentive a Comissão e o Conselho a concluírem com a maior brevidade a discussão sobre este quadro plurianual, e em paralelo o processo de selecção de candidatos para o cargo de director.

Os cidadãos europeus não compreenderão mais atrasos que impeçam que esta Agência dos Direitos Fundamentais se torne inteiramente operacional.

  Sylwester Chruszcz (NI), na piśmie. − Jestem przeciwko utworzeniu Europejskiej Agencji Praw Podstawowych, dlatego nie poparłem wieloletnich ram prac agencji na lata 2007-2012.

Uważam, że projekt jej powołania i kompetencji jest nie tylko stratą pieniędzy, ale również groźną inicjatywą polityczną, której długoterminowe skutki będą szkodliwe dla państw członkowskich Unii. Program stałych działań unijnej agencji jest ewidentną ingerencją w suwerenność państw członkowskich i nie ma ona w ogóle racji bytu. Mamy w każdym kraju i Europie instytucje, które stoją na straży demokracji i przestrzegania praw człowieka.

Jest dla mnie oczywiste, że agencja będzie w swoich działaniach wykraczać poza dziedziny tematyczne dla których została powołana. Już w dzisiejszym głosowaniu, w poprawce 6 do preambuły dokumentu, mieliśmy przykład zdefiniowania, kto jest istotą ludzką i w którym momencie nabywa prawa człowieka.

Tego typu działania uważam za skandaliczną próbę ukrytego forsowania niebezpiecznych pomysłów ideologicznych w ramach Unii Europejskiej.

  Glyn Ford (PSE), in writing. − I support this report, despite my opposition and disappointment that the former European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, set up following the recommendations of the Council of Ministers’ Consultative Committee on Racism and Xenophobia, where I represented the European Parliament, has now been dissolved into a wider European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.

The Monitoring Centre in Vienna did extremely valuable work on promoting best practice in combating racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism and preventing their rise, as well as reporting on the current state of play across the Union and in applicant countries. The danger is that this will be lost, or at least diluted, in this new Agency. I will watch developments with care.

  Patrick Gaubert (PPE-DE), par écrit. – La délégation française du groupe PPE-DE se réjouit de l'adoption du rapport Cashman portant sur l'adoption d'un cadre pluriannuel de l'Agence des droits fondamentaux de l'Union européenne pour la période 2007-2012.

Ce texte définit entre autres les domaines thématiques précis de son activité afin de lui permettre de s'acquitter au mieux de sa mission et de ses objectifs.

La majorité de la délégation française, suivant son groupe, a rejeté les amendements du groupe libéral visant à étendre ses missions d'une part à l'homophobie et aux

violences homophobes et d'autre part au racisme à l'encontre des Roms, non pas pour exprimer son opposition à l'égard de ce combat légitime et justifié mais parce que ces missions sont déjà couvertes par la proposition de décision qui prévoit précisément parmi les domaines thématiques d'action de l'Agence le racisme, la xénophobie et l'intolérance qui y est associée ainsi que les discriminations fondées sur le sexe, la race ou l'origine ethnique, la religion ou les convictions, le handicap, l'âge, l'orientation sexuelle ou l'appartenance à une minorité.

Nous nous félicitons de l'adoption de ce rapport qui permettra à l'Agence de devenir pleinement opérationnelle afin d'accomplir sa tâche et garantir les droits des citoyens de l'Union.

  Ambroise Guellec (PPE-DE), par écrit. – La délégation française du groupe PPE-DE se réjouit de l'adoption du rapport Cashman portant sur l'adoption d'un cadre pluriannuel de l'Agence des droits fondamentaux de l'Union européenne pour la période 2007-2012.

Ce texte définit entre autres les domaines thématiques précis de son activité afin de lui permettre de s'acquitter au mieux de sa mission et de ses objectifs.

La délégation française, à l'instar de son groupe a rejeté les amendements du groupe libéral visant à étendre ses missions d'une part à l'homophobie et aux violences homophobes et d'autre part au racisme à l'encontre des Roms, non pas pour exprimer son opposition à l'égard de ce combat qui est légitime et justifié mais parce que ces missions sont déjà couvertes par la proposition de décision qui prévoit précisément parmi les domaines thématiques d'action de l'Agence le racisme, la xénophobie et l'intolérance qui y est associée ainsi que les discriminations fondées sur le sexe, la race ou l'origine ethnique, la religion ou les convictions, le handicap, l'âge, l'orientation sexuelle ou l'appartenance à une minorité.

Nous nous félicitons tous de l'adoption de ce rapport qui permettra à l'Agence de devenir pleinement opérationnelle afin d'accomplir sa tâche et garantir les droits des citoyens de l'Union.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − Para além de aspectos que criticamos e que já tivemos oportunidade de sublinhar, à medida que é operacionalizada a Agência dos Direitos Fundamentais da UE, e com o tempo, vai sendo clarificado o que efectivamente se pretende com esta.

No quadro do debate em torno da definição dos objectivos e prioridades para o seu "quadro plurianual" 2007-2012 ficou patente a restrição dos seus domínios temáticos: ao racismo, xenofobia e intolerância; à discriminação com base no sexo, na origem racial ou étnica, na religião ou crença, na deficiência ou na orientação sexual ou de pessoas pertencentes a minorias; à compensação de vítimas, prevenção do crime e aspectos conexos relevantes para a segurança dos cidadãos; à protecção das crianças, incluindo os direitos da criança; à imigração e integração de migrantes; ao asilo; aos vistos e controlo de fronteiras; à participação no funcionamento democrático da União; às questões de direitos humanos relacionados com a sociedade da informação; e ao acesso a uma justiça eficiente e independente.

O PE acrescentou a pobreza extrema e a exclusão social, no entanto, por exemplo, não foram considerados prioritários os direitos sociais, incluindo os dos trabalhadores, num momento em que direitos sociais fundamentais estão a ser colocados em causa pelas políticas promovidas pela UE.

  Elisabeth Morin (PPE-DE), par écrit. – Comme la délégation française au groupe PPE-DE, je me réjouis de l'adoption du rapport Cashman portant sur l'adoption d'un cadre pluriannuel de l'Agence des droits fondamentaux de l'Union européenne pour la période 2007-2012.

Ce texte définit, entre autres, les domaines thématiques précis de l'activité afin de lui permettre de s'acquitter au mieux de sa mission et de ses objectifs.

Comme la délégation française et le groupe PPE-DE, j'ai rejeté les amendements du groupe libéral visant à étendre les missions de l'Agence, d'une part, à l'homophobie et aux violences homophobes et, d'autre part au racisme à l'encontre des Roms. En effet, ces missions sont déjà couvertes par la proposition de décision qui prévoit précisément, parmi les domaines thématiques d'action de l'Agence, le racisme, la xénophobie et l'intolérance qui y est associée, les discriminations fondées sur le sexe, la race ou l'origine ethnique, la religion ou les convictions, le handicap, l'âge, l'orientation sexuelle ou l'appartenance à une minorité.

Je me réjouis de l'adoption de ce rapport, qui permettra à l'Agence de devenir pleinement opérationnelle et de garantir les droits des citoyens de l'Union européenne.

- Rapport: Agustin Diaz de Mera Garcia Consuegra (A6-0447/2007)

  Bairbre de Brún and Eva-Britt Svensson (GUE/NGL), in writing. − I voted in favour of the amended proposal because it contains improvements in data protection.

However, I do not agree with the increasing move of justice and home affairs issues from the Member States to the EU. For this reason, I voted against the legislative resolution.

  Gérard Deprez (ALDE), par écrit. – C'est avec conviction que je soutiens le rapport de notre excellent collègue Díaz de Mera.

La transformation d'Europol en Agence communautaire est une revendication du Parlement européen que j'ai toujours appuyée.

Elle signifie en effet que, dorénavant, le financement d'Europol sera assuré par le budget communautaire et que le statut des fonctionnaires s'appliquera au personnel d'Europol. Dans les deux cas, les pouvoirs de notre Parlement en sortent considérablement renforcés.

Par ailleurs, la décision du Conseil élargit sensiblement le champ et les capacités d'intervention d'Europol, ce qui correspond également à mes convictions.

Bref, rendre Europol plus opérationnel et le soumettre à un vrai contrôle démocratique est un choix que je soutiens sans réserve.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), par écrit. – Le tour de passe-passe que nous propose le Conseil est parfaitement réussi: faire passer l'Office européen de police, Europol, du statut d'agence de nature intergouvernementale, financée par les budgets des États membres, en Agence de l'Union européenne financée par le budget de l'Union et appliquant le statut des fonctionnaires des Communautés, le tout en argüant d'impératifs non politiques mais techniques.

En effet, les missions d'Europol s'étant considérablement étendues à des domaines autres que la seule criminalité organisée, le Conseil estime que ces nouveaux objectifs seront mieux assurés au niveau de l'Union que des États membres. Et c'est ainsi, au nom du très contestable principe de subsidiarité, que la logique européiste du dessaisissement systématique des compétences des États et de l'approfondissement du modèle supranational s'applique.

Telle est exactement la philosophie et le sens des réformes contenues dans le traité de Lisbonne, que l'ensemble des dirigeants européens et nationaux veulent imposer aux peuples et nations contre leur volonté.

L'Europe n'est plus à l'écoute de ses peuples. Pire, elle les méprise et leur ment. Alors que 26 pays européens ont déjà annoncé qu'ils ne ratifieraient pas ce traité par la voie du référendum, espérons que le salut des nations et peuples européens passera par le rejet de ce texte d'abandon par les Irlandais, seuls autorisés à s'exprimer.

  Genowefa Grabowska (PSE), na piśmie. − Państwa członkowskie UE nadały walce z przestępczością zorganizowaną zinstytucjonalizowaną formułę Europolu. Dzisiaj - po 12 latach od jego utworzenia - debatujemy nad poszerzeniem kompetencji i uproszczeniem funkcjonowania tej instytucji.

Sprawozdawca trafnie ocenił aktualną sytuację prawną i faktyczną Europolu. Słusznie krytykuje zbyt skomplikowaną i długą procedurę przewidzianą dla zmiany jego statusu oraz usytuowania w unijnej strukturze organizacyjnej. Także środki naprawcze, które proponuje w swym sprawozdaniu, zasługują na uwagę i poparcie.

Podejmowane wcześniej próby zmiany kompetencji Europolu pokazują, jak trudno osiągnąć porozumienie państw, gdy obowiązuje zasada jednomyślności. Dlatego wierzę, że dopiero ratyfikacja i wprowadzenie w życie, we wszystkich 27 państwach członkowskich traktatu lizbońskiego, który reformuje także sposób podejmowania decyzji w UE, pozwoli na zmiany proceduralne i doprowadzi do uzdrowienia tej sytuacji.

Także nadanie Europolowi statusu agencji unijnej, ze wszystkimi,- włącznie z finansowymi, konsekwencjami, pozwoli na skuteczniejszą walkę całej Unii Europejskiej z przestępczością zorganizowaną.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − Ainda a proposta de Tratado não foi ratificada, nem a proposta, aí inscrita, de adoptar por maioria qualificada as decisões quanto aos regulamentos sobre a estrutura, operações, campo de acção e tarefas da EUROPOL, já as instituições da UE se afadigam a transformar o Serviço Europeu de Polícia numa agência europeia.

Para além da nossa crítica de fundo a este processo, é com preocupação que somos confrontados com:

- A possibilidade de não vir a ser excluído o "tratamento de categorias especiais de dados relativos à origem étnica ou racial, opiniões políticas, convicções religiosas ou filosóficas, filiação num partido ou num sindicato, orientação sexual ou saúde";

- A não adopção de salvaguardas relativas à protecção dos dados pessoais tratados no âmbito da cooperação policial e judicial ao nível da UE e na relação com países terceiros, nomeadamente com os EUA (por exemplo, quanto aos dados sobre passageiros aéreos);

- A não garantia do acesso por parte de um cidadão aos dados que lhe digam respeito ou sequer tomar conhecimento se os seus dados pessoais são objecto de tratamento pela Europol;

- A não clarificação quanto ao controlo por parte dos parlamentos nacionais;

O que representaria uma flagrante violação dos direitos, liberdades e garantias dos cidadãos.

  Antonio Masip Hidalgo (PSE), por escrito. − He votado el informe consensuado con las aportaciones de los grupos. Es materia que incide en la cooperación inexcusable contra el crimen. Sin embargo, señalo, como hicieron mis colegas Fava y Moreno, que los altos fines de la resolución no se compadecen con la actitud recalcitrante del ponente, Díaz de Mera, Director de la policía española el 11 - Marzo - 2.004, que se negó a colaborar con el Tribunal que ejemplarmente juzgó el mayor atentado que tuvo lugar en Europa.

Es más, el ponente es uno de los principales propagadores o cooperadores necesarios de la vergonzosa teoría de que no fueron células islamistas sino el terrorismo de Eta el responsable de aquella matanza. Díaz de Mera y otros autodenominados “peones negros” quisieron confundir a la opinión pública internacional y, aunque, su actitud no se ha perseguido finalmente como delito ( solo fue objeto de sanción y seria advertencia por el Tribunal) merece que todo se sepa en este Parlamento. Sus descalificaciones personales revelan su ausencia de argumentos. Y, por último, lamentar que Díaz de Mera no haya tenido ni la dignidad de su colega Jaime Mayor que ha suprimido su nombre de la ponencia de terrorismo.

  Luca Romagnoli (NI), per iscritto. − Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, esprimo il mio voto favorevole sulla relazione Díaz de Mera García Consuegra sull'istituzione dell'Ufficio europeo di polizia (Europol). Il mutare delle circostanze in seno all'Unione europea, le nuove forme di criminalità e le nuove minacce terroristiche impongono una rimodulazione dell'esistente organismo. Ritengo tuttavia doverose alcune precisazioni.

La trasformazione di Europol in agenzia dell'Unione Europea non deve comportare un ulteriore aggravio per le finanze degli Stati membri e soprattutto una sottrazione dei fondi statali, già insufficienti, riservati alle forze dell'ordine nazionali. Al contrario, gli organi investigativi e di difesa dell'ordine pubblico vanno maggiormente tutelati e rafforzati. L'azione di Europol, infatti, deve essere di supporto e coordinamento a quella fondamentale e insostituibile delle forze dell'ordine dei vari Stati membri. In tal senso, mi compiaccio che la proposta preveda disposizioni riguardanti il coordinamento, l'organizzazione e lo svolgimento di indagini e azioni operative congiuntamente con le autorità competenti degli Stati membri o nel quadro di squadre investigative comuni.

- Rapport: Lydie Polfer (A6-0516/2007)

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − Este relatório de iniciativa do PE espelha as reais ambições da denominada "política europeia de vizinhança" da UE, designadamente para o Sul do Cáucaso.

Trata-se da explanação da agenda geo-estratégica nas suas vertentes política, económica e militar, isto é, do plano de intervenção da UE nesta zona nevrálgica, acentuando a pressão sobre a China e a Rússia.

Tal traduz-se em mais ingerência e manipulação dos conflitos que surgiram em resultado do desmantelamento da URSS, com o intuito de procurar assegurar o domínio das grandes potências e grupos financeiros-económicos da UE sobre esta região, evidenciando igualmente as rivalidades inter-capitalistas.

Basta ver as "recomendações", como o incentivo à celebração de acordos de livre comércio e à prossecução de mais liberalizações ou o claro apelo à ingerência através do "apoio" à acção da "sociedade civil", garantindo que "os fundos (comunitários!) sejam distribuídos... sem interferências do Estado".

É particularmente significativa a abordagem da questão energética, salientando a importância de corredores energéticos que contornem a Rússia e o domínio de infra-estruturas e fontes de energia.

Por fim, uma nota sobre a incoerência entre "o seu apoio incondicional à integridade territorial e à inviolabilidade das fronteiras internacionalmente reconhecidas da Geórgia" e o apelo aos princípios da Carta das Nações Unidas, quando não o faz para a Sérvia.

- Rapport: Roberta Alma Anastase (A6-0510/2007)

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − Trata-se de mais um relatório de iniciativa do PE que se inscreve na lógica do relatório sobre o Sul do Cáucaso e da denominada "política de vizinhança europeia": ingerência; pressão para garantir o acesso (e dominar) os mercados (nomeadamente energético) e para mais liberalizações.

O PE pugna pela promoção de "reformas da economia de mercado", incentivando "a harmonização e mais medidas de liberalização" e apoiando "a criação de uma zona de comércio livre em conformidade". Processo em que a UE teria "um destacado papel a desempenhar" no "incentivo à tomada das medidas necessárias para a região".

O PE ao mesmo tempo que "sublinha a importância fundamental de estabelecer e desenvolver boas relações de vizinhança entre os países da região do Mar Negro e também com os seus vizinhos, assentes no respeito mútuo, na integridade territorial, na não ingerência nos assuntos internos uns dos outros e na proibição do uso da força ou da ameaça do uso da força, enquanto princípios fundamentais do fomento da cooperação regional", pugna pela promoção dos ditos "valores europeus", "independentemente do grau de vontade demonstrado pelos governos associados". Uma contradição/incoerência entre o que afirma (para os outros) e o que faz. A UE exige que outros respeitem aquilo que ela própria desrespeita. Que cinismo.

- Proposition de résolution: Situation au Kenya (B6-0024/2008)

  Karin Scheele (PSE), schriftlich. − Kenia war für viele Menschen bis vor kurzem ein Urlaubsparadies. Die große Mehrheit der Bevölkerung, die in absoluter Armut lebt, massive Korruption konnten gut ausgeblendet werden. Seit den Wahlen Ende Dezember, den Fälschungen bei der Präsidentenwahl sind Kenia und seine politischen Probleme plötzlich in aller Munde.

Die Parlamentswahlen wurden von den Wahlbeobachtern als weitgehend erfolgreich angesehen, jedoch wurden Zweifel an den Ergebnissen der Präsidentschaftswahl angemeldet. Mit der heutigen Entschließung zu Kenia bedauern wir einmal mehr die weit verbreiteten Unregelmäßigkeiten und die Haltung des Amtsinhabers Kibaki, der das Angebot von Präsident John Kufuor zur Beilegung der Krise zurückgewiesen hat, womit die Vermittlungsbemühungen ernsthaft untergraben wurden. Die politischen Führer Kenias sind aufgerufen, alles in ihrer Macht Stehende zu tun, um weitere Gewalt im Lande zu verhindern und die Einhaltung der Menschenrechte zu gewährleisten. Bei der Aussprache zu diesem Thema wurde einmal mehr die Frage der Wirksamkeit direkter Budgethilfe diskutiert und hinterfragt. Ein Thema, das uns wie Kenia auch weiterhin beschäftigen wird.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − Serve a presente declaração de voto para salientar que, valorizando os esforços de mediação encetados pelos países vizinhos, pela Comunidade para o Desenvolvimento da África Austral e pela União Africana, consideramos que caberá ao povo queniano a procura e a definição do seu caminho. Está nas mãos do povo queniano encontrar as soluções para ultrapassar a actual situação que se vive no seu país.

Neste sentido consideramos negativa qualquer tentativa de intromissão da UE, como indiciada e proposta na resolução, nomeadamente tendo em conta os objectivos proclamados pela UE na sua "estratégia para África" e o quadro de concertação/rivalidade inter-imperialistas relativamente a este continente, que esta igualmente evidencia e que tanto se fazem sentir nesta região.

Por fim, apenas uma nota sobre a omissão na resolução quanto à degradação e grave situação socio-económica neste país - que está na raiz da expressão do descontentamento popular manifestado nas eleições -, e às profundas responsabilidades das políticas neoliberais promovidas, nomeadamente pelas instituições financeiras internacionais, pelas grandes potências capitalistas e suas transnacionais, por esta.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE), v písemné formě. − Plně se ztotožňuji s naším usnesením o situaci v Keni, které vychází z aktuálního šetření pozorovatelské mise EU v Keni na začátku roku.

Musíme přimět orgány v Keni, aby vyšetřily bez odkladu okolnosti voleb a zabránily dalším násilnostem, musíme trvat na obnovení živého vysílání a na dodržování základních lidských práv a práv zakotvených v Africké chartě. Ale toto usnesení nezbavuje Evropskou komisi odpovědnosti vyřešit poukázání oněch 40 milionů eur konžské vládě a tak věřím, že se brzy k problému vrátíme.

- Rapport: Ida Figueiredo (A6-0519/2007)

  Edite Estrela (PSE), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente o parágrafo 20 do Relatório sobre o papel das mulheres na indústria porque é importante que a Comissão promova um estudo sobre as consequências negativas das longas permanências no local de trabalho, a nível pessoal, familiar e social: os filhos ficam muito tempo sozinhos, entregues a si próprios, o que está, muitas vezes, na origem do insucesso escolar e da criminalidade... Os Estados-Membros devem exercer uma maior fiscalização sobre as empresas que obrigam os trabalhadores a permanecer no local de trabalho para além do horário estabelecido na lei e a aplicarem pesadas penas.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − Foi hoje aprovado em plenário do Parlamento Europeu o meu relatório sobre o papel das mulheres na indústria, o que é muito positivo, apesar de lamentar pequenas alterações.

Mas valoriza o importante papel das mulheres na indústria, apela à Comissão e aos Estados-Membros para que tomem as medidas necessárias, incluindo uma fiscalização eficaz, para combater os estereótipos e as discriminações, designadamente salariais, situação tanto mais grave quanto se sabe que ainda rondam os 30% na indústria, quando a média nos restantes sectores é de 15%, apesar da directiva sobre a igualdade de remunerações ter mais de 30 anos.

Sublinha a importância da negociação colectiva no combate à discriminação das mulheres, nomeadamente em matéria de acesso ao emprego, salários, condições de trabalho, progressão na carreira e formação profissional.

Sublinha a importância de programas comunitários que incentivem a criação de marcas, a defesa da indicação de origem da produção e a promoção externa dos produtos comunitários dos sectores onde predominem mulheres.

Por último, é muito importante que se tenha reconhecido o direito dos trabalhadores e trabalhadoras a intervir nos processos de reestruturação de empresas, reconhecendo às suas estruturas, designadamente aos Comités Europeus de Empresa, todo o direito à informação e à intervenção decisiva, incluindo o direito de veto.

  Hélène Goudin och Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), skriftlig. − Detta betänkande går in på en rad aspekter som i sig är betydelsefulla, men där medlemsstaterna har kompetensen och ansvaret att utveckla och förbättra sina respektive lagstiftningar. Könsfördelningen i bolagsstyrelser, utvecklingen av jämställdhetsplaner på storföretag och andelen kvinnliga ledamöter i bolagsstyrelser är inte frågor som bäst och effektivast regleras på EU-nivå. Vi har således röstat nej till det aktuella betänkandet.

 

  Genowefa Grabowska (PSE), na piśmie. − Jest oczywiste, że przemysł w Europie ulega systematycznym przemianom. Trudno zatem nie docenić jego strategicznego znaczenia dla rozwoju wszystkich państw członkowskich Unii Europejskiej, a także ich obywateli, i to bez względu na płeć.

Rola i perspektywy kobiet pracujących w europejskim przemyśle zależą nie tylko od poziomu ekonomicznego rozwoju państwa, ale także od tradycji w zakresie krzewienia równouprawnienia i respektowania standardów ochrony praw człowieka. Kobiety mają ogromny udział i wnoszą niebagatelny wkład niemal we wszystkie branże, ale należy się zgodzić ze sprawozdawcą, że ich udział w przemyśle związanym z najnowszymi technologiami, takimi jak: aeronautyka, czy przemysł chemiczny jest dalece niewystarczający.

Dlatego dobrze się stało, że sprawozdanie mocno akcentuje ten wymiar i kładzie należyty nacisk na problemy płci. Stara się przy tym podkreślić, że udział kobiet w przemyśle nie może się ograniczać do pracy w sektorach niewymagających kwalifikacji, w których kobiety są pierwszymi ofiarami w razie restrukturyzacji.

Należy w pełni podzielić sugestię sprawozdawcy, gdy wzywa do udzielania wsparcia, zwłaszcza małym i średnim przedsiębiorstwom po to, aby utrzymać w nich możliwie wysoki poziom zatrudnienia pracujących tam kobiet, zwłaszcza tych, które znalazły się w niesprzyjającej sytuacji zawodowej. Chociażby z tych powodów sprawozdanie zasługuje na poparcie.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE), in writing. − I support paragraph 33 because such proactive measures need to be taken - at least on an interim basis to ensure participation of women in the decision-making process at all levels. In addition to this I strongly support paragraph 20 as there is a real need for a full investigation into the impact that long working hours have on health, both physical and mental, as well as on family life. If we are to promote a work life balance and family friendly policies then we need such a study.

  Mieczysław Edmund Janowski (UEN), na piśmie. − Prawa człowieka stanowią fundament demokracji. Pośród nich niezmiernie ważna jest zasada równości praw kobiet i mężczyzn, oczywiście przy uwzględnieniu uwarunkowań wynikających z różnic biologicznych. Problem ten ma także swój wymiar dotyczący zatrudnienia i roli kobiet w przemyśle. Nie można tu w żadnym wypadku stosować arytmetycznego podziału typu: pół na pół.

Chodzi nade wszystko o równość szans, która uwarunkowana jest dostępem do edukacji i kształcenia zawodowego w dyscyplinach technicznych oraz ekonomicznych. Niezmiernie ważna jest także kwestia pomocy dla matek wychowujących dzieci i niedyskryminowania ich w miejscu pracy. Koniecznością jest wprowadzenie elastycznych przepisów dotyczących emerytury dla kobiet wychowujących dzieci z pełnokwotowym zaliczeniem okresu tzw. urlopu wychowawczego, do czasu zaliczanego jako praca zawodowa w przepisach emerytalnych.

Dziś ciągle jeszcze w wielu naszych krajach za tę samą, co do ilości i jakości pracę, kobiety wynagradzane są znacznie gorzej. Nie ma także żadnego uzasadnienia stwarzanie jakichkolwiek barier w pełnieniu przez kobiety funkcji kierowniczych w zarządach czy radach nadzorczych spółek. W tej materii potrzebne są działania przełamujące stereotypy. Przedstawione sprawozdanie idzie w tym kierunku, dlatego głosowałem za jego przyjęciem.

  Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE), par écrit. – Dans de nombreux considérants et paragraphes de cette très longue résolution, on enfonce des portes ouvertes. On revendique des mesures qui ont été prises, heureusement, depuis longtemps. Il est vrai que certaines directives en matière d'égalité de traitement et des chances des femmes et des hommes sont mal appliquées. Mais s'il persiste des discriminations dans les domaines couverts par cette panoplie de directives adoptées depuis 1975, à qui la faute? Toutes ces directives contiennent des dispositions de recours. Les discriminées n'ont qu'à aller devant les tribunaux où elles gagneront, ce qui a été largement prouvé dans beaucoup de cas dans mon pays, heureusement.

Il y a malheureusement, dans ce rapport, certaines revendications incongrues qui n'ont rien à voir avec le rôle des femmes dans l'industrie.

Demander un quota de 40% de représentation féminine dans les conseils d'administration des sociétés est une ingérence contraire au principe de subsidiarité de matières réservées aux États membres.

Il ne nous appartient pas de demander le "contrôle" des délocalisations d'entreprises. Il est utopique de demander "un plus grand choix sur le lieu de travail". Si mon entreprise est située à Luxembourg-Ville sans succursale, je ne peux pas demander de travailler à Schifflange où j'habite.

C'est sous le bénéfice de ces observations que j'ai voté ce rapport.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE), v písemné formě. − S řadou myšlenek ve zprávě o ženách v průmyslu souhlasím, ale vadí mi, že se nevěnovala specifická pozornost regionální nezaměstnanosti žen, které ztratily zaměstnání v evropských textilkách, v době, kdy to bylo aktuální. Myslím si dále, že žádné kvóty pro ženy v radách pracujících situaci nevyřeší.

Moje druhá poznámka se týká vyváženého rozdělení času mezi práci a rodinu. To se týká jak žen tak mužů a myslím si, že řešení není v resolucích, ale naplnění evropské koncepce flexikurity – příkladem je Holandsko, které vytvořilo výborný právní rámec pro zaměstnávání na kratší úvazky a snížilo jak nezaměstnanost, tak ušetřilo čas mužů i ženám pro rodinný život. Efektivní využití kratší pracovní doby navíc ukazuje, že nemusí vést ke snížení příjmů.

  Olle Schmidt (ALDE), skriftlig. − Som liberal och folkpartist är parlamentets betänkanden som berör jämställdhet alltid lite vanskliga. Folkpartiet har under alla år menat att frivillighet är den väg som helst bör beträdas, men också att detta inte alltid räcker. För Sveriges del har det aktiva arbetet gjort oss kända som ett av världens mest jämställda länder. Vill vi då inte sprida våra framgångar över EU?

Självklart vill vi det! Frågan är bara med vilka metoder. I det berörda betänkandet har jag tvingats rösta nej till ett antal punkter, vars andemening jag stödjer men vars omfång och infallsvinkel kändes tvivelaktiga. Jag tror att både jämställdhetsplaner och mätbara mål kan vara viktiga verktyg för företagen. Däremot tror jag inte att det är något som EU centralt i första hand ska syssla med. Samma sak gäller upprättandet av en EU-sponsrad “metod” som i ”detalj” ska ”analysera arbetsuppgifter” för att ”garantera” lika lön. Globaliseringsfonden, som jag från början varit mycket tveksam till, kan inte heller ta särskild hänsyn till kön – det vore att göra en orättvisa dubbel.

Man kan inte begära att varje betänkande ska vara skrivet som hade man gjort det själv, men här finns en del att anmärka på. Ändå är ämnet så viktigt att jag slutligen röstade ja till helheten.

  Andrzej Jan Szejna (PSE), na piśmie. − Głosuję za przyjęciem sprawozdania pani poseł Ildy Figueiredo w sprawie roli kobiet w przemyśle. Chciałbym pogratulować pani poseł bardzo dobrego i rzetelnego sprawozdania.

Problem równouprawnienia kobiet i mężczyzn jest bardzo ważny i musimy wciąż poświęcać mu jak najwięcej uwagi, gdyż Unia Europejska opiera się na zasadzie niedyskryminacji. Zwalczanie wszelkich przesłanek świadczących o nieposzanowaniu tej zasady powinno być naszym priorytetem. Szczególnie, że dążąc do idei gospodarki opartej na wiedzy zmienia się charakter przemysłu. Sektory tradycyjne zatrudniające kobiety skupiają się wokół przemysłu przetwórczego, natomiast najnowsze sektory przemysłu opierają się na rozwoju najnowszych technologii, jak np. technologie informacji i komunikacji. Musimy dołożyć wszelkich starań, aby także w tych nowo powstałych sektorach przemysłu zachowane były zasady równouprawnienia.

- Proposition de résolution: Résultats du forum sur la gouvernace de l'Internet

  Cristiana Muscardini (UEN), per iscritto. − La risoluzione che ci apprestiamo a votare non può non trovare il consenso e il voto favorevole del gruppo UEN. Ci auguriamo che presto si arrivi ad una maggiore regolamentazione di Internet mirata alla salvaguardia dei minori e ad una lotta più incisiva verso quei provider che danno ospitalità a siti pedopornografici. È necessario che misure rivolte alla chiusura immediata dei siti illegali siano prese da tutti gli Stati membri dell'Unione attraverso un più efficace coordinamento delle forze di polizia competenti.

Speriamo altresì che possa essere affrontato il delicato tema delle informazioni che, tramite Internet, le organizzazioni terroristiche continuano a scambiarsi e che esso possa formare oggetto dei Forum che verranno organizzati in futuro. Non può esserci libertà senza regole e soprattutto Internet non può e non deve essere il terreno delle libertà di chi compie azioni criminali e predica l'odio e l'intolleranza. Una situazione di emergenza va affrontata con misure decise e urgenti e non improvvisate. La lotta al terrorismo e all'odio tra i popoli deve essere regola e obiettivo dell'Unione europea e di tutti i Paesi democratici e liberi.