2. Situation in Thailand
President
The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on Thailand.
Marietje Schaake
author. - Madam President, Thailand is going through a violent crisis with the red-shirt demonstrators on the one hand, and the army and the yellow-shirts on the other. Around 80 people have already lost their lives and nearly 2 000 have been injured. Democracy is threatened and the country finds itself in a government-declared state of emergency.
The state of emergency has resulted in censorship. Media sources such as TV, radio and Internet have been blocked. Halting violence is very important, and we encourage all parties to use self-restraint in the process of doing so, but in seeking to restore the calm, the state of emergency should not be abused to restrict fundamental rights and individual freedoms. Censorship needs to end and freedom of the media and expression need to be restored. These values are important for the European Parliament in their valuable relationship with Thailand.
Cristian Dan Preda
As we have all observed, because it has been the main topic of news, since early April, Thailand has experienced an atmosphere of political violence that it had not seen in the last decade. I would first of all like to express my solidarity with the families of the victims of the violence on the streets. I think that we have here what I would describe as a conventional confrontation between the freedom of expression and association, on the one hand, and the need for the government to maintain public order, on the other. The train of events has passed very quickly over recent days and hours. Relative calm seems to have returned to Bangkok, although the capital was ablaze last night following intervention by government forces.
Let us hope that a new spiral of violence can be avoided. However, to ensure this happens, we need moderation because democracy cannot prevail through violence. I think that the government will have to implement the roadmap which it presented on 3 May. I also believe that investigation of the recent events and punishment of the guilty are measures required to ensure reconciliation.
Véronique De Keyser
Madam President, the 'red-shirt' demonstrations have been suppressed with bloodshed. I would just like to say the following, without wishing to add fuel to the fire, since a European Parliament urgency procedure requires us to appease a crisis and to seek solutions rather than further inflame people's anger. Firstly, any citizen can legitimately aspire to free and fair elections. That is an undeniable right, and one that should be granted to all Thai people. This option was proposed at one point by Prime Minister Vejjajiva, then rejected by the 'red-shirts'. We must now return to it.
Secondly, I condemn the use of live gunfire on protestors and the brutal repression of recent days which, according to official sources, has claimed at least 12 victims, including an Italian journalist, and left many people injured. It is time to stop the violence that has become widespread across the whole country.
In doing so, I do not advocate taking one side or another, but I call on the Thai Government to prioritise a negotiated solution, to ensure that the declared state of emergency does not limit individual freedoms or freedom of expression, which would only exacerbate tensions, and I call on him in particular to consider a return to the polls.
The current turmoil runs the risk of dividing the country. In the north-east, which is a rural area with a Laotian culture, there would be almost insurgent opposition against the central area, Bangkok and the south, which are all Democratic strongholds. This could lead to the emergence of quasi-terrorist movements, attacking what can be called the bureaucracy and elite that are the bastions of power.
There absolutely must be a return to elections, negotiations, and an end to the violence, whilst maintaining freedoms. Of course, these are very simple words, and perhaps rather naive in relation to modern-day violence. This parliamentary resolution was deliberately chosen to avoid any explosion of violence in Thailand and to leave room for dialogue, but that does not mean that we can dispense with all calls for democracy.
Barbara Lochbihler
Madam President, the images of the anger, violence and destruction in Bangkok are still fresh in our minds. Although attention has now, to a certain extent, moved away from the highly charged situation in the Thai capital, the risk of further violent clashes is by no means over. The violent conflict between the so-called red shirts and the government, backed by the army, has already resulted in more than 70 people being killed and almost 2 000 injured. The government has announced that it will investigate these deaths and those which occurred in the last few days must also be included in this investigation.
It is important to consider the fundamental causes of these recurring protests and clashes in order to find a viable political solution. Part of the Thai population is severely disadvantaged and socially excluded. These people are very critical of their unfair treatment and lack of rights. They are fighting against their comparatively low standard of living. Other factors include conspicuous and widespread corruption within the political leadership, but also among the people in positions of responsibility within civil society. These structural problems must be exposed and resolved, if a lasting solution is to be found, rather than just bringing an end to hostilities.
We call on all the parties in the conflict to play a serious and constructive role in finding a solution to this major crisis. However, both sides must use only peaceful and democratic means to bring this about and, for this, they need the support of the EU.
Marie-Christine Vergiat
Madam President, for several weeks now, the 'red-shirts' popular movement has been demonstrating in Bangkok in order to demand respect for democracy. Let us remember that the current government, even though the President has only been in power since December 2008, is nevertheless the result of a military coup that occurred in September 2006.
What were the 'red-shirts' demanding? The Prime Minister's resignation, the dissolution of parliament, early elections - in short, democracy. On 4 May 2010, the Prime Minister announced a reconciliation plan based on those famous early elections, but the assassination, on 13 May, of General Khattiya, commander of the 'red-shirts', terminated negotiations.
This is the context in which we have prepared the resolution before us today. Yesterday, the army intervened, killing several people including an Italian journalist. For us, it is essential that the resolution on which we are going to vote takes account of these events, particularly given that the main leaders of the 'red-shirt' movement immediately surrendered and urged the population to remain calm.
In fact, it is the matter of the succession of the king that is being called into question. He has remained strangely silent. The message we must convey is that democracy cannot be imposed by force, and that it is not acceptable to quash demonstrations by sending in the army with orders to shoot on sight. The resolution does not even condemn the violence. We will not vote in favour of it. The Thai people have the right to democracy, and everything must be done to avoid another military coup.
Adam Bielan
Thailand - a country which, until recently, was considered a bastion of democracy and stability in South-East Asia - has recently experienced its most dramatic events in almost half a century.
Fighting continues in the conflict between supporters of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, known as the 'red-shirts', and the government and the army. Over 60 people have been killed, including foreign nationals and, among them, citizens of EU countries, nearly 2 000 people have been injured, and the capital, Bangkok, has sustained a significant degree of damage.
Of course, the victims' families deserve our expressions of sympathy, condolences and solidarity, but we must also be aware that the Thai nation is, today, very divided. Human rights such as freedom of assembly and freedom of speech are significantly restricted, and the conflict will be very difficult to solve by peaceful and political means.
Therefore, pressure is needed - international pressure, including from the European Union - on both sides of the conflict so that they will resume talks and try to resolve their dispute by political means, and not through violence.
Thomas Mann
Madam President, in the street fighting which has come to resemble a civil war, 75 people have been killed and more than 1 800 injured since last week alone. Following heavy military intervention, the leaders of the demonstrators have surrendered. However, the situation in Bangkok is continuing to escalate. I have received phone calls about it both yesterday and today. Until now, some areas of the capital were not affected by the conflict, but that has changed. The situation in the north-east is also chaotic. The dramatic images convey one clear message. Regardless of whether people are wearing red, black, yellow or green shirts, they must stop the violence and not allow the situation to escalate any further.
The position of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) is clear. There is no alternative to objective discussions. All the incidents must be investigated by an independent commission. We very much welcome the plan to bring the parliamentary elections forward. Mr Tajani, the EU must take an active role and act as mediator. We have the diplomatic means to break the spiral of violence and start the process of constructive dialogue. Mr Tajani, we must act, because Thailand is being shaken to its foundations.
Corina Creţu
I, too, wish to express my solidarity with the Thai families grieving in the wake of the violent clashes in Bangkok. The situation is all the more alarming as there are no real prospects of resolving the internal conflict. Reprisals on the streets of the Thai capital, which have caused tens of deaths and hundreds of injured, cannot be accepted in any way as a means of resolving existing problems.
The brutal use of force and introduction of censorship, which bans television channels from broadcasting anything other than programmes approved by the government, are violations of basic human rights. In fact, it is the duty of the European Union and the whole civilised world to condemn the use of armed force against civilians and to request the release of those arrested illegally, as well as the most impartial investigation possible into the deaths which have occurred. If anything, the losses of human life are only serving to harden the opposition's intransigence and fuel the violence which has also spread to the north-east of the country.
There is the risk of these street clashes degenerating into civil war. I believe that international organisations, primarily the UN, have to intervene as soon as possible to prevent an even more serious deterioration in the situation and to mediate the start of a necessary dialogue between the authorities and the opposition, as the only democratic option for resolving the current crisis peacefully.
Joe Higgins
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - Madam President, I condemn the brutal repression by the Thai Government and State against the protestors in Bangkok and elsewhere in Thailand. Despite propaganda that these were terrorists, in the main, they were, in fact, impoverished farmers from the north and around Bangkok, sections of the urban working class, and their families, who saw their protest as a struggle against the enormous poverty and hardship that they suffer.
Unfortunately, these oppressed people look to the billionaire and former Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, for a solution. Despite some populist measures against poverty when he was in government, Mr Thaksin represents the capitalist elite and deceives the masses. On the other side, there is the current Prime Minister Abhisit and his party, who represent other sections of the elite.
I think the poor rural masses and the urban working class in Thailand urgently need their own independent organisation to fight for their rights, and I hope that the next mobilisation in Thailand might be a united struggle of workers, poor farmers, students and youth, dedicated to overthrowing all corrupt elites and bringing the major wealth of Thailand into public ownership and democratic control and, in a socialist Thailand, transforming the lives of its people and also fighting for the rights of all minorities.
Monica Luisa Macovei
Madam President, I condemn the use of bullets against protestors in Thailand: thousands of people died; hundreds were injured. As reported by Amnesty International, eyewitness accounts and video recordings show clearly that the military is firing live rounds at unarmed people who pose no threat whatsoever to the soldiers or to others. Among the dead, there are medical doctors and children.
Thai soldiers must stop firing; violence against protestors cannot lead, and will not lead, to a democratic solution. The government must be aware that crushing the protestors may clear the streets for now but will not solve the problem that brought the people onto the streets, and before anything else comes human life, so stop the firing.
Miroslav Mikolášik
(SK) The demonstrations in Thailand have unfortunately been going on for several weeks now. The civilian population are suffering violence as the direct victims of bloody confrontations between armed anti-government demonstrators and the forces of the state. I would therefore like to express my sympathy with those who have lost family members.
I consider it an absolute priority in this tense situation for both sides to denounce physical force and to prevent further losses of life. I also support the call for an immediate end to the ongoing violence and for the opening of constructive dialogue, with the aim of settling the conflict by peaceful and democratic means. At the same time, I call on the Thai Government not to resort to unwarranted and unjustified violations of human rights during the declared state of emergency.
Jaroslav Paška
(SK) The political conflict in Thailand very quickly grew into serious civil unrest, which resulted in the deaths of many protestors following intervention by the forces of repression. If the state authorities use brute force and uncontrolled repression against the citizens of their own country, this deserves condemnation.
Therefore, Madam President, Commissioner, the EU must use its political influence on the parties involved in the conflict and call for a peaceful solution to the political solution in such a way that Thai citizens do not pay the price for the political disputes between leaders of individual groups. The Thai Government in particular must take responsibility for providing a calm and peaceful solution to this conflict.
Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris
(IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a ceasefire and an end to censorship: I believe this to be the two-pronged action which the Commission, with the greatest determination, but also with the greatest consistency, with those values considered inalienable by this Parliament, must endeavour to obtain.
In a climate of civil war such as that prevailing in Thailand, a return to democracy through free elections - initially discussed, initially hoped for, but now in some doubt - requires a crucial step, namely, awareness of the international community's support for the Thai people and for the country's return to full democracy.
To allow the international community to be involved in this phase, the crucial factor is information, and this is why the state of emergency must not be a form of veiled censorship. The Internet, newspapers and the media must be in a position to inform the international community of the dynamics in play in Thailand, so that the international community, with as much awareness of the facts as possible, can be supportive at this time of restoring democracy.
Antonio Tajani
Madam President, honourable Members, Thailand is going through a tragic phase in its political history. The country, known for its economic and social dynamism, is currently affected by a profound crisis which could threaten stability if a solution to the current conflict is not found.
Indeed, this crisis strikes at the very heart of the country: much of the population seems to have lost confidence in the institutions that govern it. In turn, the government is struggling to implement the solutions that the current circumstances demand. Political fragility has resulted from this, leading to violent confrontations and acts of aggression which directly affect human rights and fundamental rights. There is persistent uncertainty over the future of the country. In such circumstances, the European Union deplores the fact that people have lost their lives, such as the Italian journalist Fabio Polenghi, who was killed yesterday morning during clashes between demonstrators and soldiers. No political or ideological crisis can justify this fact, nor the armed confrontation.
On two occasions already, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has reminded the warring parties to show restraint. Even a state of emergency cannot be allowed to result in excessive measures when it comes to fundamental rights and the right to freedom of expression. These rights are threatened by the disproportionate use of force.
To prevent the situation deteriorating any further, it is crucial that negotiations should resume. The Commission has taken note of the roadmap put forward by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva. Thailand will not emerge from the current crisis unless it deals with its major structural problems. It is essential that the legitimate claims of disadvantaged social groups are recognised by all parties involved in governing the country. This is an indispensable step towards national reconciliation. It is therefore imperative for Thailand to find a consensus with all parties on how to move towards a more incisive society.
As a partner to Thailand, the European Union is ready to support the country, as far as it is able, during this complex process.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place shortly.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Bruno Gollnisch
Thailand is going through a very serious period in its history. The 'Land of Smiles' has become one of tears, blood and, maybe tomorrow, one of a civil war between government forces and the so-called 'red-shirts'. How did things reach the point where a demonstration calling for democratic elections ended with dozens of dead and thousands injured, the political assassination of an opposition leader, scenes of urban guerrilla warfare, the beginning of insurgency in several provinces and the establishment of a state of emergency and curfews? The King is a highly respected figure in the country, but does not seem able to reduce tensions. Continued uncertainties over his succession suggest that this instability will persist. The violence must stop. The current government certainly came about through elections, but elections that were held following a coup and the dissolution of the opposition parties. This injustice must stop. The solution lies only in the swift organisation of general elections and the prior restoration of the political freedom of all parties involved, so as to ensure the elections are democratic. The EU should use its good economic and political relations with Thailand in order to bring about this solution.


Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships (debate)
President
- The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on the negotiations taking place in May 2009 under the auspices of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) on the conditions for the entry into force of the Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships by Johannes Blokland, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety - B6-0224/2009).
Johannes Blokland
author. - (NL) Mr President, back in the plenary of May last year, the European Parliament took a clear stance against the humanly degrading and environmentally destructive situations involved in the dismantling of ships. Yet, on various shores in South Asia, enormous seagoing ships for scrapping are still being dismantled under conditions that are both environmentally damaging and humanly degrading. In Bangladesh, for example, not one of the 36 dismantling sites complies with minimum environmental and safety standards.
One good thing is that, for this reason, the High Court ordered the Government of Bangladesh a week ago to close these 'dismantling yards' within two weeks. At the same time, the same High Court banned all ships containing hazardous substances from entering Bangladeshi territory. In addition, the Bangladeshi Minister for the Environment has three months to lay down rules, complying with the Basel Convention, for the recycling of ships for scrapping.
These are the very same important measures advocated by the European Parliament in last year's resolution. One could almost be forgiven for thinking that the Bangladeshi High Court had read our resolution. I see this ruling as an important victory in the fight against the unacceptable practices mentioned earlier. It is essential that the Government of Bangladesh duly follow up on the court rulings. This goes not only for Bangladesh but also for other Asian countries.
I have already remarked that the efforts of individual states will not suffice. A global solution to the problem of ship dismantling is still urgently needed. In May of this year, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) is holding a global conference in Hong Kong, the aim of which is to conclude a global agreement on the recycling of ships for scrapping. The resolution by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety must ensure that a clear signal is sent to the Council and the Commission for the negotiations, with the objective of achieving the best possible result.
With regard to last year's resolution, it is important to add the following five points. Firstly, it must be made clear that ships for scrapping that incorporate hazardous substances should be regarded as hazardous waste and hence should fall under the Basel Convention. Continuing to debate the definitions is not in the interests of environmental protection. Amendment 1, proposed by the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, weakens this position somewhat, and thus I cannot support it. Secondly, running ships aground for on-site dismantling must be regarded as unacceptable. Thirdly, there is a need to take measures - particularly on the phasing out of single-hull tankers - before the end of the lengthy ratification period. Fourthly, certification of dismantling yards is to be welcomed. Fifthly, the measures should continue to include a mandatory fund within the framework of producer responsibility - as the European Parliament stated last year. However, the European Commission appears to be reconsidering this position. I should therefore like to hear Commissioner Figel' tell us that the Commission is still prepared to set up a scrapping fund.
With this resolution, in combination with last year's, the European Parliament is charting a clear course towards a solution to the problems referred to. I welcome the high level of agreement on this issue in the Committee on the Environment and the Committee on Transport and Tourism. It is my hope that the Council and the Commission will make an equally concerted effort to conclude a sound convention in Hong Kong in two months' time, one that safeguards the interests of safety, public health and the environment well. I should like Commissioner Figel' to tell us whether the European Commission will be using this clear course as a key asset in the negotiations at the IMO conference, and also what measures the Commission means to take to ensure timely implementation of the convention to be concluded.
Ján Figeľ
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, first of all I would like to thank Parliament for the very strong interest it has expressed and its continuous involvement with regard to ship dismantling. I would especially like to thank Mr Blokland.
This is a very good starting point for further action at EU level to ensure that the European Union plays its part in solving this international problem. These questions are also timely, in the light of the recent ruling of the Bangladeshi High Court that you have just mentioned and the situation in that country. As a consequence of this ruling, all ship recycling yards will be closed within two weeks as they have not been authorised by the Ministry of the Environment. The import of dangerous ships that are on a list will be banned and all imported ships will have to be pre-cleaned. Finally, Bangladesh will start developing a national law on ship breaking in line with the Basel Convention.
Now, let me turn to the situation closer to home by answering your questions.
Your first question concerns the phasing-out of the beaching method - the method of dismantling end-of-life vessels directly on the beach.
I share your concerns about the serious risks this presents to human health and the environment. We considered the question of introducing an EU ban on beaching in the impact assessment of our strategy. There were some concerns regarding the effectiveness of any such ban since it would be only applicable to EU-flagged ships and could be easily and legally circumvented by changing flag.
We believe it will be more effective to put our efforts into ensuring that the technical guidelines currently being developed to support the future IMO Convention really do lead to safe and environmentally sound ship recycling. The progress in the development of these guidelines is, so far, very encouraging. It is very doubtful in any case that the traditional beaching method would be able to comply with the forthcoming guidelines.
And, regarding your second question, I am pleased to confirm that the Commission is fully committed to working towards an effective and early transposition of the Ship Recycling Convention into EU legislation. The Environment DG has already launched several studies and is working on assessing the impacts of the key elements of the Convention. I believe that it is extremely important for the European Union to show leadership and the high priority that we attach to this issue. This will encourage the ratification by third countries and consequently speed up the entry into force of this convention.
But I share the concerns highlighted in your third question regarding the importance of not undermining the existing Community acquis. We need to safeguard the existing requirements in terms of workers' rights and environmental protection when transposing the IMO Convention. And in our study, we will therefore carefully compare the requirements of the IMO Convention with our Community acquis. And I would like to stress that we will, in particular, ensure that the 2006 Waste Shipment Regulation is not undermined.
Pilar Ayuso
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, this question, as explained by Mr Blokland, is very timely, given the diplomatic conference on the convention for the recycling of ships, to be held in May. I would therefore like to congratulate Mr Blokland not only on the question but also on the resolution that he has drawn up.
In the Partido Popular, we are in favour of combating the bad practices and methods in use in relation to the scrapping of ships and we therefore support Mr Blokland's motion for a resolution; there are, however, certain points that worry us.
The first is paragraph 3 - to which Mr Blokland himself has also already referred - which states that ships should be considered in their entirety as hazardous waste and should therefore fall within the scope of the Basel Convention. We have tabled an amendment on this paragraph, because there are differing interpretations, both within and outside and European Union, and we believe that the Basel Convention should be taken into account and that there should be no conflict with it. It ought to be the future international agreement on the scrapping of ships, however, that defines the details of its application.
Paragraph 14 of the motion for a resolution also calls for a funding mechanism that is based on mandatory contributions from the maritime transport sector. It really seems to us a little premature to be talking at the moment about mandatory contributions when there has so far been no decision, within the International Maritime Organization, as to what the system is to be that is to be adopted through this funding, and it seems to me that the European Commission does not have a clear response on this subject either.
Finally, in paragraph 15 there is a call for the Commission to establish clearly that the state with jurisdiction over waste is the responsible state. We do not believe that this is a matter for the Commission to decide; on the contrary, we think that this ought also to be decided in an international agreement.
What is important is to safeguard consistency between the future agreement on the recycling of ships and the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, while taking into account not only the Basel Convention but also all the existing legislation.
Ján Figeľ
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, thank you for the comments both from Ms Ayuso and Mr Blokland, and especially for the latter's committed work. As I said before, especially regarding waste or hazardous waste, here we need to ensure that implementation of the Convention will be fully in line with Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 on shipments of waste, which was adopted relatively recently.
Regarding funding, there is no fund or mechanism for the time being. We have launched a study in order to prepare the potential options or solution, and we will soon start public consultations on this issue. So your comments, now and then, will be very welcome, particularly on the establishment of the dismantling fund.
President
- The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 26 March 2009.


Explanations of vote
Oral explanations of vote
Christopher Heaton-Harris
Madam President, I abstained on this particular issue because I think the Commission has got too much to do and it does not really need to reassess where it is going politically or policy-wise. It should be talking much more about deregulation, not about how we can go forward with a common immigration policy.
Many small businesses in the region that I represent would like to see less regulation coming from this place. Actually many people would like to see the regulation that comes from this place better implemented across the whole of the European Union.
Finally, there are many in my region who express concern that the Commission does not do what it is meant to do. For example, the Commission might at this present point in time be shelving infringement cases against various Member States, when it comes to gambling, to hide this away from the general public for a couple of years. That is something the Commission should be getting on with now.
Bernard Wojciechowski
(PL) Madam President, the Commission's priorities for 2009 are increased employment, climate change and a sustainable Europe. Employment in the European Union is especially deserving of attention.
The Amsterdam Treaty was adopted in November 1997 during the Luxembourg summit. This created the basis for the formation of a European employment strategy. Due to the problem of unemployment in the Member States, where 17 million people were out of work at that time, this issue was made a priority. Nine years later, in 2006, in the enlarged European Union, 64.3% of people of working age were in employment. Denmark had the highest level of employment, Poland the lowest. A total of 7.9% of people of working age were unemployed. As a comparison, unemployment in the United States was 4.6%. Over the last year, 24 of the Member States recorded a drop in unemployment and three reported an increase. The largest decreases were seen in Poland, Bulgaria and Latvia and the largest increase in unemployment was in Estonia.
The report by Mrs Haug shows just how important is the role played by the Member States in the European Union's employment policy.
Kathy Sinnott
Madam President, in this vote and also in the Gulf oil vote, I found myself again being forced to abstain or to vote against, simply because the vote is already anticipating the Lisbon Treaty.
I find this very presumptuous and disrespectful to parliaments that have not yet ratified, and particularly to the Irish people who are still going into referendum.
I would call on Parliament and people writing these motions for resolutions to refrain, in their haste, from presuming on a treaty that may or may not be ratified. For the sake of democracy, they should refrain.
Bernard Wojciechowski
Madam President, I fully support the adopted resolution drafted by Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra and others. There are those that talk the talk and there are those that walk the walk.
Europe should strengthen its relationship with Latin America. We will reap the benefits of this relationship for generations to come, something which we cannot say about the Galileo project.
After all - and as the resolution points out - the Euro-Latin American partnership has an overall population of more than one billion people, who make up one third of the UN member states and account for more than a quarter of world trade.
Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański
(PL) Madam President, the purpose for which the World Trade Organisation was created was to bring about free and multilateral trade. It was recognized that an open market based on principles of friendship and honesty is the key to stable economic growth and reducing world poverty.
However, for many people, the WTO is still something of a puzzle. This is due to the lack of transparency in its activities and inappropriate information being made public. The present reduced G4 and G6 working groups are often seen as meetings of the representatives of large countries that are imposing, or that want to impose, their will on other members.
Another problem is the lack of technical and legal assistance from the WTO for less developed countries that do not gain any economic benefits from increased market liberalisation.
Countries such as India, China or Brazil are treated as developing countries, as a result of which they can benefit from more advantageous conditions and various obligations. I believe this to be a mistake in WTO policy. The WTO does not take into account the massive potential of these countries and their resources. The countries take advantage of this fact and often use price dumping in trade relations, which is harmful to other countries. There should be a clearer division of developing countries that takes into account factors such as economic strength, economic development, GDP growth and growth in exports.
Syed Kamall
Madam President, we all agree on the need for reform for the WTO. But the best reform for the World Trade Organisation would be in the attitudes of the negotiating parties, including that of the European Union.
I call on my colleagues to support the cross-party global campaign calling for real trade of which I am a co-chairman with Abdi Abdirahim Haithar of the East African Legislative Assembly. We call for five things. Let us abolish agricultural subsidies; let us abolish agricultural tariffs; let us liberalise rules of origin; let us place more emphasis on aid for trade, for things like infrastructure rather than direct budgetary support for corrupt governments. And, let us incentivise low-income countries to remove barriers between each other so that they can create wealth - entrepreneurs can create wealth - and so that they can take part in the global trading system.
Bernard Wojciechowski
(PL) Madam President, Europeans appreciate the natural environment. Eurobarometer polls show that over 70% of people want decision-makers to give the same weight to environmental policy as they do to the economy and to social issues.
Climate change is ongoing. Over the last 100 years average temperatures in Europe have risen by 0.095°C and over the next century could increase by 2° or even 6°C. The OECD estimates that 6.4% of childhood deaths and illnesses in Europe are caused by environmental pollution.
The European Union can achieve its pollution reduction objectives, as set out in the Kyoto protocol (the President cut off the speaker)
President
I am sorry, but you are speaking too fast for the interpreters.
Bernard Wojciechowski
(PL) ... through the introduction of emission trading guidelines in European Union countries as well as other instruments, including the European programme for combating climate change. I believe that the report by Mrs Ferreira will further encourage the Member States to take action in the field of environmental protection.
Christofer Fjellner
(SV) I would like to express my dissatisfaction with the fact that we have not had the opportunity to vote against the proposal for personal CO2 cards, in other words personal cards where we are expected to measure the contribution of individuals to the greenhouse effect. This is simply wrong. It is against human enterprise and development and sends extremely strange signals: don't breathe, don't exercise, especially don't pant and for God's sake, don't fart!
What should the sanctions be for those who emit too much carbon dioxide or contribute too much to the greenhouse effect? Should we ban them from breathing altogether? No, these kinds of idiotic ideas undermine our credibility and shift the focus away from the correct, effective measures, namely emissions rights trading, the polluter pays principle and other methods which actually work.
I am surprised that more people have not protested against this proposal and that it seems to have passed unnoticed. I am very sad if this speech has resulted in my emitting more carbon dioxide than I am actually entitled to. I am sorry about that.
Bernard Wojciechowski
(PL) I voted in favour of the resolution on International Financial Reporting Standards. The IFRS make it easier to compare financial reports of companies working in the same, or even different, sectors. I believe that the European Union should investigate whether any benefit would be gained, and if so, what kind of benefits, from the introduction of International Financial Reporting Standards in small and medium sized enterprises.
Written explanations of vote
Giles Chichester
in writing. - British Conservatives support the emphasis in this resolution on better regulation, on reducing administrative burdens, on renewed emphasis on achieving the Lisbon Strategy on growth and jobs and on further progress towards underpinning the Single Market. We also supported references to independent impact assessments in relation to legislation, a long-held policy of Conservative MEPs.
We cannot, however, support inter alia the references to a Common Immigration Policy or a Common Asylum Policy, any moves to reduce the freedom of the Member States to act in the area of justice and home affairs, the creation of a 'European External Action Service' or any moves towards a defence capability for the EU.
For these reasons, we abstained on the final vote.
Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren
in writing. - (SV) The motion for a resolution contains a number of vague points. We are in favour of the development of an internal market, but stating that the European Parliament regrets the lack of concrete harmonisation in this area can be interpreted in several ways. One of these is that more completely harmonised, detailed regulations should be introduced, which we do not support.
As the motion also rejects all attempts to re-nationalise cohesion policy and supports a Common Immigration Policy and the development of a common policy on NATO, we have chosen to vote no to the joint motion for a resolution.
Pedro Guerreiro
in writing. - (PT) In an EU characterised by the deterioration of the social and economic conditions of its workers and the population as a whole, and in which wealth concentration, inequalities and poverty continue to increase, it is significant that neither the Commission nor the majority in this Parliament considers the fight against this unacceptable situation to be a major priority. Moreover, it could not be any other way given that it is precisely the objective of EU policies to promote this situation.
The priorities in question seek to expand neoliberal policies and focus on more measures to promote the total implementation of the Single Market (that is, the liberalisation of the markets for services, goods and labour, with the implementation of flexicurity) and international trade, in line with the acceleration of the federalist and militarist agenda (which includes a review of its own and NATO's strategy), and on the basis of the unratified (!) Treaty of Lisbon.
Finally, in a year in which elections for the European Parliament will be held, we are urged and called on to strengthen EU propaganda and the mystification of its policies. Those in favour of taking such a line, rejected the amendment tabled by our Group denouncing the European Court of Justice rulings that legitimise wage dumping and restrict trade union rights.
Małgorzata Handzlik
in writing. - (PL) The European Parliament resolution on the Annual Policy Strategy 2009 referred positively to many points contained in the European Commission document. It is particularly important to emphasise the interdependence between economic progress, social progress and environmental protection, which are all important for the creation of sustainable economies. As a member of the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection, I especially welcome the support for initiatives that aim to stimulate the potential of small and medium-sized enterprises.
We should not overlook the issue of proper implementation of directives that are of key significance for the internal market, especially the Services Directive and the Consumer Credit Directive. Regulations must be properly transposed into national legislation in all the Member States if there are to be real benefits from European integration. We should not, however, forget that the European Commission plays a central role through monitoring, reporting and also supporting Member States in their efforts to achieve this objective.
In the resolution the European Parliament noted the consequences of the latest decisions of the European Court of Justice in the Viking, Laval and Rüffert cases and the need for further debate within the European Parliament. I am counting on the involvement of the European Commission here and on constructive discussions with its representatives.
I agree that 2009 will be a watershed year for the functioning of the European institutions. I am optimistic, however, that this fact will not get in the way of implementing key objectives for the year.
Dan Jørgensen, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, Christel Schaldemose and Britta Thomsen
in writing - (DA) The Socialist Group in the European Parliament has decided to vote against the amendment proposed by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance concerning the unconditional abolition of the target of 10% biofuel by 2020.
We will not make compromises in connection with sustainability, either in social or environmental terms, and we therefore insist that fulfilment of the 10% target remains an obligation, and that this can be done in a sustainable way.
We are prepared to revise the target if it becomes apparent that it cannot be achieved in a sustainable way. Nevertheless, we believe that the Commission's Annual Policy Strategy is the proper context for making this decision, through negotiations on the EU's climate change package, including the Renewable Energy Directive.
Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
I voted for Amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4 submitted by the Socialist Group for the proposal of a Joint Resolution regarding the Annual Policy Strategy of the Commission for 2009. They requested the Commission to solve the political impasse of the work time directive, the directive on temporary agencies and the directive on transferability of pension rights. These are vital aspects of the European social and employment policy. These amendments request the Commission to comply with its commitment to submit a legislative proposal regarding the minimum standards for transborder collective contracts that would allow the Member States to improve these standards, especially by collective negotiations.
I regret the fact that these amendments have not obtained the required majority. Consequently, I voted against the resulting text since it does not take into consideration the needs of social Europe.
Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg
in writing. - (PL) 2008 is the year of ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, which is to come into force in 2009. It will give the European Union new powers and will have a significant impact on the Community budget.
The newly constituted Parliament and Commission will have to deal with a completely new budget procedure, to which the 2010 budget will be subject. For this reason it is exceptionally important to have clear agreement on changes to the relevant budgetary and legislative instruments by the end of this year in order to ensure a transparent framework for 2010. In addition, we need to intensify preparations for a wide-ranging review of all aspects of EU expenditure to enable the Commission to submit a report by the end of this year.
The solidarity principle must be a priority for next year, but finances have to be guaranteed to ensure its implementation. What worries me is that, given the room for manoeuvre available within the ceilings fixed by the multiannual financial frameworks, the Commission's already existing priorities and the new priorities it has set cannot in practice be achieved simultaneously without the former suffering.
For this reason the initial budget proposal should give a realistic picture of all the requirements for next year, taking into account Parliament's demand that all amounts allocated to pilot projects that are of general benefit to Europe's citizens should be spent.
Pedro Guerreiro
in writing. - (PT) Let us remember that, alongside the debate on the Community budget for 2009, there is another debate on reviewing the entire EU budget, as provided for in the Interinstitutional Agreement. The exact form of this review has yet to be defined, but we are concerned about some of the objectives already indicated for it.
Moreover, the Council has already announced its intention to establish a realistic and rigorous level of payments and that the level of its commitment and payment appropriations must be carefully analysed in relation to the Community's capacity to absorb them, which suggests that further cuts in the structural policy and cohesion headings, which we oppose, are more likely. We take a different view and believe that a detailed analysis should be made of the failure to spend the full amount allocated under these budget headings, and that measures should be taken to ensure their strict implementation.
Meanwhile, the proposal insists on increasing allocations for external action, to provide resources compatible with the EU's ambitions. The rejection of our proposed amendment has shed light on what this really means. We are vehemently opposed to the Council's request for additional EU budget allocations for military spending as part of the European Security and Defence Policy.
Janusz Lewandowski
in writing. - (PL) Madam President, the budget for 2009 must take into account the special circumstances affecting next year.
First of all, the budgetary consequences of the expected entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty as well as the European elections and the formation of the new European Parliament and European Commission will be a challenge for continuity in the EU's legislative and budget activities. At the same time, this is the year in which the 2007-2013 financial perspective is to be fully implemented, following two years of 'getting up to speed', which were affected by delays in legislation and, as a consequence, a delay in the start of the long-term programmes.
The emphasis placed on financing innovative policies as well as on the European Union's ambitions in foreign policy is completely understandable. This cannot, however, happen at the expense of the cohesion policy, which is enormously important at the moment because of differences in development between various countries and regions. Section 3 of the report, which deals with the principle of solidarity, describes how the Structural Funds can be used properly and transparently. This takes on particular significance in the light of the budget review planned for 2008-2009, which has consequences for EU finances after 2013. This is yet another important issue for budgetary policy in 2009.
David Martin
in writing. - I welcome the content of Ms Haug's report on the 2009 Budget, Section III - Commission: budgetary framework and priorities for 2009. The report provides guidelines which will help facilitate the transition from the current to the new procedure resulting from the Lisbon Treaty. I voted in favour of this report.
Brian Simpson
in writing. - Although I will vote in favour of this joint motion for a resolution, I have to say it is a typical European Parliament resolution brought about not for a concern for the environment or maritime safety but because Conservative Spanish politicians are still desperately trying to reclaim Gibraltar and embarrass their own government.
It is a text that tries to be all things to all people and rambles on at length about trivia, but only gives a small amount of wording to the important issue of maritime safety.
In English it appears badly written and paragraph 12 makes no sense and is a practical impossibility, which is why this paragraph cannot be taken seriously even if you understand it.
What is important is that the oil has been removed from the ship, that EMSA and the Gibraltar and Spanish authorities acted swiftly and correctly when the disaster struck and that we need to ensure that the whole issue of maritime safety is addressed. All of this could have been stated on two pages far more effectively than the four pages of rambling text we are now faced with.
(Abbreviated in accordance with Rule 163(1)) of the Rules of Procedure)
Edite Estrela
in writing. - (PT) I voted in favour of the proposal for a joint resolution on the EU-Latin American and Caribbean Summit because I think the Lima Summit meeting will provide an exceptional opportunity to consolidate the strategic partnership between the two regions and intensify efforts towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals by 2015, including the promotion of democracy and the rule of law, the protection and guarantee of human rights, with particular attention to the situation of women, the strengthening of social cohesion and poverty reduction.
I share the growing conviction of the importance of creating a Migration Observatory that would allow us to increase our understanding of migration between Latin America and the Caribbean and the European Union.
Joint action is necessary to protect the environment, biodiversity and forests, and to fight climate change, desertification and the scarcity of water.
Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren
in writing. - (SV) We greatly sympathise with this motion for a resolution but some of the content involves matters which do not concern this Parliament, but should instead be the responsibility of the Member States and possibly the Council of Foreign Affairs Ministers.
As always, irrelevant amendments were tabled by different groups on various important matters of principle, such as whether the MRTA should be included in the EU's list of terrorist organisations, and on attempts to implement a peace process in Colombia.
These are important issues, but they are of such importance that they must not be decided by the European Parliament but by the competent decision-makers in the Member States.
This is why we voted against the report.
Pedro Guerreiro
in writing. - (PT) Despite the careful drafting of the present resolution, it is difficult to disguise the underlying desire for a Global Biregional Partnership and for the European - Latin American Zone of Global Interregional Partnership to be the embryo of a future free trade zone (with the free circulation of goods, services and capital), allowing the EU to promote Latin American integration in its own image and respond to the ambitions of its major financial and economic groups (see the objectives of the Association Agreements between the EU and the countries and regions of Latin America, such as Mexico and Chile).
Some of us believe that the resolution's exhaustive repetition of what it hopes will become shared principles, values and interests is merely an attempt to promote neo-colonial pretensions and interference by the EU powers in Latin America.
We are completely opposed to the EU's intention to facilitate the appropriation by transnational companies of the region's accumulated wealth, natural resources and biodiversity, which will exploit workers, promote unemployment, ruin millions of small farmers, destroy the environment, block progress and deny the rights and sovereignty of peoples.
Jens Holm, Kartika Tamara Liotard and Eva-Britt Svensson
in writing. - We regret that the text on reproductive health, which was part of the GUE resolution, was deleted in the compromise proposal of all political groups. The deleted text read as follows:
'Calls for public policies to promote infrastructure, equipment and public services ensuring general access for women to sex education and reproductive education, including control over their fertility, and to support motherhood and fatherhood, thus enabling women to plan their families and the other aspects of their lives and furthering all the conditions required for greater participation on a basis of equality'.
David Martin
in writing. - Cooperation in this area requires a dialogue that promotes, among others, social cohesion and cooperation in fighting global warming. The need for a more in-depth dialogue in these areas is reflected in my vote.
Brian Simpson
in writing. - I welcome this opportunity that is given to us by the EU-Latin America Summit to have a discussion on the situation in Latin America and, indeed, the relationship that the EU has with this part of the world.
I will be supporting the joint motion for a resolution, but would stress that we need to ensure that a political solution is found to the problems in and around Colombia, in line with the position of the United Nations.
We know that difficulties exist for countries of that region, and we in the European Union must be active in helping them to overcome their problems, in particular in regard to drugs and crime, and in cementing democratic principles in their governments and institutions.
Charles Tannock
in writing. - British Conservatives have voted in favour of this resolution today but wish to make clear that the reference they have reservations about - universal support for the Rome Statute and the ICC and the reference to 'the fight against the death penalty' in paragraph 11 of the resolution - deals with an issue which is a matter of conscience for each individual Conservative MEP.
David Martin
in writing. - The situation in Burma demands a unified and clear position from the EU. Broader and more targeted sanctions form an important part of such a position and a worldwide arms embargo and the release of political prisoners including Aung San Suu Kyi is to be welcomed. Nevertheless, the EU should not be putting pressure solely on Burma but on ASEAN countries to take steps to exclude Burma from the favourable trade rules ASEAN offers.
Duarte Freitas
in writing. - (PT) The reduction in biodiversity is one of the greatest challenges facing society today and is becoming even more worrying in the context of climate change.
Concern about the effect of climate change on the reduction in biodiversity goes beyond merely protecting species threatened with extinction. The reduction in biodiversity makes ecosystems less productive and less effective in the services they provide to human populations.
For example, soils with depleted biological diversity are much less able to fix carbon, accentuating the effects of climate change even further.
I therefore support this resolution, in the hope that the EU will continue to adopt an ambitious position within the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity.
Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren
in writing. - (SV) The June List supports international work to preserve biological diversity and biosafety. The natural world offers riches which humans have only begun to discover and it is necessary that this treasury of future opportunities remains for generations to come. We therefore support the resolution today.
However, it is important that the EU's work to preserve biological diversity allows for flexibility and for EU directives and legislation to be adapted to national differences. Our Member States have different environments and therefore require different kinds of protection.
Luca Romagnoli
in writing. - (IT) The report by Miroslav Ouzký on the 'European strategy on biological diversity (COP 9) and prevention of biotechnological risks (COP-MOP 4)' calls into question the protection of biological diversity and the fair distribution of the benefits resulting from the use of such resources.
I should like to focus in particular on the issue of biological diversity and stress that the various modern techniques of genetic engineering have to be developed and used for cisgenic and not transgenic purposes in order to simulate processes which are as natural as possible.
I agree that it is important to take effective measures against biopiracy by affixing the CE mark to some of these products, and therefore to ensure that they comply with the Community directives which apply to them.
Bruno Gollnisch
in writing. - (FR) This proposes nothing more nor less than the transformation of the WTO into a new centre of world governance, with a secretariat with a stronger role and prerogatives modelled on the European Commission (staff, right of initiative, and so on), a parliamentary assembly, etc., all coordinated with other bodies that want to control the world.
Paradoxically, it seeks to justify consensus, that is to say unanimity, which, I quote, 'guarantees, unlike majority (or weighted) voting, the equality of all members'. In fact, that equality is trampled upon in the European Union.
Equally paradoxically, it asks that trade negotiations and the settlement of disputes should clearly encompass social, environmental and 'humanist' considerations, whereas applications for accession would only be considered from a commercial point of view! A sort of ex post justification of the massive approval by this Parliament of the accession of China to the WTO, when it is now complaining of social dumping by that country, not to mention its repeated human rights violations.
Pedro Guerreiro
in writing. - (PT) Despite containing various positive points, for example the need for greater coordination of activities between the WTO, ILO, UNEP, UNDP, WHO and UNCTAD, the report seeks to play down international trade liberalisation, which it does not criticise at all.
The report's softly-softly approach is only aimed at neutralising criticism and disguising the roles of those who, like the Social Democrats, are trying to find a way out of the crisis faced by the capitalist system.
It reaffirms its support, albeit it in moderate terms, for the liberalisation of world trade, while camouflaging its consequences. The liberalisation of international trade has promoted the opening of markets between countries with enormous disparities in their levels of economic development, to the delight and profit of the big financial and economic groups, namely the EU.
The report tries hard to hide its approval of the liberalisation of trade, and its role in the offensive led by neoliberal capitalist globalisation, which it claims will ensure the economic development and progress of peoples.
Nothing could be further from the truth. What we have seen and continue to see is an increase in inequalities in the world, a trend that will become greater if current neoliberal policies continue. The increase in the price of food illustrates this.
I therefore voted against the report.
David Martin
in writing. - I welcome Ms Muscardini's report 'Towards a reformed WTO'. Areas such as the system of representation, the organisation's dispute settlement mechanism and its general legitimacy and transparency all require attention. Indeed, the analysis provided in the report goes a long way in contributing to the debate on these issues. Furthermore, increased participation of and consultation with civil society, developing countries and UN organisations on this debate is also required. These views were reflected in my vote.
Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański
in writing. - (PL) The purpose for which the World Trade Organisation was created was to bring about free and multilateral trade. It was recognized that an open market based on friendly and honest attitudes was the key to stable economic growth and reducing world poverty.
However, for many people, the WTO is still something of a puzzle. This is due to the lack of transparency in its activities and inappropriate information being made public. The present reduced G4 and G6 working groups are often seen as meetings of the representatives of large countries that are imposing, or that want to impose, their own ideas on other members.
Another problem is the lack of technical and legal assistance from the WTO for less developed countries that do not gain any economic benefits from increased market liberalisation.
Countries such as India, China or Brazil are treated as developing countries, as a result of which they can benefit from more advantageous conditions and various bonds. I believe this to be a mistake in WTO policy. The WTO does not take into account the massive potential of these countries and their resources. The countries take advantage of this fact and often use price dumping in trade relations, which is harmful to other countries. There should be a clearer division of developing countries that takes into account factors such as economic strength, economic development, GDP growth and growth in exports.
Luca Romagnoli
in writing. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am voting for Mrs Muscardini's report on a reform of the World Trade Organisation. A reform of the multilateral trade system and, in particular, the work of the World Trade Organisation, has been needed for some time, especially in view of the current size of the Organisation which now has 151 members.
I should also like to stress the urgent need for reform in connection with the developing countries. At present, countries whose trade is now flourishing, including China and India, enjoy preferential and advantageous treatment as they are still considered to be 'developing' countries on a par with less developed countries. I agree with the suggestion to establish groups of developing countries which are clearer, more comparable and more in keeping with the actual economic circumstances of the country in question.
Pedro Guerreiro
in writing. - (PT) A veritable 'manual' for Free Trade Agreements (FTAs)...
The text is full of uncritical references to the reduction, elimination and liberalisation of non-tariff barriers, to concerns about the possible distortion of competition caused by public subsidies, to the importance of increasing the liberalisation of services and investment and competitive tendering, and it also expresses more or less explicit support for the Treaty of Lisbon.
The resolution is so neoliberal that it prompted the Social Democrats to try and whitewash their connivance with its contents, through the presentation of a series of amendments aiming to tone it down - so-called capitalism with a human face.
Once again, we can see that these free trade treaties are trying to push through the window what they were unable to push through the door. By establishing this type of agreement with the regions and countries of the world, the EU is gradually trying to promote the liberalisation of international trade while continuing negotiations within the WTO.
We firmly reject the FTAs (no matter how mystifying they are made to seem). We believe that people need to organise, unite and fight for an end to neoliberal policies, which have had such harmful consequences for workers and peoples.
David Martin
in writing. - Mr Markov's oral question to the Commission on the EU-Gulf Cooperation Council free trade agreement (FTA) is to be supported. An FTA between the EU and the Gulf Cooperation Council should contain provisions on labour and environmental norms and human rights. Without such provisions, the social fibre of FTAs is jeopardised. Calls for a renewal of the mandate need to be acknowledged if the EU hopes to remain credible in defending a socially responsible economic policy throughout the world. I voted in line with my expressed views on this issue.
Jan Andersson, Göran Färm, Inger Segelström and Åsa Westlund
in writing. - (SV) We Swedish social democrats have chosen to vote in favour of this report.
We consider that economic instruments must be drawn up at EU level to tackle the many challenges which exist in the environment and climate field. The report also emphasises the principle of subsidiarity.
However, we chose not to support the text on specific measures for low-income households.
There are simpler and better general measures to compensate for the social consequences of environmental policy instruments.
We also chose to vote against Amendments 2 and 3. These cover such important areas as the efficiency of combustion engines and the use of pesticides.
We consider, however, that this is best done through Parliament's ongoing work to reduce the climate impact of cars and to regulate the use of pesticides.
John Bowis
in writing. - The PPE-DE welcomes the report on the Green Paper on market-based instruments for environment and related policy purposes. We believe it contains many good and constructive elements that serve to emphasise the importance of MBIs in developing and implementing environmental policy. For this we reason we have voted in favour of the report.
However, the PPE-DE would like to draw attention to the fact that it voted against the second part of paragraph 26, which calls on the Commission to put forward a legislative proposal for a Community minimum tax on CO2 before the end of 2008. We feel strongly that this goes against the principle of subsidiarity; it is up to the Member States to determine taxation policy. The PPE-DE would also emphasise that the concept is incompatible with the continued development of an efficient EU emissions trading system.
The PPE-DE would further stress that while a separate vote was not requested on paragraph 42 of the report our opposition based on these same principles extends to the notion of an EU-wide kerosene tax and NOx emission charges.
Charlotte Cederschiöld, Christofer Fjellner, Gunnar Hökmark and Anna Ibrisagic
in writing. - (SV) We support the report on the Green Paper on market-based instruments for environment and related policy purposes,, as it addresses many of the mechanisms which can be used to protect or improve the environment, e.g. emissions rights trading, the polluter pays principle and a reform of the subsidies which are harmful to the environment.
However, we reject the idea of introducing a 'CO2 card' for individuals and SMEs, on which their energy consumption and level of greenhouse gas emissions is recorded. Firstly, we consider that the practical difficulties pose an obstacle in themselves. We also consider that the proposal conflicts with personal privacy and freedom, especially as no justification is given as to why this data is to be collected or what it will be used for.
We also reject the proposal on CO2 duties. Free trade means that the earth's resources are used as efficiently as possible. The focus should be on international treaties on the environment.
Edite Estrela
in writing. - (PT) I voted in favour of Anne Ferreira's report on the Green Paper on market-based instruments for environmental and related policy purposes because I agree that the use of these instruments is essential for the pursuit of feasible and effective environmental policies. Measures that improve the operation of markets, such as the use of the polluter pays principle, which allows the costing of economic activities that cause environmental harm, are a form of state intervention that should be encouraged, as experience in the field of environmental protection has shown.
Duarte Freitas
in writing. - (PT) I support Anne Ferreira's report because I believe that the use of market-based instruments such as taxation, subsidies and emissions trading, for environmental policy purposes are important tools, although not the only ones, for the promotion of sustainable development.
Although I agree with this report in general terms, I think it would be premature to introduce a single European tax on CO2, because it would be difficult to implement alongside the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme.
In addition, I do not agree that the existing Community rules on environmental protection should be replaced by market-based instruments which, by their very nature, do not provide an alternative to regulation.
Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren
in writing. - (SV) Environmental issues are one of the most important fields for EU cooperation. Cross-border environmental pollution in Europe cannot be tackled at national state level. This gives the EU an obvious role in such areas.
It is, however, very worrying that the report shamelessly uses climate issues as arguments for increasing the political power of the EU and opening the doors to bureaucracy and protectionism. There are many examples, and all of them are wrong. The report demands common taxation, rethinking the notion of free competition and the introduction of so-called border adjustment instruments, in other words duties.
The Member States themselves must be allowed to determine how they deal with environmental policy. It is in competition between countries and companies to find effective solutions to environmental problems that creativity can flourish, not by bureaucratising our existence.
We have therefore voted against the report.
Pedro Guerreiro
in writing. - (PT) This report carries on a European Commission initiative and establishes a series of European Parliament guidelines for the creation of market-based instruments for environmental and related policy purposes, a prospect that we view with the most serious reservations and concerns.
It aims to reduce pollution and protect the environment through the use of market-based measures and the implementation of the polluter pays principle, the costs of which, in the final analysis, will be borne by consumers, generally families that already pay most environmental taxes.
The report refers to the payment of charges for water consumption that include the cost of using the resource and the environmental cost. We know there is already support for replacing income tax by taxes based on the polluter pays principle in individual countries and that some also see it as a future EU tax.
In addition to measures in the field of taxation, it introduces a CO2 emissions trading scheme which is dominated by the major economic interests and will promote financial speculation.
I therefore voted against.
Linda McAvan
in writing. - Labour MEPs support market-based instruments to tackle climate change such as the EU ETS system. We welcome much of the Green Paper and the report. However, there are a number of areas where we have reservations. These include inter alia:
para 47: Eurovignette: We understand the Commission will come forward with a legislative proposal on the Eurovignette in the future and we will reserve our position until then.
para 50: Energy Tax Directive: some derogations on fossil fuel taxes for domestic consumers have social policy objectives which must be respected.
Olle Schmidt
in writing. - (SV) As a Swedish Liberal I have a fundamentally sceptical approach to common EU taxes. However, this is not the case when it comes to environmental taxes. Nevertheless, we must be careful to consider which combination of instruments will be particularly effective. I am a firm believer in emissions rights trading and am in principle not against a carbon dioxide tax. However, a great deal of thought must go into weighing them up against each other, and as the proposals were set against each other I found it appropriate to take a stand.
Mrs Ferreira's report was a mixed bag. Most of it was positive, however, and I therefore did not need to think for long before voting in favour, although not everything was good. Paragraph 66, which was not selected for a separate vote, was, for example, about introducing a 'CO2 card' for individuals and SMEs. It is true that politics is about wanting something. However, ideally it should actually be feasible too.
Thomas Ulmer
in writing. - (DE) I am voting against this report because the proposed instruments smack of the planned economy rather than the market economy. I do not share the prevailing understanding of what constitutes a market economy.
Bruno Gollnisch
in writing. - (FR) The issues raised in the report by Mr Radwan seem highly technical but they are very important.
The public authorities should certainly have a say in the definition of accounting standards, because these have such an impact on all the actors in the economy and even on national tax revenue. It is not right for a private body to be set up de facto as a real legislator, without any political control, especially since the technical legitimacy of the IASB is increasingly being called into question by its approach to the issues involved, which is more theoretical than professional. Besides that, its geographical and professional composition leaves something to be desired. Yes, new standards should only be adopted if they are useful and necessary, after a careful cost-benefit analysis. Yes, the role of the IASB should be confined to companies quoted on the stock exchange and should not include SMEs.
As for the 'fair value' principle, it favours a short-term approach and makes financial results the dominant factor in company management. It increases financiarisation of the economy and volatility of the markets. The European Union should refuse to apply that standard. However, the position of the rapporteur on that subject is not all that clear. We are therefore abstaining on his report.
Pedro Guerreiro
in writing. - (PT) Since January 2005, EU publicly traded companies have been obliged to use international accounting standards for their consolidated financial statements.
These standards have been developed by a private organisation (the International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASCF/IASB)) that is funded by private sources (mainly companies in the same field) and not subject to any public control.
Although the present report includes aspects that we have reservations about, it does propose certain measures to deal with the situation and is cautious about the possibility of applying this type of international accounting standards to small and medium-sized companies.
However, it is important to be clear that it is not possible to cure the patient with palliative measures that aim to minimise the consequences of financial speculation and prevent the occurrence of situations that might lead to the collapse of the international financial system, as a way of perpetuating the increasing liberalisation of capital movements.
We have to tackle the root of the problem: the increasing control of the economy by finance capital and the increasing level of financial speculation, with the consequent flight of productive investment. We have to put the financial systems at the service of the progress of peoples and their countries and not at the service of big capital!
Małgorzata Handzlik
in writing. - (PL) High quality global accounting standards are enormously important for stability in financial markets. The International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) will, without doubt, make it easier to compare company financial reports and, as a result, will make it possible for investors to take better decisions.
I would like, however, to point out that the requirements governing small and medium sized enterprises differ from the requirements of investors in capital markets.
For this reason I agree with the rapporteur that the IFRS proposed by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) for SMEs are too complicated. I would emphasise that I shall consistently oppose solutions that, instead of making things easier, create additional obstacles for companies. The IASB proposal was prepared with fairly large SMEs in mind (over 50 employees). At this point I would like to mention some data published recently by EUROSTAT, according to which companies employing less than 50 workers constitute 98.7% of all the companies active in the European Union, and just 1.1%, about 210 000 companies, are SMEs with over 50 employees.
I would point out that I do not oppose the idea of IFRS for small and medium sized enterprises as such. I believe, however, that the European Union should carry out a thorough investigation of what benefits SMEs might gain from adopting the IFRS. I shall follow the continuing debate on this issue with considerable interest.
Peter Skinner
in writing. - Public oversight of bodies such as the IASCF/IASB is a controversial issue. Work towards convergence as agreed in the IFRS can bring increasing benefits for companies working on an international basis. Many millions of euros can be saved by avoiding double accounting. However, the nature of such agreements being implemented by way of an untransparent and removed process calls into question public scrutiny of this procedure.
SMEs also need proper attention, and less is known as to their treatment than for large companies.
Furthermore, the principle of fair value is one which does not need to be eroded by alternatives and interpretations beyond that which it is reasonable to accept.
President
That concludes the explanations of vote.


Request for defence of the parliamentary immunity of Mr Witold Tomczak (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Mr Sakalas, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on the request for defence of the immunity and privileges of Witold Tomczak.
Aloyzas Sakalas
rapporteur. - Mr President, in April 2005 Mr Tomczak requested that the European Parliament defend his immunity in criminal proceedings, but Parliament decided, a year later, not to defend his immunity.
On 21 May 2007, Mr Tomczak again requested that the European Parliament defend his immunity. In the new request, Mr Tomczak presented three new arguments concerning the same case. The first argument: Mr Tomczak complains that the Court of Ostrów did not grant him access to the files of the case. However, after examination of his complaint, it was found that Mr Tomczak was granted access to the files when he visited the court himself. He even photographed at least one of the documents.
The second argument: Mr Tomczak claims that the proceedings are not objective, as the supervisory judge made a request to the judge presiding in the case to deliver the judgment as soon as possible, even without the presence of the accused. However, this request was issued after Mr Tomczak had failed to appear at the court hearings on as many as 12 occasions.
The third argument: Mr Tomczak alleges that the Court of Ostrów is prejudiced against his person. However, the fact, declared by Mr Tomczak, that the judge presiding in the case lives in the same town as the prosecutor against whom Mr Tomczak had previously filed charges does not in itself prevent that judge from acting objectively.
In addition, Mr Tomczak has the opportunity to appeal to a higher court and to make a cassation complaint to the Polish Supreme Court. The argument put forward by Mr Tomczak, who was a member of the Polish Parliament in 1999, that his national parliamentary immunity remained a formal obstacle to the criminal proceedings should be duly considered by the Polish judicial authorities.
The problematic legal consequence that, according to Polish law, Mr Tomczak might lose his seat in this Parliament has been noted by the Committee on Legal Affairs, and its chairman put an oral question to the Commission. It was answered on 14 January 2008 by Commissioner Frattini, who promised to address the Polish authorities, with the aim of ensuring that Polish law does not discriminate between Members of the European Parliament and national parliamentarians.
After the debate with the Commission, the Committee on Legal Affairs took a decision not to recommend the defence of Mr Tomczak's parliamentary immunity on the above grounds.
It is clear that Articles 8 and 9 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities are not applicable in the case of Mr Tomczak. His request should be treated as a request for a decision of the European Parliament to ask for suspension of the proceedings against him, as, for example, is possible under Article 105 of the Polish constitution.
Following its established practice, Parliament could decide to defend the immunity of one of its Members if a suspicion existed that the prosecution was based on an intention to prejudice a member's political activities (fumus persecutionis). There is no clear evidence of this kind in the case of Mr Tomczak.
In the light of the above considerations, I recommend that the immunity of Mr Tomczak should not be defended.
Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (PL) Mr President, the main purpose of parliamentary immunity is to protect Parliament itself as a democratically elected representative body. It ensures the collective independence of this institution against external pressure and guarantees Members freedom of speech and action whilst undertaking their parliamentary duties. The legal basis of the immunity of Members of the European Parliament is laid down in the 1965 Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities. Article 8 of the Protocol states that Members of the European Parliament shall not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties. Similarly, Article 9 states that during sessions of the European Parliament, its Members shall enjoy in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament, and in the territory of any other Member State, immunity from any measure of detention and from legal proceedings. This immunity also applies to Members while they are travelling to and from the place of meeting of the European Parliament.
Pursuant to the above, it should be noted that the charge against Mr Tomczak does not relate to opinions expressed or votes cast by him in the course of his official duties, because he was not a Member of the European Parliament at the time of the events in question. In view of the circumstances, therefore, there is no legal basis for granting Mr Tomczak parliamentary immunity. Mr Tomczak's case has, however, highlighted the lack of consistency between arrangements for election to the Polish Sejm and the European Parliament in Poland regarding conditions to be met by candidates for election, and the circumstances in which after being elected individuals may be deprived of their seat.
This matter was debated at a special sitting and when Poland joined the Union it undertook to comply with the EU legislation in force, notably regarding its direct implications for the internal legislation of a Member State. I would like to take this opportunity to call for legislation relating to the status of Members of the Polish Sejm and European Parliament to be harmonised at the earliest opportunity. As things stand at present, a Member of the European Parliament may automatically lose his or her seat as a result of certain actions, whilst a Member of the Polish Sejm may not be penalised in any way for the same actions.
Marek Aleksander Czarnecki
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, Mr Tomczak's case is an example of the Polish judicial system's failure to recognise that when Poland became a Member of the European Union it undertook to comply with the legal system in force in the latter. The European Parliament has not yet taken a decision on Mr Tomczak's immunity, but the competent court nonetheless set 15 February, last week, as the date for a sitting.
Not only does such action by the court amount to contempt of the European Parliament, but it also fails to comply with the European Parliament's Rules of Procedure and with the Polish Penal Code, pursuant to which no penal proceedings may be brought against a Member until the European Parliament has ruled on the issue of immunity. The situation I have outlined leads to the conclusion that in Mr Tomczak's case we are dealing either with an exceptionally incompetent court or, alternatively, with a court intent on convicting Mr Tomczak for a minor incident, which in his case would result in him losing his seat in the European Parliament.
Jens-Peter Bonde
Mr President, I urge all Members to vote against the lifting of immunity in the Tomczak case. We have had a very good debate in the Chamber. Everyone has agreed that we cannot allow Poland to set double standards: one for MPs at home and another, much stricter one, for MEPs here. The responsible Commissioner, Mr Frattini, promised to send a letter to the Polish Minister for Justice to insist on identical rules for waiving immunity.
I talked with Commissioner Frattini after the meeting on 14 January, and met with him again two weeks ago, when he said that he had instructed the services to send the letter. Last week I was in contact with his office. It confirmed that the letter had been sent, and that I would receive a copy of the letter the same day. Then somebody suddenly called from Commissioner Frattini's office telling me a different story, saying that the letter was still pending. So here we are, with no letter and no answer from the Polish Government.
Our rules are very clear: we have to have a vote. I would therefore ask you to vote against the waiving of immunity, and request that the case be referred back to the committee for a possible new decision once we have received the letter from Commissioner Frattini and the answer from Poland.
Aloyzas Sakalas
rapporteur. - Mr President, I think that the consequences of the issue of waiving immunity are not the same as waiving immunity. Mr Tomczak was expected and summoned to appear before a court 12 times, but he did not appear at court.
All the procedural and substantive questions raised in connection with Mr Tomczak's case, and especially the question of the alleged insulting language used against the police officers, should be resolved objectively by the Polish judicial authorities. Therefore, I would like to stress two points. The question of whether the immunity of Mr Tomczak was properly waived at the beginning of the proceedings, when he was a member of the Polish Parliament, is a question that can be verified only by the appropriate judicial authority in Poland, in this case the District Court in Ostrów Wielkopolski. There is always the possibility of appeal.
Secondly, the possibility of Mr Tomczak's losing his seat in this Parliament cannot be considered as a motive for the prosecution, as, at the time of the incident of 19 June 2004, Mr Tomczak was not a Member of the European Parliament, and the law applicable to national parliamentarians does not contain provisions for such consequences.
On the basis of the above considerations, the Committee on Legal Affairs recommends that the European Parliament should not defend the parliamentary immunity of Mr Tomczak.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow.