Report without debate (A5-0029/2001) by Mr Hansenne, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the proposal for a Council decision concerning the conclusion of the Protocol on the extension of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and Brunei-Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam, member countries of the Association of South-East Asian Nations, to Cambodia [COM(2000) 423 – C5-0443/2000 – 2000/0172(CNS)]

(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)

⁂

Report without debate (A5-0030/2001) by Mr Rübig, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the proposal for a Council decision concerning the conclusion of the Protocol on the extension of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and Brunei-Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam, member countries of the Association of South-East Asian Nations, to Laos [COM(2000) 430 – C5-0442/2000 – 2000/0173(CNS)]

(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)

⁂

Report without debate (A5-0021/2001) by Mr Dover, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the Commission report on the effects of the transitional period granted to the United Kingdom concerning certain provisions of Council Directive 94/33/EC on the protection of young people at work [COM(2000) 457 – C5-0010/2001 – 2001/2002(COS)]

(Parliament adopted the resolution)

⁂

Report (A5-0038/2001) by Mr Zimeray, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, on the request for waiver of immunity concerning Mr José Ribeiro e Castro [2000/2178 (IMM)]

(Parliament adopted the decision)

⁂

Recommendation for second reading (A5-0016/2001) by Mr Savary, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, on the Council common position with a view to adopting a European Parliament and Council directive on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system [10185/1/2000 – C5-0564/2000 – 1999/0252(COD)]

(The President declared the common position approved)

⁂

Report (A5-0037/2001) by Mr van Dam, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive establishing requirements and harmonised procedures for the safe loading and unloading of bulk carriers [COM(2000) 179 – C5-0254/00 – 2000/0121(COD)]

Before the vote on Amendment No 16

Fava (PSE). – (IT) Mr President, the oral amendment seeks to replace the word "qualification", the last word in the amendment, with the word "expertise".

President. – Are there any objections?

  MacCormick (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, the interpreter interpreted the oral amendment as "experience". The voting list text says "expertise". "Expertise" is the appropriate word.

(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)

⁂

Report (A5-0031/2001) by Mr Bakopoulos, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, on

I. the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation concerning the Committee on Safe Seas and amending the regulations on maritime safety and the prevention of pollution from ships [COM(2000) 489 – C5-0475/2000 – 2000/0236(COD)]

II. the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive amending the directives on maritime safety and the prevention of pollution from ships [COM(2000) 489 – C5-0476/2000 – 2000/0237(COD)]

(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)

⁂

Report (A5-0042/2001) by Mr Nicholson, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the proposal for a Council regulation establishing measures to be applicable in 2001 for the recovery of the stock of cod in the Irish Sea (ICES Division VIIa) [COM(2000) 745 – C5-0683/2000 – 2000/0292(CNS)]

(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)

EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE

- Hansenne report (A5-0029/2001)

  Bordes and Cauquil (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) In order to justify European aid, the rapporteurs emphasise the difficult economic situation in Cambodia and Laos and the performance of the bomb disposal programmes that are essential after many years of conflict in this region, while carefully avoiding pointing out, in both instances, the significant responsibility of the imperialist powers, including France and the United States.

If this were simply European aid, pure and simple, paid as reparation for years of looting and destroying these two countries, without any form of recompense, then it would have our support.

However, this so-called aid is no more than a flimsy screen designed to conceal the goals which are revealed, nonetheless, in the phrase about turning around the downward trend of European Community exports to this region of the world, or, to put it in plain terms, enabling the predators in the shape of major European businesses to conduct, and intensify as far as possible, what is effectively still a policy of plundering this region of the world.

We have therefore abstained from voting on these reports.

- Dover report (A5-002/2001)

  Bordes and Cauquil (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The United Kingdom had obtained a derogation of the regulations on maximum hours of work and on night work of adolescents.

The Commission, and this report, now propose waiving this derogation. We might have been able to welcome seeing the United Kingdom apply rules granting young people in work greater protection.

The fact is, however, that the perfect agreement that has been reached between conservatives, Labour Party members, liberals and socialists, on the end of this derogation period is based on the fact that, as the report itself says, “the possibilities for derogation [are] sufficient in order to provide the necessary flexibility” and this will not therefore have “adverse effects on employment opportunities for young people”.

This clearly demonstrates the fact not only that this regulation of the European institutions may be sidestepped, but that, even when it is applied, it does not protect youths from employers’ thirst for profits.

We have voted against this report.

  Krivine (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) Unfortunately, the young workers of Britain are not likely to see a great improvement in their situation as a result of our adopting this resolution.

The directive will not meet the needs of young workers any better just because we have put an end to the scandal of this derogation for the English (as the United Kingdom did not fully comply with the directive limiting the work of children and adolescents). This debate should, instead, have provided an opportunity to amend the directive to remove all the derogations it contains, which prevent it from being properly effective.

There is no justification for authorising young people of 14 and even 13 years of age to work in any way whatsoever [Article 4(2c)], outside compulsory school attendance [Article 8(1b)] and during school holidays [Article 8(1c)]. Nor is there any justification for the derogations allowing young people of less than 18 years of age to work more than 40 hours per week, over 8 hours per day [Article 8(5)], and do night work [Article 9(2)].

There is no justification for applying any restriction to application of the directive in the case of domestic service in a private household or to work in a family undertaking [Article 2(2)]. There is no point in denouncing child labour in Africa or Asia if we do not protect our own young people against economic exploitation and work that is harmful to health, safety and development and if we do not ensure that they receive training leading to qualifications in a system quite separate from that of the employers.

  Titley (PSE), in writing. – I wholeheartedly support this report by Mr Dover which aims to improve working conditions for young people in Britain. It supports the view that the UK falls into line with a 1994 directive which limits the working hours of young people to eight hours a day or 40 hours a week and bans night work, although it provides for exceptions in special circumstances and for certain kinds of work.

Employment, particularly youth employment, is of course extremely important for both our young people and our economy. We must not do anything to harm the job prospects of young people in Britain.

Sometimes, however, employers take advantage of our young workers and force them to work unnecessarily long hours. Long hours and difficult working conditions are extremely dangerous and can be harmful to the health and productivity of our young people. It is therefore vital that working hours are monitored and that employers are prevented from exploiting youngsters at work. Exploitation is harmful and irresponsible. We must act to curb it and ensure that our young people are protected from exploitation and its destructive effects by hard-pressed or greedy employers.

The legislation for reducing the working hours for young people already exists. We just need to make sure that it is used. The sensible measures put forward by the Commission should encourage the utilisation of these measures.

I find it ironic that the Tories who constantly argue against Brussels bureaucrats interfering and who opposed this legislation, do in fact support this report on social policy. This illustrates their totally schizophrenic attitude towards Europe.

The Labour Government is at the forefront of providing jobs for our young people and also measures to protect them at work. I strongly urge the House to show its support for the protection of young people in Britain and to vote in favour of this report.

- Savary report (A5-0016/2001)

  Fatuzzo (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, I voted for this report, which seeks to promote railway infrastructure in Europe. A European rail system is an important goal for Europe. Before I left to come to Strasbourg, some pensioners urged me to vote for the report tabled by the committee chaired by Mr Hatzidakis, saying: "We want to travel throughout Europe by train and we want to travel in luxury. We would like there to be sofas, bars, high quality restaurants and televisions on trains. Europe can and must provide us with this as well. We are sure that Mr Hatzidakis will make it possible."

  Raschhofer (NI) . – (DE) Mr President, with the imminent accession of the Central and Eastern European countries to the Union, an efficient rail transport network is becoming more and more crucial to smooth cross-border rail transport, which is why we need to integrate the national networks into a single European network. Ironing out differences in the specifications used by individual railway undertakings is an important step towards a trans-European network. Creating transport connections and removing traffic bottlenecks in less favoured or remote regions is another important step. Developing the infrastructure will also give these regions a chance to participate in and profit from the internal market.

  Caudron (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I am very pleased to welcome the report by Gilles Savary on the interoperability of the rail system, since it approves the common position of the Council without amendments. This common position incorporates 33 of the 46 amendments put forward at first reading.

Like the rapporteur, I think the future of the European transport system necessarily involves revitalising the rail sector.

As we have often had cause to point out, within the European Union, investments in railways are differentiated to a great extent on a national basis. It goes without saying that these national disparities represent a considerable obstacle to the development of rail transport in Europe, despite the many advantages offered by this less polluting form of transport. At the same time, the establishment of the internal market has brought about a considerable increase in the movement of goods and persons around the European Union. This increase has mainly benefited the road sector, particular as regards freight movement.

There are many reasons for the decline in the railways. One reason is that rail has been organised on individual national lines. There is no single market for railway services within the Community. Moreover, the networks are not always terribly well suited to new patterns in the organisation of economic activities and urbanisation, or indeed to the changes that these have entailed in traffic flows.

Having said that, it is clear that the future of the European transport system necessarily involves revitalising the rail sector and in short order. I am speaking in favour of this because I believe that rail has a key role to play in solving the mobility problems facing the European Union. On a daily basis, the citizens of Europe suffer from pollution, congestion and the risk of accidents as a result of an excessive dependence on roads, a dependence that has only been exacerbated in the course of the last thirty years. The objective of sustainable mobility is thus closely linked to revitalising the railways.

I am pleased, moreover, that the European Parliament has succeeded in getting through some amendments, which seek to have important social standards taken into greater consideration, such as vocational qualifications and conditions of health and safety at work.

The Council also took note of a number of sensitive areas, such as, for instance, the protection of the existing railway system, the need to adopt a system of exemptions or specific cases, such as the situation of some countries that are isolated from the rest of the Community, or the difference in track gauges. Similarly, the Council has put forward a realistic common position that draws up a gradual schedule for work and takes account of the problems which enlargement will present for the rail sector. For all these reasons I voted in favour of the Savary report.

  Esclopé (EDD), in writing. – (FR) We shall vote in favour of this report since it is important to promote the interoperability of the trans-European rail system. The road transport network is currently saturated and in need of an overhaul. We must also undertake procedures to increase rail transport in order to relieve the pressure on the roads.

Yet, behind the laudable objectives of the rapporteur in terms of revitalising the railway sector, we see the spectre of liberalisation, since another objective of this report is to contribute towards opening up of markets in transport services and equipment assets and towards promoting the competitiveness of the rail sector as a whole. We must express our grave reservations on this count, since we remain steadfastly opposed to liberalisation.

  Krivine (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) If the intention is indeed to create a solution that is a real alternative to road transport taking over everything, then there must be harmonisation of the disparate rail transport infrastructures in Europe. In this respect I am forced to agree with the rapporteur. Furthermore, I feel that incorporating social standards, vocational qualifications and health and safety and working conditions in the process of creating a trans-European rail system would be the very least we could do. However, I shall be extremely vigilant in ensuring that harmonisation is carried out on the basis of the best existing social rights and not at the expense of users and employees in this sector.

There is, however, a dangerous failure to address one question: in what context is network interoperability to be achieved? In the context of public services coordinated throughout Europe, which are guarantors of jobs and safety, or in the context of a market which has been sacrificed to competition and profit? The three directives in the railway package recently adopted by Parliament and the Council would suggest that Europe sees the future of trans-European rail transport in the second of these.

- Van Dam report (A5-0037/2001)

Fatuzzo (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, I voted for the van Dam report on the safe loading and unloading of bulk carriers. And why is that? This time, I took the advice of Mr Fatuzzo the sailor. I say "sailor", Mr President, because you may not be aware that I nearly made ships my career. I might even have worked on bulk carriers. Therefore, my potential colleague, Mr Fatuzzo the sailor, the man I am not but could have been, said to me: "I have been sailing for many years on bulk carriers. I have read the report seeking to prevent ships sinking but, in my opinion, Mr Fatuzzo the MEP, ships sink because they are too old. Old, unusable ships need to retire. This would make sailing safer."

  President. – I do not know whether to thank the MEP or the sailor.

  Bordes and Cauquil (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) There are other types of merchant vessel, apart from the oil tankers in the news, which are in a deplorable condition. The consequences are perhaps not as spectacular as those of wrecked oil tankers, but the human death toll is far worse, when it is known that 146 bulk carriers have sunk in 10 years and that 780 crew members thereby lost their lives.

In voting for this report, we voted in favour of practical measures contributing to stepping up the safety of bulk carriers and their crews. We must, however, point out the contradiction that exists between the concerns for safety and the concerns relating to what the report terms the risk of “distortions of competition” for European ports and terminals. Safety is inevitably sacrificed in the attempt to safeguard the profits of shipowners and contractors.

It is a good idea to give the master the option of objecting to loading or unloading operation he considers might endanger the safety of his crew or ship. However, it would be hypocritical to disregard the fact that the laws of competition and of the market (including the labour market) imposed by the shipowners and contractors are such that the master’s theoretical option of objecting does not carry much weight in the face of the means available to the capitalist forces in maritime transport to impose dangerous, and occasionally lethal, conditions on navigation and on living on board ships.

  Krivine (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) In 10 years, almost 150 bulk carriers have sunk, causing 800 deaths. This is the tragic record of a sector which has been abandoned to the laws of competition and the market. Like the rapporteur, I consider that the physical condition of the ships and the incompetence of the crew are the chief factors behind these wrecks. So, in the first place, we have to do something about inspecting these ships, their crews and shipboard working and living conditions.

I therefore support any binding measures to improve safety standards, port State inspections and to ensure that loading and unloading terminals and masters are aware of their responsibilities. For that, however, we have to set aside human and financial resources to actually implement the legislation in the Member States, particularly by increasing the number of inspectors.

Moreover, if we are to tackle the impunity from prosecution and leniency which prevail in maritime transport then we also have to drive home the message that shippers and shipowners are responsible too, if necessary by providing ourselves with the means to enforce judicial and financial penalties. I shall vote in favour of all the proposals to that end.

- Bakopoulos report (A5-0031/2001)

Fatuzzo (PPE-DE). – (IT) Since it is on safety at sea, I could not fail to vote in favour of Mr Bakopoulos' report too, concerning the establishment of the Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution by Ships. This time, Mr President, I communicated via e-mail with one of my former bosses who worked on the ships on which I travelled between New York and the Bahamas when, at 21 years old, before entering political life, I worked as a sailor, as I said before. This gentleman, who has become a purser – his name is Augusto Fazio – said to me: "Well done. The European Parliament is right to concern itself with the safety of the sea and to prevent it becoming polluted. But are you also concerning yourselves with the safety of us sailors who work on the ships?" "Of course," I said. "Be patient. There will also be reports dealing with your safety as well."

  Caudron (PSE), in writing – (FR) Along with Mr Bakopoulos, I welcome the European Commission’s proposals, which serve to improve the Community maritime safety policy.

Recent disasters have given rise to great public concern . It is up to us, therefore, to take pro-active steps, which will be in contrast to the laissez-faire policy which prevailed until the last few years, both in Europe and in the rest of the world. I would like, moreover, to acknowledge the progress we made in this area during the French Presidency. I am thinking, of course, of the adoption of the package of measures more commonly known as the Erika package.

To go back to the report which we are discussing today, I should point out that we discussed two proposals – a proposal for a regulation to set up a regulatory committee, the Committee on Safe Seas, which entails amending the regulations currently in force, and a proposal for a directive amending existing directives to incorporate the Committee on Safe Seas.

In real terms, this means that this committee will replace the current committees responsible for maritime safety, a single committee designed to facilitate the implementation of amendments made to the relevant international conventions in force by the Member States. The European Union already has an arsenal of 12 directives and three regulations aimed at stricter enforcement of the rules on maritime safety, the prevention of pollution from ships, the criteria governing the training and formal qualifications of seafarers and working conditions at sea. It is also considered that the new committee will make the Union's maritime safety policy more effective.

Although the European Commission’s proposals were acceptable on the whole, the provisions relating to the participation of the European Parliament were unacceptable. That is why the amendments were tabled, in order to maintain Parliament’s rights to participate in the regulatory procedure.

In voting in favour of this report, I therefore hope to contribute to the pro-active approach adopted by Europe in order to improve maritime safety.

  Krivine (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The proposal by Mr Bakopoulos, the rapporteur, to set up a Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution by Ships, which would replace the current committees, is another step towards the renationalisation of Community policy on maritime safety, but is also an extra asset for improving monitoring of the implementation of Community and international regulations. However, the recent disasters involving the Erika and Ievoli Sun vessels have shown that the even best resolutions are worthless unless we provide ourselves with the means to apply them and to have them applied.

That is why the legislation currently under discussion must be imposed on Member States, particularly legislation that governs prevention of pollution, monitoring the criteria regarding the training and formal qualifications of seafarers and working conditions at sea. In order to do this, we must allocate resources to ensure the quantity and quality of inspections and inspectors, and in terms of making all concerned such as shipowners, charterers, tankers and classification societies responsible in financial terms.

In order to curb the impunity and complacency that pervade this industry, I voted in favour of this report.

- Nicholson report (A5-0042/2001)

Fatuzzo (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, my name is Fatuzzo and the Italian for cod is "merluzzo"! I will now give the interpreters a few moments to translate this profound, important connection into the other languages.

Today is 13 February, Mr President, and tomorrow is the day dedicated to lovers. How could I fail to appreciate the European Parliament's impeccable timing in, the day before Valentine's Day, concerning itself with cod which make love in the Irish Sea, and producing a directive banning the fishing of cod between tomorrow, 14 February, Valentine's Day, and 30 April, precisely in order to allow them to reproduce?

In my opinion, with regard to respect for fish and cod, the European Parliament has done well. Here's to Saint Valentine and here's to all lovers!

(Applause)

  President. – And here's to the cod as well!

That concludes voting time.

(The sitting was suspended at 12.36 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: MR VIDAL-QUADRAS ROCA
Vice-President