Pisemne wyjaśnienia dotyczące sposobu głosowania - Ósma kadencja Parlamentu Jana TOOM

I voted in favour of the Parliament’s proposal on amendments to the Directive on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens or mutagens at work. The EU had to respond quickly to new research data to minimise the health risks for Europeans. I also believe that Member States can take on even more ambitious tasks and set even stricter rules in this area.

. ‒ Articles 11 and 13 of this Directive will breach human rights by creating obstacles in the way we seek, receive and impart information.
While we can all agree that the rights of creators need to be protected, the text of the Directive is not balanced.
The impact on fundamental rights will be high and there are no guarantees that creators will actually benefit from this.
It is unfortunate that after the long process, the European Parliament has failed to adopt alternative solutions, which were offered more than once.
I have always been a strong opponent of this Directive and have also this time voted against.

I fully support the resolution. In the EU, 15 million people of African descent are subjected to racism, discrimination and xenophobia on a daily basis. We need both the EU institutions and the Member States to fight ethnic discrimination and hate crime and to promote active participation of people of African descent in political, social and economic life and to support all kind of strategies for their social inclusion and integration. Police and other law enforcement agencies shall end the practices of racial or ethnic profiling in their work.

The European Parliament sent a strong message in support of transparency by voting overwhelmingly in favour of the report.
It is time that the Council starts behaving like a co-legislator and not like a pure diplomatic body.
The Council has to step up its efforts in terms of the transparency of its own procedures.

. ‒ I supported the resolution. The proposed amendments to Protocols 1 and 4 to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement adequately address the judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 December 2016 without implying recognition of Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara. I also fully support EU efforts to secure a peace settlement in the Western Sahara conflict.

. ‒ The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) has proven itself as a tool for solving, in the spirit of European solidarity, problems resulting from mass layoffs. The final version of the report is well balanced and reflects a consensus in Parliament. I voted in favour of the report. However, in practice, greater attention should be paid to the fulfilment of obligations assumed by Member States in the context of EGF funding.

. ‒ I supported this report. Merging several programmes into one will help to avoid their duplication, improve the overall efficiency of spending and improve synergies. I was also in favour of the decision that at least 5% of ESF+ resources under shared management should be allocated by Member States to the European child guarantee scheme. Child poverty remains unacceptably high in the EU. Special efforts are required to ensure equal opportunities, especially for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Children in need must have access to free healthcare, free education, free childcare, decent housing and adequate nutrition.

. ‒ I support strong European territorial cooperation and therefore I also voted in favour of the report. The new proposal will make the procedures less bureaucratic and more favourable to regional development and economic growth.

The European Union should be an example for other countries in terms of respecting human and minority rights. Unfortunately, there are still challenges to the Union in this area and the general trend is not encouraging. Particularly noteworthy is the problem of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, which are characteristic of many Member States, the vulnerable position of stateless persons, as well as attacks on linguistic and educational rights of national and ethnic minorities. Member States should take seriously the standards of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as instruments of the Council of Europe and OSCE.

If the EU wants to compete on the global market when it comes to technology, an investment is necessary. The Digital Europe Programme is therefore a good step forward and I fully support the initiative. I especially welcome the investment in training of advanced digital skills, which is necessary to create a digital economy. Furthermore, I am happy to see that my addition of training programmes for persons who will be using advanced technologies in the public sector, such as education, has been included.

Traditional services and digital services are being treated differently when it comes to taxation. However, this does not result from a lack of taxation policy, but rather from preferential treatment that States give to digital business models. I believe that an additional levy of 3% will not solve that problem. An aspect which I found severely problematic is that the tax would also apply to digital content such as games, audio and video. This was not in the Commission proposal and no impact assessment has been made on this. More time should be taken in order to assess whether such a tax is necessary and what the impact would be on European companies.

The European Ombudsman delivers great work by investigating maladministration. Her function is to safeguard the democratic and transparent process within the EU institutions. In 2017 she opened four inquiries, on topics ranging from EU staff matters to transparency in the Council. As a Member of the Committee on Petitions, I strongly support the good work of the Ombudsman and congratulate her for her successes in 2017.

I supported this report. It adequately represents the work of the Committee on Petitions, of which I am a member. The report contains numerous useful recommendations. However, I would like to single out one recommendation to the Commission: to urge the Member States to find solutions against the disenfranchisement of long-term residents. This year, the Committee on Petitions considered a petition on the electoral rights of so-called non-citizens (de facto stateless long-term residents) of Estonia and Latvia – they cannot participate in the elections of the European Parliament and in Latvia also in local elections. This cannot be considered as a normal situation and this view is now incorporated in the approved report.

Every person can agree that terrorism must be fought. However, the fight against terrorism should not have unintended consequences on the population who it is protecting. The recommendations the Special Committee asked for were infringing on the rights of the people. For example, some recommendations included automated filtering systems. Others were stigmatising EU nationals with a migrant background or Muslims. It is important to adopt a rational approach to this difficult and important matter, without bringing emotions and sentiments into it. Because of this language I could not vote in favour of this report and have abstained.

. ‒ I voted in favour of this report. The Connecting Europe Facility will provide targeted infrastructure investment in transport, energy, digital services that will contribute to the economic development of the Union.
I also supported the initial proposal of the Commission that a part of the amounts transferred from the Cohesion Fund should be made available to all eligible countries on a competitive basis and the rest on the basis of ‘national envelopes’. This could promote efficiency in the use of European funds.

According to IMF, Ukraine is the poorest country in Europe.
The pace of reform in Ukraine is extremely slow.
There is no progress with the investigation of the killings on the Maidan in the winter of 2014 and the investigation of the massacre in Odessa in May 2014.
The problem with the controversial Education Act, which restricts the rights of minorities to study in their language, has not been resolved.
The Ukrainian authorities tolerate extreme right-wing nationalist groups.
A number of acute problems were not adequately addressed in the report. For example, the Ukrainian authorities have openly interfered in the internal affairs of the Orthodox Church, despite the principle of separation of church and state.
The public use of minority languages is severely restricted in some regions.
Kiev bears its share of responsibility for the death and suffering of people in the Donbas.
In the conflict area, OHCHR has recently documented ‘violations and abuses by all parties to the conflict against civilians on either side of the contact line…’
I do not agree that ‘the sanctions against Russia should be rolled over and broadened’.
I believe the final text of the report was not quite balanced, and I abstained.

Coordination of the social security systems of Member States is a very important condition for the development of common social standards and the implementation of European pillar of social rights. Without adequate social protection throughout the EU, there could be no adequate and uncomplicated freedom of movement. However, I did not support this report. A number of changes to the initial Commission proposal will lead to new administrative difficulties in the coordination of social security systems and therefore they will impede freedom of movement.

The New European Agenda for Culture contains some very good things.
Unfortunately, it also praises the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market.
I strongly disagree with the ancillary copyright for press publishers and automated upload filtering of content.
Therefore I did not support the report and abstained.

Freedom of movement implies clear and predictable rules regarding the application of family law in cross-border cases. Parliament has received a number of petitions that raised concerns related to the activities of the German Youth Welfare Office and courts. They also posed a question regarding the compliance of Germany with the Brussels II regulation. Unfortunately, the resolution represents mostly the point of view of the petitioning parents. Nevertheless, it does not negate the importance of collecting relevant statistics by Member States as well as monitoring by the Commission of the compliance of Member States with European norms and standards. Therefore I supported the resolution.

I supported the report. The Commission proposal, as amended by the Parliament, provides for the rules regarding probation periods, training, remuneration for overtime, informing, etc. Quality employment cannot exist without transparent and predictable working conditions. Importantly, this report is in line with the principles of the European Pillar of Social Rights. Free movement of workers requires further standardisation of working conditions in all Member States. European rules should reflect the highest national standards to remain a solid basis for better protection of workers.