Oral explanations of vote

Report: Filip Kaczmarek (A7-0315/2011)

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a democracy is only a democracy if it is formed by informed, aware and committed citizens. The Cotonou Partnership Agreement is important precisely because it aims to give legal support for the birth of an active civil society in places such as Africa, which are still immature in their expressions of democracy. However, it is essential that it should above all be Africans who desire this social growth, and incentivising all initiatives, including the smallest ones, can help to make this happen.

The second revision of the Agreement, which took place in January 2010, should be an opportunity to adapt the Agreement in the light of the crises of recent times and those that are current, including the uprisings for democracy in North Africa, climate change, soaring food and petrol prices, the financial crisis and extreme poverty. Nevertheless, it should still be stressed as an inescapable necessity that the EU-Africa strategy should be people-centred and focussed on the active participation of civil society.

This is where the innovation of the Cotonou Agreement lies. This Agreement establishes cooperation in the economic and financial sectors and in political dialogue, by introducing a new participatory approach. Participation, which is the fundamental principle of cooperation between the EU and the ACP countries, is understood in Article 2 as the primary instrument for encouraging integration of all branches of society, from the private sector to civil organisations. These are the reasons why we have voted in favour.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the text on the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly which, due to the quality of its work, has established itself as a key player in cooperation between the north and the south of the world. As a member of that assembly, I too have participated in the meetings held in Brussels and in the work that took place in Tenerife in April 2010 and in Kinshasa, Congo, in December of that year. Thanks to these trips I was able to see at first hand, as in Angola in 2009, the sad conditions that some people live under every day while at the same time assessing the efforts made by the ACP to improve things.

In conclusion, I feel inclined to underline that at this unique historical and political moment – particularly for the countries of North Africa and the Middle East – the role placed by the ACP has been fundamentally important. This is particularly so in the context of supervising negotiations for Economic Partnership Agreements, improving the transparency of these processes and the development of deprived local areas.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the representatives of the European Parliament and selected African, Caribbean and Pacific countries is, so far, the only international panel which sits regularly with the aim of promoting the interdependence of North and South. It plays a particular role through the monitoring of negotiations on Economic Partnership Agreements.

I therefore see a need for the Commission to provide the parliaments of ACP countries with all available information and to support them in exercising democratic control. Efforts that strive to uphold the freedom and independence of the media are extremely important and are aimed at ensuring pluralism and the participation of democratic opposition representatives and minority groups in political life. The exchange of views with local authorities on the situation in a given country, which took place for the first time in Kinshasa, may become an appropriate solution. I also hope that in the future misunderstandings such as the absence of the Council’s representative during Question Time will not occur again, as this casts an unfavourable light on European diplomacy. I endorsed the report.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). - Mr President, it is all very interesting for politicians from the EU and the ACP countries to get together, but if we really want to help development, if we really want to help entrepreneurs in developing countries, quite often the best way is for politicians to get out of the way and allow entrepreneurs in those countries to trade with each other.

We also need to help entrepreneurs in many of these countries to tackle some of the barriers to trade that they face, whether in terms of local state monopolies or companies that are connected to corrupt local politicians. What we need to do is free the spirit of free enterprise to allow those entrepreneurs to create wealth for their citizens, and ensure that they do not face trade barriers when they are selling their goods and services to us in the EU. Let us make sure that we reduce our trade barriers. Let us make sure that we help the entrepreneurs of these countries, and let us make sure that, together, we tackle poverty.

Recommendation for second reading: Chrysoula Paliadeli (A7-0331/2011)

  David Campbell Bannerman (ECR). - Mr President, I am deeply unimpressed with this idea of a European Heritage Label ‘to strengthen European citizens’ sense of belonging to the EU’. Once again, we seem to have a scary 1984-style rewriting of history, just like the wasteful Museum of European History, where no-one can agree when this history is due to start and where, of course, no-one can mention the war. This is an Orwellian exercise that seeks to term World Wars as mere European civil wars, with the realities obscured in a haze of half-truths.

In Brussels last week a French lady insulted my red Remembrance Day poppy as ‘out of date’. I find it disgusting that a symbol of the huge sacrifice that has guaranteed all our freedoms should be treated with such contempt. That poppy commemorates, too, the British soldier who died just last week in Afghanistan. History may be inconvenient and painful but, by God, you get into far more trouble seeking to deny its realities.

  Franck Proust (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, we will soon be having monuments and sites labelled ‘European Heritage’.

I support this label as it will be a response to the underlying need to bridge the gap between Europe and its citizens. Europe is often said to be remote and inefficient. When put to use properly, culture and heritage can bring people together. With this type of initiative, Europe will be able to prove that it is indeed active and, above all, real.

I am more than well placed to talk about this as I am actually an elected member for a region whose history began with the very first European civilisations. In the land of Nîmes, and throughout the Mediterranean, men often came from elsewhere in Europe, marked out roads, built monuments and set up the towns and cities in which are still living today.

The way I see it, these are the landmarks of our common heritage, which we should bring to the fore and that is why I voted in favour.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome this proposal, which aims to strengthen European citizens’ sense of belonging to the European Union through shared history and heritage, and an awareness of diversity, as well as to intensify intercultural dialogue.

Promoting initiatives like the recognition of European heritage, which aim to bring citizens closer to an idea of belonging to a Europe that unites us is, in my view, hugely positive. Often, the concept of Europe remains vague and national identities still tend to dominate.

The European Heritage Label has a special characteristic: it shows the historical importance of a monument, indicates that it had an important role for European culture and clearly underlines its intangible value as a bearer of a historic and cultural message. It stands apart from other labels in this field that refer to the object’s extraordinary historic, cultural or artistic value due to its material nature. Of course, that is not to say that the historical substance of a monument is irrelevant; that is precisely what makes it authentic, as its physicality strongly conveys the intangible importance of a place. Essentially, it represents a symbol of ideas like democracy, freedom and diversity.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I personally think that establishing a European Heritage Label is an interesting project. At a time when due to the ongoing economic crisis a certain euro-scepticism is creeping into many Member States, I think an initiative of this kind can reinforce European citizens’ sense of belonging to the Union. The unique characteristic of the European label is not, in fact, the beauty of a site but rather the symbolic value that it has represented or still represents for bringing European citizens on board in the journey towards better intercultural dialogue.

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I supported the stance taken by Ms Paliadeli because I think it is worth simplifying and smoothing the way for genuinely promoting Europe in all Member States, providing a potential tourist attraction and enhancing particularly significant sites. To put it briefly, this provides a tangible manifestation of the founding values of the community in which we live. I approve of the rigorous selection of projects for educational activities, which are essentially for young people. The European Heritage Label is without doubt something we must pursue, both in terms of rediscovering and redeveloping the sites, but also to tangibly and genuinely make the best of the places of civilisation and authentic remembrance in whose image our memories must always be remade.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe and its history speak through the huge achievements that have distinguished the development of civilisation in our countries. Much of Europe’s history is told through the roads, the monuments and the convents that, in times of darkness, have given dignity to the journey of the peoples of Europe. I support the stance taken in this measure which, naturally, perhaps ought to be extended to the countries waiting to join the EU, the Western Balkan countries, because I think it would be a good idea to involve them in this project of identifying a European brand. I think their involvement would send out a positive message to them. I am delighted that this measure has been adopted today by a broad majority and this further assures me that the Council cannot throw up further obstacles to its swift approval.

  Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the goal of promoting a European identity and improving knowledge of our shared history – especially among young people – is of crucial importance, especially at a historical and political juncture like the present.

To work towards achieving this goal I voted in favour of the report by Ms Paliadeli, in which I completely agree on the criteria for identifying the sites, which I think should take place transnationally and on a two-yearly basis, thereby boosting the quality of the process.

Lastly, I fully agree with the role given to Parliament, which will be duly involved in the process of selecting the chosen sites. For one thing, Parliament has always supported the development of this label, firstly in the 2007 tourism resolution and then in the 2008 resolution on the European agenda for culture in a globalised world.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). - (FI) Mr President, Ms Paliadeli’s report on the European Heritage Label is excellent and worthy of support. I believe that all of us in this House agree that it is important for the public to know more about Europe, the history of the European Union, and European values and identity.

It is especially important to realise that, if we want to build European cooperation, this can only be based on knowledge of the facts and of history, and then we will be able to deal with issues more successfully, in the historical context established.

We should also remember that this programme will not be in competition with the UNESCO World Heritage label: rather it will be different, more educational and, above all, directed at youth. It expresses our genuine desire to strengthen our knowledge and expertise with regard to history. In this respect, it does not, in my opinion, increase the fear of history being rewritten: on the contrary, there are many national symbols, one example of which is the poppy mentioned here, which many British people wore last week. Others should know why such national symbols exist. We will get to know and respect each other’s culture and history, and, in that way, establish better understanding.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, whenever there is a German general election British newspapers always run the same photograph, which is of Germans voting in traditional national costume – Bavarians in their leather shorts, and North German ladies in these fantastic dresses.

It seems to me that those photographs are now the perfect symbol of European democracy. Voting has become a folkloric activity. Our constituents go through the motions out of atavism, out of some half-remembered civic duty from the time when it used to matter, rather than in the expectation that casting their ballot will make any difference.

And do you know what? They are right to think that. According to a study by the German Federal Justice Ministry, 84% of the laws in the Member States are there to give force to EU Directives or Regulations. The split is no longer between Left and Right, between capitalists and socialists; it is between the ‘euro elites’ and everybody else.

How sad that this Continent, which developed and exported the idea that laws ought not to be passed nor taxes raised except by our elected representatives, should have turned its back on democracy itself.

The thing that now deserves a heritage label is the ideal of representative government in Europe.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). - Mr President, I have abstained from voting on the European Heritage Label report, as I still have a number of concerns that have not been addressed from the first reading.

My main concern is that the tone of the report is one of homogenisation. This goes against the principles of the European Committee of the Regions, which stands for respecting the cultural differences between Member States. Indeed the difference between Welsh heritage and the rest of the UK does not even support this integrated approach. I do not agree with the potential increased bureaucratic burden which will be placed on Member States as a result of processing these applications. I also worry about the potential difficulties that could arise in relation to the financing of such a European Heritage Label. Given our current economic climate, I think this is poorly timed.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, I was happy to support this report and I am delighted that it has been accepted today with a large majority. Without any doubt it has advantages, especially in fostering the Tourism Initiative and also in fostering interest and understanding amongst young people, especially in the history of Europe.

I think this label first of all is different to the world heritage UNESCO label and is pretty distinctive; it is not based on beauty or architectural value, but on the history and the contribution of a particular site to creating the history of Europe and I think that is a good idea. I think no harm can come from it; the scheme which would be reviewed every two years is a good idea; thirteen people in the committee; a million euro maximum as a budget. I think that if it promotes tourism and promotes understanding, then it is all very well.

I am sorry that my own country is not taking part because there are a number of sites which could contribute: the Irish College in Leuven, the Irish College in Paris, Kinsale Town, the Blasket Islands, etc.

  President. − Just while you are in the Chamber, Mr Kelly, I am aware of your complaint about the way in which we select speakers in Question Time to the Commission and I am one of the two Vice-Presidents who chairs that. There are problems. Yesterday, for example, there were 60 people requesting the floor and we could only get through 20 questions, so that is 40 dissatisfied Members. We are considering alternatives to selecting the speakers. One of the proposals from me is that we have a big glass bowl on the table here and we fill it with coloured ping pong balls with numbers on, and I merely select from the bowl. We are indeed considering alternatives to the way we do it at the moment, but thank you for pointing out the problems.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). - Mr President, I would not go down the road of the glass bowl for the moment, but you personally are absolved from all blame.

Thank you for your forbearance and for your explanation.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). - Mr President, one of the issues that we often see here is this idea of building a European identity. As the previous speakers mentioned, we have had the Museum of History, which seeks to erase the unpleasant episodes of European history. We have had the European Prize for Journalism, and now we see the European Label of Heritage.

But what is this label? As Mr Kelly said, the label is not about a site’s beauty or its architectural quality, but rather its symbolic value for European integration and the history of the Union. It is not about the conservation of sites, but about the activities they can offer and their educational dimension, especially for young people.

So there we have it. It is not really about heritage; it is actually about propaganda and educating young people to believe more in European integration. If we really want to focus upon heritage, let us not forgot those who gave their lives so that we can enjoy our freedom today.

  Nicole Sinclaire (NI). - Mr President, I supported this amendment to reject this proposal on the European Heritage Label as I believe it is an artificial attempt to create a European identity. Only in your twisted imaginations does such an identity exist, an identity that my constituents want no part of, nor the expense of paying for.

We have no joint heritage. Most of you have lived under totalitarianism – either communism or fascism – whilst we in the UK have fought against many of your countries for our freedom. Are you so insecure that you have to develop such a scheme? Be proud of your national heritages, if you can. I am of mine.

  Emma McClarkin (ECR). - Mr President, maintaining cultural heritage is of course an important aspect of national identity. It contributes to the understanding and preservation of our natural environment, as well as highlighting Europe’s rich and diverse historical roots.

Whilst I welcome this initiative and initiatives that can help Member States coordinate their actions in this area, I am not convinced that the benefits of the European Heritage Label will outweigh its cost implications. The delivery of existing and highly regarded programmes, such as UNESCO, would be undermined and in fact duplicated. Additionally, in the current period of financial austerity, I do not feel that it is appropriate to be utilising funds that could otherwise be channelled into initiatives that provide jobs and growth. Quite simply, we must prioritise.

Therefore, I voted to abstain on this second reading for a number of reasons. There has been little substantive change since the first reading, which I also abstained on. The label will duplicate existing heritage programmes at national level and by the UN, and the financial contribution of Member States should be questioned, given these times of budget cuts. On a practical level, the proliferation of European Heritage Label sites under the current proposal will serve to diminish any label’s credibility.

Report: Debora Serracchiani (A7-0367/2011)

  David Campbell Bannerman (ECR). - Mr President, I speak as someone with a railway industry background. I worked for Britain’s passenger railways, the Channel Tunnel high-speed rail link, and as a ministerial adviser.

Whilst I support the concept of a British-style model of liberalised rail services, which has given the UK the fastest-growing railways in Europe, of track charges, of open access, of train leasing and of a strong and independent rail regulator, I simply do not see this as anything to do with the European Union.

Britain has 10 000 miles of rail lines and only one line is connected to Europe. Continental-gauge trains would not even fit on our lines in Britain. They would demolish our bridges and tunnels with their bulk.

So I am sorry, but this idea of a single European railway area is a nonsense. It is unnecessary, undesirable and excessive interference in the responsibilities of national governments, so I do not support this report.

In short, will the EU please keep off our tracks!

Recommendation for second reading: Chrysoula Paliadeli (A7-0331/2011)

  Milan Zver (PPE). - (SL) Mr President, listening to this debate, I feel it is rather one-sided, mostly in favour of those who oppose this report, which from 2013 introduces a European Union cultural heritage label. However, this report was adopted by an overwhelming majority. I supported it myself and it received strong support in the Committee on Culture and Education. But, ladies and gentlemen, men develop different...

(The President cut off the speaker.)

  President. − Mr Zver, I am sorry but we have moved on from heritage to railways, I do apologise. This is not a debate, it is an opportunity for Members to make a point about the way they voted. This is the explanations of vote.

Report: Debora Serracchiani (A7-0367/2011)

  Herbert Dorfmann (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I voted in favour of the proposal for a directive establishing a single European railway area. I am convinced that only by opening up the markets can we improve the quality of the offering for both passenger and freight transport on the railways of Europe.

Above all, however, I am pleased that Article 32 was adopted, because rail transport also gives rise to noise. This is mainly related to the quality of the rolling stock; some completely outdated wagons are used, particularly in the freight sector.

There is increasing opposition to this noise among the population, and this is likely to be putting at risk the shift in freight transport – particularly that from road to rail. Consequently, urgent measures must be taken to reduce the noise pollution. Noise must cost money, and I believe that the approach set out in Article 32 moves us in this direction. I hope that agreement can soon be reached with the Council on this matter.

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). - Mr President, I voted against the recast of the Railway Directive because it is very clear that, despite the promises of the neo-Liberal doctrinaires in this House and elsewhere, the Railway Directive will remain the ugly duckling that it is and will never become a swan. It continues on the course, which is already failing across Europe, of chopping up our public transport systems into bite-size pieces for the private sector to gobble up.

The result is clear right across Europe, where you have services being cut back, leaving communities completely isolated, you have a lack of investment in maintenance that has caused an increase in delays, an increase in down-time and, most worryingly, an increase in accidents, including fatal accidents. You also have railway workers suffering under the burden of a massive increase of working pressure and of massive attacks on their working conditions and trade union rights.

Developing our railway services means pushing back the private sector, it means pushing the private sector out of our vital public transport services, it means renationalisation of those parts that have been privatised so far. It is on that basis – together with massive investment by the public sector, together with democratic control by the railway workers and users – that you could develop a railway system that is user friendly, environmentally sustainable, reliable and safe.

  Guido Milana (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this report was adopted with a huge majority in Parliament. I voted for it, but I would have liked to vote on something different, something bolder. In my opinion, Parliament has missed an opportunity to go further.

It is quite true that the single European railway area can and must result in a much better relationship with consumers than we have had so far. Why stop, however, at a single national regulatory body and not push on towards a single European regulatory body? Why stop short of the issue of unbundling, bringing in a clear separation between ownership and service management? Yes, the budgets have been separated, but probably this time in Parliament it was not this House’s authority to make its voice heard that has prevailed, but rather the representatives of the abundant privilege and competition present today in the European railway market.

We will only manage to truly change the fortunes of freight, improve people’s lives, improve the free circulation of goods when this single European space is worthwhile. Essentially, keeping well away from the train tracks is good for the health and not for economic policy; perhaps by getting too close you will get run over.

  Hubert Pirker (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, European rail transport remains dominated by the monopolies, and different types of current, different track gauges and even different safety requirements are preventing the expansion of cross-border rail transport.

The European Parliament has therefore decided to recast what is known as the railway package. In future, strong authorities – known as regulators – in all the Member States will ensure that these barriers are removed, that we bring about a customer-friendly liberalisation of the market and that those who continue to block service-oriented competition will be rapped across the knuckles.

I have therefore been vehement in my support of this directive. At the same time, this decision is the first step towards a European, uniform and thus competitive rail market. Only once the barriers that exist in rail transport have been removed completely will Europe benefit from the new rail transport corridors, and only then will the businesses along these corridors be able to develop too.

What I would like is for us to be able to travel all the way across Europe in the near future using just one engine, one set of carriages and one ticket.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D). – (PL) Mr President, I have endorsed the report, since in my opinion, the European Parliament should deal with the issue of rail transport more frequently and in a more concrete manner. At the moment, we have a situation where the state of the railway sector in Europe is not improving. It is worth noting that in just the last 10 years, the share of rail freight in Europe fell to 10%, while that of road freight has already exceeded 45%. Unfortunately, cross-European rail services are still encountering a multitude of financial, technical, legal and, regretfully, political obstacles.

I think that we have an opportunity to achieve progress in two areas. The first area concerns the increase in funding for rail transport, while the second involves the effective elimination of discrepancies between individual Member States. This report creates an opportunity to achieve such progress. Thank you.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the recast of the first railway package is of huge importance for creating a truly European railway area that is more competitive, modern and efficient. We certainly expected a more ambitious final text, given the rather timid stance taken by the Commission. We are taking away a more effective national regulation structure, which must fully carry out its role of monitoring the market, as well as greater clarity on financial management.

We are handing back to the Commission the responsibility to present, by the end of next year, a new text on the separation between the infrastructure managers and the operator, and on opening up the market. I think that the liberalisation of the railway market – particularly opening up national markets to foreign operators – is a precondition for modernising Europe’s rail system that will guarantee mobility for our citizens with the least disturbance possible and without creating competitive distortions between national markets.

I must draw some negative attention to the rejection of the amendment that sought to bring in a distinction between light maintenance and ordinary maintenance compared to heavy maintenance works. A maintenance centre must not be obligated to provide heavy maintenance services to all rail operators, because what is at stake here is responsibility and the principle of safety, which even recent accidents have shown to be a very sensitive issue for European rail transport. I hope that a more ambitious stance can be reached in the forthcoming negotiations with the Council.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – (ES) Mr President, I voted in favour because the first railway package was not complied with. The direct consequences were infringement proceedings against states and loss of competitiveness, effectiveness, sustainability and time.

Ten years later, the provisions are recast in the hope of creating a proper single railway area. We have agreed on greater liberalisation of the sector, better financing, greater transparency of costs and a strengthening of the national regulators. These will establish a European network and lead to the creation of a European regulator in the future.

I regret the fact that there is no provision in this document to separate the infrastructure manager from the service operators, even though there will be a later proposal, that the Council refused to include the correlation tables, despite the position of the Commission and Parliament, and that the majority groups rejected the possibility of including regional authorities, some of which have powers in this area.

This attitude turns its back on reality and, regrettably, I am certain that within 10 years this Parliament will include the regions in order to achieve the competitive, effective and sustainable European space which we all so desire, at least some of us.

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, I too voted in favour of this document, because I accept the argument that ‘a general attempt at liberalisation is better than nothing’, as per the headline of Finanza e mercati, a well-known Italian financial daily. As many of my fellow Members have said, this document could certainly have been more ambitious and gone further. It makes a stab at considering the guidelines brought in by the 2011 White Paper on transport, but does not manage to follow through; it fails to demonstrate courage as much as it could. As many other Members have pointed out, the rail transport sector has not grown at all since 2001, losing out to road transport which is now worryingly saturated. I think today’s decision sees us take a step forward, above all by introducing new regulatory and financing systems for the transport system. However, there is still much to be done and, unfortunately, we will have to wait for the decisions of late 2012 for real liberalisation.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, the traffic density on the roads continues to increase, and with it the stress suffered by car and lorry drivers. Neither does this bring us any closer to our goal of reducing CO2 emissions. Rail transport – both passenger and freight transport – must therefore be promoted and improved. For this reason, I also voted in favour of the motion. On the other hand, the expansion of the rail sector naturally brings with it not just advantages, but also new challenges and disadvantages – and noise pollution is clearly among these. We have made an important decision of principle here: that we also want to combat noise pollution effectively, using new rail track and new technology.

If rail transport is to survive in competition with other modes of transport, however, then we also need more competition within the sector. The demand for strong national regulatory authorities to control the rail sector is therefore a major success. European parochialism will get us nowhere here. European rail transport could represent a great opportunity, if we can overcome national egotism.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the railway sector has always been something of a special case, where the competitive ethos of the single market and the European Union has taken root rather late. The deficiencies in the services that this sector offers to citizens are linked precisely to this lateness. I am convinced that more transparent and smoother conditions for accessing the market, together with explicit rules on conflicts of interest and discriminatory practices in the railway sector, will be the right measures to spur on greater competition.

I completely agree with the legislative proposal on the complete, mandatory separation between infrastructure managers and businesses operating the transport services, namely train companies. I invite the Commission to put forward concrete proposals on this within the pre-established timeframes.

I believe that the measures contained in the report will allow us to make it easier to provide train services, boosting the quality offered to passengers and people using freight services. Ms Serrachiani’s report provides tangible responses to the request for greater liberalisation and competition in the railway sector and accordingly I have given it my full support.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). - (SK) Mr President, here in the European Union we have been witnessing a decline in the share of freight carried by rail, while road haulage, which is less environmentally friendly, has increased to as much as 45.9%. The opening of the EU railway market involves reviewing and harmonising the laws on rail transport.

I firmly believe that the establishment of competitive railway services will require additional investment in the railway infrastructure, whereby the EU structural funds will only be one of many resources. The Member States and the EU must look at other sources of funding for European railway projects, encourage private investment and in particular make the railway market attractive to private investors by securing a transparent legal environment.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). - Mr President, whilst I can appreciate the vision of the rapporteur for a single European railway area when it concerns a single landmass, I believe that the proposed measures would inevitably create unnecessary regulatory burden for the rail industry throughout Europe, including those that would not benefit at all from being part of that single landmass. This is why I voted against this report.

This report excludes provision for an obligatory minimum service for rail companies in the case of strikes which, in my view, would be detrimental and not acceptable for European citizens.

In addition to this, it is envisaged that there would be a high level of involvement from the Commission. I cannot support the additional oversight over the work of national regulatory bodies and the creation, ultimately, of a European regulatory body for railways.

  Nicole Sinclaire (NI). - Mr President, I voted against this report. Unbundling of infrastructure management and operation of transport services is good, but we already have that in the UK.

Calling for additional financing in Member States for a TEN-T is problematic at a time of economic crisis. In fact, in my country, the cost of a new high-speed rail link – HS2 – is causing such an outcry that the government is trying to portray the project as a domestic necessity, rather than part of an EU-wide project.

Even the UK state broadcaster, the BBC, seems to have fallen for this deception. The first railway package of 2001 was such a failure that the Commission had to take 13 Member States to the Court of Justice for failure to implement it properly. The truth is they probably could not afford to implement it properly.

Since 2001, the percentage of freight being moved by rail has actually fallen: the exact opposite of what this package is set to achieve.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is essential to halt the decline of rail transport and reform it with a particularly close eye on European citizens’ right to mobility. Passenger trains must be adapted to transport disabled persons, decent and reasonably priced. It is therefore well worth establishing minimum quality standards for train carriages, ensuring respect of timetables and connections, and allowing free competition between operators in order to keep ticket prices under control.

We need to insist on the construction of massive European infrastructures for transporting freight and passengers at high speed. Given the positive outcome of sharing the costs of building the third pass – the Rotterdam corridor – and the high-speed Turin-Lyon corridor, as well as their inclusion among the ten big projects deemed essential by the European Union, it is crucial that the works begin as soon as possible.

With regard to the mandatory separation between infrastructure managers and historic railway operators, which traditionally own the infrastructure, compensating for the costs incurred is the right thing to do.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the free market environment remains unchanged compared to pre-existent legislation and includes all rail transport services, with the sole exception of passengers travelling within national borders.

The request that we have put forward with force moved towards the need to extend liberalisation to that market segment as soon as possible. The amendments made in this vein commit the Commission to submitting, not later than 2012, a suitable regulation on complete, mandatory separation between infrastructure managers and transport service providers, together with a proposal to extend liberalisation to passenger rail transport within national borders.

In a free-market context, which is the natural goal of the liberalisation process undertaken by Parliament, there can be no doubt that completely separate infrastructure managers is an essential pre-condition for the optimal functioning of competitive mechanisms. I also hope to see a liberalisation of delays, so that the delays that accumulate in some countries like mine can be liberalised, extended and divided among all European countries; perhaps some of them, like Italy, would be able to improve their punctuality.

Motion for a resolution B7-0571/2011

  Andrea Zanoni (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the resolution on the forthcoming international United Nations conference in Durban because I think that the climate change challenges posed by global warming require, more than ever, extremely strong commitment from Europe.

Climate upheaval due to overheating is shown by irrefutable scientific proof and the consequent environmental, human and economic damage is now quite clear to everyone. This situation requires us to take fast, courageous decisions. Europe must retain a leading role in the fight against global overheating, committing to provide aid to other countries in terms of technology and resources. These financial resources must also be recovered through an international ‘Tobin tax’ on financial transactions.

The Durban conference must lead to a legally binding international agreement with tangible outcomes for the fight against global warming. Above all, it must produce a clear calendar with deadlines and precise commitments for all countries of the world. All countries must finally put collective interests above their own individual interests because either we make an effort, or we will all pay a very hefty price. These are tough, extremely important and essential decisions, because there is no plan B any more.

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). - Mr President, in 1949 in an article entitled ‘Why Socialism?’ Albert Einstein wrote: ‘We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if Mankind is to survive’. The relevance of that idea today hits home when you look at the dire consequences of climate change and the threat to the future of our planet and humanity that it poses.

Then you look at the response of the capitalist establishment and the political leaders around the world and you have no new thinking, no sense of urgency. The world’s 21 developed economies and the European Commission publicly announced pledges of USD 28 billion in fast-track money after Copenhagen. Only USD 12 billion have so far been budgeted for, and as little as 30% has been delivered. If we are serious about tackling climate change, empty pledges are simply not good enough. We need a massive increase in internationally coordinated, patent-free, cooperative research and development into combating climate change.

Fundamentally, we need a new way of thinking about how we run our society and our economic system. Capitalism is a system. It is built on wastage and short-term profit. A so-called green economy built on the same logic of profit and competition will not solve climate change. We need socialist transformation of society. We need the massive resources that exist on our planet to be democratically planned in the interests of the majority and to protect our environment.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, the resolution voted upon this morning asks the European Union to arrive at the negotiating table with a commitment to reduce emissions by more than 20% by 2020, regardless of the result of the international negotiations.

As is well known, nobody thinks that a global agreement can be reached at Durban. The European Commission has declared that the earliest possible date for reaching a global agreement could be 2015, and a transition period is in progress until then. I think that the international context means that it is not possible to go further than the pre-established goals. The European Union already has a post-2012 commitment, namely to reduce emissions by 20%, as per the energy and climate package.

The EU then confirms its willingness to sign up to a second period of commitments only as part of a transition towards a global climate treaty that involves an agreement from all countries on setting out a road map and a schedule. Ms Hedegaard herself has stated that it would be a strategic error for the European Union to sign up to a second Kyoto commitment without the other economies. Furthermore, it is well known that some large economies have already declared that they will not sign up to a Kyoto 2 agreement.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, climate change has been a key political topic for some years now. It is obvious that CO2 emissions need to be reduced.

I should like to make two comments regarding this, however. Firstly, I feel that it is completely wrong to focus essentially only on CO2 as an indicator when looking at climate change. Climate change does not have only one cause, and therefore it cannot be combated simply by reducing CO2. In my opinion, we should instead be putting conservation of our natural resources at the heart of our agenda.

Secondly, there is little point in the European Union trying to achieve agreed targets if third countries are lagging far behind the targets they have set themselves. That is another problem we need to address.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, in December 2009, I took part in the 15th Conference of Parties at Copenhagen as an official member of Parliament’s delegation. Around two years have passed and regretfully I can say that the work undertaken and the commitments taken in Copenhagen, which were then formalised in Cancún, will not be enough to limit the annual average temperature rise on Earth to two centigrade.

Some large polluting countries such as Japan and Russia seem to want to renege on the commitments taken, while others do not seem to be giving the climate change issue the correct level of priority. Today, although I am voting in favour, I am aware that only through a sizable and robust commitment from Heads of State or Government around the world will be able to create the conditions for a complete international agreement.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, the markets have withdrawn their confidence in the euro area, the bond spreads are widening, our economies are contracting, the Doom is almost upon us and here we are solemnly talking about these proposals massively to increase our debt and deficit and pour more money into this climate change project. It would be disastrous if we actually meant it, but of course what is really happening is an exercise in post-modern legislation: we are not using the law as an instrument of effecting real change; we are using the law as a way of showing what terribly nice people we are.

The rest of the world has made it clear that they have no intention of applying the targets being discussed at these UN conferences, but Europe still has this pious requirement that we pretend to mean it, even though we have no intention of implementing it.

Just ponder, though, that that might be why we are in this mess in the first place. Constantly using our constituents’ money – because MEPs generally are exempt from national taxation – to show what terribly concerned and decent human beings we are has landed our Continent in this debt crisis in the first place. More spending is not going to be the way out.

  Hynek Fajmon (ECR). – (CS) Mr President, I voted against the resolution on the climate change conference in Durban. The world's climate has changed, is changing and will continue to change, regardless of human activity, and people have always adapted to the changing climate and will continue to adapt in the future, without costly central climate control from Brussels. So-called global warming, or what today tends to be referred to as climate change, cannot be a pretext to the adoption of global social engineering measures that will introduce new taxes, prohibit certain technology and subsidise other, supposedly green, technology. The cost of these measures are already huge and seriously hamper the economy of those States which have introduced them. We can see this after all in the constantly rising price of electricity in the European Union caused by the spiralling costs of renewable energy resources. It is absurd to continue this process, as the world just does not have the means to do so. In addition, this approach will not lead to the limitation of emissions on a global scale. I have therefore voted against this report.

Motion for a resolution B7-0574/2011

  Syed Kamall (ECR). - Mr President, whenever we have looked at the issue of development finance in the past, it has really been an exercise in taking the money from taxpayers in Europe, giving it to the wealthy elites of the developing countries and calling that direct budgetary support. Now is definitely the time for us to be far more imaginative and more targeted, but also let us not forget that if the governments withdraw from this role and we actually help entrepreneurs in the developing countries, there is a role for finance.

Let us look at an example: the Kiva website, which encourages people from all round the world to lend money directly to entrepreneurs in developing countries. When that money comes back, we lend again and we help take more people out of poverty than development aid often does.

Let us also look at the other issues and instruments, such as private equity, which is responsible for about 12.5% of South Africa’s GDP. Unfortunately, when we had a debate on the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive, there was a move to prevent investors in the European Union investing in funds outside the EU that invested in the development of these countries. Let us make sure that we are consistent on this and we really want to help finance development.

Written explanations of vote

Report: Barbara Matera (A7-0375/2011)

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of allocating financial assistance to Ireland. The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund was created in order to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns. Ireland has requested assistance in respect of 4 866 workers made redundant from 1 482 enterprises involved in the construction of buildings. This application complies with the requirements for determining financial contributions, and I therefore welcome the mobilisation of an amount of EUR 12 689 838.

  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 this time of severe crisis, one of the principal consequences of which has been an increase in unemployment, the EU needs to use all the means at its disposal to respond, particularly with regard to providing support for those who find themselves without a job from one day to the next. That is why I voted for this report on the mobilisation of EUR 12 689 838 from the EGF for Ireland, with the aim of supporting workers made redundant from 1 482 enterprises operating in Division 41 (‘construction of buildings’), in the regions of Border, Midlands and Western, and Southern and Eastern.

  George Becali (NI), in writing. – (RO) I voted in support of the assistance required by almost 5 000 people made redundant in Ireland. Parliament’s request to simplify the procedures and speed up the process of awarding grants is fully justified by the current situation. The fact that this is already the 19th application due to be examined confirms the need to speed up the process.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) The application to mobilise the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in question is part of a broader request by Ireland totalling EUR 35 741 805 for 5 987 redundancies targeted for assistance in 3 272 enterprises operating in the construction sector. More specifically, the application in question, ‘Construction 41’, requests the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 12 689 838 from the EGF for Ireland in relation to 3 205 redundancies targeted for assistance. Since it does not present any critical issues and it fulfils the eligibility criteria laid down, I voted in favour of this report.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − Although I have great sympathy for those 6000 redundant workers from 300 companies active in construction, architecture, engineering and technical testing in Ireland, I cannot support this report. I believe that UK taxpayers’ money, which provides a significant contribution to the EU and thus Global Adjustment Fund budget, is better concentrated on providing jobs for unemployed workers in the UK. Unemployment in the UK continues to rise to unexpected levels. Many of our heavy industries have shut down and our workforce is inundated with EU migrants. Many Brits have lost their jobs in industries that have relocated to other EU countries under EU law to then find that their contributions as taxpayers are being spent by the EU in assisting unemployed people in Ireland. As unemployment continues to rise in the UK, particularly blighting some of the former mining towns in Wales, I cannot justify assenting to aid newly unemployed workers abroad when long-term unemployed people continue to suffer in communities in my constituency. I was elected to support them and make sure their interests are properly represented therefore I cannot agree to that kind of use of British taxpayers’ money.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given the various repercussions that Ireland has suffered owing to its vulnerability in the face of the financial crisis caused by mortgage lending in the US and structural changes in the patterns of world trade, I believed it important to vote for this report, which will provide vital one-off, time-limited assistance to workers who have been made redundant. Furthermore, I believe in the purpose for which the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund has been mobilised, to a total of EUR 12 689 838 for Ireland. This support for the reintegration into Ireland’s labour market of workers made redundant as a result of the global economic and financial crisis is vital in order to safeguard 3 205 redundancies which occurred in 1 482 companies in Division 41.

Of the package of measures proposed by the Commission, I would like to emphasise, in particular, two which are imperative, namely occupational guidance, whereby one-to-one occupational counselling sessions will be arranged for redundant workers in order to give them advice on steps to be taken towards a return to employment; and also vocational and second-level education and training programmes and income supports, which will be developed for the retraining that is increasingly important in the context of increasing competitiveness in a more globalised world.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I am voting for this report, as the Irish application has been made within the framework of the support provided for in the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF). The EGF is aimed at supporting workers affected by major structural changes in world trade and assisting their reintegration into the labour market. I also hope the EGF will be mobilised swiftly, and that it will have the desired effect, so as to lessen the psychological, social and economic impact on the affected workers.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this proposal, as I believe it will make a useful contribution to reducing the high unemployment rates in Ireland. Following the international global financial crisis, demand for labour in the Irish civil construction sector has fallen by around half, and the sector is not expected to recover quickly. In view of this, it is important to contribute to the retraining of some of the country’s workforce, and it makes perfect sense to use the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund to this end.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Irish civil construction industry has been affected by the crisis, with 4 866 workers made redundant from 1 482 companies in the sector. Ireland is one of the countries currently experiencing a serious financial and economic crisis, which originated from the mortgage credit problems in the US and affected Irish banks. It therefore merits particular attention and solidarity from other Member States, in particular as regards aid provided to its workers.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The low wage policy practised in some regions of the world has not only caused many EU companies to relocate, but has also caused others to go out of business. This situation has occurred in the civil construction sector in Ireland.

This report concerns a proposal for decision by the European Parliament and the Council on the mobilisation of EUR 12 689 838 from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), with the aim of supporting the reintegration of Irish workers made redundant as a result of the current economic and financial crisis. This application, the 19th to be examined within the framework of the 2011 EU budget, was submitted by Ireland on 9 June 2010, and concerns 4 866 redundancies from 1 482 enterprises operating in NACE Revision 2 Division 41, in the NUTS II regions of Border, Midlands and Western (IE01) and Southern and Eastern (IE02). Given that this involves a specific budgetary instrument, and that the amount requested is legally acceptable and complies with the proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF for Ireland, I am voting for this proposal, and I hope that it contributes to rapidly improving the economic conditions in that region.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) With this report, Parliament is giving the green light to a proposal to mobilise the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), whose purpose is also to benefit Ireland by supporting the reintegration of workers made redundant as a result of the economic and financial crisis. It relates to 4 866 redundancies, 3 205 of which are targeted for assistance, in 1 482 enterprises operating in Division 41 (‘construction of buildings’) in two contiguous regions, which comprise the entire Republic of Ireland. No matter how many of these applications there are, we are bound to express our regret that, in each case, much could and should have been done to prevent them.

Once again, although we support the mobilisation of the EGF to help workers who have been made redundant, we would stress that this is a mere palliative that does not solve, as is necessary, the root causes of this wave of redundancies. These causes are inextricably linked to the policies of the EU, which is bringing the crisis upon itself, as we have been saying for a long time. It is imperative that these policies be changed to prioritise growth and development and job creation, rather than the irrational criteria of the Stability and Growth Pact.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) With this report, Parliament is giving the green light to a proposal to mobilise the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), whose purpose is also to benefit Ireland by supporting the reintegration of workers made redundant as a result of the economic and financial crisis. It relates to 4 866 redundancies, 3 205 of which are targeted for assistance, in 1 482 enterprises operating in Division 41 (‘construction of buildings’) in two contiguous regions, which comprise the entire Republic of Ireland.

This was another case of redundancies that we regretted, but we voted for the mobilisation of the EGF to support the workers who are the victims of these redundancies.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission allows the release of funds from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) using the flexibility instrument within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million beyond the relevant rounds of the financial framework. On 9 May 2010, Ireland submitted request No EGF/2010/019 IE/Construction 41 because of redundancies in 1 482 enterprises operating in NACE Revision 2 Division 41 (Construction) in the NUTS II Border, Midlands and Western (IE01) and Southern and Eastern (IE02) regions. These two neighbouring regions constitute the entire Irish state. The request is one of three submitted for the construction industry in Ireland. After carefully considering the requests, the Commission has come to the conclusion that they meet the condition for a financial contribution. I also firmly believe that in the light of the above circumstances, the request should be granted.

  Jim Higgins (PPE), in writing. − (GA) I welcome this money to provide retraining to those who are unemployed as a result of the economic crisis. We must look at the structure of this scheme, however, because it is not flexible enough at present.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in order to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns. On 5 October 2011, the Commission adopted a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF in favour of Ireland in order to support the reintegration into the labour market of workers made redundant due to the global financial and economic crisis. I welcomed this document because this particular case relates to the sub-prime mortgage crisis in the United States in mid-2007. As a small export-oriented economy, Ireland suffered from the effects of the credit crunch on its major trading partners. The credit crunch severely affected the banks in Ireland, with further effects on mortgage loans and the construction sector. The Commission therefore proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 12 689 838.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted to give the green light to the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund to assist workers in Ireland made redundant due to the downturn of the construction industry.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. − I welcome the decision by the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund to allocate EUR 12 689 838 to Ireland in assisting this case concerning 4 866 redundancies in the construction sector. One of the major challenges facing the construction industry nowadays is the need to diversify and develop new skill sets. This fund, designed to assist with retraining and back to work programmes, will be a welcome step in the right direction for the workers directly affected by the financial crisis.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU is an area of solidarity and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is a part of that. This support is essential for helping the unemployed and victims of company relocations that occur in the context of globalisation.

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 victims of 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 Ireland, which has applied for assistance with regard to 4 866 cases of redundancy, 3 205 of which are targeted for assistance, at 1 482 enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 48 (‘construction of buildings’) in the NUTS II regions of Border, Midlands and Western (IE01) and Southern and Eastern (IE02), in Ireland. These two contiguous regions comprise the entire Republic of Ireland.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − This is the nineteenth application to be examined under the 2011 budget and refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 12 689 838 from the EGF for Ireland. It concerns 4 866 redundancies, 3 205 targeted for assistance, in 1 482 enterprises operating in the field of construction in Ireland, during the nine-month reference period from 1 July 2009 to 31 March 2010. It is necessary to help Ireland, but the criteria of the fund should be amended to make it available in Latvia. I am in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund provides additional support to workers across Europe who are suffering the effects of major structural changes in world trade patterns. It finances measures such as occupational orientation and further training programmes, but also new businesses and helping people into self-employment. In the Commission’s assessment, the application from Ireland – where the construction industry has taken a severe battering as a result of the financial crisis – meets the eligibility criteria set out in the Regulation establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, and it is recommending to the budgetary authority that the application be approved. This will fully utilise the reinforcement of budget line 04 05 01 and, in accordance with the Regulation establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, more than a quarter of the annual maximum amount of the fund will remain available to cover needs arising in the last four months of 2011. The Fund can be utilised up to an annual upper limit of EUR 500 million. I am in favour of this use of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcome this decision to allocate support to Ireland’s construction sector because this sector has been hit particularly badly by the economic and financial crisis. In order to mitigate the negative impact of globalisation, the funding available from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund needs to be used in a targeted manner. It is very important to ensure that assistance for workers made redundant should be dynamic and made available as quickly and efficiently as possible. I believe that the amount allocated is sufficient to mitigate the consequences of mass redundancy in the construction sector and will create favourable conditions for workers in this sector who have suffered to return to the labour market.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created to provide additional support for workers affected by the consequences of major structural changes in the patterns of world trade.

On 5 October 2011, the Commission adopted a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF for Ireland, 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 19th application to be examined within the framework of the 2011 budget, and relates to the mobilisation of the total sum of EUR 12 689 838 from the EGF for Ireland, with regard to 4 866 redundancies, 3 205 of which are targeted for assistance, from 1 482 enterprises in NACE Revision 2 Division 41 (‘construction of buildings), in the NUTS II regions of Border, Midlands and Western (IE01) and Southern and Eastern (IE02), in Ireland, during the nine-month reference period between 1 July 2009 and 31 March 2010. As all of the requirements necessary to apply this financial assistance mechanism have been met, I voted for this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Given that the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in order to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns, the proposal to mobilise the fund for Ireland stems from the need to support the reintegration into the labour market of workers made redundant due to the global financial and economic crisis. In light of the above and in view of the importance of the proposal for a decision in question, I voted for the proposal for a decision since it can provide for measures for occupational guidance, training programmes and associated training allowances and redundant apprentice on- and off-the-job training and support.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The application submitted by Ireland for the intervention of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) relates to 4 866 redundancies, 3 205 of which are targeted for assistance, in 1 482 enterprises in NACE Revision 2 Division 41 (‘construction of buildings’), in the NUTS II regions of Border, Midlands and Western (IE01) and Southern and Eastern (IE02), during the nine-month reference period from 1 July 2009 to 31 March 2010. This application is related to the mortgage crisis, which severely affected Irish banks, with further effects on the construction sector.

According to the Commission’s assessment, this application meets all of the legally established eligibility criteria. Indeed, EGF involvement in situations like this is provided for in the EGF Regulation, in which, as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis, there are ‘at least 500 redundancies over a period of nine months, particularly in small or medium-sized enterprises, in a NACE 2 division in one region or two contiguous regions at NUTS II level’. I therefore voted for this resolution, in the hope that the assistance will be made available to the workers who have been made redundant swiftly and efficiently.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I would like to congratulate Ms Matera on her excellent work, considering that this application for mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is the nineteenth proposal submitted to the Budget Authority in 2011 alone. This time, the EU applicant country is Ireland, which calls for the EGF to be activated in three applications put to the vote this morning: the first for assistance in relation to 4 866 redundancies – 3 205 targeted for assistance – in enterprises operating in the ‘construction of buildings’ division; the second for 842 redundancies – 554 targeted for assistance – in enterprises operating in architectural and engineering activities; and the third for 3 382 redundancies – 2 228 targeted for assistance – in enterprises also operating in specialised construction activities. Among the various crises that have hit Europe’s economy over the last three years, one of the deepest and longest-lasting (as demonstrated once again today), and most difficult to overcome, is the crisis in the construction industry. The recession has affected, and is still affecting, the construction market.

  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. With a budget of EUR 500 million for 2011, the Commission believes that EUR 6 598 378 should be made available for Ireland, so that it can address the 4 866 redundancies at 1 482 enterprises in the subsector of construction of buildings located in the NUTS II regions of Border, Midlands and Western and of Southern and Eastern.

I also believe all procedures should be sped up, in order that the redundant workers might have quick access to vocational training that will enable their quick and effective reintegration into the labour market.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) On 5 October 2011, the Commission adopted a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in favour of Ireland, in order to support the reintegration into the labour market of workers made redundant due to the global financial and economic crisis. The application concerns 4 866 redundancies in 1 482 enterprises located in two contiguous regions which comprise together the entire State of Ireland. Almost 80% of the enterprises are located in the Southern and Eastern region, while the remaining 20% are located in the Border, Midlands and Western region. The redundancies were made during the nine-month reference period from 1 July 2009 to 31 March 2010. In the wake of the economic and financial crisis and of the closure of numerous SMEs in the construction industry, which enjoyed steady growth for a decade, the unemployment rate in this sector soared by 19% between 2009 and 2010. Furthermore, Ireland has an export-oriented economy, which resulted in the credit crunch which, in turn, seriously affected the mortgage loans market and, consequently, the building sector. This is why we advocate the mobilisation of the EGF in support of the Irish workers made redundant so that they are reintegrated into the labour market.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) In the wake of the economic crisis many small and medium-sized enterprises that were operating in the construction industry have had to close down in Ireland. The building trade was booming before the crisis and made a not insignificant contribution to Irish GDP; as a result of the present closures, 4 866 workers have lost their jobs within a period of months. Among those affected were 669 apprentices. The further training measures have been coordinated with the local social partners and educational institutions, and are being sensibly invested in growth areas such as environmental technology. I voted in favour because the collapse in this sector could potentially have substantial effects on other parts of Ireland’s economy, which is only now beginning to stabilise to some extent.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the application for mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) submitted by Ireland on 9 June 2010. At a time of economic crisis, perhaps without precedent, I feel that it is right to approve the allocation of funds necessary to fulfil the requests for mobilisation submitted by Ireland, such as the one in the text in question, as well as those submitted by other countries when conditions have been satisfied.

Report: Barbara Matera (A7-0377/2011)

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of allocating financial assistance to Ireland. The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund was created in order to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns. Ireland has requested assistance in respect of 842 workers made redundant from 230 enterprises involved in architectural and engineering activities and in the areas of technical testing and analysis. This application complies with the requirements for determining financial contributions, and I therefore welcome the mobilisation of an amount of EUR 1 387 819.

  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 this time of severe crisis, one of the principal consequences of which has been an increase in unemployment, the EU needs to use all the means at its disposal to respond, particularly with regard to providing support for those who find themselves without a job from one day to the next. That is why I voted for this report on the mobilisation of EUR 1 387 819 from the EGF for Ireland, with the aim of supporting workers made redundant from 230 enterprises operating in Division 71 (‘architectural and engineering activities; technical testing and analysis’), in the regions of Border, Midlands and Western, and Southern and Eastern.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) The application to mobilise the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in question is part of a broader request by Ireland totalling EUR 35 741 805 for 5 987 redundancies targeted for assistance in 3 272 enterprises operating in the construction sector. More specifically, the application in question, ‘Construction 71’, requests the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 1 387 819 from the EGF for Ireland in relation to 554 redundancies targeted for assistance. Since it does not present any critical issues and it fulfils the eligibility criteria laid down, I voted in favour of this report.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given the various repercussions that Ireland has suffered owing to its vulnerability in the face of the financial crisis due to mortgage lending in the US and structural changes in the patterns of world trade, I believed it important to vote for this report, which will provide vital one-off, time-limited assistance to workers who have been made redundant. Furthermore, I believe in the purpose for which the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund will be mobilised, to a total of EUR 1 387 819 for Ireland. This support for the reintegration into Ireland’s labour market of workers made redundant as a result of the global economic and financial crisis is vital in order to safeguard 554 workers made redundant from 230 companies in Division 71.

Of the package of measures proposed by the Commission, I would like to emphasise in particular two which are imperative, namely occupational guidance, whereby one-to-one occupational counselling sessions will be arranged for redundant workers in order to give them advice on steps to be taken towards a return to employment; and also vocational and second-level education and training programmes and income supports, which will be developed for the retraining that is increasingly important in the context of increasing competitiveness in a world that is also increasingly globalised.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Like the position that I took in relation to Report A7-0375/2011, I am voting for this report, as the Irish application has been made within the framework of the support provided for in the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF). I would reiterate that the EGF is aimed at supporting workers affected by major structural changes in world trade and assisting their reintegration into the labour market. I also hope the EGF will be mobilised swiftly, and that it will have the desired effect, so as to lessen the psychological, social and economic impact on the affected workers.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this proposal, as I believe it will make a useful contribution to reducing the high unemployment rates in Ireland. Following the international financial crisis, of which the crisis in the Irish construction sector is a by-product, engineering and architecture activities fell in unprecedented ways. Since the sector is not expected to recover quickly, it seems reasonable for the EU to promote retraining and reintegration for this unemployed workforce.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The crisis in the construction sector in Ireland, which has affected companies and workers throughout the country, cannot but impact related activities, such as engineering and architecture, which have also been hit by the international crisis and exacerbated by the crisis in the euro area. There are 554 workers expecting to benefit from the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. I hope this can be granted in the shortest possible timeframe, so as to be as effective as possible in helping the workers, and without them being penalised because of a delay in the funds being made available.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Having seen the severe social impact of the current economic and financial crisis, the EU created the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) to provide additional assistance to workers affected by changes in the structure of global trade.

On 9 June 2010, Ireland submitted an application, case application EGF/2010/021 IE/Construction 71, based on Article 2(b) of the EGF Regulation, supplemented by additional information up to 17 June 2011. On 5 October 2011, the Commission adopted a new proposal for a decision, the 21st under the 2011 budget, on the mobilisation of EUR 1 387 819 from the EGF for Ireland in order to support the reintegration of 842 workers made redundant at 230 enterprises operating in NACE Revision 2 Division 71, in the regions of Border, Midland and Western (IE01) and Southern and Eastern (IE02), in Ireland. As this is a properly substantiated proposal in legal terms, which is necessary to meet the financial requirements for the EGF’s implementation in this region of Ireland, there is nothing that stands in the way of its adoption, as far as I am concerned.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This is yet another case of the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) and, once again, it is for a country with a so-called ‘bailout programme’, namely Ireland. This is the 21st application to be examined within the framework of the 2011 budget, and relates to the mobilisation of a total sum of EUR 1 387 819 from the EGF for 842 redundancies, 554 of which are potential beneficiaries of assistance, at 230 enterprises in Division 71 (‘architectural and engineering activities; technical testing and analysis’), also between 2009 and 2010.

This succession of applications for mobilisation of the EGF – in other words, this succession of mass redundancies – should be enough to ring alarm bells in the EU institutions. There is a need to change policy, with every effort being made to create jobs, not to destroy them with recessive policies, as has happened in several countries, above all in those being targeted by the programmes of the International Monetary Fund and EU, like Portugal and Ireland.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) In this instance, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is also being mobilised for Ireland. On 5 October 2011, the Commission adopted a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF for Ireland, 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 21st application to be examined within the framework of the 2011 budget, and relates to the mobilisation of the total sum of EUR 1 387 819 from the EGF for Ireland, for 842 redundancies, 554 of which are targeted for assistance, from 230 enterprises in Division 71 (‘architectural and engineering activities; technical testing and analysis’), also between 2009 and 2010. The application was submitted to the Commission on 9 June 2010 and supplemented by additional information up to 17 June 2011. It was based on the criteria for intervention set out in Article 2(b) of the EGF Regulation, which requires at least 500 redundancies over a nine-month period in enterprises operating in the same NACE Revision 2 division in one region or two contiguous regions at NUTS II level in a Member State.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The European Union has established appropriate legislative and budgetary instruments to provide additional assistance to workers who are feeling the impact of the major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to help them return to the labour market. In accordance with the joint announcement of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, EU financial assistance for the workers made redundant should be made available as quickly and effectively as possible. Ireland has made a request in respect of 842 redundancies (the aid applies to 554 of them) in 230 enterprises operating in NACE Revision 2 Division 71 (Architecture and engineering activities: technical testing and analysis) in the NUTS II Border, Midlands and Western (IE01) ane Southern and Eastern (IE02) regions. These two neighbouring regions constitute the whole territory of Ireland. As the request meets the eligibility criteria set out in the regulation on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) and the conditions for a financial appropriation under Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 have been met, the financial assistance should be made available to Ireland. (brief presentation)

  Jim Higgins (PPE), in writing. − (GA) I welcome this money to provide retraining to those who are unemployed as a result of the economic crisis. We must look at the structure of this scheme, however, because it is not flexible enough at present.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in order to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns. On 5 October 2011 the Commission adopted a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF in favour of Ireland in order to support the reintegration into the labour market of workers made redundant due to the global financial and economic crisis. I welcomed this document because this particular case relates to the sub-prime mortgage crisis in the United States in mid-2007. As an export-oriented economy, Ireland suffered from the effects of the credit crunch on its major trading partners. The credit crunch severely affected the banks in Ireland, with further effects on mortgage loans and the construction sector. The Commission therefore proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 1 387 819.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted to give the green light to the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund to assist 842 workers in Ireland made redundant due to the economic downturn.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report and welcome the support provided by the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in the sum of EUR 1 387 819 to the specialised construction industry. These funds will provide much-needed assistance to those made redundant in this sector as a result of the global economic crisis.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU is an area of solidarity and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is a part of that. This support is essential for helping the unemployed and victims of company relocations that occur in the context of globalisation. 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 victims of 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 Ireland, which has applied for assistance with regard to 842 redundancies, 554 of which are targeted for assistance, at 230 enterprises operating in NACE Revision 2 Division 71 (‘architectural and engineering activities; technical testing and analysis’) in the NUTS II regions of Border, Midlands and Western (IE01) and Southern and Eastern (IE02), in Ireland. These two contiguous regions comprise the entire Republic of Ireland.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − This is the twenty first application to be examined under the 2011 budget and refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 1 387 819 from the EGF for Ireland. It concerns 842 redundancies, 554 targeted for assistance, in 230 enterprises operating in the field of Architectural and engineering activities; technical testing and analysis in Ireland, during the nine-month reference period from 1 July 2009 to 31 March 2010. It is necessary to help Ireland, but the criteria of the fund should be amended to make it available in Latvia. I am in favour.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) In order to mitigate the negative impact of globalisation, the funding available from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund needs to be used in a targeted manner. It is very important to ensure that assistance for workers made redundant should be dynamic and made available as quickly and efficiently as possible. I welcome the decision to allocate assistance to Ireland in order to support the reintegration into the labour market of workers made redundant due to the global financial and economic crisis. I believe that the amount allocated is sufficient to mitigate the consequences of mass redundancy, will create favourable conditions for workers who have suffered to return to the labour market and will enable other active labour market measures to be implemented. This assistance will cover the costs of job search, training and retraining and the promotion of entrepreneurship and will effectively halt the spread of unemployment in the country. Moreover, redundant workers who have received assistance will be encouraged to find work for themselves and take up employment as soon as possible.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created to provide additional support for workers affected by the consequences of major structural changes in the patterns of world trade. On 5 October 2011, the Commission adopted a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF for Ireland, 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 21st application to be examined within the framework of the budget for 2011, and relates to the mobilisation of a total sum of EUR 1 387 819 from the EGF for Ireland, with regard to 842 redundancies, 554 of which are targeted for assistance, from 230 enterprises in NACE Revision 2 Division 71 (‘architectural and engineering activities; technical testing and analysis), in the NUTS II regions of Border, Midlands and Western (IE01) and Southern and Eastern (IE02), in Ireland, during the nine-month reference period between 1 July 2009 and 31 March 2010. As all of the requirements necessary to apply this financial assistance mechanism have been met, I voted for this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in order to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns. As a small export-oriented economy, Ireland suffered from the effects of the credit crunch on its major trading partners as a result of the financial crisis, which in this particular case is related to the sub-prime mortgage crisis in the United States in mid-2007. Given that the credit crunch severely affected the banks in Ireland, with further effects on mortgage loans and building activity in the country, I voted for the proposal for a decision on mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund for Ireland.

  Phil Prendergast (S&D), in writing. − I am delighted that the European Parliament today cleared the payment of this money, which will assist almost 6 000 construction workers who have lost jobs in the wake of the Irish banking crisis. Our economic collapse had a particularly dramatic affect on the construction sector as the previous government had adopted an unsustainable development model. Roughly half the jobs in the construction sector between 2007 and 2010 were lost, so this money is a critical lifeline to those workers, renewing their hopes of finding employment again. This funding can be used for retraining and upskilling, occupational guidance or support for self-employment and enterprise creation. This can also include support to part-time students or apprentices. Together with the share contributed by the Irish Government, the funding for construction workers adds up to EUR 55 million and is also a welcome development in that it mobilises resources to assist workers from small and medium-size companies. I believe our government will keep in mind the mediocre management of EGF monies by the previous administration, and manage the programmes in a timely fashion, so as to get the best value for themoney and avoid loss of funding due to missed deadlines.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The application submitted by Ireland for the intervention of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) relates to 842 redundancies, 554 of which are targeted for assistance, in 230 enterprises in NACE Revision 2 Division 71 (‘architectural and engineering activities; technical testing and analysis’), in the NUTS II regions of Border, Midlands and Western (IE01) and Southern and Eastern (IE02), during the nine-month reference period from 1 July 2009 to 31 March 2010. This application is related to the mortgage crisis, which severely affected Irish banks, with further effects on the construction sector.

According to the Commission’s assessment, this application meets all of the legally established eligibility criteria. Indeed, EGF involvement in situations like this is provided for in the EGF Regulation, in which, as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis, there are ‘at least 500 redundancies over a period of nine months, particularly in small or medium-sized enterprises, in a NACE 2 division in one region or two contiguous regions at NUTS II level’. I therefore voted for this resolution, in the hope that the assistance will be made available to the workers who have been made redundant swiftly and efficiently.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of 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.

I am voting for the report as I am concerned about the 842 redundancies at 230 enterprises in the subsectors of architectural and engineering activities, technical testing and analysis, located in the NUTS II regions of Border, Midlands and Western, and Southern and Eastern. I believe that the sum of EUR 1 387 819 should be granted quickly to this application, case EGF/2010/021 IE/Construction 71, and that the Commission should support workers made redundant as a result of the mortgage crisis in the US in mid-2007, which has affected Irish exports.

I would also stress that a simple, rapid and efficient procedure should be adopted for approving decisions on the mobilisation of the EGF, in order to provide one-off, time-limited individual support geared towards helping workers made redundant as a result of globalisation and the financial and economic crisis.

Report: Barbara Matera (A7-0376/2011)

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of allocating financial assistance to Ireland. The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund was created in order to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns. Ireland has requested assistance in respect of 3 382 workers made redundant from 1 560 enterprises involved in specialised construction activities. This application complies with the requirements for determining financial contributions, and I therefore welcome the mobilisation of an amount of EUR 21 664 148.

  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 this time of severe crisis, one of the principal consequences of which has been an increase in unemployment, the EU needs to use all the means at its disposal to respond, particularly with regard to providing support for those who find themselves without a job from one day to the next. That is why I voted for this report on the mobilisation of EUR 21 644 148 from the EGF for Ireland, with the aim of supporting workers made redundant from 1 560 enterprises operating in Division 43 (‘specialised construction activities’), in the regions of Border, Midlands and Western, and Southern and Eastern.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) The application to mobilise the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in question is part of a broader request by Ireland totalling EUR 35 741 805 for 5 987 redundancies targeted for assistance in 3 272 enterprises operating in the construction sector. More specifically, the application in question, ‘Construction 43’, requests the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 21 664 148 from the EGF for Ireland in relation to 2 228 redundancies targeted for assistance. Since it does not present any critical issues and it fulfils the eligibility criteria laid down, I voted in favour of this report.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − Although I have great sympathy for those 6000 redundant workers from 300 companies active in construction, architecture, engineering and technical testing in Ireland, I can not support this report. I believe that UK taxpayers’ money, which provides a significant contribution to the EU and thus Global Adjustment Fund budget, is better concentrated on providing jobs for unemployed workers in the UK. Unemployment in the UK continues to rise to unexpected levels. Many of our heavy industries have shut down and our workforce is inundated with EU migrants. Many of Brits have lost their jobs in industries that have relocated to other EU countries under EU law to then find that their contributions as taxpayers are being spent by the EU in assisting unemployed people in Ireland. As unemployment continues to rise in the UK, particularly blighting some of the former mining towns in Wales, I cannot justify assenting to aid newly unemployed workers abroad when long-term unemployed people continue to suffer in communities in my constituency. I was elected to support them and make sure their interests are properly represented therefore I cannot agree to that kind of use of British taxpayers’ money.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given the various repercussions that Ireland has suffered owing to its vulnerability in the face of the financial crisis due to mortgage lending in the US and structural changes in the patterns of world trade, I believed it important to vote for this report, which will provide vital one-off, time-limited assistance to workers who have been made redundant. Furthermore, I believe in the purpose for which the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund will be mobilised, to a total of EUR 21 664 148 for Ireland. This support for the reintegration into Ireland’s labour market of workers made redundant as a result of the global economic and financial crisis is vital in order to safeguard 2 228 redundancies in 1 560 companies in Division 43.

Of the package of measures proposed by the Commission, I would like to emphasise in particular two which are imperative, namely occupational guidance, whereby one-to-one occupational counselling sessions will be arranged for redundant workers in order to give them advice on steps to be taken towards a return to employment; and also vocational and second-level education and training programmes and income support, which will be developed for the retraining that is increasingly important in the context of growing competitiveness in an increasingly globalised world.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Like the position that I took in relation to Report A7-0375/2011 and Report A7-0377/2011, I am voting for this report, as the Irish application has been made within the framework of the support provided for in the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF). I would once again reiterate that the EGF is aimed at supporting workers affected by major structural changes in world trade and assisting their reintegration into the labour market. I also hope the EGF will be mobilised swiftly, and that it will have the desired effect, so as to lessen the psychological, social and economic impact on the affected workers.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this proposal, as I believe it will make a useful contribution to reducing the high unemployment rate in Ireland. Following the severe global financial crisis, the demand for labour in the Irish civil construction sector fell by around half, and this sector is not expected to recover quickly. In view of this, it is important to help the retraining of some of the country’s unemployed workforce, and this justifies the use of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In the broader context of civil construction, specialised construction activities have not been spared in the economic and financial crisis currently raging in Ireland. In fact, 3 382 workers have lost their jobs. Of these, 2 228 are targeted for assistance from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF). I hope that Ireland, like Portugal, Greece and other countries in difficulty, will be able to respond adequately to the problems that it is facing, and that the EGF will be an effective means of helping its workers at a particularly difficult time. It is therefore necessary that the EGF be mobilised in time, and that its use be adequate and proportional to situations of unemployment confirmed to have taken place.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This is yet another report on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), this time for Ireland. This is the 20th application to be examined under the 2011 budget, and it refers to the mobilisation of a total of EUR 21 664 148 from the EGF. The application relates to 3 382 redundancies, 2 228 of which are targeted for assistance, in 1 560 enterprises operating in Division 43 (‘specialised construction activities’) during the nine-month reference period from 1 July 2009.

It is situations like this that, in the country that they have been touting as a success story and is one of the victim countries of the programmes of the International Monetary Fund and EU, have led to tens of thousands of people leaving the country every week in search of work elsewhere. This is reminiscent of other waves of emigration which took place in other dark periods in Ireland’s history.

The Irish Government says that the credit crisis has severely affected Ireland’s banks, with further effects on mortgage loans and construction activity in the country. When the crisis hit, the share of those employed in construction in Ireland dropped from 12.25% in the fourth quarter of 2007 to 9.2% in the first quarter of 2009 and 6.25% in the third quarter of 2010.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This time, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is also being mobilised for Ireland. On 5 October 2011, the Commission adopted a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF for Ireland, 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 20th application to be examined under the 2011 budget and refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 21 664 148 from the EGF for Ireland. This application relates to 3 382 redundancies, 2 228 of which are targeted for assistance, at 1 560 enterprises in Division 43 (‘specialised construction activities’), during the nine-month reference period from 1 July 2009. The application was submitted to the Commission on 9 June 2010 and supplemented by additional information up to 17 June 2011.

The Irish Government says that the credit crisis has severely affected Ireland’s banks, with further effects on mortgage loans and construction activity in the country. When the crisis hit, the share of those employed in construction in Ireland dropped from 12.25% in the fourth quarter of 2007 to 9.2% in the first quarter of 2009 and 6.25% in the third quarter of 2010.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission allows the release of funds from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) using the flexibility instrument within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million beyond the relevant rounds of the financial framework. The European Union has set up appropriate legislative and budgetary instruments to provide additional assistance to workers affected by the major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to help them return to the labour market. In June 2010, Ireland submitted request No EGF/2010/20 IE/Construction 43 for financial assistance from the EGF because of redundancies in 1 560 enterprises (3 328 redundant workers, with the assistance allocated to 2 288 of them) operating in NACE Revision 2 Division 43 (Construction) in the two Irish NUTS II regions, Border, Midlands and Western (IE01) and Southern and Eastern (IE02). The request is one of three submitted for the building industry in Ireland. After careful consideration of these requests, the Commission has come to the conclusion that they meet the conditions for a financial contribution and that the request should be granted.

  Jim Higgins (PPE), in writing. − (GA) I welcome this money to provide retraining to those who are unemployed as a result of the economic crisis. We must look at the structure of this scheme, however, because it is not flexible enough at present.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in order to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns. On 5 October 2011 the Commission adopted a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF in favour of Ireland in order to support the reintegration into the labour market of workers made redundant due to the global financial and economic crisis. I welcomed this document because this particular case relates to the sub-prime mortgage crisis in the United States in mid-2007. As a small export-oriented economy, Ireland suffered from the effects of the credit crunch on its major trading partners. The credit crunch severely affected the banks in Ireland, with further effects on mortgage loans and the construction sector. The Commission therefore proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 21 664 148.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted to give the green light to the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund to assist 3382 workers in Ireland who have been made redundant due to the downturn in the construction industry.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report, by which the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund has allocated substantial support, some EUR 21 664 148, to Ireland. I welcome this decision to allocate funds to support Irish workers in the sectors of architectural and engineering activities and technical testing and analysis made redundant as a direct result of the global financial crisis. This fund, designed to assist with retraining and back to work programmes, will be a welcome step in the right direction for redundant workers looking to diversify and develop new skill sets.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU is an area of solidarity and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is a part of that. This support is essential for helping the unemployed and victims of company relocations that occur in the context of globalisation. 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 victims of 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 Ireland, which has applied for assistance with regard to 3 382 redundancies, of which 2 228 are targeted for assistance, at 1 560 enterprises operating in NACE Revision 2 Division 43 (‘specialised construction activities’) in the NUTS II regions of Border, Midlands and Western (IE01) and Southern and Eastern (IE02).

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − This is the twentieth application to be examined under the 2011 budget and refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 21 664 148 from the EGF for Ireland. It concerns 3 382 redundancies, 2 228 targeted for assistance, in 1 560 enterprises operating in the field of Specialised construction activities in Ireland, during the nine-month reference period from 1 July 2009 to 31 March 2010. It is necessary to help Ireland, but the criteria of the fund should be amended to make it available in Latvia. I am in favour.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcome the decision to allocate support to Ireland because this country’s construction sector has been hit particularly badly by the economic and financial crisis and hundreds of workers have been made redundant as a result. I believe that the amount allocated is sufficient to mitigate the consequences of mass redundancy, will create favourable conditions for workers who have suffered to return to the labour market and will enable other active labour market measures to be implemented. Moreover, it is very important to ensure that redundant workers who have received assistance are encouraged to find work for themselves and take up employment as quickly as possible. The assistance must therefore be dynamic and made available efficiently so that it covers the costs of job search, training and retraining and the promotion of entrepreneurship, and effectively halts the spread of unemployment in the country.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created to provide additional support for workers affected by the consequences of major structural changes in the patterns of world trade.

On 5 October 2011, the Commission adopted a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF for Ireland, 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 20th application to be examined within the framework of the 2011 budget, and relates to the mobilisation of the total sum of EUR 21 664 148 from the EGF for Ireland, with regard to 3 382 redundancies, 2 228 of which are targeted for assistance, from 1 560 enterprises in NACE Revision 2 Division 43 (‘specialised construction activities’), in the NUTS II regions of Border, Midlands and Western (IE01) and Southern and Eastern (IE02), in Ireland, during the nine-month reference period between 1 July 2009 and 31 March 2010. As all of the requirements necessary to apply this financial assistance mechanism have been met, I voted for this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Given that the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in order to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns, the proposal to mobilise the fund for Ireland stems from the need to support the reintegration into the labour market of workers made redundant due to the global financial and economic crisis. In light of the above and in view of the importance of the proposal for a decision in question, I voted for the proposal for a decision since it can provide for measures for occupational guidance, training programmes and associated training allowances and redundant apprentice on- and off-the-job training and support.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The application submitted by Ireland for the intervention of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) relates to 3 382 redundancies, 2 228 of which are targeted for assistance, in 1 560 enterprises in NACE Revision 2 Division 43 (‘specialised construction activities’), in the NUTS II regions of Border, Midlands and Western (IE01) and Southern and Eastern (IE02), during the nine-month reference period from 1 July 2009 to 31 March 2010. This request is related to the mortgage crisis, which has severely affected Irish banks, with further effects on the construction sector. According to the Commission’s assessment, this application meets all of the legally established eligibility criteria. Indeed, EGF involvement in situations like this is provided for in the EGF Regulation, in which, as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis, there are ‘at least 500 redundancies over a period of nine months, particularly in small or medium-sized enterprises, in a NACE 2 division in one region or two contiguous regions at NUTS II level’. I therefore voted for this resolution, in the hope that the assistance will be made available to the workers who have been made redundant swiftly and efficiently.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of 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. I fully support this report, as it is important to safeguard the economic and social conditions for 3 382 workers made redundant as a result of the closure of 1 560 enterprises in the subsector of specialised construction activities. Given that this application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006, I agree with the mobilisation of EUR 21 664 148. I would also stress that the EGF should not be a substitute for the legal and financial responsibilities of the enterprises mentioned in case EGF/2010/020 IE/Construction 43, but rather an additional support granted by the EU in order to reduce the social difficulties that these workers will face.

Report: Barbara Matera (A7-0379/2011)

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of allocating financial assistance to Austria. The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund was created in order to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns. Austria has requested assistance in respect of 2 338 workers made redundant from 706 enterprises involved in land transport and transport via pipelines. This application complies with the requirements for determining financial contributions, and I therefore welcome the mobilisation of an amount of EUR 3 643 770.

  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 this time of severe crisis, one of the principal consequences of which has been an increase in unemployment, the EU needs to use all the means at its disposal to respond, particularly with regard to providing support for those who find themselves without a job from one day to the next. That is why I voted for this report on the mobilisation of EUR 3 643 770 from the EGF for Austria, with the aim of supporting workers made redundant from 706 enterprises operating in Division 49 (‘land transport and transport via pipelines’), in the regions of Niederösterreich and Oberösterreich.

  George Becali (NI), in writing. – (RO) With regard to this report, I voted in support of the rapporteur’s proposal to make available the EUR 3.6 million required to assist the 2 338 persons made redundant in the land transport and transport via pipelines sector in Austria.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is an instrument intended to assist the reintegration of workers who have lost their jobs as a result of the ongoing process of globalisation of world markets. This fund supports workers and does not aim to benefit the business that made the redundancies in any way. With regard to mobilisation of the fund for the case in question, I voted in favour since it does not present any critical issues and it fulfils the eligibility criteria laid down. Austria has requested the mobilisation of EUR 3 643 770 for 502 workers targeted for assistance operating in the ‘land transport and transport via pipelines’ sector.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given the various repercussions that Austria has suffered owing to its vulnerability in the face of the financial crisis and structural changes in the patterns of world trade, I believed it important to vote for this report, which will provide vital one-off, time-limited assistance to workers who have been made redundant. I believe in the purpose for which the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund will be mobilised, to a total of EUR 3 643 770 for Austria. This support for the reintegration into Austria’s labour market of workers made redundant as a result of the global economic and financial crisis is vital in order to safeguard 502 redundancies in 706 companies in Division 49. Of the package of measures proposed by the Commission, I would like to emphasise in particular two which are imperative, namely with regard to occupational orientation, whereby sessions are organised for the development of skills with a view to broadening career prospects, and also small classes on entrepreneurship; and one-week internships in enterprises in the sector, which are essential in order to face a world that is increasingly competitive and where redefining or updating one’s professional profile can make the difference.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The marked downturn in the freight business in Austria has suffered a sharp increase, leading to 2 338 workers in the sector being made redundant in the regions of Niederösterreich and Oberösterreich. This reduction is all the more worrying in terms of the relatively central role that this country plays in the EU context, which would suggest that its freight activity could have been safe from the economic downturn currently being experienced. However, it appears that this is not the case, and that Austria’s workers and companies have been hit hard by the crisis. I hope the workers affected will be able to find new jobs as soon as possible, and that the Austrian freight industry, like those of the other Member States, will once again thrive and transport European products to markets inside and outside the EU.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, drafted by Ms Matera, concerns the proposal for a regulation of Parliament and the Council on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2011/001 AT/Niederösterreich-Oberösterreich from Austria). On 22 September 2011, the Commission adopted a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF for Austria, with the aim of supporting the reintegration of workers made redundant due to the global crisis. This is the 17th application to be examined under the EU budget for 2011. It was submitted to the Commission on 3 January 2011, and concerns the mobilisation of a sum of EUR 3 643 770, aimed at mitigating the social impact of 2 338 redundancies at 706 enterprises in NACE Revision 2 Division 49 (‘land transport and transport via pipelines) in the NUTS II regions of Niederösterreich (AT12) and Oberösterreich (AT31), in Austria. As the legal requirements have been met, I voted for this motion for a resolution, which I hope will revitalise the economic situation in the region.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) There have been a number of requests for the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF). There has been virtually no sitting in which this House has not been called on to approve this mobilisation of this fund. This is the 17th application to be examined under the 2011 budget and refers to the mobilisation of a total sum of EUR 3 643 770 from the EGF for Austria. It relates to 2 338 redundancies, 502 of which are targeted for assistance, at 706 enterprises in the area of ‘land transport and transport via pipelines’ in the regions of Niederösterreich and Oberösterreich, in Austria, during the eight-month reference period from 1 February 2010 to 31 October 2010. The application was submitted to the Commission on 3 January 2011.

It was based on the criteria laid down in the EGF Regulation, which makes intervention subject to there being at least 500 redundancies over a nine-month period in one region or two contiguous regions in NUTS II level in a Member State. On 22 September 2011 the Commission adopted a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF for Austria, 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.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This is the 17th application to be examined under the 2011 budget. It refers to the mobilisation of a total sum of EUR 3 643 770 from the EGF for Austria. It relates to 2 338 redundancies, 502 of which are targeted for assistance, at 706 enterprises operating within NACE Revision 2 Division 49 (‘land transport and transport via pipelines’) in the NUTS II regions of Niederösterreich (AT12) and Oberösterreich (AT31) in Austria, during the eight-month reference period from 1 February 2010 to 31 October 2010. The application was submitted to the Commission on 3 January 2011 and supplemented by additional information up to 9 June 2011. It was based on the intervention criteria laid down in Article 2(b) of the EGF Regulation, which requires at least 500 redundancies over a nine-month period in enterprises operating in the same NACE Revision 2 division in one region or two contiguous regions at NUTS II level in a Member State.

On 22 September 2011, the Commission adopted a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF in favour of Austria, 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.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The European Union has established appropriate legislative and budgetary instruments to provide additional assistance to workers who are feeling the impact of the major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to help them return to the jobs market. For applications submitted after 1 May 2009, the scope of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) has been extended to include support for workers made redundant as a direct consequence of the world financial and economic crisis. Point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission allows the release of funds from the EGF using the flexibility instrument within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million beyond the relevant rounds of the financial framework.

On 3 January 2011 Austria submitted request No EGF/2011/AT/Niederösterreich-Oberösterreich for a financial contribution from the EGF because of redundancies in 706 enterprises operating in NACE Revision 2 division 49 (Land transport and transport via pipelines) in the NUTS II regions of Lower Austria (Niederösterreich) (AT12) and Upper Austria (Oberösterreich) (AT31). After carefully considering these requests, the Commission has come to the conclusion that they meet all the conditions for a financial contribution and that under the relevant regulations the financial contribution should be paid to Austria.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in order to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns. On 22 September 2011 the Commission adopted a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF in favour of Austria in order to support the reintegration into the labour market of workers made redundant due to the global financial and economic crisis. I welcomed this document because this particular case concerns the 30-50% decrease in freight business in Austria in July 2009. For lorries with an authorised total weight above 3.5 tonnes, traffic fell by 17% in the first half of 2009 compared to the same period of the previous year. These downward trends continued in 2010, with the result that many Austrian road transport businesses had to lay off workers. Austria argues that the crisis, with its impact on European consumer behaviour and the reduced production of goods, has had a particularly heavy negative impact on the transport sector which has emerged later than was the case for the main industries of the secondary sector. The Commission therefore proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 3 643 770.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The aim of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund is to support the reintegration of European workers affected by redundancies resulting directly from profound changes in international trade. The ultimate aim of the fund is also to help redundant workers find a new job and keep it. Until 31 December 2011, the fund will also provide aid to workers who have lost their job due to the global financial and economic crisis. The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund is a vital tool. That is why I voted in favour of this report.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted to give the green light to the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund to assist workers in Austria made redundant due to the global economic downturn.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. − This report refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 3 643 770 from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund for Austria. It concerns assistance to retrain and up skill workers made redundant in the ‘Land transport and transport via pipelines’ sector. I voted in favour of the report.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU is an area of solidarity and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is a part of that. This support is essential for helping the unemployed and victims of company relocations that occur in the context of globalisation. 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, which aims to help workers who fall victim to the relocation of companies, 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 Austria, which has applied for assistance with regard to 2 338 redundancies, of which 502 are targeted for assistance, at 706 enterprises operating in NACE Revision 2 Division 49 (‘land transport and transport via pipelines’) in the NUTS II regions of Niederösterreich (AT12) and Oberösterreich (AT31).

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − This is the seventeenth application to be examined under the 2011 budget and refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 3 643 770 from the EGF for Austria. It concerns 2 338 redundancies, of which are 502 targeted for assistance, 706 enterprises operating in the field of Land transport and transport via pipelines in Austria, during the nine-month reference period from 1 February 2010 to 31 October 2010. It is necessary to help Austria, but the criteria of the fund should be amended to make it available in Latvia. I am in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The financial crisis led to a huge decline in the freight sector – in Austria’s case, a decline of between 30% and 50% in July 2009. Traffic involving goods vehicles with a total permissible weight of more than 3.5 tonnes reduced by 17% in the first half of 2009 compared with the same period the previous year. This downward trend continued in 2010, with the result that many Austrian haulage contractors had to make job cuts. The decline in consumption and the reduced production of goods had particularly severe repercussions for the transport sector; compared with the core industries of the secondary sector, there was a time lag before these took effect. I am in favour of resources from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund being used for the imminent training measures.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcome the decision to allocate support to Austria’s transport sector, which has been hit particularly badly by the economic and financial crisis, with hundreds of workers being made redundant as a result. It should be noted that small and very small transport companies have been worst affected by the crisis. I believe that the amount allocated is sufficient to create favourable conditions to return to the labour market and enable other active labour market measures to be implemented which would encourage people who have received assistance to seek work themselves and take up employment as quickly as possible. The assistance must therefore be dynamic and made available efficiently so that it covers the costs of job search, training and retraining and the promotion of entrepreneurship and effectively halts the spread of unemployment in the country.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created to provide additional support for workers affected by the consequences of major structural changes in the patterns of world trade. On 5 October 2011, the Commission adopted a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF for Austria, 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 17th application to be examined within the framework of the 2011 budget, and relates to the mobilisation of a total sum of EUR 3 643 770 from the EGF for Austria, based on 2 338 redundancies, of which 502 are targeted for assistance, at 706 enterprises operating in NACE Revision 2 Division 49 (‘land transport and transport via pipelines’) in the NUTS II regions of Niederösterreich (AT12) and Oberösterreich (AT31), in Austria, during the eight-month reference period from 1 February 2010 to 31 October 2010. As all the necessary requirements to activate this mechanism for financial assistance have been fulfilled, I voted for this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Given that the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in order to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns, the proposal to mobilise the fund for Austria stems from the need to support the reintegration into the labour market of workers made redundant due to the global financial and economic crisis. In light of the above and in view of the importance of the proposal for a decision in question, I voted for the proposal for a decision since it can provide for measures for occupational guidance, training programmes and associated training allowances and redundant apprentice on- and off-the-job training and support.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The application submitted by Austria for the intervention of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) relates to 2 338 redundancies, of which 502 are targeted for assistance, at 706 enterprises in NACE Revision 2 Division 49 (‘land transport and transport via pipelines’) in the NUTS II regions of Niederösterreich and Oberösterreich, during the reference period from 1 February 2010 to 31 October 2010. This application is related to the decrease in the freight business in Austria of 30-50% in July 2009, as a result of the crisis and its impact on the consumption and production of goods. According to the Commission’s assessment, this application meets all of the legally established eligibility criteria. Indeed, EGF involvement in situations like this is provided for in the EGF Regulation, in which, as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis, there are ‘at least 500 redundancies over a period of nine months, particularly in small or medium-sized enterprises, in a NACE 2 division in one region or two contiguous regions at NUTS II level’. I therefore voted for this resolution, in the hope that the assistance will be made available to the workers who have been made redundant swiftly and efficiently.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) When considering Austria’s application, the European Commission evaluated the economic and financial crisis which has led to redundancies and major structural changes in world trade patterns. In 2009 in Europe, national full truckload transport fell on average by 25% in terms of journeys and by 27% in terms of turnover, compared with the previous year. International full truckload transport fell on average by 22% while turnover fell by 25%. In this particular case, there was a decrease in the freight business in Austria of 30-50% in July 2009. For lorries with an authorised total weight above 3.5 tonnes, traffic decreased in the first half of 2009 by 17% compared with the same period of the previous year. These downward trends continued in 2010 with the result that many Austrian road transport businesses had to lay off workers. Indeed the crisis, with its impact on European consumer behaviour and the reduced production of goods, has had a particularly heavy negative impact on the transport sector which has unfolded in a delayed manner in comparison to core industries of the secondary sector.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of 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. I am voting for the request for the mobilisation of the EGF submitted by Austria in relation to 2 338 redundancies at 706 enterprises located in the NUTS II regions of Niederösterreich and Oberösterreich. I believe that the Commission should mobilise EUR 3 643 770 to help the employability of workers from the Austrian enterprises in the sector of ‘land transport and transport via pipelines’. The financial package that has been adopted should be channelled towards supporting measures of assistance in the areas of occupational orientation, individual training and making general information available through specific employment channels.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) for the application from Austria in connection with the huge redundancies made in the automotive manufacturing industry. The application concerns the mobilisation from the EGF of a total amount of EUR 3 643 770 for Austria in connection with 2 338 redundancies in 706 enterprises operating in the land transport and transport via pipelines sector in the Austrian regions of Niederösterreich and Oberösterreich. The redundancies were made in the period between 1 February and 31 October 2010. The economic and financial crisis caused a 30-50% decrease in the freight business in Austria in July 2009. For lorries with an authorised maximum total weight above 3.5 tonnes, business dropped in the first half of 2009 by 17% compared with the same period of the previous year. These downward trends continued in 2010, with the result that many Austrian road transport businesses had to lay off some of their workers. I call on the Commission and Member States to simplify the procedures for awarding grants so that those made redundant as a result of the economic and financial crisis can benefit from the European funds available to support their reintegration into the labour market.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) Road freight, which declined by 10% across the EU in 2009, seems to be recovering more slowly than other freight sectors. The Austrian road freight sector was already far more severely affected than other parts of Europe, declining by 30-50% compared with 20-30%, and this downward trend continued in 2010. This negative trend particularly affected small and micro haulage contractors in Oberösterreich and Niederösterreich, which have had to make 2 338 job cuts. Those affected are mainly truck drivers, who have not been able to find other work because of their lack of qualifications; moreover, 51 of the 502 people needing support having long-term health problems or a disability. Occupational further training measures should now provide these people with assistance, the proposed package of measures being coordinated with the sector-specific social partners and monitored by the state labour department. For this reason, I voted in favour.

Report: Barbara Matera (A7-0378/2011)

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of allocating financial assistance to Greece. The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund was created in order to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns. Greece has requested assistance in respect of 642 workers made redundant from two enterprises involved in the retail sector. This application complies with the requirements for determining financial contributions, and I therefore welcome the mobilisation of an amount of EUR 2 918 500.

  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 this time of severe crisis, one of the principal consequences of which has been an increase in unemployment, the EU needs to use all the means at its disposal to respond, 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 concerning the mobilisation of EUR 2 918 500 from the EGF for Greece, with the objective of supporting workers made redundant from the company Hellas Supermarket Holding EPE & Assoc. E.E. and one supplier, Thessaloniki Logistics S.A.

  George Becali (NI), in writing. – (RO) This report concerns the assistance expected for reintegrating 642 workers made redundant from the ALDI chain into the labour market. I believe that the Greek authorities are right. These redundancies were caused by the economic and financial crisis. I voted in favour of granting the assistance.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is an instrument intended to assist the reintegration of workers who have lost their jobs as a result of the ongoing process of globalisation of world markets. This fund supports workers and does not aim to benefit the business that made the redundancies in any way. With regard to the case in question, I voted in favour since Greece’s request to mobilise a total of EUR 2 918 500 from the EGF for 642 redundancies targeted for assistance did not contain any particular critical issues and it fulfilled the criteria required for its activation.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − Although I have great sympathy for redundant workers from ALDI Hellas/Greece, I believe that UK taxpayers’ money, which provides a significant contribution to the EU and thus Global Adjustment Fund budget, is better concentrated on providing jobs for unemployed workers in the UK. Unemployment in the UK continues to rise to unexpected levels. Many of our heavy industries have shut down and our workforce is inundated with EU migrants. It is a pure injustice towards hardworking Brits who have lost their jobs in industries that have relocated to other EU countries under EU law to then find that their contributions as taxpayers are being spent by the EU in assisting unemployed people in Greece. Increasingly the UK is becoming a hub for people who have fled their own EU Member States to try to earn more money or claim benefits in the UK, which they often send large proportions of back home rather than inject it into the local economy. As unemployment continues to rise in the UK, particularly blighting some of the former mining towns in Wales, I cannot justify assenting to aid newly unemployed workers abroad when long-term unemployed people continue to suffer in communities in my constituency. My constituents will not accept this, neither can I.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) Although the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund is not the real solution to the problem of unemployment, it offers an opportunity to bring relief to hundreds of thousands of unemployed persons and from the problems caused to the workers of Europe by the financial crisis and neoliberal globalisation. However, it is inexplicable why this should be the first request from Greece which, until now, has not asked for the fund to be activated, given the very high unemployment rate (officially 18.4% in August), despite my repeated suggestions. In fact, the present report accepts the request for support for 642 persons made redundant by the supermarket chain ALDI. Despite the fact that the Greek Government has requested a fairly small amount and despite the fact that we have no answer to the question of whether suitable use will be made of the relevant resources and whether another request will follow from Greece, I voted in favour of the report, so that the persons made redundant by ALDI can receive what they are entitled to.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given the various repercussions that Greece has suffered owing to its vulnerability in the face of the financial crisis and structural changes in the patterns of world trade, I believed it important to vote for this report, which will provide vital one-off, time-limited assistance to workers who have been made redundant. Furthermore, I believe in the purpose for which the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund will be mobilised, to a total of EUR 2 918 500 for Greece. This support for the reintegration into Greece’s labour market of workers made redundant as a result of the global economic and financial crisis is vital in order to safeguard 642 redundancies at two companies in the retail sector (‘supermarket and supplier’). Of the package of measures proposed by the Commission, I would like to draw particular attention to two that are imperative, namely the contribution to business start-up, aimed at encouraging redundant workers to set up their own businesses, receiving up to EUR 20 000 as a contribution to cover setting-up costs, and occupational guidance and job-search assistance with sessions for developing skills and CVs, thus assisting with job-search techniques that are essential in an increasingly globalised world.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Like the position that I took in relation to the Irish and Austrian applications, I am voting for this report, as the Irish application has been made within the framework of the support provided for in the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF). I would once again stress that the EGF is aimed at supporting workers affected by major structural changes in world trade and assisting their reintegration into the labour market. I also hope that the fund will be mobilised swiftly, especially in this case and in view of the difficult period that Greece is currently experiencing, so as to lessen the psychological, social and economic repercussions experienced by the affected workers.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report as I believe it very important that the EU support the Member States experiencing great difficulties in their stoic efforts towards economic restructuring. I share the opinion that the resources at issue here, from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, can make an important contribution to reducing the rise of structural unemployment in Greece, and thus mitigate, in a sustained manner, the economic and social crisis that the country is experiencing.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Greece is perhaps the most urgent example of the tension to which citizens, Member States and companies are being subjected in the context of the current crisis in the euro area. This crisis in Europe, linked to the global crisis which has been affecting markets throughout the West, has been causing serious problems for Greek companies and leading to workers from a wide range of economic sectors in that country being made redundant. Worrying scenes of social conflict are multiplying, and it is difficult to make out a clear or simple path towards escaping all the problems affecting Greece. There are high hopes of the new national unity government, but there are many more unknowns than certainties. A sign that the Greek market is shrinking is its abandonment by the German supermarket chain ALDI a few years after its establishment in Greece, which has led to 642 workers being made redundant. I hope that mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund can mitigate the problems experienced by these workers and enable their reintegration into the labour market.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report relates to the proposal for a decision of Parliament and the Council on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2011/004 EL/ALDI Hellas from Greece). On 22 September 2011, the Commission adopted a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF for Greece, with the aim of supporting the reintegration of workers made redundant due to the global crisis. This is the 18th application submitted under the 2011 EU budget, submitted to the Commission on 10 May 2011, on the mobilisation of a sum of EUR 2 918 500, aimed at mitigating the social impact of the redundancies of 642 workers from the retail sector (‘supermarket and supplier’) in the regions of Central Macedonia and Attica. I am voting for this proposal as it realises the objectives which led the EU to create the EGF, and I hope that it contributes to the swift recovery of the economy in these regions.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This time, the application for the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is for Greece, with the aim of supporting the reintegration into the labour market of workers made redundant as a result of the crisis. This is the 18th application to be examined under the 2011 budget and refers to the mobilisation of a total sum of EUR 2 918 500. It relates to 642 redundancies, all of which are targeted for assistance, at two enterprises in the retail sector (‘supermarket and supplier’) operating in the regions of Central Macedonia and Attica, as well as other Greek regions, such as Eastern Macedonia-Thrace, Western Macedonia, Epirus, Western Greece, Mainland Greece and Peloponnese, during the five-month reference period from 4 November 2010 to 4 March 2011.

Of these redundancies, 88 are outside the reference period, but are related to the same collective redundancy procedure and the event which triggered the redundancies during the reference period. As in the previous cases, although I am voting for this mobilisation, I would protest that not enough was done to prevent this being necessary.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report aims to support the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) for Greece. On 22 September 2011 the Commission adopted a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF for Greece, 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 application related to the mobilisation of a total sum of EUR 2 918 500 from the EGF for Greece. It concerns 642 redundancies, all of which are targeted for assistance, in two enterprises operating in the retail sector (‘supermarket and supplier’) operating in several regions, during the five-month reference period from 4 November 2010 to 4 March 2011.

Of these redundancies, 88 are outside the reference period, but are related to the same collective redundancy procedure and the event which triggered the redundancies during the reference period. The application was submitted to the Commission on 10 May 2011 and supplemented by additional information up to 22 June 2011; it was based on the specific intervention criteria set out in Article 2(b) of the EGF Regulation.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission allows the release of funds from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) using the flexibility instrument within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million beyond the relevant rounds of the financial framework. At the beginning of May this year, Greece submitted request EGF/2011/004 EL/ALDI Hellas for a contribution from the EGF with regard to 642 workers made redundant from the firm ALDI Hellas Supermarket Holding EPE & Assoc. E.E. and the haulage company Thessaloniki Logistics S.A. in Greece. After considering the request, in accordance with Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006, the Commission has come to the conclusion that they meet the condition for a financial contribution under the regulation. Greece’s application for the financial contribution should therefore be granted.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE), in writing. − I support the allocation of the Globalisation Adjustment Fund to workers in EL/ALDI Hellas/Greece. This is the first application from Greece and it is very important that Greek workers can access the fund. The Globalisation Adjustment Fund was designed as a solidarity instrument and during extremely difficult times in Greece, this is a small sign that the EU is delivering on its message of solidarity.

  Jim Higgins (PPE), in writing. − I welcome the EGF, but stress the need for a more flexible approach for its administration into the future.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in order to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns. On 22 September 2011 the Commission adopted a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF in favour of Greece in order to support the reintegration into the labour market of workers made redundant due to the global financial and economic crisis. I welcomed this document because in this particular case Greece argues that the economic and financial crisis has had devastating consequences for the Greek economy. There has also been a decrease in average income in the private sector. An immediate effect of reduced income was a decrease in consumption. In 2009 the private final consumption expenditure figures for Greece followed the same negative trend as the average of the 27 EU Member States. In 2010, there was a recovery in private consumption at EU27 level while the drop in private consumption in Greece was even bigger than that in the previous year. The decrease in private consumption has severely affected the retail sector and in particular supermarkets. The Commission therefore proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 2 918 500.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted to give the green light to the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund to assist workers in the retail sector in Greece made redundant.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. − This report, the eighteenth such application to be examined under the 2011 European Globalisation Adjustment Fund budget, refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 2 918 500 for Greece. It concerns 642 redundancies, all targeted for assistance, in two enterprises in the retail sector (‘supermarket and supplier’). I voted in favour of the positive decision in respect of this application.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU is an area of solidarity and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is a part of that. This support is essential for helping the unemployed and victims of company relocations that occur in the context of globalisation. 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, which aims to help workers who fall victim to the relocation of companies, is essential for facilitating access to new employment. The EGF has been used by other EU Member States in the past, so now it is appropriate to grant this aid to Greece, which has applied for assistance with regard to 642 redundancies, all of which are targeted for assistance, at two enterprises in the retail sector (‘supermarket and supplier’) operating in the regions of Central Macedonia and Attica, where the greatest number of ALDI stores were located. The ALDI chain also reported redundancies in other Greek regions, namely Eastern Macedonia-Thrace, Western Macedonia, Epirus, Western Greece, Sterea Ellada and Peloponnese.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − This is the eighteenth application to be examined under the 2011 budget and refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 2 918 500 from the EGF for Greece. It concerns 642 redundancies, all targeted for assistance, in two enterprises in the retail sector (‘supermarket and supplier’) during the five-month reference period from 4 November 2010 to 4 March 2011. It is necessary to help Greece, but the criteria of the fund should be amended to make it available in Latvia. I am in favour.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) In order to mitigate the negative impact of globalisation, the funding available from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund needs to be used in a targeted manner. It is very important to ensure that assistance for workers made redundant should be dynamic and made available as quickly and efficiently as possible. I welcome the decision to allocate support to companies in Greece operating in the retail sector because hundreds of workers have been made redundant as a result of the economic and financial crisis. I believe that the amount allocated is sufficient to mitigate the consequences of mass redundancy in this sector and will create favourable conditions for workers in this sector who have suffered to return to the labour market. This assistance will cover the costs of job search, training and retraining and the promotion of entrepreneurship and will effectively halt the spread of unemployment in the country.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the report. The case of the 642 persons who lost their jobs in Greece following the withdrawal of ALDI from the Greek market is the first Greek request for which the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund has been activated. The fund has been activated in order to pay one-off individual aid which is limited in time, in order to support the workers made redundant as a result of globalisation and the financial and economic crisis. Greece, which has the second highest unemployment rate in the EU and is constantly losing jobs, must make maximum possible use of the fund, by including many more cases that meet its criteria. Moreover, according to the reply which I received from the Commission to a question, despite the rapid increase in the number of applications for support from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund since the start of the economic crisis, the total amount available has not been used up and, at the moment, Greece has not asked for the fund to be mobilised for cases other than the case referred to.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created to provide additional support for workers affected by the consequences of major structural changes in the patterns of world trade. On 22 September 2011, the Commission adopted a new proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF for Greece, 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. The 18th application to be examined within the framework of the 2011 budget, this relates to the mobilisation of a total sum of EUR 2 918 500 from the EGF for Greece, with regard to 642 redundancies, all of which are targeted for assistance, from two enterprises in the retail sector (‘supermarket and supplier’) operating in the regions of Central Macedonia and Attica, as well as other Greek regions, such as Eastern Macedonia-Thrace, Western Macedonia, Epirus, Western Greece, Mainland Greece and Peloponnese, during the five-month reference period from 4 November 2010 to 4 March 2011. As all of the requirements necessary to apply this financial assistance mechanism have been met, I voted for this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Given that the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was created in order to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns, the proposal to mobilise the fund for Greece stems from the need to support the reintegration into the labour market of workers made redundant due to the global financial and economic crisis. In light of the above and in view of the importance of the proposal for a decision in question, I voted for the proposal for a decision since it can provide for measures for occupational guidance, training programmes and associated training allowances and redundant apprentice on- and off-the-job training and support.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The request by Greece for the intervention of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) relates to 642 redundancies at two enterprises in the retail sector (‘supermarket and supplier’). This request is related to the devastating impact that the economic and financial crisis has had on the Greek economy, particularly in terms of the fall in private consumption. According to the Commission’s assessment, this application meets all of the legally established eligibility criteria. Indeed, EGF involvement in situations like this is provided for in the EGF Regulation, in which, as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis, there are ‘at least 500 redundancies over a period of four months in an enterprise in a Member State, including workers made redundant in its suppliers or downstream producers’. I therefore voted for this resolution, in the hope that the assistance will be made available to the workers who have been made redundant swiftly and efficiently.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The objective of this proposal is undoubtedly to improve the legislative and budgetary instruments in order to provide additional support to all European workers who are suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market.

In the context of the current economic and market crisis, Greece has requested assistance in respect of a case concerning 642 redundancies, all targeted for assistance, in two enterprises in the retail sector operating in the regions of Central Macedonia and Attica where the greatest number of ALDI stores are located.

The institutions involved must therefore make the necessary efforts to improve procedural and budgetary arrangements in order to accelerate the mobilisation of the EGF. At the same time, it is to be hoped 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.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of 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. Greece has submitted a request for the mobilisation of the EGF for 642 redundancies at the enterprise ALDI Hellas Supermarket Holding EPE & Assoc. E.E. and one of its suppliers, Thessaloniki Logistics S.A., both located in the regions of Central Macedonia, Eastern Macedonia-Thrace and Attica. The sum of EUR 2 918 500 is being used to fund professional assistance for individual workers and is not being used to restructure the companies or replace measures that are their sole responsibility by virtue of national law or collective agreements. I believe that the EGF should fund active measures towards re-entering the labour market, allowing new skills to be learnt and these to be adapted to the new work situation.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund is a mechanism that should be widely debated. Officially, this fund enables the European Union to fund specific actions to counter the effects of the crisis. It is about as effective as sticking a plaster on a wooden leg.

This mechanism, however, is only used on a case-by-case basis. In reality, it funds redundancy schemes.

Today, in the case of Greece, the ALDI supermarket chain and one of its suppliers have received support from this fund. The champion of hard-discount which rakes in tens of billions in sales each year has laid off over 500 people in two stores in Greece.

At a time when the Greek people are at the mercy of the austerity measures imposed on their government by the European Union, we are encouraging and funding a big business which is laying people off.

I therefore voted against this report and I regret, once again, that European funds are being misused.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) In 2010, the company ALDI Hellas announced the closure of all its branches in the regions of Central Macedonia and Attica, a region severely affected by the crisis. However, ALDI Hellas has been reporting losses since 2005 – so the company’s financial situation was in dire straits even before the crisis. For this reason, I voted against the proposal.

Reports: Barbara Matera (A7-0375/2011), (A7-0377/2011), (A7-0376/2011),

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE), in writing. − I welcome the overwhelming approval today by the European Parliament to approve the allocation of EUR 55 million of EU Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) aid for the retraining of construction industry workers in Ireland. The three Irish North West MEPs initially approached the Irish Government with the proposal to seek funding from Europe. I am very pleased that our efforts have borne fruit and that this funding will now be available to retrain and up skill construction industry workers adversely affected by the slump in their sector. It is an imperative that every effort is made to ensure that the best possible opportunities are identified to equip workers for future employment opportunities. The three applications on behalf of 5,987 Irish construction industry workers will total EUR 55 million, of which the EU will provide EUR 35 million and Ireland EUR 20 million. The package of measures will include training programmes and training allowances, 2nd and 3rd level education programmes and supports, and redundant apprentices training programmes and supports.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund has been created in order to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns. According to the provisions of point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management and of the Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006, the fund may not exceed a maximum amount of EUR 500 million, drawn from the margin under the global expenditure ceiling from the previous year, and/or from the cancelled commitment appropriations from the previous two years, excluding those related to Heading 1b. The appropriate amounts are entered into the budget as a provision as soon as the sufficient margins and/or cancelled commitments have been identified.

As concerns the procedure, in order to activate the fund the Commission, in case of a positive assessment of an application, presents to the budgetary authority a proposal for mobilisation of the fund and, at the same time, a corresponding request for transfer. In parallel, a trilogue could be organised in order to find an agreement on the use of the fund and the amounts required. The trilogue can take a simplified form.

Reports: Barbara Matera (A7-0375/2011), (A7-0378/2011), (A7-0377/2011), (A7-0376/2011), (A7-0379/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, as it concerns an application that meets all of the criteria for the mobilisation of this fund. In this time of difficulty, Europe should, more than ever, be a Union of solidarity.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The aim of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund is to support the reintegration of European workers affected by redundancies resulting directly from profound changes in international trade. The ultimate aim of the fund is also to help redundant workers find a new job and keep it. Until 31 December 2011, the fund will also provide aid to workers who have lost their job due to the global financial and economic crisis. The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund is a vital tool. That is why I voted in favour of these reports.

  László Surján (PPE), in writing. − (HU) Today we approved five payments from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: one for Greece, three for Ireland and one for Austria. It is not companies or governments, but the people concerned who receive this assistance. I always vote in favour of such proposals, even though I know that the concept is flawed. It is a displacement activity. As with social policy itself, the management of unemployment, too, falls within the responsibility of the Member States. Of course there is truth in saying that if it is global effects that are responsible for the problem, then global assistance is equitable. However, I hardly believe this to be the real solution, even if all governments could use the extra funds. If a company makes the assessment that it would be more profitable to relocate its production for example to Ukraine, because there it would have to pay, say, one tenth of the wages it has to pay in Greece, it will of course relocate.

As a recompense, the EU contributes to the retraining or assistance of workers laid off and left behind, but the problem still persists. Tomorrow it will be another company that packs up and leaves, and chooses greater profits over its former employees. This is how Europe is slowly becoming like a waiter for the multitudes of Asian tourists, happily snapping away with their cameras, who visit to admire the relics of our past. But there is no production. This phenomenon needs more serious addressing than the granting of a European recompense. We need to act before it is too late.

Report: Filip Kaczmarek (A7-0315/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report. I welcome the fact that the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP) has succeeded in establishing itself as a key player in North-South cooperation. However, more attention should be given to the results achieved on the ground, to the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, and to consistency between its resolutions and those of the European Parliament.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) At an international level, the European Parliament has relations with various geographical areas. Some of these relations are at a more advanced stage, which is true of the African, Caribbean and Pacific group of states (ACP). In 2010, the ACP–European Union Joint Parliamentary Assembly met on two occasions. During these meetings, the cooperation agreement between the two entities and respect for the commitment of Member States to allocate 0.7% of their GNI to development aid were discussed. As I am convinced that dialogue, based on democratic principles, is the starting point for any good relationship, I voted in favour of the Kaczmarek report.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) Mr Kaczmarek’s work consists of the annual report on the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly in 2010. I voted for the report because I consider that it is well balanced and makes interesting suggestions for the future activities of the Assembly. Indeed, the report urges MEPs to participate more in the work of the Assembly, it encourages African and European countries to cooperate with regard to democratic scrutiny and it calls for monitoring of the situation in Haiti, Madagascar and South Sudan to continue, for a mission to be sent to the Horn of Africa and for election observation to be continued.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because we need to pay more attention to the outcomes of the work of the African, Caribbean, Pacific – European Union (ACP-EU) Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA) and ensure coherence between its resolutions and those of the European Parliament. Through the quality of its work, the JPA has succeeded in establishing itself as a player in North-South cooperation. The European Commission now subjects country and regional strategy papers to parliamentary scrutiny by both the European Parliament and the ACP countries’ national parliaments. It is important for the Committee on Development and the JPA to monitor the situation and ensure that effective use is made of this means of parliamentary scrutiny. The Assembly has played, and continues to play, a key role in monitoring the negotiations on Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs). Hearings of the head negotiators on both sides, meetings with economic and social players (both at formal meetings and at events held alongside them) and interaction between European and southern parliamentarians have helped to make the process more transparent and have made it easier to take local issues into account. Whatever the outcome of the negotiations, there can be no doubt that the Assembly’s work has had a bearing on the process.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE), in writing. – (RO) The ACP-EU partnership has proved to be growing in stature in the context of global partnerships, developing on numerous levels so that it currently encompasses measures on economic cooperation, human rights, trade relations between the EU and six ACP regions, as well as political dialogue. I feel it is appropriate to call on the ACP’s national parliaments to increase their involvement in the process of drafting national strategy documents on cooperation between the EU and the relevant countries for the 2008-2013 period. The importance attached to women being involved in resolving social problems such as gender-based violence or human trafficking is also significant.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA) of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP) and the EU represents a comprehensive partnership unique in the world, the content of which has been developed at institutional level, and which now includes aspects such as aid, economic cooperation, human rights, trade relations between the EU and the six ACP regions, and political dialogue. In my view, this wealth makes ACP-EU cooperation a unique model for this kind of partnership in terms of development. I therefore welcome the fact that in 2010 the JPA continued to provide a framework for open, democratic and in-depth dialogue between the EU and the ACP countries, which last year resulted in two meetings, in Tenerife and Kinshasa, although I am bound to regret the EU Council’s absence from the latter.

I would stress the importance of the JPA maintaining its pressure on the EU Member States to take steps to honour their commitments to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, of greater national parliament involvement in country and regional strategy papers and in implementing the European Development Fund, of measures for combating poverty and climate change, and of strict adherence to all aspects of human rights.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA) of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP) and the EU is an important forum for debate, discussion and decision making between members of parliaments from both of these regions, and where, under the Cotonou Partnership Agreement, they can strengthen their relations and learn more about their respective situations, as well as promoting the exchange of experiences and the adoption of best practices. In this context, the involvement of national parliaments and respective public opinion is crucial in order for what is decided upon to have a real impact on the lives of the people and influence local political debate in a positive way. I regret that the importance of Portuguese language, spoken by no fewer than seven countries in the ACP-EU JPA, has still not been duly recognised, and it has not been granted translation and interpreting facilities or access to documents in a timely manner, unlike English and French. This discrimination is unacceptable and has persisted due to unconvincing arguments about budgets. The damage that this causes to people from Portuguese-speaking countries is far greater than the potential benefits brought about by this kind of stubbornness.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Since its beginning, the European Union has maintained privileged relations with the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP) in the area of development cooperation, especially at political, economic and social level. Currently, relations between the EU and the ACP countries fit into the framework of the Cotonou Agreement, signed in 2000. This report, drafted by Mr Kaczmarek, assesses the activities of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA), which met twice during 2010, in Tenerife (Spain) and Kinshasa (Democratic Republic of Congo), adopting nine resolutions and the Declaration on the Second Revision of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement. The ACP-EU JPA has a decisive role in strengthening North-South dialogue. As such, it is essential that Parliament focus on this, so as to achieve our objectives, whether these relate to the rebuilding of post-conflict countries or the functioning of democracy, especially in countries in receipt of international aid. As such, I am voting for this report, I welcome the measures mentioned and I am pleased with the Commission’s intention of collaborating in the implementation of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report assesses the work of Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA) of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP) and the EU throughout 2010. Some of the most positive aspects of the JPA’s operations are identified in this assessment. We also agree with the warning that there is a need to pay greater attention to the JPA’s work and the results obtained. It is also crucial for ACP national parliaments to have an active role. However, we believe that some matters needed to be tackled in greater depth. In fact, we did so during the debates in plenary on issues as important as economic partnership agreements, land grabbing, and the weight of external debt and servicing it. However, we disagree on some points of the resolution, such as when it advocates consistency between Parliament’s resolutions and those of the JPA. In our opinion, part of the value of the JPA resides in its frequent disagreement on many matters with the position dominant in Parliament. This ends up revealing and helping to denounce the limitations and contradictions – and, frequently, the ulterior motives – of EU development cooperation policy.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report looks at the activities of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA) between the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP) and the EU. Not being a member of this JPA, I see this in a positive light, although I do not agree with all of the information it contains. One issue that concerns us is the conclusion of so-called ‘economic partnership agreements’ (EPAs) and the European Commission’s insistence on free trade. As the rapporteur rightly says, more attention needs to be paid to the results of the work of the ACP-EU JPA. In this work it is possible to see the repeated resistance of the ACP countries to EPAs, which is fair, legitimate and entirely understandable.

The way that they have been conceived of means they could be very lucrative for some European multinationals, but will be disastrous for these countries. Lastly, I would like to mention the economic and financial crisis and its effects on the ACP countries, which require the cancelation of the enormous burden This is debt that has already been paid several times over yet is still growing. This debt urgently needs to be cancelled so as to bring an end once and for all to this unacceptable expropriation of wealth, and effectively help these countries to find a sovereign and independent path to development and social progress.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) In 2010, the Joint Parliamentary Assembly met twice. The nineteenth session was held from 6 to 9 April in Tenerife. In addition to the reports by the standing committees, the session adopted resolutions on post-disaster reconstruction in Haiti and the situation in Southern Sudan. In addition, six sets of conclusions on the Regional Strategy Papers for the six ACP regions were adopted. The twentieth session was held from 30 November to 3 December 2010 in Kinshasa. The Assembly adopted three resolutions contained in the reports by the standing committees and two urgent resolutions on food security and the situation in the Sahel-Saharan region. A declaration on the results of the presidential elections in Cote d’Ivoire was also adopted. A regional meeting in Mahé was also held during the year. After 2009, when no JPA fact-finding missions were organised, in 2010 the ACP Secretariat was able once again to fund mission expenses for three missions: to Madagascar, Burundi and Haiti.

Thanks to the good work done by the Joint Parliamentary Assembly, it has become a key actor in North-South cooperation. Currently the European Commission has passed the national and regional strategy documents to the European Parliament and the ACP country parliaments for parliamentary control. It is important for the Committee on Development and the JPA to monitor the situation and ensure that effective use is made of this means of parliamentary control.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcomed this document because in 2010 the Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA) continued to provide a framework for an open, democratic and in-depth dialogue between the European Union and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries on the Cotonou Partnership Agreement, including the issue of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs). I believe that we need to pay more attention to the outcomes of the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly and ensure coherence between its resolutions and those of the European Parliament. In particular we need to stress the crucial role of the ACP national parliaments, local authorities and non-state actors in managing and monitoring the Country and Regional Strategy Papers and the implementation of the European Development Fund (EDF). I also agree with the opinion that there needs to be close parliamentary scrutiny during the negotiation and conclusion of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs). The JPA must maintain its pressure on EU Member States to take urgent steps to meet their 0.7% of gross national income (GNI) commitments in order to achieve the Millennium Development Goals as well as their specific pledges to Africa and the least developed countries. However, these measures must be fully transparent, multiannual, binding and should include legislation. The Commission must supply all available information to the parliaments of the ACP countries and assist them in exercising democratic scrutiny, in particular by means of capacity-building in this area.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This own-initiative report gives an overview of the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA) for 2010. The ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly brings together 78 European and 78 ACP members of parliament. It meets twice a year – once in Europe and once in an ACP country. The 2010 JPA was held in Tenerife (Spain) and in Kinshasa (Congo). Various subject matters were discussed and in particular the impact of climate change in ACP countries, the social impact of the global crisis, food security. As it has been adopted unanimously by the Committee on Development (DEVE) and no problems raised, I voted for this report.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this report which points out that through the quality of its work, the JPA has succeeded in establishing itself as a key player in North-South cooperation. The European Commission now subjects Country and Regional Strategy Papers to parliamentary scrutiny by both the European Parliament and the ACP countries’ national parliaments. It is important for the Committee on Development and the JPA to monitor the situation and ensure that effective use is made of this means of parliamentary scrutiny.

The Assembly has played, and continues to play, a key role in monitoring the negotiations on Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs). Hearings of the head negotiators on both sides, meetings with economic and social players (both at formal meetings and at events held alongside them) and interaction between European and southern parliamentarians have helped to make the process more transparent and have made it easier to take local issues into account. Whatever the outcome of the negotiations, there can be no doubt that the Assembly’s work has had a bearing on the process.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. − (IT) We congratulate the work carried out in 2010 by the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA) which, through the quality of its work, has succeeded in establishing itself as a key player in North-South cooperation. This Assembly continues to play a key role in monitoring the negotiations on Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs). All the hearings of the head negotiators on both sides, meetings with economic and social players and interaction between European and Southern parliamentarians have helped to make the process more transparent and have made it easier to take local issues into account.

In 2010, an important result was achieved in that certain proposals for the second revision of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement were negotiated. In fact, this revision provides for the necessary strengthening of the Assembly’s role in scrutiny of other institutions, as well as for the regionalisation process. The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and the establishment of the European External Action Service will have a huge impact on relations between the JPA and the other institutions. We therefore hope that the absence of the EU Council at the 20th Session will be rectified in 2011 and we encourage closer cooperation between all the European institutions involved.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Kaczmarek’s report. The aspects on which we should continue to work, such as election observation and supporting enterprises, are identified in an appropriate manner.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report and commend the work of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly in 2010 in continuing to provide a framework for an open, democratic and in-depth dialogue between the European Union and the ACP countries.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA) of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP) has become increasingly important in the context of global partnerships, as it has been developing in various areas, especially in terms of the institutions and content, and today it encompasses aspects such as aid, economic cooperation, human rights, trade relations between the EU and the six ACP regions, and political dialogue. This broad array of aspects makes ACP-EU cooperation a unique model for this kind of partnership in terms of development. However, it is important that the JPA maintain pressure on the EU Member States to take steps to honour their commitments in order to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, of greater national parliament involvement in country and regional strategy papers and in implementing the European Development Fund, of measures for combating poverty and climate change, and of strict adherence to all aspects of human rights.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The Joint Parliamentary Assembly is a unique institution in the world, a key player in North/South cooperation, the driving force of a partnership in which elected members respect each other, put across their opinions freely and without taboo to forge a freer, fairer and more humane world. This assembly has successfully created an arena where debate is open, without preconceptions and where mutual respect is the rule, which enables us to have vibrant, lively and enriching debates where all parties are heard. It has a real political impetus. In 2010, therefore, we did not turn down any debate that affected the world’s fate, whether that be Millennium Development Goals (MDG), Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA), climate change, food security, Haiti, South Sudan ... For instance, in Kinshasa, we congratulated the fantastic work of Doctor Denis Mukwege who is trying to build a new future for female victims of sexual violence, underlining that impunity was unacceptable for this type of wartime practice. In Budapest, we also covered the subject of homosexuality because any minority, regardless of the nature of that which makes it a minority, must enjoy identical rights.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Since the report insists on the importance that the Joint Parliamentary Assembly monitors the situation in Africa, Caribbean Basin and Pacific Region I support it. I am in favour.

  Mariya Nedelcheva (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the report on the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly in 2010. This very comprehensive report points out the central role of the JPA, particularly following the 2010 revision of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement and the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. The JPA is a key player in North-South relations. Whether for the European Development Fund (EDF), negotiating Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA) or controlling and monitoring Regional Strategy Papers (RSP), the Joint Parliamentary Assembly is always at the heart of the process. I would like to remind you of how important it is to include national parliaments more in the democratic process, in preparing RSPs and the EDF. I also want to reiterate the importance of joint election observation missions and fact-finding missions of the JPA. These missions provide real added value in the field. They need to be promoted more. We must maintain our momentum and ensure that the JPA is up to the ambitions that we have assigned it.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) Given the fact that the African, Caribbean, Pacific – European Union (ACP-EU) Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA) is the largest parliamentary body encompassing countries of both the North and the South, more attention must be paid to the outcomes of its work. It should be noted that the Assembly has played and continues to play a key role in monitoring the negotiations on Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs). We should welcome the fact that an open and democratic dialogue between the European Union and the ACP countries on the Cotonou Partnership Agreement has finally begun. I believe that the parliaments of the ACP countries should be given greater assistance so that they can exercise effective democratic scrutiny. Furthermore, we should also increase efforts to achieve the objectives of the Millennium Development Goals as soon as possible.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report on the work of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA) between the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP) and the EU in 2010. I would stress the increasingly parliamentary – and thus political – character that Parliament gives the JPA in this report. It is also necessary to stress the increasingly active role of the members of the JPA and the improved quality of its debates, which has been a factor in making the JPA’s contribution vital to the ACP-EU partnership.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − (IT) In addition to the importance of its decisions, such as post-disaster reconstruction in Haiti and monitoring of the situation in South Sudan, and in addition to support for food security and the situation in the Sahel-Saharan region, the major commitments made by the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly have enabled the Assembly, through the quality of its work, to establish itself as a key player in North-South cooperation. In light of the above, and having evaluated the importance of the Assembly, I voted in favour.

  Phil Prendergast (S&D), in writing. − I commend this report from Mr. Kaczmarek. I wish to speak on two elements which concern the Africa Caribbean Pacific-European Union Joint Parliamentary Assembly. First, I endorse the call for a greater role for the national parliaments of African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, in the scrutiny and implementation of programmes such as the European Development Fund and the Country and Regional Strategy Papers. I would also call on the Commission to ensure that such an oversight role is formally recognised and protected in both the negotiation and execution of future ACP-EU JPA plans. Secondly, I support the call for EU and ACP countries to promote participation and dialogue on issues concerning gender violence and human trafficking. Frank and honest discussion of experiences common to countries in both the north and south of the globe, will undoubtedly highlight the ever-present danger of sexual crimes in both parts of the world.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA) between the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP) and the EU convened twice in 2010, in Tenerife and in Kinshasa. For their part, the three standing committees met four times: as well as the two part-sessions, they met twice in the interim in Brussels. As part of the work carried out, resolutions were adopted which, dealt with, inter alia, Haiti, Southern Sudan, election results in Côte d’Ivoire and the situation in the Sahel-Saharan region; fact-finding and election-observation missions were also organised. As a result of the assessment of the work from 2010, it is important to highlight that the JPA today has a very valuable role in North-South relations, constituting a good forum for dialogue between the countries of the two hemispheres.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. The Joint Parliamentary Assembly met twice in 2010. The 19th session was held in Tenerife (Spain) from 6 to 9 April and the 20th session was held in Kinshasa (DRC) from 30 November to 3 December. Nine resolutions and the Declaration on the Second revision of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement were adopted. One regional meeting was also held during the year, in Mahé (Seychelles). In the course of its proceedings, the assembly welcomed the Member of the Commission with responsibility for development, Mr Andris Piebalgs. The successive Co-Presidents of the ACP-EU Council also attended the first session but only the ACP Council was represented in Kinshasa.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted for this report because it paints a full and comprehensive picture of the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly in 2010. During the various sessions, documents were adopted on extremely delicate issues ranging from the resolution on post-disaster reconstruction in Haiti to the situation in South Sudan, not to mention the adoption of six sets of conclusions on the Regional Strategy Papers for the six ACP regions. The Assembly’s objective now is to establish itself as a key player in North-South cooperation, and to play an increasing role in monitoring the negotiations on Economic Partnership Agreements.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In 2010, the Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA) convened twice: firstly from 6 June to 9 June in Tenerife, Spain, and, secondly, from 30 November to 3 December in Kinshasa, in the Democratic Republic of Congo. These meetings resulted in nine resolutions and a declaration on the second review of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement. In addition to these meetings, a regional meeting also took place in Mahé, in the Seychelles. In 2010, the importance of cooperation and partnership between the European Union and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries was reaffirmed, in order to promote in-depth, open and democratic dialogue on the Cotonou Agreements and on the economic partnership agreements with the six ACP regions. I would stress the importance of the country and regional strategy papers on cooperation with the European Union until 2013, so I call on the JPA to contribute to achieving the Millennium Development Goals, stressing the crucial importance of adopting clear, effective and transparent legislation on the commitments made.

Recommendation for second reading: Chrysoula Paliadeli (A7-0331/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, as it should ensure a solid basis for implementing the European Heritage Label. This initiative will be of immense importance for promoting our continent’s history and our culture(s), as well as an important resource for future generations, even from an education perspective. I must stress the natural wealth of the outermost regions, like the Azores, which will certainly feature in the list of sites to which this label will be assigned.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − I fully support this report, which welcomes the Commission’s proposal to use the European Heritage Label as a tool, among other more efficient ways, to bridge the gap between the European Union and its citizens. The report suggests that, whereas the Commission proposed to award the label each year, Members consider that selecting sites every two years would ensure better quality of the selection process and of the selected sites. It states that transnational sites should be favoured, as they promote commonalities, and they should feature prominently in all Member States’ ordinary quota of two proposed sites per year. The report insists that the new label should not be a mere transformation of the old one: no transitional provisions should be needed but the new, well defined criteria must be the object of future negotiations with the Council. The Commission is also asked to inform Parliament, the Council and the Committee of the Regions at each stage of the selection process.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the draft resolution on the European Heritage Label since it strengthens European citizens’ sense of belonging to the European Union. The label will undoubtedly bring added value to labelled sites, which must have a symbolic value for European integration and the history of the Union. They will be identified from voluntary candidate sites, taking into account the activities they can offer and their educational dimension, especially for young people. The identification of symbolic sites for shared European history and heritage will enhance European identify, not least by means of cooperation instruments that promote intercultural dialogue, the exchange of ideas, projects and good practices, as well as a relationship based on solidarity for the benefit of the whole of Europe.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The European Heritage Label endeavours to enhance the value and profile of the sites which have played a key role in the history and construction of the European Union, so that European citizens gain a better understanding of European integration and their common cultural heritage. The distance between the European Union and its citizens is largely to do with the lack of knowledge about European history, the role of the European Union and the values which it is based on. Therefore, the European Heritage Label is intended to help bring Europe’s citizens closer together and strengthen the sense of European identity by improving their knowledge about their shared history and common European heritage, especially among young people.

The European Union’s involvement with the European Heritage Label will enhance coordination between Member States and help with devising and applying appropriately common, clear and transparent selection criteria and new procedures for selecting and monitoring the label, thereby ensuring the sites’ relevance to the objectives.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The purpose of introducing a European Heritage Label from 2013 is to promote European identity through the history and heritage of Europe. This label will be awarded on a voluntary basis for transnational cultural sites. As I support any initiative that seeks to bring the European Union closer to its people, I voted for the Paliadeli report.