Explanations of vote

Report: José Manuel García-Margallo y Marfil (A7-0061/2010)

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I support the stance adopted by the rapporteur from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) on this dossier, along with the Commission’s proposal on combating tax fraud in the European Union. I believe that this proposal can improve administrative cooperation on intra-Community transactions, when it comes to calculating value added tax and monitoring the correct application of this tax.

It remains to be seen whether the Commission’s proposal to extend the Eurocanet network and establish a new structure, Eurofisc, which would operate on a voluntary basis without having any legal capacity, will increase the success rate of the battle against tax fraud at EU level.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Governed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003, European administrative cooperation on VAT needs to be improved, particularly in terms of combating tax evasion. The report drafted by Mr García-Margallo y Marfil supports this approach by backing the proposals of the European Commission that focus on facilitating the exchange of data between Member States. I voted in favour of the report because it also adds some substantial improvements to the European Commission’s text, particularly concerning the data protection of individuals.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Under the consultation procedure of the European Parliament, I voted for the report by my excellent Spanish colleague Mr García-Margallo y Marfil on the proposal for a Council Regulation concerning administrative cooperation and combating fraud in the field of value added tax. VAT fraud is often organised on a cross-border basis, which is why the European Union and its Member States need to be better coordinated to combat VAT fraud, in particular, and fiscal fraud, in general. I am pleased that the Commission’s proposal lays down the principle of a legal basis for establishing a joint structure, Eurofisc, which will make possible multilateral, swift and targeted exchange of information so that Member States can respond adequately and in a coordinated fashion to combat any new kinds of fraud that emerge, drawing on jointly organised risk analysis. I share the rapporteur’s concerns about the protection of personal data, which must be respected. This type of data must be used only with the goal of preventing and combating tax offences.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I supported this report since I believe that it is necessary to strengthen the provisions in the area of the fight against fraud. Fraud with the aim of evading taxes has serious consequences for national budgets, violates the principle of fair taxation and may distort competition and have an impact on the functioning of the internal market. Current regulations do not effectively ensure cooperation between Member States, although fraud in the field of value added tax is often organised across several countries, and therefore Member States must cooperate to prevent it. It is encouraging that the new version of the Regulation will strengthen the Community’s database of VAT payers and their operations, which will provide Member States with access to information, improve administrative cooperation and allow us to combat VAT fraud more effectively.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for a European strategy for combating tax fraud and evasion relating to VAT. I believe that a mechanism must be created at European level for combating fraud because the extent of this phenomenon highlights that the measures aimed at tackling this problem can no longer be managed exclusively at national level.

The International VAT Association quotes estimates of VAT losses ranging from EUR 60 billion to EUR 100 billion per year across the European Union. This is why I am urging close cooperation between administrative authorities in Member States and the European Commission in order to avoid the detrimental consequences which tax fraud can have for national budgets, as well as for competition.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Administrative cooperation between Member States in the fight against fraud and financial crime is extremely important for reasons of fairness and justice and because of the huge impact such crime has on a country’s economic situation. Countless cases of fraud occur in the field of value added tax, so it is essential to have a legal framework with strong measures so as to bring about a substantial reduction in the number of such cases.

Greater cooperation among central governments is desirable, through the sharing of information, so long as the privacy of the individual is respected, as well as complete databases and officials properly trained in detecting and processing such cases. The Member States need to implement the measures put forward by the European Union as quickly as possible, so as to create a more transparent system that can effectively combat fiscal fraud.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Distortions caused by value added tax (VAT) fraud affect the overall balance of the own resource system, which must be fair and transparent in order to guarantee the smooth operation of the Union. Since the public authorities have an obligation to compensate for the loss of revenue involved, an increase in fraud translates into greater fiscal pressure on companies which abide by tax rules. Although investigations into the magnitude of VAT evasion and fraud have not been carried out in all Member States, the International VAT Association estimates that VAT losses range from EUR 60 billion to EUR 100 billion per year across the European Union. Greater cooperation between central administrations is desirable, by sharing information with respect for individual privacy. The Member States need to implement the measures put forward by the European Union as quickly as possible, so as to create a more transparent system that can effectively combat fiscal fraud.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The fight against tax fraud must be a priority for the EU, specifically in the area of value added tax. It is from this perspective that a cross-sectoral policy to fight fraud in all Member States is being advocated, notably including information exchanges. It is particularly significant that fraud is one of the main causes of injustice within the EU, since it leads to unfair competition and an unbalanced market.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. − (ET) I voted for the Council’s draft regulation on administrative cooperation and combating tax evasion in the field of value added tax, because this legal act will make it possible for the Member States to fight jointly and more efficiently against cross-border tax evasion. Tax evasion has serious consequences for the budgets of the Member States; it violates principles of equality in taxation and brings about distortions of competition. Although the measures to combat tax evasion are largely only within the competence of the Member States, I think that taking measures against tax evasion in today’s global world needs to be a priority for the EU as well.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The Commission’s proposal offers Member States the means to combat cross-border VAT fraud effectively by supplementing and amending the current regulation, and creating a legal basis for targeted cooperation in order to combat fraud: Eurofisc. Tax fraud has serious consequences for national budgets, leads to violations of the principle of fair taxation and is liable to bring about distortions of competition. Neither should we forget that public authorities have an obligation to compensate for the loss of revenue involved by putting greater fiscal pressure on companies which abide by tax rules. The fight against tax fraud across the EU must complement the action of the Member States. The draft regulation aims not only to allow VAT to be calculated correctly, but also to monitor its correct application, particularly with regard to intra-Community transactions, and combat VAT fraud. In general terms, several improvements are introduced relating to the exchange of information, namely, an improved definition of the cases in which Member States may carry out an administrative investigation, including measures to remedy the failure to carry out an investigation.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I am pleased that the financial impact of irregularities, as far as they have been identified, fell from EUR 1 024 million in 2007 to EUR 783.2 million in 2008, with reductions being recorded in all spending areas except direct expenditure and pre-accession funds. I fully support the work done by the Commission, and I would point out that the fight against fraud and corruption is an important duty of the European institutions and all Member States.

In view of the particular economic situation afflicting all of Europe, I agree that it is necessary to protect the Union’s financial interests and to fight organised crime, which, according to national indicators, is increasing its capacity for collusion within institutions, particularly by means of fraud against the Community budget.

I therefore think it essential to enact effective legislation to improve administrative cooperation in tackling harmful tax practices and ensure the smooth functioning of the internal market. In this connection, I support the proposal for a Council directive on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation, while stressing the importance of making Member States more accountable, starting with the quality of the information entered into the databases.

Report: David Casa (A7-0065/2010)

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The Commission’s proposal to simplify, modernise and harmonise the rules on VAT invoices offers improvements, particularly concerning the provisions enabling small and medium-sized enterprises to use simplified invoices, as well as the guarantee of acceptance by the tax authorities of electronic invoices under the same conditions as conventional ones. In this respect, the rapporteur’s proposal to grant tax authorities the option to prescribe additional requirements, such as sequential numbers for simplified invoices, provides a simple security measure which preserves the improvements made by the Commission.

In this area concerning the common VAT system and the rules on invoicing, the Commission must support Member States which require technical assistance to modernise their e-administration, whether via the Community programme Fiscalis 2013 or through the use of the Structural Funds. I believe that the rapporteur has made amendments which improve the Commission’s proposal; hence the reason I voted to adopt this report.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of Mr Casa’s report concerning the rules for VAT invoicing. On this subject, a Council directive of 2001 had laid down common rules at European Union level as a means of simplifying, modernising and harmonising VAT invoicing rules. There are disparities, however, with the rules in the different Member States, particularly as far as e-invoicing is concerned. Such disparities, nonetheless, are an impediment to the mainstreaming of this kind of invoicing, despite it being a source of simplification. The greater harmonisation of the rules proposed by the European Commission and supported by the rapporteur is therefore good news for all European businesses, as e-invoicing will be more accessible to them and, in turn, their administrative burden will be reduced.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Under the consultation procedure of the European Parliament, I voted for the report by my excellent Maltese colleague Mr Casa on the proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax as regards the rules on invoicing. It was becoming essential to do away with the administrative set-up linked to invoicing. Historically, the opportunities afforded to Member States in this area have involved disparate rules, in particular in the field of e-invoicing. Such rules are an obstacle to the smooth functioning of enterprises – especially those using new dematerialisation technologies – on the internal market at a time when unnecessary administrative burdens in Europe are curbing economic growth. I support all the simplification measures proposed in the report, especially those intended for SMEs and in particular: to delete the requirement to hold an invoice that complies with formalities of all the Member States; to confirm that paper and electronic invoices are equally valid; and to delete the possibility for Member States in which the tax is due to require particular invoices to be translated into their official languages.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I welcome the adoption of this report in numerous respects. However, particularly as a rapporteur and author of some key amendments, I would only like to refer to the most important aspects, both of which specifically result in reducing the administrative burdens on businesses.

The first of these is the obligation on Member States to implement the accounting system based on receipts and payments (cash accounting) for SMEs (which are defined at EU level as firms with a turnover of less than EUR 2 million), which will be a welcome incentive for the business sector. This is being introduced at a time when businesses are currently in the situation where they pay VAT on an invoice as soon as it is issued, but the relevant invoice payment (and associated VAT) may only be paid months later, if ever. However, in every case, the fundamental principle remains that the deductibility of VAT is inextricably linked to its payment.

The second aspect is that electronic invoices are granted the same legal status as paper invoices so that invoices sent via email will probably replace the current paper invoices, thereby facilitating the tasks of not only issuing and sending invoices, but of managing and storing them as well.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Casa, on the important work he has carried out so far. My parliamentary group has always been committed to supporting small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the real driving force of Europe’s economy and which we as politicians have the duty to boost.

In particular, I endorse the possibility, proposed by the Commission, to allow the supplier to pay VAT only when he receives payment for a supply. I also agree with the principle regarding the possibility of giving equal validity to electronic invoices and paper invoices. This, then, is a series of measures which, in my view, fall within a broader process to cut red tape which is helpful for European enterprises, especially at such a critical economic juncture.

I therefore hope that these measures will be adopted as soon as possible within a broader support framework for small and medium-sized enterprises, which need to operate in an easier economic and fiscal environment.

  David Casa (PPE), in writing. − This was my own report on the VAT rules on invoicing. We were successful in asking that the cash accounting scheme be introduced on a mandatory basis in all Member States, thereby giving SMEs the option of whether or not to use such a scheme. The report has also been successful in reducing unnecessary burdens on business that were found within the Commission’s proposal. To this end the report was successful in achieving its aims and I have voted in favour.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Greater internal market integration and the cutting of unjustifiable costs to companies through a process of simplification and of bringing down administrative barriers are objectives that must be borne in mind in the preparation of Union legislation.

This directive, which aims at establishing a common system of invoicing with regard to value added tax, is therefore essential for achieving those aims. In particular, I believe the traditional invoicing method should be replaced with electronic invoicing, which is quicker and less costly for companies and individuals, provided that the principle of transparency is respected.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The directive under discussion aims to establish a common system of invoicing for value added tax through an exercise of simplification and reduction of the administrative burden; this is essential to achieving greater integration of the internal market and reducing unjustified costs for companies. I believe that this directive constitutes a positive step towards bringing clarity and legal certainty both for taxable persons and for the administrations, whilst providing additional means to fight against value added tax fraud.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) A common system of value added tax (VAT) as regards the rules on invoicing is essential to the simplification, modernisation and harmonisation of the rules on VAT invoicing. This new system also brings companies a significant saving, which is of the utmost importance in this context of crisis. The adoption of this report is also another step in the fight against fraud and tax evasion.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. − (ET) As a liberal, I voted for the directive changing the rules on invoicing, because I think that the method used today, whereby this chapter was incorporated into the VAT Directive, has not completely attained its objective, which was to simplify, modernise and harmonise the submission of VAT invoices. I think that the new rules will reduce the burden of bureaucracy on the entrepreneur, and also ensure that the same rules for drawing up and issuing invoices will start to apply in all Member States. Given the open market and the movement of services, nothing else would be reasonable.

Report: Ryszard Czarnecki (A7-0079/2010)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On the basis of the recommendation made to us in the report by my Polish fellow Member, Mr Czarnecki, I voted in favour of granting the Court of Justice’s Registrar discharge in respect of the implementation of its budget for the financial year 2008. I endorse the request by the Court of Auditors that enhanced procurement procedures be established by the European Court of Justice. I am pleased with the smooth functioning of the ECJ. Nevertheless, I cannot understand the reluctance of the ECJ to publish its members’ declarations of financial interests, and I support the request made by Parliament to implement this practice without delay.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe it is essential for civil servants to be accountable to the general public. Therefore, they must objectively and rigorously account for how the public funds made available to them have been used. This report provides an exhaustive analysis of the budgetary situation of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). It points out a number of important issues that should be urgently reviewed, such as the need to enhance procurement procedures, in order to help authorising services organise tendering procedures and control adherence to regulatory obligations. I welcome the fact that the ECJ has adopted the practice of including in its activity report a chapter outlining the follow-up during the year to Parliament’s previous discharge decisions and to reports of the Court of Auditors.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) All the European institutions that depend on the European Union budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. It is necessary to check whether Union funds are being well used, whether these institutions are meeting the objectives outlined for them, and whether any resources are being wasted. Generally – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – we can say that the institutions at issue are using the funds made available to them properly and meeting the objectives proposed for them. That is why I voted for the report on the Court of Justice.

Report: Ryszard Czarnecki (A7-0097/2010)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On the basis of the recommendation made in the report by my Polish fellow Member, Mr Czarnecki, I voted in favour of granting the Secretary-General of the European Court of Auditors discharge in respect of the implementation of its budget for the financial year 2008. Like many of my fellow MEPs, I am delighted with the proper functioning of the Court and its sound financial management. I regret that the declarations of financial interests of the Members of the Court that the latter submit to the President of the Court in accordance with its Code of Conduct are not made public or, at the very least, communicated to members of the Committee on Budgetary Control.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe it is essential for civil servants to be accountable to the general public. Therefore, they must objectively and rigorously account for how the public funds made available to them have been used. I am glad to see that an external firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers, has audited the accounts of the Court of Auditors and concluded that ‘nothing has come to our attention that causes us to believe that, in all material respects and based on (identified) criteria, (a) the resources assigned to the Court have not been used for their intended purposes, and (b) the control procedures in place do not provide the necessary guarantees to ensure the compliance of financial operations with the applicable rules and regulations’. I also welcome the fact that the Court of Auditors has included a chapter giving an account of the follow-up during the year to Parliament’s previous discharge decisions.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) As the body largely responsible for auditing European institutions, the Court of Auditors also has its turn to be audited. It is clear that the audit carried out by an outside entity – PricewaterhouseCoopers – has shown itself to be very positive. The internal auditor’s report was also positive, with the majority of its recommendations having been accepted and applied in advance under several action plans.

Report: Ryszard Czarnecki (A7-0070/2010)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On the basis of the recommendation made in the report by my Polish fellow Member, Mr Czarnecki, I voted in favour of granting the European Ombudsman discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2008. I welcome the decision by the Ombudsman, Mr Diamandouros, to publish his annual declaration of interests and to put it on his website.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe it is essential for civil servants to be accountable to the general public. Therefore, they must objectively and rigorously account for how the public funds made available to them have been used. The Court of Auditors indicated in its annual report that the audit did not give rise to any significant observations as regards the Ombudsman. It noted, however, that certain aspects of the public procurement process could be improved. I join the rapporteur in warmly welcoming the Ombudsman’s decision to publish his annual declaration of interests and to make it available on the Internet. I agree with the rapporteur in urging the Ombudsman to include in his next activity report (for the 2009 financial year) a chapter giving a detailed account of the follow-up during the year to Parliament’s earlier discharge decisions.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) All the European institutions that depend on the European Union budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. It is necessary to check whether Union funds are being well used, whether these institutions are meeting the objectives outlined for them, and whether any resources are being wasted. Generally – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – we can say that the institutions at issue are using the funds made available to them properly and meeting the objectives proposed for them. That is why I voted for the report on the European Ombudsman.

Report: Ryszard Czarnecki (A7-0098/2010)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On the basis of the recommendation made to the European Parliament in the report by my Polish fellow Member, Mr Czarnecki, I voted in favour of granting the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2008. I welcome the annual publication of declarations of financial interests of the elected members of that institution (European Data Protection Supervisor and Assistant Supervisor).

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe it is essential for civil servants to be accountable to the general public. Therefore, they must objectively and rigorously account for how public funds have been used. I join the rapporteur in the positive assessment he made of the efforts to consolidate the management of financial and human resources, as well as the improvement in functionality and efficiency of internal control functions achieved in 2008. I also welcome the annual publication of declarations of financial interests of the elected members of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), containing relevant information on remunerated posts or activities and declarable professional activities. That is essential for building people’s trust in public office holders. I agree with the rapporteur in urging the EDPS to include in its next activity report (for the 2009 financial year) a chapter giving a detailed account of the follow-up during the year to Parliament’s earlier discharge decisions.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) All the European institutions that depend on the European Union budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. It is necessary to check whether Union funds are being well used, whether these institutions are meeting the objectives outlined for them, and whether any resources are being wasted. Generally – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – we can say that the institutions at issue are using the funds made available to them properly and meeting the objectives proposed for them. That is why I voted for the report on the European Data Protection Supervisor.

Report: Véronique Mathieu (A7-0071/2010)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On the basis of the recommendation made to the European Parliament in the report by my excellent colleague and friend, Mrs Mathieu, I voted in favour of granting the Director of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union discharge in respect of the implementation of its budget for the financial year 2008. I cannot understand why this body is accumulating seemingly unnecessary surpluses, for example a surplus of nearly EUR 27 million in 2008 and accumulated funds on 31 December 2008 of nearly EUR 50 million. I am surprised that the pensions dispute has not been resolved.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe it is essential for civil servants to be accountable to the general public. Therefore, they must objectively and rigorously account for how the public funds made available to them have been used. The Court of Auditors states that it has obtained reasonable assurance that the annual accounts of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular. In respect of the Centre’s activities, the Court of Auditors found that there was a certain lack of precision in the forecasts for translation requests received, which led the Centre to have an accumulated budget surplus contrary to Regulation (EC) No 2965/94. This situation must, therefore, be remedied. I, like the rapporteur, find it regrettable that the conflict between the Centre and the Commission as to the employer’s share of pension contributions for staff has still not been settled.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) All the European institutions that depend on the European Union budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. It is necessary to check whether Union funds are being well used, whether these institutions are meeting the objectives outlined for them, and whether any resources are being wasted. Generally – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – we can say that the institutions at issue are using the funds made available to them properly and meeting the objectives proposed for them. That is why I voted for the report on the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union.

Report: Véronique Mathieu (A7-0091/2010)

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe it is essential for civil servants to be accountable to the general public. Therefore, they must objectively and rigorously account for how the public funds made available to them have been used. The Court of Auditors states in its report that the annual accounts of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training for the financial year 2008 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular. That means that the Centre has made enormous progress with regard to the inventory procedure for identifying, recording and capitalising assets, to documentation on internal control processes and to procurement procedures. There has, however, been a standstill in the area of staff management, given that the objectives for staff and the performance indicators were neither measurable nor focused on results. Nevertheless, like the rapporteur, I welcome the Centre’s intention to introduce a pilot system in 2010 for recording the time spent working by each staff member.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) All the European institutions that depend on the European Union budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. It is necessary to check whether Union funds are being well used, whether these institutions are meeting the objectives outlined for them, and whether any resources are being wasted. Generally – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – we can say that the institutions at issue are using the funds made available to them properly and meeting the objectives proposed for them. That is why I voted for the report on the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training.

Report: Véronique Mathieu (A7-0105/2010)

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe it is essential for civil servants to be accountable to the general public. Therefore, they must objectively and rigorously account for how the public funds made available to them have been used. The Court of Auditors states in its report that the annual accounts of the Community Fisheries Control Agency for the financial year 2008 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular. I am concerned by the observation made by the Court of Auditors that the Agency does not draw up a multiannual work programme, which is essential for effective financial management and clear target setting. The Administrative Board should therefore be congratulated on its decision to begin to develop this kind of programme. Such a programme will be essential for improving the Agency’s budgetary and financial management. Although the Court approved this management, it still has some shortcomings that need to be addressed. Like the rapporteur, I believe an important tool to introduce will be an effective means of managing staff members’ working time, by strictly setting the number of recommended hours for each project.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) All the European institutions that depend on the European Union budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. It is necessary to check whether Union funds are being well used, whether these institutions are meeting the objectives outlined for them, and whether any resources are being wasted. Generally – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – we can say that the institutions at issue are using the funds made available to them properly and meeting the objectives proposed for them. That is why I voted for the report on the Community Fisheries Control Agency.

Report: Véronique Mathieu (A7-0072/2010)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On the basis of the recommendation made to the European Parliament in the report by my excellent colleague and friend, Mrs Mathieu, I voted in favour of granting the Director of the European Agency for Reconstruction discharge in respect of the implementation of its budget for 2008. I believe that it would be useful for the Commission, following the memorandum of understanding of December 2008 between the Commission and the Agency providing for certain closing transactions and in particular for the Agency’s residual assets to become the property of the Commission after 31 December 2008, to produce a detailed closure report on the closing transactions for both the social and the financial aspects. I support the calls for clarification on the funding allocated to Kosovo, since the credibility of the Union and of this young nation, which one day intends to become an EU Member State, is at stake.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe it is essential for civil servants to be accountable to the general public. Therefore, they must objectively and rigorously account for how the public funds made available to them have been used. I must highlight the fact that the Court of Auditors found that none of the formal conditions required for the award of a direct grant of EUR 1 399 132 (0.31% of the available operational budget) to an international organisation had been fulfilled. Like the rapporteur, I deplore the fact that the efficiently functioning European Agency for Reconstruction has been wound up and the management of the funding has been transferred to the delegations; I demand that the Commission submit a report detailing how many staff the delegations have taken on to cope with the Agency’s tasks; and I call on the Commission to supply comprehensive and complete information on whether budget support has been provided from the funds transferred from the Agency to the delegations.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) All the European institutions that depend on the European Union budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. It is necessary to check whether Union funds are being well used, whether these institutions are meeting the objectives outlined for them, and whether any resources are being wasted. Generally – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – we can say that the institutions at issue are using the funds made available to them properly and meeting the objectives proposed for them. That is why I voted for the report on the European Agency for Reconstruction.

Report: Véronique Mathieu (A7-0068/2010)

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I argue that it is essential for civil servants to be accountable to the general public. Therefore, they must objectively and rigorously account for how the public funds made available to them have been used. The Court of Auditors stated in its report that the annual accounts of the European Aviation Safety Agency for the financial year 2008 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular. There had been marked progress over the previous years, and an effort had been made to implement measures suggested in the past by both the Court of Auditors and the Internal Audit Service. As the rapporteur points out, however, the mechanisms for setting the Agency’s objectives need to be strengthened in order to make it easier to evaluate their attainment, and a new methodology for staff management, from recruitment to performance evaluation, should be introduced.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) All the European institutions that depend on the European Union budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. It is necessary to check whether Union funds are being well used, whether these institutions are meeting the objectives outlined for them, and whether any resources are being wasted. Generally – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – we can say that the institutions at issue are using the funds made available to them properly and meeting the objectives proposed for them. That is why I voted for the report on the European Aviation Safety Agency.

Report: Véronique Mathieu (A7-0104/2010)

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe it is essential for civil servants to be accountable to the general public. Therefore, they must objectively and rigorously account for how the public funds made available to them have been used. The Court of Auditors states that it has obtained reasonable assurance that the annual accounts of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular. It should be highlighted that the Centre has consolidated its public health functions, enhanced the capacities of its disease-specific programmes, further developed partnerships and improved its managerial structures. I deplore the fact, however, that the Centre has not comprehensively fulfilled its obligation to send to the authority responsible for discharge a report drawn up by its Director summarising the number of internal audits conducted by the internal auditor.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) All the European institutions that depend on the European Union budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. It is necessary to check whether Union funds are being well used, whether these institutions are meeting the objectives outlined for them, and whether any resources are being wasted. Generally – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – we can say that the institutions at issue are using the funds made available to them properly and meeting the objectives proposed for them. That is why I voted for the report on the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control.

Report: Véronique Mathieu (A7-0089/2010)

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe it is essential for civil servants to be accountable to the general public. Therefore, they must objectively and rigorously account for how the public funds made available to them have been used. The Court of Auditors states that it has obtained reasonable assurance that the annual accounts of the European Chemicals Agency are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular. The Agency is performing a role that the Commission is not in a position to take on; it is fully aligned with the Union’s strategic priorities and its activities are complementary to those of other agencies. It should be noted that the Court of Auditors highlights delays in the operational activities caused by difficulties in implementing the IT system and by a lack of qualified staff.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) All the European institutions that depend on the European Union budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. It is necessary to check whether Union funds are being well used, whether these institutions are meeting the objectives outlined for them, and whether any resources are being wasted. Generally – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – we can say that the institutions at issue are using the funds made available to them properly and meeting the objectives proposed for them. That is why I voted for the report on the European Chemicals Agency.

Report: Véronique Mathieu (A7-0092/2010)

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe it is essential for civil servants to be accountable to the general public. Therefore, they must objectively and rigorously account for how the public funds made available to them have been used. The Court of Auditors believes in its report that the annual accounts of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2008 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular. I congratulate the Agency on the external evaluation of the EU decentralised agencies commissioned by the Commission in 2009, the main findings of which were very positive. In particular, I congratulate it on having built up a well-developed activity-based management system, a multiannual work programme, a balanced scorecard with indicators, and an integrated management control system, all of which contribute to efficient management.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) All the European institutions that depend on the European Union budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. It is necessary to check whether Union funds are being well used, whether these institutions are meeting the objectives outlined for them, and whether any resources are being wasted. Generally – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – we can say that the institutions at issue are using the funds made available to them properly and meeting the objectives proposed for them. That is why I voted for the report on the European Environment Agency.

Report: Véronique Mathieu (A7-0086/2010)

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe it is essential for civil servants to be accountable to the general public. Therefore, they must objectively and rigorously account for how the public funds made available to them have been used. The Court of Auditors in its report describes the annual accounts of the European Food Safety Authority for the financial year 2008 as reliable and the underlying transactions as legal and regular. The Authority reached a high level of budget execution for both commitment and payment credits (97% and 95% respectively). Nonetheless, it should be noted that some inadequacies that had been identified previously by the Court of Auditors remain and are becoming recurrent, namely carry-overs of appropriations to the following year and cancellation of commitments for operational activities carried over from the previous year. This situation is at odds with the principle of annuality and shows weaknesses in programming and budgeting, which must be remedied. It is a highly positive development, however, that the Authority has succeeded in substantially and consistently improving its performance indicators in recent years.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) All the European institutions that depend on the European Union budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. It is necessary to check whether Union funds are being well used, whether these institutions are meeting the objectives outlined for them, and whether any resources are being wasted. Generally – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – we can say that the institutions at issue are using the funds made available to them properly and meeting the objectives proposed for them. That is why I voted for the report on the European Food Safety Authority.

Report: Véronique Mathieu (A7-0067/2010)

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe that it is essential for civil servants to be accountable to the general public. Therefore, they must objectively and rigorously account for how the public funds made available to them have been used. The Court of Auditors states in its report that the annual accounts of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction for the financial year 2008 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular. Like the rapporteur, I advocate that the Centre should explicitly set the proposed objectives in its annual work programme, to make the annual evaluation of its performance easier. It should also include human resources management procedures to make such management more effective, for example by introducing objectives of working hours for its agents into its programming and setting the average time they should devote to each project.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) All the European institutions that depend on the European Union budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. It is necessary to check whether Union funds are being well used, whether these institutions are meeting the objectives outlined for them, and whether any resources are being wasted. Generally – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – we can say that the institutions at issue are using the funds made available to them properly and meeting the objectives proposed for them. That is why I voted for the report on the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.

Report: Véronique Mathieu (A7-0078/2010)

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe it is essential for civil servants to be accountable to the general public. Therefore, they must objectively and rigorously account for how the public funds made available to them have been used. The Court of Auditors states that it has obtained reasonable assurance that the annual accounts of the European Medicines Agency are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular. I join the rapporteur in congratulating the Agency on having put in place sophisticated activity-based budgeting and user-satisfaction monitoring. The Agency must, however, improve the quality of its procurement procedures so as to put an end to the shortcomings identified by the Court of Auditors (for instance, as regards the application of evaluation methods for the price criteria and as regards the essential need for justifications for the choice of procedures).

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) All the European institutions that depend on the European Union budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. It is necessary to check whether Union funds are being well used, whether these institutions are meeting the objectives outlined for them, and whether any resources are being wasted. Generally – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – we can say that the institutions at issue are using the funds made available to them properly and meeting the objectives proposed for them. That is why I voted for the report on the European Medicines Agency.

Report: Véronique Mathieu (A7-0081/2010)

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe it is essential for civil servants to be accountable to the general public. Therefore, they must objectively and rigorously account for how the public funds made available to them have been used. The Court of Auditors has expressed its opinion that there is evidence that the annual accounts of the European Maritime Safety Agency are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular. However, the Agency failed to prepare a multiannual work programme, and its annual work programme was not related to its commitment budget. The Agency is, however, finalising a five-year strategy and developing Key Performance Indicators, which will have to be submitted to Parliament for scrutiny. The report also points out that the procedures for establishing the budget were not rigorous enough, leading to a high number of budgetary transfers and a high level of cancellation of payment appropriations, indicating weaknesses in planning and monitoring. This may have been a one-off event, however, due to the move to the Agency’s long-term office building.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) All the European institutions that depend on the European Union budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. It is necessary to check whether Union funds are being well used, whether these institutions are meeting the objectives outlined for them, and whether any resources are being wasted. Generally – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – we can say that the institutions at issue are using the funds made available to them properly and meeting the objectives proposed for them. That is why I voted for the report on the European Maritime Safety Agency.

Report: Véronique Mathieu (A7-0087/2010)

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe that it is essential for civil servants to be accountable to the general public. Therefore, they must objectively and rigorously account for how the public funds made available to them have been used. The Court of Auditors states in its report that the annual accounts of the European Network and Information Security Agency for the financial year 2008 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular. However, it highlights failings in procurement procedures, particularly with regard to the under-estimation of the budgets of framework contracts, which ultimately constitutes an obstacle to fair competition. These deficiencies must therefore be overcome. Given the importance of electronic communication networks, the Agency should be congratulated on the improvement in the resilience of European electronic communication networks, and on the development and maintenance of cooperation with Member States.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) All the European institutions that depend on the European Union budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. It is necessary to check whether Union funds are being well used, whether these institutions are meeting the objectives outlined for them, and whether any resources are being wasted. Generally – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – we can say that the institutions at issue are using the funds made available to them properly and meeting the objectives proposed for them. That is why I voted for the report on the European Network and Information Security Agency.

Report: Véronique Mathieu (A7-0084/2010)

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe it is essential for civil servants to be accountable to the general public. Therefore, they must objectively and rigorously account for how public funds have been used. The Court of Auditors states in its report that the annual accounts of the European Railway Agency for the financial year 2008 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular. However, the Court of Auditors points out that the Agency has weaknesses in the setting of objectives and performance measures, as well as problems in procurement procedures. Given the greater scrutiny of the activities of public bodies, the Agency needs to adopt appropriate measures to overcome these problems. Finally, I congratulate the Agency on having implemented 32 of the 36 recommendations made by the Internal Audit Service since 2006. Amongst the four recommendations which are still in progress, however, one is critical and three are very important, and I urge the Agency, therefore, to implement certain internal control standards relating to bank signatures, segregation of duties, sensitive posts and maintenance of delegation powers, as mentioned in those recommendations.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) All the European institutions that depend on the European Union budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. It is necessary to check whether Union funds are being well used, whether these institutions are meeting the objectives outlined for them, and whether any resources are being wasted. Generally – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – we can say that the institutions at issue are using the funds made available to them properly and meeting the objectives proposed for them. That is why I voted for the report on the European Railway Agency.

Report: Véronique Mathieu (A7-0083/2010)

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe it is essential for civil servants to be accountable to the general public. Therefore, they must objectively and rigorously account for how the public funds made available to them have been used. The Court of Auditors states in its report that the annual accounts of the European Training Foundation for the financial year 2008 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular. However, it warns that there are irregularities and a lack of transparency in recruitment procedures, and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has even opened an inquiry into the Foundation. It should be noted, however, that the Foundation says that it has undertaken a thorough review of its recruitment procedures in response to the Court of Auditors’ findings, although we have not yet been informed about it. Lastly, it is important to highlight that the Foundation’s work in supporting the Commission in 2008 obtained a 97% satisfaction rate from the Commission.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) All the European institutions that depend on the European Union budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. It is necessary to check whether Union funds are being well used, whether these institutions are meeting the objectives outlined for them, and whether any resources are being wasted. Generally – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – we can say that the institutions at issue are using the funds made available to them properly and meeting the objectives proposed for them. That is why I voted for the report on the European Training Foundation.

Report: Véronique Mathieu (A7-0069/2010)

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe it is essential for civil servants to be accountable to the general public. Therefore, they must objectively and rigorously account for how the public funds made available to them have been used. The Court of Auditors states that it has obtained reasonable assurance that the annual accounts of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular. The Agency has significantly improved its financial management over the last three years, which is very welcome, and it should continue to strive for the highest standards in budgetary planning, implementation and control. However, there remain a few irregularities, particularly in relation to procurement procedures, which need to be resolved.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) All the European institutions that depend on the European Union budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. It is necessary to check whether Union funds are being well used, whether these institutions are meeting the objectives outlined for them, and whether any resources are being wasted. Generally – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – we can say that the institutions at issue are using the funds made available to them properly and meeting the objectives proposed for them. That is why I voted for the report on the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work.

Report: Véronique Mathieu (A7-0076/2010)

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe it is essential for civil servants to be accountable to the general public. Therefore, they must objectively and rigorously account for how the public funds made available to them have been used. The Court of Auditors states that it has obtained reasonable assurance that the annual accounts of the Euratom Supply Agency are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular. It should be noted that in 2008 the Agency did not receive any subsidy to cover its operations and the Commission bore all expenses incurred by the Agency for the implementation of the 2008 budget. It should also be noted that the commitments carried over from the financial year 2007 were paid with the unused part of the 2007 subsidy. To all effects, therefore, in the absence of an autonomous budget, the Agency is de facto integrated in the Commission. That may raise questions regarding its structure and autonomy, which can be examined in the future.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) All the European institutions that depend on the European Union budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. It is necessary to check whether Union funds are being well used, whether these institutions are meeting the objectives outlined for them, and whether any resources are being wasted. Generally – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – we can say that the institutions at issue are using the funds made available to them properly and meeting the objectives proposed for them. That is why I voted for the report on the Euratom Supply Agency.

Report: Véronique Mathieu (A7-0088/2010)

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe it is essential for civil servants to be accountable to the general public. Therefore, they must objectively and rigorously account for how the public funds made available to them have been used. After weaknesses were detected in recruitment and procurement procedures in the previous year, the Court of Auditors states in its report that the annual accounts of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions for the financial year 2008 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular. That represents an improvement in the management of the Foundation’s accounts and internal audit systems, which is very welcome. Given the importance of this agency, I hope it will continue its efforts at budgetary discipline, improve its human resources management procedures and enter staff numbers, including contract staff, in the activity report in a transparent manner.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) All the European institutions that depend on the European Union budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. It is necessary to check whether Union funds are being well used, whether these institutions are meeting the objectives outlined for them, and whether any resources are being wasted. Generally – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – we can say that the institutions at issue are using the funds made available to them properly and meeting the objectives proposed for them. That is why I voted for the report on the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.

Report: Véronique Mathieu (A7-0093/2010)

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe it is essential for civil servants to be accountable to the general public. Therefore, they must objectively and rigorously account for how the public funds made available to them have been used. Despite the Court of Auditors’ opinion that the accounts of the European Judicial Cooperation Unit (Eurojust) are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular, I am concerned at the rapporteur’s evaluation that ‘the lack of indicators, the deficits in measurement of user satisfaction and the lack of coordination between the budget and the work programme make it difficult to evaluate Eurojust’s performance’. I also note the Court of Auditors’ finding that in 2008 Eurojust had a problem as regards carrying forward appropriations, although the amount was lower than in the previous year, and action is needed to prevent this situation from recurring in future. Lastly, I share the rapporteur’s concern that none of the 26 recommendations made by the Internal Audit Service have been fully implemented by Eurojust.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) All the European institutions that depend on the European Union budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. It is necessary to check whether Union funds are being well used, whether these institutions are meeting the objectives outlined for them, and whether any resources are being wasted. Generally – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – we can say that the institutions at issue are using the funds made available to them properly and meeting the objectives proposed for them. That is why I voted for the report on Eurojust.

Report: Véronique Mathieu (A7-0090/2010)

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe it is essential for civil servants to be accountable to the general public. Therefore, they must objectively and rigorously account for how the public funds made available to them have been used. I congratulate the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights on the effort it has made to remedy the weaknesses previously identified both by the Court of Auditors and by the Internal Audit Service. I would especially highlight the introduction of measures to improve performance assessment. Such actions need to be developed further.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) All the European institutions that depend on the European Union budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. It is necessary to check whether Union funds are being well used, whether these institutions are meeting the objectives outlined for them, and whether any resources are being wasted. Generally – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – we can say that the institutions at issue are using the funds made available to them properly and meeting the objectives proposed for them. That is why I voted for the report on the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.

Report: Véronique Mathieu (A7-0085/2010)

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe it is essential for civil servants to be accountable to the general public. Therefore, they must objectively and rigorously account for how the public funds made available to them have been used. The Court of Auditors states in its report that the annual accounts of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (FRONTEX) for the financial year 2008 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular. We note that the Agency’s budget has increased substantially in the last three years, and grew by 69% in 2008. The Court of Auditors, however, has consistently found several weaknesses, in particular: (i) a high level of carry-overs and cancellations (with 49%, nearly 69% and 55% of the appropriations available in 2008, 2007 and 2006 respectively not spent); (ii) legal commitments entered into before the corresponding budgetary commitments; and (iii) recruitment procedures that depart from the rules, in particular as regards the transparency and non-discriminatory nature of the procedures in question.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) All the European institutions that depend on the European Union budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. It is necessary to check whether Union funds are being well used, whether these institutions are meeting the objectives outlined for them, and whether any resources are being wasted. Generally – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – we can say that the institutions at issue are using the funds made available to them properly and meeting the objectives proposed for them. That is why I voted for the report on the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union.

Report: Véronique Mathieu (A7-0073/2010)

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe it is essential for civil servants to be accountable to the general public. Therefore, they must objectively and rigorously account for how the public funds made available to them have been used. I am concerned to see that, in the rapporteur’s words, the European Global Navigation Satellite Systems Supervisory Authority has decided to present the results of its activities without taking into account the fact that the Authority’s management of the Galileo and European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service programmes would be discontinued after the finalisation of the transfer of assets and funds to the Commission scheduled for the end of the first quarter of 2008. I also regret that the Court of Auditors qualified its statement of assurance on the reliability of the annual accounts for the financial year 2008 and on the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) All the European institutions that depend on the European Union budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. It is necessary to check whether Union funds are being well used, whether these institutions are meeting the objectives outlined for them, and whether any resources are being wasted. Generally – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – we can say that the institutions at issue are using the funds made available to them properly and meeting the objectives proposed for them. That is why I voted for the report on the European GNSS Supervisory Authority.

Report: Véronique Mathieu (A7-0094/2010)

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe it is essential for civil servants to be accountable to the general public. Therefore, they must objectively and rigorously account for how the public funds made available to them have been used. The Court of Auditors in its report describes the annual accounts of the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy for the financial year 2008 as reliable and the underlying transactions as legal and regular. It should be noted that the Court of Auditors identified a surplus of EUR 57 600 000 in the budget outturn account, which represents 38% of the accrued revenue, and part of that surplus was carried over to the 2009 financial year. That may have stemmed from the fact that the Joint Undertaking was in a start-up phase and had not fully set up its internal control and financial information systems during the 2008 financial year.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) All the European institutions that depend on the European Union budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. It is necessary to check whether Union funds are being well used, whether these institutions are meeting the objectives outlined for them, and whether any resources are being wasted. Generally – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – we can say that the institutions at issue are using the funds made available to them properly and meeting the objectives proposed for them. That is why I voted for the report on the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy.

Report: Véronique Mathieu (A7-0077/2010)

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe it is essential for civil servants to be accountable to the general public. Therefore, they must objectively and rigorously account for how the public funds made available to them have been used. The Court of Auditors states that it has obtained reasonable assurance that the annual accounts of the Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR) Joint Undertaking are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular. Like the rapporteur, however, I cannot fail to point out that the final budget adopted by the Administrative Board in April 2008 proved to be highly unrealistic, as is illustrated by commitment and payment appropriations take-up rates of 1% and 17% respectively. I would also highlight the fact that there were weaknesses in transaction controls and no adequate internal controls for contracts and procurement. I consider it essential for SESAR to take appropriate action to resolve the problems identified now during the next financial year.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) All the European institutions that depend on the European Union budget have to be thoroughly audited by the Court of Auditors and by all entities with that function. It is necessary to check whether Union funds are being well used, whether these institutions are meeting the objectives outlined for them, and whether any resources are being wasted. Generally – with only a few exceptions, to judge by the audits that we have already seen – we can say that the institutions at issue are using the funds made available to them properly and meeting the objectives proposed for them. That is why I voted for the report on the SESAR Joint Undertaking.

Report: Brian Simpson (A7-0101/2010)

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on transportable pressure equipment, which would repeal the existing directive and a number of other related directives. Since some technical provisions of the existing directive conflict with international rules on the transport of dangerous goods, it is essential to remove the inconsistencies and to bring the technical requirements into line with international rules.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The transport of pressure equipment, such as tanks, receptacles and cylinders, is presently governed by Directive 1999/36/EC, which lays down safety requirements for transport by road and by rail. Furthermore, the directive establishes common norms for the design, construction and subsequent checks of this kind of equipment.

These rules, however, are in breach of international rules on the transport of dangerous goods, which is why the Commission has put forward a proposal for a revised directive. The proposal does not entail any substantial changes to the existing regulatory framework as regards the scope and the main provisions. It merely aims at removing the above-mentioned inconsistencies by bringing technical requirements on the transport of dangerous goods into line with the international rules in force.

I therefore share the rapporteur’s opinion that, in the absence of a horizontal solution between the institutions regarding the wording of the new comitology provisions, the dossier must be concluded as quickly as possible with an agreement at first reading.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The transport of pressure equipment, such as tanks, receptacles and cylinders, is presently governed by Directive 1999/36/EC. The directive ensures the free movement of such equipment within the Union, including its placing on the market, by establishing common norms for the design, construction and subsequent checks. However, some technical provisions of the existing directive conflict with international rules on the transport of dangerous goods. The Commission has therefore put forward a proposal for a revised directive, which would repeal the existing directive on transportable pressure equipment and a number of other related directives. For the above reasons, I voted for this resolution, in which the committee is invited to adopt the report without additional amendments and mandate the rapporteur to enter into negotiations with the Council on this basis.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The growing concern with issues relating to the environment and its protection leads us to take extra care with the safety rules relating to the transport of pressure equipment. The purpose of this directive is to reinforce safety and ensure the free movement of such equipment within the Union, by setting out clear, transparent and mandatory rules for safely transporting pressure equipment in all the Member States, standardising the procedures throughout the EU.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The key objective of this directive is to remove the existing inconsistencies in previous legislation by bringing the technical requirements into line with international regulations on the transport of dangerous goods. Furthermore, the proposal aims to simplify and streamline certain provisions, in particular those relating to conformity assessment procedures. The proposal also incorporates provisions concerning equipment for transport operations in the internal market, thereby creating a general framework for marketing products on the single European market.

I voted for this report as I believe that the proposal will, once it has been adopted, ensure a high level of safety for transportable pressure equipment and its users. Its proper implementation at Member State level will also provide increased protection for the environment and citizens’ health.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I voted in favour of the Simpson report on transportable pressure equipment, even though our amendment was not adopted.

Report: Jörg Leichtfried (A7-0035/2010)

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) Airport security and the transparency of consumer charges, in order to raise their standards and levels: these are the themes dealt with by the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on aviation security charges.

Current systems for covering costs relating to aviation security, regulated at a national level, are not always clear for end users, who are often not even consulted before charges are calculated or changes are made to a charging system that affects them. Amongst other proposals, the report suggests including passenger and consumer protection associations in consultations between the security management body and the airlines, in order to ensure that the costs of security measures are correctly determined, and to check them against the price of the air ticket paid by the end user.

I welcome another point of the report: the call for the directive to be implemented only by airports in Member States that effectively impose charges for security measures, and not those where this kind of measure has not been introduced. For these reasons, I voted in favour of the report.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) Events in recent weeks have shown that airport security is a very important task for Member States and that we must take all essential precautionary measures. Each individual Member State decides on the methods for financing and applying aviation security. It is very important that the Directive sets out basic principles and procedures applicable to the body responsible for security and the airlines. Although legal requirements for airport regulation strongly differ in various Member States, a reasonable amount of information must nevertheless be provided by the operator to the air carriers so as to make the consultation process between airports and air carriers meaningful. To this end, the Directive establishes which information should be provided on a regular basis by the airport managing body. Air carriers should, in turn, give information as to their traffic forecasts, their intended fleet use and their present and future specific requirements at the airport, so as to allow the airport managing body to employ its capital and dedicate its capacity in an optimal manner.

  Ole Christensen, Dan Jørgensen, Christel Schaldemose and Britta Thomsen (S&D), in writing. − (DA) The Danish Social Democrats in the European Parliament have abstained from the vote on this proposal, as they believe, firstly, that this is unnecessary legislation because the requisite legislation is already in place in this area. Secondly, we believe that it is not the EU’s job to order Member States to pay any additional costs for airport security. The issue of financing security charges should be entrusted to the individual Member States.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on aviation security charges. This proposal is highly important in upholding and protecting consumer and passenger rights, since it establishes a number of basic principles to be respected by airport operators when determining their security charges. These are: non-discrimination, consultation and remedy, transparency and cost-relatedness of security charges, and establishment of a supervisory authority.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Commission has submitted a proposal establishing basic principles to be respected by airport operators when determining their security charges: (i) non-discrimination; (ii) consultation and remedy; (iii) transparency and cost-relatedness of security charges; and (iv) establishment of a supervisory authority.

The main question arising in this respect is that of the financing of the stricter security measures that should be implemented. Parliament has more than once called for regulation of the financing of security charges, but without success. The rapporteur argues very well that the financing of these stricter measures should not be borne solely by the passengers (through externalisation of the costs), but should be financed by the Member States, which ultimately bear responsibility for the safety of their airports. Lastly, I would point out that one can never invest too much in airport and passenger security, as was clearly shown by the latest attempted terrorist attacks against civil aviation, which were luckily foiled.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The European Parliament has demanded – several times and in vain – the regulation of security-charge financing to achieve greater transparency, as well as for security taxes and charges to be related to their real purposes. Parliament believes that the Member States should foot the bill for implementing stricter measures. The terrorist incident a few weeks ago has again shown that airport security is the responsibility of the Member States and that the purpose of existing and newly envisaged security measures is to prevent acts of terrorism. However, one point that has not so far been raised in the debate on the matter is the fact that it is ultimately passengers who foot the bill for such measures. I agree with the amendments introduced by this resolution, which will make it possible to prevent unnecessary parallel proceedings and administrative costs in this area.

  Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. − We must ensure that airport security charges are transparent, objective and based on clear criteria that reflect real costs. Any new costs to air travel should acknowledge the importance airports have for the development of regions, especially those which depend heavily on tourism, as well as those that suffer geographical and natural handicaps, such as the outermost regions and islands. Airport users, as well as local authorities, should be able to obtain in a timely manner information on how and on what basis the charges are calculated. There should be also a compulsory procedure for consultations between the airport authorities and interested parties or local authorities, whenever there is a need for a revision of the charges. Also, any independent supervisory authority should have precise, clearly defined terms of reference, including in particular any powers they may have to take punitive action.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I consider it unacceptable that the Member States are not guaranteeing funding for airport security measures that are not provided for in European legislation, and that moreover they are passing the costs on to the airlines, which then make passengers pay. I think it was necessary to go further than the regulation of 2008 and to adopt legislation to ensure that passengers do not bear these additional costs, which may at times prove to be completely unrelated to security charges. That is why I supported the report by my Austrian colleague, Mr Leichtfried, which guarantees greater transparency for citizens as well as airlines, and forces Member States to provide public funding for security measures that go beyond European requirements, since that falls under the national security of each Member State. In the event that the Commission presents a proposal to include body scanners on the list of European methods in order to stop the Member States from funding them, I will again support my colleague and will vote against this proposal, if necessary.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The ever greater care taken over security in our airports has brought progressively more costs, for which passengers have been footing the bill. The additional costs of stricter security measures must be borne by the Member States, as they exist to prevent terrorist acts; however, they are being borne by passengers. We voted for this report because of our opposition to this situation.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) The costs of a task that is to be undertaken by the state, namely the maintenance of public safety, cannot simply be passed on like this. We need to decide what costs passengers can reasonably be expected to pay in respect of the ever more restrictive anti-terror security regulations. Only if countries themselves have to take financial responsibility for the strict security measures which have been prescribed, and are also able to make their own decisions with regard to these measures, can we prevent the possibility of an unrestrained increase in body scanners and other similar measures. The only people to profit from the hysteria surrounding terrorism and the uncontrolled competition to become better equipped will be innovative US companies. For these reasons, this proposal is to be welcomed.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I voted YES to the report. The important thing for us, however, has been that our two aims of ‘linking costs for security screening and scanning with liberalised groundhandling services’ and ‘intermodal fair treatment of financing security measures’ were both rejected by the EPP and ALDE (RCV).

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Parliament had repeatedly called for the Commission to regulate the financing of security charges in the aviation sector. Its position has always been to call for greater transparency and for security taxes and charges to be related to their real purposes, believing that the Member States should foot the bill for implementing stricter measures.

The Commission proposal does not address this issue. It only seeks a new economic impact assessment with a view to restricting costs, based on the principles of non-discrimination, consultation and remedy, and transparency of the charges. The present document, however, proposes that, where stricter measures result in additional costs, they should be financed by the Member State. I stress the importance of security measures at airports, and I am voting in favour of this initiative by Parliament.

The proposal, to be implemented in all commercial airports in the European Union, is intrinsically linked to concerns over the right to information, to passenger non-discrimination and to consumer protection. I believe that the objectives of greater transparency and avoidance of unnecessary costs can only be achieved through the harmonisation of legislations and the clarification of responsibility between airlines and Member States in the adoption of security measures.

  Artur Zasada (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I was pleased to hear the results of today’s vote. I think that during work on this document we managed to develop an unequivocal and ambitious position, especially in relation to financing. I would like to stress again: terrorist attacks are not directed against airlines, they are directed against states. It is the state which is the guarantor of its citizens’ security, and it must meet this obligation. The outcome of today’s vote – 613 votes to 7 – is a very clear signal to the Council. This testifies to the great determination of the European Parliament on the question of the obligations of all Member States to bear at least part of the costs of air traffic security.

Report: Brian Simpson (A7-0030/2010)

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network because its aim is to construct and modernise railway infrastructures, ports, waterways and airports. The priority projects envisaged also include the Curtici-Braşov railway line. I welcome the setting up of a committee to support the Commission in implementing this decision and drafting the guidelines stipulated by it.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted resolutely in favour of this text. Although it contributes only technical modifications, it reminds us of the importance of a European transport network in order to bring EU citizens closer together and to encourage mobility. Such mobility is essential since we cannot have a proper Europe without getting to know our neighbours, their countries and their culture. The trans-European transport network also contributes to the plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by introducing better management of modes of transport and promoting their interoperability.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The text in question is a Commission proposal that is no more than a codification of earlier acts and regulations. It also introduces some minor modifications. Therefore, in line with the rapporteur’s proposal and having noted the legal and political safeguards, I support adoption of the text, including the minor modifications and corrections proposed by the Council, as well as the conclusion of the file through an agreement at first reading.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) In technical terms, this proposal is one to codify the legal text. However, the Commission was obliged to recast it, since the annex has been slightly amended. I voted for the adoption of these amendments.

  Elie Hoarau (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I condemn the fact that the outermost regions do not always play an integral part in the global trans-European transport network, despite the fundamental importance for economic, social and territorial cohesion. It is inconceivable that the ORs are not involved in the planning of the network and do not appear on several trans-European transport network maps. The global network, the motorways of the sea and priority projects should be extended to all ORs without discrimination. The TEN-T policy should also incorporate network industries and services of general economic interest; it should not be limited merely to major streams of cargo traffic and passengers. The request for equal treatment for the outermost regions must be heard. How can we contemplate being left out of trans-European networks when European transport policy is vital to opening up our regions and for the freedom of movement within the internal market? While the European Union sells off our sugar, banana and rum production to other countries by means of trade treaties with one hand, it simultaneously keeps us out of intra-European commercial routes with the other. These hands have a stranglehold on us, which we deplore.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) During the plenary session I voted for the report on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network. It was a technical proposal, as preparations are being made to carry out the proper revision of the guidelines. It is estimated that they will be finalised by the end of next year. I think that this offers an absolutely crucial opportunity to reaffirm the important role played by transport policy at European level in the current context with the debate on the Europe 2020 objectives going on. Member States in general and Romania in particular, a country which is still in need of investment in its transport infrastructure, must be aware that this transport policy is being redrafted to meet the new challenges. An ageing population and the specific mobility requirements of the elderly, social migration and climate change are only some of the factors which impose the need to devise a suitable transport policy. At the same time, the drafting during this period of the EU’s Danube Strategy provides the perfect framework for ensuring that maximum use is made of river transport on the EU’s inland waterways.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Amendments to and redefinitions of the development of the trans-European transport network have been going on for years. An effective trans-European transport network is essential to the existence of a healthy internal market, and contributes to the reinforcement of economic and social cohesion. The phenomenon of the Icelandic volcano showed us unequivocally that a trans-European transport network is needed; one that is effective and can give a coordinated response to the problems that emerge in these situations. This decision is important because it gives guidelines on the objectives, the priorities and the major actions to be taken in the area of the trans-European transport network.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) The EU has confirmed the importance of the Baltic-Adriatic Corridor by giving priority status to the northern arm from Gdańsk to the Czech Republic and declaring its commitment to the Brenner Base Tunnel project. It is even more important to develop the southern part of the corridor via the Austrian Southern Railway to Italy. In this network in particular, which carries approximately half of all goods and passengers, we need to neutralise a dangerous eye-of-the-needle situation. Support from the EU for the Koralm project is essential on account of the existing bottlenecks in this region on the rail routes for freight transport; which, after all, the EU is always championing. With the Koralm Tunnel, the EU has a unique opportunity to shift traffic to the railways on a scale that we have been striving for for decades. As the development of the trans-European network may be crucial for Europe’s competitiveness and the amendments tabled are merely technical adjustments, I have voted in favour of the report.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report even though our amendment was not adopted.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In relation to national priorities in the context of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T), I consider it important to invest not only in railways but, above all, in motorways of the sea and the interoperability and cooperability of the various kinds of transport.

Only a genuine combined transport network, supported by effective management, will be able to ensure the competitiveness of the maritime alternative. Maritime transport is essential to my country, which enjoys privileged access to navigable waterways, and truly crucial to outermost and island regions, as in the case of Madeira. In addition, it is an essential tool for continuing the consolidation of the internal market and for territorial cohesion.

This report is broadly supported not only in Parliament but also in the Commission and Council. It is also markedly technical. Its adoption in this Chamber follows its practically unanimous recommendation by the Committee on Transport and Tourism.

In short, this proposal, which I personally supported, does not amend the content of the TEN-T text but just adds maps of the 12 Member States that joined the Union in 2004 and 2007. A revision of the Union guidelines for the development of the TEN-T is in preparation and will be ready only towards the end of 2010.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. − (LT) The EU has 5 million kilometres of roads (62 thousand kilometres of motorways), 215 thousand kilometres of railways and 41 thousand kilometres of internal waterways. It is hoped that intercommunication among Member States will double by 2020. A united Europe is impossible without a coordinated and effective Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T). On the basis of a respective EU treaty, investment in the TEN-T will reach around EUR 500 billion. It is therefore important to ensure European cooperation and carefully select priority projects. The TEN-T is intended to link land, sea and air transport networks throughout Europe by 2020. The main objective is to ensure fast and easy movement of people and goods among Member States. A motorway of a European standard connects Lithuania’s largest port Klaipėda with Vilnius, and a railway line connects the latter with Moscow and the East. If we want the port to remain competitive we need to modernise its current infrastructure and remove red tape. Railways and internal waterways should in particular be used for long distance transport and roads for short distances. More effort should be devoted to cargo transit and internal waterway transport, which is more cost-effective and energy efficient, non-polluting and safe. The most important thing is passenger safety and protection. The financial crisis has had an impact on transport policy. However, the TEN-T may be used to create jobs and observe social and economic cohesion. The Europe 2020 strategy recognises the importance of transport policy for Europe’s economy. Free movement of people and goods is what defines the EU. This is only possible with a good TEN-T.

Report: Evgeni Kirilov (A7-0055/2010)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report because I believe that, in order to address the current crisis, we need to find ways to speed up the implementation of aid programmes, so that Union funding aimed in particular at supporting citizens, and more specifically the unemployed, can be used more fully. This proposal aims at making a number of regulatory changes in order to simplify the implementation rules for cohesion policy and to increase the pre-financing (advance payments) to European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and European Social Fund (ESF) programmes. Economic forecasts predict a major reduction in EU growth of 1.1% in 2010. In this context, this report represents a reaction to the financial crisis and its socioeconomic repercussions. Hence I consider it extremely important for achieving greater transparency and simplification of the rules governing cohesion policy. This contribution will have a positive impact on the pace of programme implementation, particularly by providing national, regional and local authorities with clearer and less bureaucratic rules that will allow more flexibility in adapting the programmes to the new challenges.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Last year the Commission presented a proposal amending the Regulation on Structural Funds (1083/2006) in order to provide financial incentives to Member States hit hard by the economic crisis. One of the measures put forward in the Commission’s proposal was a derogation from the principle of cofinancing by introducing a temporary option for Member States suffering from cash-flow problems to request a 100% reimbursement for financing measures eligible under the European Social Fund.

The Council rejected this proposal, but agreed to the extension of the deadline for calculating the automatic decommitment of the annual budget commitments relating to the 2007 total annual contribution to improve the absorption of funds committed to certain operational programmes.

I believe that the rapporteur’s proposed temporary measure of reconstituting the appropriations for the 2007 financial year for the assistance funds as part of the European Social Fund, as a result of decommitments made, is justified, in view of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, which would prevent the application of Article 93(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 in its current form.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund have proved to be effective and extremely useful instruments for territorial development and for tackling the consequences of the economic crisis which has afflicted Europe and the world for some time now. In this regard, I welcome the proposals to simplify the procedures for the decommitment of the funds and to facilitate payments to the beneficiaries of the various programmes implemented using the aforesaid funds. Furthermore, I am in favour of providing an additional pre-financing instalment for 2010 for the Member States worst hit by the crisis.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) As referent on this report for the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), I called on my colleagues to vote in favour of this text. As far as the simplifications contained in this report are concerned, I am convinced that they are a very good thing. This is a real leap forward: there is less information to provide, greater flexibility with regard to revenue-generating projects, fewer checks by the Commission for environmental projects worth EUR 25 to 50 million, and so on.

As for the financial aspect, I called for the initial proposal to be refocused. Indeed, it would not have been a good idea to call into question the principle of cofinancing expenditure and to implement projects wholly funded by the European Social Fund (ESF), as the Commission proposed. In order to balance expenditure in the long term, some Member States would have been faced with severe financial difficulties. Parliament has found a compromise allowing us to help the countries worst affected by the crisis and to avoid decommitment for 2007.

Through this vote we are giving great support to the beneficiaries of EU funds as well as to the initiating departments. Let us not forget, however, that there is still a great deal to do in terms of simplification.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) It is important to stress that the pressure on national financial resources continues to rise and necessitates taking further steps to alleviate this pressure through a better use of EU funding, and mobilisation and acceleration of all available Funds to tackle the crisis, in particular using the European Social Fund (ESF) for rapid recovery packages, as outlined in the Communication mentioned. It is particularly important that there should be more effort to facilitate the management of EU funding in order to speed up the flow of funding to beneficiaries that are most affected by the economic downturn. It is important to achieve the overall objective of streamlining cofinanced investments in Member States and regions and of increasing the impact of funding on the whole economy, in particular, on small and medium-sized enterprises and on employment. Small and medium-sized enterprises are the motor of the European economy and the main producers of sustainable growth, creating numerous quality jobs. Further simplification and clarification of rules governing cohesion policy will undeniably have a positive impact on the pace of programme implementation, particularly by providing national, regional and local authorities with clearer and less bureaucratic rules that will allow more flexibility in order to adapt the programmes to the new challenges.

  David Casa (PPE), in writing. − The report concerns the financial management of some of the most important funds within the European Union. These are inclusive of the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund. After a careful analysis of the proposal for regulation (COM(2009)0384) as well as Article 161 of the EC Treaty in addition to other documents, I was inclined to support the position of the rapporteur and have therefore voted in favour of the report.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The amendment of the regulation on implementing the Structural and Cohesion Funds is a measure aimed at supporting EU Member States during the current crisis. Above all, it meets their demands for simplifying the management of the funds.

I believe that the new provisions will help, at the same time, to reduce the risk of funds being lost due to not being used quickly enough, as a longer time frame is being offered for projects which have not been approved or implemented yet during the specified period.

I also hope that these simplified rules will come into force as soon as possible so that Member States and, in particular, the regions intended to be able to benefit from this option of EU funding, as well as the public authorities in these regions, will continue to invest in European projects in spite of budgetary constraints.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The Democratic Movement delegation welcomes the adoption of a report allowing the simplification of some provisions of the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund. Relaxing the deadlines for the use of the funds is a major step forward. The current rules stipulate that aid must be used within two years of it being obtained, or else it has to be returned. The new rules will mean that regions and Member States do not lose funds committed in 2007 for projects whose implementation has been delayed. Henceforth, environmental projects totalling less than EUR 50 million will no longer need to be the subject of a specific application by Member States for approval by the European Commission. Additional financial advances for 2010 will be authorised for those Member States worst affected by the economic and financial crisis. The simplification of some provisions will also make it easier to review the Operational Programmes under way and will allow us to respond better to crisis situations. For example, the regions affected by storm Xynthia will be able to use this new flexibility to help the victims of that disaster.

  Robert Dušek (S&D), in writing. – (CS) The Commission has submitted a proposed amendment to the regulation on the Structural Funds, the aim of which is to provide Member States seriously affected by the financial crisis with the necessary economic stimulus. The amendment should lead to the application of so-called support thresholds. A threshold of EUR 50 million should apply, instead of the current EUR 25 million. Large projects should also be protected from automatic decommitment. Some states should also be allowed to apply for the reimbursement of 100% of the costs of measures in the labour market from the European Social Fund. If it is possible from a budgetary perspective to commence financing without the need for joint participation, which I doubt very much, then the only correct and possible way is to compare the rules and regulations for everything by the same yardstick. It is totally unacceptable for some Member States to be identified as ‘more affected by the crisis’ and for them to be exempted from the rules for these reasons. If there must be exemptions, let them be applied to everyone in the same way! The EU is not such an enormous entity that we can deduce different consequences of the financial crisis for Member States. Economies are interconnected and the consequences of economic management cut both ways. It would also be wrong for us to disallow exemptions in order to penalise Member States that are trying to stimulate their own economies and not expecting assistance from the EU. Even in times of crisis let us fight for equal conditions in equivalent situations! The report takes account of this and I therefore support its adoption.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I welcome the adoption of the Kirilov report, which I supported with my vote. I believe that the adoption of this report so soon after the Commission’s Communication will be beneficial as the measures set out in it will speed up the funding process, helping boost the economic recovery in the regions, which is an absolute necessity during the current crisis. The report is part of the guidelines drawn up by the Council on the amendments relating to the rules on the financial management of programmes cofinanced by the ESP, as well as to those concerning the implementation of programmes intended to facilitate, simplify and clarify the regulations governing cohesion policy. In Romania’s case, this means increasing the volume of advance payments for the European Social Fund and Cohesion Fund, and more time for using European funds by ‘decommitting’ them so that Member States can reuse the funds as part of the programme. Other amendments include simplifying and clarifying the measures required to implement the Structural Funds, both during the phase of submitting the funding applications and when drafting the annual report on the programme’s implementation. There is also the agreement on a single EUR 50 million threshold, which defines a major project that will be able to qualify for funding from several European programmes.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund as regards simplification of certain requirements and as regards provisions relating to financial management. The severe and unprecedented impact of the current economic and financial crisis on the Member States’ budgets means that the management of cohesion policy must be simplified and advance payments increased. Despite the difficult situation, these measures will make it possible to maintain a regular cash flow to ensure payments can be made to beneficiaries as these programmes are implemented.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In my view, EU cohesion policy is a central factor in the development and implementation of the principle of solidarity among Member States that the European Union advocates. As such, and particularly in times of crisis – when these funds can help specifically to mitigate the impact felt in the most deprived regions – it is essential to improve the current structure of cohesion policy, so that the funds can be allocated more efficiently and can produce more effective results in good time.

Moreover, the instruments need to be made more flexible, because rigid instruments that cannot adapt to unforeseen circumstances, such as a crisis, are damaging to the European Union’s economic development. It is also important to ensure that the funds made available under cohesion policy are being duly utilised by the Member States and that the available resources are spent efficiently. I therefore consider it vital to rethink not only the structure of Union cohesion policy but also the control mechanisms available, as well as the methods of coercion that can be used in the event of non-compliance by Member States.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The purpose of this proposal is to provide additional economic stimulus to certain Member States, which had seriously suffered from the economic crises. It followed the European Economic Recovery Plan, in the context of which the implementing provisions of the aforementioned basic regulation had already been modified in 2009 to allow more flexibility with advance payments. The main element of the Commission proposal aimed to address the consequences of the financial crisis. The solution proposed was to introduce a temporary option for Member States suffering from severe cash-flow difficulties to request a 100% reimbursement for financing labour market measures under the European Social Fund, that is to say, derogation from the principle of cofinancing. The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon has entailed a change in the legislative procedure. Instead of the assent procedure, where Parliament was only able to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’, Parliament acquired a full say in the content of the text under the ordinary legislative procedure. That is why I voted for this proposal, and it is to be hoped that the Commission will make a corresponding proposal for an amending budget for examination and adoption by the budgetary authority.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The Commission proposal involves the introduction of a temporary option, to which Member States with severe cash-flow difficulties could turn in order to finance necessary growth and employment promotion measures designed to combat the crisis and eligible under the European Social Fund. That would allow Member States to ask the Commission for 100% reimbursements for 2009 and 2010, so that national cofinancing would not be needed during this period.

This is a measure that we have been advocating, so as to make the full utilisation of EU funds possible at a time when they are most needed. The Council’s position is different, however, and merely points out that ‘an additional pre-financing instalment [...] is needed for the Member States worst hit by the crisis’.

The document on which Parliament is voting takes the side of the Council position, which we believe is more ambiguous and less favourable to the Member States worst hit by the crisis. We believe, however, that ‘to extend the deadline for the calculation of the automatic decommitment of the annual budget commitment relating to the 2007 total annual contribution to improve the absorption of funds committed for certain operational programmes’ is a positive point.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The major challenges which the European Union has been confronted with due to the economic and financial crisis have resulted in the launch of certain priority actions which will help national economies adapt to the situation that has been created. I voted for the report as I am strongly in favour of granting additional financial incentives to Member States which have been hit hard by the economic crisis, as well as of simplifying the aspects relating to financial management. All countries could benefit from postponing decommitments, while countries in the direst situation would benefit from additional advance payments. These countries are Estonia, Hungary, Romania, Latvia and Lithuania. Further clarification of the regulations on cohesion policy and simplification of the procedures will have a positive influence on the programmes’ implementation rate. This step is especially important as cohesion policy is the most powerful instrument in terms of granting aid to the real economy.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Simplifying access to the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, and the Cohesion Fund is an essential part of supporting the Member States most affected by the economic crisis that we are experiencing. As we find out the extent of the damage caused to the real economy and the labour market by the financial crisis, we must take measures to improve access to the Union’s financing instruments. There must be a regular flow of funds that allows payments to be made to beneficiaries as programmes are implemented.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) In times of crisis, the EU is once again showing its true colours. When the eastern EU Member States had to freeze during the Russian gas dispute there was little sign of solidarity. Now, when it concerns the economic chestnut of the euro – the flagship of the EU – suddenly something is possible. EU subsidies have even been adjusted accordingly. Although the possible 100% reimbursement for 2009 and 2010 for financing labour market policy measures did not promote further education and high-quality apprenticeships to the extent that we would have liked, it is certainly essential in the current situation. All Member States would benefit from the decommitment of the budget commitment and those countries with the most problems would receive additional advance payments. Putting money into a bottomless pit at will without accompanying measures can be dangerous. I have therefore rejected the proposal.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) In view of the economic and financial crisis, optimum use must be made of measures which will simplify certain procedures specific to accessing European funds. These include:

- granting an additional funding advance for 2010 to Member States affected by the crisis, thereby ensuring a steady cash flow and facilitating payments to beneficiaries during the programmes’ implementation phase;

- extending the deadline for calculating the automatic decommitment of the annual budget commitment relating to the 2007 total annual contribution, which will improve the absorption of funds committed to certain operational programmes and ensure adequate support for the initiatives in favour of maintaining and creating jobs;

- Member States which received support in 2009, in accordance with the legislation which establishes a facility providing medium-term financial assistance for Member States’ balances of payments, can benefit in 2010, under certain conditions, from 2% of the contribution from the Cohesion Fund and 4% from the contribution of the ESF to the operational programme.

These measures will contribute to the development of a flexible, inclusive labour market and to a significant improvement in the positive impact generated by EU funding on the economy as a whole, but particularly on small and medium-sized businesses and on the labour market.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I voted against this report because we, the Verts/ALE Group, tabled six amendments and all were rejected.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this proposal since I believe it is a matter of great importance for Portugal, and particularly for its outermost regions, which are more vulnerable to the crisis we are experiencing, since they feel its effects more intensely and take longer to emerge from it.

Although I generally agree with its content, I must highlight the difficulties faced by regional and local authorities in securing the release of funds that would enable them to provide their part of the financing of projects subsidised by EU funding. I was disappointed to see that the Council blocked the possibility of increasing the proportion of EU cofinancing to 100%, even temporarily and in the form of an advance payment that would be offset in the later years of the programmes.

The compromise solution, albeit not perfect, means that EU funds for 2007 that have not been absorbed by programmes that have been slow to start up will, exceptionally, benefit from an extended deadline before being decommitted.

We are all aware of the difficult choices that families and companies are having to make these days, and of how important measures like those now being planned can be for the economic recovery, which we hope will be rapid and sustained.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. − (LT) The global financial crisis has affected all of the EU Member States. I feel that the Baltic States have suffered the most painful blow. Severe measures were taken because of the financial hurricane and jobs were lost. However, we have a unique opportunity to turn the crisis into an opportunity. We would like to give young Lithuanians a very promising future in Lithuania and avoid the increasing ‘brain drain’. This task is impossible without the EU Structural and Cohesion Funds, in particular, the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). The Structural Funds constitute a large portion of EU funding: – EUR 277 billion were allocated for the 2007-2013 budget. The ERDF stimulates economic development and recovery in less prosperous parts of the EU. It helps to fund measures like the regeneration of industrial areas affected by the reduction of towns and villages. It includes important regional programmes, such as the Baltic Sea Region Programme, in order to strengthen regional identity and recognition. The Cohesion Fund plays an important role in reducing differences between EU Member States, particularly in terms of environment and trans-European transport networks. Today (2007-2013), the European Social Fund also has a vital role to play by helping business and workers adapt to the new market conditions and supporting workplace innovations, lifelong learning and increased mobility. Lithuania’s ESF programme is solving the manpower shortage by mobilising human resources and improving skills and raising qualification levels. Since joining the EU, Lithuania has experienced a massive ‘brain drain’. The best way of combating this is investing the EU Structural Funds in young professionals.

Motion for a resolution: (B7-0221/2010)

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this resolution submitted by the Conference of Committee Chairs, which requests the Commission to submit new proposals for those dossiers which were pending in Parliament at the time of the Treaty of Lisbon’s entry into force and the procedure for which has lapsed.

As rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety for the ‘Proposal for a Council Recommendation on measures to combat neurodegenerative diseases, in particular Alzheimer’s, through joint programming of research activities’, I support the invitation presented by the Conference of Committee Chairs to the European Commission to submit a new proposal on these dossiers so that Parliament is consulted in a manner appropriate to its institutional role also assigned by the provisions of the new Treaty.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) With this resolution, the European Parliament gets straight down to all the most important policies of the European Union. It provides the legal modifications needed for it to play a full role on the institutional stage and the international stage alike. The European Parliament can at last fully guarantee that the interests of EU citizens are defended, and that is why I voted for this resolution.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Treaty of Lisbon clearly grants Parliament new responsibilities and new powers. With its entry into force on 1 December 2009, many proposals that had been tabled by the Commission on the basis of the Treaties, but which were still pending on that date (at different stages in the legislative or non-legislative process) will be subject to changes. In some cases there will be differences at the level of the decision-making procedure, either because the scope of the ordinary legislative procedure has been significantly extended, or because a new approval procedure applies in respect of the conclusion of international agreements. In other cases, there is just a change in legal basis. The Commission is seeking to change them formally by means of its ‘omnibus’ proposal. There are, however, some proposals (which came under the former third pillar) where the legal framework has changed substantially and they have therefore lapsed and must be replaced with new ones. As the rapporteur of the initiative to set up an assessment mechanism to monitor the implementation of the Schengen acquis, I call on the Commission to submit the new proposals as quickly as possible. I therefore support this House’s motion for a resolution.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the resolution on the consequences of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon for ongoing interinstitutional decision-making procedures. The entry into force of the new Treaty means that the legal bases of various pending files must be redefined. The Commission and the Council must urgently make the necessary changes in light of the new legislative framework.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon has not only imposed a new institutional arrangement and a new hierarchy of legislation, but also requires special precautions with regard to decision-making procedures that were still ongoing on that date. In these cases the legal bases have changed, as have the procedures relating to them, fully justifying their re-examination.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Treaty of Lisbon grants Parliament new responsibilities and new powers. With its entry into force on 1 December 2009, many proposals that had been tabled by the Commission on the basis of the Treaties but which were still pending on that date will be subject to changes. In some cases there will be differences at the level of the decision-making procedure, either because the scope of the ordinary legislative procedure has been significantly extended, or because a new approval procedure applies in respect of the conclusion of international agreements. In other cases, there is just a change in legal basis. The Commission is seeking to change them formally by means of its ‘omnibus’ proposal. There are, however, some proposals (which came under the former third pillar) where the legal framework has changed substantially and they have therefore lapsed and must be replaced with new ones. I am therefore voting in favour of this resolution of the European Parliament.

  Eleni Theocharous (PPE), in writing. − I vote against the Motion for Resolution on the consequences of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon for ongoing interinstitutional decision-making procedures as it includes the regulation about the so called “direct trade” between the EU and the occupied part of the Republic of Cyprus.

The legal basis of the regulation is absolutely wrong, as the European Commission chose Article 133 of the Treaty – now Article 207(2) after the Lisbon Treaty – which addresses issues with Third Countries. Using such a legal basis would be against Protocol 10 on Cyprus that clearly provides that the Republic of Cyprus entered the EU as complete territory with the suspension of the Union acquis in the northern part of the island due to the Turkish occupation. The existing legal basis of the regulation insults the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of a member state of the EU, the Republic of Cyprus, and it is against the principles and the values upon which the EU is founded and the European Parliament should respect and promote as the beacon of the European democracy.

Report: József Szájer (A7-0110/2010)

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Szájer, whom I would like to thank for his excellent analysis carried out in the light of the changes introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon.

Given the wide-ranging and diverse implications that ‘delegated acts’ will have for legislative procedure, I believe that Parliament’s wish to apply specific and clear conditions to these delegated acts, in order to ensure that this House has real democratic control over them, is particularly commendable. I think that we will also need, in particular, to test in practice how this new system will work, in order to make any necessary changes to it.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Treaty of Lisbon addresses the democratic deficit by strengthening the powers of both the European Parliament and the national parliaments. That is the framework for this new instrument, which allows the legislator to delegate part of its powers to the Commission (Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), provided that it is an act of general application that is used to supplement or amend parts of a legislative act that are not considered essential. It will thus make it quicker and simpler to fill gaps or to regulate or update more detailed aspects in a legislative act, avoiding excessively complicated and prolonged legislative procedures, which used to have negative consequences for the public. Two aspects that have been safeguarded are the fact that the delegation may be withdrawn at any time and the fact that Parliament’s (and the Council’s) prior assent is needed before the entry into force of acts approved by the Commission under a delegation. I support this innovation, which should take the place of the notorious ‘comitology’ system, but we now urgently need to set out how these delegations can be made, their scope, their objective, the working methods to be used and the terms on which the legislator can exercise control.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon requires clarification of some of its norms, particularly those with legal and procedural content, such as those addressing the legislative procedure, the hierarchy of norms and the powers of the institutions. Article 290(1) of the Treaty states that a legislative act may delegate to the Commission the power to adopt non-legislative acts of general application to supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of the legislative act. It does so with special reservations and severely restricts the scope of such acts. Nevertheless, this detailing of the law set out in the Treaty is important to prevent excessively disparate interpretations that would jeopardise the consistency of EU law. Although such acts are common in the Member States, that cannot be said of the acts in question. The legitimacy of the Commission and of the Member States’ governments is not the same, and therefore the delegation of legislation to the former requires greater care and attention, and it must be used sparingly. I agree that the use of legislative delegation should make it possible to adopt simple and accessible legislation, thus contributing to legal certainty, the efficacy of the delegate and control by the delegator.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. − (DE) According to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the legislator can delegate a certain amount of power to the Commission, in which connection the Commission may only supplement or amend a legislative act. The ‘delegated acts’ adopted accordingly by the Commission are non-legislative acts of general application. The rapporteur is advocating the stricter monitoring of the Commission in its exercising of its delegated legislative powers. For this reason, I voted in favour of the adoption of the report.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I voted in favour of the Szájer report on power of legislative delegation and Speroni report on Ransdorf’s immunity. It was adopted by a large majority.

  Eva-Britt Svensson (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (SV) I voted in favour of the report on the power of legislative delegation. Article 290 of the Treaty of Lisbon allows Parliament to raise objections to or revoke the Commission’s amendments and supplements to legislative acts. However, this requires an absolute majority, in other words a majority of the number of elected MEPs. In view of the absence of Members, this normally means 60% of those voting. Previously, only the Council was able to do this, provided a qualified majority of votes was obtained. The Commission’s expert groups, which are hand-picked from the Member States, have a great deal of influence in legislative delegation. One example of this is provided by the fact that, via an expert group, the Commission permitted a new type of genetically modified maize, despite the fact that Parliament and the Council were opposed to this. Another example is the original Services Directive, where the Council and Parliament deleted a paragraph that stated that it was to be prohibited to demand a permanent representative in the case of the posting of workers, in other words a trade union counterpart. The Commission went against this, however, and drew up guidelines establishing that it was not necessary to have a permanent representative. The Commission wants to safeguard its independence and continue to use its expert groups (COM(2009)0673). The rapporteur, Mr Szájer, rejects both national expert groups and the involvement of national authorities. I do not agree with the latter point.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Treaty of Lisbon has changed the former system of comitology by reference to new legal instruments, such as delegated acts and implementing acts. With the new Treaty, Parliament takes on the role of co-legislator, together with the Council.

Enshrining in the Treaty the ability to delegate to the Commission the power to adopt non-legislative acts to supplement legislative acts is a step forwards in that it places the two institutions on an equal footing. This report seeks to clarify the terms on which the delegation of powers by Parliament and the Council to the Commission, pursuant to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, can take place. The document stresses the importance of the principle of the freedom of the legislator to delegate its powers to the Commission as a tool for better law-making.

The report upholds the need to avoid imposing on the legislator additional obligations over and above those already contained in the Treaty. The legislator must allow the Commission to exercise the delegated power effectively and must duly monitor the use made of it. For the reasons mentioned above, and considering that the main priority must be to adapt the acquis in areas that were not subject to the codecision procedure prior to the Treaty of Lisbon, I voted in favour of the document.

Report: Peter van Dalen (A7-0114/2010)

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) The competitiveness of European maritime transport should remain one of the strategic objectives of European Union maritime transport policy. In order to achieve this goal we must ensure the necessary support for innovations, scientific research and their development, which would accelerate the modernisation of sea port infrastructure and ensure the application of the latest technologies in the shipbuilding industry. A reduction of the administrative burden and red tape would lead to an increase in private and public sector investments in the sea port and shipping sectors. Development of the trans-European transport network, provision for motorways of the sea and development of the intermodality of means of transport would lead to the creation of a European maritime transport system that is competitive and receptive to innovations. We also need to address the issue of the alignment of taxation applied to crews sailing under the European Union flag.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) The European Union’s marine territory is the most extensive in the world. The maritime economy provides work for five million people, whilst 5% of the EU’s GDP comes from industries and services with a direct connection to this sector. Data and facts show categorically that the sea constitutes a crucial resource for employment and growth in Member States, especially taking into consideration its international dimension, and hence the amount of pressure it has to endure in terms of global competition.

On this point, the report offers many positive points with regard to the demand for incentives for the maritime sector at national level, and for greater regulatory coordination at EU level. This could begin to cut red tape, which would help to increase the competitiveness of the entire sector. I agree with the approach of the report, and this is why I shall be voting in favour of it.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The Democratic Movement delegation welcomes the adoption of strategic goals for the EU’s maritime transport until 2018. The resolution adopted calls in particular for the enhancement of maritime professionals through the strengthening of professional qualifications and the harmonisation of European training. Indeed, it is essential to provide lifelong learning and retraining for seafarers at all levels, on shore and on board. With this in mind, the Member States must urgently ratify the International Labour Organisation’s 2006 Maritime Labour Convention. For maritime transport to remain one of the least polluting means of transport, progress still needs to be made in reducing emissions of sulphur oxide, nitrogen oxide, particulates (PM10) and CO2. That is why the Democratic Movement MEPs regret the Commission’s refusal to include the maritime sector in the EU emissions trading systems. We must continue to make progress in this direction and, to do so, the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) will have to set reduction targets, applicable to all the Member States, which will allow us to avoid distortions of competition with third-country fleets.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Commission has put forward a communication on strategic goals and recommendations for the EU’s maritime transport policy until 2018. The Commission’s proposal covers a wide range of topics relating to EU maritime transport policy, allowing maritime transport stakeholders ample scope and initiative to realise the strategic objectives and recommendations that are set out in it.

The main issues addressed by the Commission’s proposal are: (i) the value and competitive position of European maritime shipping in a global market; (ii) employment opportunities in the maritime sector; (iii) the quality of European shipping; (iv) international cooperation; (v) European maritime transport as part of the European economy and as a driving force behind economic integration; and (vi) Europe as a world leader in maritime research and innovation.

In view of Portugal’s geographical position and the strategic importance of the sea, this subject is of fundamental relevance to our country, and every effort to develop an ‘economy of the sea’ deserves our support and commitment.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Europe’s maritime sector makes a clear and vital contribution both to the Union’s internal economy and to its transport system. The interests of the European maritime transport sector must therefore be assigned high priority in establishing general European transport policy. It must be realised that the European maritime sector mainly operates and competes in a global market. The maritime transport sector faces major challenges with regard to the environment. The primary task is to improve the environmental performance of seagoing ships substantially, and emissions of SOx, NOx, particulates and CO2 must be reduced. In this regard, I would stress the need to reach agreements on the subject at global level in order to combat the risk of reflagging to non-participating countries. As far as security is concerned, I would highlight the fact that Member States are called upon to implement the package quickly and correctly, particularly as regards the Paris Memorandum of Understanding (referring to risk-based inspections). This will prevent unnecessary inspections, increase the effectiveness of monitoring and reduce the red tape for those subject to inspections.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The call to reduce the carbon footprint of vessels and port infrastructures, improving facilities for seafarers, the call to reduce emissions of sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides, particulates (PM10) and CO2 or even the creation of maritime emission control areas are many measures that may have a positive outcome depending on how they are applied. The permanent pre-eminence of free and undistorted competition, however, and the subordination of seafarers’ rights to competitiveness mean that this report goes against seafarers’ interests and the general interest. That is why I am voting against this text.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) With the adoption of this report, the objectives necessary for the existence of a Union maritime transport policy are being defined. This mode of transport has been moving towards centre stage, because it is one that is environmentally friendly and has the potential to become even more so. The maritime transport sector is essential to the European economy, not only in terms of transporting passengers, primary materials, commodities and energy products, but also because it is central to a broad range of maritime activities, such as the naval industry, logistics, research, tourism, fishing and aquaculture, to name but a few examples.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I voted in favour of the Van Dalen report on maritime transport strategy up to 2018, although our amendment on including maritime transport in the ETS was rejected by large majority (roll-call vote).

  Vilja Savisaar (ALDE), in writing. − (ET) The future of the European maritime transport sector plays a very large role in the European Union from an economic and social, as well as environmental, point of view. The vote which took place today puts in place a strategy for European maritime transport policy until 2018, and maybe this will have a direct effect on the 41% of fleets which belong to Europe, and indirectly to the maritime transport sector of the whole world. The Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe supported this report, as it mostly meets our expectations, and our proposals for improvement received support. In our opinion, the following keywords must play a leading role in the maritime transport sector in the future: efficiency, environmental friendliness and equal market conditions. Therefore, it is important that the report being adopted today calls on all Member States to ratify the convention of the International Maritime Organisation, in order to ensure better conditions for seafarers and ship owners, as well as for the environment. Finally, I thank the rapporteur for his high level of cooperation and openness during the drafting of the report.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Maritime transport is, without a shadow of a doubt, a competitive advantage for Europe, but much remains to be done to promote intermodality and co-modality, which also involves the repositioning of maritime transport as a truly competitive alternative.

The maritime industry is facing a number of challenges, which can turn into genuine opportunities if we know how to make use of them by investing in the training of young technicians to make up for the shortage of professionals in the sector. Technological development and cutting out unnecessary red tape to attract investment into the port sector are also priorities.

Safer and cleaner shipping must also be sought, by reducing greenhouse-gas emissions and offering an effective response to acts of piracy. The pressures threatening the position of Europe’s maritime fleet, which stem mainly from the state aid given to the sector in third countries, must be managed within a framework to be developed in the World Trade Organisation.

Europe’s infrastructure and port capacity deserve to continue being developed, as do the motorways of the sea, which are very important to southern and peripheral countries like Portugal and to outermost regions such as Madeira.

The report we have adopted today covers these guidelines in general terms, and has therefore won my support.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. − (LT) More than 80% of world trade takes place at sea, and maritime transport remains the backbone of international trade. The EU is the most significant global exporter and the second biggest importer. Therefore, shipping and similar services are essential if we want European companies to compete on a global scale. Coastal shipping is an important part of the European transport chain, carrying 40% of cargo within Europe. Every year more than 400 million passengers use European ports, and therefore maritime transport directly affects the quality of European citizens’ lives. The European Parliament is one of the defenders of maritime policy in the EU. The EU’s maritime transport policy also supports other policies, in particular an integrated maritime policy. The global financial crisis has also affected the maritime transport sector. Therefore, now we really must release the economic potential of European seafaring to stimulate economic growth and social and environmental stability. The long-term competitiveness of European shipping is the cornerstone of EU maritime policy. This strategy fosters safe, clean and effective shipping and the creation of jobs in the European maritime policy industry. A strategic vision, taking into account the development of shipping, ports and similar sectors, is important for the simplification of EU maritime policy so that it can face future challenges, for example, combating piracy and reducing the environmental impact of shipping. An integrated, intersectoral approach, including policies on fishing, transport, the environment, energy, industry and scientific research is essential. The days of European neighbours competing are over. This applies both to Lithuania and to the rest of Europe.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption of this report, which integrates some of my proposals for the future of maritime transport policy and its related sectors, whether in terms of shipbuilding, tourism or fisheries. To me it was important to reaffirm the necessity of security as a prerequisite for maritime transport and to stress, in spite of the difficult economic context, the need to respect high standards of protection of the marine and coastal environment. The expected increase in the volume of goods and passengers, the strictest environmental standards and the need to promote intermodality and modal shifts make the modernisation of port infrastructures necessary. These structural measures require significant investment combined with transparent and fair financing rules in order to support innovation and increase the competitiveness of European ports. Finally, I welcome the fact that the social dimension features in our strategy and that it stresses, in particular, employment, training, the enhancement of maritime professionals and the improvement of seafarers’ working conditions on shore and on board.

Report: Helga Trüpel (A7-0028/2010)

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) ‘Europeana’, the European digital library, is a single, direct, multilingual portal designed for Europe’s cultural heritage. It will, in the future, provide a large number of readers with access to rare or old documents from Europe’s heritage, which are difficult to access because of the way they are stored.

In the motion for a resolution voted on today, I asked the European Commission to launch a special campaign in the media and online, aimed at students and teachers and focusing on using the digital resources offered by this portal for educational purposes, in order to raise the profile of the Europeana site. The Europeana portal should become one of the reference points for education and research which will bring young people in Europe closer to their cultural heritage and help create transcultural cohesion in the EU.

In this motion for a resolution, the European Parliament encourages Member States to make equal contributions to the content of the Europeana project and step up their efforts in providing works to libraries and national cultural institutions so that all Europeans can have full access to their own cultural heritage.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Europeana, the European digital library, is demonstrating a great ambition, namely to digitise all European works in order to make them accessible to the general public. This is a long-term task that requires close monitoring and measurable progress. The own-initiative report proposes a target of 15 million works being made available by 2015, as well as access to the website for all, and in all of the languages of the European Union.

This European project is essential: it contributes to the enhancement of our common heritage, to its influence in the world and thus prevents the monopolisation of these works by private players. I therefore voted resolutely in favour of this ambitious project.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − I supported the report, as I believe that access to cultural and educational information must be a priority in order to improve educational and living standards in Europe. In view of the benefits for all EU citizens of accessing ‘Europeana’ library, its availability in all the official languages should be envisaged as soon as possible. As also people with disabilities should have the benefit of digital technology and enjoy easier access to education and information through accessible formats and adapted technologies. The availability of ‘Europeana’ should be improved ensuring free-of-charge access for pupils, students and teachers in secondary schools, universities and other educational institutions. Therefore it is essential to guarantee and simplify universal access to European cultural heritage and to ensure that it be promoted and preserved for generations to come.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) The collection and preservation of the artistic and cultural heritage of European Union Member States, by establishing a multimedia platform that gathers together images, sounds and videos to create a resource that is simultaneously a library, a museum and an archive: this is the aim of the Europeana project which, launched in 2008, is now putting European artistic heritage online thanks to the contribution of more than 1 000 cultural institutions.

Although it still has a number of weak points, including publicising and raising awareness of the project itself, the problem of putting ‘orphan’ works or works subject to copyright online and, not least, a certain patchiness of the objects and materials made available, Europeana is nevertheless exploiting new forms of technology to computerise European cultural heritage on a large scale, drawing not only on EU resources, but also on national and private resources.

The preservation of artistic memory, and of the representations and cultural particularities of individual Member States, is essential to ensure that the younger generations have a strong sense of their own identity. For this reason, I am in favour of the draft report.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) As a result of the vote given in favour of the report ‘Europeana – the next steps’ and as rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, I welcome that this report has been finalised and I hope that its recommendations will be adopted by the Commission. Following the debates on the report within the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, a whole range of subjects have been discussed, such as IT structure, management of the Europeana.eu site, free access to library information, the need to standardise digitisation procedures and the problem of media coverage for the website. Some of these subjects have also been included in the report of the main committee, the Committee on Culture and Education, which gives me hope that we have successfully achieved a complete report.

However, I believe that certain matters, which were not adopted in their entirety, must continue to be discussed, such as managing the site, funding methods and, above all, organising the site in the form of a single database and not a portal. I hope that the recommendations specified by us, along with the Commission’s reflections on the issues mentioned above, will turn this into a successful project. Europeana can become a successful project for the European Union as long as it is built on the EU’s values and ideals and provides the focal point for European cultural information.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on ‘Europeana – the next steps’, which encourages all EU Member States to be more active in making available contributions from their national libraries and cultural institutions, so that all Europeans have full access to their own cultural heritage. The target of storing more than 15 million works on the site in the short term may help to protect Europe’s cultural heritage, so that future generations may be able to put together a collective European memory.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Even during the periods when divisions and even hostility between the countries of Europe were most evident, European culture and science have always been able to cross those borders and spread throughout the area that today makes up the Union, and even beyond. It is more than fair to highlight the role of the universities in that respect. With their religious origins, they played a decisive part in reconnecting the sundered parts of what came to be the respublica christiana, and in remembering all those who were able to overcome the divisions and make their ideas heard throughout the continent and, from there, throughout the world. As a Portuguese and an heir to a language and culture that spread around the world, I support the efforts that are being made to make European culture and science more visible and accessible to all those who would like to enjoy them. In that respect, Europeana is heir to the best European tradition. I hope that the project will continue in a sustainable form and that my country, in line with its universalist vocation, will collaborate in it with renewed commitment.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Europeana opened in November 2008 and its aim is to make Europe’s cultural and scientific heritage accessible to all on the Internet. Europeana currently has a catalogue of 6 million digitised works and the aim is to reach 10 million entries by June 2010. The second phase of the project will see the launch of a fully operational Europeana.eu in 2011, which will be more multilingual in character and will have semantic web features. Only 5% of all digital books are available in Europeana and almost half of these come from France, followed by Germany (16%), the Netherlands (8%), and the United Kingdom (8%). All other countries provide 5% or less each. An increased contribution by the Member States is desirable. I support the call for Europeana to reach a stock of at least 15 million different digitised objects by 2015. I agree that special attention should be paid to those works which are fragile and might cease to exist very soon and, among those, audiovisual materials. Ways of including in-copyright material must be found, so that it includes current works and those from the recent past.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The creation of a digital library, museum and archive of European cultural heritage – from literary works to other materials of cultural and scientific importance – will bring significant benefits in the areas of education, research and culture. In order to achieve the goal of benefiting the general public, by being available to all, not just in Europe, but also in the rest of the world, it is essential for Europeana to ensure free public access to the material that is made available. It is also essential not to forget the importance of doing so in formats and media that ensure access for disabled people.

Nevertheless, there are certain aspects of the adopted resolution that are less clear and others that have not been sufficiently developed. It is not clear how it will be determined what cultural and scientific content will be included in Europeana or by whom, nor how it will be administered; these issues are important in assessing the extent to which it will ensure proper representation of the diversity of Europe’s cultural heritage.

Doubts persist as to how the public-private partnerships proposed in the report and the general financing of the cultural institutions associated with Europeana will work. We believe that cultural and scientific heritage belongs to everyone and must be freely accessible to the entire population; it must not be treated as a tradable commodity.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) We must safeguard access for all Europeans to the artistic and cultural treasures of Europe that constitute their heritage. It was with this in mind that, in spite of some teething troubles, Europeana, the amazing digital library that today contains nearly 6 million digitised works, was launched in 2008. Today we must improve the contents of Europeana while ensuring respect for intellectual property. Finally, I myself attach particular importance to improvements being made to facilitate access to this tool for disabled members of the public; therefore, the Member States should provide these people with full access, free of charge, to Europe’s collective knowledge by means of accessible formats and appropriate technologies.

  Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The Europeana project, the European Union’s digital library, must be welcomed as an initiative intended to create a European cultural forum, providing Europe’s citizens with extensive access to Europe’s cultural heritage. Unfortunately, although the project was launched back in November 2008, it is not making progress, primarily due to obstacles over copyright, as well as reduced funding. The final version of the European Parliament’s report adopted today puts forward useful recommendations for managing this project in the future. Firstly, the type of funding must be reviewed, with a look at public-private partnerships and contributions from Member States, which are very erratic at the moment. Secondly, this report allows us to highlight the fact that real results can be achieved not only through large-scale digitisation of literary works, but also by finding immediate solutions allowing copyright works to be used. This report can make an important contribution to the existing framework through the regulations proposed on displaying works, which must be free of charge, while downloading them should be charged at an affordable price.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The dissemination of European cultural heritage is beneficial for several sectors, particularly education, science, research and tourism, among others. However, it is not being disseminated at all well, and there is a big discrepancy between the Member States as regards the digitalisation of their cultural heritage in order to facilitate access to it. A joint effort is needed that leads to the quick adoption of new technologies allowing the whole of Europe’s cultural heritage to be quickly compiled in high-quality digital formats. This effort is needed so that this heritage can be disseminated across the world, thus helping other peoples to get access to Europe’s cultural wealth.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) Around a million books, maps and photographs from the EU Member States can be accessed in the Europeana digital library. The fact that commercial operators register considerably more hits with Google Books and have progressed further in their development is logical and is associated with the greater level of awareness of Google Books. In order to achieve more rapid progress with Europeana and to make the digital library more familiar, we first need to get more universities and institutions involved in the project. Only then can we talk about more financial resources. Even if Europeana is important for European cultural heritage and knowledge, understanding for an increase in funds – and to be provided from economic-development funds, too – is limited, particularly at a time of financial crisis and in view of the billions going to help Greece. I have therefore abstained from voting.

  Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), in writing. − (LT) The EU motto ‘United in Diversity’ is very appropriate for the Europeana project. I voted for this report since it is the first serious attempt to present the cultural heritage of the whole of Europe in digital format. Europe has one of the world’s largest cultural treasure troves, which, in my opinion, should be accessible to the broadest spectrum of society. It is somewhat regrettable that not all EU countries are equally active in transferring their cultural heritage to virtual space. This is particularly the case among new EU Member States. We should also mention other as yet unsolved problems: project funding, public and private sector cooperation, and most importantly, the issue of copyright protection. They need to be addressed as soon as possible so that the people of Europe and the whole world can access Europe’s cultural heritage. I hope that the report we have adopted will further accelerate the implementation of the Europeana project.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) The positive vote on the Europeana programme means support for efforts to digitise the cultural heritage of the Member States. However, it is very important to note that the objective is to protect the electronic format of works per se, without allowing users to modify them. In brief, the objective is not to develop another Internet search engine; it is to develop a website which will simultaneously be a museum, a library and a source of scientific knowledge. However, digitisation of the cultural heritage will not be feasible without the help of the Member States and national agencies. Unfortunately, 47% of the content of Europeana currently comes from France, while countries which should have a strong presence, given their massive cultural heritage, such as Greece, only represent a scant percentage of the digitised files. In addition, particular attention needs to be given to protecting intellectual property rights. Digitisation means free access for citizens to knowledge and science; it does not, under any circumstances, mean a new sphere of action for electronic piracy and unaccountability.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) It was in 2000 that the idea of creating a virtual European library was launched. The objective was to put European cultural heritage online to make it more accessible for everyone. Whoever thinks of Europeana thinks of ‘culture’. Today, Europeana provides access to seven million ‘digitised objects’ (namely images, texts, sounds and videos), whether world-renowned works or small hidden treasures, at the click of a mouse. More than 1 000 cultural institutions provide it with content and these include galleries, archive centres, libraries and museums (including the Rijksmuseum, the British Library and the Louvre no less). The project is certainly nowhere near finished. The new version of Europeana, which is currently under development, will be launched this year with the aim of reaching a volume of more than 10 million digitised objects before June. In order to achieve this, several major challenges have still to be overcome. They involve enhancing the content in the long term, incorporating more material that is subject to copyright, resolving the issue of out-of-print or orphan works, finding new methods of financing, improving accessibility for disabled people, providing a fully multilingual service, all issues that are addressed shrewdly in the text that we voted on and which I, as a result, supported.

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), in writing. – (PL) As a member of the Committee on Culture and Education, I endorse the report on Europeana – the next steps. Europeana, by combining the resources of Europe’s national digital libraries, has become a digital access point to the cultural and scientific heritage of humanity. The project has been endorsed by the Polish Librarians’ Association. Effective realisation of the project requires stable financial resources, which will guarantee the participation of national libraries and universal access to Europeana’s resources. Currently, only 5% of Europe’s cultural heritage is available in digitised form. Almost half (47%) of this comes from France, 6% from Germany and 5% each from the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. The project assumes that from June 2010, 10 million digitised objects will be available, and 15 million in 2011. To make this possible, it is necessary to increase funding for the digitisation of cultural products, while ensuring close cooperation between rights-holders, cultural institutions and the public and private sector. In order for as many people as possible to be able to use Europeana, materials must be available in all the official languages of the European Union. An information campaign is needed to heighten awareness of Europeana. The portal must also take into account the needs of disabled people, who should be able to get full access to Europe’s collective knowledge. To this end, the European Commission and individual publishers should ensure that disabled people are provided with special digital versions of works, such as audio readings.

  Róża Gräfin Von Thun Und Hohenstein (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I think opening the Europeana multimedia Internet library is an extremely significant step in the process of digitising the cultural heritage of Europe and the world. This is why I endorsed Mrs Trüpel’s report.

The project makes available over four and a half million books, films, maps, magazines, photographs and pieces of music, and is an archive which stores, for future generations, material first recorded on paper, canvas or parchment. This is extremely valuable both for ordinary citizens and for researchers, as it facilitates access to rare and difficult to obtain works.

A major barrier to the further development of Europeana is the existence of different copyright regulations in different Member States. We should strive to harmonise the law in order to make as many works available to the citizens as possible, while also ensuring a fair deal for the authors. The success of the project will depend to a large extent on the continued financial commitment of Member States.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I abstained from voting on the alternative resolution on Europeana – the next steps because this resolution was tabled by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) in spite of the vote that took place in committee.

The new resolution reproduces a large part of the initial resolution and therefore incorporates the amendments that I had tabled and which were adopted, but the new text aims, above all, to deny citizens the means to add content to Europeana through a special space and the prospect of developing Web 2.0 tools.

I therefore refused to support this move on both form and content.

Report: Marit Paulsen (A7-0053/2010)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted for this report because it urges the European Commission to assess the application of the animal welfare action plan that is currently in force (2006-2010) and draw up another action plan for 2011-2015. There is also provision in this report for the establishment of a tighter monitoring system and more effective punishments for the owners of animals who do not respect the welfare requirements established by law and for the compensation of European farmers for the additional production costs associated with higher welfare standards; it also argues that the financing of these measures should be incorporated into the grants scheme of the new common agricultural policy from 2013. The next action plan must focus on a general European animal welfare law, on a European centre for animal welfare and animal health, on better enforcement of existing legislation, on the relationship between animal health and public health, and on new technologies.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I believe that progress has been made on animal welfare through the implementation of the Action Plan 2006-2010, as the majority of measures featuring in this plan have been implemented in a satisfactory manner.

As a member of the committee which monitors public health and food safety, I particularly welcomed the measures taken to reduce the harmful effects which the use of antibiotics in animal nutrition has on human health, following the ban on them in 2006. These are further reasons why I voted for this report.

However, I wish to emphasise that the future action plan should include more measures aimed at supporting EU farmers and at improving the enforcement of current regulations on animal transport in Member States.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) I voted in favour of the report on the Animal Welfare Action Plan 2006-2010. The health of animals and livestock is important to the people of Europe, to the European agricultural sector and to the European economy.

I welcome the report’s recommendation that there should be greater emphasis in the Action Plan on enforcing the legislation which is already in place. Certainly, the implementation of European rules and penalty systems in relation to animal welfare must be improved to ensure that there is a satisfactory minimum standard of animal welfare in the European Union. European producers and farmers have high standards. I agree with the report’s assertion that it must be ensured that animal products, such as meat, which are imported into the European Union comply with the same animal welfare conditions so that there is fair competition and a level playing field for all participants in the market.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted for this report, since it is particularly important to implement European animal welfare policy and legislation to establish common EU animal welfare standards. Good animal health and good livestock farming are important not only for animal welfare, but also for public health as a whole. Given that, under EU legislation, all animals are regarded as sentient beings, we must tighten animal welfare checks and adhere to animal protection standards. Unfortunately, the Commission has not yet prepared a concrete strategy relating to animal welfare standards and has limited itself to the report presented in October 2009. I agree with the European Parliament’s call for the Commission to prepare a new Action Plan 2011-2015 and allocate necessary funding. The European Union budget must include sufficient appropriations to enable the Commission to perform its monitoring tasks, to support producers where necessary and to counter the loss of competitiveness faced by producers as a result of adopting new and changing animal welfare standards. Member States must also ensure that any violations of EU animal welfare rules result in effective penalties. Thus, only by tightening animal protection legislation and its implementation can we ensure animal protection and avoid animal products that do not comply with the conditions laid down by the general law being offered on the internal market.

  Louis Bontes (NI), in writing. − (NL) Whilst the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV) supports animal welfare, this is a matter for the Member States and not for the EU.

  Robert Dušek (S&D), in writing. – (CS) In Europe there has been and continues to be an active desire and long-standing tradition regarding decent treatment for animals. The good health and high-quality husbandry of livestock are also of fundamental importance for human public health. Strict standards compared with the rest of the world are part of the trademark of European farmers, as is the quality of their agricultural products, for example. For these reasons, we must make every effort to create a legal framework specifying the minimum standards valid throughout the EU for all forms of livestock husbandry. Only in this way will free and fair economic competition be made possible on the internal market. It is also necessary to demand minimum standards on the global market, in order to prevent the cattle of European livestock farmers being relocated outside the EU, to regions with lower standards. I welcome the rapporteur’s suggestion that the higher production costs associated with stricter standards should be compensated within the framework of support under future forms of the CAP. However, it must be said that no further progress was made in the satellite monitoring of livestock transportation, and it is also regrettable that some European farmers are not following the approved standards, particularly in pig farming. It should be borne in mind that higher standards require greater financial expenditure, and therefore the decent and responsible farmers are disadvantaged on the market through the behaviour of irresponsible ones. For these reasons it is essential to introduce the option of adequate sanctions in case of a breach of EU regulations.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of the report on evaluation and assessment of the Animal Welfare Action Plan 2006-2010, which proposes that a more stringent system of supervision and more effective penalties for the owners of animals who do not respect the welfare requirements established by law be put in place. It is essential that European farmers be compensated under the new common agricultural policy for the higher production costs associated with more demanding animal welfare standards.

  Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Olle Ludvigsson and Marita Ulvskog (S&D), in writing. − (SV) After some hesitation, we Swedish Social Democrats chose to vote in favour of this report on animal welfare in Europe. We would have preferred a more ambitious approach to European animal welfare and we do not want this protection to be formulated in such a way that it prevents individual Member States from setting higher standards than those of the EU regulations. However, we have decided to view the report as part of a continuing process that will gradually enable these standards to be met and have therefore voted in favour of the report.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I agree with the shadow rapporteur of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), Mrs Jeggle, when she says that a more consistent approach to animal welfare is needed, but that does not mean that there is a need for further laws and regulations. Furthermore, I must make the observation – without belittling the issue of animal welfare protection – that too many regulations and standards can, in the final analysis, have negative effects on the market.

It must not be forgotten that the more standards there are, the more difficult it is for producers to comply with them and the less competitive livestock farming in Europe becomes. Moreover, the excessive protection of animals must not make us forget other values that are equally important and that it is important to preserve, such as economic competitiveness, the sustainability of arable and livestock farming, and even some national traditions.

On the other hand, however, human health must be protected from diseases transmitted by animals (whether wild animals, pets, or animals for human consumption), and this requires scientific research to show us how to better regulate and protect public health.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) A high level of animal welfare from breeding to slaughter can improve product safety and quality. European standards in this area are some of the highest in the world. However, compliance with these standards must not put European producers at a disadvantage in the European market. The truth is that these standards entail operating, financial and administrative costs for the EU’s farmers. Reciprocity of standards is necessary if there is to be fair competition with regard to non-Union producers. Therefore, European farmers must be compensated for the higher production costs inherent to higher animal welfare standards. The financing of this compensation must consist of new common agricultural policy grant schemes from 2013 onwards. I would stress that European policy on the protection of animals has to be accompanied by a consistent trade policy. I would highlight the fact that there was no mention of animal welfare issues in the framework agreement of July 2004, or in any other of the key documents of the Doha Round of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Further animal welfare standards that have negative effects on the competitiveness of producers must not, therefore, be introduced until our trade partners in the WTO sign up to them.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) There are several significant aspects of the adopted report that are positive: first, the need to regulate imports and ensure that all animals and meat imported from third countries meet the same welfare requirements as are applied in the EU; second, the need to adequately cover the additional costs resulting from animal welfare promotion; third, recognition of the limited investment capacity of many small and medium-sized producers, damaged by the unfair way in which the food supply chain works; and, lastly, the proposal for incentives for the regional breeding, marketing and slaughter of animals in order to obviate the need for animals to be transported over long distances for rearing or slaughter. Unfortunately, the report fails to acknowledge that the current common agricultural policy (CAP) promotes and favours intensive production models, which are frequently incompatible with animal welfare and health. It could and should have gone further, by criticising the current CAP, rejecting its productivism and arguing for a new agricultural policy. Moreover, it makes proposals that are unrealistic and barely feasible, such as the development of a satellite system for monitoring the transporting of animals.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) I have two comments with regard to this report. Even if the rapporteur does not entirely follow through with her logic, it is refreshing to see that this Parliament is finally becoming aware of a number of problems. The imposition of legitimate rules on our own producers and breeders penalises them in a global ultra-free-trade system where the WTO considers social, environmental or other concerns to be non-tariff barriers to trade. Need I remind anyone that this same Parliament has always prioritised trade and that it is therefore jointly responsible for this situation? I am equally surprised by the fact that there has been no mention of the legislative regressions imposed by the Commission, in particular with regard to organic production, which impact not only on the quality of products, but also on animal welfare and human health. Secondly, it is time to acknowledge that respect, and I quote, ‘for customs relating in particular to religious rites and cultural traditions’ may go against these standards that you claim to defend and against truly European traditions and practices. It is unacceptable that some foreign communities can insist, on that basis, on cruel methods of slaughter, and even recommend that EU regulations be breached in this area.

  Dan Jørgensen (S&D), in writing. − (DA) The Danish Social Democrats voted in favour of the report on animal welfare in the EU. We support an ambitious animal welfare policy that increases the degree to which animal welfare is taken into account in accordance with Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – possibly in the form of a system of positive incentives. However, we are not in favour of the automatic assignment of new funds to the European agricultural sector as a result of financial loss associated with the consideration of animal welfare.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I think animal welfare is a priority which has a huge influence on public health and the European economy. Rapid and efficient implementation of consistent legislation in this area is essential, as well as establishment of an institution which will coordinate animal welfare. At present, the existing Community Action Plan has been implemented to a satisfactory degree, but in the future it will be necessary to pay greater attention to the matter of the transport and monitoring of animals. We need to strive to reduce differences between current levels of animal welfare standards in different countries of the Union, because at present there are large disparities in the living conditions of animals and there is growing destabilisation in livestock markets.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I welcome the fact that Europe has achieved one of the highest levels in the world in this area. The creation of a tighter monitoring system and more effective punishments for the owners of animals who do not respect the welfare requirements established by law is essential, but as such measures incur higher costs for farmers, we are in favour of the compensation grants that are included in this plan and are included in the grants scheme of the new common agricultural policy from 2013. It is important to stress that, alongside this plan, the EU should impose strict and well-defined rules for other countries that do not respect these standards, and so become unfair competition for EU farmers.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) For years the EU has been trying to attain standardised directives on matters relating to animal husbandry. Progress has been made in the area of intensive livestock farming in particular, but there is still work to be done. In any case, it makes sense to continue with the Action Plan; particularly in connection with the enforcement of existing laws and directives. In this regard, mention clearly needs to be made once again of the problem of dogs being imported from the East, in respect of which not all of the loopholes in the existing regulations have yet been closed. Sick and neglected animals, most taken far too early from their mothers, are transported to the West in the most deplorable conditions to be sold here for a lot of money. This report should be seen as a positive step in the right direction and that is why I have voted in favour of it.

  Søren Bo Søndergaard (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (DA) I voted in favour of the European Parliament’s own-initiative report on evaluation and assessment of the Animal Welfare Action Plan (the Paulsen report), because I fully support the objective of strengthening animal welfare in the EU.

However, it is not clear in the report whether the EU is to establish maximum harmonisation in this area. I would not under any circumstances be able to support a future proposal that prevented Member States from producing better mandatory standards for animal welfare than the standards that we are able to agree on at EU level.

On the contrary, I believe that it is vital for the continued pursuit of better animal welfare that it is possible for Member States to lead the way in this area.

  Eva-Britt Svensson (GUE/NGL) , in writing. − (SV) I voted in favour of Mrs Paulsen’s report on animal welfare legislation. However, I should like to point out that it is important for this legislation to represent minimum standards. The Member States and the regions must have the opportunity to implement more far-reaching animal welfare legislation.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The report on which we voted today assesses, objectively and critically, the results of the Animal Welfare Action Plan 2006-2010 and sets realistic and necessary targets for the growth – in the sense of progress – of food production and consumption in the European Union. One point that I would highlight is the recognition that better quality products means increased costs for producers, especially primary producers, which does not normally mean increased commercial demand, since only a minority of consumers will choose more expensive products.

The report therefore emphasises the need to compensate these same producers for their efforts. The intention to impose the regulations applicable to EU products on the products of third countries should also be noted, as it ensures fair and balanced competition in trade. Finally, it seems important to me to make the argument for creating a European coordinating body and adopting general and common legislation, in order to harmonise best practices and establish supervision mechanisms.

  Daniël van der Stoep (NI), writing. − (NL) Whilst the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV) supports animal welfare, this is a matter for the Member States and not for the EU.

  Artur Zasada (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Today, we have adopted an important resolution which assesses the European Commission’s Animal Welfare Action Plan 2006-2010. High standards of animal health are required not only by arguments of an ethical nature, but also by concern for the safety and quality of animal products, and this undoubtedly engenders a positive, reliable European agricultural brand.

Report: Stéphane Le Foll (A7-0060/2010)

  Richard Ashworth (ECR), in writing. − Whilst we support measures to manage and protect European forests, we do not support the creation of a new European forestry policy that would transfer powers in this area to the European Union. The report also refers to the Soil Directive, legislation that the British Conservative Delegation opposes, as soil can be best managed by Member States, because applying the same rules on all soil from Northern Finland to Southern Greece will not bring any benefit to farmers in the UK. UK farmers already meet very high voluntary standards of soil management and have continued to improve standards. The Soil Directive as proposed by the European Commission was flawed in many aspects and would only bring more regulation, more cost and less flexibility to British farmers, who we believe know better than European bureaucrats how to manage their own land.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In my opinion, the report on EU agriculture and climate change has the essential quality of combining protection of the environment with the promotion of a stronger European agricultural sector. Indeed, the agricultural sector must move resolutely towards means of production that are more respectful of the environment and more sustainable.

Nevertheless, these objectives absolutely must not be a pretext for weakening agriculture in the EU. To ensure this, we must guarantee better use of resources and product traceability. I therefore voted for this report because it respects these balances.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − I gave my full support to this report. The upcoming CAP reform will have to take into account many issues, including climate change. It is already clear that climate change will have a negative impact on EU agriculture, especially in the south and south-east regions. The new CAP, thus, will have to meet growing public demand for a more sustainable agricultural policy. For the time being, the CAP does not address environmental issues in a consistent manner. The new challenges of climate change, water management, renewable energies and biodiversity were not fully taken on board at the time of the CAP health check. I am certain that the CAP must be turned into an agricultural , food and environment policy with fairer and more sustainable farmer support systems while ensuring the preservation of rural areas, biodiversity conservation , carbon capture and food security.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The common agricultural policy is a key area in the fight against climate change in the coming years. As such, the report presented by Mr Le Foll prudently places the climate issue at the heart of the CAP.

Agriculture is dealt a double blow by climate change. It is the first to suffer the increase in droughts and natural disasters. However, it is also behind 9% of the greenhouse gas emissions in Europe. The European Parliament is showing that virtuous courses of action are within our reach.

Nitrogen fertilisers used by farmers are significant emitters of CO2. By targeting their use, by promoting fertilisers based on organic waste and by emphasising organic farming, we will drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Methane from animal faeces is also a renewable source of energy. Moreover, European forests and soil are both incredible reservoirs of CO2.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The European Union is the world’s largest importer of agricultural produce, but I also welcome the encouragement given to internal production with minimal impact on climate change. The conclusions from the report debated on Wednesday in the European Parliament highlight to us that importing agricultural produce from third countries has a much greater detrimental impact on the environment than internal production, which is subject to stricter regulations on reducing carbon dioxide emissions, making it conducive to climate change.

Agriculture has been and will remain the main source of food globally. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, agricultural production needs to grow by 70% in the next 40 years in order to meet the world population’s needs. The European Union must start devising policies or urgently implement existing policies in order to avert a long-term crisis. These policies must be backed up by ambitious targets for cutting carbon dioxide emissions with an adverse environmental impact because we are going round in a vicious circle. According to the experts, agriculture which is carried out with a disregard for its environmental impact will cause global warming, which will lead to major problems, even in terms of carrying out agriculture in the long term.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) European agriculture contributes to achieving the Union’s climate change mitigation objectives for 2020. Greenhouse gas emissions have been decreasing as a result of the increased efficiency of EU agriculture, constant innovations, the use of new techniques such as CO2 storage in the soil, and developments in the production of sustainable, renewable energies. Innovation therefore has a major role to play in reducing the impact agriculture has on climate change and its environmental consequences. I call for European funds from the agricultural sector to be used to develop technology to adapt this sector for the fight against climate change. The role of agriculture in the process of fighting climate change must take into consideration the competitive position of the EU’s agri-foodstuffs sector in the world market, so solutions must be found that allow conventional agriculture to contribute to the sustainable management of the environment, while at the same time protecting it from speculation on foodstuffs in the commodities market and the protectionism of international trade.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The Democratic Movement delegation in the European Parliament welcomes the adoption of the report on EU agriculture and climate change. It approves of the fact that emphasis is being placed on the new challenges that the common agricultural policy will have to face, such as climate change, the question of water, renewable energies and biodiversity, and soil management (carbon capture, the retention capacity of water and of mineral elements, biological life, and so on). In the same spirit the Democratic Movement delegation wanted a common European forestry policy to be established in order to promote sustainable forest management and production and to turn the contributions of the timber industry and its economic development to better account. These are all essential issues. There will have to be a place for them in future agricultural policy.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of the report on EU agriculture and climate change because it puts forward specific measures that can contribute to making agriculture more sustainable. Agriculture is one of the activities most affected by climate change, but also one of the biggest contributors to CO2 emissions. The forthcoming review of the common agricultural policy must incentivise the development of practices that allow European agriculture to be better adapted to the consequences of climate change whilst also contributing to slowing it down.

  Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Olle Ludvigsson and Marita Ulvskog (S&D), in writing. − (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats voted against the part of the report that calls for a common forestry policy in the EU. We believe that the Member States should continue to make the decisions on matters relating to forestry policy.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Agriculture is responsible for 9.3% of the European Union’s total CO2 emissions, whereas in 1990 it represented 11% of those emissions. A constant and progressive decrease in greenhouse gas emissions has been seen, and agriculture has made a positive contribution to meeting the targets for decreased emissions set by the European Union.

Moreover, I must point out that, whilst environmental concerns as regards the agricultural sector are legitimate and necessary, they must be duly weighed against the impact of the proposals in terms of agricultural sustainability and productivity. For that very reason, the reform of the common agricultural policy needs to look carefully at the relationship between agriculture and environmental protection, without forgetting that, apart from its negative impact on the environment (resulting, specifically, from CO2 emissions), agriculture makes a decisive contribution to the preservation and management of natural resources, to green growth, and to landscape and biodiversity management. These are beneficial side effects of agriculture, which must be duly taken into account in any proposal to examine the relationship between agriculture and the environment.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Agriculture is directly involved in the climate change issue, since it contributes part of the greenhouse gases emitted and is, at the same time, itself affected by climate change. The negative impact of climate change is already being felt, with drought and soil erosion causing major problems, especially in the southern Member States. However, agriculture can also contribute to combating climate change and has great potential for sustainable development. The common agricultural policy must, therefore, encourage farming practices that limit emissions and/or improve carbon fixation, since agriculture and forestry are the main economic sectors able to capture the CO2 produced by human activities, accumulating and storing it in the soil. We need to move towards more sustainable agriculture, which means greater efficiency. According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, a 70% increase in world food production will also be needed by 2050 in order to handle the increase in world population. We will have to produce more, but in a sustainable way, which requires greater efficiency, the adoption of the best techniques and practices, and increased investment in scientific research for this area.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) Consideration of the implications of climate change for agriculture is a relevant concern, just as it is relevant, entirely justified and necessary to make farming more compatible with the preservation of a series of things of natural and cultural value, such as soils, landscape and biodiversity. Nevertheless, these concerns must not lead us to forget that agriculture’s main role is to produce food, nor must they serve as a pretext for making amendments to the common agricultural policy (CAP) that worsen the already serious and unacceptable food dependency of various countries, both Member States – as is the case of Portugal – and third countries. Such dependency threatens the food sovereignty and security of these countries’ peoples in the name of an allegedly untouchable ‘competitive position of the EU’s agri-foodstuffs sector in the world market’. It would have been important for this report to devote even just a few lines to the need to break with the productivist model that has shaped successive reforms of the CAP and to its tragic social and environmental consequences; unfortunately, not one word on this was included. It would also have been important for it to avoid any ambiguity at a time when we are confronting attempts by the European Commission to impose the interests of agribusiness multinationals regarding the spread of genetically modified crops.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I supported the report by my French socialist colleague Mr Le Foll since it defends the idea that European agriculture must continue to adapt, as it has already begun to do, to the consequences of the changes in climate taking place and to prepare for the impact that these changes will have in future for many regions of the European Union. Agriculture actually has a crucial place and a role to play in the fight against global warming. This is an essential issue when it comes to ensuring food security and to embarking on the road to sustainability. In this context the post-2013 CAP must inevitably integrate this ‘climate’ dimension by providing solutions and assistance to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, by encouraging carbon storage in the ground, by developing the production of sustainable renewable energies and by maximising the function of photosynthesis.

  Dan Jørgensen (S&D), in writing. − (DA) The Danish Social Democrats voted in favour of the report (A7-0060/2010) on agriculture and climate change. We support an ambitious agricultural policy that equips the European agricultural sector to cope with climate change, but we are not in favour of new funds being assigned to European agricultural policy.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) On the question of climate change, agriculture should not be treated as a branch of the economy which is harmful. Quite the opposite, it should be treated as an industry which possesses not only the best possibilities for adapting to changes in the ecosystem, but as one which positively enables the harmful effects of global warming to be combated effectively. A significant reduction in the level of CO2 emissions in agriculture is now being seen in comparison with previous decades. Investment in rural development, and so the second pillar of the CAP, will enable better education of farmers, technological modernisation of farms and also suitable supervision and control of the environment and biodiversity conservation. Appropriate management of farms will result in carbon capture and greater food security. Innovative research and appropriate investment under the CAP will help agriculture become a powerful tool in the fight against climate change and pollution of the atmosphere.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report supports productivism and liberalism, which goes against the general interest. That depends on respect for human beings and for our ecosystem. Productivism and capitalism do not invite either. Nonetheless, the preference given to short circuits (although they are not described as such), the priority given to renewable energy sources, the review of costly irrigation systems or even the mitigation of the effects of climate change being described as a ‘public good’ are too many concessions to our arguments to be ignored.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Climate change has gradually become a reality that we are all going to have to face up to as a priority for EU policy. The climate change phenomenon damages agriculture, which, according to recently published reports, points to a very discouraging outlook for this sector. It will apparently be the countries of Southern Europe, above all, that are hardest hit by climate change. It is essential that the common agricultural policy take appropriate action in response to climate change, promoting better resource management. The optimisation of water resources, the choosing of crop varieties selected for their resistance to climate change and diseases, the protection of soil from erosion, the preservation of pastures, increased forestation, the restoration of damaged areas, better management of forests in such a way as to limit the risk of fire, and new measures to monitor and control disease are all extremely important measures to adapt European agriculture to the effects of global warming. Farmers will be increasingly dependent on the state of the climate, so we approve of any measures that resolve this problem.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report as I believe that agriculture is a production sector which is affected by the consequences of climate change and exposed to the pressure exerted by this. At the same time, however, it is directly associated with the objectives for mitigating the impact of climate change, whether by helping to cut greenhouse gas emissions, retain and ensure satisfactory management of water resources, or by boosting production and decentralising sustainable, renewable energy sources. In this respect, the Eastern European states with highly developed agricultural sectors can benefit fully from the development of the biofuels industry, thereby contributing to the growth of incomes in rural areas and the creation of ‘green’ jobs (for example, it is envisaged that 750 000 jobs relating to renewable energy sources will be created in the agricultural sector by 2020).