Report (A5-0017/2003) by Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of an Association Agreement between the European Community and its Member States of the one part, and the Republic of Chile, of the other part [13767/2002 - COM(2002) 536 - C5-0589/2002 - 2002/0239(AVC)]
(Parliament adopted the recommendation)
⁂
Report (A5-0007/2003) by Mrs Read, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy on the proposal for a Council decision adopting a multi-annual programme (2003-2005) for the monitoring of e-Europe, dissemination of good practices and the improvement of network and information security (MODINIS) [COM(2002) 425 - C5-0425/2002 - 2002/0187(COD)]
(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)
⁂
Report (A5-0014/2003) by Mrs Miguélez Ramos, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1035/2001 establishing a catch documentation scheme for Dissostichus spp. [COM(2002) 424 - C5-0405/2002 - 2002/0184(CNS)]
(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)
⁂
Report (A5-0012/2003) by Mrs Miguélez Ramos, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the proposal for a Council regulation introducing a system for the statistical monitoring of trade in bluefin tuna, swordfish and bigeye tuna within the Community [COM(2002) 453 - C5-0412/2002 - 2002/0200(CNS)]
(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)
⁂
Report (A5-0434/2002) by Mr Bashir Khanbhai, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the Commission communication on the impact of the E-economy on European enterprises: economic analysis and policy implications [COM(2001) 711 - C5-0285/2002 - 2002/2145(COS)]
(Parliament adopted the resolution)
⁂
Report (A5-0019/2003) by Mr Caveri, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation establishing an ecopoint system applicable to heavy goods vehicles travelling through Austria for the year 2004 [COM(2001) 807 - C5-0699/2001 - 2001/0310(COD)]
(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)
⁂
Report (A5-0025/2003) by Mr van Velzen, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the re-use and commercial exploitation of public sector documents [COM(2002) 207 - C5-0292/2002 - 2002/0123(COD)]
(Parliament adopted the legislative resolution)
⁂
Report (A5-0010/2003) by Mrs Terrón i Cusí, on behalf of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal from the Commission with a view to adopting a Council Directive on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purpose of paid employment and self-employed economic activities [COM(2001) 386 - C5-0447/2001 - 2001/0154(CNS)]
on the World Economic Forum (Davos) and the World Social Forum (Porto Alegre) RC B5-0101/2003
(Parliament rejected the joint motion for a resolution)
⁂
Motion for a resolution on the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre and the World Economic Forum in Davos B5-0101/2003
(Parliament rejected the motion for a resolution)
⁂
Joint motion for a resolution(2) on the World Economic Forum in Davos and the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre RC B5-0111/2003
(Parliament adopted the joint motion for a resolution)
⁂
Joint motion for a resolution(3) on the authorisation of generic medicines at WTO level
(Parliament adopted the joint motion for a resolution)
⁂
Joint motion for a resolution(4)on the WTO agricultural trade negotiations
(Parliament adopted the joint motion for a resolution)
⁂
Report (A5-0444/2002), by Mr Juan de Dios Izquierdo Collado, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, on the Commission White Paper: ‘European transport policy for 2010: time to decide’[COM(2001) 370 - C5-0658/2001 - 2001/2281(COS)]
(Parliament adopted the resolution)
⁂
Report (A5-0016/2003), by Mrs Danielle Auroi, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the full roll-out of third generation mobile communications
Report (A5-0013/2003), by Mr Reino Paasilinna, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the Commission Communication ‘eEurope 2005: An information society for all - An Action Plan to be presented in view of the Seville European Council, 21/22 June 2002’ [2002/2242(INI)]
(Parliament adopted the resolution)
⁂
Joint motion for a resolution(5) on the Preparation of the 2003 Spring Summit (Brussels, 21/22.3.2003)
(Parliament adopted the joint motion for a resolution)
⁂
President. –We shall now proceed to the explanations of vote(6).
Fatuzzo (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, Chile is a republic which has modified its pension system with measured, appropriate and positive steps concerning workers saving for their pensions through pension funds. Despite the whole world’s incredulity at the Republic of Chile’s initiative, the outcome is positive: the finances of the Chilean pension system have been put in order, to such an extent that I propose that the European States should also study this system closely and consider whether it is appropriate to follow its example.
Bordes, Cauquil and Laguiller (GUE/NGL),in writing. –(FR) This text invites MEPs to give their blessing to an economic agreement between the European Union and the Chilean State. Once again, commercial concerns are being portrayed as acts of generosity.
We profess that the new association agreement will breath new life into relations between Europe and Latin America at a time when the region is experiencing serious problems. However, it was precisely the actions of the European company predators that brought Argentina to its knees, and people are trying to make us believe that identical economic exchanges will have beneficial results!
There is no reason to doubt that those exchanges will be profitable for the big investors of Europe. But for the Chilean population? A few major wealthy Chilean families will continue to become richer, such as those who have made their fortune from wine. But making those few people richer will not in any way benefit the general population.
The agreement also proposes the benefit of cooperation in the fight against terrorism. As we are talking about a country where one of the major criminals of recent history, Pinochet, is enjoying a peaceful existence with the general indifference of the major authorities, that is another reason to reject this draft recommendation!
Lulling (PPE-DE), in writing.– (DE) I am glad that the European Community has succeeded in concluding an association agreement with Chile. It is particularly important in the wine sector to establish clear rules on such important areas as the recognition of designations of origin and production methods. Among other things, the agreement includes a comprehensive list of all European designations of origin to be protected in Chile as soon as the agreement enters into force. This is a significant achievement in view of the fact that, for example, no sparkling wine will be allowed to be sold in Chile under the name of ‘champagne’, even if the true origin is stated or if ‘méthode champenoise’ appears on the label instead of ‘Champagne’. The agreement also prevents trademarks from circumventing the law on designations of origin, so that, for example, the trademark ‘Moselle’ will lapse at the end of a five-year transitional period for export purposes, as the wine contained in the bottle is not from the Moselle region and the consumer could thereby be deceived.
I do, however, regret the fact that various traditional European terms such as ‘Chateau’, ‘Clos’ or Grand Cru’ will continue to be permitted in Chile and will, indeed, be legalised internationally. Such designations could give consumers the wrong idea about the wine's true origin, all the more so as the words are French rather than Spanish.
(Statement of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)
Meijer (GUE/NGL),in writing. – (NL) Yesterday, in the course of the debate, the arguments put forward by Mr Mayol i Raynal and Mrs McKenna persuaded me not to endorse the report by Mr SalafrancaSánchez-Neyra in the end. It is not only about a neutral agreement with Chile, a country where the same language is spoken as in Spain and which deserves support after shaking off dictatorship. It seems to be yet another fisheries agreement in disguise. In addition, the present Chilean government is taking little account of the minority which is descended from the indigenous American Indian population, and, as a result of opposition from its Senate, Chile will not for the time being be ratifying the Statute of the International Criminal Court in the Hague. Under those circumstances, I think that an agreement of this kind is premature, to say the very least.
Ribeiro e Castro (UEN),in writing. –(PT) I agree with this report because I feel that it makes a valuable contribution to improving the effectiveness of the decisions adopted in the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), to whose Convention the European Union is a contracting party. The rapporteur’s suggestions make the process of documenting catches of this type of fish more rigorous, thereby further enabling us in situ to meet the objectives proposed by the Conservation Commission, by detailing the responsibilities of fishing-vessel captains as regards their declarations concerning fishing areas, quantities caught, the nature of the products in question and information regarding their vessel. This measure will in fact provide a response to the considerable increase in declared amounts of catches landed outside the Convention zone, but which are thought to be the result of illegal fishing practised in the zone covered by the agreement. This measure, combined with others already adopted by the Commission such as setting catch limits for Dissostichus spp. in waters covered by the Convention, the mandatory use of an on-board satellite-linked vessel monitoring system (VMS), inspections in ports in which catches are landed and transhipped, and the issue by the flag state of licences or authorisations in respect of Dissostichus spp. fishing, encourages closer monitoring of the fight against the scourge that is the unregulated and undeclared illegal fishing of these species, which have considerable commercial value.
Ribeiro e Castro (UEN),in writing.– (PT) I support this report – basically a technical document – which, in conjunction with the proposal for a Council regulation introducing a Community system of statistical documentation for bluefin tuna, swordfish and bigeye tuna, is the next logical step following the adoption of various programmes, by Regional Fisheries Organisations (RFOs) in which the European Union participates, to combat illegal, unregulated and undeclared fishing operations for these species of fish. I am referring to the decisions taken within the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC).
Apart from this somewhat involved reason, I agree with the report because I believe that it represents a step closer to achieving greater transparency in this market, contributing to the greatest possible rigour and helping to ensure more effective monitoring of illegal, undeclared and unregulated fishing. Achieving this objective is all the more important because, according to FAO estimates, 30% of fish landed come from such sources, which has disastrous results for the Union and specifically leads to horrendous falls in fish prices.
Figueiredo (GUE/NGL),in writing.– (PT) The eEurope programme forms part of the key aim of the Lisbon Strategy and of promoting the opportunities created by the new information and communication technologies (ICT), or what is known as the ‘new’ economy. This joint debate on the information society, of which this report is one component, seeks to give a new boost to this ‘new’ economy, pursuing the idea of a new model and that the ICTs are a type of panacea for economic growth, for job creation and for increasing productivity.
Furthermore, the concept of innovation and the new technologies create new problems, specifically the commercialisation of knowledge and the creation of a two-fold exclusion/marginalisation, in particular for society’s most disadvantaged groups and for the regions that are geographically most remote or which have specific problems.
The digital divide will therefore be between those who have and those who do not have access to the benefits provided by the new technologies, including small and medium-sized enterprises, which find it difficult to take full advantage of the new opportunities, because of shortcomings in investment and qualifications, despite greater pressure of competition.
This attempt to provide a new boost, to be decided on at the Spring Council and which has come about in response to the failure of this model, proves that there is no such thing as a new or old economy; there is only economic rationality.
Ribeiro e Castro (UEN),in writing.– (PT) I have supported this report, which is closely linked to the Paasilinna and Van Velzen reports, and I welcome the results of the soundings carried out by the European Commission amongst European economic actors and the follow-up given to these soundings.
In fact, material and political investment in the new Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) is becoming an increasing priority. This investment should encompass society as a whole and I am therefore pleased to see that the European Commission is now adopting a method for assessing and consulting all stakeholders and is launching practical actions to encourage the widespread use of the new technologies, in particular by small and medium-sized enterprises.
I also believe that the Council’s request to the Member States to formulate and develop EU standards and codes of conduct for practical application in encouraging the establishment of open e-marketplaces, secure e-business solutions, e-signatures and electronic payment systems is extremely important.
It is becoming increasingly clear to everyone how the widespread use of the new ICTs depends entirely on the degree of confidence stakeholders have towards the security of their transactions and their interoperability. It is therefore crucial to look more closely at this sensitive field and to invest in it more appropriately.
Poettering (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, on behalf of our group, I wish to make a declaration of vote on the Caveri report. The Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats regrets the fact that, eight years after Austria's accession to the European Union, no solution satisfactory to all parties – on economic as much as on ecological grounds – has yet been found to the problem of goods transport through the Austrian Alps.
In the hope of a speedy solution and of greater planning security, acknowledging the positive efforts of the Danish and Greek Council presidencies, we call upon the Council to act upon the mandate of the Laeken and Copenhagen European Councils by promptly presenting a Common Position that will speed up the decision-making process involved in the joint enactment by the Council and Parliament of a solution accepted by all the parties involved.
I wish to thank the interpreters for their excellent translation of what was far from being a straightforward text.
Ebner (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, whilst I otherwise hold Mr Caveri in high esteem, I wish to make it known that I have voted against his report. I believe that it would, in this case, have been better for Parliament to have taken the Danish compromise into account and not gone beyond it. It is not, in my view, very helpful to tie oneself down to a new line.
I trust that the Council will again do as Mr Poettering, the leader of our group, has just suggested, and get to work on finding a common solution. The fact of the matter is that even the rule on category 4 HGVs is not entirely without its problematic aspects, as it means that the environment in the affected areas will be subjected to new nuisances. We have to provide help here as a matter of urgency, and there needs to be greater understanding of this area, which is such a sensitive one.
Fatuzzo (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, while I was on the aeroplane taking me from Bergamo to Strasbourg, I was reading this report in order to decide how to vote, and I read that the ecopoint system is being extended. I fell asleep again and in my dream, I saw Austria winning the football world cup in 2006. Why? Because it had the most points. So points are helpful to Austria! Points which mean it will win the football world championship in 2006, if my dream comes true – and I think it is also the Austrians’ dream – but also points in the Caveri report which will enable Austria’s citizens to have less pollution, even if the problem has, however, not yet been resolved. This is why I voted for the report.
Raschhofer (NI). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to inform the House that my group and I have rejected the report, and explain why we have done so. As I said yesterday, Austria does not want to keep its ecopoint system for ever; what we want is a fair and sustainable solution to Europe's transport problems. For as long as such a thing is not in sight – and, above all else, for as long as the new transport infrastructure directive is not adopted – the transit issue needs to be dealt with by acceptable transitional rules.
It is for this reason that we have not approved today's Caveri report. We have supported Amendments Nos 19, 20 and 21, as they call for the retention of the ecopoint system and an upper limit for the number of journeys by HGVs until such time as a sustainable solution to the problems of the whole of the Alpine region enters into force. I see the failure to even vote on Amendment No 18, which is based on the Danish compromise, as sending a very poor message to the people of Austria.
Meijer (GUE/NGL),in writing.– In the plenary debate on this issue, which took place yesterday, I gave as my opinion that any kind of redistributing road-transport capacity throughout Austria has to be distrusted. The reason is the heavy pressure of road transport companies in Germany and Italy on Austria to accept heavy trucks which are not allowed to enter neighbouring Switzerland to cross the Alp mountains. Nevertheless, I announced on behalf of my GUE/NGL Group that a majority of us should accept the proposal for the year 2004 only, because it continues to limit transport. After I had given my contribution to the debate, the Austrian representatives of all different parties and the Group of the Greens/EFA introduced one very strong argument not only to amend the Caveri-proposals but to reject them as a whole. This argument is that they become a part of a system to phase out the actual restrictions within a few years. They have convinced me finally. As a defender of environment and national self-determination I cannot accept what is happening now, although I respect the contribution of Mr Caveri to find a solution which will be more or less equal to the situation in other parts of the Alps. So I cannot vote in favour of the Caveri report.
Queiró (UEN),in writing.– (PT) We have voted today for a solution intended to establish a degree of balance, which is always hard to achieve in these cases, between protecting the environment and complying with the principle of the free movement of goods, allowing the free movement between 2004 and 2006 of the least polluting lorries and indirectly encouraging these forms of transport to be replaced.
The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism was right to frame the Austrian problem in a broader, European context, which applies to all Alpine regions, laying down a uniform approach, which also respects the environment in other strategic Alpine hubs.
This was a difficult compromise to reach, and is the outcome of lengthy negotiations within the committee. Consequently, it has both the advantages and the disadvantages of all compromises. In this context, it is a compromise that is acceptable as a transition towards a definitive situation. This is why I have voted in favour of the report.
Fatuzzo (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, Mr Van Velzen has presented us with the Commission’s proposal for a directive on the commercial exploitation of public sector documents , chiefly those of the European Parliament. In that case, I thought, explanations of vote can also be used for commercial exploitation, and I still think so. Therefore firstly, I cannot fail to vote for this report, in the hope, secondly, that I too will manage to commercially exploit the explanations of vote over these five years at the European Parliament. Naturally, the profits, if there are any, will go to pensioners who will certainly not snub extremely modest support from the European Parliament, even in this form.
Bordes, Cauquil and Laguiller (GUE/NGL),in writing.– (FR) We are not going to vote against people having access to public sector information.
However, although they are in favour of transparency, the European institutions are in favour of public sector documents being used by commercial companies to make a private profit.
That is not transparency, it is information to benefit some and misinformation for others. Transparency alone could, in this area, be useful for the whole population, and would force large companies to make their accounts available to all. Thus, when companies were preparing to make redundancies, workers and the populations of the regions concerned would be able to see that the profits of the companies in question or otherwise the personal wealth of their shareholders would enable the threatened jobs to be maintained and that as a result the redundancies were not justified.
Queiró (UEN),in writing. –(PT) The current situation of publicly accessible re-use of public-sector information varies enormously from Member State to Member State, both in terms of conditions and also of the costs of this re-use. This field needs to be simplified: everything related to basic information – concerning the democratic rule of law – should be made available free of charge, and other information should be made available at a marginal cost, except in what is known as the ‘cultural’ sector, for obvious reasons of intellectual and artistic copyright.
This is not a simple issue and divides the supporters of a certain degree of freedom of decision-making in this field by the Member States and their public services from those who advocate a single harmonised market being imposed on these States for the dissemination and re-use of their information.
I have abstained because I am sensitive to these problems, to which I would add the current state of discussions on this matter in my own country.
Ribeiro e Castro (UEN),in writing.– (PT) I have voted in favour of the report on the eEurope 2002 action plan. These reports formalise the principles laid down at successive European Councils for ‘an information society for all’. The current potential for telematic transfer and access provided by the Internet, forces us to march in step with progress. The same applies to consolidating democracy and the principles of the rule of law.
I agree with the rapporteur when he suggests that public authorities should act as a driving force in developing new content services, encouraging the re-use of the information they have and making marginal charges for this. The profusion of information held by States should be accessible to everyone, with the proper safeguards for information that is of strategic importance or in the national interest and in line with the rules of the prevailing culture.
This directive does not seek to harmonise the Member States’ systems, or access criteria that vary from country to country with regard to information that is universally accessible and information that is not. This matter should remain within the sphere of each Member State because it is dependent on the specific context of that country. What seems obvious to even the simplest mind, however, is that we must promote the sharing of information at European level and the establishment of conditions of access to this information as well as rules on charging.
Fatuzzo (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, this report expresses an opinion on the entry and residence of third country nationals for the purpose of paid employment and self-employed economic activities. At the airport, I met some beautiful retired ladies and some retired men who were still youthful, who said to me: ‘Why is it that you at the European Parliament only concern yourselves with the movement and residence of workers and citizens in general? Are you not going to do something for pensioners as well? We too would like to travel throughout Europe, even if we are from third countries and are not workers, just pensioners. Will there be a directive in the future which will facilitate the entry into the European Union and movement and residence therein of pensioners too?’ ‘I am sure there will’, I replied. Therefore, in the meantime, I voted for this report too.
Evans, Robert J.E. (PSE). – My British Labour colleagues and I have voted in favour of the Terrón i Cusí report, as we support the aim of providing legal channels of entry for those seeking work in the European Union.
The UK, however, has chosen not to opt into this report, in line with its position on maintaining control over admissions. Nevertheless, Labour Members have actively participated in deliberations on the report, both with a view to establishing a fair set of rights and obligations for third country nationals across the EU, and also with a view to a possible UK opt-in in the future.
For this reason, we have opposed certain provisions that will cause specific problems in the UK. In particular, I refer to Amendments Nos 2, 55, 27 and 17, which we voted against.
We are mindful that this report comes under the consultation procedure and, although Parliament's opinion is an essential part of the legislative process, these are issues that will ultimately be decided by the Council.
Arvidsson, Cederschiöld, Grönfeldt Bergman, Stenmarck and Wachtmeister (PPE-DE),in writing.(SV) We in the Moderate delegation to the European Parliament are well disposed towards the Commission’s proposal, which is a step towards a common EU immigration policy.
Our working principle in relation to labour migration is that someone who has been offered a job should also be able to obtain a work permit. Furthermore, we believe that authorities are never better placed than employers themselves to know who is best suited for a particular post.
It is important that third-country nationals issued with work permits be able to guarantee they can support themselves during the period that they are resident in the Community.
Because we think it only fair to retain a high level of subsidiarity in immigration policy, we are very keen that the Member States should be able to have rules more generous than those prescribed in the directive. For reasons of subsidiarity, we have also voted in favour of giving the Member States scope to establish quotas and ceilings where labour migration is concerned.
Berthu (NI),in writing.– (FR) I have already said in the debate that the Commission’s proposal on the harmonisation of work permits for nationals from third countries violates subsidiarity and would pass up to Brussels the powers that are essential to the Member States in order to regulate their respective labour markets. More specifically, such centralisation would cause several problems. It would make a system that needs to remain flexible and easily adaptable to the local needs of each Member State more rigid. It would place the Member States in the position of constantly having to defend themselves, as demonstrated by the provision of Article 29, paragraph 4 of the draft directive, which I quoted in the debate, which states that refusals of work permits must be justified.
Finally, it would open the door to a series of other harmonisations, which the European Parliament is well aware of, as with its amendments it has raised its bid for a softer approach. There was evidence of this from the rapporteur himself when he asked, at the start of his explanatory statement, for an end to the policy of halting immigration that has been largely practised so far. Such statements at least clarify the hidden intentions of the text. We condemn this policy, which involves centralisation in order to disarm us further, and we obviously voted against it.
Bonde and Sandbæk (EDD),in writing. –(DA) The June Movement has, as far as possible, voted in favour of the highest minimum requirements, but voted against whenever there has been a risk of undermining the Danish tax-funded welfare model with its social and civil liberties for all.
We have abstained from voting in this vote because of the above-mentioned conflict.
Bordes, Cauquil and Laguiller (GUE/NGL),in writing. – (FR) The rapporteur does not hide the fact that her main preoccupation, when she talks about the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purpose of paid employment, is that they should satisfy what she calls ‘the needs of the labour market’. She is thus concerned, as is the Commission, with supplying capitalist undertakings with the labour that they need – something that used to be known as slave trading.
We did not vote against this report, because some of the proposed amendments would make things a little easier for immigrant workers, but we reject the spirit in which this action is being taken.
When the report proposes more flexibility compared with the Commission’s report, it is because the rigid regulations contained in the latter, in particular the fact that it is impossible for illegal workers to legalise their situation, or the requirement for stable employment for a sufficiently long period to enable a work permit to be obtained, turn out to be an added burden compared with what the bosses themselves want.
As for the question of illegal immigrants being able to regularise their situation, a question timidly addressed by the report, we reiterate the need for the immediate and unconditional regularisation of the situation of all those who live and work within the territory of the European Union.
Lang (NI),in writing.– (FR) From the limiting of the administrative or legislative restrictions imposed on would-be immigrants when they arrive on European territory to the extension and simplification of the residence conditions for non-Community nationals in Europe, via the expanded definition of ‘family member’ or the possibility of collective visas being issued at the border, the list of incentives to take up a career as an immigrant featured in the three reports presented to us yesterday morning is a long one.
Yet in addition to this philosophy of destroying even further our national identities and economies, we must bear in mind the fact that the worst is yet to come. By May 2004, issues involving asylum, immigration and freedom of movement will no longer be decided by a unanimous vote in the Council, but by a qualified majority together with the European Parliament under the codecision procedure. In future, therefore, as a result of this reform announced in the Treaty of Amsterdam, nation states will no longer be able to control their influxes of immigrants and their immigration policies. Other states will be able to decide for them, and compel them to take measures which are contrary to their own national interests. As a result, without any reaction from European peoples and leaders, we shall see the voluntary wrecking of all the nations of Europe, who will have become totally dependent on Europe’s suicidal immigration policy.
Lund and Thorning-Schmidt (PSE),in writing.– (DA) We have today voted in favour of Mrs Terrón i Cusí’s report (A5-0010/2003) on the entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purpose of paid employment and self-employed economic activities. The proposal contains quite a few constructive elements for improving and simplifying application procedures, as well as for ensuring uniform rights for the persons concerned.
We are, however, aware of the fact that this area has to do with circumstances covered by Title IV of the EC Treaty and does not therefore apply to Denmark, cf. the Protocol on Denmark’s Position.
Marques (PPE-DE),in writing.– (PT) The directive proposed by the European Commission on which we have voted today aims to harmonise Member State legislation on third-country nationals with regard to migration for the purpose of employment. It therefore proposes that common definitions, criteria and procedures should be established for the entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purpose of paid employment and self-employed economic activities.
The rapporteur states that ‘there is no doubt that … halting immigration must be superseded’ on the basis, on the one hand of the ‘Treaty of Amsterdam, which confers competence on the Community in the areas of asylum and immigration’, and on the other, on what she calls ‘actual necessity’.
I beg to disagree and wish to draw your attention to the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market delivered by Mr Wuermeling, which reminds us, and in my opinion quite rightly so, that the Tampere European Council of October 1999 actually called only for an ‘approximation’ of national legislation in this area, but not for national rules to be replaced by EU rules.
Furthermore, Community harmonisation is contrary to the principle of subsidiarity because rules in this area do not in themselves prove any need for harmonisation. The different rules spring from different needs and traditions in the Member States.
(Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)
Meijer (GUE/NGL),in writing. – (NL) Europe is becoming less and less open to refugees who have had to leave their countries because their lives and freedom were threatened. Even those who have become well-established are being deported after years of residence because they are not recognised as refugees, and run the risk of being in serious trouble again when they return to their country of origin. On the other hand, there is an ever-increasing need for people pursuing occupations in which there are shortages in Europe. Examples are nursing staff from South Africa, the Philippines and South America, and highly trained chemists, physicists and mathematicians from India. Those people are not naturalised in Europe and are badly needed in their country of origin, which, despite the low standard of living, has often made a considerable contribution to funding their training. This proposal extends the permits of those people we, in Europe, consider necessary. Instead, we should be looking a bit more at those who have already become established here, and who hope to be able to stay. Apart from that, it should not be the case that only the most highly trained people have the right to stay, because that only increases the negative brain-drain effect in their countries of origin.
Miranda (GUE/NGL),in writing.– (PT) The philosophy of Community immigration policy is quite clear in the proposal for a directive we are currently examining: we will continue to receive immigrants from third countries only if and when these serve the economic interests of the European Union. Consequently, the proposed conditions of entry and residence for third-country nationals for the purpose of paid employment are so restrictive and tough that very few candidates for immigration will be able to meet them.
Such an approach is all the more unacceptable because it is backed by a Community budget that is cutting funds intended for developing countries, because in Monterrey, the EU produced nothing more than a grotesque commitment to allocate only 0.39% of its GDP to public development aid until 2006 – instead of the 0.7% set internationally a considerable time ago; because the policies established at the WTO are not benefiting the poorest countries. This has led to the gap between the richest and poorest countries growing, to encompass a further 100 million poor people.
It is true that the European Union cannot receive all of the world’s poor onto its territory. On the other hand, this cannot be its response to the problems of poverty in the world and to the racist and xenophobic discourse that has recently been flourishing in some Member States, in total contrast to the humanist values that should be guiding it.
Ribeiro e Castro (UEN),in writing.– (PT) I fully subscribe to the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market’s interpretation of Article 63(3)(a) of the EC Treaty presented in the opinion appended to this report. I believe that by seeking to harmonise all regulatory material concerning immigration for the purpose of employment, the Commission’s proposal far exceeds any possible grammatical, logical, systematic or teleological interpretation of these rules, in flagrant breach of the principle of subsidiarity.
Similarly, both the Commission proposal and this report claim that the need for legislation to be harmonised – which would justify this interpretation that goes beyond the Treaties but which contravenes these same Treaties – is based on certain factors, which are invoked, despite the fact that no real evidence for them is presented.
In fact, it is impractical ‘to take account of the European Union’s labour needs’. I believe that the differences between national legislation are quite acceptable and not damaging; any attempt to artificially standardise this field will be counterproductive and I think that the way in which it is blithely claimed that access will be opened both to external borders and to intra-Community movement is dangerous, because this overlooks the fact that the lack of security is one of the issues of greatest concern to the Union’s citizens.
Alyssandrakis (GUE/NGL),in writing. – (EL) It is clear both from the debate and from most of the motions for resolutions that the idea is to draw parallels between Porto Alegre and the economic forum in Davos, on the grounds that both are looking for a better method of global governance. The facts of the matter are very different. Although some people tried to play it down and others tried to gear it towards system management or turn it into a meaningless debating club, the movement against capitalist globalisation raised its voice loud and clear against the imperialist war and global social injustice in Porto Alegre.
This movement did not come out of nowhere; it is linked to the struggle by the workers and the working classes and it draws on their experience and messages. It does not by any stretch of the imagination qualify as cross-class collaboration, as the Social Democrats would have us believe, on the grounds that the basic socialist/capitalist divide no longer exists. Nor can it confine itself to defending the rights of the developing world, now that the plutocracy has its sights set more firmly than ever on people in the developed world. The galloping escalation in the divisions within capitalist society will inevitably result in further radicalisation of the grass-roots masses, who are and always will be the force behind social change.
Caudron (GUE/NGL),in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the joint resolution tabled by the Left, which was in line with the social movement and against unbridled globalisation.
Our resolution was rejected – but only just – in favour of a Liberal-Conservative text which goes against the demands of those people who demonstrated at Porto Alegre and Davos.
Our European Parliament has once again confirmed that the majority of its Members are on the Right. We should not forget this when we come to prepare for the European elections of June 2004!
Alavanos (GUE/NGL),in writing.– (EL)The spread of illnesses such as HIV/AIDS and epidemics in the developing world has taken on genocidal proportions. Unfortunately, the international community is still addressing this issue with one eye on the interests of the big pharmaceutical multinationals. The European Union has recently taken a number of positive initiatives within the World Trade Organisation to allow underdeveloped countries to use so-called generic drugs to treat these all-out attacks on the health of their people. The European Parliament’s resolution is an acceptable contribution in this direction.
- Resolution on the WTO negotiations (agricultural trade) (B5-0102/2003)
Berthu (NI),in writing. – (FR) I voted against the European Parliament’s resolution on the next round of WTO agriculture negotiations, for two reasons.
Firstly, the resolution approves the general action of the Commission, which has agreed to undertake worldwide negotiations on the agricultural sector, with the prospect of accelerated liberalisation, even though the content of the reform of the European CAP will not be decided on until later. In other words, the Commission is trying to force our hand. Secondly, the negotiating offer submitted by the Commission on behalf of the European Union proposes that export subsidies should be reduced (which is acceptable given the harm that they can cause to poorer countries), but also that there should be an average reduction of 36% in our protection against imports. In other words, we would be dismantling Community preference just that little bit more.
What we should be doing, in fact, is to establish a general principle of regional preference, in which each country or group of countries has the right to preserve its agricultural model. In order to do this, we would have to remove agriculture from the WTO rules. Once again, the Commission is manoeuvring us, and one can only deplore the approval expressed by the French Government at the General Affairs Council on 27 January.
Figueiredo (GUE/NGL),in writing. –(PT) The Commission’s proposals on the WTO negotiations on agriculture, which were given unanimous approval by the Council, are a further step towards a substantial liberalisation of farm trade, which maintains the current model, based on promoting exports and insists on the idea that liberalising trade will help developing countries. This overlooks the fact that this approach accentuates food dependency and specialisation based on monoculture for export dominated by the developed countries’ food multinationals.
Instead of further liberalisations, these proposals should take account of the injustices of the international trade system and call for the right to food sovereignty and security to be recognised, in other words, the right of all peoples to define their own agricultural and food policies. They should also advocate the right of all countries to ban the trade in GMOs.
The proposal exceeds the framework of Agenda 2000, which had already made excessive concessions to the detriment of small and medium-sized family holdings. Hence our opposition to any agricultural negotiations within the WTO, which has been giving a further boost to the concentration, intensification and verticalisation of production and in this way, to the elimination of thousands of small and medium-sized holdings, in particular in Portugal. It should be noted that from the outset this proposal makes the interim review of the CAP a precondition, which demonstrates the hypocrisy of some delegations within the Council.
Mathieu (EDD),in writing. – (FR) The European Union’s proposal for the WTO negotiations is not compatible with the objectives of the CAP. Admittedly the joint resolution reminds the negotiators of certain essential points on which they must not make any concessions, so as to protect individual countries’ freedom of choice, whether it is a matter of guaranteeing their independence regarding supply or of determining their own agricultural models.
We do not, however, support it, firstly because the opinion of the European Parliament is no longer relevant once the Council has taken its decision and secondly because the resolution does not question the basis of that decision. How could we maintain farming activities over all the territories involved and protect designations of origin, while at the same time reducing support and opening up more borders, when we have no positive sign that our partners are ready to accept the proposed compensations and limits. Bringing world prices closer together, below the level of production costs, will offer no prospects, either to the countries of the South or to those of the North.
It is already possible to see that the current proposal, even though it is presented to us with no assessment of its consequences, will compel the European Union to adopt the principle of the decoupling of aid.
Fatuzzo (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, item 66 of the document on European transport policy seeks to improve road safety. That is all well and good, very good, but when will we manage to beat the fog? In other words, when will we succeed in seeing through the fog and having fewer road accidents? Today, thanks to the progress of technology, we can even see in the dark, with special infrared glasses. Why do we not spend Europe’s money on better research so that, at last, all motorists have fog glasses? Let us spend our money on this research too, which I am sure will yield positive results, making our roads safer and giving us a European transport policy which is truly the envy of the whole world.
Raschhofer (NI). – (DE) Mr President, I have voted in favour of this report. In my own country, the issue of the White Paper on Transport is a matter for vigorous debate. The White Paper on European transport policy points in the right direction, towards the opening-up of the railway market, the revision of the guidelines and of the TENs, and towards taking enlargement – which is almost upon us – into account in the area of transport.
One of the White Paper's proposals is of enormous importance in view of something currently under discussion – the extension of the Austrian ecopoint system. A proposal for a framework directive to lay down the principles on which charges for the use of the infrastructure were to be imposed on all cross-border carriers was to have been presented as recently as 2002, yet, even today, we wait in vain for this directive on transport infrastructure costs, which is intended to at last facilitate a cross-subsidy, along Swiss lines, for the benefit of environmentally friendly means of transport and to pave the way for the transfer of traffic from road to rail.
Such a transport infrastructure costs directive will be a criterion against which our credibility and the much-invoked European transport policy can be judged. We need it urgently!
Savary (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, the White Paper on transport is undoubtedly an achievement for which we must thank Commissioner Loyola de Palacio, because, for the first time, she has not just laid down market rules, but has proposed to us a proactive strategy in favour of a transport policy that promotes sustainable mobility and favours methods of transport which are non-polluting.
We welcome the fact that our proposals for a European loan to finance trans-European networks, which are currently at a standstill in the Council, have been included. However, in the final analysis we abstained from voting on this report for one simple reason: we believe that there will be no fair competition regarding transport in Europe without a policy of social and fiscal convergence.
The current fiscal and social differences between Member States, particularly on the eve of enlargement, are likely to lead to registrations being transferred, particularly where road transport is concerned, and this will distort competition and render ineffectual and obsolete our efforts to open up markets and to achieve modal transfer from road to rail.
Andersson, Färm, Hedkvist Petersen, Karlsson, Sandberg and Theorin (PSE),in writing.(SV) We Swedish Social Democrats would issue this explanation of vote regarding the following items:
Item 66:
Increased cooperation on road safety between the EU Member States is very important. A new European authority must not take over decision-making from national, regional and local bodies, but could strengthen cooperation between the EU Member States and promote best practice.
Item 79:
We are not in favour of a European transport fund. There is a lot of money in already existing funds that is not used to the full. We are in favour, however, of the proposal to set up an inquiry into the development of new methods for funding major infrastructure projects of common European interest.
Amendment No 26:
This proposal is far too detailed. It does not fall within the scope of this report to lay down detailed regulations on speeds.
Bordes, Cauquil and Laguiller (GUE/NGL),in writing.– (FR) The need for a policy to rationalise transport at European Union level is obvious, since the organisation of the railways and the major road and river routes at national level is so out of date, not to mention air transport. However, we need to be aware of the kind of policy we are talking about. The main concern of the report is to hand over more public transport services to the private sector, even though they are still public services, and the whole scheme involves proposals for subsidies and tax incentives aimed at private capital.
We totally reject this policy, in which the so-called rational organisation of transport is merely a trick. To base the operation of this sector, which is so essential to community life, on competition and maximum profit seeking leads to wastage, anomalies, lack of safety for users, and possibly even disasters.
A European transport policy should be based on the public service provided by the principal collective means of transport. Basic public transport services which are absolutely essential to the public should not generate private profits but should be organised on the basis of need.
Consequently, we voted against this report.
Caudron (GUE/NGL),in writing.–(FR)Yesterday evening I had the opportunity to express my strong reservations about a White Paper and a report, both of which illustrate the gulf between the objectives sought and the means used to achieve them, not only in the field of transport but also in many other fields in Europe.
Today, at voting time, there were still 'margins of uncertainty' regarding the possible adoption of certain amendments, in particular those tabled by the GUE-NGL Group.
Those on the Right united against them, very often with the support of the Socialists. I therefore voted against a report which does not respond to the serious issues at stake in terms of regional planning, the environment and social matters.
Esclopé (EDD),in writing.– (FR) I heard a Member talking about a 'revolution in transport culture', and I say yes to that. Yes, we should encourage the development of clean transport systems, yes we should limit road traffic, and yes we should have a European transport policy which contributes to economic and social cohesion. However, there is one thing that we must not forget: there are real geographical and cultural differences between States, which explain the history of the transport systems of each one of them, and Europe should not seek to erase these differences.
For example, in France there is great diversity between the various landscapes, especially in mountain regions and rural areas. If we want to treat our citizens fairly, wherever they happen to be in France, or in Europe for that matter, we cannot think dogmatically, as the Commission has done in its proposal.
This proposal is lacking in pragmatism and does not take sufficient account of disparities in treatment at local level. When I see the flagrant lack of infrastructures in certain geographical areas, when they are already isolated, depopulated and abandoned, I cannot accept the guidelines set out in this White Paper, which continues to address only liberal concerns.
(Explanation of vote abbreviated pursuant to Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)
Grossetête (PPE-DE),in writing.– (FR) I voted in favour of the report. Transport policy is essential, both for economic development and for the preservation of the environment and of our living conditions, and this means that we have to take the long-term view.
Improving the quality of transport means increasing the alternatives to road transport, in particular by giving support to rail transport and effectively implementing north-south links (Rhine-Rhone-Mediterranean via the Frankfurt/Lyons/Perpignan/Barcelona axis) and European interconnections (Lyons-Turin,…). In this field, political willingness on the part of governments is sometimes lacking.
Improving the efficiency of transport also means paying special attention to trans-European navigable waterway networks. All too often these projects are prevented from being implemented. Improving transport safety also means preventing foreseeable bad weather conditions from blocking roads and airports, leaving people to fall back on their own resources owing to the lack of sufficient capacity to react to such situations, and the lack of equipment or of efficient warning systems, even when the appropriate technology exists.
Finally, I am not in favour of the creation of a European road safety agency. I do not think that we can solve the problems we are currently encountering by multiplying structures of this type.
(Explanation of vote abbreviated pursuant to Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)
Jensen (ELDR),in writing.– (DA) The members of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party in the European Parliament voted neither in favour of, nor against, the first part of Amendment No 19. The ELDR Group is in favour of an environmentally friendly plan for traffic through the Alps, but such a plan must support the development of environmentally sound transport. That is not emphasised in the proposal.
Korakas (GUE/NGL),in writing.–(EL)The Commission proposal and the report follow up and flesh out the policy set out in the White Paper on competitiveness, advocating the full liberalisation of the transport market.
The ultimate aim is to increase the return on capital. Proclamations about safe transport and environmental protection are cancelled out by the philosophy of all-out, unaccountable competitiveness.
The report welcomes the fact that a good deal of progress has been made with regard to liberalisation and competitiveness in transport.
Using demand as its criterion, it highlights the advantages of road transport and focuses on the creation of high capacity north-south and east-west corridors. At the same time, it insists on the need to privatise the railways as a precondition for making them profitable. It also supports market access to port services and stresses the need for a uniform taxation and costing policy for transport.
The Commission and the report are indifferent to the impact this policy has and will have on the standard, safety and cost of transport to the general public.
It supports the single European sky, the abolition of national FIRs and flexible civil and military use of airspace; in conjunction with the general border changes taking place in the area as a whole, this spells danger for the security and national independence of countries such as Greece.
Marques (PPE-DE),in writing. –(PT) I congratulate Mr Izquierdo Collado on the excellent report he has drawn up on the Commission White Paper entitled ‘European transport policy for 2010: time to decide’, which I fully support, in particular his call for the issue of the growing liberalisation of the transport sector to be accompanied by guarantees, investment, mobility, subsidies, price support and maintenance of services for remote and island regions.
In this context I should like to emphasise that, due to the importance of transport for the development of the outermost regions, the European Parliament must, within this process, defend the commitments given to the outermost regions in the Treaty of Amsterdam, thereby contributing to economic and social cohesion in Europe.
I should also like to point out that the safety of transport cannot be made conditional on its profitability and that, where the safety of road transport is concerned, I fully share the aim laid down by the Commission to achieve a 50% reduction in the number of road deaths by 2010, (totalling 20 000) and I support the proposal for the Community-level implementation of evidence-based measures that will enable this target to be achieved.
Piscarreta (PPE-DE),in writing.– (PT) The increasing attention paid to road safety represents added value for Portuguese interests. In fact, the adoption of this report will enable many problems experienced on Portuguese roads, and in particular on some roads in the Algarve, to be solved. Creating a European Road Safety Agency, as proposed in this report, seems, in my opinion, to be of enormous importance, particularly to ‘speeding up developments in road safety and providing access to road safety data and best practice information across the EU.’
Furthermore, I think that the European Transport Fund, another of the measures proposed, is an important pillar for the proper development of infrastructures for roads, railways, maritime routes, river and sea ports and airports, in the aim of creating a European network of balanced and sustainable infrastructures.
For all of these reasons I am persuaded to vote in favour on this matter. This report is based on a premise that is good for my country, since it seeks to launch new initiatives to improve access in the outermost regions.
Ribeiro e Castro (UEN),in writing.– (PT) It is absolutely crucial that we adopt a realistic approach to this matter. Firstly because of the distant horizon of 2010, the deadline set by the Commission White Paper is directed and secondly, in light of the practical difficulties of implementing a very broad range of measures with meagre resources. This will be a good way of giving the Transport Policy the solvency and credibility that it needs.
With regard specifically to freight transport, I have for a long time maintained that priority must be given to restoring rail transport and to developing short-sea and inland waterway shipping, rather than to the excessively overcrowded roads. Many of the problems of concern to the rapporteur, such as road safety, the prevention of bottlenecks, mobility and environmental protection, will be significantly alleviated by action designed to achieve this new balance, favouring the modes of transport that are most heavily penalised today. Internalising external costs, such as environmental costs, can also play a major role in this correction, obviously most heavily penalising the most polluting and most redundant forms of transport, which are also those most likely to cause bottlenecks.
These are my reasons for voting in favour of the report.
Sacrédeus (PPE-DE),in writing.(SV) I have voted against the report, which has been adopted by 406 votes, with 95 votes against and 33 abstentions.
I object to the fact that the European Parliament has voted (by 344 votes, with 185 votes against and 12 abstentions) in favour of the proposal to set up a new European authority for road safety issues. Road safety is a very important responsibility. Every year, many thousands of lives are claimed on European roads. Setting up a further EU authority is no solution, however. What, rather, is required is more stringent monitoring of the ways in which the road traffic regulations are complied with.
The EU is weighed down by a significant bureaucracy which swallows large sums of money. National authorities now already exist with the task of promoting road safety – in Sweden’s case, the National Road Administration in Borlänge.
Nor can I support the decision to set up a new European transport fund, as approved by 368 votes, with 145 against and 13 abstentions.
The proposal is in danger of causing Member States with currently high road standards indirectly to be forced to pay money to countries whose roads are of poorer quality. The Southern Europeans would see in a new transport fund an opportunity to request funds to improve neglected roads at a time when funds from the regional and cohesion funds will, to a greater extent, be going to the new East European Member States. A European transport fund could easily lead to countries’ deliberately according less priority to their national investment in roads in order, instead, to request funds from the common European budget.
Vairinhos (PSE),in writing. –(PT) Transport is an essential sector of undeniable strategic importance for sustainable development and for economic and social cohesion throughout the Union because it transcends the economic and union interests of the sector and its quality affects the entire Community.
We fully support the railways within the Union’s transport system and call for top priority to be given to urgent changes to the terms governing its expansion, nature and adjustment to market conditions. We advocate the responsible liberalisation of European railway management.
We support the institutionalisation of a European Transport Fund.
Ahern (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, a key aspect of the roll-out of third generation mobile communications is the protection of children. The mobile revolution could greatly increase their vulnerability to predators. We need strong action and strong recommendations from the Commission in this area.
The importance of the precautionary principle should not be ignored either, given possible health problems. What are the effects of electromagnetic waves on the human body? Scientific research is continuing in this area. Specialists are asking questions. It is essential that we consult medical organisations on this question.
3G relay masts must be positioned with due regard for the environment. Third generation requires between 4 and 16 times as many masts as second generation. Hence the need for mast-sharing and for the Commission to take full consideration of the environment in its proposals.
Fatuzzo (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, I am starting to feel the pangs of hunger so I will not deliver an explanation of vote this time.
Caudron (GUE/NGL),in writing. – (FR) While supporting the Auroi report and the work of our rapporteur, throughout the debate I have felt the need to point out that, in the field of mobile telephone communications, if we applied the precautionary principle we would stop using portable telephones altogether.
It is easy to see why. Well then, let us at least ensure that proper research is carried out with a view to limiting the potential risks of this technology, and let us very quickly prohibit the most suspect installations or materials. Let us not wait for another asbestos-type crisis to make us aware of the dangers that are threatening us.
Figueiredo (GUE/NGL),in writing. –(PT) The potential delay in implementing third-generation mobile communications networks and services is today a major risk factor for a sector that has been considerably weakened by the bursting of the speculative bubble in the USA, which could have a knock-on effect on the communications and information technology sector and hence on the economy in general, given this sector’s influence on telecommunications, and particularly on mobile communications, in some Member States.
This situation is largely due to the great expectations raised for the sector’s development and to the enormous financial sums obtained by some Member States by auctioning UMTS licences. Consequently, these States are now considering adopting unilateral aid to ‘rescue’ this sector from a situation of considerable debt.
In addition to this risk factor, we must consider the issues of equal access for citizens to third-generation mobile communications, content-related issues, specifically in terms of public service provision, the consequences of the further liberalisation of the sector and the effects of radiation from the electromagnetic fields created by mobile phones, making it crucial to extend scientific research in this field.
Fatuzzo (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, I cannot refrain from delivering this explanation of vote. The document is entitled: ‘eEurope 2005: An information society for all’. For all? For absolutely everybody? Mr Silvio Berlusconi has issued a letter giving money to students to buy computers. What about pensioners? I would like pensioners not to be overlooked in this information society. I propose that, when pensioners draw their first pension payment, together with this first pension payment they should be given – and I stress, given – a computer, so that they too can enjoy the benefits, the marvels and the joys of information technology.
Ó Neachtain (UEN),in writing.– We are all aware that for the European Union to remain competitive we must take full advantage of the new information technologies that are coming on stream.
That is the core of the Action Plan for eEurope 2005 guaranteeing widespread availability of broadband networks throughout the EU. It also seeks to ensure the widespread use of the Internet through eGovernment, eLearning, eHealth and eBusiness initiatives.
I represent a peripheral part of the European Union – both the western and border county regions in Ireland.
It must remain a central European policy that the benefits of new technologies extend equally to all urban and rural parts of Europe.
If access to these new technologies is not available, investors will locate their companies where the best available technology is.
On issues such as information technology, there is the principle known as universal access.
The cost of access to the internet must be the same whether the user is living in a rural part of Ireland or in a capital city in the European Union.
We must do more to promote a dynamic e-business environment, and ensure that small and medium sized companies take full advantage of the new evolving technologies to meet that objective.
Queiró (UEN),in writing.– (PT) I welcome the fact that the European Parliament has dedicated itself to a plan as important as eEurope 2005, in the aim of enabling the Member States to develop their online skills in the sectors of public administration, by modernising public services in order to guarantee universal accessibility; education, specifically the aim of guaranteeing broadband access for all educational establishments; health, by providing online health services to the population, and broadband data networks between the various points of healthcare provision, such as hospitals, laboratories and homes; and ‘business’, obviously not forgetting issues involving the technical means necessary to achieving these aims – extending bandwidth and multiplying channels – and the sensitive issue of the security of information.
Despite the fact that there is generally consensus amongst Members on this issue, I think it important to register my vote in favour of this report.
Read (PSE),in writing.– I and my fellow British Labour MEPs do not support any amendments critical of the auction system for allocating radio spectrum. It was always clear, from both the Council and the Commission, that Member States had the choice of the system to allocate radio frequencies. The UK quite properly chose the auction system, and we do not concur with the criticism of this contained in these two reports.
Ribeiro e Castro (UEN),in writing.– (PT) I have voted in favour of this report, and I agree, therefore, with the conclusions reached by the competent parliamentary committee on its content. I felt I should give my unequivocal support to promoting the skills – especially the technical and logistical skills – of the Member States, in order to achieve the aim proclaimed at the Lisbon and Santa Maria da Feira European Councils and later at the Barcelona and Seville Councils, to make the European Union the most competitive society in the world and in this respect at the forefront of the ‘world information society’.
This report must also be seen as forming a link with the Van Velzen and Khanbhai reports, because, as it states, a new era of high-quality content must be promoted, in which the Member States must have a special say and their own contribution to make.
I therefore consider establishing priority action frameworks to promote online skills, as the report suggests, to be of the utmost strategic importance, especially in public administration, by modernising public services in order to guarantee universal accessibility; education, specifically the aim of guaranteeing broadband access for all educational establishments and health, by providing online health services to the population, and broadband data networks between the various points of healthcare provision, such as hospitals, laboratories and homes.
- Resolution on the preparation for the 2003 Spring Summit (B5-0104/2003)
Alavanos (GUE/NGL),in writing.–(EL) Theprospects and expectations of Lisbon are, unfortunately, a far cry from the situation on the ground in Europe. Europe has not only failed to take the lead in the most important technologies; it is still as far behind the USA as it was before, growth has slowed, unemployment has risen, new sciences are finding it hard to break into the market and regional disparities persist. Unfortunately, the summit Council does not appear to have a cohesive programme or proposals and the proposals by the leaders of France, Germany and Great Britain are confined to the industrial sector. The Spring Summit will need to set out new priorities, tailored to the current climate of economic recession and international tension, which include relaxing the Stability Pact criteria, tax incentives to boost labour intensive activities, special incentives to help regions lagging behind in the new technologies, joined-up interventions to upgrade the education system and monitoring the implementation of eEurope objectives in each Member State.
Bastos (PPE-DE),in writing.–(PT) This resolution on preparations for the 2003 Spring Summit, which highlights the urgent need to re-establish credibility and to implement the Lisbon Strategy in order to improve the European Union’s economic and social model by 2010, warrants support despite the fact that Europe’s current political and economic climate is substantially less favourable than the climate that served as backdrop to the Lisbon European Council of 2000.
We need to restore confidence in the Lisbon Strategy and to implement its aims. In order to achieve this, a roadmap must be drawn up for its monitoring and for legislative commitments to be smoothly transposed into national legislation.
In the context of employment and social affairs, the crucial role of the social partners must be emphasised. Furthermore, the Member States must adopt measures that will enable the most disadvantaged social groups to be better integrated into the labour market, investment in basic and ongoing education and training as a factor of vital importance to individual and collective progress. These measures must also combat undeclared work and poverty and social exclusion.
We must furthermore improve the system of the mutual recognition of qualifications, in order to encourage greater and better mobility.
(Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)
Berthu (NI),in writing. –(FR) The agenda for the European Council this coming March, which has just been presented to us, includes so many economic and social priorities that it is bound to give rise to confusion. We believe that it will have three negative effects in particular.
First of all there is a complete lack of visibility in the eyes of the public, particularly since many of the subjects that are regarded as priorities at European level are really of very secondary importance to our fellow citizens. Then we are being sent a subliminal message which we do not accept, namely that the European Union is a super-state which has its finger in every pie. Finally, and most importantly, ineffectiveness is guaranteed, because faced with so many priorities, action on the part of the Union and of its Member States is bound to become fragmented.
As I said during the debate, many of the measures proposed are extremely interesting, but we ought to concentrate on certain central selling ideas. The European Union should not add an additional cumbersome and restrictive level of management. It should remain flexible and differentiated. It should make life easier for Member States on the international stage, by helping them to limit immigration and to fight, within the WTO negotiations, to enable us to retain our security and the identity of our societies.
Caudron (GUE/NGL),in writing.–(FR) When I spoke this morning I asked that this summit should not turn out to be a mere catalogue of good intentions and that the objective of full employment, with all the consequences that that implies, should become more or less the sole objective from which all the rest are derived.
The resolution which was voted for and signed by Members on the Right and belonging to the PSE, was not acceptable, particularly since the votes had 'liberalised' it even more.
I therefore voted against it.
Muscardini (UEN),in writing. –(IT) We would like to express our satisfaction at the proposals and at the commitment of the Presidency to the events ahead of us, and point out that a rapidly developing society brings cases of social exclusion as well as general prosperity. A policy which caters for the weakest is the hallmark of a civilised human community which has to meet the needs of the weakest too.
We must preserve the family and the right to a dignified life as basic values, activating instruments to ensure equal access to education and work and preventing the spread of child pornography and all physical and moral violence.
We must be more mindful of the environment, food security and animal rights, for these are issues related to quality of life.
We need to prevent practices such as female genital mutilation which damage physical integrity and personal dignity.
We need framework rules requiring each country to establish basic salaries and pension, health and welfare systems which reflect the true cost of living, and we need to bring about the effective participation of employees in enterprise profits and gain.
President. – Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes the votes. The sitting is suspended(7).
(The sitting was suspended at 1.40 p.m. and resumed at 3.00 p.m.)
Tabled by Mr Obiols i Germà and others, on behalf of the PSE Group, Mrs Auroi and others, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group, Mr Wurtz, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group which replaces motions for resolutions B5-0101/2003, B5-0115/2003, B5-0125/2003.
Tabled by Mr Wijkman and others, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group, Mrs McNally, on behalf of the PSE Group, Mr Clegg and Mrs Thors, on behalf of the ELDR Group, Mr Rod and others, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group, Mr Miranda, and others, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group which replaces motions for resolutions B5-0103/2003, B5-0110/2003, B5-0123/2003, B5-0127/2003, B5-0130/2003).
Tabled by Mr Cunha and Mr Schwaiger, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group, Mrs McNally and Mr van den Berg, on behalf of the PSE Group, Mr Clegg, on behalf of the ELDR Group, Mrs Auroi and Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group which replaces motions for resolutions B5-0102/2003, B5-0107/2003, B5-0109/2003, B5-0128/2003.
Tabled by Mr van Velzen, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group, Mr Goebbels, on behalf of the PSE Group, Mrs Attwooll and Mr Gasòliba i Böhm, on behalf of the ELDR Group, Mr Crowley, on behalf of the UEN Group which replaces motions for resolutions B5-0104/2003, B5-0108/2003, B5-0119/2003, B5-0122/2003.