Oral explanations of vote

Recommendation for second reading: Toine Manders (A7-0086/2011)

  Francesco De Angelis (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, I voted in favour of the report on the labelling of textile products because I think that Europe could and should do more to support enterprises in the industry. The proposal made by the Commission was purely technical and aimed to simplify the current provisions regarding labelling.

Yet Parliament achieved two significant results. Firstly, textile products comprising non-textile parts of animal origin – fur and leather – must show this information on the labels in order to allow consumers to make informed choices. Secondly, by 2013, the European Commission must present an impact study on the introduction of labelling, clearly showing which garments have been produced in Europe, and which outside of Europe. The latter objective is an important milestone for the competitiveness of European textiles in Europe and the world.

  Morten Løkkegaard (ALDE). – (DA) Mr President, congratulations to Mr Manders for having succeeded in drawing up this proposal. It has proven to be more complicated than it looked at the start. I am pleased that we succeeded in reaching agreement on this Textile Labelling Regulation, which will strengthen the textile industry’s competitiveness and benefit consumers by providing a greater choice of new and innovative products. It is a good compromise that I believe the Council will be able to live with, too.

During this process, I have not disguised my own scepticism regarding the introduction of origin labelling. I am therefore also pleased that we agreed on a text that merely requires the Commission to analyse the need for origin labelling. Thus, the agreement will not lead to the introduction of mandatory origin labelling. I will be unable to vote in favour of a regulation that makes it mandatory for businesses to provide this country of origin label. I know that the Council is of the same opinion. Unfortunately, yesterday’s debate highlighted the fact that Commissioner Tajani does not share this view. If we do not succeed in avoiding this, I will then take up the fight against it.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, the proposal for a regulation on which we are being called to vote undoubtedly has the merit of bringing together in a single text all the existing legislation relating to textile products. This regulation will make it possible to simplify and improve the existing regulatory framework on the development and use of new fibres, as well as supporting the development of innovative products and encouraging innovation in the textile and clothing sector.

I welcomed the fact that Mr Manders considered other aspects too, such as the reduced administrative burden for Member States resulting from the transposition into national law of the technical adaptations required by the addition of the names of new textile fibres to the harmonised list. While I consider that we could have gone further by introducing a specific article regulating the indication of origin of textile products, I voted in favour of the proposal for a regulation.

  Cristiana Muscardini (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, this regulation is vital for the European textile industry because it guarantees a free market in compliance with rules that prevent the irregularities and illegal practices of the past. We wish to favourably highlight the institutions’ decision to welcome the proposal and to explore the problem of the traceability and origin of products in order to ensure that European consumers are correctly informed, even though the timescales established are too lengthy. Ultimately, the objective is to safeguard consumers.

I would point out that last October, Parliament, by a large majority, voted in favour of the proposal for a regulation on the indication of the country of origin of certain products – including textile products – imported from third countries, and that to date, the Council has not opened negotiations or discussions with Parliament, even on an informal level. I would like to thank the Hungarian Presidency for having included the issue among its priorities, but I would also ask for the debate to be accelerated, or else we run the risk, for example, of providing safeguards for European consumers with regard to foodstuffs but not with regard to manufacturing products.

  Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, the report on the labelling of textile products which we endorsed today marks an important step towards simplifying legislation for the benefit of consumers and all the European manufacturers working in the industry. With this regulation, we are laying down new rules on labelling in the textile industry; we are focusing increasingly on innovation in the sector and on speeding up the integration of European legislation, in order to benefit from innovative products safely.

The text proposes, in fact, to combine the three directives on the labelling of textile composition into a single European regulation, simplifying the existing regulatory framework and improving the transparency of procedures. Therefore, we cannot help but applaud the positive result achieved today in safeguarding European production. At the same time, however, we cannot fail to mention the indication of the country of origin issue. We hope that a further step forward can be taken soon with the approval of legislation regulating indications of origin in this sector as well.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, in my opinion, this report is attempting to solve two major problems. Firstly, the aim is to promote innovation. This means that the process of including new fibre names in the standard list of names must be made more transparent and must involve less red tape. Secondly, origin labelling must be improved. Here, we can honestly say that this point has not yet been finally and satisfactorily resolved. I would like to make it very clear that this is not the fault of the rapporteur. This was simply due to the widely differing opinions held by members of the Council which the Commission could not reconcile. I hope that we will continue to work on this issue, because origin labelling is becoming increasingly important. It is one of the rights of consumers. I would like to see a discussion on this point in the near future in the European Parliament and I would like the Commission to submit a proposal.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, quality, labelling and traceability: these are the consumer protection tools that guarantee product excellence. Until today, Europe was the only market in the world without legislation on this issue, which put it at a disadvantage relative to its main trading partners.

Today, the European Parliament has made its voice heard, by adopting a regulation capable of safeguarding the excellence of the European textile industry. Our production and manufacturing needs protecting, particularly at a time of economic crisis such as the one we are currently experiencing. Until now, we have managed to achieve recognition through research and innovation, which guaranteed the production of innovative textile fibres.

Consumers will no longer run the risk of buying textile products that are potentially harmful to their health perhaps because they have been treated with chemical agents. Adoption of this regulation finally guarantees due protection of the rights of over 500 million European citizens. From now on, it will no longer be possible to deceive them with incorrect labelling.

  Emma McClarkin (ECR). – Mr President, today, we have voted on the addition of new textiles and fibres and labelling-related matters. From the outset of this textile report, I have been of the opinion that Parliament should keep to the scope of the proposal as it was originally designated and that the extension of this scope was not compatible with the aim of simplification for putting a new fibre on the market.

I have concerns about the provision of a review clause which will ask the Commission to investigate the possible introduction of a number of labelling requirements which have little added value and would place unacceptable burdens on businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises. This includes the harmonisation of size labelling, social economic labelling and, most worryingly, a radio frequency identification tag which would increase costs for business and prices for the consumer.

Nonetheless, from this report, I feel that some of the provisions in this regulation will make a difference, will improve the application process for business and enhance consumer protection, especially on the labelling of animal-derived products. But we need to be mindful that we are legislating for the real world, not making a wish list for an ideal world, and that Parliament should stick to its areas of competence in future.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, may I begin by saying that I hope you will continue to address this Chamber in your native tongue, which matches any language in the world for its accomplishment, its diversity and its antiquity.

There are times when reading the voting list is a more eloquent comment on the behaviour and nature of this Parliament than almost anything else I could say. Let us just look at the subjects of some of these reports: indications or marks identifying the lot to which a foodstuff belongs; approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to units of measurement; permissible sound level and exhaust system of motor vehicles; narrow-track wheeled agricultural and forestry tractors; controls of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors; braking devices of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors; driving position and the doors and windows of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors; rear-mounted roll-over protection structures; excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco; denominations and technical specifications of euro coins; textile names and related labelling of textile products ... and I could go on.

There is almost no nook or cranny of our national life so remote that Brussels has not curled its tendrils thither, choking out the natural light and blocking out the native growth.

If Brussels confined itself to cross-border issues, then no one would have a problem.

Report: Gunnar Hökmark (A7-0151/2011)

  Jens Rohde (ALDE). – (DA) Mr President, during the debate, a great deal was said about Mr Hökmark’s report on our radio spectrum policy programme – something that does not sound very glamorous, I have to admit. However, it is actually a question of whether we can secure broadband connections and cheap data transmission for our citizens in future. I will very briefly say that, when we are trying to look into the future, it is quite impressive that the negotiators, and our rapporteur in particular, have succeeded in achieving such a broad majority in favour of the report that we voted on today. That was the result of very fine political skill and all credit to our rapporteur, Mr Hökmark.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, radio frequencies are a very scarce and valuable resource in our modern society. Therefore, it makes sense to coordinate the use of these frequencies efficiently throughout Europe. Broader access to the radio spectrum is important not only for businesses, but also for the citizens of the European Union. For this reason, we should take particular care to ensure that this policy is developed in line with economic, social and cultural interests. In particular, we must not allow this regulation to put at risk the direct wireless transmission used in Germany in regional theatres, at rock concerts and in churches.

I would also like to ask the Commission to sit down with the Member States and work closely with them in this area and not to interfere in their national powers.

Report: Carlo Casini (A7-0173/2011)

  Morten Løkkegaard (ALDE). – (DA) Mr President, following today’s vote on the lobbyists register, I think it is important to state that lobbyism is essentially a good thing. It is actually an indispensable part of the democratic process. Without lobbyism, politicians’ knowledge, facts and opinions with regard to all aspects of society would be far too limited. Therefore, all of us in this House and the press have a responsibility to ensure that, behind what we do, there is a critical, but also true, picture of what the issue is all about.

Secondly, I would like to say that, as we know, the best is the greatest enemy of the good. The fully legitimate demand for transparency, as reflected in the debate and the vote today, must, of necessity, be balanced so that we do not, with the best of intentions, destroy a well-functioning system. The demand for total transparency, mandatory individual registration of everything under the sun, an ethical control committee and so on, are, in the best case, expressions of something naive and, in the worst case, part of a populist political agenda that will do more harm than good. In practice, this is about trust. If deemed necessary, control must be in line with what is feasible in practice in respect of the work process. I would also like to contest the vote on paragraph 9. During the very quick vote, I got the impression that we did not actually obtain the right result.

Report: Carlo Casini (A7-0174/2011)

  Jens Rohde (ALDE). – (DA) Mr President, I am in complete agreement with Mr Løkkegaard. I am not sure that we obtained quite the right result in the vote on paragraph 9, but if we did, there is something not quite right with the perception of reality in this House. It is absolutely right that we should have as much transparency as possible. However, to demand that we all publish the names of everyone we hold meetings with is, of course, absolutely absurd. It is absolutely absurd because when is a meeting a meeting? This has to be defined. Does it include when we meet in the corridor or on the bus or somewhere else? Does it include telephone meetings and Internet meetings? When is it classed as a meeting? What about many of those people we are having meetings with today from rebel movements in North Africa? Are they to see their names in the newspapers? Surely not? In this regard, it should be logical for it always to be possible to guarantee that people can come to us in confidence. In any case, I will never be involved in breaking this confidence.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, making it easy for citizens to scrutinise how decisions are made, together with the processes, elements and resources that influenced them, helps both to ensure greater transparency and to close the gap between the European institutions and citizens, which is often discussed in relation to legitimacy and to the so-called democratic deficit in the European Union.

Great progress has been made in the last few years. One need only think of the register of interest representatives adopted by the European Parliament in 1996, or of the Commission’s 2006 proposal to the European Parliament for a ‘one-stop shop’ register for lobbyists. The approval of the Stubb-Friedrich report by this House led to the creation of a joint working group. We can safely say that the results achieved by that group with regard to the objectives set by Parliament are more than satisfactory.

I fully agree with Mr Casini’s report, as the transparency of political institutions is a fundamental condition of their legitimacy. This is why I have supported the proposal.

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, there is no doubt that this regulation marks an important step in the process aimed at focusing attention on the European institutions. There needs to be more transparency, more publicity, more clarity of conduct and accessibility of information, and finally, a common transparency register.

If we think that in the United States, the law governing lobby groups was introduced as long ago as 1948, we realise that they undoubtedly have a role to play, and while they essentially represent predominantly selfish interests, they must be duly taken into account. This is a forward-looking draft report, and while it is not the finished article, it is undoubtedly a way of safeguarding the legitimacy of the activities and decisions of the European institutions. For this reason, I voted in favour, as I am absolutely convinced that this is the path we must take.

  Jim Higgins (PPE). – Mr President, I think we owe a debt of gratitude to the Sunday Times for exposing the ‘amendments for money’ scandal.

As a result, as you know yourself, a working group has been established by the Bureau to introduce binding codes of conduct for all MEPs. Part two of cleaning up the act is what we did today by voting for this report in huge numbers.

I believe that the register of lobbyists is long overdue, but I have a number of reservations. First of all, I think that it should be mandatory. However, it is a step in the right direction and it is worth noting that the lobbyists themselves, the reputable lobbyists, actually are in touch and are in favour of compulsory registration.

I am disappointed, however, that the Council has not signed up to the proposal. It is worth noting that the three MEPs who were exposed in terms of the ‘amendments for money’ scandal are all former government ministers.

The registration of lobbyists is a big issue and lobbying is a big issue, and we need to push on, use this as an experiment and hopefully, in the future, make it compulsory and mandatory.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, the moment the lobbyist arrives in Brussels, he perceives immediately that this was a system designed by, and for, people like him. He is usually a man, although his female equivalent can increasingly be found stalking our corridors in her sharp trouser suit.

This is a system where decisions are taken – I would say in smoke-filled rooms, but these days in smoke-free rooms – behind closed doors with the voters frozen out. You had a perfect example of that with the new restrictions and bans on herbal and alternative medicines which came in a couple of weeks ago. Such a ban would never have passed a national parliament, all of them being subjected as they were to real anger from their constituents. However, the big pharmaceutical corporations understood that they could push through in this system what they could never get through the national legislatures, precisely because this system is much more invulnerable to public opinion. So, yes, let us have this register – I voted for it and my group supported it – but the real solution is to disperse the power away from these unaccountable Brussels and Strasbourg institutions back to genuinely answerable national, democratic parliaments.

Report: Ashley Fox (A7-0074/2011)

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, the government of Singapore and the authorities in Hong Kong and Shanghai are scouring London and the other financial centres of Europe looking to recruit the people who have been driven abroad by the excessive regulatory burden being imposed by the European Union. Our generation is witnessing an epical shift in wealth and enterprise from Europe to Asia. It is our tragedy to live at a time where, just as Asia has discovered the secrets of decentralisation, diffusion of power, enterprise and personal responsibility, we in this part of the world are going in the opposite direction, copying the old Asian empires – the Mings, the Moguls and the Ottomans – in regulating, uniformising, standardising and taxing.

Of course, it is my own country, my own capital city of London, which will be most adversely affected by these new restrictions, but the EU as a whole has an interest in preventing this haemorrhage of wealth, of jobs and of enterprise from Europe to younger and more virile economies. Again, the solution is to push powers down back to national authorities which have genuine affinity and allegiance from their voters.

Motion for a resolution B7-0291/2011

  Jens Rohde (ALDE). – (DA) Mr President, India is the largest democracy in the world, it is one of the world’s fastest growing markets, and it is well on the way to becoming a knowledge-based economy. In light of this, it does, of course, make perfect sense for us to conclude a free trade agreement. It is also in our own interests. The question therefore arises as to how on earth the Left can be against this free trade agreement. How can anyone be against lifting millions of Indian people out of poverty, and how can the Left be against fighting for an open market for European enterprises? I find it incomprehensible. I simply cannot understand why it is so difficult to learn from history. Free trade is good! Free trade is good! Free trade is good! Free trade creates growth, freedom for people and, therefore, also peace.

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). – Mr President, I voted against the motion for a resolution that deals with the negotiations for a free trade agreement with India. In my opinion, the conclusion of any such agreement negotiated by the European Commission would only serve big multinational corporations, both in India and in Europe.

In contrast to the last speaker, in my opinion, the trade negotiations are not driven by the interests of raising people out of poverty and improving people’s living standards; they are driven by those big business agendas to get more market access and increase profits.

I stand with the poor farmers, trade unionists and workers of India who oppose the FTA as it will mean a further undermining of living standards and working conditions for large parts of the Indian working class, in particular, those that work in the large informal sector.

Furthermore, this FTA agenda and its drive to enforce intellectual property rights and data exclusivity endangers access to cheap generic medicines that are produced in India. Today, these generics are of vital importance to people across the world suffering from the likes of HIV and AIDS. Because of the profiteering of the private major pharmaceutical companies, they simply cannot afford the branded equivalents.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). – (FI) Mr President, the free trade agreement to be signed with India is the most remarkable of the EU’s free trade agreements negotiated so far. The European Union must emphasise the importance of social responsibility. We know very well what India’s biggest problems are: child labour, poverty and inequality.

We are now to conclude a trade agreement, the real beneficiaries of which are industry and big companies in Europe. The European consumer, of course, certainly benefits from India’s cheap labour force, as reflected, for example, in lower prices for products, but that should not be allowed if India’s primary producers are going to suffer.

It is hypocritical to claim that Europe is a pioneer in the area of social responsibility. In offering free trade benefits, the EU must insist that the problems are addressed, and must oversee the process. It is important that the Commission incorporates into the free trade agreement legally binding clauses relating to human rights, social and environmental standards and the social responsibility of companies, and that it ensures, moreover, that these demands are met.

  Morten Løkkegaard (ALDE). – (DA) Mr President, it is, of course, interesting, and in its way charming, that there can always be Members of this Parliament that are against free trade. In a way, I think this is fantastic. However, I would like to say that I fully support it. I believe that free trade is the way forward, and it is also free trade that should show us the way forward with regard to India. The reason it has been so long coming, of course, is that there are problems with various details – major details we could say – namely, the question of generic medicines, which the previous speaker also mentioned. I would call on both parties in this matter, in other words, both the EU and India, to try to find a solution to this problem that both respects copyright, because that is absolutely essential, and, at the same time, ensures that practical means are provided to enable the many poor people in India to obtain cheap medicines.

Finally, there are some critics who believe that we should not follow the bilateral path in the negotiations and enter into bilateral agreements. They believe that this goes against the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations. I think that this is completely in line with the WTO. We need to do something to make sure that we do not founder any more than we are already doing in the WTO. It is quite simply necessary to have these bilateral agreements, and therefore I welcome them.

Motion for a resolution B7-0287/2011

  Jens Rohde (ALDE). – (DA) Mr President, it is amazing every time we discuss free trade in this Parliament. A few old radio signals from Radio Tirana always turn up in the debate. At any rate, that is the impression you can get when you listen to the thoughts of the Left on free trade. They thereby make it clear that they have not learnt anything at all from history.

We are now talking about the region of Japan. The EU and Japan are two of the world’s largest economies. Together, we account for a fifth of global trade. We invest significant sums in each other’s economies, we have common interests at global level and yet the negotiations are only progressing slowly. Therefore, let us say from our side that the barriers must be removed. We have to accept that concessions are needed from both sides, because together our economies can complement each other and create innovation, growth and jobs.

  Morten Løkkegaard (ALDE). – (DA) Mr President, I merely wish to add to what has already been said. There is no doubt that one of the barriers for the Japanese is the extremely high technical barriers that exist and have always existed in Japanese society. Europe should make a strong appeal to Japan to get out of the bunker and ensure that something is done about these technical barriers.

The background issue of the disaster that Japan is experiencing is, of course, tragic. However, if nothing else, we could say that something positive has come out of it in that they will have the opportunity to think again and realise that there really is a need now for outside help. There is a considerable need for enterprises from other regions to come in and help. That might cause Japan to look forward, to see the situation with fresh eyes, and to remove these numerous technical barriers.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI). – (FR) Mr President, I would like to remind our fellow Member on the left, Mr Murphy, that Karl Marx was in favour of free trade with India. I would also like to remind our liberal fellow Members, and, in particular, Mr Rohde, that the reason he was in favour of free trade was because of its devastating effects, since he maintained that the fact that the British bourgeoisie was driven by dishonourable interests was of little consequence: Indian society needed to be destroyed in order to precipitate the dawn of the global revolution.

As far as I am concerned, I do not think we should be dogmatic on this matter. Systematic free trade is not necessarily beneficial. It can be a good thing when there is a level playing field. That is pretty much the case in many areas with Japan, but I recognise Japan’s right, for instance, to protect its rice market, to protects its rice farmers, to pay its farmers higher prices than those on world markets and to say no to massive imports which would obliterate its peasant farmer population, in the same way that I recognise our economies’ rights to protect certain sectors of their activity.

That is why I did not vote for the majority resolution. I would have preferred other resolutions that, in my opinion, seemed more appropriate. There must be a level playing field, but only in clearly defined sectors.

Report: Kriton Arsenis (A7-0113/2011)

  Jens Rohde (ALDE). – (DA) Mr President, I would actually have been surprised if I had not heard the French Members intimate that protectionism is a good thing. Well, enough of dogmatics. We must move on to the forests and, in this regard, we are today debating our report on the Commission Green Paper on forest protection and information in the EU. European forests have many social, economic and environmental functions, and they are, without a doubt, making an important contribution to solving the climate crisis – it is actually a very effective way of solving this crisis – and to the attainment of the EU’s 2020 target. We in the Danish Liberal Party are therefore very pleased that today’s vote has ensured that the forests will receive more consistent and long-term protection while, at the same time, we have retained our ambitions with regard to ensuring the global competitiveness of European forest-based industries. However, we were a little surprised that the proposal for a 30-year ban on building on land where there has been a forest fire was successfully voted through. This is a typical leftist method of solving crime problems – by banning everything and everyone and, what is more, for 30 years. We obviously do not support this.

  Giommaria Uggias (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, as shadow rapporteur of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I am completely satisfied with the outcome of today’s vote. The report by Mr Arsenis on the protection of forests is a policy report; it is a basis for confirming how the European Parliament intends to tackle the protection of our forest heritage and the adaptation of forests to climate change. Today, the European Parliament clearly expressed its point of view, in the light of which we expect the Commission to make the necessary proposals and so enable even more detailed policies to be drafted for the sector.

I would particularly like to thank Mr Arsenis for his expert and professional work, which involved a long and difficult debate, because – as we are well aware – the forest situation is not the same in all the Member States. Despite this, we found common ground and also achieved some specific objectives, for example, the protection of certain parts from land speculation, greater protection of forests which are prized for their biodiversity, such as the northern Boreal and Mediterranean forests, and a ban on building on land cleared by arson.

Mr President, as I have said, this is very important for many Mediterranean countries, including your own country, Greece.

  Christa Klaß (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, the forests are our future and our cultural landscape. They are carefully managed to provide services for us and for the environment, including producing oxygen, storing carbon and offering a habitat for plants and animals. The people who manage our woodlands are paid little or nothing for providing these hidden functions which many people take for granted. This makes it all the more important for us to take into consideration the economic aspects of our forests. These include the timber industry and, increasingly, the production of biomass, not only for heating, but also for electricity generation. In future, we must strengthen and make greater use of the economic aspects of woodlands and we must take national and personal responsibility for this.

We are expecting the Commission to produce a White Paper which reflects this comprehensive approach and puts the focus on it to ensure that our forests have a future and that we are all prepared to invest in this future. If I plant a grain of corn, I am thinking only of today, but if I plant a tree, I am looking to the future.

  Lena Ek (ALDE). – (SV) Mr President, the requirements for forests are very different in different parts of Europe. Forest legislation is therefore best dealt with at national level. Moreover, the Treaty of Lisbon does not provide support for a common European forestry policy. The biggest problem with the proposed regulations relating to climate and forests is that forests are key to the EU being able to achieve the climate targets that have been set. Forests are necessary for conversion to a green economy, for example, through production of biofuels from forestry by-products.

Therefore, forestry must not be subjected to unnecessary, complicated regulations that make its products less competitive compared with fossil fuels. For example, it is very strange to propose binding sustainability criteria for a renewable resource like forests, but to not have similar criteria for fossil fuels like coal.

I will continue to oppose a European common forestry policy in future, too. I would instead like to put resources into research, education, information and innovation with regard to how to prevent the effects that climate change will have on our forests. Thank you.

(The sitting was suspended for a few minutes)

Report: Gabriele Albertini (A7-0168/2011)

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). – Mr President, I voted against the report on the EU’s common foreign and security policy. I am in complete disagreement with the views and ideas it expresses about Europe’s current and future role in the world.

In a nutshell, this report stands for a militarised and imperialist Europe. It defends an aggressive raw materials strategy and asks for, and I quote, ‘a less rigid distinction between military and civilian crisis management operations’. This is disguised language for a further militarisation of foreign policy. It welcomes the trade agreement with Colombia, despite the fact that hundreds of trade unionists have been killed in recent years, guilty simply of being trade unionists.

This report hypocritically names social unrest as one element of a new generation of security challenges and risks. What hypocrisy! The capitalist system has created poverty and misery across the world and is incapable of dealing with the consequences. It is the right of people to defend their legitimate interests and struggle for a better future without any interference from the mighty political, economic and military powers.

  Antonello Antinoro (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, first of all, I would like to say – and I hope this will not be deducted from my speaking time – that, on the subject of hypocrisy, there are very few of us who believe in certain things. We each take the floor to explain our vote after we have cast it. There are around five or six of us, and we listen to each other and are sometimes filmed for television. However, the whole thing is rather depressing.

Therefore, I would like to make a suggestion, and I will certainly do so at the next meeting of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats). I suggest that from now on, the explanations of vote should precede the vote itself, so that perhaps by talking and listening to each another, we may even convince each other about which way to vote, rather than playing a sort of team game that has all been decided beforehand.

Having said this, I stated in my explanation of vote that I voted in favour. I continue to believe in Europe, just as I continue to believe in the effectiveness of the presence of a High Commissioner. However, I continue to believe that the Member States believe in it much less than we ourselves do. Therefore perhaps it should be pointed out – as was reiterated to Baroness Ashton this morning and on other occasions, too – that, unless Europe stops being partly economic and becomes more political instead, our role probably cannot be carried out as well as it could be, either.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, I agree that European foreign policy must take account of the external dimension of the European area of freedom, security and justice. That is why I welcome any action which contributes to the promotion of peace, stability and the rule of law in countries and regions in crisis. I support commitment to the transatlantic partnership as one of the main pillars of the EU’s foreign policy, aiming to create a free market with the United States.

Eastern European politics are especially important from Poland’s point of view. The report acknowledges that there should be political and economic integration with the EU’s neighbours and also calls for a cohesive approach in negotiations on a new agreement with Russia, paying attention to the rule of law and protection of human rights there. It also acknowledges that negotiations for the accession of Turkey should be intensified and that there should be a continuous commitment to the accession process for the Balkan countries.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D). – Mr President, I voted in favour of this report for its moderate approach to the most pressing issues in the common foreign and security policy.

Thanks to the Socialist Group’s amendments, a more constructive language for the dialogue on Russia and Iran has been achieved.

The amendments on the EU strategy on Afghanistan also contributed to improving the structure of the report.

The Albertini report is a step forward towards a better EU security policy. While I support the efforts and the commitment of the rapporteur, I should also stress that the EU is still far from having a coherent long-term strategy in this area. The EU contribution to global peace and stability is still quite small and still depends too much on the USA’s vision of international security and on the ‘needle approach’ to the same issue.

Let us work for a more autonomous, EU-centred foreign and security strategy, because that is what European citizens expect from us and that is what we should deliver to them.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, I found the number of Members who spoke in support of Lady Ashton and her ongoing work in the foreign services, and also the number of Members who proposed that we speak with one voice, interesting and satisfying this morning. If we speak with one voice, we will be effective and listened to; if we do not, we will not be listened to or effective.

I was also reminded of the words of the great Irish poet, William Butler Yeats, who said ‘peace comes dropping slow’. That was certainly the case in Northern Ireland, where the European Union played a crucial part through its support for the International Fund for Ireland, and that peace was copper-fastened last weekend with successful elections.

(GA) The work which the European Union did in Northern Ireland can be repeated on the world stage for the benefit of peace and of the poor provided we speak with one voice and if Lady Ashton does her work diligently.

Report: Roberto Gualtieri (A7-0166/2011)

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D). – (PL). Mr President, I supported the report on the European common security and defence policy. However, I would like to point out that the report not only evaluates the policy, but focuses principally on the future, on development. In my view, this requires not only the various justified and accurate assessments and clever words, of which there are many in the report; the common security and defence policy needs to be looked at seriously and from a different angle.

I think that three things are needed. Firstly, the EU should define its common strategic interests, for example, concerning energy security and Neighbourhood Policy. Secondly, the EU should increase its own capability regarding the planning and coordination of civil and military operations and crisis management. Finally, thirdly, within the EU budget, there should be a joint budget for joint action.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, the increasingly significant interdependency of international organisations in the face of economic, environmental and energy problems requires constant adjustments to the foreign relations of individual states. Security issues form an element of policy requiring particular care by every country, and they need constant readjustment in a changing world. The report’s main theme is a call to protect the strategic autonomy of the EU in the field of security and defence. However, it does not take the EU’s lack of military experience into account, but, at the same time, calls for further efforts to expand the EU’s operational options. For countries such as Poland, the basis of its defence policy remains the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Tightening the strategic partnership between the EU and NATO and the proposal to strengthen mutual support for action could considerably slow down the procedures involved in taking operational decisions. In my view, the report seems too radical, and this is why I voted to reject it.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D). – Mr President, the most significant document on the EU security strategy was delivered by Xavier Solana. It is entitled ‘A secure Europe in a better world’ and was adopted by the European Council on 12 December 2003.

Since then, little progress has been made in this field. The Union still lacks an effective strategy for its foreign security and, on most relevant issues, still follows the lead of the United States. This report tries to introduce some positive changes on tactical topics like crisis management, the fragmentation of the EU defence technological industrial base, and the ineffectiveness of the 24 EU security and defence missions around the world.

I voted in favour of it, and I hope this Parliament will continue to make a contribution towards the goal of enhancing EU strategic autonomy in security affairs. In particular, what we need is a redefinition of the major threats to our security after the collapse of the so-called Islamic terrorist threat and the emergence of new dangers like the financial crisis.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). – (FI) Mr President, I supported the report, but I wonder if the European Union has the ability to work to promote peace and stability in our neighbouring countries, by which I now mainly mean Syria, Libya and Egypt.

Our actions in Libya will show the actual state of our security and defence policy. The EU’s main objective in Libya is to protect the civilian population and to support the attempts by the Libyan people to establish a democratic society. Memories of the Balkan countries in the 1990s are still fresh in our minds. Then, Europe had to rely on help from the United States of America. Libya has, in any case, shown that the EU is not a military power: our actions have been dependent on the independent initiatives of the Member States.

The examples in North Africa make us realise now that the EU’s need for military preparedness and capability at the gates of Europe remains a fact. The External Action Service has been in operation for more than a year: we can now expect some results from it.

  Julie Girling (ECR). – Mr President, there are two words that spring to mind to describe where we find ourselves today with regard to the common foreign and security policy. Unfortunately, they are not very nice words. The ones I think of are ‘mess’ and ‘a bit of a joke’. Unfortunately, it is rather a sick joke.

In the last 15 months – a period that has presented ample opportunities throughout the world to prove its credentials – our so-called common policy has failed to make any positive impact. I say that not as a great aficionado of foreign affairs, but I have to answer my constituents as to what does Europe add in value to us? It is of real concern to them that the cost of delivering this common policy is not being carefully allocated and not being carefully accounted for.

I have to answer my citizens about what service this is giving them, and I still, after the lengthy debates on these reports, struggle to come up with an answer.

Report: María Muñiz De Urquiza (A7-0181/2011)

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, the submitted report talks about human rights as a priority agenda of the EU in international organisations, while particularly emphasising the rights of women and children, and freedom of expression. At the same time, the report calls on Member States to support the position of the EU in these organisations.

However, so-called reproductive rights, which is just another name for the right to abortion, are a priority component of the European human rights agenda. On the other hand, European diplomacy is still not consistent in promoting religious freedom in all of its aspects, with an emphasis on respecting the rights of Christians worldwide. I would therefore prefer to see myself and my constituents represented by Slovak diplomats. I believe they will promote a fundamentally different viewpoint to that of the EU in these matters, many of which fall within the competence of nation states.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D). – The EU is still a very limited global actor; its role in the UN system and in all multilateral organisations does not match its democratic, economic and cultural weight. This report addressed this deficit and calls for removing some obstacles to the full participation of our Union to the global context. This is the reason why I voted in favour of it. The EU can make a powerful contribution to the peace and prosperity of our planet. Let us allow its civilian power to expand its influence everywhere.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, as I may be the last speaker, let me take this opportunity to thank your staff and the interpreters for your patience. Please do not think it goes unnoticed or unappreciated.

The European Union is hungry and eager in its acquisition of all of the attributes and trappings of statehood. It has its own Parliament, its own currency, its own president, its own foreign minister, its own external borders, its own flag, anthem, passport and driving licence. It was only a matter of time before it would apply for formal recognition as a state in the United Nations, which, of course, is what has now happened, with – rather disgracefully and to me bafflingly – the support of my own government.

This is a legal regularisation of something that has been happening de facto for some time: the pushing of the powers that we regard as definitive of statehood from national to Brussels level.

But the other Member States of the European Union should be wary of what they agree. One of the consequences of giving the EU full recognition of statehood is that they now can be addressed at length by Baroness Ashton and by Mr Van Rompuy as, respectively, the foreign minister and the head of state of the new entity.

And, as Members of this House I am sure will privately be able to let them know, that is not an unmixed blessing.

Written explanations of vote

Report: Sajjad Karim (A7-0095/2011)

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this document, codifying Council Directive 89/396/EEC of 14 June 1989 on indications or marks identifying the lot to which a foodstuff belongs. Codification is an effective means of consolidating the rules governing a certain area in a single legislative act. It provides more clarity, because various provisions regulating the same issue are often spread over different legal texts. As they are amended, it becomes difficult to understand which provision is currently in force. Codification is also a suitable means of developing European Union law which is simpler, clearer and more understandable to citizens.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome the efforts that have been made towards clarifying Union law in order to make it more accessible to all EU citizens. Therefore, bearing in mind the importance of trade in foodstuffs, I am voting for this proposal for a directive on indications or marks identifying the lot to which a foodstuff belongs. This system will contribute to better information on the identity of the products, and will also help to develop international trade.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I totally agree that the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission should be taken into consideration as I think that the proposal in question is simply limited to a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This proposal concerns the straightforward codification of the rules already in force on indications or marks identifying the lot to which a foodstuff belongs, without making changes to their substance on which Parliament might need to give an opinion. Nonetheless, I would highlight the increasing importance, in my opinion, of providing consumers with factual and complete information, especially on the lots, dates of manufacture and other information enabling them to trace the movement of a product from its source.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report relates to the proposal for a directive of Parliament and of the Council on indications or marks identifying the lot to which a foodstuff belongs, in a codified text. Simplifying the lives of European citizens is one of the EU’s concerns. Many legislative changes have been carried out by the Commission and by Parliament in order to achieve this objective. One of the things which really complicates the life of the ordinary EU citizen is reading and interpreting information about the indications or marks identifying the lot to which a foodstuff belongs. The proliferation of such information makes this more difficult and contributes to decreasing the public’s quality of life. To address this issue, since 1994, there has been an interinstitutional agreement between Parliament, the Commission and the Council on an accelerated working method for the adoption of codified acts. I am happy to finally be able to adopt a directive that, in consolidating Directive 89/396/EEC, makes the public’s lives easier by simplifying and clarifying EU law.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – Trade in foodstuffs occupies a very important place in the internal market. Indication of the lot to which a foodstuff belongs meets the need for better information on the identity of products. It is therefore a useful source of information when foodstuffs are the subject of dispute or constitute a health hazard for consumers.

In view of the variety of identification methods used, it should be up to the trader to determine the lot and to affix the corresponding indication or mark. At international level, there is a general obligation to provide a reference to the manufacturing or packaging lot of pre-packaged foodstuffs. It should be the duty of the Union to contribute to the development of international trade by also applying those rules.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Taking into consideration the good of society and consumers in the European market, we try to simplify as many rules and regulations as possible so that they are transparent and able to be understood by every citizen. A case in point is the common agricultural policy. The overriding principle in work on its future form is simplification of a policy whose main aim is to ensure food security for Europe. Codification of the directive on marks identifying the lot to which a foodstuff belongs aims to achieve this approach and to simplify consumers’ understanding of the legislation. At the same time, by retaining the wording of the original texts, the codification is being carried out in full compliance with the procedures involved in adopting acts in the EU.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report on a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on indications or marks identifying the lot to which a foodstuff belongs.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The aim of this proposal is the codification of existing legislative texts on indications or marks identifying the lot to which a foodstuff belongs. Increasing importance should, however, be given to ensuring that consumers are given accurate and comprehensive information, especially with regard to lots, dates of manufacture and other information which enables them to track the progress of the product from its point of origin.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The report of MEP Sajjad Karim contains a legislative resolution on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on indications or marks identifying the lot to which a foodstuff belongs (codified text). The purpose of this proposal is to undertake the codification of Council Directive 89/396/EEC of 14 June 1989 on indications or marks identifying the lot to which a foodstuff belongs. I totally support the new directive because it will supersede the various acts incorporated in it; this proposal fully preserves the content of the acts being codified and hence does no more than bring them together with only such formal amendments as are required by the codification exercise itself. I voted ‘in favour’.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Based on the opinion of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, this proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on indications or marks identifying the lot to which a foodstuff belongs concludes that the proposal in question is restricted to the straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance. For this reason, I voted in favour of Parliament’s proposal, which takes over the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) We are in favour of this directive on indications or marks identifying the lot to which a foodstuff belongs, not least because criminals all too often falsify codes for illegal purposes. Grouping together and simplifying all the existing legislation on indications or marks will facilitate controls and the identification of any illegal practice.

Report: Sajjad Karim (A7-0089/2011)

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this document, codifying Council Directive 80/181/EEC of 20 December 1979 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to units of measurement and the repeal of Directive 71/354/EEC. Codification is an effective means of consolidating the rules governing a certain area in a single legislative act. It provides more clarity, because various provisions regulating the same issue are often spread over different legal texts. As they are amended, it becomes difficult to understand which provision is currently in force. Codification is also a suitable means of developing European Union law which is simpler, clearer and more understandable to citizens.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome the efforts that have been made towards clarifying Union law in order to make it more accessible to all EU citizens. In view of this, and taking into account the importance of measuring instruments for most areas of human activity, I am voting for this proposal for a directive on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to units of measurement. This system will contribute to better performance in the areas of public health and safety, as well as administrative operations.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) With due regard for the opinions of the legal services of Parliament, the Council and the Commission, which have concluded that the Commission proposal was confined to straightforward codification of the existing texts, without any change in their substance, I welcome the adoption of this proposal at the first reading.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report relates to the proposal for a directive of Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to units of measurements, as a codified text. Simplifying the lives of Europeans is one of the EU’s concerns.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – Units of measurement are essential in the use of all measuring instruments to express measurements or any indication of quantity. They are used in almost all fields of human activity and it is therefore necessary to ensure the greatest possible clarity in their use and set rules for their use within the European Union for economic, public health, public safety or administrative purposes. Member States should be able to require that measuring devices on their territory bear indications of quantity in a single legal unit of measurement.

This directive supports the smooth functioning of the internal market through the degree of harmonisation of units of measurement. In this context, it is appropriate for the Commission to monitor market developments relating to this directive and its implementation, particularly with regard to possible barriers to the internal market and further harmonisation needed to overcome these obstacles.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to units of measurement.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This proposal is confined to codification of the existing texts relating to units of measurement, without any change in their substance, so I am voting in favour.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – As I understand, the report contains a legislative resolution on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to units of measurement. The purpose of this proposal is to undertake a codification of Council Directive 80/181/EEC of 20 December 1979 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to units of measurement and on the repeal of Directive 71/354/EEC. It is very good that the new directive will supersede the various acts incorporated in it; this proposal fully preserves the content of the acts being codified and hence does no more than bring them together with only such formal amendments as are required by the codification exercise itself. I voted ‘in favour’.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Based on the opinion of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, this proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to units of measurement concludes that the proposal in question is restricted to the straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance. For this reason, I voted in favour of Parliament’s proposal, which takes over the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission.

Report: Sajjad Karim (A7-0093/2011)

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this document, codifying Council Directive 70/157/EEC of 6 February 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the permissible sound level and the exhaust system of motor vehicles. Codification is an effective means of consolidating the rules governing a certain area in a single legislative act. It provides more clarity, because various provisions regulating the same issue are often spread over different legal texts. As they are amended, it becomes difficult to understand which provision is currently in force. Codification is also a suitable means of developing European Union law which is simpler, clearer and more understandable to citizens.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome the efforts that have been made towards clarifying Union law in order to make it more accessible to all EU citizens. I am therefore voting for this proposal for a directive on the permissible sound level and the exhaust system of motor vehicles, as I believe that the proposed system of codification drafted using a data processing system is more efficient.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This proposal relates to the straightforward codification of the existing laws on the permissible sound level and the exhaust system of motor vehicles. No changes have been made to their substance on which Parliament, in particular, would be required to express an opinion.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report relates to the proposal for a directive of Parliament and of the Council on the permissible sound level and the exhaust system of motor vehicles, in a codified text. Simplifying the lives of Europeans is one of the EU’s concerns. Many legislative changes have been undertaken by the Commission and Parliament in order to achieve this objective. One of the areas that make the lives of the EU public difficult is the constant amendments to legislation. These sometimes arise due to a need to update them, but this hinders and diminishes the quality of life of the individual. In 1987, the Commission recommended that all acts that had up to 10 amendments be codified, so that Community legislation would be easier to understand. To address this issue, since 1994, there has been an interinstitutional agreement between Parliament, the Commission and the Council on an accelerated working method for the adoption of codified acts. I am pleased, therefore, that we can finally adopt a directive codifying Council Directive 70/157/EEC of 6 February 1970, which approximates the laws of the Member States relating to the permissible sound level and the exhaust system of motor vehicles.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – Directive 70/157/EEC is one of the separate directives of the EC type-approval system provided for in Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles, and lays down technical prescriptions concerning the permissible sound level and the exhaust system of motor vehicles. Those technical prescriptions concern the approximation of the laws of the Member States to enable the EC type-approval procedure provided for in Directive 2007/46/EC to be applied in respect of each type of vehicle. Consequently, the provisions laid down in Directive 2007/46/EC relating to systems, components and separate technical units for vehicles apply to this directive.

It is desirable to take into account the technical requirements adopted by the UN Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) in its corresponding regulations annexed to the Agreement of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe concerning the adoption of uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted and/or be used on wheeled vehicles and the conditions for reciprocal recognition of approvals granted on the basis of these prescriptions.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to units of measurement (codified text).

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This proposal is confined to the codification of the existing texts relating to the permissible sound level and the exhaust system of motor vehicles, without any change in their substance, so I am voting in favour.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the permissible sound level and the exhaust system of motor vehicles will help to achieve the main purpose of the proposal – to undertake a codification of Council Directive 70/157/EEC of 6 February 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the permissible sound level and the exhaust system of motor vehicles. I agree with the initiative of Mr Sajjad Karim and I voted ‘in favour’.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Based on the opinion of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, this proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the permissible sound level and the exhaust system of motor vehicles concludes that the proposal in question is restricted to the straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance. For this reason, I voted in favour of Parliament’s proposal, which takes over the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The importance of the transport sector to the European economy is reflected in the employment that it directly provides for more than 10 million people and in the 5% of gross domestic product (GDP) that it represents. Its development is vital for the EU’s economic growth, and in order to bridge physical and psychological gaps. Moreover, as outlined in the White Paper entitled ‘Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area’, it is essential that the goal of a 60% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 be met.

This report is thus intended to simplify and clarify EU law, which is spread over numerous pieces of legislation that have already been amended several times, making them difficult to understand. One of the EU’s objectives is the transparency of the Community acquis as a way of bringing Europe closer to its citizens, so that they can benefit from the specific rights that are given to them.

The codification of the existing legislative texts is the result of approximating the legislation of the Member States to the establishment of technical rules on the permissible sound level and the exhaust system of motor vehicles, which promote environmental sustainability at European level.

  Artur Zasada (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I voted for document 2010/0261 on the codification of the permissible sound level and the exhaust system of motor vehicles. This is another example of the European Commission attempting to simplify and regulate the acquis communautaire so that it becomes more transparent and accessible to EU citizens. The legislative proposal codifies the existing texts and creates a legislative act which is easier to understand and more accessible. In standardising technical norms, the regulation brings together Member States and establishes a procedure for official EU certification, defined in Directive 2007/46/EC with regard to every type of vehicle.

Report: Sajjad Karim (A7-0098/2011)

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this document, codifying Council Directive 87/402/EEC of 25 June 1987 on roll-over protection structures mounted in front of the driver’s seat on narrow-track wheeled agricultural and forestry tractors. Codification is an effective means of consolidating the rules governing a certain area in a single legislative act. It provides more clarity, because various provisions regulating the same issue are often spread over different legal texts. As they are amended, it becomes difficult to understand which provision is currently in force. Codification is also a suitable means of developing European Union law which is simpler, clearer and more understandable to citizens.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome the efforts that have been made towards clarifying Union law in order to make it more accessible to all EU citizens. I am therefore voting for this proposal for a directive on protection structures for narrow-track wheeled agricultural and forestry tractors. I believe that the proposed system of codification drafted using a data processing system is more efficient.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report concerns the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on roll-over protection structures mounted in front of the driver’s seat on narrow-track wheeled agricultural and forestry tractors, as a codified text. Simplifying the lives of EU citizens is one of the EU’s concerns. One of the areas that make the lives of the EU public difficult is the constant amendments to legislation. These sometimes arise due to a need to update them, but this hinders and diminishes the quality of life of the individual. In 1987, the Commission recommended that all acts that had up to 10 amendments be codified, so that Community legislation would be easier to understand. To address this issue, since 1994, there has been an interinstitutional agreement between Parliament, the Commission and the Council on an accelerated working method for the adoption of codified acts. I am pleased, therefore, that we can finally adopt a directive codifying Council Directive 87/402/EEC of 25 June 1987 on roll-over protection structures mounted in front of the driver’s seat on narrow-track wheeled agricultural and forestry tractors.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – Council Directive 87/402/EEC of 25 June 1987 on roll-over protection structures mounted in front of the driver’s seat on narrow-track wheeled agricultural and forestry tractors has been substantially amended several times. In the interests of clarity and rationality, the said directive should be codified. The directive mentioned above is one of the separate directives of the EC type-approval system provided for in Council Directive 74/150/EEC, as replaced by Directive 2003/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on type-approval of agricultural or forestry tractors, their trailers and interchangeable towed machinery, together with their systems, components and separate technical units, and repealing Directive 74/150/EEC, and lays down technical prescriptions concerning the design and construction of agricultural or forestry tractors as regards the roll-over protection structures mounted in front of the driver’s seat.

Those technical prescriptions concern the approximation of the laws of the Member States to enable the EC type-approval procedure provided for in Directive 2003/37/EC to be applied in respect of each type of tractor. Consequently, the provisions laid down in Directive 2003/37/EC relating to agricultural and forestry tractors, their trailers and interchangeable towed machinery, together with their systems, components and separate technical units, apply to this directive.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on roll-over protection structures mounted in front of the driver’s seat on narrow-track wheeled agricultural and forestry tractors (codified text).

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This proposal is confined to the codification of the existing texts relating to narrow-track wheeled agricultural and forestry tractors, without any change in their substance, so I am voting in favour.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on roll-over protection structures mounted in front of the driver’s seat on narrow-track wheeled agricultural and forestry tractors is very timely. The purpose of this proposal is to undertake a codification of Council Directive 87/402/EEC of 25 June 1987 on roll-over protection structures mounted in front of the driver’s seat on narrow-track wheeled agricultural and forestry tractors. I supported this initiative by voting ‘in favour’.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Based on the opinion of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, this proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on roll-over protection structures mounted in front of the driver’s seat on narrow-track wheeled agricultural and forestry tractors concludes that the proposal in question is restricted to the straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance. For this reason, I voted in favour of Parliament’s proposal, which adopts the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) We are in favour of this directive on roll-over protection structures on narrow-track wheeled agricultural and forestry tractors. Grouping together and simplifying all the existing legislation on the subject is an important step and will help protect those who use agricultural machinery on a daily basis.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, which I voted for today, relates to specific Union legislation on the EU approval system for narrow-track wheeled agricultural and forestry tractors, establishing technical rules on roll-over protection structures mounted in front of the driver’s seat on tractors.

The codification of Community legal texts is an essential procedure in order to simplify and facilitate the European public’s understanding of them, thus contributing to the actual implementation of EU directives. In this particular case, the technical rules imposed on the Member States allow the EU approval system, established in Directive 2003/37/EC, to be applied to every model of tractor.

There are two important issues in this report: the simplification and the transparency of EU law. We are living in times when the European public feels excluded from the Union project. I therefore believe that it is essential to find solutions in order to narrow this gap, thereby demonstrating that the main purpose of the EU is the well-being of its people.

Report: Sajjad Karim (A7-0090/2011)

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this document, codifying Council Directive 86/415/EEC of 24 July 1986 on the installation, location, operation and identification of the controls of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors. Codification is an effective means of consolidating the rules governing a certain area in a single legislative act. It provides more clarity, because various provisions regulating the same issue are often spread over different legal texts. As they are amended, it becomes difficult to understand which provision is currently in force. Codification is also a suitable means of developing European Union law which is simpler, clearer and more understandable to citizens.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome the efforts that have been made towards clarifying Union law in order to make it more accessible to all EU citizens. I am therefore voting for this proposal for a directive on the installation, operation and identification of the controls of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors. I believe that the proposed system of codification drafted using a data processing system is more efficient.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report relates to the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the installation, location, operation and identification of the controls of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors, in a codified text. Simplifying the lives of European citizens is one of the EU’s concerns. One of the areas that make the lives of the EU public difficult is the constant amendments to legislation. These sometimes arise due to a need to update them, but this hinders and diminishes the quality of life of the individual. On 1 April 1987, the Commission recommended that all acts that had up to 10 amendments be codified, so that Community legislation would be easier to understand. To address this issue, since 1994, there has been an interinstitutional agreement between Parliament, the Commission and the Council on an accelerated working method for the adoption of codified acts. I am pleased, therefore, that we can finally adopt a directive codifying Council Directive 86/415/EEC of 24 July 1986 on the approximation of the legislation of the Member States on the installation, location, operation and identification of the controls of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – Council Directive 86/415/EEC of 24 July 1986 on the installation, location, operation and identification of the controls of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors has been substantially amended several times. In the interests of clarity and rationality, the said directive should be codified. Directive 86/415/EEC is one of the separate directives of the EC type-approval system provided for in Council Directive 74/150/EEC, as replaced by Directive 2003/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on type-approval of agricultural or forestry tractors, their trailers and interchangeable towed machinery, together with their systems, components and separate technical units, and repealing Directive 74/150/EEC, and lays down technical prescriptions concerning the installation, location, operation and identification of controls.

Those technical prescriptions concern the approximation of the laws of the Member States to enable the EC type-approval procedure provided for in Directive 2003/37/EC to be applied in respect of each type of tractor. Consequently, the provisions laid down in Directive 2003/37/EC relating to agricultural and forestry tractors, their trailers and interchangeable towed machinery, together with their systems, components and separate technical units, apply to this directive.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the installation, location, operation and identification of the controls of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors (codified text).

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This proposal is confined to the codification of the existing texts relating to the controls on wheeled agricultural and forestry tractors, without any change in their substance, so I am voting in favour.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The report considers the European Parliament resolution on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the installation, location, operation and identification of the controls of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors. The purpose of this proposal is to undertake a codification of Council Directive 86/415/EEC of 24 July 1986 on the installation, location, operation and identification of the controls of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors. I voted ‘in favour’.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Based on the opinion of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, this proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the installation, location, operation and identification of the controls of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors concludes that the proposal in question is restricted to the straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance. For this reason, I voted in favour of Parliament’s proposal, which takes over the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I am in favour of the report because it aims to protect operators of agricultural machinery, as the controls must be easily accessible and not represent a hazard. They must be designed and located, or protected, so as to prevent any involuntary movement or other manoeuvre that could endanger the machinery operator.

Report: Sajjad Karim (A7-0092/2011)

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this document, codifying Council Directive 76/432/EEC of 6 April 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the braking devices of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors. Codification is an effective means of consolidating the rules governing a certain area in a single legislative act. It provides more clarity, because various provisions regulating the same issue are often spread over different legal texts. As they are amended, it becomes difficult to understand which provision is currently in force. Codification is also a suitable means of developing European Union law which is simpler, clearer and more understandable to citizens.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome the efforts that have been made towards clarifying Union law in order to make it more accessible to all EU citizens. I am therefore voting for this proposal for a directive on the braking devices of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors. I believe that the proposed system of codification drafted using a data processing system is more efficient.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – Council Directive 76/432/EEC of 6 April 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the braking devices of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors has been substantially amended several times. In the interests of clarity and rationality, the said directive should be codified. Directive 76/432/EEC is one of the separate directives of the EC type-approval system provided for in Council Directive 74/150/EEC, as replaced by Directive 2003/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on type-approval of agricultural or forestry tractors, their trailers and interchangeable towed machinery, together with their systems, components and separate technical units, and repealing Directive 74/150/EEC, and lays down technical prescriptions concerning braking devices.

Those technical prescriptions concern the approximation of the laws of the Member States to enable the EC type-approval procedure provided for in Directive 2003/37/EC to be applied in respect of each type of tractor. Consequently, the provisions laid down in Directive 2003/37/EC relating to agricultural and forestry tractors, their trailers and interchangeable towed machinery, together with their systems, components and separate technical units, apply to this directive.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report endorsing the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on braking devices of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors (codified text).

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This proposal is confined to the codification of the existing texts relating to braking devices on wheeled agricultural and forestry tractors, without any change in their substance, so I am voting in favour.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Based on the opinion of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, this proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on braking devices of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors concludes that the proposal in question is restricted to the straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance. For this reason, I voted in favour of Parliament’s proposal, which takes over the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I am in favour of the report as it aims to regulate and simplify legislation on braking devices of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors. In order to safeguard and protect agricultural or forestry tractor operators, machinery should have EC type-approval.

Report: Sajjad Karim (A7-0096/2011)

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this document, codifying Council Directive 80/720/EEC of 24 June 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the operating space, access to the driving position and the doors and windows of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors. Codification is an effective means of consolidating the rules governing a certain area in a single legislative act. It provides more clarity, because various provisions regulating the same issue are often spread over different legal texts. As they are amended, it becomes difficult to understand which provision is currently in force. Codification is also a suitable means of developing European Union law which is simpler, clearer and more understandable to citizens.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome the efforts that have been made towards clarifying Union law in order to make it more accessible to all EU citizens. I am therefore voting for this proposal for a directive on the operating space, access to the driving position and the doors and windows of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors. I believe that the proposed system of codification drafted using a data processing system is more efficient.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report relates to the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the operating space, access to the driving position and the doors and windows of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors, in a codified text. One of the areas that make the lives of the EU public difficult is the constant amendments to legislation. On 1 April 1987, the Commission recommended that all acts that had up to 10 amendments be codified, so that Community legislation would be easier to understand. This would go on to form part of the conclusions of the Presidency of the Edinburgh European Council, which took place in December 1992. To address this issue, since 1994, there has been an interinstitutional agreement between Parliament, the Commission and the Council on an accelerated working method for the adoption of codified acts. I am pleased, therefore, that we can finally adopt a directive codifying Council Directive 80/720/EEC of 24 June 1980, and which approximates the legislation of the Member States on the operating space, access to the driving position and the doors and windows of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – Council Directive 80/720/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the States relating to the operating space, access to the driving position and the doors and windows of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors has been substantially amended. In the interests of clarity, the directive should be codified. Directive 80/720/EEC is one of the separate directives on the EC type-approval system provided for in Directive 74/150/EEC, as replaced by Directive 2003/37/EC and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on type-approval of agricultural or forestry tractors, their trailers and interchangeable towed machinery, together with their systems, components and separate technical units, and repealing Directive 74/150/EEC, and lays down technical prescriptions concerning the design and construction of agricultural or forestry tractors as regards the operating space, access to the driving position as well as the doors and windows.

Those technical prescriptions concern the approximation of the laws of the States to enable the EC type-approval procedure provided for in Directive 2003/37/EC to be applied in respect of each type of tractor. Consequently, the provisions laid down in Directive 2003/37/EC relating to agricultural or forestry tractors, their trailers and interchangeable towed machinery, together with their systems, components and separate technical units, apply to this directive.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the operating space, access to the driving position and the doors and windows of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors (codified text).

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This proposal is confined to the codification of the existing texts relating to access to the driving position and the doors and windows of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors, without any change in their substance, so I am voting in favour.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Based on the opinion of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, this proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the operating space, access to the driving position and the doors and windows of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors concludes that the proposal in question is restricted to the straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance. For this reason, I voted in favour of Parliament’s proposal, which adopts the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) In the interests of safety, it is essential for the rules on the operating space, driving position and door and window sizes of agricultural tractors to be codified in a manner that is comprehensible and accessible to citizens. I therefore voted in favour.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, like those concerning the rules applied to tractors, is aimed at undertaking the codification of Directive 80/720/EEC of 24 June 1980, which concerns the harmonisation of Member State legislation on the operating space, access to the driving position and the doors and windows of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors. The amendments tabled do not affect the content itself, merely making the changes to the form required by the codification process, presented in the 22 official languages.

Once again, I would like to reiterate the importance of this legal process in order to allow easier comprehension and greater clarity of EU legal texts, whose main beneficiaries are the European public and its bodies. A Europe that is clear and simple for the entire public is the key factor in developing a sense of belonging, which is vital to the European project.

Report: Sajjad Karim (A7-0101/2011)

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this document, codifying Council Directive 86/298/EEC of 26 May 1986 on rear-mounted roll-over protection structures of narrow-track wheeled agricultural and forestry tractors. Codification is an effective means of consolidating the rules governing a certain area in a single legislative act. It provides more clarity, because various provisions regulating the same issue are often spread over different legal texts. As they are amended, it becomes difficult to understand which provision is currently in force. Codification is also a suitable means of developing European Union law which is simpler, clearer and more understandable to citizens.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome the efforts that have been made towards clarifying Union law in order to make it more accessible to all EU citizens. I am therefore voting for this proposal for a directive on roll-over protection structures for narrow-track wheeled agricultural and forestry tractors. I believe that the proposed system of codification drafted using a data processing system is more efficient.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This proposal confines itself to merely codifying the existing texts, without any change in their substance. Therefore, there is no reason for me to vote against.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report relates to the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on rear-mounted roll-over protection structures of narrow-track wheeled agricultural and forestry tractors, in a codified text. Simplifying the lives of Europeans is one of the EU’s concerns. One of the areas that make the lives of the EU public difficult is the constant amendments to legislation. On 1 April 1987, the Commission recommended that all acts that had up to 10 amendments be codified, so that Community legislation would be easier to understand. This would go on to form part of the conclusions of the Presidency of the Edinburgh European Council, which took place in December 1992. To address this issue, since 1994, there has been an interinstitutional agreement between Parliament, the Commission and the Council on an accelerated working method for the adoption of codified acts. I am pleased, therefore, that we can finally adopt a directive codifying Council Directive 86/298/EEC of 26 May 1986, and which approximates the legislation of the Member States on rear-mounted roll-over protection structures of narrow-track wheeled agricultural and forestry tractors.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on rear-mounted roll-over protection structures of narrow-track wheeled agricultural and forestry tractors (codified text).

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This proposal is confined to the codification of the existing texts relating to rear-mounted roll-over protection structures of narrow-track wheeled agricultural and forestry tractors, without any change in their substance, so I am voting in favour.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Based on the opinion of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, this proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on rear-mounted roll-over protection structures of narrow-track wheeled agricultural and forestry tractors concludes that the proposal in question is restricted to the straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance. For this reason, I voted in favour of Parliament’s proposal, which takes over the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report is aimed at clarifying and simplifying Council Directive 86/298/EEC of 1986, along with various amendments already made to it, on the subject of rear-mounted roll-over protection structures on narrow-track wheeled agricultural and forestry tractors.

The clear purpose of this process of codification is to make EU law more accessible and comprehensible for the European public. This directive and the corresponding changes set out technical rules on the design and manufacture of agricultural and forestry tractors, and on their respective approval system, which requires EU-level harmonisation with a view to creating the conditions necessary for road safety.

This European harmonisation also ensures that if the protection of workers is at risk when they are using tractors, the Member States can implement the necessary and required measures, bearing in mind compliance with the Treaty and technical regulations on the protection structures specified in this directive.

Report: Sajjad Karim (A7-0100/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for the amended Commission proposal having regard to the interinstitutional agreement of 20 December 1994 on an accelerated working method for the official codification of legislative texts and, in particular, to point 4 thereof. The Consultative Working Party, consisting of the respective legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, met on 23 November 2010 for the purpose of examining the aforementioned proposal submitted by the Commission. An examination of the proposal for a Council directive codifying Council Directive 92/79/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of taxes on cigarettes, Council Directive 92/80/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of taxes on manufactured tobacco other than cigarettes, and Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco, resulted in the Consultative Working Party’s concluding, without dissent, that the proposal is a straightforward codification of existing texts, without any change in their substance.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this document, codifying Council Directive 92/79/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of taxes on cigarettes, Council Directive 92/80/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of taxes on manufactured tobacco other than cigarettes and Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco. Codification is an effective means of consolidating the rules governing a certain area in a single legislative act. It provides more clarity, because various provisions regulating the same issue are often spread over different legal texts. As they are amended, it becomes difficult to understand which provision is currently in force. Codification is also a suitable means of developing European Union law which is simpler, clearer and more understandable to citizens.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome the efforts that have been made towards clarifying Union law in order to make it more accessible to all EU citizens. I am therefore voting for this proposal for a directive on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco. I believe that the proposed system of codification drafted using a data processing system is more efficient.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) With due regard for the opinions of the legal services of Parliament, the Council and the Commission, which have concluded that the Commission proposal was confined to a straightforward codification of the existing texts, without any change in their substance, I welcome the adoption of this proposal.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report concerns an amended proposal for a Council directive on the structure and specific rates of excise duty applied to the consumption of manufactured tobacco, in a codified text. Simplifying the lives of Europeans is one of the EU’s concerns. One of the areas that make the lives of the EU public difficult is the constant amendments to legislation. On 1 April 1987, the Commission recommended that all acts that had up to 10 amendments be codified, so that Community legislation would be easier to understand. This would go on to form part of the conclusions of the Presidency of the Edinburgh European Council, which took place in December 1992. To address this issue, since 1994, there has been an interinstitutional agreement between Parliament, the Commission and the Council on an accelerated working method for the adoption of the codification, which should be carried out in complete compliance with the EU legislative process. I therefore voted in favour of this proposal, codifying Council Directive 92/79/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the structure and specific rates of excise duty applied to the consumption of manufactured tobacco.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – The Treaty aims to maintain an economic union with healthy competition and properties that are similar to those on the domestic market. As regards manufactured tobacco, the achievement of this aim presupposes that the application in the Member States of taxes affecting the consumption of products in this sector does not distort conditions of competition and does not impede their free movement within the European Union. As far as excise duties are concerned, the harmonisation of structures must, in particular, result in competition in the different categories of manufactured tobacco belonging to the same group not being distorted by the effects of charging the tax and, consequently, in the opening of the Member States’ national markets. The imperative needs of competition imply a system of freely formed prices for all groups of manufactured tobacco and implementation of this policy needs to guarantee a high level of human health.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report on the amended proposal for a Council directive on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco (codified text).

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This proposal is confined to the codification of the existing texts relating to the structure and rates of excise duty applied to the consumption of manufactured tobacco, without any change in their substance, so I am voting in favour.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The report of Sajjad Karim contains the European Parliament legislative resolution on the amended proposal for a Council directive on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco. It is known that the purpose of this proposal is to undertake a codification of Council Directive 92/79/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of taxes on cigarettes, Council Directive 92/80/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of taxes on manufactured tobacco other than cigarettes and Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco. This initiative is very important and timely. I voted ‘in favour’.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Consultative Working Party with authority on this issue has considered the proposal for a Council directive codifying Council Directive 92/79/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of taxes on cigarettes, Council Directive 92/80/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of taxes on manufactured tobacco other than cigarettes, and Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco. The Consultative Working Party concluded that the proposal is a straightforward codification of existing texts, without any change in their substance. I therefore voted in favour.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) This report – like the many others we have examined up to now – promotes the simplification and clear formulation of European legislation, not least because, as in the case of excise, there are many different provisions that have been amended several times. Unifying them and making them comprehensible can only help operators and users alike. We voted in favour.

Report: Sajjad Karim (A7-0102/2011)

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this document, codifying Council Regulation (EC) No 975/98 of 3 May 1998 on denominations and technical specifications of euro coins intended for circulation. Codification is an effective means of consolidating the rules governing a certain area in a single legislative act. It provides more clarity, because various provisions regulating the same issue are often spread over different legal texts. As they are amended, it becomes difficult to understand which provision is currently in force. Codification is also a suitable means of developing European Union law which is simpler, clearer and more understandable to citizens.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome the efforts that have been made towards clarifying Union law in order to make it more accessible to all EU citizens. I am therefore voting for this proposal for a regulation on denominations and technical specifications of euro coins intended for circulation. I believe that the proposed system of codification drafted using a data processing system is more efficient.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) With due regard for the opinions of the legal services of Parliament, the Council and the Commission, which have concluded that the Commission proposal was confined to a straightforward codification of the existing texts, without any change in their substance, I welcome the adoption of this proposal.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report concerns a proposal for a Council regulation on denominations and technical specifications of euro coins intended for circulation, in a codified text. Simplifying the lives of Europeans is one of the EU’s concerns. One of the areas that make the lives of the EU public difficult is the constant amendments to legislation. On 1 April 1987, the Commission recommended that all acts that had up to 10 amendments be codified, so that Community legislation would be easier to understand. This would go on to form part of the conclusions of the Presidency of the Edinburgh European Council, which took place in December 1992. To address this issue, since 1994, there has been an interinstitutional agreement between Parliament, the Commission and the Council on an accelerated working method for the adoption of codification, which should be carried out in complete compliance with the EU legislative process. I am therefore voting in favour of this report, codifying Council Regulation (EC) No 975/98 of 3 May 1998 on denominations and technical specifications of euro coins intended for circulation.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – The European single coinage system should inspire public confidence and include technological innovations to ensure that it is secure, reliable and effective. Public confidence in the system depends on the physical properties of coins, which should be as user-friendly as possible. After consultations with consumer associations, European Blind Union representatives and the vending machines industry, research was carried out to take into account the specific requirements of important categories of coin users. In order to ensure a smooth changeover to the euro and to facilitate acceptance of the coinage systems by users, easy distinction between coins through visual and tactile characteristics needed to be guaranteed.

The coins need to be covered with some special security features to limit the scope for fraud. The fact that they have one European and one national side is an appropriate expression of the idea of European Monetary Union between the Member States.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report on the proposal for a Council regulation on denominations and technical specifications of euro coins intended for circulation (codified text).

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This proposal is confined to the codification of the existing texts relating to denominations and technical specifications of euro coins intended for circulation, without any change in their substance, so I am voting in favour.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The report of Sajjad Karim contains a legislative resolution of the European Parliament on the proposal for a Council regulation on denominations and technical specifications of euro coins intended for circulation. Taking into account the likelihood of the accession of new states to the euro area, this initiative provides a new opportunity to prevent the activity of money counterfeiters. I voted ‘in favour’.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Based on the opinion of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, this report on the proposal for a Council regulation on denominations and technical specifications of euro coins intended for circulation concludes that the proposal in question is restricted to the straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance. For this reason, I voted in favour of Parliament’s proposal, which adopts the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission.

Reports: Sajjad Karim (A7-0089/2011), (A7-0090/2011), (A7-0092/2011), (A7-0093/2011), (A7-0095/2011), (A7-0096/2011), (A7-0098/2011), (A7-0101/2011), (A7-0102/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) Since, according to the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance, I am adopting its position at first reading, taking over the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission.

Reports: Sajjad Karim (A7-0089/2011), (A7-0090/2011), (A7-0092/2011), (A7-0093/2011), (A7-0095/2011), (A7-0096/2011), (A7-0098/2011), (A7-0100/2011), (A7-0101/2011), (A7-0102/2011)

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. – (ES) I support this report because this proposal involves no more than a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – With this ‘whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance, the EP adopts its position at first reading, taking over the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission’.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) I voted in favour of Mr Karim’s reports. The 10 reports from the Committee on Legal Affairs focus solely on the codification of various acts, as established by common accord by the Legal Service. As a result, there will be no changes to the content.

Reports: Sajjad Karim (A7-0090/2011), (A7-0092/2011), (A7-0093/2011), (A7-0095/2011), (A7-0096/2011), (A7-0098/2011), (A7-0101/2011), (A7-0102/2011)

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The resolution adopted today fully supports the Commission’s position, which is in line with the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. According to the Consultative Working Party, the proposal in question is a straightforward codification of existing texts, without any change in their substance.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given that the purpose of this directive is the codification of previously disparate pieces of legislation, with benefits in terms of the accessibility and comprehensibility of the legislation, without any changes in their substance, I voted in favour of this report.

Recommendation for second reading: Toine Manders (A7-0086/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I support this proposal for the committee to continue its work on this important document on the basis of the amendments adopted by Parliament at first reading, and I hope that the Council will also take a favourable approach towards promoting access to information about textile products.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of this important resolution on textile fibre names and related labelling and marking of fibre composition of textile products. With the adoption of this resolution, Europe has achieved a unanimous commitment to protect consumers through the indication of the country of origin and the adoption of a new mechanism for traceability of textile products. We, Members of the European Parliament, today adopted a joint declaration, which aims to protect European consumers from false or misleading claims on the origin of the products. I strongly believe that the resolution and declaration will give a major impetus towards the creation of a mechanism of providing accurate information to consumers, particularly with regard to the exact origin of the products purchased. EU citizens must have the right to know the place of origin and quality level of products and textiles that they purchase.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) I voted in favour of this report because it is important that consumers be fully informed when buying textiles. Thanks to the report, clear labelling of textiles that have any animal content will be mandatory in future. This will help people with allergies as well. New fibres and innovative products could be brought to market without delay because of the changes proposed in the report, and consumers will have better choice as a result. I particularly welcome what the report says about doing two studies: on the possibility of a link between allergies and the chemicals used in textiles, and on the feasibility of implementing a scheme of labelling by place of origin to ensure full traceability of textile products. I am in agreement with the rapporteur in that a balance should be struck between implementing a high level of protection for consumers and the need to simplify the regulatory framework for textile products.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report. It aims to simplify and improve the existing regulatory framework for the labelling of textile products, encourage innovation in the clothing and textile sector, and the development and uptake of new fibres. I agree that the right balance should be struck between a high level of consumer protection and the simplification of the regulatory framework for textile products. Extending compulsory labelling should not impose a disproportionate burden on enterprises without bringing real added-value for consumers, who may even be confused by an excess of information on the label of textile products. I believe that it would be useful for the Commission to submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council regarding possible new labelling requirements to be introduced at Union level. This should examine, in particular, consumer views with regard to the amount of information that should be supplied on the label of textile products, and investigate which means other than labelling may be used to provide additional information to consumers.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The proposal for a regulation adopted by the Commission on 30 January 2010 is aimed at simplifying the existing regulatory framework, bringing the three existing directives on naming and labelling textile products together in a single regulation.

At first reading, on 18 May 2010, Parliament approved 63 amendments with a large majority. Most of these were technical amendments aimed at aligning the text with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It also adopted a number of substantive amendments, including rules on origin marking, indication of animal-derived materials, multi-fibre textile products, and so on. In its assessment, the Council rejected all substantive amendments proposed by Parliament.

I voted for this report, the recommendation for second reading, because it restores the vast majority of Parliament’s amendments at first reading, including those relating to origin marking, indication of animal-derived materials and multi-fibre textile products. These changes will contribute to the promotion and innovation of European industry, and will increase the level of information provided to consumers.

Equally important will be the study that the Commission will have to submit by September 2013 to determine whether there is a causal link between allergic reactions and the chemicals or mixtures used in textile products.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In January 2009, the Commission adopted the proposal for a new regulation on textile names and related labelling of textile products. The aim of the proposal is to simplify and improve the existing regulatory framework for the labelling of textile products with a view to encouraging the development and uptake of new fibres. By transforming the three existing directives into a single regulation, the proposal facilitates the process to adapt legislation to technical progress whilst allowing fibre users to benefit more readily from innovative products on the market.

I welcome this proposal, and I consider it particularly significant that the new regulation contains a specific reference to ‘Made in’ labelling. It is crucial, in fact, to continue along this path in order to furnish the European Union with the tools to compete with and face its main trade partners, such as the United States, Canada, China and Japan, on the globalised market.

Furthermore I wish to emphasise here what is, in my view, the most important aspect of the agreement reached with the Council, namely, the commitment by the European Commission to present, by 30 September 2013, after it has carried out a suitable impact assessment, a report accompanied by legislative proposals regarding indication of origin labelling, traceability and the use of new technologies.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because it aims to simplify and improve the existing regulatory framework for the labelling of textile products and thus encourage the development and uptake of new fibres and better consumer protection. As the final text is still being negotiated with the Council, the European Parliament’s report proposes to identify issues such as the origin marking of textile products imported to the EU, according to which it would be compulsory for the label to indicate not only the manufacturer of the end product, but the country of origin of the imported textile products used to manufacture it, as is already done in Canada, the US, China and Japan. In general, the report proposes that labels should show as much information as possible about the composition of the product and that we should call on the Commission to investigate whether imported products are damaging to human health due to their composition, in order to improve consumer protection. However, at the same time, the report proposes rejecting any unnecessary administrative burden for goods manufacturers. For example, it proposes replacing markings on labels with language-independent symbols to avoid translation of fibre names into several EU languages. It is also proposed that self-employed tailors should be exempt from this future regulation.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this resolution, which has the merit of simplifying the existing system concerning the labelling of textile products, as well as encouraging the development and uptake of new fibres and shortening the time between the submission of an application and the adoption of a new fibre name. These new rules would allow consumers to benefit more readily from innovative products. Furthermore, the document we approved today also encourages the introduction of origin marking, which would facilitate consumer choice and contribute to reducing fraudulent or misleading claims of origin. In this regard, I support the amendment laying down the requirement for manufacturers to indicate the presence of non-textile parts of animal origin on the labelling. This will protect consumers from the risk of inadvertently purchasing real fur products, for example, and will provide greater protection for those suffering from allergies.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe in the positive impact of simplifying and improving the existing regulatory framework for the labelling of textile products, particularly encouraging the development and uptake of new fibres. In view of this, I am voting for the adoption of the regulation tabled by Parliament and the Commission. However, I believe that the amendments tabled by the rapporteur are important.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In order to prevent consumers from inadvertently purchasing products made from animal-derived materials (fur and leather), I supported this report, which provides for mandatory labelling containing the phrase ‘non-textile parts of animal origin’. The label will also guard against certain problems that might affect some consumers who suffer from allergies.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This regulation is aimed at establishing rules on the use of textile fibre names and related labelling of textile products, as well as rules on the quantitative analysis of binary and ternary textile fibres mixtures. This entails transforming Directive 96/74/EC into a regulation and repealing Directives 96/73/EC and 73/44/EEC.

The aim is to make the process of adding new fibres to the harmonised list of textile fibre names more transparent, and to adapt the legislation to technological developments in the textile industry. The amendments reintroduced by the rapporteur cover the issues of identifying the origin of the textile, non-textile parts of animal origin, a review clause, a request for a study on hazardous substances, language-independent symbols or codes for fibres, requirements for the technical file to be attached to the application for the authorisation of a new textile fibre name, multi-fibre textile products, self-employed tailors, laboratories testing textile mixtures, and the mandatory indication of the fibre composition for felts and felt hats.

I voted in favour.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This recommendation for second reading concerns the Council position on the adoption of a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on textile fibre names and related labelling and marking of fibre composition of textile products. The textile sector is very complex and represents a significant share of economic activity in the Member States. The rapporteur has managed to reach an agreement on issues as controversial as origin marking, non-textile parts of animal origin, hazardous substances and others. Furthermore, he has managed to include a review clause which allows obstacles to the proper functioning of the Internal Market to be eliminated. Despite some initial difficulties, it was possible for the three European institutions to come to an understanding, which amounts to a very satisfactory result. The Council can therefore quickly adopt this legislation with a view to its entry into force in January 2012, which would greatly benefit consumers. I am therefore pleased with the consensus that has been reached, and I am voting in favour of this regulation repealing Council Directive 73/44/EEC, Parliament Directive 96/73/EC and Directive 2008/121/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The aim of this proposal for a regulation is to simplify and improve the existing regulatory framework for the labelling of textile products, with a view to protecting and encouraging the development and uptake of new fibres. The proposal facilitates the process of adapting legislation to technical progress by transforming the three existing directives into a single regulation, thereby avoiding the transposition of merely technical updates and shortening the time between the submission of an application and the adoption of a new fibre name. The long-standing wishes of producers are focused on naming and labelling. The simplification of the existing regulatory framework has the potential to encourage innovation in the textile and clothing sector, whilst allowing consumers to benefit more quickly from innovative products.

At first reading, in 2010, Parliament approved amendments to rules on origin marking, indication of animal-derived materials, use of language-independent symbols and a review clause, but the Council did not accept everything. It is vital that it now accept the different proposals, especially those on origin marking.

For these reasons, we voted for most of the positions adopted here.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The initial aim of this proposal was to simplify and improve the existing regulatory framework for the labelling of textile products.

During its negotiations with the EU Council of Ministers, Parliament included new provisions in the regulation, such as those requiring the indication of animal-derived materials in textile products and conducting a study to determine whether there is a causal link between allergic reactions and the chemicals used in textile products.

The presence of animal-derived materials should be clearly indicated, so as to prevent consumers or individuals who suffer allergies from running the risk of inadvertently purchasing real fur products when they would prefer not to do so.

The Commission will have to prepare a study by 30 September 2013 to determine whether there is a causal link between allergic reactions, and the chemicals or mixtures used in textile products. On the basis of this study, the Commission will table legislative proposals, where appropriate.

This regulation should soon be adopted by the EU Council of Ministers and enter into force on the 20th day following its publication. There will be a transitional period of two and a half years for the rules on labelling requirements, and for those on the indication of ‘non-textile parts of animal origin’.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – The current absence of harmonised rules on origin marking puts the EU at a disadvantage and also deprives European producers of origin-sensitive consumer goods of the opportunity to reap the benefits associated with producing within the Union, while consumers miss the opportunity to have access to information on the origin of products. Origin marking would facilitate consumer choice and contribute to reducing fraudulent, inaccurate or misleading claims of origin. This amendment introduces a requirement to indicate the presence of non-textile parts of animal origin in textile products. It should be highlighted that fur is often used as trimming in relatively inexpensive garments, which are often imported from Asia.

In order to eliminate potential obstacles to the proper functioning of the internal market caused by diverging provisions or practices by Member States, and in order to keep pace with the development of electronic commerce and future challenges in the market for textile products, it is necessary to examine the harmonisation and standardisation of other aspects of textile labelling with a view to facilitating the free movement of textile products in the internal market and achieving a uniform and high level of consumer protection throughout the EU.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The process within the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection was a turning point for Mr Manders’s proposal, as that was where it was decided that it should be made compulsory to include the full composition of a product rather than just some of its parts. Subsequently, however, our group mentioned the need to safeguard the textile industry and the ‘Made in’ label, but no response to this position was given in the negotiations with the Council. Nevertheless, there are elements which are worthy of support, such as streamlining the registration of materials. As I consider safeguarding the ‘Made in’ label to be a priority issue, I cannot vote in favour, and have therefore chosen to abstain.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the Manders report on regulations covering the labelling of textile products. I am very happy that Parliament, on the occasion of this vote at second reading, has reintroduced a series of amendments, despite opposition from the Council. It is important for consumers to be able to make their purchases in full knowledge of the facts, and for them not to purchase leather or fur inadvertently as is the case, in particular, when fur is used as trimming on cheap clothing. Furthermore, the text highlights the need for traceability of textile products and a study will be commissioned by the Commission on the potential health hazards of products such as synthetic fibres or dyes.

  Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The resolution on textile fibre names and related labelling and marking of textile products which has been adopted by the European Parliament is particularly important for the textile sector in the European Union. It will enable the more rapid introduction to the market of new fibres which will help innovative textile firms in particular in the practical application of their research and development. The resolution was the subject of a long debate between the European Parliament and the Council. Parliament called for new elements to extend the regulation, in particular: indication of the country of origin, indication of fibres of animal origin, and more rigorous requirements concerning the use of harmful substances in the production of textiles. Parliament managed to convince the Council that it was essential to clearly label fibres of animal origin.

This provision is very useful, in particular, for those consumers who have an allergy to leather goods, and to consumers who, for ideological reasons, do not want to buy textiles containing elements of animal origin. I hope that in the near future, we will also be successful in achieving an understanding on indicating the origin of goods. This issue has remained unresolved for too long. I think that European firms and consumers will benefit from clearly formulated principles.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I endorsed this document because it proposes laying down rules on the presence of non-textile parts of animal origin in certain products, as well as indicating products’ origins precisely. Above all, this regulation should provide for requirements to indicate non-textile parts of animal origin when labelling or marking textile products, so that consumers can make a choice on the basis of the information in their possession. Labelling or marking should not be misleading and should be provided in such a way that the consumer can easily understand to which part of the product the particulars refer.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE), in writing. – (FI) I am pleased that, at last, we in Parliament have reached a decision on an act relating to textile labelling involving some very substantial proposals for improvements, which the Council is also prepared to endorse and implement. Working on the regulation in committee sometimes involved some very ambitious notions, which, luckily, we abandoned. It is an obvious improvement that products must henceforth be clearly marked if they contain matter of animal origin, for reasons of public health, since fur, for example, is a health risk for many people who suffer from allergies. Although some of the manufacturers of products opposed this initiative, referring to existing laws on the requirements for labelling parts of animal origin, an improvement has now been made, and it is a very real indication of the EU’s consumer oriented thinking. However, the compulsory marking of the origin of products from third countries would have been ineffective and expensive in itself to accomplish. It is difficult to make an impromptu estimate of the added value to the consumer that such a requirement might bring, especially as, in the global world, products are rarely manufactured or originate in just one country.

For that reason, it is important that the Commission should now investigate the matter and that the practical aspects of going ahead should be weighed carefully. In the same connection, it is natural that the reform and harmonisation of product labelling should be assessed overall, as has now been agreed.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I welcome the Commission’s proposal, as it simplifies the existing regulatory framework and has the potential to encourage innovation in the textile and clothing sector, whilst allowing fibre users and consumers to benefit more readily from innovative products.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The new rules on labelling of textile products are crucial for preventing the problems that arise if consumers are poorly informed. The presence of animal-derived materials must be clearly indicated, so as to prevent consumers or individuals who suffer allergies from running the risk of inadvertently purchasing real fur products when they would prefer not to do so. The initial aim of this proposal is to simplify and improve the existing regulatory framework for the labelling of textile products. During the negotiations with the EU Council of Ministers, the inclusion of new provisions in the regulation was very important, such as those requiring the indication of animal-derived materials in textile products and conducting a study to determine whether there is a causal link between allergic reactions and chemicals or mixtures used in textile products.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The report of Toine Manders is aimed at helping the buyers of textile products. New rules on textile labelling are proposed which will help customers avoid the risk of buying textile products which contain natural fur or leather. I voted ‘in favour’.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Consumers’ awareness of the goods they buy is constantly growing. For the majority of people, the origin of the products plays a very important role in their decisions about what they want to spend their money on. In the textile sector, there is a need for a great deal more information in this area so that consumers know where the jumpers, jackets and trousers, etc. that they are buying come from and which materials they are made of. As things currently stand, the labelling requirements are highly inadequate. We need clearer labels to indicate where animal products are used to make a garment, in particular, in the case of fur and fur trim. I voted in favour of the report because it deals with providing detailed information that is urgently needed by citizens, who have the right to know where their textiles come from and what materials they are made of.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The text being examined today is, unfortunately, very different from the one approved by this House at first reading. The substantive difference lies in the fact that this report makes no reference to the origin marking to be included on textile product labels. The Council has strongly opposed the idea, and it is difficult to understand why. Is it not right for consumers to know where the clothes they wear come from? The presence of origin marking would surely have provided a guarantee of product quality and protection.

I am really puzzled by the fact that only two Member States, Italy and Lithuania, insisted in the Council on including origin marking, and I wonder what interest the other European countries have in not protecting their own businesses in this way, since they are thus left more exposed to problems of unfair competition and counterfeiting. Parliament has unfortunately bowed to the Council’s short-sighted decision not to endorse the much-needed origin marking, and I therefore feel I must vote against today’s report.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report is a recommendation for second reading on the Council position at first reading on the adoption of a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on textile fibre names and related labelling and marking of fibre composition of textile products. The Council rejected all substantive amendments proposed by Parliament at first reading, as it believes that these would not be compatible with the intended simplification. The main amendments proposed by Parliament and reintroduced in the report, which I voted for, relate to issues that I believe to be of the utmost importance for the European market. Of these, I would like to highlight origin marking and the inclusion of a requirement to indicate the country of origin of textile products imported from third countries. The current absence of harmonised rules on origin marking puts the EU at a disadvantage as regards its main trade partners, such as Canada, China, Japan and the US, which require origin marking for imported goods. Origin marking would facilitate consumer choice and contribute to reducing fraudulent, inaccurate or misleading claims of origin.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) At first reading, Parliament approved 63 amendments to the Commission proposal on a regulation on textile fibre names and related labelling of textile products. Some of these amendments were of a technical nature while others were related to the substance, including rules on origin marking, indication of animal-derived materials, the use of language-independent symbols and a review clause. The technical amendments were largely accepted by the Council, but it rejected all substantive amendments proposed by Parliament. Most of these amendments have now been restored, as it is considered important that the Council recognise their expediency and give them due consideration.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In its position at first reading, adopted on 18 May 2010, the European Parliament approved, by a very large majority, 63 amendments. The vast majority were technical amendments aimed at aligning the text with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and with the new legislative framework for the marketing of goods. Parliament also adopted a number of substantive amendments, including rules on origin marking, the indication of animal-derived materials, the use of language-independent symbols and a review clause.

  Olga Sehnalová (S&D), in writing. – (CS) I supported the report because it is a step towards better consumer protection and stresses the quality of textiles products. It is nonetheless a pity that we have failed to push through the demands for country of origin labelling, as this is one item of information which adds to the possibilities for consumer choice and can help to reduce the occurrence of various inaccurate and misleading statements regarding origin. The absence of harmonised rules in this area also deprives European producers of advantages relating to production in the EU. I believe the Commission will continue its efforts to find an acceptable solution in this matter.

  Laurence J.A.J. Stassen (NI), in writing. – (NL) The Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV) is voting against this recommendation of the European Parliament. The original Commission proposal envisaged a simplification of formalities in order to make it easier to introduce new textile fibres. The European Parliament has added a requirement that, in future, businesses will be obliged to state where a textile product comes from via what is known as country of origin labelling. We do not support Parliament’s position in this regard.

Consumers benefit where labels contain information about materials that pose a health hazard or that cause allergic reactions. Stating the country of origin on the label is pointless European nitpicking. Obviously, the origin of a product tells us nothing about the production process or the quality of the product, nor does it increase consumer protection. Even if the so-called country of origin is specified, other parts of the production process can take place elsewhere.

All the ‘made in x’ label does is create a false sense of clarity for the consumer, while in reality bringing about extra costs and bureaucracy. Businesses have to face additional administrative hassle, the checking of labels requires additional customs formalities and, ultimately, it becomes more expensive to import products. The PVV will thus also be voting against this recommendation.

  Catherine Stihler (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of labelling country of origin and fur and welcome this piece of legislation.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the agreement that has been concluded between the European Parliament and the Council on the extremely complex issue of textile names and related labelling of textile products. Consumers must be provided with accurate information on the presence of non-textile animal-derived products, such as fur, so that they can make informed choices.

I would also insist on the need for the Commission to examine, with the greatest attention, the issue of social labelling. I believe that consumers should be informed about the social conditions under which a textile product has been manufactured in order to give them greater responsibility for the working conditions of workers in the textile industry.

We must obviously not overload the labels with information, but social labelling could enable working conditions in the European Union and worldwide to undergo lasting change thanks to a citizen-based approach by consumers when they make purchases.

  Marianne Thyssen (PPE), in writing. – (NL) The agreement that was approved today after two years of intensive negotiations will simplify the placing on the market of new fibres and improve consumer protection on the internal market thanks to clear, visible and legible textile labels. In addition, the European Parliament was able to put its clear stamp on this regulation. Textile products which comprise non-textile parts of animal origin, such as fur or leather, should, in future, state this clearly on the label. It also proved possible to honour Parliament’s explicit requests for further investigation into the use of language-independent symbols on clothing labels and into possible links between allergic reactions and chemical substances used in textiles.

The commitment that Parliament sought and obtained from the Commission that it would, where necessary, and after having a thorough study carried out, bring forward legislative proposals in 2013 in relation to the traceability of textile products, is an important step forwards. For these reasons, I voted in favour of the agreement that Parliament was able to reach with the Council at second reading.

  Niki Tzavela (EFD), in writing. – (EL) As regards the Manders recommendation on textile names and related labelling of textile products, I voted in favour of the compromise proposal by the political groups because I am in favour of a compulsory system of labelling of the country of origin of third-country textile products. I also consider that this may promote fair competition in the EU and on the international stage.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) The Lithuanian textile and clothing sector is one of the most specialised in Europe, with 1 000 enterprises involved in this sector employing 40 000 people. For me, and the majority of Lithuanians, it is therefore important for the new rules on the labelling of textile products mentioned in this report to help protect the reputation of our textile sector. Hopefully, the new legislation will simplify the current labelling rules. Furthermore, we need reliable chemical tests to confirm that textiles created meet hygiene and environmental criteria. European consumers have the right to know what they are buying. The use of any products of animal origin must be clearly shown on the label of the textile product. The new textile labelling rules should help stop consumers from unwittingly buying textile products made from real fur or leather. The fate of the Lithuanian textile and clothing sector is closely linked to the EU, as 84% of Lithuanian textiles are exported to the EU. Not many people are aware that Lithuanian textile manufacturers sew uniforms for various military and police forces throughout Europe, including NATO. Therefore, both Lithuania and Europe should be interested in increasing efforts to improve quality control and transparency.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – Following today’s vote on labelling, consumers will no longer face the risk of mistakenly buying textiles containing real leather or fur. I believe that consumers have the right to know what the products they buy are made from, and this report ensures that any animal-derived materials will be indicated on textile product labels. This is good news not only for people who do not want to buy products that contain real fur or leather, but also for those who suffer from allergies. I am disappointed that this report did not make origin labelling compulsory for textile products, but I am encouraged that the Commission will come forward with an assessment report to address such issues in the future.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) I have voted in favour of the report on naming and labelling textile products. The proposed revision of EU legislation primarily concerns technical issues which do not have a major political impact. However, the resulting simplification of the processes will help to promote innovation within the industry. The compromise reached by several groups in the European Parliament also takes into consideration existing problems involving counterfeit products in the European textile sector and calls for transparent and coherent trade regulations to ensure protection for consumers.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Manders. The text on which we have voted not only proposes to combine the three directives on the labelling of textile composition into a single European regulation applicable to all the Member States, but it is also designed to simplify the procedure for recognising new fibres.

Mr Manders’s report would probably have been more complete if it had included a rule on compulsory origin labelling for products originating in non-EU countries but, given the difficulties that occur when certain subjects are tackled, I believe that in the end, a good compromise was reached in the final text that was put to the vote.

Report: Vital Moreira (A7-0243/2010)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this proposal as it amends certain aspects of Regulation (EC) No 1215/2009, so as to extend its validity to 31 December 2015 and make certain adjustments resulting from the entry into force of bilateral agreements with Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia. Given that the interim agreements/stabilisation and association agreements (SAAs) grant trade concessions to Bosnia and Herzegovina on the products identified in the autonomous trade preferences, these concessions have to be withdrawn from Council Regulation (EC) No 1215/2009. These concern the preferential tariff quotas for baby beef, sugar and sugar products, certain wines, as well as for certain fishery products. The termination of the trade preferences would take from the beneficiaries an objective economic advantage in their trade with the EU. This could have extremely negative consequences on the overall economic performance of the whole Western Balkans region, with subsequent negative repercussions on their domestic reform and transition processes. Moreover, their economic recovery could be seriously jeopardised.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report. The European Union has granted the countries of the Western Balkans exceptional unlimited duty-free access to the EU market for nearly all products. The key aim of these measures is to revitalise the Western Balkan economies through privileged access to the EU market. In turn, economic development is to foster political stability in the entire region. These trade preferences were granted for a period ending on 31 December 2010. I agree that the validity of the exemption provisions should be extended to 31 December 2015. The termination of the trade preferences would take from the beneficiaries an objective economic advantage in their trade with the EU. This could have negative consequences on the overall economic performance of the Western Balkans, with subsequent negative repercussions on their domestic reform and transition processes.

  Slavi Binev (NI), in writing. – (BG) I support the introduction of exceptional trade measures for countries and territories benefiting from the Stabilisation and Association process. Everyone is aware that trade is a driver of economic development and these trade measures will revitalise the economies of the Western Balkans. In addition, granting the Western Balkan countries privileged access to the European Union market will also enable us to encourage more rapid integration of their economies with that of the European Union.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) We are voting today on the extension of exceptional trade preferences such as tariff exemptions and trade preferences for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, and Kosovo until 2015. Under the terms of Council Regulation (EC) No 1215/2009, the preferential tariff quotas apply to baby beef, sugar and sugar products, certain wines, as well as certain fishery products. This extension is aimed at addressing the widespread economic crisis, given that terminating trade preferences would compromise these countries’ economic recovery, and would have consequences for the whole stabilisation and transition process of the Western Balkans.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report focuses on a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1215/2009, which introduces exceptional trade measures for countries and territories participating in or linked to the EU’s stabilisation and association process. The countries of the Western Balkans are in this situation, and products originating from them enjoy duty-free status and exceptional unlimited access to the EU market. These measures are aimed at mitigating the crisis and revitalising the economy of these countries. These exceptional measures came to an end on 31 December 2010 and if they are not extended, there will be severe consequences for wealth creation, jeopardising economic recovery and the internal reform and transition processes. I therefore agree with the amendments proposed by the rapporteur, as well as the extension of these measures until 31 December 2015, subject to the necessary adjustments resulting from the new bilateral agreements with Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report is aimed at extending exceptional, unlimited, duty-free access to the EU market for nearly all products originating in the countries and territories benefiting from the stabilisation and association process. The pretext of this is to revitalise the Western Balkan economies through privileged access to the EU market, in the belief that any economic growth resulting from this will foster political stability throughout the region.

These measures cannot, however, be considered in isolation from the situation of severe economic and social crisis that exists today in the Balkans, particularly in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Kosovo. The current crisis in this region is obviously part of the wider crisis of capitalism and is being aggravated by its impact: however, it is deeply rooted in a long history of interference, aggression and military occupation, promoted by the EU and its main powers, and the US, seeking to impose their economic and political dominance on the region. The secession of Kosovo and the role of the EU in this are indicative of that, and the internal process dubbed ‘reform and transition’ represents the current stage of this process of the imposition of imperial rule over the region.

The proposals made here today should be viewed, analysed and understood in this light.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report is aimed at extending exceptional, unlimited, duty-free access to the EU market for nearly all products originating in the countries and territories benefiting from the so-called stabilisation and association process. The pretext of this is to revitalise the Western Balkan economies through privileged access to the EU market, in the belief that any economic growth resulting from this will foster political stability throughout the region.

These measures cannot, however, be considered in isolation from the situation of severe economic and social crisis that exists today in the Balkans, particularly in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Kosovo.

The current crisis in this region is part of the wider crisis of capitalism and is being aggravated by its impact: however, it is deeply rooted in a long history of interference, aggression and military occupation, promoted by the EU and its main powers, and the US, seeking to impose their economic and political dominance. The secession of Kosovo and the role of the EU in this are indicative of that, and the internal process dubbed ‘reform and transition’ represents the current stage of this process of the imposition of imperial rule over the region.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – In Council Regulation (EC) 2007/2000, the European Union granted exceptional unlimited duty-free access to EU markets for almost all products originating in the countries and territories benefiting from the stabilisation and association process. The main objective of these measures is to revitalise the economies of the Western Balkans through privileged access to the EU market. In addition, economic development has promoted political stability throughout the region. These trade preferences were granted for the period that ended on 31 December 2010 and which currently apply to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Kosovo.

The abolition of trade preferences could, however, have very negative consequences on the overall economic performance of the Western Balkans and, consequently, a negative effect on their domestic reforms and the transformation process. Moreover, it could seriously jeopardise the economic recovery. In order not to disrupt trade, it is therefore desirable to extend the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1215/2009 to 31 December 2015.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The purpose of these measures is to help countries in the process of stabilisation, such as the countries of the Western Balkans, through preferential trade measures with the EU compared to third countries. In view of the proper decision to extend the regulation until 2015, giving particular attention to Bosnia and Herzegovina and to Serbia, I confirm that I voted in favour.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this important document because, through Regulation (EC) No 2007/2000, the European Union has granted exceptional unlimited duty-free access to the EU market for nearly all products originating in the countries and territories benefiting from the Stabilisation and Association process. The key aim of these measures is to revitalise the Western Balkan economies through privileged access to the EU market. In turn, economic development is to foster political stability in the entire region. The trade preferences were granted for a period ending on 31 December 2010 and currently apply to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Kosovo, as defined by UNSCR 1244/99 for all the products under the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1215/2009. Products originating in Albania, the Republic of Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or Montenegro continue to benefit from the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1215/2009 when so indicated or from any measures provided in the same regulation which are more favourable than the trade concessions provided for in the framework of bilateral agreements between the European Union and these countries. This proposal amends certain elements of Regulation (EC) No 1215/2009 in order to permit the extension of its validity to 31 December 2015 and make certain adjustments consequent to the entry into force of bilateral agreements with Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I strongly support the amendment of certain elements of Regulation (EC) No 1215/2009 in order to permit the extension of its validity to 31 December 2015 and make certain adjustments consequent to the entry into force of bilateral agreements with Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report endorses the pressures exercised by the European Union on the Balkan States to serve the interests of the former. It even charges Parliament to take, in cooperation with the Council, ‘appropriate measures’ if the governments of these States do not show sufficient desire to liberalise their economies. This is overweening imperialism! I shall vote against.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Under Regulation (EC) No 2007/2000, the EU granted exceptional, unlimited, duty-free access to the EU market for nearly all products originating in the countries and territories benefiting from the Stabilisation and Association process. The key aim of this measure is to revitalise the Western Balkan economies through privileged access to the EU market. The economic development that comes about as a result will foster political stability throughout the region. The benefits from this regulation came to an end on 31 December 2010. Given the economic and financial crisis that we are currently experiencing, it is necessary to extend these conditions to 31 December 2015 so that the cessation of these special conditions does not lead to stagnation in the economies of these regions, as good economic conditions are needed to maintain stability and peace in this troubled Balkan region.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – When the European Union adopted Regulation No 2007/2000, it granted exceptional unlimited duty-free access to the EU market for nearly all products originating in the countries and territories benefiting from the Stabilisation and Association process. The key aim of these measures is to revitalise the Western Balkan economies through privileged access to the EU market. In turn, economic development is to foster political stability in the entire region. The validity of the trade preferences should not be terminated because this could have negative consequences on the overall economic performances of the Western Balkans, with consequent negative repercussions on their domestic reform and transition processes. Moreover, their economic recovery could be seriously jeopardised. Therefore, I agree with the rapporteur who strongly supports the amendment of certain elements of Regulation (EC) No 1215/2009 in order to permit the extension of its validity to 31 December 2015 and I voted ‘in favour’.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) In order to stimulate the economies of the countries in the Western Balkans, they have been given privileged access to the European market. This applies to almost all goods produced in countries participating in or linked to the EU’s Stabilisation and Association process. The trade preferences were granted for a period ending on 31 December 2010 and cover the following countries: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Kosovo.

The preferences remain in place for goods from Albania, Croatia, Macedonia and Montenegro. If these trade preferences were to come to an end now, this would jeopardise further economic growth in these countries. I have not voted in favour of the report because, as has already been explained, some points in the new regulation are not clearly worded.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report aims to extend the validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 1215/2009, which adopts exceptional trade measures for countries and territories participating in or linked to the EU’s Stabilisation and Association Process. The EU has granted exceptional, unlimited, duty-free access to the EU market for nearly all products originating in the countries and territories benefiting from the Stabilisation and Association process. The key aim of this measure is to revitalise the Western Balkan economies through privileged access to the EU market. I argue that there should have been provision for a study of the impact on the Internal Market with such exceptional access. These trade preferences were granted for a period ending on 31 December 2010. The termination of the trade preferences would withdraw from the beneficiaries any objective economic advantage in their trade with the EU. This could have serious consequences on the overall economic performance of the Western Balkans, with subsequent negative repercussions on their domestic reform and transition processes, and it could jeopardise their economic recovery. I voted in favour of this proposal, which is aimed at extending the validity of these measures until 31 December 2015.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Under Regulation (EC) No 2007/2000, the EU granted exceptional, unlimited, duty-free access to the EU market for nearly all products originating in the countries and territories benefiting from the Stabilisation and Association process. The key aim of this measure is to revitalise the Western Balkan economies through privileged access to the EU market. These trade preferences, which currently apply to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Kosovo, were granted for a period ending on 31 December 2010, but their validity should now be extended to 31 December 2015 so as not to jeopardise these countries’ economic recovery.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Although the final vote was postponed, we voted on several amendments. These ‘exceptional trade measures’ with the partners in the Western Balkans, under the EU Stabilisation and Association process, are indeed preferential tariff measures which guarantee easier access to the EU market for the partner countries’ exports. They need to be notified to the World Trade Organisation. The programme ran out at the end of 2010, and what we have now is simply the extension to it. It has been blocked because of the delayed comitology decision. Early in January 2011, the International Trade Committee made a proposal to the Council to ensure that the procedure was speeded up, but received no answer. Thus, Parliament had to await the adoption of the Szájer report on comitology in March in order to proceed further. An informal trialogue resolved the issue to permit adoption at first reading. The delay has created hardship in some receiving countries, and particularly in Kosovo, and Parliament has been wrongly blamed for this.

Report: Gunnar Hökmark (A7-0151/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this proposal as I agree with the guiding principle that runs through it. The EU is indeed the world’s largest economy. Neither the US nor China is larger, contrary to what is usually stated in discussions on what is and what will be the number one global economy. The difference is that the US and China have the bigger markets, as they offer better preconditions for competition, competitiveness, new services, products and innovations. The need for a single Internal Market is critical if Europe is to become a leading player in the global economy, with a focus on the service sector and the knowledge economy, but, at the same time, the Digital Agenda and the digital economy can serve as a spearhead for realising the Internal Market for all parts of our economy. This requires the ability to become a leader in terms of broadband and Internet use. Opening Europe up to new services and increased mobile traffic lays the ground for new opportunities for culture and content, broadcasters and public services within the framework of broadband while, at the same time, ensuring the same opportunities for broadcasting.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution on a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the first radio spectrum policy programme. I agree with the rapporteur’s opinion that the need for one single internal market is crucial for Europe to take a leadership in the global economy, with a focus on the service sector and the knowledge economy. The Digital Agenda and the digital economy can serve as a spearhead for making the Internal Market real for all parts of our economy. This requires an ability to take the lead regarding broadband and the use of the Internet. We must aim to make Europe the best and do what is best for Europe: free up spectrum for new services and increased mobile traffic, laying the ground for new opportunities for culture and content, broadcasters and public services within the framework of broadband. The first radio spectrum policy programme (RSPP) is a significant step in ensuring the efficient and optimal use of this finite resource. Europe must be in the lead in this process of change, creating the best opportunities for a competitive European knowledge economy characterised by vitality, change and innovations. That requires access to Internet and broadband applications with the greatest capacity and the highest speed.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report. The Digital Agenda and the digital economy represent one of the most important objectives of the EU 2020 strategy, aimed at closing the digital gap, and increasing the productivity, cohesion and competitiveness of European industry, and ensuring better access to the single market for the EU’s consumers and companies. Today, Europe is lagging behind the US and China, which are freeing up large parts of the spectrum in order to allow for the rapid development of new services and high speed mobile Internet. Effective spectrum use must be promoted in the EU in order to satisfy the growing need for radio frequencies, and mobile broadband capacity must be increased, ensuring better opportunities for the public and commercial sector. We must overcome the digital divide so that by 2020, all EU citizens have access to broadband services at a speed of at least 30 Mbps. Future spectrum policy must also guarantee a suitable, simple and non-discriminatory authorisation system, which would create a level playing field throughout the EU and would promote competition.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because its aim is to create maximum opportunities for business and individual consumers to take advantage of wireless Internet, radio and television services, freeing up radio spectrum. This would benefit European citizens in two ways – easing access to modern means of communication and telecom networks would reduce the exclusion of EU citizens which still exists, particularly for those living in rural and peripheral areas, and would promote the EU economy more actively, because there would be stronger conditions for developing an innovative services sector and knowledge economy. Europe has set itself the task of ensuring that by 2013, all EU citizens have the opportunity to use broadband, and wireless technology represents the most convenient way of achieving this task and requires the least investment.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I congratulate Mr Hökmark on preparing such a topical report on the radio spectrum policy programme. I voted in favour of it since I firmly endorse all measures aimed at supporting and implementing the internal single market. Europe needs to adopt advanced systems for broadband and Internet use that are accessible to all and are also able to reach rural and outlying areas, as required by the Digital Agenda. At the same time, it is important to ensure security for private individuals, producers, users and public authorities.

Moreover, the high cost of fibre optics and the growing demand by users for high-speed connections mean that the technological framework must be reviewed in both legislative and operational terms. To that end, multiannual radio spectrum legislative programmes need to be prepared in order to establish strategic planning and to meet the growing demand for broadband access, particularly because official estimates suggest that data traffic will double every year until 2013.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. – (CS) The objectives set in the Digital Agenda in the form of broadband cover for all European citizens by 2013, and high-speed cover of 30 Mbps or more (up to 100 Mbps for half of European households) by 2020, must be regarded as the minimum, and the ambition should be for Europe to have the best capacity and the highest broadband connection speeds in the world. This is connected with the idea that securing a wireless broadband connection is essential in order for all citizens to have access to new and innovative services. I fully agree with the deadline proposed by the Commission as regards making the 800 MHz band available for electronic communications services by 1 January 2013. Any exemptions or exceptions should be granted only for technical reasons, but specific public safety and defence needs must be taken into account. The other bands should be released by 1 January 2012, as stipulated in the Commission proposal. In my opinion, we should push for the allocation of more frequencies to mobile services, with a minimum target of 1 200 MHz. It is essential to introduce sensible rules that will make it possible to release further spectrum bands in the future. I also consider it appropriate to deal with further thorny questions, including, above all, the costs for releasing bands.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE), in writing. – (RO) We need to allocate radio spectrum more efficiently in the EU to ensure that we do not remain behind other developed countries progressing towards the digital society. The points in this report are also totally consistent with the EU’s Digital Agenda. Both consumers and businesses in the EU are increasingly using broadband Internet and mobile Internet via their smartphones or tablets, which requires the provision of fast connections. This requires the 800 MHz band to be freed up as soon as possible for broadband mobile Internet services and even the band below 790 MHz, if it transpires that such a measure is required to cope with the increase in data traffic. The measures advocated in the first radio spectrum policy programme are vital for reducing the digital divide and offering rapid, reliable telecommunications services in rural and isolated areas with a view to revitalising them. Last but not least, these measures support innovation and the wider use of new technologies, which is an absolute must for the European economy’s competitiveness, as was also emphasised in the Single Market Act.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing.– (FR) I voted for Mr Hökmark’s draft report, which supports freeing up the 800 MHz band for mobile services between now and January 2013 and sets some very ambitious objectives such as freeing up 1 200 MHz for mobile data traffic by 2015. The rapporteur also insists on spectrum use efficiency, greater flexibility in the promotion of innovation and on investment, as well as the need to improve the inventory of current and future spectrum usage.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given the importance of the European telecommunications industry and information technologies for higher productivity and competitiveness in our market, I am voting for the radio spectrum policy programme. I believe in the ability of this programme to create the conditions necessary for successful competition with the new technology markets of China and the US, as well as maintaining European leadership in the telecommunications industry.

  Françoise Castex (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, which will enable the exponential demand for access to high frequency-consuming mobile Internet to be met in the short term, in particular, through the allocation of the entire 800 MHz band, freed up by the changeover to digital television in our various countries, to electronic communications services. In the medium to long term, our aim must be to improve the use of spectrum across the board, by recognising its social, cultural and economic value. At the same time, we are promoting innovative technologies (femtocells, cognitive technologies) in order to respond qualitatively to the demand for use of frequencies. This will contribute to the objectives that the Union has set itself, including that of bridging the digital divide, so as to ensure that all Europeans have broadband access by 2015.

  Nessa Childers (S&D), in writing. – I voted to reject Amendment 20, second part; Amendment 69, second part, as this had been recommended by both S&D voices on the Culture Committee, on which I sit as a substitute member.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of the radio spectrum report today. It will ultimately create employment in this sector, aid the completion of the Digital Agenda and lend itself to achieving wireless frequency targets by 2013. In Romania, we have one of the fastest Internet speeds in Europe. By enhancing European broadband, this will increase our competitiveness. It is noteworthy that the International Telecommunications Union argues that capacity has to be opened up and preferably harmonised at a global level.

We all use radio spectrum in our daily lives for listening to radio programmes, for using our mobile telephones, for remotely locking our cars and for using satellite navigation systems. This report will aim to coordinate the EU approach for the management of spectrum across the Union. It is important that Member States continue to engage in bilateral communications and negotiations with third countries in order to achieve their Union frequency targets.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report as it presents a set of measures that make a significant contribution to universal access to less-favoured or remote areas, such as rural areas or islands.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Access to the radio spectrum is essential to ensure that all European citizens, whether in rural or urban areas, have access to digital technologies and broadband, with the total turnover of this industry representing approximately EUR 200 billion. Therefore, given the value of the radio spectrum, it is imperative to set out the EU’s priorities for its allocation and use.

The Digital Agenda, the digital economy and this, the first policy programme for five years, are therefore aimed at stimulating our economy and realising the Internal Market in all its aspects. It is crucial for the European telecommunications industry to regain its global leadership and create an impetus for greater productivity, cohesion, competitiveness and access to a single market.

I would therefore like to congratulate the rapporteur on the result that has just been achieved due to an effort at finding a compromise between all the groups in an ambitious and encouraging report.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report is on a proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the first radio spectrum policy programme. As the EU is the largest global economy, it needs to monitor all its modernisation and technological innovation processes: otherwise, it runs the risk of being overtaken by emerging economies such as China and South Korea. The latter is an example of this development, based on digital communications, as its speed of traffic and the respective broadband coverage make it the world leader. The objectives set out in the Digital Agenda, taking account of the constant downgrading in the speed and volume of data traffic, which is expected to double each year up to 2014, should be seen as minimal or reassessed if the EU is to dethrone South Korea in this area. Given that the Internet is the main instrument for creating better conditions and development and knowledge for citizens in cultural terms, particularly through the broadcasting of audiovisual content, I welcome the adoption of this report and hope that the EU will play a leading role in the radio spectrum and in the creation of development and innovation software.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We recognise the need to plan and organise the radio spectrum. This should be done on the basis of cooperation between the Member States, mindful of the fact that the spectrum is a public good, which is important in outlining and improving a range of services for the public, including in areas of public services.

We do not agree with planning the radio spectrum based on the Commission imposing guidelines, with the aim of making the spectrum a fulcrum for ‘the goals and key actions outlined in the EU2020 strategy and the Digital Agenda’, nor do we agree with the view of this as one of the ‘50 priority actions of the Single Market Act’. These are EU strategies and policies which have contributed to the current crisis that we are experiencing, and persisting with them will inevitably exacerbate this crisis.

Although it mentions that the radio spectrum is ‘a key public resource for essential sectors and services’, the report points the way towards the ‘possibility to trade spectrum rights’ and invites the Commission to adopt measures ‘to ensure that Member States allow trading within the Union of spectrum usage rights’; once again, we do not agree with these guidelines and we would distance ourselves from them.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We agree with the need to plan and organise the radio spectrum on the basis of the necessary cooperation between Member States, as it is a public good, which is important in improving services, particularly public services.

We do not agree with the imposition of guidelines by the Commission with the aim of making the spectrum a fulcrum of ‘the goals and key actions outlined in the EU2020 strategy and the Digital Agenda and […] included among the 50 priority actions of the Single Market Act’. We believe that these strategies are EU policies that have contributed to capitalism’s current state of systemic crisis.

While mentioning that the radio spectrum is ‘a key public resource for essential sectors and services’, the report points the way towards the ‘possibility to trade spectrum rights’ and invites the Commission to adopt measures ‘to ensure that Member States allow trading within the Union of spectrum usage rights’. We still do not know about these proposals, and thus far, we have not voted in favour of this report.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – The European Union is the world’s biggest economy. The need for one single internal market is crucial for Europe to take leadership in the global economy, with a focus on the service sector and the knowledge economy. The Digital Agenda and the digital economy can serve as a spearhead for making the internal market a reality for all parts of our economy. This requires an ability to take the lead on broadband and use of the Internet. It is crucial for the European telecom industry to regain global leadership, but also in order to take the lead in the development of information technologies as such and in the emergence of new services and applications. Even more importantly, it is also crucial in order to create a momentum for higher productivity, cohesion, competitiveness, and access to one single market for the European industry as a whole.

We must aim to make Europe the best and make what is best for Europe: opening up new services and increased mobile traffic, laying the ground for new opportunities for culture and content, broadcasters and public services in the framework of broadband and, at the same time, securing the same opportunities for broadcasting as of today.

  Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report for the reason that a renewed economic and social approach with regard to the management, allocation and utilisation of the spectrum should be adopted. Particular focus should be directed towards the formulation of regulation which ensures greater spectrum efficiency, better frequency planning and safeguards against anti-competitive behaviour and the taking of anti-social measures with regards to the usage of the spectrum. As highlighted in the Single Market Act, the establishment of a radio spectrum programme is key for the enhancement of the digital society and the development of technology.

I believe that the Commission should take a holistic approach towards the proper coordination of the management of the spectrum across the EU in view of the fact that this public good is a scarce and finite resource and is crucial to the furtherance of consumers, citizens and businesses within the single market.

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE), in writing. – (DE) The modern information society and the scarcity of frequency bands make strategic planning and harmonisation of the use of the spectrum essential. Of course, this relates to mobile and wireless broadband communications, radio and television broadcasting and also radio communications at concerts or in theatres. In addition to the issue of the frequencies, this concerns cultural diversity and also involves taking into consideration which technical options are and are not available and affordable. Affordability is a concern, for example, for cultural organisations without a great deal of money which do not always have the funding to buy new equipment. The goals of introducing complete broadband coverage of the EU by 2013 and universal high-speed Internet access by 2020 are praiseworthy, but perhaps not entirely realistic. In addition, the proposal gives no consideration to the specific problems in border areas where greater coordination is needed.

  Roberto Gualtieri (S&D), in writing. – (IT) By approving the Hökmark report, Parliament is opting for innovation: the broadband and mobile telephony sector is not only of great interest to Europeans, but it makes it possible to develop new prospects in terms of research and development, areas in which the European Union can and must aspire to play a leading role.

In this respect, it is important to ensure that the first European radio spectrum policy programme is in line with the objectives already outlined in the EU 2020 strategy and the Digital Agenda and comes within the priority actions of the Single Market Act.

The EU must endeavour to overcome the digital divide that results in huge disparities within Europe – between urban and rural areas in particular – so as to ensure all citizens have equal access to services, especially those involving new technologies. I therefore welcome the ambitious targets proposed, to provide broadband access throughout Europe by 2020, with particular emphasis on wireless networks.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this document because Europe needs to set free more spectrum for wireless broadband. This can and must be done with respect for present broadcasting, ensuring the same opportunities for broadcasters as they have today, and compensating for eventual migration costs where necessary. Broadcasting and culture must be a natural part of the development of wireless services. Today, Europe is lagging behind, while the US and China are freeing up large parts of the spectrum in order to allow for the rapid development of new services and high speed mobile Internet. We must aim to do what is best for Europe: free up the spectrum for new services and increased mobile traffic, open up new opportunities for culture and content, broadcasters and public services in the framework of broadband and, at the same time, secure the same opportunities for broadcasters as they enjoy today. Wireless broadband is essential for ensuring that new and innovative services are available to all citizens. It seems obvious that this objective cannot be achieved through the use of optical fibre, the installation of which requires considerable investment, but through the use of a mix of wireless technologies available to extend the coverage of broadband (terrestrial radio, cable, fibre or satellite systems) to cover the whole territory of the Community, rural and peripheral areas included, enabling the market to choose the most efficient technology from the point of view of cost for operators and citizens.