Written explanations of vote - 8th parliamentary term James CARVER

I do not believe that parliamentary immunity should extend to matters which go beyond what is necessary to perform the mandate effectively. Nevertheless, I also believe that Parliament must follow its own Rules of Procedure and act impartially in accordance with the rules to ensure that all Members are treated in the same way when accused.

I do not believe that parliamentary immunity should extend to matters which go beyond what is necessary to perform the mandate effectively. Nevertheless, I also believe that Parliament must follow its own Rules of Procedure and act impartially in accordance with the rules to ensure that all Members are treated in the same way when accused.

I do not believe that parliamentary immunity should extend to matters which go beyond what is necessary to perform the mandate effectively. Nevertheless, I also believe that Parliament must follow its own Rules of Procedure and act impartially in accordance with the rules to ensure that all Members are treated in the same way when accused.

I support the principle of visa-free travel, having spoken about this frequently during the 2016 EU referendum campaign.
Despite my anger and frustration over the offensive text, which was added by the Spanish after a Council of Ministers meeting – despite the original textʼs being, beforehand, passed unanimously in committee – and which disgracefully described Gibraltar as a ʻcolonyʼ of the UK, I was conscious that I had highlighted my own position during a committee meeting, at which I chastised the Spanish for playing politics ahead of their own general election.
Because I had highlighted my own position vis-à-vis the Gibraltar text in such a transparent manner, I felt able vote in favour of the principle of visa-free travel, which I accordingly did.

. ‒ As I believe that the European Union should not interfere with the employment policies of Member States, I voted against.

. ‒ This matter was not the subject of a roll-call vote. In the interests of transparency and democracy, I would like to confirm that I abstained: I support action by Member States to prevent illegal dumping of waste, but - because I believe in the principle of subsidiarity - this should not be harmonised at EU level.

Throughout this report, I supported amendments which aimed to limit the impact of the proposals on drivers and transport companies as I believe that (as written) the proposals would have caused more issues and compliance problems. Needless to say, I do not support harmonisation of this matter at European Union level, so I ultimately voted against the Commission proposal.

I believe that this is a matter which should be legislated on at national level. Furthermore, given that the UK has voted to leave the European Union, it would be wrong for me to support further EU legislation.

As with the previous votes, some of the amendments served to make the legislation less bad and I felt comfortable supporting those amendments. However, I note that cabotage has less impact upon the United Kingdom than it does on some other Member States. The principle of national sovereignty, however, should always be a strong one. I therefore voted against.

. ‒ I do not support harmonisation of this matter at European Union level and I oppose giving more power to the Commission in the field of energy. I am also unhappy with some of the EU definitions of terminology used in this legislation.

. ‒ This is effectively the bill for the common fisheries policy from 2021 to 2027, and I regard this as a very poor use of taxpayers’ money. EU policy in the area of fishing has been disastrous. Such policy-making should be left to Member States. The United Kingdom, post Brexit, must regain exclusive competence over our own fishing grounds, which provide a significant national resource and are currently being mismanaged by the European Union. Consequently, I voted against this report as a matter of principle.

. ‒ This is the plan for the next generation of the common fisheries policy in the western Mediterranean. EU policy in the area of fishing has been disastrous, and such policy-making should be left to Member States. Consequently, I voted against this report as a matter of principle.

. ‒ Whilst there is a relatively large opportunity for Member States to go above and beyond the scope of the legislation, this is ultimately another case of EU harmonisation. Consequently, I voted against.

. ‒ Though improved road safety is a laudable aim, I cannot support harmonisation of this matter at a EU level. There are various areas where Member States have different laws, and where citizens are accustomed to those differences. One-size-fits-all legislation is the wrong approach. In this case, the UK’s road signage is one of the best – if not the best – in Europe. I am concerned that harmonisation could lead to a lowering of standards to the lowest common denominator.

. ‒ As this entails further harmonisation of the single market in respect of authorisation, manufacture, distribution and supervision of pan-European personal pension products (PEPPs), I voted against. Pensions are a matter which should be determined by the Member States themselves.

I might well support parts of such legislation if it were put before the UK Parliament in Westminster, which is the appropriate venue for determining the UK’s policies on employment. However, this is occurring at EU level. Furthermore, it fails to take into account the needs of small businesses. There should be a work-life balance for parents and carers. There should be a balance between employer and employee. The measures in this legislation might be reasonable for multinational companies, but they could destroy micro-businesses and severely damage SMEs. I therefore voted against the Provisional Agreement.

This proposal is to strengthen EU action in cases where it is deemed Member States are not complying with ‘rule of law’. Specifically this proposal is dealing with EU funds given to Member States in such cases. This is clearly the EU looking to further punish countries that it deems have broken their ‘rule of law’ principles, such as Poland, Hungary etc. I therefore voted against.

This matter was not the subject of a roll-call vote. In the interests of transparency and democracy, I would like to confirm that I voted against because I oppose the establishment of this fund.

The report seeks to assist in the cross-border transport of goods. With a view to possibly assisting avoiding a hard border in Northern Ireland. Accordingly, I felt it appropriate to abstain.

I fully support transparency and the right of access to information. I do not support the notion that the European Union should be the arbiter of how such data is made public. It should be the responsibility of sovereign national states to do that. There is also a cost implication because this seeks to increase EU funding for digitalising Europe. Furthermore, it would increase the EU legislative burden on Member States. I therefore voted against.