Pisemne wyjaśnienia dotyczące sposobu głosowania - Ósma kadencja Parlamentu Marian HARKIN

. ‒ The EU defines the key proposals on the labour market strategy for the Member States in the Employment Guidelines (EGs). The EGs are decided by the Council only, and therefore need to be reviewed each year. This year, the revised guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States have been amended to align the text with the principles of the European Pillar of Social Rights, with the overall aim to improve Europe’s competitiveness and make it a better place to invest, create jobs and foster social cohesion. Essentially the revised EG’s are the following: Guideline 5 - Boosting the demand for labour, Guideline 6 – Enhancing labour supply, the access to employment, skills and competences, Guideline 7 – Enhancing the functioning of labour markets and the effectiveness of social dialogue and, Guideline 8 – Promoting equal opportunities for all, fostering social inclusion and combatting poverty. I voted in favour of this report, as it is important that the EG is moderated to reflect the goals of the European Pillar of Social Rights.

I voted against this report, as this legislation will have a massively negative impact on Irish road hauliers. Although I am not a member of the TRAN Committee, I have followed this file closely for the last 18 months. The Irish Road Haulage Association has always been advocating a reasonable Mobility Package. However, too many contradicting amendments went through the TRAN Committee filtering process (prior to the vote in Plenary) by a relatively small majority. Some of them encompass huge threats to the internal market. The Irish road haulage sector cannot afford these. I also voted to have these files taken off the agenda because it is possible that the next Parliament will take a more understanding position on posting, cabotage or driving and rest time. Unfortunately, the files remained on the agenda. With the ongoing issues surrounding Brexit, it is still possible that we will end up with a hard Brexit by accident; we now might end up with unaffordable social rules for Irish hauliers because these files passed through this Parliament.

I voted against this report, as this legislation will have a massively negative impact on Irish road hauliers. Although I am not a member of the TRAN Committee, I have followed this file closely for the last 18 months. The Irish Road Haulage Association has always been advocating a reasonable Mobility Package. However, too many contradicting amendments went through the TRAN Committee filtering process (prior to the vote in Plenary) by a relatively small majority. Some of them encompass huge threats to the internal market. The Irish road haulage sector cannot afford these. I also voted to have these files taken off the agenda because it is possible that the next Parliament will have a more understanding position on posting, cabotage or driving and rest time. Unfortunately, the files remained on the agenda. With the ongoing issues surrounding Brexit, it is still possible that we will end up with a hard Brexit by accident; we now might end up with unaffordable social rules for Irish hauliers because these files passed through this Parliament.

I voted against this report, as this legislation will have a massively negative impact on Irish road hauliers. Although I am not a member of the TRAN Committee, I have followed this file closely for the last 18 months. The Irish Road Haulage Association has always been advocating a reasonable Mobility Package. However, too many contradicting amendments went through the TRAN Committee filtering process (prior to the vote in Plenary) by a relatively small majority. Some of them encompass huge threats to the internal market. The Irish road haulage sector cannot afford these. I also voted to have these files taken off the agenda because it is possible that the next Parliament will have a more understanding position on posting, cabotage or driving and rest time. Unfortunately, the files remained on the agenda. With the ongoing issues surrounding Brexit, it is still possible that we will end up with a hard Brexit by accident; we now might end up with unaffordable social rules for Irish hauliers because these files passed through this Parliament.

. ‒ The purpose of the Commission’s proposal is the establishment of the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) for the 2021-2027 period. The aim is to target funding from the Union budget to support the common fisheries policy (CFP), the Union’s maritime policy and its international commitments in the field of ocean governance. Such funding is a key enabler for sustainable fisheries and the conservation of marine biological resources, for food security through the supply of seafood products and for healthy, safe, secure, clean and sustainably managed seas and oceans.
I voted in favour of a number of amendments that will strengthen the Commission’s proposal, including Amendment 269 allowing the EU to co-finance 85% of operations to the Irish islands under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund. This amendment is important because, post Brexit, Ireland will be the most remote Member State in the EU, it will be hit hard and its rural areas, which already struggle, will be hit particularly hard. No other Member State will be so geographically and economically isolated. Furthermore, Irish islands are continually depopulating and suffer from a serious lack of investment. This amendment is a critical step in addressing those issues.

This legislation aims to focus on targeting measures to address the under-representation of women in employment by improving the conditions of reconciling working and private duties, but also their unequal treatment and opportunities in the labour market. Furthermore, it encourages the strengthening of men’s roles as carers in the family, which will also benefit children. It is well documented that the use of work-life balance arrangements by fathers, has demonstrated that they have a positive impact in reducing the relative amount of unpaid family work undertaken by women and leaving them more time for paid employment. It thereby promotes non-discrimination and fostering gender equality.
It seeks to introduce a number of new or higher minimum standards for parental, paternity and carers’ leave, which are geared at helping to address the anomalies that exist in achieving a work life balance for both parents and carers. Finally, that the availability of quality, accessible, and affordable childcare infrastructure has proven to be a crucial aspect to work-life balance policies in the Member States and facilitates the rapid return of women to work and their increased participation in the labour market.

The objective of the proposal is to extend the Excise Movement and Control System to intra—EU movements of excise goods that are released for consumption, in order to simplify the procedure and allow for proper monitoring of such movements, and to provide a base for the governance of further automations of processes defined by Union excise legislation, where such automation is considered beneficial. In the absence of this proposal, the coordinated planning of the automation of the intra—EU movement of excise goods that are released for consumption will not be possible. I voted in favour.

I voted in favour of this resolution on tax treatment of pension products, including the pan-European Personal Pension (PEPP). This resolution calls on the Council, with a view to enhance the uptake of the PEPP, to elaborate proposals regarding incentives for PEPP savers. The rapporteur makes a number of suggestions including analysing existing tax incentives for personal pension products and assessing their costs, effectiveness and redistributive effects, and, where applicable, addressing inefficiencies and regressive effects. Furthermore, it suggests granting the same tax relief to PEPP as that granted to national personal pension products, even in cases where PEPP features do not fully match all the national criteria. Finally, it suggests granting specific tax relief to PEPP, harmonised at Union level, to be laid down in a multilateral tax agreement between Member States. I also voted in favour of this resolution because added to these suggestions, the resolution stresses that tax is a Member State competence and that any decision to grant special tax relief to the PEPP therefore remains with each Member State.

. ‒ Often isolated, and with generally poorer access to public services, the EU’s border regions face a unique set of challenges. This has been recognised under Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which provides that particular attention should be paid to cross-border regions when developing action to strengthen the EU’s economic, social and territorial cohesion. The aim is to create a mechanism for a common cross-border region in a given Member State to apply the legal provisions from the neighbouring Member State, if applying its own laws would present a legal obstacle to implementing a joint project.
I voted in favour of this report, as it allows Member States to remove legal obstacles to the implementation of a joint project in cross-border regions. As this is a voluntary tool, which Member States may decide to activate themselves, it does not hinder Member States that wish to apply other mechanisms to cross-border challenges.

Eurojust was created by a Council decision in 2002 to improve cooperation between Member States’ judicial authorities to help provide a pan-European response to fight organised crime. Decision 2002/187/JHA provides that Eurojust may conclude agreements with third countries and organisations. Such agreements may cover the exchange of information, including personal data, and the secondment of liaison officers or magistrates to Eurojust.
To strengthen its capacity to work with Georgia, Eurojust has negotiated an agreement on cooperation between Eurojust and Georgia. Ireland, the United Kingdom and Denmark are participating in the adoption and implementation of the Decision. I voted in favour of this report as the cooperation will help the judicial authorities work together to fight cross-border organised crime. Together with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, it will improve the action taken to prosecute criminals who defraud the EU budget and EU taxpayers.

Foreign direct investment contributes to the Union’s growth by enhancing its competitiveness, creating jobs and economies of scale, bringing in capital, technologies, innovation, expertise, and by opening new markets for the Union’s exports. It supports the objectives of the Investment Plan for Europe and contributes to other Union projects and programmes. The EU needs to and will remain open for foreign direct investment (FDI). A framework for screening FDI into the Union allows Member States to better coordinate and exchange information when necessary in relation to foreign investments that can affect national security or public order. It is important to underline that this framework is by no means a protectionist tool. Equally important to stress is that the final decision on whether to set up a screening mechanism or allow an investment rests with the Member State. On the other hand, to establish a framework and coordinate information in an expert group helps to raise awareness and keep an eye on our common EU project and programmes. I voted in favour of this report.

Electronic toll collection systems have been deployed at national, regional or local level in 20 Member States and the number of systems is increasing. The majority require road users to install on-board equipment (OBEs) in their vehicles. While a few offer cross-border interoperability, most do not. The lack of cross-border interoperability entails a cost for authorities, which must procure service redundant OBEs that work nationally but cannot be used abroad, and an administrative burden for road users who have to switch between toll systems when driving from one Member State to another. To address these issues, a Directive on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems was adopted in 2004. The aim was to achieve the interoperability of all the electronic road toll systems in the EU. This directive is an important step forward for Member States and for road users throughout the Union. I voted in favour of this in order to provide for the widespread deployment of electronic road toll systems in Member States and neighbouring countries.

The principle of mutual recognition applies to products that are not subject to Union harmonisation legislation or only partly covered by it, such as textile, footwear, childcare articles, jewellery, tableware or furniture. It implies that the sale of a good lawfully marketed in one Member State should not be prohibited in another Member State. Market access based on mutual recognition could be denied only if there is a legitimate, proportionate and justified public interest at stake that would require banning or restricting sale of the product. The mutual recognition principle is key to the internal market. This legislation further clarifies the procedures to facilitate lawful cross-border access to markets and remove the unjustified barriers to trade. It introduces more legal certainty for both economic operators and national competent authorities in this respect. A voluntary mutual recognition declaration is being introduced that will be taken into account by the national competent authorities during the assessment process, as well as a problem-solving mechanism based on SOLVIT with the possibility for the Commission to issue an opinion on request. I voted in favour of this report.

In March 2018 the Commission proposed two amendments to Regulation 924/2009 on cross-border payments. The aim is to reduce the cost of all intra-EU payments in euro and unify the single payment market for consumers and businesses. The agreement is a major step for the Single Market, both for consumers and businesses, as it aims to reduce charges for cross-border payments in euro within the EU and, at the same time, it increases transparency by ensuring that consumers are informed in due course about charges related to currency conversions. I voted in favour of this report.

The proposal aims to amend the Regulation on passenger coach services with a view to granting access to national markets for regular services. Essentially, it would allow non-resident carriers to be able to operate national regular services under the same conditions as resident carriers and allow all carriers a right of access to terminals on non-discriminatory and transparent terms for operating regular services. Ireland believes that Member States need to be allowed to continue to regulate competition in the public interest based on demand or potential demand for services. Enforced deregulation could lead to the consolidation of the bus operators’ market, with smaller companies having greater difficulty competing against larger firms. A diverse range of operators is generally better for consumers. In addition, enforcing more competition runs the risk of focusing competition on the most lucrative corridors, such as inter-city routes, and on operating as end-to-end services as opposed to providing services to intermediate small towns. I voted against this proposal as the cessation of services from small towns could jeopardise access to public transport for people in the affected areas, further increasing rural isolation.

On 29 March 2017, the United Kingdom notified the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the Union pursuant to Article 50 of the Treaty on the European Union. Consequently, unless another date is established in a withdrawal agreement, or the European Council, in agreement with the United Kingdom, unanimously establishes another date, Union law will cease to apply to the United Kingdom from 30 March 2019. In this regard, it is necessary to adapt the projected energy consumption figures for the European Union in 2030 to reflect the Union of 27 Member States. Therefore, I voted in favour of this.

. – The Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection adopted the own-initiative report on strengthening the competitiveness of the internal market by developing the EU Customs Union and its governance. The report noted that the Customs Union, which is 50 years old this year, is a cornerstone of the EU and is one of the world’s largest trading blocs. EU imports and exports totalled EUR 3 700 billion in 2017 and customs duties collected make up 15% of the EU budget. The implementation of the Union Customs Code (UCC) is essential to safeguard EU own resources, in particular customs duties, and national fiscal interests, but also to safeguard European consumers and fair competition in the internal market. I voted in favour of this report, as a fully functional customs union is essential to guarantee the credibility and strength of the EU and its negotiating position for the conclusion of new trade agreements. An efficient EU Customs Union helps to facilitate legal trade and to reduce administrative burdens for legitimate traders.

Decentralised agencies contribute to the implementation of EU policies. Despite the lack of explicit legal basis for their creation, they have been established on the basis of what is now Article 352 TFEU or on the basis of the relevant Treaty article to the concerned policy area. Therefore, they have been deliberately created by the EU legislator in line with the principle of conferral of powers. On the other hand, the Treaties do not provide for a definition of decentralised agencies. It is the Commission which describes EU agencies as ‘distinct bodies from the EU institutions – separate legal entities set up to perform specific tasks under EU law’, and distinguishes between decentralised agencies, agencies under CSDP, executive agencies, Euratom agencies and bodies. EU agencies can be classified according to the main tasks conferred upon them. Nonetheless, some agencies fulfil several of the functions, making it difficult to establish a straightforward classification of agencies. I voted in favour of this report as I support a clearer definition of agencies in the Treaties and the same transparency rules that apply to the EU institutions.

. ‒ In July 2018, the Commission put forward a proposal that the existing rules of the European Fisheries Control Agency should go through codification and therefore circulated a draft codification regulation. Codification is the process in which one or more legislative acts and all their amendments are brought together in a new legally binding act. This would be without making any changes to the substance of the original acts and any of their amendments. The Consultative Working Group of Legal Services (including representatives from Parliament, the Council and the Commission), came to the conclusion in October 2018 that the Commission proposal encompassed an entirely straightforward process of codification with regard to the rules of the Fisheries Control Agency, with no change to the substance of the existing texts. Therefore, the Economic and Social Committee within Parliament accepted and endorsed the proposal in November 2018. The vote on this proposal was put to the entire Parliament then with no amendments tabled. I voted in favour of this proposal, as there were no issues of contention pointed out and the process was deemed to be uncomplicated.

. ‒ This proposal involves a Commission recasting of a previous Decision (No 1152/2003/EC) which founded the computerised system for the movement and surveillance of excise goods (Excise Movement and Control System (EMCS)). At present, this Decision only covers the movement of excise goods under excise duty suspension. The objective of this proposal is to extend the EMCS to cover intra—EU movements of excise goods which are released for consumption, particularly alcohol. The aim is to simplify the procedure and allow for the proper monitoring of these movements, as well as providing a base for the governance of further automation of processes defined by EU excise legislation. This proposal reaffirms that this computerised system is intended to permit the electronic transmission of any accompanying documents and improvement of checks, and improve how the internal market functions by simplifying the movement of excise goods between Member States. I voted in favour of this proposal, as it is necessary that the procedure for the movement of excise goods becomes simplified. As the Commission proposal simply updates the former legislation, it was not a contentious file within Parliament.