Oral explanations of vote

Report: Carlos Coelho (A7-0241/2011)

  Jens Rohde (ALDE). – (DA) Mr President, establishing an agency for the management of large-scale IT systems – the Schengen Information System, the Visa Information System and Eurodac for the comparison of fingerprints – will achieve good synergy effects. It will create economies of scale and enable the highest possible utilisation rate of capital and human resources. As a representative of a Member State that has reservations with regard to cooperation in legal affairs, I am particularly pleased that we have been able to resolve the legal problems concerning the participation of such Member States in the management of the IT systems and their influence in this regard.

We have clarified the voting rights that the individual Member States are to have in respect of this agency.

Finally, I would like to say how pleased I am that, with the adoption of this regulation, we will also have tightened up the rules on data protection in connection with data security and on data security in connection with the management of personal data.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE). - (ET) Mr President, I consider the adoption of this report and the creation of the agency to be extremely important, precisely because of their aim to ensure the functioning and security of Europe’s IT systems 24 hours a day. Large-scale IT systems cannot be administered in a haphazard manner, and responsibility for this cannot be granted to those who do not possess the necessary competence. I am naturally very happy about the selection of the new agency’s location, as it was Tallinn, the capital of my home country Estonia, that was selected. Here in little Estonia we have excellent knowledge and experience in this field.

In my opinion it is a good compromise to divide the seat of the agency among two European Union Member States; thus, the headquarters of the agency will be established in Estonia, and the necessary servers will be located in France, here in Strasbourg, where we are today. One of the roles of the nascent agency could certainly be to raise awareness in the area of IT systems and their security through the organisation of training sessions. I supported the adoption of this report, and I have waited for this result for a long time. Thank you.

  Morten Messerschmidt (EFD). – (DA) Mr President, I regret to say that I do not entirely share the enthusiasm that previous speakers have expressed with regard to the fact that yet another agency is now being set up in the EU system. Firstly, we as parliamentarians are responsible for the way in which taxpayers’ money is used. We are still waiting to see what added value the existing agencies bring, and consequently we do not know what added value the future IT agency will bring either.

Throughout the EU, we have a whole series of competent research institutes, universities and other institutes that would easily be able to carry out the task that the new IT agency is now being assigned – and without the need to establish new facilities, new frameworks and new institutions. I have therefore voted against setting up this new agency, at least until we know what the added value of the new agencies and, in particular, the existing agencies might be.

Report: Sylvana Rapti (A7-0220/2011)

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE). - (ET) Mr President, it is important that universal services should be available to all and that they should be more uniform throughout Europe. It is not acceptable to have large differences in quality and price between Member States, and concrete steps should be taken in order to level out those differences.

There are, for instance, great differences in the area of e-services, Internet quality and price, so that in one Member State there is nearly a complete absence of decent e-services and the Internet is of poor quality and expensive. We must learn from each other’s experiences and achievements, and move towards a more uniform level of services. Despite some quality-related problems, the single European emergency number 112 is a good example in this area. I supported the adoption of this report.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, the 112 service is a key instrument promoting the safety of citizens in an organisation as diverse as the European Union. A single emergency number makes it possible for those needing immediate assistance to contact the appropriate services rapidly, regardless of where they are. I am therefore pleased by this service’s increasing significance, efficiency and availability, and I believe that we need to continue to support it.

Another provision which is worthy of note is that concerning the retention of current emergency numbers, which are deeply ingrained and widely used in some Member States, so as to avoid confusion. I agree that linking political strategies and technologies may contribute to the development of new public services using highly developed and specialist applications, such as e-administration, e-health and e-education. The proposal to involve local and regional authorities in technological investments is also important. I therefore support this report.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). - Mr President, I want to indicate my strong support for the Rapti report. Perhaps my main concern is that, in times of austerity, European citizens look to the EU to help provide a safety net and, while the actions we can take at European level are limited, nonetheless the universal service obligation is a mechanism which can support citizens where market forces have failed. Indeed we have plenty of examples of that happening in recent times, especially where the financial markets have failed European citizens.

As I said, circumstances have changed and therefore, in that context, we do need to re-evaluate how appropriate existing legislative provisions are for universal service. We need to ensure that the real needs of citizens are met.

Finally, 112, the European emergency number; it is a great idea, but we must ensure that Member States provide timely, accurate and reliable location information on the 112 service. If we can do that, then a full-scale promotion of the number, a European emergency number, is warranted. Like the universal service obligation, it can be a safety net for citizens.

Report: Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (A7-0217/2011)

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, we talk with ever increasing frequency about the Single Market Act and the Small Business Act, which are instruments designed to simplify EU legislation regarding small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Their objectives are growth, jobs and consumer protection, not to mention reducing red tape and removing trade barriers.

Unfortunately, there are still significant amounts of red tape seriously hindering the freedom of SMEs. For example, urban planning sometimes creates a lot of problems for itinerant street vendors operating in public areas, who risk seeing trading spots in market areas being considered as natural resources, or it creates problems for the introduction of new criteria for issuing or renewing concessions, which would be damaging for the entire sector.

Instead, it would be appropriate for the renewal criteria to be tied to the development of the areas and the professionalism of the traders, which obviously derives from how long they have held the concession, as well as to an assessment of the investments made over the years.

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE). - Mr President, I am very glad that my report has been voted through with a vast majority. At a time when everybody discusses debt, austerity and economic governance it is important to also put the real economy at the centre of the debate.

With this report we have recognised the dignity of retail as a driver for growth, competitiveness and jobs. I regret, however, that Parliament did not schedule a debate on this report. Only 40 minutes were given for the rapporteur, the Commission and catch-the-eye. It is in contradiction with the fact that we have put on the political map, for the first time, retail as a driver for growth. It is even more regrettable that there was not a single Social Democrat or a Green in the Chamber during the plenary last night, and that no one asked to take the floor. This is a lack of respect for the 20 million people that are employed in the retail sector, for the SMEs that are struggling to survive.

It is a very controversial area. We are talking about market dominance. We are talking about access for consumers in remote areas, in town centres, private labels, lots of things that require a debate between political groups.

Report: Mitro Repo (A7-0201/2011)

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the proposed amending regulation aims to update the contents of the text to reflect recent legislative developments in the field of consumer protection.

Since the current results of cross-border cooperation on consumer protection are not always satisfactory, it is a good idea to move ahead with a review that reflects recent legislative developments on protecting these very same consumers. Equally positive is the proposal to include a review clause in the regulation, the purpose of which is to urge the Commission to commit to a substantial revision of the current regulation, including broadening its scope.

  Ville Itälä (PPE). - (FI) Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Repo for drafting an excellent report.

The fact that progress is being made in our endeavours to protect the consumer is highly important for improving the internal market. Although this is a case of a single technical issue, it is an important matter of principle as to how we can improve the way in which we deal with complaints and possible judicial proceedings across borders.

It was excellent that Mr Repo succeeded in getting a review clause, so that the Commission can monitor the issue closely and produce its next analysis of the situation in 2014. This was a clear victory.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE). - (ET) Mr President, it is clear that, in the present situation, the latest developments in consumer protection certainly need to be reflected in the updated regulation, and cross-border cooperation in the area of consumer protection needs to become even more effective. Considering the limited resources available, I think it is extremely important for consumer protection priorities, procedures and other rules, including IT devices, to be harmonised so that the system can function and not become excessively fragmented.

What is most important, however, is our shared objective of ensuring consumer protection as well as fair and honest trade throughout the European Union. I supported the adoption of this regulation, and I would like to thank Mr Repo for the constructive work he has done.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, improvements to consumer protection law are a key tool facilitating a more rigorous enforcement of provisions protecting the interests of the various parties in intra-EU transactions. The obstacles that stand in the way of cross-border cooperation between individual countries need to be abolished, and an analysis needs to be carried out of the additional legislative solutions which are necessary, in order to mount an effective fight against traders engaging in unfair practices which disrupt the efficient functioning of the internal market. This will make it possible to establish clear rules governing the actions of public authorities as regards the identification, monitoring and elimination of violations of consumer protection regulations. In this regard, it is particularly vital to improve the effectiveness of the CPC network’s actions by aiming to eliminate flaws in legislation, for example those which mean that a given activity is prohibited in the consumer’s country, but not in the supplier’s country. Improving the quality of consumer protection laws is one of the most important objectives for the European institutions. We can only develop and extend the EU internal market by increasing consumer confidence. I therefore support measures aimed at enforcing consumer rights more effectively throughout the EU.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, Regulation (EC) 2006/2004 aims to abolish the barriers to cross-border cooperation between public law enforcement authorities to detect, investigate and bring about the cessation or prohibition of intra-EU infringements of the laws which protect consumers’ interests.

As we know, the regulation proposes to achieve its aims by establishing an EU-wide network of public authorities responsible for enforcing consumer protection laws in the Member States.

In the light of recent legislative developments in the field of consumer protection, I agree on the need to update the legislation. By removing the irrelevant laws, we will ease consumer protection cooperation between the national enforcement authorities. I think the amendments set out in Mr Repo’s report will successfully translate our pre-established objectives into reality and improve legal certainty, so I therefore voted in favour.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, consumer protection laws are important. The information provided to consumers must be appropriate, readily available and objective. The European Union is an economic union, a union of values and, of course, also a union for consumer rights. This means that we must constantly coordinate our consumer legislation to ensure that consumers can access information and that the laws are followed everywhere.

I believe that this evaluation report, in which we acknowledge that we are on the right track, is particularly important. We will also remain in constant contact with the Member States and with consumers in order to investigate whether our coordination measures are appropriate or in need of improvement. For this reason, I believe that the evaluation report in 2014 is an essential part of this report. Therefore, I have voted in favour of the report.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). - (FI) Mr President, first of all, I want to thank Mr Repo for an excellent, and, if I may say so, quite brilliant report. It goes without saying that this is perhaps a small step for you, Mr Repo, but it is a big step for the European internal market and European consumers.

It is important to remember that, when we speak of consumer protection, we are talking about something by means of which we safeguard people’s living conditions, and about something which really has an influence in civil societies. The objective and principle in the European Union must be to ensure that the public can have good levels of consumer protection and the correct information on different products and commodities, thus allowing them to live a full life, and one in which they feel protected, with regard to this matter too.

It is also very important, as far as the internal market is concerned, to ensure that there is forward development in this way. For the internal market to develop, consumers need to have access to reliable and up-to-date information. The follow-up evaluation in 2014 is a good thing, because, if we have a goal and a target, we will also have to act to ensure that it is achieved.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, current cross-border cooperation in the enforcement of laws protecting the consumer – and that is the key word – is unfortunately highly frustrating, unachievable and almost an abstract concept for many European citizens. The creation of a genuinely effective legal mechanism for the enforcement of laws would therefore clearly increase the confidence of European consumers in the single market, and thus boost cross-border commerce.

The companies, consumers and bodies responsible for law enforcement need a clear legal framework and a guarantee of legal security in the cross-border enforcement of the acquis in the area of consumer protection. For this reason, I entirely agree that the cross-border enforcement of consumer interests should be put at the forefront of the EU’s political agenda.

Report: Theodor Dumitru Stolojan (A7-0097/2011)

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, it is one of my longstanding contentions that Shakespeare has something to say about every subject, including our voting list today, starting with our approval of a grant to a steel plant in Denmark.

‘Come hither, my good Hamlet, sit by me’, says the Queen; Act III, Scene II. ‘No, good mother, here’s metal more attractive’, replies the Prince. And here was metal more attractive before we decided to subsidise it; but of course the least attractive metal of all is what is happening to the European currency. Because the result of these repeated interventions, these subsidies, these market distortions is that we are bringing about the same conclusion that we had in the 1970s, when we last pursued these policies. By all means go for the takeover of industry, for the subventions, for the picking of winners, but you will end, as our fathers did, with inflation, with sclerosis, with debt and ultimately in bankruptcy.

Report: Pascal Canfin (A7-0055/2011)

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, permanence is the illusion of every age. One of the things that is most striking when you talk to people in the City of London is their belief that somehow there is an entitlement to the pre-eminence that they enjoy, that it is automatic. I am sure that their equivalents in medieval Bruges, Venice or Amsterdam felt the same thing. I can imagine those people as portrayed by the Old Masters with their luxurious furs and their rich, embroidered cloths and their golden chains saying ‘no, London does not have the infrastructure to take over from us, we are a natural hub, we are obviously going to be the banking centre of the world’. But bit by bit, as a result of these EU regulations, we are losing our pre-eminence.

This particular report is only one small chip into the architecture. I think that credit default swaps are an important hedge for some investors, they help optimise capital. But this report on its own is not going to bring the end of the Square Mile. The trouble is that it is part of a barrage of EU legislation covering almost every aspect of financial regulation, the net result of which will be an epochal shift in wealth from Europe to Asia, to the detriment of London specifically but more widely to that of the whole European Union.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). - Mr President, one of the things that was quite disappointing about the whole debate on short selling was the use of the word ‘morality’. My political opponents were saying that surely it was immoral to sell something that you do not own or that you do not yet own.

On the surface that might strike one to be a compelling argument, but then you have to look at commerce and the way it acts. Farmers and the agricultural sector short sell. They sell the products that they have not yet produced, often seasons ahead. Online companies often do not hold things like books and other products in stock. They sell those products before they have actually got access to them. What is immoral about that short selling as long as there is a reasonable expectation that they can provide that product or service?

At the same time, governments often short sell when it comes to their bonds, yet my opponents wanted to ban that. Fortunately we did not ban it. What we are trying to ban is uncovered sovereign CDSs where these are used as a proxy hedge on investments in countries that are in trouble. Surely, if we want to create jobs, we should not be banning these things.

Report: Olle Schmidt (A7-0167/2011)

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE). - (ET) Mr President, in order to increase the harmonisation of the European market and ensure that it functions in accordance with common values and rules, it is quite certain that we urgently need to adopt the appropriate updated European legislation. Cross-border investors must enjoy the same level of protection across Europe, and harmonising the compensation limit for investors would help to avoid the exploitation of the differences between Member States.

I think that the rapporteur’s recommendation to add the risk principle to the Investor Compensation Scheme Directive is an interesting idea. This would mean that each member’s contribution to a scheme would be determined on the basis of the extent of the risk assumed by that entrepreneur. I supported the adoption of this report. Thank you.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). - Mr President, one of my major concerns about a number of these different compensation schemes is that it almost appears as if we want to regulate away risk. Investors should be practising due diligence so they understand what they are investing in. What worries me about overly prescriptive compensation schemes is that investors will not do their due diligence and will just invest willy-nilly without worrying about the consequences, because they know they will be compensated.

We have to make sure that investors are informed about the risks that they take. You just cannot eliminate risk altogether, you cannot regulate it away. Investors also have different profiles. Some want no risk: let them be aware of the less risky investments. But those who want to, say, have an adventurous growth model and are prepared to invest money that they may lose should also be allowed to do so. If we try and regulate away risk altogether we will end up affecting the whole investment sector in the EU.

Report: Corinne Lepage (A7-0170/2011)

  Francesco De Angelis (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report because I take the view that the Member States should be equipped with a solid legal basis for deciding on the future of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and especially because it needs to be acknowledged that the agricultural and environmental impact – as well as the socio-economic impact – can justify bans and restrictions.

Indeed, I should like to point out that more than 60% of European citizens are against the development and cultivation of GMOs and that, as it stands, there is still no bedrock of scientific advice capable of dispelling all doubt about their impact on territories, cultures and consumers. Our legislative action must therefore once again be guided by the precautionary principle, because until we are certain that GMOs are not harmful for crops or consumers, we have the duty to protect European citizens from their potential damaging effects.

  Giommaria Uggias (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, I should like to congratulate Mrs Lepage for her determined work in bringing this dossier to a positive conclusion. I have been a staunch supporter of this report throughout, partly because I think it gives real legal value to the text we have adopted and also because it fills a legislative vacuum that has given rise to serious legal dispute between enterprises, public bodies and citizens.

This measure avoids the colonisation of the Member States, leaving them free to prohibit or restrict the cultivation of genetically modified organisms. The amendments that this text brings in will therefore allow the individual Member States to ban the cultivation of GMOs due to the impact they may have on the agricultural system, particularly with regard to biodiversity, but also with regard to pesticide resistance, to the invasiveness of certain crops and, therefore, to the protection of our territories.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report because I have always made it clear that I have many doubts about the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Europe. This is particularly so because European agricultural producers have always focussed on traditional, high quality and excellent products, while aiming to protect consumer health through numerous quality controls and transparent traceability mechanisms.

In addition, as stated in the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs, GMOs cannot be thought of in the same way as any other product: they are living organisms capable of reproducing and multiplying and, secondly, they have an impact on EU’s extremely varied systems of production and ecosystems. This is precisely why each Member State must have the right to decide on GMOs.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – (ES) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report as it will increase environmental, food and legal security for decisions taken in Europe with regard to transgenic crops.

The report improves the Commission's proposal because it adds guarantees and specifies the reasons for justifying restrictions at a local level. Its adoption will make it possible for complementary environmental evaluations at local level, contradictory data between local and Community level studies, or the emergence of new data and scientific evidence since the general evaluation was made to justify new restrictions, on a case by case basis, as well as linked to geographical areas.

Other evaluation factors for authorising these crops, such as soil management, are also incorporated, these factors being closely connected with regulated coexistence between transgenic and non-transgenic crops.

Finally, I believe it is a good move to change the legal basis and to refer the authorisations of the Treaties to the environmental content, instead of to the clause on the internal market, as it improves legal certainty but, also, transmits values.

In these very sensitive issues it is better to regulate from the point of view of the environment rather than trade.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, personally I have always taken a very cautious stance on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Indeed, I think that in the absence of scientific evidence assuring their absolute harmlessness to health and in light of serious economic criticisms - particularly in countries with a strong focus on quality and tradition – we need to be guided by the precautionary principle on this issue.

We are therefore in favour of research whereby all the facts are brought to light but we reject unrestricted introduction ahead of clear, binding and universal rules on coexistence between traditional, organic and genetically modified crops, and on non-contamination. I should also have liked to have seen greater courage from the Commission in setting out a cautious way forward, but there are positive aspects here that we should welcome. In particular, the Commission has taken the unprecedented step of allowing Member States to prohibit the growth of genetically modified organisms on agricultural and environmental grounds, thereby strengthening our legal position in view of possible disputes before the World Trade Organisation.

That is why I voted in favour of this proposal for legislation.

  Horst Schnellhardt (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have voted against the report, not because I felt that the Commission proposal was wrong, but because I saw an opportunity to get out of the muddle which the Member States currently find themselves in. However, we have decided to do exactly the opposite.

Several years ago we adopted legislation on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This clearly specifies the coexistence of the three forms of cultivation: organic, conventional and genetically modified. Now we have decided that we cannot have coexistence for GMOs. That is the decision that is being made today.

This means that we have taken a decision which contradicts our other previous decisions. Then, on top of that, we say that we need a scientific basis and call the actions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) into question. After this the Commissioner is asked to restructure the EFSA. Well, my goodness, do we really only believe what we have heard somewhere else about panic and ideological principles? We should stop and think carefully about what we are actually doing here.

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE). - Mr President, I understand that the issue of GMO cultivation may concern Europe’s people, but there is too much emotion in the debate. We have to move from perception and myth to scientific research. It is very important not to undermine the European Safety Agency if it ascertains, on the basis of data and facts, that a specific GMO is safe. It is, of course, necessary to respect the right of Member States to decide how to use their own territory, but I voted against.

If we enable the cultivation of GMOs to be banned for reasons of public order, ethics or public morality we open a Pandora’s box by enabling society to decide what to ban on the basis of what is popular and not what is safe. We need harmonised rules in the European Union based on science.

In the last ten years, over EUR 200 million has been spent on research and risk assessment and so far no evidence has been found to show that GMO crops are harmful. We have to think about feeding 8 billion people in the world and a future generation. Research has to continue. We have to find modern breeds of crops.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE). - (ET) Mr President, I am convinced that, regardless of the level of monitoring that is applied, it is a fact that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) do not recognise boundaries between fields or national borders, and a small human error is enough to disturb the natural balance, which may already threaten our biological diversity. I voted in favour of the report, because I consider the decision to permit Member States to limit or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs on their territory to be a positive step.

It is simply irresponsible to permit GMOs in a situation where there is no direct need for increased agricultural production and there is no certainty regarding their safety, and, I would like to emphasise once again, it may cause irreversible damage. The use of GMOs may indeed increase the scale of production and primarily benefit merchants, but studies have shown that their nutritional value is low, and the use of GMOs makes agricultural producers dependent on the commercial interests of large corporations.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I do not want to conceal the fact that I take a very critical approach to this report and have therefore voted against it. I am concerned that it will result in a patchwork of different regulations in the individual states. There is no possibility of any countries going it alone because products containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are already being sold on the internal market. Therefore, Europe will be turning its back on a technology which has enough potential that it is worth researching into it in more detail.

Genetically modified (GM) crops offer significant opportunities, but also involve risks. This is why we need to have an honest debate on this subject in society and in the business community. For this reason, it is particularly important that we carry out thorough research into this technology and continue to develop it in a responsible way. However, in order to achieve this, we must have permission to do the research. With good reason, Europe has put in place one of the world’s most stringent approval procedures. No products containing GMOs will come onto the European market unless it can be guaranteed that they are completely harmless to human health and the environment, because the safety of people and of the environment are our highest priorities.

  Ville Itälä (PPE). - (FI) Mr President, as we have heard here, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) unquestionably have potential and importance, but we do not have enough information on the risks associated with them.

I also think that it is a matter of who decides these things, and what motivates them to do so. I myself would like my country, Finland, to be able to decide on as wide a ban as possible, if it so wishes, and not to have to ask for permission separately for each crop. Because of this, for the most part today, I voted differently from most of the members of my group.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). - Mr President, I too welcome the outcome of the vote on this report. What we are doing here is supporting a proper legal basis whereby Member States, if they choose, can ban the cultivation of GM crops. We are trying to give some legal certainty and it makes no sense if we have one case after another in the Court of Justice. We want to ensure freedom of choice for consumers and farmers and we are trying to do this in a reasonable, practical and workable way.

I was happy to see some amendments carried from my own group, in particular Amendment 44, where it states that the long-term environmental effects of GMO crops, as well as their potential effects on untargeted organisms, should be rigorously assessed. Also paragraph 47, which came from the ALDE Group, was voted through and it allowed grounds such as the maintenance of local biodiversity and the need to ensure seed purity to be used. Today we have applied the precautionary principle and that is wise. Finally, we asked the Council and Commission to ensure that necessary resources for independent researchers on the potential risks of GMO would be in place, and I think that was a good move on our part.

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). - Mr President, I voted in favour of the Lepage report because I oppose the spread of genetically modified organisms. The pro-GMO agenda is driven by six major food corporations led by Monsanto. They are backed up by some of the right wing in this Parliament and other parliaments who have opposed here today the support for even the extremely limited requirement for a risk assessment before authorising a new GMO variety.

The companies’ profits are rising dramatically as their stranglehold over agricultural production is increased. As a result of their control over these seeds, farmers are forced to buy the seeds, causing prices to rise dramatically. They are forced to buy them from these same corporations, as they have no other choice. The environment also suffers through the loss of biodiversity and the growth of weed resistance, which leads to the use of even more harmful pesticides and the crushing of sustainable farming.

Finally, consumers also suffer from the bad impact on human health of the increased use of chemicals in farming as well as the unknown impact of GM.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE). - (LT) Mr President, today we voted on the rather controversial issue of the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). 61% of Europeans consider that GM food makes them feel uneasy, and the same proportion disagree with the idea that the development of GM food should be encouraged. However, it should be recognised that a significant proportion, 21% of Europeans, welcome GMOs and say they believe that GMOs should not have damaging effects on future generations. Like statements that GMOs will resolve the issue of food shortages, the negative or positive impact has yet to be proven either way scientifically. This means that it is impossible to find a one-size-fits-all solution for Member States. The approach in the Member States also varies, therefore the proposal to allow countries themselves to be given the opportunity to restrict the cultivation of GMOs on their territory is completely correct. I therefore voted in favour of the report by Corinne Lepage.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, we have voted for a directive which makes it possible for Member States to restrict or ban genetically modified organisms (GMOs). There are potential long-term cumulative effects, direct and indirect effects, effects on human health and also environmental effects. As we know, there are also three main reasons, or three categories under which we assess GMOs. These are: environmental issues, including pesticide resistance issues; secondly, socio-economic reasons, as there are costs for decontamination; finally, land-use planning and land management as such. It is necessary to assess the safety risks, as well as the rules on the coexistence of different varieties.

I am opposed to wasting land in the controversial effort to sow large areas with GMO organisms in order to produce so-called green fuels for motor vehicles. On the contrary, such activities directly increase the price of other foods, while making no particular contribution to the environment. Incidentally, a majority of citizens are opposed to sowing our land with GMOs, and I would rely on the European Food Safety Authority, which produces expert assessments in this area.

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, today we voted on the vexed and controversial issue of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Offering Member States the chance to prohibit or restrict the cultivation of GMOs in their territory means that the European Union will surrender its leading role on this most delicate of issues.

Many questions remain to be answered. Do we know what the long-term effects will be on the ecosystem? Are we reasonably sure that the use of GMOs does not carry serious health risks? Are we sure that consumers whose government has banned their cultivation will not find themselves eating them anyway?

We are a long way from any definitive answers. The only thing I know for sure is that both the Commission and the Member States should guarantee that the necessary resources will be made available for independent research, and that GMOs will not be merely a short-cut to profit.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, this is precisely the kind of sensitive issue that ought to be dealt with through the national democratic mechanisms and procedures of each state. I quite understand why it is an issue on which tempers run high; a number of my constituents feel that there is something intrinsically eerie about, let us say, a tomato that contains anti-freezing genes taken from arctic fish.

Personally I do not share those concerns; we have been practising genetic manipulation since Neolithic times. We have created for our convenience breeds which would not survive a day in the wild without human stewardship. If some cataclysm were to eradicate our species it would be the weeds that we have spent thousands of years fighting that would take over and the crops that we have spent thousands of years protecting that would be wiped out.

For example, we have created cattle that lactate in such quantities that they could not exist without human care; the ancestor of the modern chicken laid something like five eggs a year. But the point is that, wherever I stand on this, it should be up to individual consumers to make the choice themselves or, if we must have regulation, it should be national regulation, answerable through parliaments to people. You would have thought that with what is going on in Europe at the moment we would have had other things to worry about.

Motion for a resolution (B7-0379/2011)

  Jens Rohde (ALDE). - Mr President, this has been a very sensitive debate. I think it is fair to say that a number of EU Member States had to review and amend their constitutions to ensure accession to the EU.

The European Parliament cannot accept one of the Member States bending its constitution in a way that is not in conformity with EU values and fundamental rights. The Hungarian Constitution is alarming for a number of reasons. In particular, the Constitution contains provisions that could lead to discrimination against certain groups in society, namely ethnic, religious and sexual minorities. I am content that we, the European Parliament, have sent a strong message to the Hungarian authorities. We will not accept a Member State that does not explicitly protect all fundamental rights.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, the Hungarian Constitution is a typical example of how the European Parliament should not get involved in the constitution of another Member State, but since we are debating it, I have to say that my fellow Members from Hungary have done something interesting in defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and in talking about respect for life from birth to natural death. On this matter, I agree with what Hungary, as a sovereign country, has put into its own Constitution.

Hungary has failed in other political areas, however, and particularly in terms of demographics, where it needs Hungarians from Slovakia and Romania, and still dreams of rewriting the Treaty of Trianon and promoting the nationalistic dream of a Greater Hungary. The new Hungarian Constitution has strong extra-territorial elements, and it focuses on the promotion of dual citizenship, votes for Hungarians from across the border in elections, the promotion of a specific interpretation of the Kosovo precedent – involving the possibility of violating state and territorial integrity, for example that of the Slovak Republic – and it is anti-European and anti-Slovak, and I have therefore abstained on this issue.

  Diane Dodds (NI). - Mr President, as someone who believes in the sovereignty of the nation state, I voted against this motion for a resolution on the revised Hungarian Constitution. Yet again we see the interference of this House in the internal affairs of a Member State, seeking to force its opinion on the Hungarian people. Let us not forget that the democratically-elected parliament of Hungary adopted this new Constitution by more than two-thirds this year. The representatives of the people of Hungary support the Constitution, so what right have we to reject it?

Sadly, what appears to have motivated such angst in this place is that the Hungarian Constitution is clear in matters about marriage and the family. I for one respect the position of Hungary and reject the attempts of this House to interfere in its internal affairs.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). - Mr President, while there are some positive statements in this resolution, I have some concerns and could therefore not support it, in particular recital H, which speaks of ‘unclear wording when defining basic notions such as “family” and the right to life from the moment of conception’. I have not read the wording, which is described as unclear; however, there are many clear references to the term ‘family’ in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, indeed, in the Charter of Fundamental Rights which we have recently appended to the Treaty of Lisbon.

According to Article 33 of the Charter, ‘the family shall enjoy legal, economic and social protection’. That seems pretty clear to me. Indeed the word ‘family’ appears five times in the Charter and six times in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I know there are many in this House who would like to get rid of the word ‘family’ but I simply do not support that view.

Furthermore, the right to life from the moment of conception or not is a matter for Member States to decide. Time and time again we have this useless debate in this House. Member States have the right to make their own decisions on their own territory – I support that. I do not seek to push my pro-life views on other Member States. I believe citizens of all Member States have the right to make their own decisions in this matter, and I am supported on this by the Treaties.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, the European project is made possible by Member States voluntarily surrendering part of their sovereignty to the European Union. We must respect the voluntary nature of the arrangement, and European institutions should not speak out on issues that fall within the competence of nation states.

The socialists do not want Hungary to defend the notion of a family made up of a man and a woman, or to protect the life of the unborn child in its Constitution. Tomorrow, they may want Slovakia, for example, to give up the reference to St Cyril and St Methodius, or to enshrine the right to euthanasia or some of the so-called new human rights in its Constitution.

Some fellow Members call on Hungary to respect the territorial integrity of neighbouring states, although the Hungarian Constitution does not call this into question. Every Member State has the right to adopt the Constitution its citizens consider to be the best. It is the European Court and not the European Parliament that decides on the non-conformity of the laws of a Member State with EU law. I have therefore not supported the resolution.

  Zbigniew Ziobro (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, the adoption of a new Hungarian Constitution has become an excuse for the left-wing and liberal parties in the European Parliament to mount a highly emotional and often even aggressive attack, lacking any substantive basis, on Hungary under Prime Minister Orbán’s right-wing government. Leaving aside the issue of whether the European Parliament is overstepping its mandate and competencies and its powers under the Treaty of Lisbon by debating the Constitution of a sovereign Member State, there has been a striking lack of understanding for fundamental ideas such as sovereignty, democracy and tolerance during this debate.

After all, no one can forbid a sovereign state from referring to God, Christianity and traditional values in its Constitution. No one can dispute the fact that Hungary chose this Constitution by way of a democratic choice by the majority of its people, in free and democratic elections. Finally, tolerance means respect for the views of others, views which we need not necessarily share. Since we expect tolerance, let us also be tolerant. I am appealing here to the representatives of the left-wing and liberal parties in the European Parliament.

  Nicole Sinclaire (NI). - Mr President, once again here we have the European Union trying to interfere on matters concerning a national state. It should be the people and a country’s elected government who decide matters of national importance, together with conscience. For a period of 45 years the Hungarian people were under Communism and the Supreme Soviet and they decided the daily lives of the people of Hungary and yet here we have the European Union doing the same. Let the people be free; let the people decide. The European Union has no right to decide on Member State issues.

  Jacek Olgierd Kurski (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, in the Chamber today we have witnessed unacceptable interference by the European Parliament in Hungary’s sovereign affairs. The attack on the Hungarian Constitution is being used as an excuse by the proponents of European political correctness to take revenge for the existence of an effective conservatism, and to take revenge on the Fidesz party, which is effectively pulling the country out of the bankruptcy to which it was driven by the socialist and post-Communist governments.

Meanwhile, the Hungarian Constitution represents a return to a world of simple values: marriage is at long last the name given to a union between a man and a woman, the Communist times are at long last called a time of tyranny, and the state is at long last the source of regeneration of the national community. The European Parliament should maybe turn its attention to those countries where democracy is really being violated, such as Poland, for example, where independent journalists who are critical of the authorities are sacked from their jobs, where at 6 o’clock in the morning the special services enter the home of an Internet user who operates a portal which is critical of the authorities, and where the leader of the opposition is ordered to undergo psychiatric tests. Since generations of Hungarians will be proud of their Constitution, it is better for the European Parliament to turn its attention to cases where democracy really is being violated in Europe, such as those in Poland.

Report: Bas Eickhout (A7-0219/2011)

  Jens Rohde (ALDE). – (DA) Mr President, over the last year and a half, the European Parliament has tabled numerous reports, energy action plans and energy strategies. We have worked towards setting some ambitious goals in order to create a greener world to live in, but also to create innovation and jobs. The vote that we have undertaken today has made Parliament a complete laughing stock, because we have voted against almost everything that we have voted in favour of over the last year and a half. There is therefore only one positive thing to say about this vote and that is that the whole report was rejected. This means, at least, that the objectives that we have set in the various action plans, strategies and reports in the last year will still remain in place. If the report had been adopted today they would have been superseded by the new, far less ambitious objectives, and that would not have been good for Europe. It is certainly not good for Europe, either, that we are unable to find a way to speak with one voice when we negotiate at international level. It was a disheartening vote that we witnessed today.

  Ville Itälä (PPE). - (FI) Mr President, as we are discussing here whether the target should be 30% or 25%, I would say that it is probably not difficult to accept that high targets are a good thing. I myself am prepared to accept a 30% target.

We always have to bear in mind, however, how industry will go along with this. This is about European jobs: if industry cannot keep up, the jobs may go to countries where they are not bothered about percentages at all. In other words, we just need to find a balance.

We should also remember that, when we are talking about the financial framework and the budget, we need to invest in innovation, to be able to discover the energy-efficient solutions and new innovations that we could employ to reach this target.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, systematic reductions in carbon dioxide emission levels are having a negative impact on the economies of countries such as Poland, which are based on hard coal combustion. The ongoing decarbonisation of the energy sector, which reflects an ambition to entirely eliminate CO2 emissions, may result in a significant economic recession, both in developing countries and in highly developed countries. An increase in energy prices, resulting from necessary changes to the way in which this energy is obtained and associated investments, may contribute significantly to worsening the economic situation of industrial regions. The ambitious standards already in force for exhaust gas emissions from various types of motor vehicle increase transport costs, and mean that manufacturers need to spend more on innovations. The introduction of high targets for greenhouse gas emission standards will make it necessary to use EU funds to subsidise a significant number of enterprises. I therefore remain sceptical about the possibility of increasing the 20% target for reducing emissions gases.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I have three comments to make about this report. The first is that I think it is highly regrettable that we are claiming that there is one cause of climate change and are only looking at CO2 emissions. Scientific studies show that CO2 is not the sole cause.

Secondly, during the process of reducing CO2 emissions to a minimum, we should also be considering the efficient use of resources and consumption. It is still important to manufacture products using as little energy as possible and not only to focus on CO2 emissions.

Thirdly, I am in favour of setting ambitious objectives, but they must also be realistic. In addition, we must work together because we only have one planet and it belongs to all of us. It will be useless if measures are taken to reduce production in one country or in one industry and the same production then takes place elsewhere with much higher levels of emissions.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). - (FI) Mr President, regarding this report by Mr Eickhout, I want to say that we certainly all agree that we have to do our best to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

We in Europe are committed to the EU’s 20-20-20 target, and this is enough. We need to insist that the rest of the world should be involved in all this. We must remember that Europe’s emissions are around 10% of those for the whole world. If we consider European jobs and industry, we have to ensure that they can be kept here.

If we establish new, tighter targets every year, industry will not be able to respond to them. We have to establish clear targets and objectives, such as the 20-20-20 target, and go with them, instead of jumping from one to another, causing uncertainty. We need European industry: it is committed to the 20-20-20 targets; and we should keep to that and, furthermore, persuade the rest of the world to be involved in environmental cooperation.

  Zbigniew Ziobro (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, greenhouse gases know no borders. Although this would appear to be an obvious point, it appears to have been missed by those in favour of a radical reduction in emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

The European Union is striving to achieve a radical reduction in greenhouse gas emissions within its own borders, turning a blind eye to the fact that other countries such as China, India and the former Soviet states do not have the slightest intention of doing the same, and instead are increasing production, and at the same time increasing emissions. Why is the European Union implementing such a policy, and what are the consequences? It is merely resulting in production being transferred from Europe to countries outside the European Union, which means that jobs are transferred and taxes lost. Yet intensive, CO2-emitting production is still going on in China, in India and in South American countries, which means that there is still just as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there was before, if not more. This is a road to nowhere.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, the problem with this report can be very simply stated. It is declamatory. I am not a climatologist. I am not qualified to pronounce definitively on sunspots or sea levels or the medieval warm period. Like almost everyone else in this Chamber I am dealing with secondary reports and I am doing my best to weigh up the opinions of people who have done the research themselves.

But I am an elected legislator and I think it would be negligent not to have a view on what constitutes a proportionate response to an identified problem. It is here that this proposal fails the test. The proof of that can be found in the claims that its supporters are making. They do not argue that this reduction, adopted unilaterally in Europe, would have more than a negligible impact on global warming on their own predictions. They say that they have to send a message. They have to show us that they are united. They have to encourage others by their actions. In other words they are using legislation not to achieve an identified outcome but to show what nice chaps we are and to feel good about themselves. If you want to do that, buy the awareness ribbon. Wear the armband or put solar panels on your roof. Do not expect your constituents to pick up the bill for you.

  Nicole Sinclaire (NI). – Mr President, I am not convinced that the target of a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 is achievable. I would therefore question the wisdom of increasing the budget to 30% and placing substantial extra costs on the industry at a time of economic hardship. Issues of climate change and global warming are of great importance not just to Europe, but to the whole planet and for future generations to come. More than anything we need to increase our understanding of the phenomenon that we are facing. In this respect we still have a long way to go.

I think that bandwagon jumping, and therefore attention-seeking, by politicians eager to please the global warming alarmists, will be no more helpful than dubious pronouncements by the deniers, who may or may not be emissaries of oil-company money. I have therefore not voted on this report, nor do I feel able to report on it, or support it. I think that we need to know more before we commit ourselves to the cost of tampering with the arbitrary targets we therefore cannot meet, in order to grab headlines.

  Jacek Olgierd Kurski (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, I welcome Parliament’s decision today to reject the proposal to increase the CO2 emissions reduction target to 30%. Even the 20% reduction target is lunacy. There is no scientific evidence that humans have a decisive impact on global warming. Nature itself regulates climate change; sometimes the climate is warmer, and sometimes it is cooler. This is why Greenland is under a layer of ice today, contrary to what one might suppose from its name. One eruption of volcanic ash can in many cases cause more CO2 emissions than the annual emissions of the national economies of several European countries.

Why are we bleeding ourselves dry, when Europe emits only 15% of global CO2, and the rest of the world has no interest in reducing its emissions? For countries such as Poland, where 94% of energy is generated from coal, it would be suicidal to adopt this package. It might mean that the amount Poland has to spend on reducing CO2 emissions exceeds the total net amount it receives from the EU Structural Funds. I hope that today’s decision is a step in the right direction: as we are abandoning the 30% target, we should also abandon the 20% target. This problem should be a priority for the Polish Presidency.

Report: Markus Pieper (A7-0222/2011)

  Giommaria Uggias (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, the report by Mr Pieper on the post-2013 cohesion policy reduces the effects of a two-speed Europe. Indeed, only uniform growth can ensure proper cohesion between our territories and overall unity, even in diversity.

I voted in favour of the text because it introduces an intermediate category, which allows may European regions to continue to benefit from the same amount of structural funds as they have done so far. The lack of efficient programming for the use of European funds has unfortunately resulted in many regions being unable to make proper use of the resources made available by the European Union, thereby risking a majority of the funds being left unused. Here, however, Brussels is sending out a positive message. We hope that our regions will know how to interpret and use the funds in the best possible way.

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, there is huge anticipation for the legislative proposals on the forthcoming post-2013 cohesion policy, which will be tabled in September. The Commission has already announced that this reform will see the introduction of an intermediate category, which should replace the current system of phasing in and phasing out.

I am left perplexed by the implications that this new category will have, since it will also include – or at least seems to include – the regions that currently are neither converging nor competing. I should like to point out that the priority of the cohesion policy is to assist late-developing regions, and I therefore would not want the reform to damage precisely the poorest regions of Europe, which struggle to put development policies into action.

I hope, however, that the new programming can give European growth a kick-start.

  Ville Itälä (PPE). - (FI) Mr President, the cohesion and structural policies are extremely important tools with which to even out disparities in Europe.

One important thing is that, although the number of errors and cases of abuse has fallen, it is still very significant. The money has not been returned, and, in some Member States, the figures are quite staggering. This needs to change, and money has to be used far more efficiently.

The whole notion of structural policy will obviously lose credibility if people are constantly reading about these cases of abuse. There is considerable loss of reputation regarding how all this works, and I therefore hope that we can continue to pay close attention to efficiency and better budgetary control.

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, the report by Mr Pieper is certainly worthy of praise. I think that many countries such as Italy, which end up being both major contributors and major beneficiaries of the cohesion policy, will see this report and this work as hugely important.

The revision is designed, above all, to improve the assessment of results, controls and conditionalities. This approach is certainly worthy of support and is also significant, as long as the budget structure and above all gross domestic product as the main criterion remain in place.

There are two aspects that I cannot say I agree with. Firstly, there is the surreptitious insertion of the use of additional languages other than those of the proposing or programming entity: I sought an oral amendment to paragraph 5, which makes it mandatory for programmes and projects to be presented not only in the relevant national language but also in English, French and German. This is not acceptable.

My second issue is with the intermediate categories: I do not think that they are useful for helping those countries in the greatest difficulties, which ought to be the main aim of the cohesion policy.

  Francesco De Angelis (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, this is a good report and one that is very important for the balanced, harmonious and sustainable development of our communities.

Genuine solidarity between Member States allows our regions to be more attractive, more innovative and more competitive. Simplifying access to assistance, more effective controls and quality spending are the objectives for a better functioning of this instrument. We need greater investment in research, knowledge and innovation to boost growth, the development of small and medium-sized enterprises and employment.

I have one final comment: creating a new intermediate category must not result in existing categories being deprived of resources, but must introduce and aim solely and exclusively at the deployment of additional resources.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, the current threshold for obtaining assistance between the objectives of convergence and competitiveness is clearly set at 75% of Community GDP. I completely agree with the rapporteur’s view that a new general category based on funding and based on a GDP level of 75% to 90% is contrary to the key philosophy of EU cohesion policy, which ought to support the weakest regions by means of a horizontal approach.

In connection with the introduction of a new category of regions, there is also no plan to increase resources, which could result in a situation where converging regions that are struggling the most with structural, economic and social problems have to make savings after 2013 in favour of more developed regions to which the convergence objective would no longer apply under the current criteria. This would have a negative effect on as many as 50 regions, in which 72 million citizens live, causing inequality between the regions to persist.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). - Mr President, first of all I want to congratulate the rapporteur because I believe that a well-funded cohesion policy sends the right message to European citizens when the word solidarity and the principle of solidarity have certainly been sorely tested right across the EU.

In particular today I am pleased that we supported Amendment 34, which calls for the creation of regions in the intermediate category. This will help to avoid unequal treatment of regions that no longer come under the convergence objective. Given the extremely severe impacts of the economic and the financial crisis on citizens and on regions, it is very important to ensure that we have an appropriate and a proportionate response. Furthermore, in certain regions the impact of the economic and the financial crisis has been particularly severe, for example in my own region, the Border, Midlands and West of Ireland. In that context it is crucial that the most up-to-date information is used so that policies in place from 2013 onwards reflect and react to the actual situation on the ground, not the situation of a few years ago. It makes no sense to use out-of-date information, so we must ensure that we do not do that.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE). - (LT) Mr President, when talking about cohesion policy having greater added value for the European Union and expressing doubts as to whether some projects could be implemented at national or regional levels, we must see the bigger picture. The reality is that a lot of European Union Member States have yet to achieve the European Union average. I come from Lithuania, a country which has been receiving assistance since it first joined the Union in order to eradicate these disparities, and I can see how my country is changing. In Lithuania, it is precisely EU money that is helping to implement a large proportion of new projects that are improving people’s quality of life, whether we are talking about the environment, transport or social affairs. Nevertheless, we still have a long road to travel before we reach the EU development average. However, if we simply rely on our own efforts and money, it will not be possible for us to take this road. A sufficient level of financing must therefore be guaranteed post 2013 for those Member States that recently joined the European Union – only then, by showing solidarity, will we ensure balanced development in the European Union.

Report: Charles Goerens (A7-0206/2011)

  Syed Kamall (ECR). - Mr President, a few years ago I ran a workshop in the Côte d’Ivoire which was attended by young centre-right African politicians. One of the things that we talked about during this workshop was the whole issue of aid. One of the issues that they were most united in opposing was this idea of direct budgetary support. Many of the young activists there said to me that the problem with direct budgetary support was that it actually kept corrupt governments in power. What they wanted was more accountable aid.

And so we had an interesting discussion about aid. They said that they would in fact rather have less aid so they could help themselves. I explained that the EU and the British Government were insisting on giving more aid and we had a debate about what it should be spent on. They asked for help so that farmers could meet EU sanitary standards, investment in infrastructure, investment in land and property registers, lending capital to entrepreneurs, and mortgage finance so that people could leverage the equity in their home and create a property-owning democracy. The debate should be focused on helping people to help themselves, rather than helping corrupt governments stay in power.

  Martin Kastler (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have voted today on the report by Mr Goerens and I believe that this report is moving in the right direction. For the first time in the history of the European Union, we have done away with the unquestioning belief in budget support in the field of development aid. This means that for the first time we have stated in a report that we should not simply give money to administrative bodies, to states or to governments without sanctions and without criteria that can be monitored. This is the right way forward.

However, in my opinion one thing is missing. This concerns an amendment which I have tabled and which was unfortunately voted down. The amendment stated that we in the European Union must impose sanctions when a state can be proved to have disregarded the criteria which form the basis for the provision of development aid. We must change this situation so that we can maintain our credibility and make it clear to our voters and our taxpayers what we are spending development aid on.

Report: Francisco Sosa Wagner (A7-0226/011)

  Francesco De Angelis (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, I voted in favour of the report by Mr Sosa Wagner because it effectively highlights the strengths and weaknesses in the European Commission’s approach to revitalising energy infrastructures: the need to identify the infrastructures required, the criteria for selecting projects of European interest in view of financing that will attract and boost private investment, the urgent need to deal with the dangers in Eastern Europe of relying on a single source which, as we have seen in recent years, can cause serious supply problems, and lastly the opportunity to invest part of the EUR 1 000 billion over 10 years provided for by the Commission for the reduction of pollution, combating climate change and improving supply quality for clean and safe energy.

  Jens Rohde (ALDE). – (DA) Mr President, the major challenges that we are facing in the field of energy are, of course, fairly familiar to us all: climate and security of supply. The challenge with regard to infrastructure has perhaps not been so prominent in the debate. Our energy infrastructure is outdated and it is simply not designed for supplying green energy from many different energy sources. Without a modern infrastructure we cannot build as many windmills and biogas installations. There is no point if we cannot get the energy out to the end user – that is self-evident.

At the same time, we have the problem that our infrastructure is not linked together across our borders. After 30 years of underinvestment, we need to make a quantum leap – a leap that will require EUR 230 billion by 2020, which the market will have to provide – quite simply because there is not enough public money for it and because it is in fact the market’s responsibility.

  Zbigniew Ziobro (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, it is to be welcomed that this report has been drafted, but one cannot help but notice its significant shortcomings. The report lacks concrete and tangible incentives for the construction of the Nabucco gas pipeline. This is an extremely important project, which if implemented would provide us with an opportunity to gain independence from Russian energy sources, and which would give us a great deal more certainty as regards Europe’s energy security. Unfortunately, if we do not move from words to deeds, and if the European Union does not involve itself with the development of this project, it may never happen. This could mean that the European Union’s energy security suffers a significant setback, which will also have economic ramifications, since gas which comes from a monopoly holder will be more expensive, and so creating competition is also justified from the point of view of the market.

The report makes no mention of the construction of a Sarmatia pipeline, although this is a good idea, and it makes no mention at all of the huge reserves of shale gas in Europe, for example in Poland, even though their extraction would mean that the European Union gained independence in terms of energy security. It is worth extracting this gas, and it is worth thinking about related infrastructure for the future.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE). - (LT) Mr President, I welcome the balanced and comprehensive report provided by my colleague Sosa Wagner, which reflects important aspects such as the unconditional nature of an assessment of the environmental impact of new projects. In addition, the call to ensure that third countries meet international environmental and other obligations when implementing new energy projects, has not been forgotten. Proposals are put forward on how to move towards an efficient and flexible European super-grid that reduces CO2 emissions.

I would nevertheless underline that in order to establish an integrated and competitive European internal energy market by 2014 at the latest, it is not enough to simply implement legislation and guarantee regulation. An EU internal market cannot function fully or efficiently without the full integration of energy islands into the EU power system through new interconnections in infrastructure.

It is therefore necessary to provide a consistent inventory of existing and lacking infrastructure and to establish measures, facilitating the full implementation, in a physical sense, of an integrated energy market by 2014. Missing infrastructure should be one of the important criteria for determining the hierarchy of projects of European interest.

Report: Proinsias De Rossa (A7-0239/2011)

  Jens Rohde (ALDE). – (DA) Mr President, it was very interesting in the discussions concerning Hungary to hear various Members here proclaim that the Member States independently have a right to contravene the Treaty and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I have to say that this is very interesting, and I strongly disagree, whereas I could perhaps reach agreement with some of my fellow Members in another area that also concerns sovereignty, namely that of social welfare provision. This De Rossa report is clearly an echo of Radio Tirana: the development of one big European socialist welfare state. As a Liberal, I have to firmly reject that. I therefore also chose to vote against the report today, which – even if the worst of the thistles have been weeded out – in spirit is nevertheless heading in a completely different direction, namely the socialist direction. That has been tried before and it is not to be recommended.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – (ES) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report because it thoroughly examines the definition of social services of general interest. They are not an expenditure, they are an investment as far as people and distributive justice are concerned. Therefore, Member States are urged to provide universal and standardised access to them, and to ensure that it occurs under the same conditions in boom times and at times of economic downturn.

This is because, in line with the above, this report emphasises the impact that the delivery of these services has on the economy through the jobs they provide, the gross domestic product they generate and the environment they provide in order that other sectors, especially small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), can function. Delivery of these services is essential for equality and to achieve a work-life balance. Lastly, there is the impact created through the commitment to the social economy when liberalisation of these services is the chosen option.

It is better for capital to be simply a tool of social services providers rather than their ultimate goal. In this way, it is guaranteed that the surpluses are reinvested in quality and innovation, and in improving the service.

Written explanations of vote

Election of a Vice-President of the European Parliament (to replace Mrs Koch-Mehrin)

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Following the request for resignation by Mrs Koch-Mehrin, I support the election of Mr Chichester, from the United Kingdom, as the new Vice-President of Parliament. I believe that this is an appropriate choice, given his wide and diverse life experience in positions of great responsibility and at international level, in the areas of business and scientific research, as well as in the area of politics, where, having been a Member of Parliament since 1994 and President of the Nuclear Energy Forum, his activity has spanned two and a half decades..

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The British MEP Giles Chichester is taking on the role of Vice-President of the European Parliament, replacing Silvana Koch-Mehrin, who is stepping down. Giles Chichester is a graduate of Oxford University and has worked at the publishing companies University of London Press and Hodder and Stoughton Ltd, as well as occupying various positions in other companies, including the roles of manager, general manager and managing director. He has also been Chairman of the Hammersmith Conservative Association and of the Conservative London West European Constituency Council. He has worked in many voluntary organisations, for example on the boards of governors of various schools and in charities and clubs, and he is a member of the Royal Geographical Society. In my opinion, based on the necessary qualifications and experience, he is a suitable candidate for the post of Vice-President of the European Parliament.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I welcome the election of Mr Chichester as Vice-President of Parliament in place of Mrs Koch-Mehrin.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − The replacement of Ms Koch-Mehrin was agreed by consensus.

Election of a Vice-President of the European Parliament (to replace Mr Lambrinidis)

  Nessa Childers (S&D), in writing. − It is essential that the European Parliament chooses the right members for the right portfolios. I wish Anni Podimata the best in her new role.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Following the request for resignation by Mr Lambrinidis, I support the election of Mrs Podimata, from Greece, as the new Vice-President of Parliament. Mrs Podimata is a Member who has shown that she has the experience and ability to communicate, and whose work is notable for the public recognition of her contribution to the greater closeness and fostering of friendly relations between her country and Turkey.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Anni Podimata is taking on the post of Vice-President of the European Parliament, replacing Stavros Lambrinidis in this role. Mr Lambrinidis will be the new Greek Minister of Foreign Affairs, aiming to assist his trouble-stricken country. Anni Podimata graduated from the Philosophy Department of the University of Athens and then worked as a correspondent and foreign policy editor in newspapers and at a radio station. In 2000, she was awarded the Greek-Turkish Friendship prize by the Turkish Association of Radio and Television Journalists for her contribution to rapprochement between the two countries. I firmly believe that Mrs Podimata possesses in full the necessary qualifications for filling the post of Vice-President of the European Parliament.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I welcome the election of Mrs Podimata as Vice-President of Parliament in place of Mr Lambrinidis.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − The replacement of Mr Lambrinidis was agreed by consensus.

Election of a Vice-President of the European Parliament (to replace Mrs Koch-Mehrin) - Election of a Vice-President of the European Parliament (to replace Mr Lambrinidis)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting in favour of maintaining the balance of power between political groups in the vice-presidencies of Parliament.

Request for consultation of the European Economic and Social Committee on the functioning and application of established rights of people travelling by air

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The single market in aviation in the European Union was set up legislatively in such a way that the rights established in the aviation sector would be applied mainly for the benefit of passengers. We now have lower prices and the option of choosing from a greater number of transport providers than at any time in the past. The EU has also taken steps to increase air transport safety, compiling a list of airlines that have been shown to be unsafe and that have been forbidden or restricted in EU countries. It provides passengers with special rights in the event that their flights are disrupted in some way – such as delays or flight cancellations – or where seats have been oversold. EU legislation takes responsibility for lost, delayed or damaged baggage. New rules have also been established for protecting physically disabled people and people with reduced mobility against discrimination, and for providing the necessary in-flight assistance. The EU also undertook these legislative measures in order to ensure the proper treatment of passengers in air transport, for example.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this request for consultation of the European Economic and Social Committee on the functioning and application of established rights of people travelling by air.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − According to Rule 124 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament (‘Consultation of the European Economic and Social Committee’): ‘1. Where the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides for consultation of the Economic and Social Committee, the President shall initiate the consultation procedure and inform Parliament thereof. 2. A committee may request that the European Economic and Social Committee be consulted on matters of a general nature or on specific points. The committee shall indicate the deadline for delivery by the European Economic and Social Committee of its opinion. A request for consultation of the European Economic and Social Committee shall be approved by Parliament without debate. 3. Opinions forwarded by the Economic and Social Committee shall be referred to the committee responsible.’

  Artur Zasada (PPE), in writing. − (PL) I was happy to hear the result of this vote. The European Economic and Social Committee very often provides the European Parliament with specialist assistance. I have cooperated with the Committee on many occasions during work on civil aviation documents, and I have always been very favourably impressed by the EESC specialists’ assistance. Today I would like to ask for issues relating to passengers with reduced mobility to be taken into consideration during the consultations.

I need only refer to the recent information campaign by the European Commission on the rights of disabled passengers and passengers with reduced mobility travelling by air; information posters were put up in airports, and an appealing television advertisement was even filmed. Unfortunately, no mention was made of a large group of travellers who belong to the category of passengers with reduced mobility, namely mothers or fathers travelling on their own with small children. This is an inexcusable oversight. I believe that the European Economic and Social Committee and the European Parliament will succeed in demanding that the European Commission respects the rights of all individuals travelling by air who belong to the category of passengers with reduced mobility.

Request for consultation of the European Economic and Social Committee on EU-Chile relations

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) In 2002, the EU signed an Association Agreement with Chile covering politics, trade and cooperation. Chile is an important reference point in relation to the main economic and political changes that have taken place in Latin America in recent years, such as stable economic growth stimulated by the price of raw materials, the coming to power of parties representing the people in a number of states, the increasing international role of Latin American states, changes to the composition of regional groupings such as Mercosur, projects to create large South American networks, a project aiming to create a South American Community of Nations, and so on. Major changes have also taken place in relations with the EU, from the Association Agreement itself to the strong growth of European investments in Chile.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this request for consultation of the European Economic and Social Committee on EU-Chile relations.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − According to Rule 124 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament (‘Consultation of the European Economic and Social Committee’): ‘1. Where the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides for consultation of the Economic and Social Committee, the President shall initiate the consultation procedure and inform Parliament thereof. 2. A committee may request that the European Economic and Social Committee be consulted on matters of a general nature or on specific points. The committee shall indicate the deadline for delivery by the European Economic and Social Committee of its opinion. A request for consultation of the European Economic and Social Committee shall be approved by Parliament without debate. 3. Opinions forwarded by the Economic and Social Committee shall be referred to the committee responsible.’

Request for consultation of the European Economic and Social Committee on the functioning and application of established rights of people travelling by air - Request for consultation of the European Economic and Social Committee on EU-Chile relations

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting in favour of using this procedure, under Article 124 of the Rules of Procedure, so that the committee responsible understands that an opinion needs to be prepared by the European Economic and Social Committee on the matter in question.

Report: Barbara Matera (A7-0234/011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am in favour of this report as it aims to support the preservation of employment, in this particular case in Denmark. It concerns a financial aid fund that will support about 950 workers with a total amount of EUR 14.18 million.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I welcomed this document. The European Union has set up the appropriate legislative and budgetary instruments to provide additional support to workers who are suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market, and has established the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF). Given the enormous impact of the global financial and economic crisis on European industry, in 2009 the scope of the EGF was broadened in order to provide support to workers made redundant as a result of the crisis. In this instance, Denmark has requested assistance in respect of cases concerning 1356 redundancies (of which 950 are targeted for assistance) in the enterprise Odense Steel Shipyard operating in shipyard sector in the municipality of Odense located in southern Denmark. As the application fulfils the criteria, I welcome the call to provide the required assistance to people made redundant as quickly and efficiently as possible.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in 2006 in order to provide additional assistance to workers affected by the consequences of significant changes in the structure of international trade, and to assist in their reintegration into the labour market. Since 1 May 2009, the remit of the EGF has been expanded to include support for workers made redundant as a direct consequence of the economic, financial and social crisis.

At this time, when we are facing this severe crisis, one of the principal consequences of which is an increase in unemployment, the EU needs to use all of the means at its disposal to react, particularly with regard to providing support for those who find themselves without a job from one day to the next. I therefore voted for this report on the mobilisation of the EGF in favour of Denmark, with the aim of supporting the 950 workers made redundant from the enterprise Odense Steel Shipyard, operating in the shipbuilding sector.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. – (ES) I voted in favour of allocating EUR 14 181 901 in aid from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) to the Odense Steel Shipyard, in the shipbuilding sector of southern Denmark, as it fulfils the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. It relates to 1 356 redundancies, for 150 of which aid was requested in order to support reintegration into the labour market.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is an instrument intended to assist in the reintegration of workers who have lost their job due to the ongoing globalisation of world markets.

The fund is for workers and does not aim to benefit the business that made the redundancies in any way. In terms of mobilising the fund for the case in question, I abstained in the vote because I think it presented some critical issues and the eligibility of the request was not all that clear. Indeed, even though the Commission had approved the request, some aspects made me to lean towards abstaining. For instance, it was not a surprise that the workers were made redundant, given that almost a year had passed since the announcement of the closure of the site to the request to mobilise the fund. Furthermore, 750 of the 950 workers who would have been targeted for assistance from the fund had already been hired by a Norwegian firm for offshore activities.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I am pleased with the approach that the Danish authorities have taken in using the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) to fund measures that are supplementary and innovative compared to those that are customarily offered by employment agencies. I welcome the professional retraining of workers who have been made redundant in areas of work that are innovative and geared towards the future. I voted in favour of the measure that will offer general education to about a quarter of the eligible workers, preparing them for new jobs in the knowledge society.

  Nessa Childers (S&D), in writing. − The Globalisation Fund is one of the EU’s greatest resources, and essential to many workers across the Union. It is essential that the fund is used productively and efficiently and implemented to maximum effect.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The structural changes in world trade patterns and the financial crisis that is currently plaguing Europe continue to be felt, and they justify the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF). This time, more than 1 300 workers from the Danish shipbuilding sector have been made redundant due to these problems. I regret the frequency with which such situations arise and I believe that policy makers should pay close attention to them and seek to mitigate their impact whenever possible, in such a way as to prevent workers from being left without a modicum of social protection, while also ensuring that this does not preclude, but rather encourages, their reintegration into the labour market. The way in which the personal circumstances of anyone who is made redundant worsen indicates that this additional support should be provided as soon as possible.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is fully reasoned and justified in this case concerning the enterprise Odense Steel Shipyard operating in the shipbuilding sector in the municipality of Odense, located in the Region of Southern Denmark, which has been affected by the phenomenon of globalisation, as it has already lost substantial market shares to Asia, and due to the current financial and economic crisis, which has resulted in cancelled orders and a decrease in new orders. I would like to stress that the total amount of EUR 14 181 901 requested may be vital to the reskilling of many of the 1 356 workers who have been made redundant, with a view to their professional retraining in future-oriented and innovative areas of work that will allow the workers to build on their technical knowledge and work experience, especially in the areas of energy technology, construction and landscaping, and robotics.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Every new application to mobilise this fund increases the urgency of the measures that we have been advocating, which are aimed at fighting unemployment effectively, boosting economic activity, eradicating jobs with no security, and reducing working hours without cutting pay. These measures are the opposite of the policies that have been implemented in the EU, as is happening in Portugal under the European Union and International Monetary Fund plan, the result of which has been more unemployment and the economic recession.

This time, the request for mobilisation is to assist 1 356 workers who have been made redundant from the enterprise Odense Steel Shipyard operating in the shipbuilding sector in the municipality of Odense, located in the Region of Southern Denmark. According to the report, of these workers only 950 are targeted for assistance. It is also worth remembering that hundreds of workers at the shipyards of Viana do Castelo were recently threatened with redundancy, so I welcome their just struggle to keep their jobs. As we approve this mobilisation, I cannot avoid reiterating that what is needed is a clear break with the policies and guidelines that are causing the obvious economic and social disaster seen in several EU countries. Once again, palliatives are needed for the disaster, but the causes must also be addressed.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) In this report Parliament gives the green light to another proposal to mobilise the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), which was also adopted by the Commission on 6 May 2011. Its purpose is to benefit Denmark, and it aims to support the reintegration of workers made redundant as a result of the economic and financial crisis.

This is the fifth application, and concerns 1 356 cases of redundancy, of which 950 are targeted for assistance, from the enterprise Odense Steel Shipyard operating in the shipbuilding sector in the municipality of Odense, located in the Region of Southern Denmark.

Once again, having analysed this proposal by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, we are giving it our support, although we regret that the Commission did not intervene before the closure in order to protect production and jobs.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was set up with the aim of providing sufficient support to workers feeling the effects of major structural changes in global trade. In May 2011, the Commission adopted a new draft decision to mobilise the EGF to assist Denmark, in order to support the re-entry onto the labour market of workers made redundant due to the financial and economic crisis. This is the fifth request to be reviewed within the framework of the 2011 budget, and relates to the mobilisation of a total sum of EUR 14 181 901 from the EGF for Denmark. It relates to 1 356 workers – of whom the assistance applies to 950 – who were made redundant from the company Odense Steel Shipyard, which operates in the shipbuilding industry in southern Denmark. In accordance with the Commission’s assessment, the request fulfils the entitlement criteria set out in the Regulation on the EGF, and the Commission recommends that the budgetary authority should approve the request. I think it is appropriate to ensure a rapid procedure for adopting decisions on mobilising the fund, with due regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. − (IT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is intended to support and assist in the reintegration of workers who have lost their job due to global market trends. This tendency is more marked at this time of economic crisis. The case in question deals with redundancies in Denmark. Since there are no critical aspects, I confirm my vote in favour.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcomed this document, because Denmark has requested assistance in respect of cases concerning 1356 redundancies (of which 950 are targeted for assistance) in the enterprise Odense Steel Shipyard operating in shipyard sector in the municipality of Odense located in southern Denmark. The application fulfils the eligibility criteria set out by the EGF Regulation. The Commission, therefore, proposed to mobilise an amount of EUR 14 181 901.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in favour of Denmark because I consider that instrument to be a valuable resource for supporting workers in difficulties on account of the economic crisis. Today’s vote related to a request for mobilisation in respect of the redundancies in the enterprise Odense Steel Shipyard, for which the Commission has proposed to mobilise EUR 14 181 901. More generally, I should also like to emphasise the important role of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, which over these years has shown that it is a useful and effective resource for combating unemployment resulting from globalisation and the economic crisis.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this application. Case EGF/2010/025 DK/Odense Steel Shipyard from Denmark was submitted to the Commission on 6 October 2010 and supplemented by additional information up to 8 March 2011. It was based on the intervention criterion of Article 2(a) of the EGF Regulation, which requires at least 500 redundancies over a four-month period in an enterprise in a Member State, including workers made redundant in its suppliers and downstream producers, and was submitted within the deadline of 10 weeks.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) We support the Commission’s adoption of a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in favour of Denmark, with a view to supporting the reintegration into the labour market of workers in the enterprise Odense Steel Shipyard, who were made redundant as a result of the global financial and economic crisis.

The fund may not exceed a maximum amount of EUR 500 million per year. We think a number of aspects need to be taken into consideration, including: the link between the redundant workers and major structural changes in international trade patterns or the financial crisis; identification of the dismissing enterprises and of the workers targeted for assistance; the territory concerned with its respective authorities and stakeholders; the impact of the redundancies as regards local, regional or national employment; the coordinated package of personalised services to be funded; dates on which the personalised services to affected workers were started or planned to start; procedures for consulting the social partners; management and control systems.

We believe that the request satisfies the eligibility criteria and that the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs should be involved in the process in order to provide constructive support and assistance in assessing the requests for the mobilisation of the fund.

  Barbara Matera (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I welcome the approval of the request, which is justified by the loss of market share of European shipping, in favour of 950 redundancies made by the Odense Steel Shipyard, a large company operating in international shipping.

Leaving aside this particular case, I think that in the future revision of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) it will be important to bear in mind the conduct of multinational enterprises, the relocation of which causes redundancies and the consequent intervention of the EGF, while not compromising workers’ access to the support provided.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I am abstaining because I have in mind the Danish workers who have been sacrificed on the altar of globalisation. In the situation into which they are plunged as a result of the neoliberal policies advocated by the European Union, one could be inclined to vote against, given the pitiful amount of this handout. However, the little that is being given may help to ease their pain. This does not make the rationale of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund any less intolerable.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU is an area of solidarity and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is a part of this. This support is essential for helping the unemployed and those affected by company relocations that occur within a globalised context. More and more companies are relocating, taking advantage of lower labour costs in a number of countries, particularly China and India, which is having a damaging effect on those countries that respect workers’ rights. The EGF aims to help workers who are affected by company relocations, and it is essential for facilitating access to new employment. The EGF has been used by other EU countries in the past, so now it is appropriate to grant this aid to Denmark, which has applied for assistance for 1 356 cases of redundancy, of which 950 are targeted for assistance, at the enterprise Odense Steel Shipyard in the shipbuilding sector in the municipality of Odense, in the Region of Southern Denmark.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − This will be the fifth mobilisation of European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in 2011. A total of EUR 14 181 901 will be mobilised for Denmark, which requested assistance concerning 1356 redundancies (950 of them targeted for assistance) in the enterprise Odense Steel Shipyard, operating in the shipyard sector in the region of Southern Denmark during the four-month reference period from 13 April to 31 July 2010. I voted in favour of Barbara Matera’s report.

However, I wish to point out that certain changes are required in the way that the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund works, specifically in relation to the allocation of funding, since small countries such as Latvia and Estonia cannot make use of the opportunities the fund offers because the criteria for allocation are such that only large countries, and thus large companies, can benefit from it.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. − (ET) The shipbuilding sector has suffered considerably from the economic crisis, as demonstrated by the numerous closed or soon-to-be-closed shipbuilding companies across Europe, including in my home country Estonia. I naturally fully support the altogether justified application from Denmark’s Odense Steel Shipyard, but as we Europeans set new objectives, we should seriously consider whether we truly need such large merchant fleets and ports to transport large quantities of goods from distant Asia, or whether it would instead be more sensible to concentrate on production in Europe, which would increase employment and would also be much more environmentally friendly.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created to provide additional support to workers affected by the consequences of major structural changes in the patterns of world trade. On 6 May 2011, the Commission adopted a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF in favour of Denmark. This is the fifth application to be examined under the 2011 budget, and refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of over EUR 14 million. It concerns 1 356 redundancies, of which 950 are targeted for assistance, in the enterprise Odense Steel Shipyard operating in the shipbuilding sector in the municipality of Odense, in the Region of Southern Denmark, during the four-month reference period from 13 April to 31 July 2010. Given that this case has been examined by all the stakeholders, especially the Commission, and that the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and its Working Group on the EGF support the mobilisation of the fund in favour of Denmark, I voted for this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) On 6 May 2011, the Commission adopted a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in favour of Denmark, with the aim of supporting the reintegration to the labour market of workers made redundant due to the global financial and economic crisis. The request in question refers to the mobilisation of the EGF for a total amount of EUR 14 181 901 in favour of Denmark. It relates to 1 356 redundancies (of which 950 targeted for assistance) in the enterprise Odense Steel Shipyard. According to the Commission’s evaluation, the application satisfies the eligibility criteria set up by the EGF Regulation, hence the Commission has advocated its approval to the budgetary authority. The EGF was created in 2006 to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns, to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market. Following a review of this Regulation in 2009, the scope of the EGF was broadened to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis. For these reasons, I voted in favour of the proposal in question.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The fifth application for assistance from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) has been submitted under the implementation of the 2011 budget. The fund seeks to assist workers who find themselves in a highly vulnerable situation due to the relocation of the companies in which they worked as a result of the phenomenon of global competition. In this instance Denmark has requested the intervention of the fund in the cases of 1 356 redundancies from the enterprise Odense Steel Shipyard. The unforeseen nature of the redundancies and their correlation, or causal link, with the global economic and financial climate has been demonstrated. Indeed, all the criteria for the intervention of the fund, allowing the mobilisation of up to EUR 500 million per year, have been fulfilled. Finally, it should be stressed that there is a need to promote especially rapid procedures for allocating funds, in light of situations where local populations are in need.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. As usual in this type of reports, the EP requests the institutions involved to make the necessary efforts to improve procedural and budgetary arrangements in order to accelerate the mobilisation of the EGF; appreciates in this sense the improved procedure put in place by the Commission, following Parliament’s request for accelerating the release of grants, aimed at presenting to the budgetary authority the Commission’s assessment on the eligibility of an EGF application together with the proposal to mobilise the fund; hopes that further improvements in the procedure will be reached in the framework of the upcoming reviews of the EGF and that greater efficiency, transparency and visibility of the fund will be achieved.

It recalls as well the institutions’ commitment to ensuring a smooth and rapid procedure for the adoption of the decisions on the mobilisation of the EGF, providing one-off, time-limited individual support geared to helping workers who have suffered redundancies as a result of globalisation and the financial and economic crisis; and emphasises the role that the EGF can play in the reintegration of workers made redundant into the labour market.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) On 6 May 2011, the Commission adopted a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in favour of Denmark, with a view to supporting the reintegration into the labour market of workers made redundant as a result of the global financial and economic crisis.

This is the fifth application to be examined under the 2011 budget and it concerns 1 356 redundancies (of which 950 targeted for assistance) in the enterprise Odense Steel Shipyard operating in the shipyard sector in the region of Southern Denmark, during the four-month reference period from 13 April 2010 to 31 July 2010. I voted in favour of this text in order to allow this financing to be approved.

  Amalia Sartori, (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created to provide supplementary support to workers who suffer the consequences of the huge structural changes in international trade patterns. I voted in favour of the proposal for a decision of Parliament and of the Council for the mobilisation of the fund because the request submitted by the Danish company Glasfiber seems to satisfy the eligibility criteria established by the EGF Regulation. In addition, the Commission has recommended that the budgetary authority proceed to approve the request, presenting a transfer request from the EGF reserve. I would note, in addition, that the Joint Declaration of Parliament, the Council and the Commission adopted during the conciliation meeting of 17 July 2008 confirmed the importance of ensuring a fast process, in accordance with the Interinstitutional Agreement, for the adoption of decisions relating to the mobilisation of the fund.

  Søren Bo Søndergaard (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (DA) I voted in favour of the report in respect of those workers who were promised retraining and further training in connection with the mass redundancies at the Lindø shipyard. My vote does not mean that I support the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. On the contrary, I believe that the EU’s subsidy system, whereby rich EU countries give money to the EU so that the EU can then give money back to them, is absurd. The Lindø case illustrates this very clearly. There have been many months between the municipalities affected sending the application to the EU and the money now being on the way to Fyn. In the meantime, some of the redundant workers have found work again. That is a good thing, but the many redundant workers who have not found work have not received a penny for the further training and retraining that they were promised. Everyone knows that the longer it goes on, the harder it becomes to find work again. If this money had been paid out straight away by the Danish State without it having to do a circuit around Brussels, it would have been worth a lot more than it is now.

  Csanád Szegedi (NI), in writing. − (HU) I definitely supported and voted in favour of the report. The fact that employees of the shipyard mentioned earlier were dismissed is a direct consequence of globalisation. I agree with the proposal that these people receive assistance from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. This action has to establish a precedent; we have to draw the attention of the society to the harmful effects of globalisation this way as well. This case too proves that profit-oriented multinationals and companies expanding all over Europe as a result of globalisation do not serve the interests of society, and their presence on the market eliminates more workplaces than it creates. I hope that Hungarians losing their jobs in massive numbers, particularly those in North-Eastern Hungary, who have been out of work for some time now, will soon receive similar financial assistance.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 established the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) with the aim of supporting workers who lose their jobs due to structural changes in the context of the global economy. In 2011, the EGF has a total budget of EUR 500 million. The Commission considers that EUR 14 181 901 should be allocated to Denmark in order to assist the reintegration into the labour market of the 1 356 workers made redundant from the enterprise Odense Steel Shipyard. I am voting in favour of this report as I believe that the legal conditions set out in the aforementioned regulation are fulfilled, and that there is a direct causal link between the redundancies and the major structural changes that have been seen in the patterns of world trade. I should also like to point out that the EGF should not be a substitute for the legal and financial responsibilities of the enterprise Odense Steel Shipyard, but rather an additional support granted by Europe in order to reduce the social difficulties that these workers will face. In view of this, I believe that the fund should be extended to this shipbuilding company in the municipality of Odense, in the Region of Southern Denmark, as quickly as possible.

Report: Reimer Böge (A7-0238/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report as it proposes mobilisation of the Solidarity Fund to a total amount of EUR 19.54 million for the flooding suffered in Slovenia, Croatia and the Czech Republic in 2010. The EU Solidarity Fund is aimed at overcoming difficulties and assisting states in unforeseen situations, as in the case of the floods suffered in these countries.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I agreed with the proposal to mobilise the European Union Solidarity Fund in favour of Slovenia, Croatia and the Czech Republic. The Interinstitutional Agreement allows the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion. In 2010, these countries were severely hit by natural disasters, which affected a major part of their populations, with lasting repercussions on living conditions and the economic stability of the region.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The aim of the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) is to provide swift, effective and flexible assistance to the people of a Member State, or a country negotiating accession, in the event of a major natural disaster. This fund supplements the Member States’ public funds for emergency situations, specifically for urgent infrastructure repairs, temporary shelter and emergency services to cater for the people’s immediate needs, as well as clearing-up in the areas affected by the disaster.

Slovenia, Croatia and the Czech Republic were affected by torrential rains in 2010, which caused serious flooding resulting in huge losses. Following the disasters, the countries in question requested assistance from the EUSF. Since the eligibility criteria laid down in the relevant regulation were met, mobilisation of the EUSF was approved with a view to mitigating the pain, suffering and losses of the people affected by these disasters. For these reasons, I voted for this report.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. – (ES) I voted for the mobilisation of the European Union’s Solidarity Fund for Slovenia, Croatia and the Czech Republic as they fulfil the eligibility criteria set out in Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002, and in order to help them overcome the serious damage caused to infrastructure, agriculture, companies and private homes by the heavy rains and floods recorded in August and September 2010.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The report concerns the request to mobilise the Solidarity Fund submitted by Slovenia, Croatia and the Czech Republic following the intense rainfall in these three countries during the period August-September 2010.

I voted in favour since the report does not pose any problems from the procedural point of view and the requests of the three countries are in line with the eligibility criteria.

  Nessa Childers (S&D), in writing. − It is essential that the EU Solidarity Fund is used to help those most in need: families whose access to important resources has been cut off, whose children cannot attend school and businesses which are immobilised by impromptu events.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund for Slovenia, Croatia and the Czech Republic, following the severe rains and flooding that affected these countries in 2010. Once again, this demonstrates the need to revise the new Solidarity Fund regulation so as to make it swifter and more flexible.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The aim of the European Union Solidarity Fund is to assist regions that have been hit by natural disasters. The torrential rainfall of August and September 2010 caused huge losses in Croatia, the Czech Republic and Slovenia, and led to an application for the mobilisation of the fund by these three countries, on the basis of what is classed as an ‘extraordinary regional disaster’; in other words, assistance following a disaster that affects the majority of the region’s population and that has serious and lasting repercussions on living conditions and economic stability in the region. I believe that the EU should not cease to offer its support to these three countries and thus seek to mitigate the huge losses that they have suffered. Solidarity and cohesion are essential values in a Europe that expresses a wish to be more than a mere economic free trade area.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In the context of the solidarity that should govern relations between the Member States of the European Union and the objectives of the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF), I have supported the applications for assistance submitted by Slovenia, Croatia and the Czech Republic, for a total amount of EUR 19 546 647. As a result of severe rainfall in August and September of last year, various regions of these countries suffered heavy losses to infrastructure, businesses, homes and farms. These were extraordinary natural disasters which needed to be overcome quickly, so as to minimise the impact on the living conditions of the people affected and on economic stability in the region. In view of this, I would like to highlight the need to ensure greater flexibility and speed in the procedures for implementing the EUSF.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report endorses the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) to assist three countries – Slovenia, the Czech Republic and Croatia – which in September 2010 were affected by severe rainfall followed by flooding that caused huge losses. In some cases, this forced people to abandon their homes and resulted in significant damage to public infrastructure, businesses, homes and agriculture. As the total losses remain below the normal threshold for the mobilisation of the EUSF, the request was examined on the basis of the criteria for an ‘extraordinary regional disaster’, set out in the relevant regulation. We recall that only a few months earlier, in May and June 2010, two of these countries, namely the Czech Republic and Croatia, had suffered exactly the same disasters which led to the mobilisation of the EUSF, as the criteria for classifying the event as a ‘major natural disaster’ were fulfilled.

In the face of these disasters and their impact on the land, economy and people of these countries, we of course see the mobilisation of this support as important and necessary, and we are therefore voting for the report. We cannot, however, neglect to stress that much remains to be done in the area of disaster prevention, including the many proposals that we have already made here, and which the Commission is delaying putting into practice.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report endorses the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) to assist three countries, Slovenia, the Czech Republic and Croatia, which in September 2010 were affected by severe rainfall followed by flooding that caused huge losses. In some cases these forced people to abandon their homes and resulted in significant damage to public infrastructure, businesses, homes and agriculture.

As the total losses remain below the normal threshold for the mobilisation of the EUSF, the request was examined on the basis of the criteria for an ‘extraordinary regional disaster’, set out in the relevant regulation.

In May and June 2010, two of these countries, namely the Czech Republic and Croatia, had suffered exactly the same disasters, which led to the mobilisation of the EUSF, as the criteria for classifying the event as a ‘major natural disaster’ were fulfilled.

In view of these disasters and their impact on the land, the economy and the people of these countries, we of course believe that it is vital and necessary to mobilise this support, and we therefore voted for the report. We cannot, however, neglect to stress that much remains to be done in the area of disaster prevention, including the many proposals that we have submitted here, which the Commission is delaying putting into practice.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) After the severe floods that hit Europe in the summer and autumn of 2010, Slovenia, Croatia and the Czech Republic requested financial assistance from the European Union Solidarity Fund, which will be used to mitigate and remedy the damage caused. The total direct damage caused by these floods in all the countries concerned amounts to more than EUR 700 billion. The Commission has proposed releasing resources totalling EUR 19.54 million from the EU Solidarity Fund. Slovenia requested assistance from the Solidarity Fund in connection with flood damage resulting from the intensive rain, which inundated 137 Slovene villages and caused widespread damage to infrastructure, businesses and private property. Croatia requested assistance from the Solidarity Fund after the intense rainfall lasting from 17 to 22 September 2010 caused major floods. The disaster resulted in considerable damage to infrastructure, agriculture and private property. The Czech Republic requested assistance after unusually heavy rainfall in the north of the country caused rivers to swell at the beginning of August 2010, forcing the inhabitants to abandon their homes and causing damage to infrastructure, private dwellings, agriculture and businesses. Once it had verified that all of the applications met the criteria for entitlement within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002, the Commission proposed mobilising the Solidarity Fund in order to mitigate the destructive consequences of the natural disasters in these countries.

  Jiří Havel (S&D), in writing. – (CS) In connection with the floods of August 2010, which hit regions including the Liberec and Ústi nad Labem region, Mr Böge has presented a report on the release of additional funds from the European Union Solidarity Fund. I welcome the positive result of today’s vote on support for these regions in my native land affected by the natural disasters. I would also like to end by emphasising the importance of this fund, which is available for assisting Member States in eliminating the consequences of natural disasters. It is an effective expression of solidarity, and genuinely helps EU citizens in times of urgent need. I would like to thank all fellow Members for supporting this report.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. − (PL) The torrential rain which hit Slovenia, Croatia and the Czech Republic in September 2010 caused enormous losses. Many people were left without a roof over their heads and lost their life’s possessions. The economies of these countries also suffered greatly. This is a huge tragedy, and a problem which is not unheard of in my own country, since Poland has also battled floods. Very large outlays are needed to deal with the effects of flooding, and the process often lasts for years. I believe that it is necessary to mobilise the EU Solidarity Fund, and that assistance should be provided to countries hit by a natural disaster.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) We agree with the decision to mobilise the European Union Solidarity Fund, within an annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion, in favour of Croatia, Slovenia and the Czech Republic following the intense rainfall and flooding that affected these three countries last year.

The disaster caused significant damage to infrastructure, to the agriculture sector, to businesses and to private property, forcing the population to abandon their homes. We believe that since this was a natural disaster, the request should be examined on the basis of the so-called ‘extraordinary regional disaster’ criterion. Under this criterion, a region can exceptionally benefit from assistance from the fund where that region has been affected by an extraordinary disaster, mainly a natural one, affecting the majority of its population, with serious and lasting repercussions on living conditions and the economic stability of the region.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The European Union’s Solidarity Fund is an essential financial support instrument for managing the natural disasters caused by flooding in Slovenia, Croatia and the Czech Republic. The natural disasters which struck the three European countries resulted in loss of human life and considerable losses for Europe’s regional economies, which will have an adverse social and economic impact. Unfortunately, the losses of human life are irreplaceable. However, even in this context, it is obvious how important it is to make a commitment at European level to provide a rapid reaction force and guarantee well-coordinated, prompt action from the intervention teams. Information and education campaigns on the preliminary action to take, during and after disasters have occurred, as well as efforts to encourage people to think prevention must feature among the measures for managing disasters at Member State level. I come from Romania where more than 900 000 fellow citizens live in areas at high risk of flooding and which was among the countries badly hit by severe flooding in 2010. As a European and Romanian, I support the policy of solidarity in every area. However, particularly when we are faced with disasters, solidarity is not an option but a necessity.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The mobilisation of this solidarity instrument, which has been used in the past – specifically in my country, with the support sent to Madeira following the heavy rains there in February 2010 – makes complete sense in an attempt to mitigate the effects that natural disasters always have on the populations of the countries they affect.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Following heavy floods in Eastern Europe in summer and autumn 2010, the Czech, Croatian and Slovenian authorities applied for financial assistance from the EU Solidarity Fund. The Commission proposed mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund to a total amount of EUR 19.54 million. This will be the second mobilisation of the Solidarity Fund in 2011. I fully support the allocation of funding to the countries that have suffered but I am concerned by the fact that Latvia is not receiving more assistance from the EU. In winter 2010-2011 the Latgale region of Latvia suffered power cuts which inflicted heavy damage. Funding ought to be allocated for measures to prevent calamities of this nature.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. − (ET) If one European country is in difficulty due to a natural disaster or for some other reason, it is extremely important, and elementary, that we should show solidarity towards each other. We can never know in advance when our home country or region may be the next to need help from all of the other Member States. I fully support the granting of this support to Slovenia, the Czech Republic and the future EU Member State Croatia. The allocations in question will not, of course, cover much of the damage caused, but nonetheless they will certainly be of significant assistance to regions that are suffering, and will demonstrate European unity.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Heavy rainfall caused significant damage in Slovenia, Croatia and the Czech Republic during 2010. Nearly a year later, Parliament finds itself approving the mobilisation of funds in favour of these States. In accordance with the principle of solidarity, which assigns specific funds to those countries affected by natural disasters, Parliament has undertaken through Mr Böge’s report – which I voted in favour of – to provide more than EUR 200 million to the countries that have suffered these floods in order to enable the reconstruction of the damaged areas.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Commission has proposed mobilising the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) for Slovenia, Croatia and the Czech Republic in accordance with Point 26 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management. This agreement allows for the mobilisation of the Solidarity Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion. Slovenia, Croatia and the Czech Republic have requested the mobilisation of this fund in the wake of natural disasters which resulted in substantial material damage. Indeed, in these countries, a period of unusually heavy rainfall led to flooding and rivers breaking their banks, with severe consequences and damage to the people. The Commission’s services found that all the applications meet the eligibility criteria set out in Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002. Having confirmed these requirements, the Commission has proposed mobilising the EUSF at an amount of EUR 7 459 637 for Slovenia, EUR 1 175 071 for Croatia and EUR 10 911 939 for the Czech Republic, making a total of EUR 19 546 647. For these reasons, I voted for this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The European Union has created a European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) to show the its solidarity with regions affected by natural disasters. This agreement allows for the mobilisation of EU solidarity. In the second half of last year, Slovenia, Croatia and the Czech Republic requested the assistance of the European Solidarity Fund following intense rainfall in August and September 2010. Having verified that all the requests were in line with the eligibility criteria, the Commission proposed to mobilise the second Solidarity Fund in 2011.

In parallel to the proposal to mobilise the Solidarity Fund, the Commission has presented a Draft Amending Budget (DAB No 2/2011) in order to enter in the 2011 budget the corresponding commitment and payment appropriations. The Commission has proposed to inject new money into the budget, in line with the joint declaration on payment appropriations annexed to the 2011 budget. The Council, meanwhile, wants the redistribution of payments for the entire amount of the budget lines for the completion of the European Social Fund and regional assistance as part of the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA), instead of topping up the budget, as proposed by the Commission. I voted in favour of the proposal under scrutiny so that these countries can benefit from the EU Solidarity Fund.

  Miguel Portas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) On 25 March, the Commission presented in parallel Amending Budget No2/2011 and a proposal to mobilise the European Union Solidarity Fund, following the floods in August and September 2010 in Slovenia, Croatia and the Czech Republic, to a total of EUR 19.55 million. The extent of the damage caused and its impact on the people of these countries justifies the mobilisation of the fund; it is just a pity that this mobilisation has been delayed.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Commission has proposed mobilising the European Union Solidarity Fund to help repair the infrastructure damaged by the flooding of September 2010, which hit Slovenia and was deemed a ‘major natural disaster’. The neighbouring countries, Croatia and the Czech Republic, also subsequently suffered damage due to natural disasters. In the case of Slovenia, 137 of the country’s 210 municipalities were affected by intense rainfall between 17 and 20 September 2010, causing estimated total damage amounting to EUR 251 300 861, which is over the threshold for mobilising the funds. Although Croatia and the Czech Republic do not meet the criteria for assistance in their own right, they can benefit from it as neighbouring countries. All the conditions for applying this solidarity fund have therefore been met.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE) , in writing. – (CS) I was delighted to vote in favour of the report on releasing funds from the EU Solidarity Fund for the rebuilding of infrastructure destroyed by the floods which ravaged areas of Slovenia, Croatia and the Czech Republic in September 2010. The water and landslides claimed human lives and caused immense damage to buildings and agricultural land, destroying road and rail networks and other infrastructure. Although the amount of assistance represents only a few percent of the total quantified damage, it is still a significant help in funding the repairs. The Czech Republic is drawing EUR 11 million from this fund for assistance with the disasters, which is more than twice the initial amount.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. The EP: 1. Approves the decision annexed to this resolution; 2. Recalls that point 26 of the IIA of 17 May 2006 foresees that where there is scope for reallocating appropriations under the heading requiring additional expenditure, the Commission shall take this into account when making the necessary proposal; 3. Notes that the Commission, by calling for additional commitments and payments to cover the needs of the EUSF at this early stage of the year, found no possibility for redeployment nor reallocating within and between headings concerned; 4. Awaiting Council's position, is ready to consider the overall situation of payments in the context of the outturn of the 2010 Budget or in the context of another draft amending budget to be proposed by the Commission in the coming weeks.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Commission has proposed to mobilise the European Union Solidarity Fund in favour of Slovenia, Croatia and the Czech Republic, which were affected by heavy flooding in 2010 that caused significant damage.

In parallel to this proposal, the Commission has presented a Draft AmendingBbudget in order to enter in the 2011 budget the corresponding commitment and payment appropriations. I voted in favour of this text in order to allow Parliament to approve the relevant funding.

  Amalia Sartori, (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The report on mobilising the European Union Solidarity Fund in favour of Slovenia, Croatia and the Czech Republic aims to provide funding for these countries following the damage caused by the floods resulting from the intense rainfall during the period from 17 September 2010 to 20 September 2010. As total damage is below the normal threshold for mobilising the Solidarity Fund, the application was examined on the basis of the criteria for so-called ‘extraordinary regional disasters’, setting out the conditions for mobilising the Solidarity Fund ‘under exceptional circumstances’. Under these criteria, a region can exceptionally benefit from assistance from the fund where that region has been affected by an extraordinary disaster, mainly a natural one, affecting the major part of its population, with serious and lasting repercussions on living conditions and the economic stability of the region. I therefore voted in favour of the report because I think funds need to be provided to deal with the damage suffered by Slovenia, Croatia and the Czech Republic.

Report: Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska (A7-0233/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report as it suggests changing the Council’s position so that, among other matters, it considers covering the needs arising from the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund, drawing upon the negative reserve and reinforcing payment appropriations for the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. – (ES) In keeping with the Böge report, I voted in favour of Draft amending budget No 2011 for the financial year 2011, the aim of which is to disburse an amount of EUR 19.5 million in commitment and payment appropriations from the European Union’s Solidarity Fund to subsidise aid as a result of the rains that fell in Slovenia, Croatia and the Czech Republic in August and September 2010.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In order to mobilise the European Union Solidarity Fund effectively to assist Croatia, the Czech Republic and Slovenia, which were affected by heavy rainfall in August and September 2010, the Commission has identified the need for an amendment to the 2011 budget. It is up to Parliament to give its opinion on the value of such an amending budget, along with the aid measure underlying it. I support both, bearing in mind the principles of solidarity, cohesion and transparency, and I hope that the people and the economy of the affected countries will recover more quickly due to EU aid.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given the justified application of the European Union Solidarity Fund to help mitigate the losses and impact of the extraordinary disasters that have occurred in Slovenia, Croatia and the Czech Republic, I voted for this Draft Amending Budget, as stipulated for unavoidable, exceptional or unforeseen circumstances.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) According to Article 37(1) of the Financial Regulation, the Commission may present draft amending budgets in the event of ‘unavoidable, exceptional or unforeseen circumstances’. The resources from the fund are intended for the repair of infrastructure. As it is a tool for refinancing, it is not to be used for compensating private damages. Slovenia, Croatia and the Czech Republic requested financial assistance from the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) after these countries were hit by extensive floods and torrential rain. This natural disaster resulted in serious damage to infrastructure, agriculture and private property. The direct damages have been estimated by the Slovenian, Czech and Croatian authorities at a total of EUR 19 546 647. In the case of Slovenia, the direct damages exceeded the normal threshold of 0.6 % of gross national income (GNI) for mobilising the EUSF, and can be considered a major natural disaster. In the cases of the Czech Republic and Croatia, the direct damages did not exceed the normal threshold, but a country affected by the same major natural disaster as a neighbouring country may exceptionally receive money from the EUSF. Due to its status as a country acceding to the EU, Croatia is eligible for assistance from the EUSF. The total amount of aid proposed in the Draft Amending Budget for all three countries is EUR 19 546 647.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcomed this document, because the aim of the 2011 Draft Amending Budget No 2/2011 is to mobilise the European Union Solidarity Fund to provide EUR 19.5 million in commitment and payment appropriations, following the floods that occurred in Slovenia, Croatia and the Czech Republic, which were caused by heavy rainfall.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I supported the report by Mrs Jędrzejewska on Draft Amending Budget No 2/2011, which will make it possible to provide funding assistance to Slovenia, Croatia and the Czech Republic following the serious flooding of 2010. The Interinstitutional Agreement (IIA) of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management allows the European Union’s Solidarity Fund to be mobilised within an annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion. However, according to Article 37(1) of the Financial Regulation, the Commission may present draft amending budgets if there are ‘unavoidable, exceptional or unforeseen circumstances’. This is exactly what Mrs Jędrzejewska has proposed in the report voted on today. The direct damage suffered by Slovenia, the Czech Republic and Croatia has been estimated at a total of EUR 19 546 647, which is the amount of the appropriation requested through the Draft Amending Budget adopted today.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this Report to aid Slovenia, the Czech Republic and Croatia following floods this year. The direct damages have been estimated by the Slovenian, Czech and Croatian authorities at a total of EUR 19 546 647. The total amount for aid proposed in Draft Amending Budget No 2/2011 is EUR 19 546 647.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) We think it is a good idea that draft amending budgets may be presented in the case of unavoidable, exceptional or unforeseen circumstances.

The mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) means it can be accessed for a maximum of EUR 1 billion per year for the purpose of repairing infrastructure. Therefore, since it is a tool of refinancing, it cannot be used to compensate private damages.

In the case of Slovenia, the direct damage exceeds the normal threshold of 0.6% of gross national income (GNI) for mobilising the EUSF and can qualify as a ‘major natural disaster’. In the cases of the Czech Republic and Croatia, where direct damage does not exceed the normal threshold, the specific condition set out in Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002, whereby a country affected by the same major disaster as a neighbouring country may exceptionally benefit from EUSF, was found to be met. Due to its status as an acceding country to the EU, Croatia is therefore eligible to benefit from the EUSF.

Lastly, we think it is necessary to redeploy under-implemented appropriations from European Economic Recovery Plan, namely: to finance the needs for the mobilisation of EUSF, to draw upon the negative reserve and to reinforce payment appropriation for the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The 2011 EU budget provided for a certain amount to be used in the European Union Solidarity Fund, which has already been used to assist various Member States that have been affected by natural disasters. However, given the events in Slovenia, Croatia and the Czech Republic, it makes complete sense to allocate new funds to assist these countries, despite the fact that this was not provided for in the initial budgeting for the fund.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The total amount for aid proposed in Draft Amending Budget (DAB) 2/2011 is EUR 19 546 647. The Council has adopted DAB 2/2011 as regards commitment appropriations, but has decided to redeploy payment appropriations for the requested amount from three budget items: budget item 04 02 01 (Completion of ESF/Objective 1, 2000-2006); budget item 04 02 06 (Completion of ESF/Objective 3, 2000-2006); and budget item 22 02 07 01 (Regional and horizontal programmes under IPA). The rapporteur considers this redeployment inappropriate and proposes redeployment under implemented appropriation from ‘European Economic Recovery Plan – Energy Networks’ to finance the needs arising from the mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund; to draw upon the negative reserve adopted in Amending budget No 1/2011; and to reinforce payment appropriation for the EGF. I fully agree with the rapporteur. The adopted budget should remain unchanged. We cannot afford to jump from item to item, as such an approach could lead to financial anarchy.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) The aim of the amending budget is to allow for the mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund (EUSF) in the case of immediate damage caused by the floods last year in Slovenia, the Czech Republic and Croatia. Because of its status as a candidate country, Croatia has the right to support from the EUSF. However, the EU will provide the financial aid from another budget heading than that used for the Member States which have been affected. The objective of the fund is not to provide compensation for private damage, but to pay for the reconstruction of the infrastructure. It is a refinancing instrument and I have taken this into consideration when voting.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of Mrs Jędrzejewska’s report to allow the definitive appropriation of solidarity funds for the natural disasters that have taken place in Slovenia, Croatia and the Czech Republic. The principle of solidarity towards those affected by disasters is an inviolable principle, but we need to come up with a good solution to locate the necessary funds. In this case, the draft amending budget is the instrument through which Parliament can give the green light to the appropriation of the funds. We were therefore able to find EUR 19.5 million, avoiding increasing Member States’ contributions through issuing additional funds – which the Member States were against – but rather by taking them from energy projects whose execution is so delayed as to necessitate the redistribution of their appropriations.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) According to the Financial Regulation, the Commission may present draft amending budgets ‘if there are unavoidable, exceptional or unforeseen circumstances’. Following Report A7-0238/2011, which detailed the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) for Slovenia, Croatia and the Czech Republic, an amendment needs to be adopted for the Community budget. The eligibility conditions for assistance from the fund have been checked. The direct losses were calculated by the Slovenian, Czech and Croatian authorities to total EUR 19.5 million. In the case of Slovenia, the direct damages exceed the normal threshold of 0.6% of gross national income for the mobilisation of the EUSF, and the event can be considered a ‘major natural disaster’. In the cases of the Czech Republic and Croatia, where the direct damages did not exceed the normal threshold, the specific condition whereby a country affected by the same major disaster as a neighbouring country may exceptionally benefit from the EUSF was found to be met. In view of this, I voted for this report, which will allow Slovenia, Croatia and the Czech Republic to address the serious material damages caused by natural disasters.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Commission may present draft amending budgets in the case of unavoidable, exceptional or unforeseen circumstances. On 25 March, the Commission presented Draft Amending Budget No 2/2011 to the 2011 general budget, which aims to mobilise the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) in order to mitigate the effects of the intense rain in Slovenia, the Czech Republic and Croatia during the summer of 2010. The conditions of eligibility to the fund are detailed in Council Regulation No 2012/2002 establishing the EUSF. Furthermore, it must be noted that the objective of the fund is to repair infrastructure and that since it is a tool of refinancing, it cannot be used to compensate private damages. The direct damages have been estimated by the Slovenian, Czech and Croatian authorities at a total of EUR 19 546 647. In the case of Slovenia, the direct damages exceed the normal threshold for mobilising the EUSF and can qualify as a ‘major natural disaster’. Meanwhile, in the cases of the Czech Republic and Croatia, direct damages do not exceed the normal threshold. I voted in favour of the proposal so that these countries can benefit from EU solidarity.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Commission has proposed mobilising the European Union Solidarity Fund to help repair the infrastructure damaged by the flooding of September 2010, which hit Slovenia, and was deemed a ‘major natural disaster’. Croatia and the Czech Republic, Slovenia’s neighbouring countries, also subsequently suffered damage due to natural disasters. To this end a way of funding assistance needs to be found, and, according to the rapporteur, the European Economic Recovery Plan, in the area of energy, should finance the coverage needed for the mobilised funds.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. It basically considers the redeployments adopted by Council counter to the Joint Statement on payment appropriations, to which it attaches value and feels committed. It also decides to amend the Council’s position as shown in the annex to this resolution, with a view to covering the needs ensuing from the mobilisation of the EUSF; drawing upon the negative reserve and reinforcing payment appropriations for the EGF.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Commission has proposed to mobilise the European Union Solidarity Fund in favour of Slovenia, Croatia and the Czech Republic, which were affected by heavy flooding in 2010 that caused significant damage.

In parallel to the this proposal, the Commission has presented a Draft Amending Budget in order to enter in the 2011 budget the corresponding commitment and payment appropriations. I voted in favour of this text in order to allow Parliament to approve the relevant funding.

  Amalia Sartori, (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report regarding the Council’s position on the Draft Amending Budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011 since it aims to enter into the budget the amounts left over from 2010, equal to EUR 4 539 394 283. The overall contribution of the Member States to the European Union’s budget for 2011 will therefore be reduced as a result of inevitable, exceptional or unforeseen circumstances, as provided for in Article 37 of the Financial Regulation.

Report: Barbara Matera (A7-0235/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am in favour of this report as it aims to safeguard jobs, in this particular case in Denmark. This is a financial aid fund that will support about 825 workers with a total amount of EUR 6.24 million.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I welcomed this document. The European Union has set up the appropriate legislative and budgetary instruments to provide additional support to workers who are suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market, and has established the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF). Given the enormous impact of the global financial and economic crisis on European industry, in 2009, the scope of the EGF was broadened, in order to provide support for workers made redundant as a result of this crisis. In this instance, Denmark has requested assistance in respect of cases concerning 1650 redundancies (of which 825 are targeted for assistance) in the enterprise LM Glasfiber, which is involved in the manufacture of machinery and equipment in three municipalities located in the southern part ofDenmark (Syddanmark). As the application fulfils the criteria, I welcome the call to provide the required assistance to people made redundant as quickly and efficiently as possible.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in 2006 in order to provide additional assistance to workers affected by the consequences of significant changes in the structure of international trade, and to assist in their reintegration into the labour market. Since 1 May 2009, the remit of the EGF has been expanded to include support for workers made redundant as a direct consequence of the economic, financial and social crisis.

At a time when we are facing this severe crisis, one of the principal consequences of which is an increase in unemployment, the EU should use all of the means at its disposal to react, particularly with regard to providing support to those who find themselves without a job from one day to the next. I therefore voted for this report on the mobilisation of the EGF for Denmark, with the aim of supporting the 825 workers made redundant from the enterprise LM Glasfiber, a manufacturer of machinery and equipment.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. – (ES) I voted in favour of this report to help 825 of the 1 650 workers made redundant by the enterprise LM Glasfiber, a company specialising in the manufacture of machine tools, specifically wind turbines, to facilitate their integration into the labour market. Companies have been affected by the fall in demand caused by the crisis in combination with increased demand in Asia.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is an instrument intended to assist in the reintegration of workers who have lost their job due to the ongoing globalisation of world markets.

The fund is for workers and does not aim to benefit the business that made the redundancies in any way. In terms of mobilising the fund for the case in question, I voted in favour because it does not present critical issues and because the request meets the established eligibility criteria. Denmark has requested a mobilisation of EUR 6 247 415 in relation to 1 650 redundancies.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome the fact that following repeated requests by Parliament, for the first time the 2011 budget shows payment appropriations of EUR 47 608 950 on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund budget line 04 05 01.

  Nessa Childers (S&D), in writing. − It is essential that this fund is used in a responsible and efficient manner.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The machinery and equipment manufacturing sector has also seen the reduction of its workforce due to the financial crisis and structural changes in world trade patterns. A total of 1 650 workers have been made redundant, of which 825 can receive assistance. Sectors and workers are continuing to lose work, increasing widespread concerns about the potential of European growth and the sustainability of its socio-economic model. I voted in favour of mobilising the fund, and I hope that the EU and its Member States succeed in reversing this worrying trend and that this will become less necessary in future.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given the effects of the global economic and financial crisis on the European wind market, causing a sudden reduction in EU demand in favour of Asia, the enterprise LM Glasfiber has closed units that were dedicated to manufacturing machinery and equipment in three municipalities located in the Region of Southern Denmark (Syddanmark), instead developing its business through partnerships in China. As a result, 1 650 workers were made redundant from LM Glasfiber at the start of 2010. Given the importance of retraining these manual workers for local and European production, I voted for the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 6 247 415 from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund for programmes supporting the reintegration of the redundant workers into the labour market.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This is another request for the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. Such requests keep coming, as many thousands of workers have already been made redundant in several Member States since this instrument was established. In this case, it is another request for Denmark, which has submitted a request for assistance for 1 650 redundancies in the enterprise LM Glasfiber, of which 825 are targeted for assistance. Once again, we have voted for this mobilisation, but we would like to reiterate and stress that there should have been intervention before the closure occurred, in order to protect production and jobs.

We need a change of direction and policies in the EU, rather than mere palliatives. It has become increasingly urgent to implement the proposal that we made during the debate on the 2011 budget, in order to create a European programme for employment and sustainable development, to which 1% of EU gross domestic product would be allocated, with additional capital from the Member States. The aim of this would be real convergence, the promotion of each country’s potential, the sustainable use of their resources, investment in production and the creation of jobs with rights. The path that the EU has been following is, unfortunately, a very different and dangerous one, leading only to ever greater unemployment and recession.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was set up with the aim of providing sufficient support to workers feeling the effects of major structural changes in global trade. In May 2011, the Commission adopted a new draft decision to mobilise the EGF to assist Denmark, in order to support the re-entry onto the labour market of workers made redundant due to the financial and economic crisis. This is the fourth request to be reviewed within the framework of the 2011 budget. It involves the mobilisation of a total sum of EUR 6 247 415 from the EGF to assist 1 650 workers – of whom the assistance applies to 825 – who were made redundant, within a four-month reference period between 1 January and 30 April 2010, from the Danish firm LM Glasfiber in southern Denmark (Syddanmark). The Commission’s assessment is based on an evaluation of the link between the redundancies and major structural changes in world trade patterns or the financial crisis, the unforeseeable nature of the redundancies and also evidence of the number of redundancies. In accordance with the Commission’s assessment, the request fulfils the entitlement criteria set out in the Regulation on the EGF, and the Commission recommends that the budgetary authority should approve the request. I also consider it desirable to ensure a rapid procedure for adopting decisions on mobilising the fund, with due regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcomed this document, because Denmark has requested assistance in respect of cases concerning 1650 redundancies (of which 825 are targeted for assistance) in the enterprise LM Glasfiber, operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 28 (manufacture of machinery and equipment) in three municipalities located in the southern part of Denmark (Syddanmark). The application fulfils the eligibility criteria set out by the EGF Regulation. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 6 247 415.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in favour of Denmark because I consider that instrument to be a valuable resource for the support of workers in difficulties on account of the economic crisis. Since 2006, the EGF has provided practical support to European workers made redundant either for reasons associated with the relocation of their companies or, following the 2009 amendment, on account of the economic crisis, in order to facilitate their reintegration into the labour market. The report put to the vote today concerned a request for assistance for 1 650 redundancies, 825 of which are targeted for assistance, in the enterprise LM Glasfiber operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 28 (Manufacture of machinery and equipment) in the southern part of Denmark (Syddanmark), during the four-month reference period, from 1 January to 30 April 2010, amounting to a total of EUR 6 247 415.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this application to mobilise the European Globalisation Fund in the light of 1 356 redundancies at Odense Steel shipyard in Southern Denmark. The Commission proposes to mobilise a total amount of EUR 14 181 901.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) We agree with the adoption of the Commission’s decision to mobilise the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in favour of Denmark, with a view to supporting the reintegration into the labour market of workers in the enterprise LM Glasfiber, who were made redundant as a result of the global financial and economic crisis.

The fund may not exceed a maximum amount of EUR 500 million per year. We think a number of aspects need to be taken into consideration, including: the link between the redundant workers and major structural changes in international trade patterns or the financial crisis; identification of the dismissing enterprises and of the workers targeted for assistance; the territory concerned with its respective authorities and stakeholders; the impact for the redundancies as regards local, regional or national employment; and the coordinated package of personalised services to be funded; dates on which the personalised services to affected workers were started or planned to start; procedures for consulting the social partners; management and control systems.

We believe that the request satisfies the admissibility criteria and that the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs should be involved in the process in order to provide constructive support and assistance in assessing the requests for the mobilisation of the fund.

  Barbara Matera (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I welcome the adoption of the request to mobilise the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund.

The funds requested will provide support for 825 workers made redundant by the enterprise Glasfiber, which operates in the wind turbine manufacturing sector in the Syddanmark region.

The European labour market needs a concerted effort from the European institutions in order to revive employment levels in Europe. The Commission has sent out a clear message on this subject by proposing an amendment to the EGF regulation, designed to extend the fund’s coverage for workers made redundant due to the economic crisis until 2013.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I am abstaining because I have in mind the Danish workers who have been sacrificed on the altar of globalisation. In the situation into which they are plunged as a result of the neoliberal policies advocated by the European Union, one could be inclined to vote against, given the pitiful amount of this handout. However, the little that is being given may help to ease their pain. This does not make the rationale of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund any less intolerable.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU is an area of solidarity and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is a part of this. This support is essential for helping the unemployed and those affected by the company relocations that occur within a globalised context. More and more companies are relocating, taking advantage of lower labour costs in a number of countries, particularly China and India, with a damaging effect on those countries that respect workers’ rights. The EGF aims to help workers who are affected by the relocation of companies, and it is essential for facilitating access to new employment. The EGF has been used by other EU countries in the past, so now it is appropriate to grant this aid to Denmark, which has applied for assistance with regard to 1 650 cases of redundancy, of which 825 are targeted for assistance, at the enterprise LM Glasfiber operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 28 (Manufacture of machinery and equipment) in three municipalities in the region of southern Denmark.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) exists to support workers who lose their jobs as a result of changing global trade patterns, helping them to find another job as quickly as possible. This constitutes the fourth mobilisation of the fund in 2011. The application, from Denmark, relates to 1650 redundancies that occurred at LM Glasfiber, a wind turbine manufacturing company, in early 2010. A total of 825 workers will benefit from personalised measures supported by EUR 6.24 million in EGF funding.

I consider it absolutely immoral that we should be in the position of paying money following redundancies in the wind turbine manufacturing industry. Instead of allowing companies to close and workers to be made redundant, we must subsidise this industry to make wind turbines affordable for more EU buyers. I voted against the proposal.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. − (ET) The assistance provided to the employees made redundant from the Danish wind turbine manufacturing company Glasfiber through the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund is altogether justified, but it is worrying that a company involved in the manufacturing of renewable energy technology is forced to curtail its operations at a time when renewable energy is one of the European Union’s most important priorities. It cannot be considered acceptable to have a situation in which environmentally friendly technology is already largely imported from logistically distant Asia while Europeans remain unemployed. I hope that Germany’s decision to make a transition to renewable energy, along with attempts by other Member States to increase the proportion of renewable energy, will provide a new stimulus for the entire European wind energy sector.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created to provide additional support to workers affected by the consequences of major structural changes in the patterns of world trade. On 6 May 2011, the Commission adopted a new draft decision on the mobilisation of the EGF for Denmark, with the aim of supporting the reintegration into the labour market of workers made redundant as a result of the global economic and financial crisis. This is the fourth application to be examined within the framework of the 2011 budget, and relates to the mobilisation of a total sum of EUR 6 247 415 from the EGF for 1 650 cases of redundancy, of which 825 are targeted for assistance, at the enterprise LM Glasfiber operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 28 (Manufacture of machinery and equipment) in three municipalities located in the region of southern Denmark (Syddanmark), during the four-month reference period from 1 January to 30 April 2010. Once an examination of the case had been carried out by all the stakeholders, especially the Commission, and given that the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and its Working Group on the EGF are in favour of the mobilisation of the fund for Denmark, I voted for this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide supplementary support to workers who suffer the consequences of the huge structural changes in international trade patterns. The fund may not exceed a maximum amount of EUR 500 million per year.

On 6 May 2011 the Commission adopted a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF in favour of Denmark, with a view to supporting the reintegration into the labour market of workers made redundant as a result of the global financial and economic crisis. The request relates to 1 650 redundancies (of which 825 targeted for assistance) in the enterprise LM Glasfiber. The Commission’s assessment was based on the evaluation of the link between the redundancies and major structural changes in world trade patterns, bearing in mind the financial crisis the unforeseen nature of the redundancies concerned, a demonstration of the number of redundancies and compliance with the criteria. According to the evaluation, the application satisfies the eligibility criteria set up by the EGF Regulation, hence the Commission has advocated its approval to the budgetary authority. I voted in favour of the proposal in question in order to ensure a fast procedure, in accordance with the Interinstitutional Agreement, on adopting decisions relating to the mobilisation of the fund.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The fourth application for assistance from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) has been submitted under the implementation of the 2011 budget. The fund seeks to assist workers who find themselves in a highly vulnerable situation due to the relocation of the companies in which they worked as a result of the phenomenon of global competition. In this instance, Denmark has requested the intervention of the fund in the cases of 1 650 redundancies from the enterprise LM Glasfiber. The unforeseen nature of the redundancies and their correlation, or causal link, with the global economic and financial climate has been demonstrated. Indeed, all the criteria for the intervention of the fund, allowing the mobilisation of up to EUR 500 million per year, have been fulfilled. Finally, it should be stressed that there is a need to promote especially rapid procedures for allocating funds, in light of situations where local populations are in need.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. Parliament, firstly, requests that the institutions involved make the necessary efforts to improve procedural and budgetary arrangements in order to accelerate the mobilisation of the EGF; appreciates in this sense the improved procedure put in place by the Commission, following Parliament’s request for accelerating the release of grants, aimed at presenting to the budgetary authority the Commission’s assessment on the eligibility of an EGF application together with the proposal to mobilise the fund; hopes that further improvements in the procedure will be reached in the framework of the upcoming reviews of the EGF and that greater efficiency, transparency and visibility of the fund will be achieved.

Secondly, Parliament recalls the institutions’ commitment to ensuring a smooth and rapid procedure for the adoption of the decisions on the mobilisation of the EGF, providing one-off, time-limited individual support geared to helping workers who have suffered redundancies as a result of globalisation and the financial and economic crisis; emphasises the role that the EGF can play in the reintegration of workers made redundant into the labour market;

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) On 6 May 2011, the Commission adopted a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in favour of Denmark, with a view to supporting the reintegration into the labour market of workers made redundant as a result of the global financial and economic crisis.

The request relates to 1 650 redundancies (of which 825 targeted for assistance) in the enterprise LM Glasfiber, operating in the region of southern Denmark (Syddanmark). I voted in favour of this text today in order to allow Parliament to approve the relevant funding.

  Amalia Sartori, (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created to provide supplementary support to workers who suffer the consequences of the huge structural changes in international trade patterns. I voted in favour of the proposal for a decision of Parliament and of the Council for the mobilisation of the fund because the request submitted by the Danish company Steel Shipyard seems to satisfy the eligibility criteria established by the EGF Regulation. In addition, the Commission has recommended that the budgetary authority proceed to approve the request by presenting a transfer request from the EGF reserve. I would note, in addition, that the Joint Declaration of Parliament, the Council and the Commission adopted during the conciliation meeting of 17 July 2008 confirmed the importance of ensuring a fast procedure for the adoption of decisions relating to the mobilisation of the fund, in accordance with the interinstitutional agreement.

  Søren Bo Søndergaard (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (DA) I voted in favour of the report in respect of those workers who were promised retraining and further training in connection with the mass redundancies at LM Glasfiber. My vote does not mean that I support the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. On the contrary, I believe that the EU’s subsidy system, whereby rich EU countries give money to the EU so that the EU can then give money back to them, is absurd. Everyone knows that the longer someone is out of work, the harder it becomes to find work again. Nevertheless, it takes months – even after approval has been granted – before the money from the EU’s Globalisation Adjustment Fund is paid out. If this money had been paid out straight away by the Danish State without it having to do a circuit around Brussels, it would have been worth a lot more than it is now.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and the Council of 20 December 2006 established the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) with the aim of supporting workers who lose their jobs due to structural changes in the context of the global economy. The enterprise LM Glasfiber, based in the region of Syddanmark in Denmark, has faced severe difficulties due to changes in the wind turbine market, the economic and financial crisis and the sudden reduction in EU demand in favour of Asia. In view of this, LM Glasfiber deemed it appropriate to reduce its production facilities in Lunderskov and Hammelev and to establish a strategic partnership with a Chinese company. The Commission proposes to allocate EUR 6 247 415 to the enterprise manufacturing machinery and equipment with the aim of providing financial assistance to the 1 650 workers who have been made redundant, of which 825 are targeted for direct assistance. Finally, I should like to stress that the EGF should not be a substitute for the legal and financial responsibilities of the enterprise LM Glasfiber, that the financial aid should be given to the affected workers as quickly as possible, and that the Commission should make every effort to expedite the process of mobilising the EGF for the Member States.

Report: Carlos Coelho (A7-0241/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, as it acknowledges the need for a compromise package for establishing a second-generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), which Parliament advocated back in 2007. Indeed, there needs to be an agency to ensure the workability and security of SIS II, Visa Information System and Eurodac data, while also ensuring a good economy of scale in the management of the three systems, both from a budgetary and human resources perspective.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this resolution on the establishment of an agency for the management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice. The new body will be responsible for the operational management of the large-scale IT system used to control EU external borders (Schengen Information System II) and for database-exchange systems to be used in pursuit of a common visa policy (Visa Information System) and the comparison of asylum seekers’ fingerprints to facilitate the examination of asylum applications (Eurodac), as well as other future systems in this field. It will be important that the agency keeps these systems functioning 24 hours a day, seven days a week, ensuring a continuous flow of data exchange. Member States are responsible for entering the data into the systems. The agency will be based in Tallinn (Estonia), and I would like to congratulate Estonia on being able to host this important body.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report, establishing an agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice. There has been an increase in the number of internet-based attacks, and it is therefore particularly important to protect the EU’s information network from various threats and to ensure the security of not just the network itself, but also the data transferred over it. I agreed that, for security and budgetary reasons, the agency should be based in one place and the European Parliament’s role in selecting candidates for the post of executive director should be strengthened.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In June 2009, the Commission submitted a pair of legislative initiatives with a view to establishing an agency to manage large-scale IT systems within the area of freedom, security, and justice. The establishment of this agency is in response to the request by Parliament in 2007, and is the best solution from a financial, operational and institutional point of view.

This report, for which I voted, maintains that the objectives of the agency relate only to technical matters and operational management, and that it should not have access to data or the capacity to make policy decisions such as, for example, setting up new systems, or the chance to work between the different systems. It also establishes that there should not be any chance of obtaining unauthorised access to the data, and that all data on the network should be encrypted. Furthermore, management of the crypto device can never be made the responsibility of a private company through outsourcing, as happens today. Lastly, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Coelho, on having been able to obtain an agreement at the first reading.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. – (ES) I voted in favour of the proposal to create an agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice because we are left with no other option since the Commission cannot do it. It is a technical and operational management agency. It will be responsible for supervision and security infrastructure, and it should ensure a secure network for data exchange within the legal framework for each of the systems involved.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The challenges that our societies and our countries must face in this day and age – such as terrorism, illegal immigration and cross-border crime – are deserving of our every effort and every effort of Europe.

I agree on the need to establish bodies that facilitate the exchange of data and sharing information between Member States and between public security authorities. I am therefore voting in favour of the report by Mr Coelho, since I agree that that it is worthwhile establishing this new technical – and not political – agency, which should help regulate the exchange of information between Member States.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report, because before establishing an agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice, some important questions in this field need to be answered. Firstly, why do we need to establish this new large-scale agency? There is plainly no other solution. It would be quite wrong to assign the entire responsibility to the Commission, especially in view of the protracted problems that have occurred in recent years regarding the development of the systems. Furthermore, the Commission itself has repeatedly pointed out that its running of Eurodac is merely a stopgap solution and that it does not consider itself equal to assuming direct management responsibility for large-scale IT systems. We therefore need to establish an agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice, because an executive agency would not provide a solution. In that case the legislature would be denied the possibility to shape the agency and exercise its democratic scrutiny. Executive agencies are set up by the Commission entirely under its supervision and responsibility. The Commission lays down their tasks and appoints their managing bodies, including the director. An executive agency has a limited life and would thus be a temporary solution.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I did not support the resolution on the Schengen area, because I think it is not appropriate to have a resolution that would refuse, on principle, any expansion of the criteria to enable controls to be set up at internal borders and that would therefore run counter to the conclusions of the European Council and the proposals of the Commission. If we restrict ourselves to the current criteria for ‘public policy and public security’, the Member States will continue to act unilaterally, interpreting these criteria broadly in the case of increased migratory pressures. If this happens, we run the risk of conflating immigration and insecurity when we need to respond to migratory pressures. By contrast, the proposed device aims to create a mechanism enabling controls to be reintroduced at borders only under exceptional circumstances, as a last resort and through a European mechanism. Now we need to strengthen the governance of the Schengen area. The aim of this initiative is precisely to enable us to provide responses to the crisis that the Schengen area is going through at the moment. This crisis is particularly associated with the fact that certain Member States are no longer able to ensure that they respect their obligations under the Schengen acquis when it comes to effectively controlling their sections of the external borders.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − SIS II claims to help ensure a high level of security within the area of freedom, security and justice of the EU, including maintaining public security and public policy. Parliament states that the VIS enables consulates to exchange visa information in order to facilitate the application procedure, helping to prevent ‘visa shopping’ and fraud, and facilitating checks at external borders to identify third-country nationals. However these controls should be strictly sovereign. I do not believe in the efficacy of the project, it is both expensive and will encompass IS II, VIS and Eurodac, meaning eventually all IT systems in the area of security and justice will merge, raising questions about increased vulnerability to computer hacking and the acquisition and storage of data. I believe this vote represents a step in that direction and thus should be blocked.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report as I believe that establishing this agency for the operational management of SIS II, the Visa Information System, Eurodac and other instruments that are being established in the area of freedom, security and justice, is undoubtedly the best option for the medium- and long-term functioning of the EU. I would also like to congratulate my colleague Mr Coelho on the excellent report that he has presented, the conclusions of which I agree with. The agency will function as a platform that will enable a more effective flow of information, and will therefore allow better results to be achieved.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report as I agree with the establishment of a European agency that will ensure the operational management of the Schengen Information System. This agency will help to improve security in the area of freedom, security and justice in the EU, and will facilitate the sharing of information among the authorities that control the EU’s external borders.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) In principle, I believe that the establishment of European agencies should effectively comply with the criteria of rationality and good operational management. This is clearly one of those cases. The nature of this establishment clearly justifies the emergence of such a body. As the rapporteur says, and I concur, there is a real need to ensure the operational management of the Schengen Information System, the Visa Information System, and Eurodac and parts of the communication infrastructure after the transitional period and potentially of other large-scale information technology systems in the area of freedom, security and justice, subject to the adoption of separate legal instruments. This single management authority can help to improve coordination between systems, enhance European responsiveness to matters of high sensitivity, provide training for technicians and experts with a high level of knowledge about such matters and, last but not least, make better use of resources. Finally, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on the excellent work that he has done.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report seeks to ensure the establishment of an agency for the operational management of large-scale information technology systems in the area of freedom, security and justice, such as the second-generation Schengen Information System, the Visa Information System and Eurodac for the comparison of fingerprints, as well as parts of the communication infrastructure. This agency has objectives and tasks that are, in theory, solely technical and related to operational management, and does not have the capacity to make policy decisions, for example, on setting up new systems or on the possibility of interoperability between the different systems. This proposal, on which I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Coelho, and also congratulate him for having been able to reach an agreement at the first reading, reinforces the rules on data protection and the integrity and security of personal data, as well as the role of Parliament in its democratic control.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report is aimed at the establishment of a European agency, based in Tallinn, Estonia, which will ensure the management of the Schengen Information System. The fingerprints of asylum seekers will be stored in a database, and a visa information system will be established. The possibility of establishing other systems in the Schengen acquis is also mentioned.

Our fundamental disagreements with the approach taken by the EU in the areas that are the subject of this report are well known. We believe that the need to preserve rights, freedoms and guarantees, which are vital to the real democratic functioning of the Member States, is not taken sufficiently into account. We reject the idea that databases and information about people should be increased in the name of supposed security. That is a dangerous path. Moreover, in the current economic and social climate, we believe that the establishment of this agency should not be one of the EU’s priorities. That is why we voted against.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The report adopted today is aimed at establishing a European agency based in Tallinn, Estonia, with the objective of ensuring the management of the Schengen Information System through a database, which records the fingerprints of asylum seekers, and of the Visa Information System. The report also mentions the possibility of establishing other systems in the Schengen acquis.

We view this proliferation of European agencies with concern, and believe that the creation of another agency with this kind of aim should not be one of the EU’s priorities, especially at a time of economic and social crisis.

Moreover, we believe that it is crucial to ensure the preservation of rights and freedoms, which are vital to the real democratic functioning of the Member States.

We reject the idea that databases and information about people should be increased in the name of supposed security. We know that this is a dangerous path. We therefore voted against.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) In June 2009, the Commission presented two legislative initiatives on the establishment of an agency for the management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice. The first initiative comprised a draft regulation on first pillar issues relating to the Schengen Information System, the Visa Information System and Eurodac, while the second initiative comprised a draft decision on third pillar issues relating to these systems. With the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, however, these initiatives lost their justification. This is because, although the distinction between the three pillars was removed, the proposal in question possesses a variable geometry relating to various aspects of the area of freedom, security and justice in general, and specifically to aspects of the Schengen area. The legal framework of the systems to be administered by the agency applies to a diverse group of Member States with varying levels of participation, in the case of the United Kingdom, Denmark and Ireland, and associated third countries such as Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and, in future, Liechtenstein. The Commission has drawn up an impact assessment in order to determine what would be the best solution from a financial, operational and institutional perspective. The most appropriate solution appears to be to establish a European agency, although it should be emphasised that the aims and tasks of the agency relate exclusively to the technical level of operational management. The agency should not have the power to take political decisions, for example it should not be allowed to set up new systems or take decisions relating to the interaction of systems.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The objective of the proposal is to establish an agency responsible for various systems in the field of information technology. I agree with the rapporteur, Mr Coelho, about the single site of the agency and about the data protection officer. I therefore confirm my vote in favour.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) As a Member of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, I voted in favour of this report on the creation of an ‘Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice’, which will make it possible to improve the management of data collected through the three large-scale IT systems used by the European Union: European Dactyloscopy (Eurodac), the second-generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) and the Visa Information System (VIS). This legislative package will allow us to accommodate these three data systems within a single platform in order to enable better continuity in data management, improved exchanges of data and an increased number of synergies. In addition, it will enable us to improve and enhance the European Union’s capacities in relation to judicial and police cooperation. I therefore voted in favour of creating such an agency, which is eventually intended to become a centre of excellence in IT systems management. In addition to that, I want to lay emphasis on the essential principles concerning the protection of personal data, which this agency, and the way it functions, will have to respect strictly.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. − The issues in this report are complex, given that certain Member States, including the United Kingdom, participate only in certain parts of the Schengen aquis. The UK position is further complicated by the fact that security and justice issues operate within independent legal systems governed by separate parliaments and governments. The Scottish Government takes an active role in the implementation of the Schengen aquis in Scots law and I was able to support this report.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I abstained from the vote on this document, because it proposes establishing an agency that will manage the Schengen Information System, the Visa Information System and Eurodac (fingerprint comparison). Clearly we need to find a way to avoid establishing another additional agency, because that would involve additional costs and enlarge the administrative apparatus. It would also be quite wrong to assign the responsibility to the Commission, especially in view of the protracted problems that have occurred in recent years regarding the development of the systems. Furthermore, the Commission itself has repeatedly pointed out that its running of Eurodac is merely a stopgap solution and that it does not consider itself equal to assuming direct management responsibility for large-scale IT systems.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE), in writing. − I welcome the adoption of this report which finally gives a green light for the establishment of the Agency for the management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice. I thank the rapporteur Carlos Coelho for his efforts in preparing this report and trust in creating this new agency.

In the current situation where the EU and its Member States are facing a rapidly growing number of cyber attacks, which could seriously affect European information, infrastructure and energy systems, where cyber crime is causing enormous costs, we need a European coordinating agency to develop and manage complex information systems to enhance European security.

This agency shall lead the way towards a comprehensive cooperation in this field and will ensure that EU is prepared to face challenges arising in the cyber sphere. I am pleased that the new agency will be situated in Tallinn. I am fully convinced that being a leading force in advancing cyber security in Europe, Estonia is capable of providing the best facilities and services.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this proposal as the least worst option. In June 2009 the Commission presented a package proposal to establish an Agency responsible for the operational management of large-scale information technology systems in the area of freedom, security and justice, consisting of a proposal for a regulation establishing the Agency and a proposal for a Council Decision conferring upon the Agency established by this regulation tasks regarding the operational management of the Second Schengen Information System (SIS II), the Visa Information System (VIS) and the European Dactylscopy (EURODAC) in application of Title VI of the EU Treaty, under the former third pillar.

The Treaty of Lisbon did away with the pillar structure and now virtually all legislation coming within the area of freedom, security and justice has to be adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure. The Commission therefore presented the above amended proposal for a regulation which takes into account the changes resulting from the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and contains the provisions initially proposed as a Council decision.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) We agree with the establishment of an agency for the management of new large-scale IT systems in the context of the area of freedom, security and justice, whose responsibilities will be exclusively technical and for operational management.

In fact, the agency will not have the power to take political decisions concerning, for example, the creation of new systems and interoperability between the various systems. We therefore believe it is necessary to establish rules to prevent the agency’s responsibilities being widened de facto through a proliferation of pilot projects beyond the range of supervision and transparency.

The agency will therefore be responsible for the supervision and the security of communication infrastructures and will guarantee a comprehensive network for the exchange of information. It will therefore be essential to protect the network from any threat as well as to guarantee the security of personal data. The legal framework of the various systems that will be managed by this agency applies to a diverse collection of Member States with varying levels of participation, as well as to an assortment of associated third countries.

Lastly, we believe that the role of Parliament should be clearly defined and strengthened in order to ensure adequate democratic supervision.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The establishment of a European agency, which will ensure the management of the Schengen Information System, the Visa Information System, a database containing the fingerprints of asylum seekers (Eurodac), and other systems in the Schengen acquis, was adopted today by Parliament. The agency, based in Tallinn, Estonia, is due to begin its work in the summer of 2012. Its aim is to ensure secure, rapid and constant communication – that is, 24 hours per day, 365 days per year – between the central services and all the Member States that integrate the different systems.