President. – The next item is the explanations of vote.

Report: João Ferreira (A7-0447/2011)

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). - Mr President, the fishing industry, although diminished in size in recent years, remains of great importance to my constituents in Wales in terms of its contribution to employment and to the wider economy, which is why I welcome the report on the European Fisheries Fund.

This fund is one of the financial tools at the EU’s disposal that can be used to help contribute to regional development and also deliver the aims of the common fisheries policy, such as ensuring the conservation and sustainability of fish stocks and the long-term viability of the fishing sector. Given the added pressures on national financial resources as a result of the current economic difficulties, the report sensibly recommends using the European Fisheries Fund to inject funds into the economy to ensure projects can continue.

Fishing in Welsh waters also makes a major contribution to the tourism sector. Particularly in West Wales, therefore, which is in receipt of cohesion funds, we need to ensure that access to this European Fisheries Fund is encouraged by the more needy regions to enhance the prospects of our local fishermen, to protect our maritime parks, and to promote diversification, including boosting tourism across our coastal areas in Wales.

  Anna Rosbach (ECR). – (DA) Mr President, granting state support to a particular industry runs fundamentally counter to the free market. The fishing industry must not be dependent on such support. The proposal is a definite improvement on the previous arrangement. It has become easier to redirect resources from the fund to use them for green objectives.

I would have preferred the fund to have been discontinued, but as that is not possible, it is preferable for as many resources as possible to be used to speed up initiatives rather than as direct support for a particular industry. In the long term, I hope that we can eradicate the many support arrangements that, unfortunately, make up the majority of the EU budget. Let us strengthen the free market. That is what is best for taxpayers and for industry.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, at a time of widespread economic crisis that is also affecting Europe’s coastal communities, I think the commitment to make better use of the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) is an important one.

Taking into account the fact that appropriations in this area have often been allocated to the scrapping of vessels and therefore have not contributed to the growth of fishing-related activities, I welcome the proposal to review the priorities of the EFF and to encourage easier access to European funds. Despite the fact that the text contained some limitations, I voted for Mr Ferreira’s text, which aims to ensure that Member States can continue to implement EFF programmes.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, other Members before me have already said that there is a general situation of crisis that comes on top of years of decline and disintegration in many areas of the economy, including the fishing industry. For some countries like Italy, but also Greece, the fishing industry is an important source of revenue, as well as an added value for many regions falling under the convergence objective.

Therefore, I wished to support the Commission’s proposal to allow a top-up of ten percentage points to be applied to the cofinancing rates applicable to the priority axis of the programmes coming under the European Fisheries Fund (EFF), even as a temporary measure, in order to encourage public and private investment and make better use of the funds provided by the EU.

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the report on the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) because I believe it is necessary and should not be delayed, in order to align EFF expenditure in all the EU countries as a matter of urgency. Therefore, I agree with Mr Ferreira in asking for its application at first reading.

Ms Damanaki did well to propose an urgent measure for countries with little investment capacity, as this has often been reduced to historic lows as the report shows. The debate about the reform of the common fisheries policy has already begun and therefore, EFF expenditure needs to be accelerated also by increasing the cofinancing threshold by 10%, in order to avoid there being resources from the old programming period still to be spent from the time the new reform applies. It is important to avoid overlapping between the EFF and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF).

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I was also very pleased to be able to vote in favour of this motion because in my view, it is the right response to the problems that the Member States are currently facing. We all want to stimulate the economy and there are two fundamental problems.

One concerns the fact that the countries cannot come up with the cofinancing funds and the other is that the advance financing of many programmes is simply not working. We are in the process of resolving these problems. The situation with regard to advance financing will improve because the European Union will make the necessary funds available.

I think that we could use this as an example for other funds and I would like us to evaluate the results of this process in order to see whether this mechanism could be applied to other programmes and funds.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, I voted alongside my group, the ECR, in favour of the Ferreira report on the European Fisheries Fund. We consider programmes such as the EFF to be useful tools but note that in the Member States that have suffered most in the financial crisis, the implementation of these projects is difficult due to pressures on the budget to cofinance. The report foresees a Commission proposal that would allow increased payments to be made to those countries that are suffering most from the global financial crisis, namely those that are currently benefiting from support mechanisms in order to ensure the continuation of the EFF programmes on the ground.

We welcome the fact that, despite this, the amount that the EU contributes to these programmes will be no higher than the amount put forward in the Commission’s original decision, i.e. a budget freeze. Given that no change has been made to the overall budget, on this occasion, we voted in favour.

  James Nicholson (ECR). - Mr President, I also voted in favour of this report. In the current economic and financial crisis that is engulfing the EU zone, it is imperative that we pave the way for a smooth implementation of cohesion programmes like the European Fisheries Fund by voting in favour of this report today. This will hopefully lead to funds being injected into local rural fishing-oriented economies.

I also support the mechanisms that have been put in place that will allow provision for increased payments to be made to Member States that may have financial difficulty in implementing the programmes in question, including the Republic of Ireland, a close neighbour of my home country and constituency of Northern Ireland. We need all to do our bit to help Member States that are witnessing the side effects of financial downturn and aspire to meet the EFF aspirations.

The proposed monetary top-ups will do just this while not exceeding 10% of the maximum ceilings set in the articles of the EFF regulation.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I endorsed the resolution on the European Fisheries Fund with complete conviction because I think the fishing industry is a very important branch of the economy in the European Union, and our approach and that of the Commission to this matter shows that the European institutions are being flexible in their response to the crisis which has struck our continent. On the one hand, we are meeting the justified expectations of interest groups and all of the fishing industry and, on the other, we are being rational in our approach to the way money is spent by the European Union. I want to stress that the fishing sector is not just a matter of economics, because it also has a health aspect. We have been talking at this parliamentary part-session about the diabetes epidemic. A healthy diet, which includes fish, is an important factor in helping us protect the health of our citizens in the European Union.

Report: Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl (A7-0025/2012)

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). - Mr President, following the EU’s ban on imports of beef and beef products from the US and Canada that have been treated with growth-promoting hormones, the US and Canada were subsequently authorised by the WTO to authorise and impose trade sanctions on EU agricultural products.

This had a high impact on farmers and producers across the EU. I am therefore pleased that a resolution has now been found to this trade dispute. The agreement to gradually lift sanctions placed on EU agricultural products in exchange for an autonomous tariff quota on high-quality beef which has not been treated with the hormones will benefit both sides of the Atlantic and will help, hopefully, to rebuild and strengthen trade relations in this sector.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, 40 years ago, the United Kingdom voted to join a common market. I am not sure that we understood then and I am not sure even now, after 40 years, that we fully appreciate the distinction between a free market and a customs union.

A free trade area means that goods and services and capital circulate without restrictions. It is the kind of deal that Switzerland enjoys with the European Union and one cannot help noticing that the Swiss seem to be doing pretty well with it. In a customs union, of course, you are dragged into a common commercial policy and a common external tariff.

It has been particularly disastrous to the United Kingdom, the country which did the highest percentage of its trade, without the EU, to non-European markets. We are linked into a market of similar industrialised economies, having cut ourselves off from our natural hinterland of producers. I never tire of pointing out to this House that we have confined ourselves in a cramped and declining customs union, while standing aside from the bits of the world where the growth still is, not least the wider community of English-speaking democracies. Truly our fathers made a wretched decision.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE) . – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of this report, which aims to align some commercial policy legislative acts, including the anti-dumping regulation, with the new comitology procedures. The text voted on today supports the claims of European industry, of which Italian manufacturing is an example of excellence even at a time of crisis, by vigorously defending the trade defence instruments, which are the only way to protect European businesses and combat the anti-competitive trade practices of third-country competitors.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, given the difficult history of transatlantic trade relations in animal products that was started by the dispute on beef hormones and chlorine-dipped chicken, the adoption of the regulation put forward today in this report is important and my ECR Group voted in favour. We believe that the regulation reinforces the vital trade links that are already in existence across the Atlantic and will also improve access to the market on both sides, leading to more confidence.

Though the products initially affected by the ban on hormone-treated beef were few and accounted for a small volume of trade, those products affected by the subsequent retaliatory EU sanctions were far more numerous, and we hope that these sanctions will steadily be lifted and trade barriers broken down as a result of ongoing negotiations.

The regulation proposed therefore will, we believe, strengthen the long-standing transatlantic economic relationship in terms of trade, and bring economic benefits to both sides. USA-EU political and trade relations must be our number one priority, due to our shared common democratic values.

  James Nicholson (ECR). - Mr President, I voted in favour of this report – although I had some concerns initially – because I believe, in the long term, this report has the ability to create a win-win situation for both the EU and Canada and the United States.

The report creates a way past some of the destructive dynamics of trade sanctions and tariffs that were founded back in the 1980s and as a result of the bans on imports of beef and beef products that had been treated by hormones into the EU from the US and Canada.

These tariffs have amounted to USD 116 million every year in the US. Canada and the US recently lifted their sanctions in the hope of creating an autonomous zero duty and tariff quota for imports of high-quality beef not treated with hormones.

To create the win-win situation for all involved, the EU needed the support of MEPs and this report will provide initially some 20 000 tonnes of high-quality beef annually. The final settlement of the beef hormone dispute will create further momentum towards greater economic and commercial integration between the EU and the US.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I hope we will make a great step today towards resolving a conflict which began as far back as 1988. As a result of this conflict, European exporters are losing around USD 116 million every year because of import bans on European products in the US market imposed by the United States as a reprisal for bans introduced by the European Union.

In principle, I am a supporter of free trade, but I also think that just as the United States should have confidence in the plant health procedures in force in Europe, we too should have confidence in food safety procedures in the United States. So it seems that what we have done today is a step in a very good direction. I hope that the United States will respond positively to this gesture of goodwill on the part of the European Union.

Report: Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl (A7-0028/2012)

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). - Mr President, while this is a technical report which updates procedures to take into account the new scrutiny regime contained in the Lisbon Treaty, it will have important consequences for the future content of these regulations. The new role the Parliament now has under delegated acts means that we must take this scrutiny role seriously. In the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, we spend a lot of time deciding whether something is a truly technical measure that should be dealt with under implementing measures or whether it should be a delegated act in relation to which we then have the right of recall.

On the issue of commercial policy, I am certain that this balance is just as difficult as it is on financial services issues, and I am positive that this report, as it stands, has achieved the right balance.

  Cristiana Muscardini (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the anti-dumping regulation has a particularly important role in the rationalisation that is currently ongoing with the proposal known as Omnibus I. It is important to remember that in order to be effective and not damage the EU manufacturing sectors, a common commercial policy must fight for rules to be respected, as these do not apply only to a part, but to all the players.

One of the fundamental rules is correct pricing, and this means tackling dumping practices effectively and energetically. When defining the extension of trade defence procedures, the Committee on International Trade was right to confirm that the time limit in anti-dumping cases must not exceed the current time limit of 15 months when defining the extension of trade defence procedures.

We must not weaken the defence instruments, as the Commission was prepared to do after the Treaty of Lisbon came into force. Defence instruments are therefore indispensable for guaranteeing competition, safeguarding rules and protecting consumers. I am therefore voting for the resolution and would like to thank Ms Quisthoudt-Rowohl for her excellent work.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, fully aware of the responsibility involved, I voted in favour, together with my group. That responsibility firstly, of course, concerns the technical side and our decisions on technical matters. These decisions are, however, related to the fact that the European Parliament is gradually implementing the recommendations and gradually adapting to the increased role which our Parliament plays in European structures today in relation to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. Naturally, I think it is very good that as part of the examination procedure, Member States which constitute a qualified majority can block a Commission proposal on commercial policy by a simple majority. This is important – as the previous speaker said – among other things, in matters concerning definitive anti-dumping measures. It is to be welcomed that we are establishing mechanisms which can protect the European market and which can protect our consumers.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, despite certain fears related to the failure to carry out detailed consultations with the Member States, I decided to endorse the report. The regulation enables certain regulations relating to the common commercial policy to be adapted to the requirements of the Treaty of Lisbon. In particular, this concerns the implementing acts dealing with the uniform transposition of European law in this area in all Member States and replacing the current comitology procedure.

An important tool here will be introduction of the advisory and examination procedures provided for in the Treaty. Application of the concept of delegated acts will also enable proper supervision of Parliament in this area. Inclusion in the regulation of key demands made by the European Parliament, such as the adoption of provisions concerning the reduction and abolition of the Common Customs Tariff duties on the products of some tariff headings, for example, is a good sign.

I hope that these regulations will allow for improved commercial exchange between the EU’s Member States and third countries, and that this will deliver benefits to the citizens.

Report: Giovanni La Via (A7-0040/2012)

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). - Mr President, along with my political group, the European Conservatives and Reformists, I would like to see a significant reduction of the EU budget. I therefore cannot support this report, as it defends the size of a proposed, larger EU budget, which, at this time, I cannot justify to my constituents in Wales.

A number of EU Member States are implementing harsh austerity measures which have had a devastating impact on people’s livelihoods. In this light, therefore, it would be completely unjustifiable to defend any increase in the EU budget. All EU institutions need to demonstrate the ability to tighten budgets at this difficult economic time. The 2013 budget should reflect this.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, three things are certain in life: death, taxes and constant rises in the EU budget. Our gross and net contributions as a country are shooting up, and it is not just us. At a time when all 27 Member States are looking to find cuts in their domestic spending, all of those savings are being swallowed up in their higher contributions to Brussels.

Now we are told that all this money is being used to create jobs and stimulate prosperity. Those Members who do not read English might like to look at Frédéric Bastiat on the question of creating jobs, the question of seen and unseen costs. Every euro that we take out of the private sector to create jobs is a euro that would have otherwise been spent on creating actual wealth. The only jobs we are creating here are the jobs of people whose job is to destroy genuine job creation: the licensors, the inspectors, the clerks, the compliance officers, the whole regulatory machine of EU enforcement.

How can we carry on in a system where, in order to pay for these constantly rising budgets, simply in the time that I have been speaking, my constituents have handed over something like GBP 120 000? So I am going to stop speaking and sit down.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, before my explanation of vote, I would like to explain that I am wearing this T-shirt because I would like to ask the European Union to take decisive steps to secure the liberation of the two Italian soldiers, Captain Massimiliano Latorre and Sergeant Salvatore Girone, who have been unjustly detained for doing their duty against piracy.

Mr President, the new general guidelines of the European Parliament on the 2013 budget will define the guidelines, objectives and strategies to be followed by the Commission when preparing the draft budget. The report in question sets out the key points for reviving the European economy in the light of the effects of, and the issues caused by, the ongoing nature of the economic crisis. I welcome the initiative not just because it makes the EU budget an ideal vehicle for encouraging cohesion between Member States, but also because it embodies an opportunity to review and adapt the new budget to the needs of the economic crisis that has hit the euro area.

The initiative proposed by Mr La Via has my full support, and I especially welcome the request made to the Council not to make artificial cuts that do not take into account the effective absorption capacity of the programmes and consequently delay the implementation of cohesion policies.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). - Mr President, this report calls for collective efforts to help the European economy. What it means in practice is more Europe and more money. I am totally committed to an agenda of growth and jobs. However, I do not believe that the way to achieve it is with more Europe. We need less red tape and fewer regulations, which will leave businesses free to flourish.

This Parliament has squandered its opportunity to send out a strong signal. We should have called on the Commission to deliver more for less money. We should have reflected the will of our citizens and called for a freeze on the European budget, but, as usual, we chickened out, and that is why I cannot support this report.

  Diane Dodds (NI). - Mr President, I voted against this report.

Once again, further political integration is cited as a prerequisite for dealing with the economic and social woes of the EU. I would contend that, rather than being the firm foundation or the cornerstone of any future recovery, the desire for political integration is the sinking sand that has led to the EU facing economic collapse. Yet ideology still blinds reality, and while that remains the case, the much-needed recovery will not occur at a satisfactory pace.

The report states that austerity being imposed in Member States should not be replicated in the EU budget. What arrogance! Indeed, the report demands yet more money from Member States to the EU. ‘Do as I say, not as I do’ seems to be the message that emanates from this Parliament so often.

It is time to cut the waste from the EU budget. Target resources effectively to promote growth and, importantly, lead by example.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I have voted in favour of this report because the rapporteur, Mr La Via, has done a good job and has reached the necessary compromise. We know that there are no quick solutions to the problems of achieving our strategic goals, reducing red tape and ensuring that our bureaucracy, in other words, the administration and the Commission, spends less money. These issues need careful consideration. Ultimately, we must start by adopting the necessary legislation and regulations which will ensure that we have less red tape and fewer controls.

I would like to mention one small problem. I would have liked us to have voted in favour of the amendment by the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, which called for 2013 to be devoted to economic recovery after the financial consolidation. This is the only problem, but I was able to vote in favour of the report as a whole.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). - (FI) Mr President, firstly, I would like to say that I voted in favour of this report. It contains a lot of good things, and we could say that it is a step in the right direction, although it is perhaps unsatisfactory in some respects.

In any case, I think it is now important to recognise that we in Europe are facing challenging times economically, and, during such times, we must have the courage to make additional cuts, though not do so for its own sake. We have to make the priority in the budget one that would enable growth. This means that if we want to achieve recovery and growth in the European economy, we must invest in research, development and innovation, and we must invest in education. In other words, these are the basis and foundation on which to build new growth in Europe.

It is very important in this respect to realise that we need more investment in these sectors. We can cut bureaucracy and such unnecessary extras, but we need investment in education, innovation and research and development for the European economy to recover and embark on a path to growth.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as with all the Poles who are members of the European Conservatives and Reformists Group, I voted in a different way from our group and endorsed this report. I do see the arguments of all those who are talking about the need for savings in the EU budget and the need to fight bureaucracy. They are good and commendable principles and they should be supported but, all the same, it should be remembered that those who will lose most over cuts in the EU budget are principally the new Member States, and it is these Member States which today need support from the European Union to make up the distance in terms of their economy and infrastructure which separates them from the wealthy countries of the old Europe. In Poland, we had already opened our market to goods from the European Union at the beginning of the 1990s – we did not protect our market. British, Italian and Dutch firms made huge sums from the opportunities afforded by the Polish market. Today, the moment has come in which our citizens are entitled to demand that Europe help them – Europe is helping, but we do not want it to stop.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE). - (FI) Mr President, I voted for freezing the EU budget. In fact, I am in favour of the EU making savings in its budget.

The Member States of the EU are living on credit. They accrue debt in their everyday expenditure and in their EU membership contributions also. In addition, the Member States are having to make major cuts to their national budgets.

In such a situation, the EU has to set an example. It must also be innovative and find areas where the EU itself can save money. It cannot order its Member States to make savings. Those Member States that do not save enough are penalised, but the EU itself is not prepared to look for areas where savings can be made. We must be able to find areas in the EU budget where savings can be made in Parliament, the Commission and the Council, and the EU should use the money for growth and employment.

Proposal for a decision: B7-0150/2012

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). - Mr President, whilst, in principle, I can support measures which enhance cross-border coordination and the sharing of best practice across the EU in the field of civil law, I am unable, however, to support this resolution on judicial training. At present, there are already a number of online tools and initiatives available which aim to resolve cross-border legal problems that may be encountered. It seems, therefore, that this would duplicate initiatives which already exist.

Moreover, the proposal for the establishment of ‘Erasmus of judges’ networks seems to be wholly unnecessary and a complete waste of EU resources. This resolution does not respect the principle of subsidiarity and, as judicial systems are firmly matters for Member States, we should refrain from harmonising or centralising such issues.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, I endorsed this resolution. I think the role of the European institutions and the European Parliament is to help the citizens. We have many legal systems in the European Union, and I am glad we do, because I support diversity in the Union. The Member States differ significantly from each other and we do, of course, support the fact that interpersonal, economic and cultural contacts between EU citizens from different Member States are increasing. This naturally gives rise to the need for a better knowledge of the legal systems which will affect EU citizens when travelling or involved in professional, cultural or any other kind of activity in different countries.

I think, therefore, that this type of coordination is needed, although, of course, it should be kept within the bounds of common sense and it should, of course, respect the money of European taxpayers.

Proposal for a decision: B7-0126/2012

  Emma McClarkin (ECR). - Mr President, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child makes clear the importance of education; in particular, it states that parties shall make primary education compulsory and freely available to all. I do not need to spell out the importance of this in the development of young children into responsible literate adults who can play active roles in society. So it is with the utmost urgency that we must assist in tackling the problem that is the 215 million children across the world who continue to engage in labour activities which should be abolished.

By its very nature – a labour intensive, often family-run enterprise – cocoa farming can, in some instances, pose a major problem. West Africa, where 70% of the world’s cocoa is cultivated, is the obvious example. Progress in abolishing the use of child labour is hampered by ongoing conflict in the region and it is also difficult to change attitudes amongst families and communities.

I recognise that there are work activities which are acceptable for children to participate in, as long as the opportunity remains for educational activity. However, cocoa farming has been shown to pose major risks for child labourers often without the opportunity for education. I therefore support the resolution voted on today opposing the use of forced child labour in the cocoa industry.

  Andrea Zanoni (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, 215 million children worldwide used as child labour, 152 million child workers under the age of 15, 115 million children involved in dangerous activities – these are shocking figures that we can no longer tolerate. I voted in favour of the resolution on child labour in the cocoa sector, with absolute conviction, because the European Union has to play a fundamental role in stopping this form of modern slavery.

The Commission must do its utmost to include effective provisions that will guarantee dignified employment and prevent forced child labour in all trade agreements with cocoa producing countries such as Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire. We need a traceability mechanism to identify goods produced using child labour. The European Union has always defended the rights of the world’s most vulnerable people, and children working in the harvesting of cocoa beans deserve our full attention.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). - Mr President, child labour in any sector is something that the EU should play a part in eradicating around the world. By refusing to sign trade agreements with Uzbekistan, which continues to use child labour in cotton picking, it will make other regions in the world realise that, in order to continue trading with the EU, they do have to reach basic minimum standards of rights.

This report cites the statistic that 215 million children across the world are currently engaged in child labour, a shocking figure in this day and age. Ultimately, we must continue to use our trading power to eradicate these abuses and, hopefully, show other countries that educating their children, instead of putting them to work at such a young age, is the real way to achieve growth and a more vibrant and intelligent economy in the future.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are often unaware of the ways and means by which some products we use on a daily basis are made, and do not know that in some cases, these products are made through the work of more than 200 million children. Of these, 150 million are under the age of 15 and are involved in highly dangerous work. Unfortunately, the cocoa industry is one of those involved in this system of exploitation.

Stamping out child labour is a duty and a responsibility for all those countries and multinationals involved, which sometimes refuse to disclose their financial flows. In compliance with the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child and International Labour Organisation (ILO) conventions, I hope that the possibility of setting up a body to monitor production chains in order to combat child abuse and exploitation and to introduce a cocoa product traceability system will be taken into consideration.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). - (FI) Mr President, I supported the report because the chocolate purchased by us European consumers is frequently produced in questionable ways, using child labour. We know that the cocoa plantations in West Africa, in Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire, produce almost all the world’s cocoa, which is the main raw material for chocolate. The European Commission and the European External Action Service should monitor developments in these countries very carefully and ensure that the EU does not establish trade relations with countries that engage in the worst forms of child labour.

The use of child labour in the cocoa sector is also an indication of the huge socio-economic and political challenges that we still face. This is not just a matter of the social responsibility of European companies: the European Union is a community of values based on human rights, and that is why we cannot accept the flagrant use of child labour – in the cultivation and harvesting of cocoa beans, for example.

  Diane Dodds (NI). - Mr President, it is estimated that approximately 250 000 children, many against their will, work in the cocoa plantations in West Africa. In recent years, there has been some progress through programmes and initiatives aimed at combating the worst forms of child labour. However, there is still much work to be done.

The Ivory Coast exports nearly half the world’s cocoa. This is a country ravaged by years of civil war with the majority of its citizens in extreme poverty. As a result, cocoa farms have traditionally been worked by the family unit, children included, in order to reduce labour costs.

Therefore, I believe that the only way to break the cycle of child labour is through combating such poverty. This is the only way that countries such as the Ivory Coast can progress – through the building of roads, hospitals, social centres and, in particular, schools – to give the children and their parents a chance of a better future.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). - (RO) Mr President, I voted in favour of this resolution because child labour in West African agriculture is a highly sensitive topic, the proportions of the phenomenon being difficult to estimate in figures. Widespread poverty, conflicts and poor harvests in recent years have aggravated the situation. Last year, tensions in Côte d’Ivoire led to 200 000 tonnes being blocked in production and increased prices by up to 9% per day on the Euronext Paris stock exchange.

Now, the EU is dependent on cocoa imports from countries such as Ghana or Côte d’Ivoire, but trade relations should not be an obstacle to cooperation with Interpol in this area, particularly regarding trafficking of minors. Moreover, large-scale implementation of the concept of fair trade would ensure a decent standard of living for parents and the chance of an education for children.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I did, of course, endorse this document. I think that these are important moments in the history and the work of our Parliament, moments when, in spite of the differences which do very clearly exist between us, we are able, for the sake of the values which have brought us together here, to rise above those divisions and vote the same way – as is the case with this problem, a problem which, as we say in Poland, is ‘crying to heaven for vengeance’. A situation in which millions of children, tens of millions of children across the world, are abused, forced to work, deprived of their childhood and deprived of their own future, is a situation which must not be tolerated. It is to be greatly welcomed that the European Parliament is taking up this question and that we are trying to get to the heart of the matter. We want to investigate the channels by which these products are moved and by which they reach the European market. We in Europe are a major buyer of many products, and this includes cocoa, and we have the resources to find out if products which reach the European market and which are paid for by European consumers are illegal products – illegal in the eyes of international law – since the producers utilise child labour.

Recommendation: Vital Moreira (A7-0024/2012)

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, it goes without saying that I endorsed the document on the International Cocoa Agreement – this document, is of course, related to what we were talking about just now. The International Cocoa Agreement 2010 replaces the 2001 agreement, to which the EU is a party. It is a step in the right direction and, among other things, it appeals specifically for transparency in the production of cocoa, because – as we were saying a moment ago – there is a huge problem with the illegal use of child labour. However, we are also talking here about reducing trade barriers, we are talking about improved access to the European market for this product, for cocoa, which – as we have also said here – is an important export product of countries that are very poor. On condition that child labour will not be used in the production of cocoa, we should most definitely support a situation in which a wealthy Europe promotes the development of poor countries by buying this product from them.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). - (FI) Mr President, I think that it is very important now to ensure that the European Union adheres to its values. Central to these is the matter of human rights and also the rights of children associated with them. Consequently, we must be very careful not to expose children to dangers of this kind in any circumstances. Instead, we should ensure that they continue to develop holistically and that we consider their physical, motor, cognitive and intellectual development, and do everything possible to bring that about.

That being the case, we must dissociate ourselves very determinedly and clearly from the use of child labour, and when we conclude agreements on cocoa and other commodities, we also need to ensure that our partners do not expose children to such dangers to save costs. Children must have the right to a childhood and children’s rights, which are human rights.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). - Mr President, removing trade barriers and involving both producer and consumer countries alongside the private sector is the way in which the global market ought to operate and is what we should be striving to facilitate in more sectors.

One of the most important aspects of this report relates to its requirement to produce more analysis, statistics and impact assessments on what the causes of trade barriers are in this particular sector. I hope this will inform the decisions of global bodies as they look to better regulate the commodities markets more widely.

We need to ensure we have specific data on every asset class in order to provide a highly sophisticated mechanism for our commodities and agricultural derivative products that will not curb the activities of the producers and consumers whose trade we are encouraging with this cocoa agreement.

Motion for a resolution: B7-0150/2012

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). - Mr President, at present, it is thought that almost 10% of the EU population is affected in some form by diabetes. With the increase in obesity and an ageing population, this number has been projected to increase dramatically over the coming years. Both Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes are treatable and, as Type 2 is linked to lifestyle factors, it can be addressed by effective preventative strategies such as increasing exercise and making adjustments to diet.

Whilst health care is a national competence, it is sensible that a joined-up approach is taken and that sharing best practice and enhanced cooperation between Member States, particularly in research and in the development of new tools to diagnose diabetes at an earlier stage, are put into place. It would be equally beneficial for Member States to share their knowledge on disease management and treatment guidelines so that the best preventative and treatment regimes can be adopted.

I therefore support the joint resolution, which seeks to address the EU diabetes epidemic, as I believe that an EU strategy would be beneficial in this instance, particularly with the additional strain this disease is putting on the Welsh health care budget in current economically difficult times.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). - Mr President, across the UK, nearly 3 million people suffer from diabetes. With obesity on the rise and an ageing population, the estimated cost of diabetes on the health care system is expected to increase to nearly 10% of our annual health care budget.

This is not isolated to the UK. Figures show that approximately one in ten people in the EU are affected by this. While health care is a Member State competency and responsibility, I believe the sharing of best practice will be hugely beneficial. The concept of an EU strategy which aims to improve cooperation, share research and spread best practice is an opportunity to utilise the knowledge and resources the EU has available. This is an epidemic we can take control of if we act together. I therefore supported this report.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the statistics on diabetes are disturbing. It has become a problem of epidemic proportions that claims more than 300 000 lives each year. It is a chronic illness that accounts for between 10% and 20% of national health expenditure. At present, there is still no treatment capable of bringing the illness under control, and whilst it has luckily been declared a non-communicable disease, it will inevitably spread as a result of ageing populations and unhealthy lifestyles.

The European Union must continue to direct its efforts towards preventing diabetes and obesity, alongside strategies on healthy lifestyles and early diagnosis. The European Union must also implement an effective and innovative targeted strategy at national level and guarantee constant financial support to research projects.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). - (FI) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report, since diabetes not only causes human suffering but also results in substantial costs to the economy as the number of people with diabetes in Europe is still growing at an alarming rate.

Type 2 diabetes is a lifestyle disease, and one way to prevent it is to provide people with adequate and comprehensible information on food that is good for the health. The labelling on food packaging should not be misleading: consumers must be able to make the best choices for their health themselves. The right diet and exercise can prevent people from contracting diabetes. Health affects a person’s whole life in every way, and it is therefore important to do everything possible to support the prevention of diabetes. That is why I am strongly in favour of this report.

  Diane Dodds (NI). - Mr President, recent figures show that 2.9 million people in the United Kingdom have been diagnosed with diabetes. This figure includes those diagnosed in my own constituency of Northern Ireland with an estimated 73 500 people currently living with this illness. There are thought to be thousands more who have the condition but do not yet know it.

Diabetes is on the increase in Northern Ireland, as it is across Europe. Over the last six years, the number of people in my own constituency diagnosed with this condition has increased by almost 41%. A recent report entitled ‘Diabetes in the National Health Service’ estimated a total cost of GBP 3.5 billion per annum. That is over GBP 9.6 million per day to treat this illness.

With 100 000 people in the UK diagnosed every year, health costs are spiralling and placing an increased strain on government resources. It is therefore vital that we become more proactive in combating this condition through education and increased awareness, with an emphasis on healthy diet and exercise as a means of prevention.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). - (RO) Mr President, I voted in favour of this resolution because I believe that the fight against diabetes must be intensified by all means. I refer here, first of all, to prevention. Given that, by 2030, over 16% of European citizens will be affected by this disease, it is necessary to educate the population in this regard. Unfortunately, diabetes is an incurable disease, but there are plenty of ways to prevent its onset. Therefore, Europe must invest more in promoting sports and encouraging a healthy lifestyle.

Precise and rapid diagnosis of both Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes is another important element. This would ensure the appropriate treatment of patients and reduced costs resulting from subsequent complications.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, I voted in favour of the Council and Commission statements on addressing the EU diabetes epidemic. Health care provision is primarily a Member State responsibility, but the modest proposals put forward would have a positive impact in the field of diabetes research.

Diabetes is a chronic disease that affects almost 10% of the total EU population and accounts for over 10% of expenditure across the EU in health care. With an ageing European population, these figures are expected to increase.

We believe that an EU strategy at the level of consensus on the public health aspects would help to improve cooperation between the Member States and provide a mechanism to share best medical practice between health care professionals from across the European Union in primary prevention diagnosis management and monitoring. I support the calls for continued research funding under the European framework programmes.

I declare a personal interest, being both a medical doctor and a middle-aged man and being overweight with a strong family history of diabetes, so I am at a high risk of developing Type 2 diabetes, which actually – very sadly – killed my late grandfather.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). - (FI) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report. It is very important that we try to do all we can at EU level to prevent the growth in the number of diabetes cases. As has been said, diabetes is now an epidemic of sorts, and the number of cases has increased dramatically, especially those relating to Type 2 diabetes, which is very largely the consequence of changes in lifestyle and the role that diet and exercise play in people’s health.

While health care issues mainly fall within the competence of the Member States under the principle of subsidiarity, in my view, it is nevertheless a good thing that people are being made aware of these matters of public health and this risk at EU level. It is also good that an attempt is being made to encourage Member States to act to ensure that children and young people are told about the effects of healthy eating and healthy lifestyle while still at school, and that everything possible is being done to try to prevent any further increase in cases of Type 2 diabetes and to bring it under control.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, 10% of the European Union’s population are suffering from diabetes. Changes in the development of civilisation, changing lifestyles and the ageing of European society mean that the problem of diabetes is going to affect an increasing number of our citizens. This is why I endorsed this document at today’s vote. I think the scale of the diabetes problem is so great today that all institutions – both at the level of national governments and as indeed we have done today at the level of the entire Union – should tackle this problem both by promoting a healthy lifestyle and good diet and by increasing spending on specific medical research into this problem. I am pleased that the European Parliament has adopted this document by such a large majority today.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, it was to be expected that a large majority would be in favour of this short article today as everyone wants to cure this disease or, better still, to prevent it.

As regards prevention, I came across a staggering statistic recently at a health forum in Brussels, where it said that 97% of health expenses in the European Union were spent on trying to treat various ailments and only 3% was invested in trying to find cures and, particularly, on prevention.

Therefore, I agree completely with Kay Swinburne, who says that in research, there should be huge emphasis on prevention. There is too much on trying to find cures and not enough on prevention. For instance, many people would like to change their behavioural pattern and to have a better lifestyle but they struggle to do so. That is an example of where we should do some research. Also Ms Băsescu mentioned the importance of sport. I certainly agree with that, and particularly in the next multiannual financial framework, there should be a budget for health-related sport and various activities.

Motion for a resolution: B7-0127/2012

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). - Mr President, I welcome the positive statements in the enlargement report for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. I feel that many other accession countries, including Serbia – which was accepted last week by the European Council for EU candidate status – could look to the example that has been set by Macedonia’s engagement with the EU over the last few years.

The two countries have faced similar problems in their recent history and need to come to terms with both their own population’s problems and their ongoing disputes with their neighbours. Macedonia’s dispute over its name with Greece should not be directly compared to the situation between Belgrade and Priština. However, the sensible way that Macedonia is dealing with its neighbours, and the EU as a whole, in order to overcome that dispute, can provide a good starting point on which others, including Serbia, could model their approaches over the next few years.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I travelled personally to Macedonia during the last presidential elections as an envoy of the Group of the European People’s Party (PPE) in order to support Prime Minister Gruevski’s electoral campaign. Having met thousands of people, I was able to observe personally that it is not just the institutions but also the people who are decisively in favour of joining the European Union.

This is why I believe we cannot put off starting negotiations, which have been suspended, for much longer, and should resume them as a matter of urgency. The 2011 progress report presented by the Commission shows that for the third consecutive year, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) has managed to maintain positive progress in line with European standards in terms of political criteria and the development of a market economy. Therefore, I am confident that FYROM will manage to overcome the political and structural limitations that are still holding it back, and give my full support to the resumption of negotiations.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). - (FI) Mr President, it is extremely regrettable that the dispute over its name continues to obstruct Macedonia’s membership of the EU and prevent the enlargement process from going forward. The European Union has promised all the Balkan countries an opportunity to be part of the enlargement process. Macedonia was one of the first countries in the region to be granted EU candidate status. Besides, the Macedonians are very much in favour of the EU – at least they are for now.

For three years in succession, the European Commission has issued a recommendation for the start of EU accession talks with Macedonia, but the Council has simply not as yet reached agreement on the matter. The Commission has also succumbed to linguistic censorship; it does not use the terms Macedonia or Macedonian. The UN does not act in this way.

The EU would do well to take a look in the mirror. It has a responsibility for ensuring that no country is left behind. The credibility of the entire EU accession process may be jeopardised, simply because of this dispute over a name. Macedonia’s progress, of course, is primarily dependent on Macedonia itself, but the EU should not have the right to close the door in its face because of such a political dispute over its name.

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the progress made by the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia shows its strong desire to join the European Union. It is a strategic country in the Balkan region, is involved in several European initiatives, and is giving proof of cooperation and openness.

The reforms of the judicial system, administrative decentralisation and initial, if weak, signs of a willingness to discuss freedom of expression are very hopeful signs for the future. However, the following issues are still worrying: respect for human rights, corruption levels and the lack of pluralism in the media. This country still has a long way to go, and the years leading up to its entry must act as a stimulus to speed up the necessary reforms for the country’s democracy to develop. I believe in an enlarged, strong Europe, and therefore I voted in favour of the resolution.

  Dimitar Stoyanov (NI). – (BG) Mr President, for the first time in the five years that I have been in the European Parliament, I voted against the report on Macedonia’s accession to the European Union. Why? I previously voted in favour because, in spite of all the problems, I thought that doing this might give some encouragement to the country to carry out reforms.

The five-year period that I have been an MEP is more or less equivalent to half the time the process takes for a country to join the Union at the normal rate of progress. This is a long time, yet all the while people who consider themselves Bulgarian continue to be persecuted in Macedonia and the hate talk continues in the media, schoolbooks, films and in any way sponsored by the State.

I find such actions unacceptable and I can no longer continue to support a country which, in my view, does not meet the political criteria, undertaking such actions against a neighbouring country and even against its own citizens, especially as we have also seen that freedom of speech is being affected, which is a change for the worse and not the better.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report because I wish to see stability in the Balkans and relations with the European Union contribute to ensuring it. Skopje has made some progress in terms of democratic reforms. They must, however, continue, especially in areas such as the judicial system and the fight against corruption. I also emphasise the need for more transparency on public expenditure and the financing of political parties.

Nevertheless, I appreciate the position of the Macedonian authorities in considering multiculturalism to be the social and political model of the country. The Romanian minority is recognised and enjoys fair treatment. I wish to point out the progress made towards Roma integration in the education system and their representation in the public sector. Still, I draw attention to the fact that continued efforts are needed to improve the situation of this community.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, the ECR supported the Howitt report on Macedonia. The text calls on the Council to confirm the Commission’s call for a priority date now to be set for EU accession negotiations to commence, and I back this call.

The persistent Greek veto over the name issue has gone on far too long. I believe that bilateral issues should not be an obstacle to Macedonia’s further EU integration as they have been since the country was given candidate status as far back as 2005. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Gruevski, Macedonia has made progress in the fields of parliamentary cooperation, economic development, inter-ethnic reconciliation, decentralisation, human rights and public administration.

The responsible and measured way in which the government has dealt with the recent ethnic tensions between the Albanian community and the Macedonian Slavs in the country is testimony to Macedonia’s progress. The recent International Court of Justice verdict against Greece over Macedonia’s accession to NATO needs to be listened to by the whole of the European Union and respected.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, enlargement in the Balkans is the next stage in the development of European integration. The Republic of Macedonia is already an important and close economic partner of the EU. I think therefore that it is a priority in our relations with Macedonia to set a date for the start of accession negotiations without further delay. In endorsing the resolution, I would like to express my full approval, both for the pro-European policy of the government in Skopje and the Euro-Atlantic aspirations seen in Macedonia’s status as a candidate for NATO membership – questions of European security should go hand in hand with the idea of enlargement.

Also worthy of note is the progress Macedonia has made in economic development, gaining recognition in the World Bank report as the third most successful country over the past five years in undertaking regulatory reforms. Another success is Macedonia’s strategy for tackling corruption, which is reflected in its significantly improved position in the Transparency International anti-corruption index. I am sure that the country’s economic potential and the increasing stability of its domestic politics will be its strength in the negotiation process.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, for many years, the Balkans were a dangerous trouble spot in the history and politics of Europe. Today, we should greatly welcome the fact that successive Balkan countries are declaring, and declaring sincerely, that they have European aspirations. They want to become part of our Union, which, from the moment of its establishment, in a way which was without precedent in the history of our continent, has been an area of economic growth, rising prosperity and, above all, peace. It is no surprise therefore that countries which have seen so much unrest, countries which have been through wars, want to be together with us. Therefore, I support Macedonia’s aspirations to be in the European Union, and I would also like to appeal from here to our Greek friends to stop raising the problem of the name ‘Republic of Macedonia’. I think that in today’s Europe, there should be no room for this kind of narrow, chauvinistic approach. We should all share our continent with each other in a spirit of friendship and understanding.

Motion for a resolution: B7-0125/2012

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). - Mr President, when discussing the enlargement process in relation to Iceland, it is very hard to do so solely on the technical level of the Copenhagen criteria and acquis, as the situation is very different from that of those Member States that have joined the EU since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of Communism in Europe.

Yet we must be very careful to be even-handed in our approach and ensure that Iceland genuinely does fulfil all of the EU criteria before joining. In the area of financial services, we need to be very careful to ensure that Iceland’s reformed banking system is now truly following all of the necessary EU regulations in this field.

The issue of Icesave is still of huge concern in the UK, where many individuals and local authorities lost significant amounts of money because of the lax system of regulation previously in force in Iceland. While separating this specific issue out from the accession process might be a sensible approach, I believe we must ensure the issue is resolved as soon as possible and appropriate measures are taken to avoid it happening again.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, there was some rather ugly Schadenfreude in this Chamber following the collapse of the Icelandic Banks. A number of federalist colleagues, British and continental, were coming up to me saying, ‘Ah, Hannan, how are your Icelanders doing now. This is what happens to you if you remain standoffish about Europe’.

Well, who is laughing now? Iceland, having devalued because it was not in the euro, has exported its way to growth and enjoys a rate of growth which is the envy of the eurozone stricken economies and, because it did not make this terrible mistake of assuming the bad debts of private institutions, it will begin, once this Icesave dispute is cleared, with a debt-to-GDP ratio which is the envy of Europe. 67% of Icelanders in the last poll are now against EU membership because they understand what it would mean: their resources plundered, their seas emptied, their democracy vitiated, the oldest parliament in the world turned into a local authority chamber.

Icelanders are a shrewd and canny people with wisdom bred in the bone by hundreds of years of struggling in difficult conditions. They know far better than to throw away their freedom.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). - Mr President, I voted against this resolution, not because I believe Iceland should not become a member of the EU, but because the resolution states that money owed by Iceland’s Landsbanki after the collapse of Icesave must not be an obstacle to accession. As a Conservative MEP for London, I cannot possibly agree to these terms.

Local authorities in London are suffering from painful cuts after the economic downturn and thirteen years of wasteful Labour government. Six London councils had a total of GBP 120 million invested in Icesave; Transport for London invested a further GBP 40 million and London’s Metropolitan Police, GBP 30 million. These councils and organisations have not seen a penny of their money back since the Bank’s collapse in October 2008.

The Icelandic Government is dodging its legal obligation to pay minimum compensation to these and other British debtors. Margaret Thatcher once said: we are simply asking to have our own money back. That is what we are asking of Iceland. Until they pay up, I cannot support their membership.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). - (FI) Mr President, in the midst of the European economic crisis, even we politicians have all too often forgotten how much stability, prosperity and well-being the European Union has also produced for its Member States.

Iceland’s economy and financial sector are recovering. In Iceland, the European Union will be getting a Member State with a history that goes back a long way, strong democratic traditions, and an active civil society. Iceland will function in the EU as a strategic bridgehead in the Arctic region. At the same time, it also has a good deal of know-how in the area of renewable energy.

Iceland already meets the Copenhagen criteria and is thus eligible for EU membership. Nevertheless, Iceland’s accession to the EU should not be taken for granted. For example, a threshold issue is the ending of whaling. The EU accession process proceeds on the basis of each country’s achievements. We can, however, congratulate ourselves on the fact that the Icelander’s eagerness to join us shows that the EU is still an attractive prospect.

  David Campbell Bannerman (ECR). - Mr President, I voted against Iceland joining the EU because I think, as two-thirds of Icelandic people thought in a poll just last month, that Iceland would be mad to join the EU.

Mad because membership would destroy Iceland’s key industry – fishing – through the disastrous common fisheries policy, just as it has destroyed 100 000 jobs in the UK in fishing and nearly all the fishing in my own constituency of the East of England. Mad because they would have to join the disastrous euro as well and abandon the free floating króna, which has brought a boom in exports. Mad, too, because its economy would be weighed down with a barrage of EU red tape. Its growth rate is currently 3.1%, whereas the EU’s GDP forecast is 0 for this year. Why risk it?

As for Icesave, there are other legal mechanisms outside the EU, such as the EFTA court, which has already ruled that Iceland must pay up.

So we must stop kidding ourselves in the EU that Iceland wants to join. Iceland’s sane option, as I believe Britain’s is too, is to stay proud, independent and self-governing.

  Diane Dodds (NI). - Mr President, there is a constituency within the United Kingdom whose advice to Iceland would be to learn from the UK’s mistake and stay out of the EU. Another opinion this Parliament should consider is that, if you apply for membership of any club, you usually precede your application with a clear demonstration of your eligibility for membership by complying with the existing rules of the club.

In respect of fisheries management, specifically regarding mackerel, Iceland has ignored such a commitment and wants to rewrite the rules before it joins the club. If this Parliament has any principles, it should send a clear message to Iceland that its behaviour in respect of mackerel is unacceptable and sets a dangerous precedent in terms of how Iceland might flout the EU’s plethora of other regulations.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). - (RO) Mr President, I voted in favour of the report of Mr Cristian Preda because it offers a balanced assessment of the status of accession negotiations with Iceland. This country could become an enlargement success story. Its integration can bring economic benefits, but it can also strengthen the EU's foreign policy, with regard as well to the transatlantic relationship. It would also help develop the Arctic dimension of regional policy. Moreover, Iceland's progress can have beneficial effects in terms of stimulating the other candidate countries. At the same time, due attention should be paid to public information and communication, given the existing differences in Iceland regarding the European integration project.

Finally, I wish to welcome Iceland’s decision to lift labour market restrictions for Romanian workers. I believe it contributes to strengthening the European Economic Area.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, I endorsed this report because I think that the European Union should enlarge, and that it should enlarge to include all countries which share our values – countries which are democratic, which respect human rights and which respect the conditions necessary for a free economy and free management of the economy. This is certainly true in the case of Iceland.

In my opinion, what has happened in Iceland in recent years should be instructive – for us in the European Union too. I am thinking of the very serious crisis – the unprecedented financial and political crisis – and also of the ways in which Iceland is recovering from this crisis. I think there are very many reasons why it would be good if the European Union enlarged to include Iceland, but, of course, we have to remember that it takes two to tango. For Iceland to become a member of the European Union, the will of Iceland’s voters and citizens is needed as well.

Motion for a resolution: B7-0129/2012

  Eduard Kukan (PPE). - Mr President, I voted in favour of the resolution on Bosnia and Herzegovina. I hope that it will send a message for reflection to the politicians in the country and that it will stimulate them to engage with the reforms which the country urgently needs. I would also like to stress in this connection that it is of the upmost importance that the politicians in Bosnia and Herzegovina find the courage and political will to work together.

Culture of compromise and constructive dialogue is the key for the future progress of the country. Major issues such as constitutional reform, reform of the judiciary and further economic and social reforms would not be possible without common effort. I believe that progress of the country in the future development and integration processes is in the interests of our security and stability of the region but, most importantly, in the interests of European citizens and the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). - (RO) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report because the prolonged political deadlock has affected the progress of Bosnia and Herzegovina and its European course. I hope that the formation of government will allow the pursuit of necessary reforms to strengthen democracy, the rule of law and economic development. The positive internal climate gives this country the opportunity to move forward in its relationship with the EU. I hope this opportunity will be utilised.

The EU has an important role in this respect: to identify ways to encourage positive developments. However, it must avoid taking positions that could cause internal tensions in this country. I welcome the progress made by Sarajevo in improving the situation of the Roma, but it must be continued. I reiterate the importance of full implementation of the mining sector strategy, the subject matter of an amendment I tabled, for ensuring complete security of all citizens.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, I voted along with the ECR in favour of the enlargement report on Bosnia and Herzegovina.

We believe that the report highlights some important issues in this complex and divided country. Particularly important is the need for the central state and its institutions in Sarajevo to be strengthened and respected before it can progress further, and we support the proposition that EU presence in the country should be increased.

The fight against corruption in the country must also be continued robustly and the report calls for reform in many areas, particularly of the judiciary and education systems and in the protection of minorities, which, of course, are extremely important topics.

The BiH Government must also address the rise of imported Wahhabi extremism in the region and must investigate the security threat that it poses. The report is right to highlight this, as radicalising one section of the community against another confession does not augur well for the future, for peace or for nation-building in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, Bosnia and Herzegovina is the country which suffered most as a result of the long war in the Balkans. It is still regularly troubled by domestic unrest, such as that caused by the intensification of Wahhabi extremism throughout the region. In view of the complicated power structure, the formation of a new government should be seen as grounds for optimism, while we should also encourage full implementation of the agreement made by political party leaders, including dialogue to ensure that budgetary procedures and essential reforms are carried out efficiently. In addition, Brussels’ commitment, as seen in its extension of the role of the Special Representative, allows us to help in efforts for progress on issues related to acceleration of the process of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s accession to the Union. I would also like to express the hope that matters related to charges of war crimes and the elimination of terrorist threats will be settled. I also welcome the intensified efforts of the governments of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Croatia to resolve outstanding issues, including the extension of regional cooperation in the field of security. This is why I voted for adoption of the resolution.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, Bosnia and Herzegovina is a place which has special significance, and I have no hesitation in saying that Bosnia and Herzegovina is the guilty conscience of Europe today. Almost 20 years ago, this former Yugoslav republic witnessed the most horrific crimes to be committed in Europe since the Second World War. At the time, a helpless West looked on at it all and did not help – something I think we still regret today – and we and the majority of all the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina who lost fathers and children still find this a cause for weeping.

Therefore, it seems today that help given to Bosnia and Herzegovina in its European aspirations represents the payment of a specific kind of moral debt which Europe has to this special place. We can see a great many problems in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but the coexistence in one country of people of different faiths and nationalities also presents many opportunities. Let us hope that the peaceful development of Bosnia and Herzegovina will continue, and that the country will find a place in the European Union.

  Ewald Stadler (NI). – (DE) Mr President, I acknowledge that Ms Pack’s report contains some important elements, including warnings against Islamic fundamentalism and Wahhabism. I also share the report’s fundamental scepticism. Nevertheless, I have voted against the report because it is based on the wrong European Union policy towards Bosnia and Herzegovina. We cannot turn the country into a single unified state from the outside. Many speakers have recognised that fact. I was surprised to hear statements of this kind from the Greens and the Liberals. Even the European Union cannot create a single unified state from the outside and, most importantly, it cannot make Bosnia and Herzegovina into a permanent protectorate of the EU. That is precisely what we are trying to do at the moment. Over the last 20 years, this country has not been able to establish the structures of a unified state. It is not even in a position to draw up a budget for 2012. It is not able to appoint directors of public agencies. Therefore, we cannot assume that this country will be capable of becoming a single unified state in the decades to come. The EU’s policy is wrong and, therefore, I have voted against this report.

Written explanations of vote

Report: João Ferreira (A7-0447/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report because it is important to continue supporting the economies most affected by the economic crisis. This report explains well the need to increase the allocations from the European Fisheries Fund to Hungary, Romania, Latvia, Portugal, Greece and Ireland, as well as to others that may need to be bailed out in future. The Commission should retain this measure throughout the period in which these countries are in receipt of financial assistance.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of this resolution concerning the additional measures for EFF programmes in order to facilitate the management of EU funding, to help accelerate investments in Member States and regions and to improve the availability of funding to the economy. The previously adopted measures under the 2008 regulation were not sufficient any more though the additional advance payments made to the Member States have provided an immediate cash injection of EUR 293 million, within the financial envelope agreed for each Member State for the 2007-2013 period. I agree with the Commission proposal to allow an increase in interim payments from the European Fisheries Fund by an amount corresponding to 10% above the actual cofinancing rate for each priority axis for the Member States which are facing serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability. This increase will not impose additional financial requirements on the overall budget but will facilitate the implementation of the programmes and will minimise the burden on the national budgets.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The global economic and financial crisis has had a significant impact on European states. The citizens' income level has decreased considerably, while many others are faced with the unfortunate situation of losing their jobs at a time when the signals coming from the economic environment are not necessarily promising, and the creation of new jobs does not seem to accelerate. In these circumstances, I believe it is essential to provide European sectoral support to economies in difficulty.

Improving cooperation between European countries and authorities, alongside launching concrete actions to improve the absorption capacity of Member States may be one of the solutions that help overcome the effects of the economic and financial crisis. Sectoral financing, together with the possibility of ad hoc, temporary and limited derogation from European regulations, are suitable solutions to the challenges currently faced by EU citizens and economies. I voted in favour of this report.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Fisheries Fund (EFF) entered into force in January 2007. It aimed to improve the sector’s competitiveness and help make it viable from an environmental, social and economic standpoint. To achieve this objective, it was granted a budget of EUR 3.8 billion for the period 2007-2013. However, some countries are experiencing difficulties and have been particularly affected by the sovereign debt crisis. Since it is the spirit of EU solidarity that makes Europe great, I have approved the Commission proposal to increase Union cofinancing for the countries facing the greatest difficulties, with a corresponding reduction in the national effort required in order to take up funding.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report. As the financial and economic crisis continues, the Member States are applying budgetary constraints and reducing national budgets and, consequently, there is a risk that cohesion programmes will not be properly implemented on time. The implementation of these programmes can have a positive impact on the Member States’ recovery from the recession and their future economic and social development. This proposal is aimed at ensuring additional pre-financing for the European Fisheries Fund programmes for six Member States (Hungary, Romania, Latvia, Portugal, Greece and Ireland), which receive EU financial support under the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism and the Balance of Payments Mechanism. Given that this proposal will not have an impact on the EU budget because it is only the ceiling for pre-financing payments that is being increased and not the financial package envisaged for these Member States for fisheries fund programmes over the period 2007-2013, I welcome this proposal so that we can help these Member States overcome the financial crisis by guaranteeing the money required to support projects and economic recovery.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because I think that the measures being proposed in this document must be implemented as soon as possible. The prolonged economic crisis has increased the disparities in terms of productivity in the fisheries sector throughout the European Union. This is why I welcomed the funds being topped up to encourage investment, especially as part of regional projects. However, specific measures are required to facilitate rapid absorption of the funds provided by the Commission at national level.

My country is one of the beneficiaries of this fund, both for sea and inland fishing. Thanks to the report, the financial measures proposed in it will be applied retrospectively from 1 January 2010. The reduction in red tape brought about by these initiatives will encourage the modernisation of the fisheries sector and diversification of the activities carried out by the fishing communities.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The sustained financial and economic crisis has put increasing pressure on national financial resources. In this context, ensuring a smooth implementation of cohesion programmes takes on particular importance as a tool for injecting funds into the economy. Nonetheless, the liquidity problems resulting from budget constraints are making it difficult to implement the programmes, particularly in the Member States which have been most affected by the crisis. In order to ensure that the Member States continue the implementation of the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) programmes on the ground and disburse funds to projects, the Commission proposes to increase Community cofinancing for the countries facing the greatest difficulties, with a corresponding reduction in the national effort required in order to take up funding. I welcome the Commission’s proposal, although I do share Mr Ferreira’s concerns over some parts of it. The Commission should assess the extent to which this measure will indeed ‘provide the Member States concerned with the funds necessary to support projects and the recovery of the economy’. Moreover, I think that the Commission needs to reconfigure the priorities of the EFF so that they are primarily focused on supporting productive activity and the development of coastal communities.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this European Parliament report because alongside measures designed to encourage greater take-up of the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) appropriations by the Member States, the priorities of the EFF itself also need to be reconfigured. Money from the fund should, above all, be focused on supporting productive activity, such as fleet renewal and modernisation, increased sustainability, improved selectivity of fishing gear and the development of coastal communities. The European Commission should assess the extent to which this measure will indeed provide the Member States concerned with the funds necessary to support projects and revive the economy. It should be pointed out that, even under the new conditions, the restrictions on investment imposed by the so-called assistance programmes may still make it difficult to mobilise the national effort required. The Commission will therefore have to consider both the need to lift these restrictions on investment and the possibility of further reducing national cofinancing. The Commission proposal does not increase the budget available for each of the countries that are experiencing difficulties. The practical result of reducing the national effort will be that a comparatively lower overall amount of appropriations will be channelled into investment in the sector. The growth prospects opened up by the investment made will thus also be reduced. The cohesion principle itself is again being called into question, and the Commission should therefore look into the possibility of increasing the funds available to these countries.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The economic and financial crisis has had, and continues to have, an impact in different EU Member States. The Romanian fish market is small compared to EU countries, the total turnover of the sector being estimated at around EUR 40 million. Currently, there are around 340 000 fish farms and 48 trout farms in Romania. Private beneficiaries of funding from the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) were seriously affected by the credit crunch also in their country of origin, which led to a low rate of take-up of the available funding.

Alongside measures designed to encourage greater take-up of EFF appropriations by the Member States, I think the priorities of the EFF itself need to be reconfigured so that they are primarily focused on supporting productive activity and the development of coastal communities. For these reasons, I welcome the Commission’s proposal to increase Community cofinancing for the countries facing the greatest difficulties, with a corresponding reduction in the national effort required in order to take up funding.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I am pleased that Mr Ferreira’s report was adopted at first reading. Indeed, the current economic environment made it necessary to reach a quick agreement on the crisis measures proposed by the Commission to address the lack of cofinancing by some Member States experiencing financial difficulties. I approve of the proposal to increase the maximum rate of cofinancing by ten percentage points. This is an additional guarantee of the European Fisheries Fund’s successful implementation. This agreement shows that European solidarity means more than just words. It is important to remember that the new mechanisms put in place will have no impact on the next budgetary programming period.

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the joint motion for a resolution amending Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 on the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) because I share its real sense of urgency, given the crisis that is gnawing away at the fisheries sector and, hence, the Member States involved.

I therefore find the Commission’s proposal on this subject more than worthy of support. The measures included would genuinely accelerate Member States’ investments in the affected regions, simplify the management of EU funding and increase the availability of funds for the economy. Another reason why I decided to vote in favour of the proposal is that, under the rules put forward, one of the plusses of the increase in EFF payments will be that it will not impose any burden on the general budget and will be applied to all future expenses incurred by the affected Member States.

Ergo, I wanted to declare my most sincere interest in the adoption of the reform on funding for the fisheries sector, which will certainly improve the current state of penury, in which small-scale fishing businesses are hampered by the effects of the current economic crisis and current measures in this area.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In 2008, the Council adopted a regulation, based on a Commission proposal, in response to the crisis and its socio-economic consequences. In the context of this package, the regulation provides for a series of legislative changes intended to provide additional pre-financing through payments advanced for European Fisheries Fund (EFF) programmes. The anticipated additional payments made to Member States will immediately inject EUR 293 million, as part of the funding agreed for the 2007-2013 period. The Commission believes there is now a need to take additional measures to facilitate the management of EU funds, so as to aid and accelerate investment in the Member States and regions and to improve the availability of finance for the economy, and is proposing an increase in intermediate payments from the EFF. This increase will not impose additional financial requirements on the overall budget, since the total financial allocation to the EFF for countries and programmes during the period at issue will not change. The amendments proposed by the rapporteur mean that this proposal will help the Member States to make better use of the EFF, so I am voting for this report.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Although it is late in coming, I welcome the Commission’s proposal on the European Fisheries Fund. Given the urgency of the matter, I think that its approval at first reading, in the form presented by the Commission, bodes well, in spite of the limitations it has.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report recommending further assistance for fishing activities in those Member States experiencing serious economic difficulties, particularly south-west France, following the crisis. This temporary assistance should provide Member States with more resources with which to support their fishermen and safeguard their level of fish production.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) because I am in favour of the European Commission’s proposal to support the Member States most affected by the crisis, so as to enable the continuation of EFF programmes.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Member States in serious financial difficulties, including Portugal, need particular help from the EU, in order for there to be a response to problems they are experiencing that is based not just on the determination of the affected peoples and governments, but on European cohesion and solidarity. To this end, and bearing in mind the particularly difficult and demanding situation of those Member States, the Commission has proposed amendments to Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006, intended to facilitate their access to funding. The urgent nature of this measure and the need for support that the Member States are demonstrating justify their immediate adoption. I hope that this support will be able to breathe new life into the sector.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, drafted by Mr Ferreira, concerns the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 on the European Fisheries Fund, as regards certain provisions relating to financial management for certain Member States experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability. The economic and financial crisis that we are experiencing has disproportionately hit coastal communities dedicated to fishing. Although I am convinced we could have gone further, it is not possible to increase the available funds, so I agree with the 10% increase in cofinancing rates for countries in difficulties, as well as the other measures provided for. This is an instrument that, as well as improving the previous regulation in environmental terms, will help consolidate the regional economy and preserve fisheries resources. I therefore welcome the adoption of this report, since it constitutes an instrument for helping fishing communities that are undergoing periods of major difficulties and which are located in regions that benefit from convergence funding, thereby contributing to minimising the negative effects of the present economic and financial crisis.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) As with other EU funds such as the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund (ESF), this proposed amendment to the regulation on the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) does not constitute proof of EU solidarity. It only constitutes a sign of flexibility; necessary, certainly, but too little too late. The Commission must therefore consider and respond to the reservations and suggestions that we set out in the report, in particular, those regarding the need to increase the funding available to the countries in question. In addition to measures facilitating increased take-up of EFF funds by Member States, the priorities of the EFF itself must be rethought, gearing it primarily towards support for the productive activity and development of coastal communities, for the rejuvenation of the sector, for employment and vocational training, and for the renovation and modernisation of the fleet and of the infrastructure that support the fishing industry. The amendments proposed by the Council under pressure from certain countries, such as Germany, which will eventually also be included in this report owing to the proposal by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), seem to us both superfluous and inappropriate. However, we believe that, in the present situation, it is urgent that this proposal be passed at first reading, despite its obvious limitations.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the proposal because it increases Community cofinancing for the countries facing the greatest difficulties, with a corresponding reduction in the national effort required in order to take up funding. This whole issue is very important and today’s vote finally takes stock of that fact. We must remember that the coastal communities most heavily dependent on fisheries have not escaped the current crisis, on top of which we must unfortunately consider the problems caused by years of decline and disintegration.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The global financial crisis and economic downturn have seriously damaged economic growth and financial stability, leading to a substantial deterioration in financial and economic conditions in several Member States. In spite of the actions that have already been taken to counterbalance the negative effects of the crisis, its impact on the real economy, labour market and citizens can still be clearly seen.

The aim of the submitted proposal is to provide increased support from the European Fisheries Fund to the Member States that have serious problems (or face the threat of such problems) relating, in particular, to economic growth and financial stability and to worsening deficits and debt. The proposal represents an attempt to help Member States in their efforts to overcome the financial crisis, and aims to provide the Member States affected with the resources necessary for supporting projects and economic recovery.

The current situation requires a rapid response to mitigate the negative impact not only on fisheries as such, but also on the economy as a whole, and I therefore believe that the regulation before us should enter into force as soon as possible and apply retroactively to the period during which Member States received financial assistance from the EU or other euro area Member States, in order to address the serious difficulties concerning their financial stability.

  Mikael Gustafsson (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (SV) I voted in favour of the report. However, I support the agreement reached at the UN conference on biological diversity (in October 2010 in Nagoya), which, among other things, established that all subsidies that threaten fish stocks and the environment should be abolished. The economic crisis in Europe was caused by the dysfunction of the euro and financial speculation. It is important that we abandon this neoliberal policy. I am, however, able to support short-term proposals involving the easing of the austerity policy in countries that are hard hit, provided this will not contribute to overfishing or have negative consequences for the environment.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because the global financial crisis and the unprecedented economic downturn have seriously damaged economic growth and financial stability and provoked a strong deterioration of financial and economic conditions in several Member States. Certain Member States are experiencing, or are threatened with, serious difficulties, notably, those connected with problems in terms of economic growth and financial stability and a deterioration in their deficit and debt position, due to the international economic and financial environment. Whilst important actions to counterbalance the negative effects of the crisis have already been taken, including amendments to the legislative framework, the impact of the financial crisis on the real economy, the labour market and citizens is being widely felt. The pressure on national financial resources is increasing and further steps should now be taken to alleviate that pressure through the maximum and optimal use of the funding from the European Fisheries Fund. This proposal is aimed at ensuring additional pre-financing for European Fisheries Fund programmes for Hungary, Romania, Latvia, Portugal, Greece and Ireland, which receive EU financial support under the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism and the Balance of Payments Mechanism. It is also worth mentioning that this proposal will have no effect on the EU budget.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In 2008, the Council adopted a regulation in response to the crisis and its socio-economic consequences. The Commission felt it was necessary to take further action to facilitate the management of Union funding, to help accelerate investments in Member States and regions, and to improve the availability of funding to the economy. Mr Ferreira’s report supports the Commission’s proposals. I voted in favour of this report during the vote in plenary.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The sustained economic crisis is causing enormous disruption in many of the Member States, particularly in the implementation of EU cohesion programmes. The European Commission is proposing a 10% increase in cofinancing under the European Fisheries Fund, which will not affect the overall budget, because the allocation of funds from the European Development Fund will not change in this period.

The changes which have taken place in the fisheries sector during the crisis have principally affected coastal communities, where, for some time now, a fall in investment has been observable which has resulted in imbalances within the EU. Therefore, we need stronger targeting of the European Fisheries Fund than exists at present to support production and guarantee the development of local communities. The proposal to increase assistance for the countries with the greatest problems is very definitely worthy of support. The Commission proposal does not, however, concern Regulation (EC) No 861/2006, which talks about financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy, something which is surely crucial for the sustainable development of this sector.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I endorsed this report. The European Fisheries Fund will help improve the availability of funding granted in this sector and ensure its sustainable use, and it is also intended to ensure better design of this funding. Poland wants to use the EFF to be able to modernise the sector and make good use of money which is awarded. I hope that with efficient administration, the fund will serve these purposes. Once again, by endorsing the report, I have expressed the conviction that the fund will not be used to close down Poland’s Baltic fishing industry, but to contribute to its modernisation and development.

  Kartika Tamara Liotard (GUE/NGL), in writing. – I have voted in favour of this report. However, I support the agreement on biodiversity from the UN meeting held in Nagoya in October 2010, which stated that all subsidies that threaten fish stocks should be abolished. The economic crisis in Europe was created by the dysfunctionality of the euro and by financial speculation. It is important that those neoliberal policies are changed. I can support short-term proposals to ensure that austerity policies are eased in countries that are very badly affected, but only when this does not contribute to overfishing or negative environmental impacts.

  Ramona Nicole Mănescu (ALDE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the report on the European Fisheries Fund because I think it is important to have a sustainable fishing strategy and because any regulation amendment meant to facilitate rapid implementation of EU funded programmes will have an immediate and real impact on the economies of the Member States most affected by the crisis. With the financial and economic crisis increasingly reducing national financial resources, I believe it is vital to take appropriate measures to ensure a smooth implementation of operational programmes. Unfortunately, austerity measures imposed at national level had the immediate effect of significantly reducing the national cofinancing capacity, seriously affecting beneficiaries and citizens in the first instance and leading to a low rate of take-up of available funding.

Therefore, the Commission proposal is welcome because we need to help local, regional and national authorities to access as much of their share of European funding as possible. However, at the same time, the Commission should call upon national governments to submit regular reports on the use of this money, so as to make sure it is used most effectively.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this proposal. The Commission recognises that the sustained financial and economic crisis is increasing the pressure on national financial resources. In this context, it considers ensuring a smooth implementation of cohesion programmes to be of particular importance as a tool for injecting funds into the economy. Nonetheless, the liquidity problems resulting from budget constraints are making it difficult to implement the programmes, particularly in the Member States which have been most affected by the crisis. In order to ensure that these Member States continue the implementation of the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) programmes on the ground and disburse funds to projects, the Commission proposal contains provisions that would allow increased payments to be made to these countries for the period they are under the support mechanisms. This increase will not impose any additional financial burden on the overall budget.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In order to ensure that Member States continue the implementation of the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) programmes on the ground and disburse funds to projects, even at a time of financial crisis like the present, we believe that a top-up of ten percentage points should be applied to the cofinancing rates applicable to the priority axis of the programmes for newly certified expenditure submitted during the period in question.

This increase will not involve additional financial costs on the EU budget, since the total financial allocation for the period from the EFF to the countries and the programmes in question will not change. This Commission proposal, to increase Community cofinancing for the countries facing the greatest difficulties, has long been necessary and comes unjustifiably late. Bearing in mind the urgency of the situation, we agree with the rapporteur that it should be adopted at first reading as it stands, notwithstanding a number of limitations that it presents.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Ferreira. The Commission proposal to increase Community cofinancing for the countries facing the greatest difficulties, with a corresponding reduction in the national effort required in order to take up funding, has long been a necessity for many people and I, like Mr Ferreira, fear it has come rather late. Accordingly, it should be approved with great urgency.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The sustained financial and economic crisis is increasing the pressure on national financial resources. In this context, I consider ensuring a smooth implementation of cohesion programmes to be of particular importance as a tool for injecting funds into the economy. Nonetheless, the liquidity problems resulting from budget constraints are making it difficult to implement the programmes, particularly in the Member States which have been most affected by the crisis. In order to ensure that these Member States continue the implementation of the European Fisheries Fund programmes on the ground and disburse funds to projects, the Commission proposal contains provisions that would allow increased payments to be made to these countries for the period they are under the support mechanisms. More specifically, it is proposed that a top-up of ten percentage points will be applied to the cofinancing rates applicable to the priority axis of the programmes for newly certified expenditure submitted during the period in question.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – I agree if the objective is to help those Member States most affected by the financial crisis to continue their programmes on the ground funded by the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) so as to inject funds into the economy. To date, six countries have financial assistance under these mechanisms and have agreed with the Commission a macro-economic adjustment programme: Hungary, Romania, Latvia, Portugal, Greece and Ireland. These Member States (and indeed any other Member State which may be concerned in the future by such assistance programmes) should receive help to continue the implementation of the programmes funded by the EFF by increasing the sums allocated to the countries concerned for the period for which they are under the support mechanisms. In order to ensure that these Member States continue the implementation of the EFF programmes on the ground and disburse funds to projects, the current proposal contains provisions that would allow the Commission to make increased payments to these countries, for the period they are under the support mechanisms. Bearing in mind that its approval is a matter of urgency, I am in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The European Fisheries Fund (EFF) is the subsidy programme for fisheries policy in the EU. The goals of the EFF include promoting sustainable development in the fisheries industry, increasing the competitiveness of the businesses and establishing economically viable companies in the fisheries sector. It also aims to provide better protection for the environment. One important objective is to put an end to overfishing in many European waters and secure the future of the European fisheries industry. Around EUR 3.9 billion in funding is available for the period from 2007 to 2013. Almost EUR 3 billion of this is destined for areas with below-average economic growth. The remaining funding will be distributed across the other EU Member States, together with a small amount which will be administered directly by the European Commission. I did not vote in favour of the report because, as the rapporteur noted, the Commission should, first of all, determine to what extent funding must be made available to support projects and stimulate economic recovery. In addition, there is a concern that the money could be distributed unfairly.

  Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report to lend my support to the proposal made by the Commission, which now feels it necessary to take further action to facilitate the management of Union funding, to help accelerate investments in Member States and regions, and to improve the availability of funding to the economy. Above all, however, the Commission proposes increasing interim payments from the European Fisheries Fund by an amount corresponding to ten percentage points above the actual cofinancing rate for each priority axis for Member States which are facing serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability. This is another response to the economic and social consequences of the crisis, in addition to that of the Council in 2008, which led to the adoption of a Council decision granting assistance to a Member State through support mechanisms.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) Historically, fisheries policy is one of the most important EU policies. It is therefore to be welcomed that the European Commission is taking the implementation and funding of this policy seriously. As certain EU Member States face economic difficulties, it is important to ensure that the funding of the common fisheries policy does not suffer as a result. In particular, given the fact that in the new financial programming period, we will move towards common fisheries policy sustainability and stock conservation, it is important for the sector itself to be protected and ready for change.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the report, which allows for the implementation of an important Commission proposal to unblock the use of European funds in the fishing industry. Due to the lack of liquidity it has generated, the financial crisis has caused additional difficulties in securing cofinancing in some Member States. This is the most important obstacle to effective use of all types of European funding, along with the impossibility of ensuring, in many cases, private cofinancing of investments.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) According to the Commission proposal, the budget available for each of the countries that are experiencing difficulties in the area of fisheries policy will not be increased. The consequence is that, because of the smaller national contribution, an even lower overall amount will be invested in the fisheries industry. The cohesion principle itself is being called into question and, therefore, the Commission should look into the possibility of increasing the funds available to those countries with problems. The rules on clearing public account deficits should separate investment spending from other public spending. Investment should not be included in the calculations in order to prevent budgetary consolidation from taking priority over economic growth. Subsidies for projects to promote economic growth in the industry are urgently needed. Until these are made available, the consolidation process cannot be stabilised and, therefore, I have voted against the report.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcome this resolution, which proposes increasing assistance from the European Fisheries Fund by ten percentage points for Member States facing financial difficulties. Attention is drawn to the fact that the economic and financial crisis has manifested itself in different ways in different Member States and will continue to do so. Consequently, it is appropriate for those countries hit particularly hard by the crisis to be allocated greater payments so that they can continue to implement European Fisheries Fund programmes without interruption. It should be noted that increased payments would only be paid for a certain period until the country overcomes specific difficulties.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In order to ensure that the Member States continue the implementation of the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) programmes on the ground and disburse funds to projects, the Commission proposal contains provisions that would allow increased payments to be made to these countries for the period they are under the support mechanisms. This increase will not impose any additional financial burden on the overall budget, since the total financial allocation for the period from the EFF to the countries and the programmes in question will not change. Accordingly, I am voting in favour of the proposal.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The present economic and financial crisis means that increased EU cofinancing for the countries facing the worst difficulties, with the corresponding reduction in national contributions in order to be able to make use of funds, has been urgently needed for a long time. The coastal communities most dependent on fishing are therefore facing a difficult situation, which results in both a lack of capacity for private investment, particularly by small and medium-sized enterprises, and a lack of public investment. As such, I welcome the Commission proposal, since it ensures that these Member States continue the implementation of the European Fisheries Fund programmes and provides for the possibility of increasing payments to be made to the countries facing greatest difficulties. I voted in favour for these reasons.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The Commission recognises that the sustained financial and economic crisis is increasing the pressure on national financial resources. In this context, it considers ensuring the smooth implementation of cohesion programmes to be of particular importance as a tool for injecting funds into the economy. Nonetheless, the liquidity problems resulting from budget constraints are making it difficult to implement the programmes, particularly in the Member States which have been most affected by the crisis. In order to ensure that these Member States continue the implementation of the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) programmes on the ground and disburse funds to projects, the Commission proposal contains provisions that would allow increased payments to be made to these countries for the period they are under the support mechanisms. More specifically, it is proposed that a top-up of ten percentage points will be applied to the cofinancing rates applicable to the priority axis of the programmes for newly certified expenditure submitted during the period in question. In applying the top-up, the cofinancing rate of the programme cannot exceed by more than ten percentage points the maximum ceilings set in Article 53(3) of the EFF Regulation (75% and 50% respectively for eligible and non-eligible regions under the Convergence Objective).

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this text because I am convinced of the importance of the Commission’s proposal to increase Community cofinancing for the countries facing the greatest difficulties on this front. The sustained financial and economic crisis is actually increasing the pressure on national financial resources. In order to ensure that the Member States continue the implementation of the European Fisheries Fund, we need to increase the payments to be made to these countries for the period they are under the support mechanisms.

  Kārlis Šadurskis (PPE), in writing. – (LV) The sustained financial and economic crisis in Europe has greatly increased the pressure on national financial resources and has limited the injection of funds into the economy with the aid of cohesion programmes. The proposal, which has been adopted as a matter of urgency, for a regulation on the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) as regards financial management for certain Member States experiencing serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability, will enable the European Commission to make increased payments to, for example, Ireland, Hungary, Latvia, Portugal, Romania and Greece, for the period they are under the support mechanisms. This temporary top-up will amount to 10% of the cofinancing rates applicable to the priority axis of EFF programmes. This proposal drew considerable support from the European Parliament, including my vote, regardless of the deficiencies to which Parliament drew the European Commission’s attention.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of Mr Ferreira’s report because I consider that, as a result of the economic and credit crisis in Europe, we need to speed up and facilitate funding by the European Fisheries Fund, especially for the economically weaker countries which have been hard hit by the crisis. We need to help in this direction for the sake of growth and jobs in this sector.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of these amendments to the European Fisheries Fund. The measure will involve no cost to the EU because the funds advanced to Member States in economic difficulties will be offset before the end of the programme. It is right to pay these funds in advance because otherwise, countries that have suffered more than others in the economic crisis will not be able to implement the projects for funding a delicate area like the fishing industry. It is a rightful act of solidarity.

  Antolín Sánchez Presedo (S&D), in writing. – (ES) The economic crisis and budgetary restrictions are having an impact on the European Fisheries Fund, particularly in those Member States with macro-economic adjustment programmes: Hungary, Romania, Latvia, Portugal, Greece and Ireland. The third report on the EFF (2009) noted that austerity measures had constrained national cofinancing and the credit crunch had affected private beneficiaries, reducing their ability to access and use these funds, and compromising the aims of cohesion. I support the amendment to Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 so that, while such support mechanisms exist, the Commission can address increases in payments to the affected countries. For newly certified expenditure submitted during the period in question, it is proposed that a top-up of ten percentage points will be applied to the priority axis of the programmes, with no increase in the total financial allocation. The new cofinancing conditions of 15% and 40% respectively for eligible and non-eligible regions under the Convergence Objective could, however, present an obstacle to this mobilisation. We need to consider whether it needs to be reduced further. Furthermore, it would be appropriate to reconfigure the possibilities of the EFF itself and incorporate the financial instrument established in Regulation (EC) No 861/2006.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The sustained financial and economic crisis is exercising increasing pressure on national financial resources, in different ways depending on the Member State. Particularly over the past decade, we have seen an accentuation of the disparities and imbalances within the EU: the consequences of these imbalances take many forms. One is the capacity to access and utilise Community funds. Bearing this in mind, the priorities of the European Fisheries Fund need to be reconfigured so that they are primarily focused on supporting productive activity – such as fleet renewal and modernisation, increased sustainability, improved selectivity of fishing gear, and engine replacement – and the development of coastal communities. This vote therefore provides a stimulus for the implementation of the common fisheries policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea.

  Søren Bo Søndergaard (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (DA) I voted in favour of the report, but I support the biodiversity agreement reached at the UN summit in Nagoya in October 2010, which declared that all subsidy arrangements which threaten fish stocks should be abolished. The economic crisis in the EU is a result of financial speculation and the inherently defective way in which the euro was set up. It is important that this policy is amended. I am, however, able to support interim proposals that will ensure that the consequences of austerity policies are alleviated in countries that have been hard hit, but only if this does not contribute to overfishing or have a negative impact on the environment.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In order to ensure that the Member States continue the implementation of the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) programmes on the ground and disburse funds to projects, the Commission has proposed provisions that would allow increased payments to be made to these countries relating to their financial stability for the period they are under the support mechanisms. It is therefore proposed that a top-up of ten percentage points will be applied to the cofinancing rates applicable to the priority axis of the programmes for newly certified expenditure submitted during the period in question. This increase will not lead to additional financial burdens on the overall budget, since the total financial allocation to the EFF for the countries in question during the period at issue will not be changed. Since I consider this measure important and urgently needed, I voted for Parliament’s position, which results from the amendments tabled by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), to which I belong.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the proposal for a regulation on the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) as regards certain provisions relating to financial management for certain Member States experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability. The pressure that national financial resources are exposed to is increasing all the time, necessitating additional measures to ease this pressure, by making the best and maximum use of EFF funding. I voted for the proposal to increase EU cofinancing for the countries facing financial difficulties, with a corresponding reduction in the national contribution required in order to use the funds during the period when these Member States (Ireland, Hungary, Latvia, Portugal and Romania) benefit from the support mechanisms to guarantee that they will continue to implement the EFF programmes.

The regulation proposes a 10% top-up of the cofinancing rates applicable to the priority axis of the programmes for newly certified expenditure submitted during the period in question. In applying the top-up, the programme’s cofinancing rate cannot exceed the maximum ceilings set in Article 53(3) of the EFF Regulation by more than ten percentage points (75% and 50% for eligible and non-eligible regions respectively under the Convergence Objective).

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – The report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 on the European Fisheries Fund points out that some elements are missing from the proposal. Even if more funds are to be allocated, a more precise and detailed proposal should be presented. Neither the report nor the proposal specifies the source of the financial support for the continuation of cohesion programmes. As the rapporteur calls for more details to be added to the Commission’s proposal, I have voted in favour of this report.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We agree with the measures proposed in the report: greater take-up of European Fisheries Fund (EFF) appropriations by the Member States; reconfiguration of the priorities of the EFF itself, so that they are primarily focused on supporting productive activity and the development of coastal communities; support for bringing young people back into the sector, and for jobs and professional training; and renewal and modernisation of the fleet and of support infrastructure for fishing. Despite some of the report’s limitations, we believe the measures therein to be urgently needed and conclusive, so we voted in favour.

Report: Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl (A7-0025/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) The proposed solution to the dispute on hormones in beef is in line with the thinking of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, since it enables the suspension of sanctions on European Union products, whilst guaranteeing that meat imported into the European Union meets European standards. This solution is beneficial to European meat producers, who can produce high-quality meat without unfair competition, whilst also increasing their potential market.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of this proposal to amend an existing European Parliament and Council regulation opening an autonomous tariff quota for imports of high-quality beef from the United States and Canada. It will implement the steps set out in the Memoranda of Understanding signed with the US and Canada regarding the importation of Beef from Animals Not Treated with Certain Growth-Promoting Hormones and Increased Duties Applied to Certain Products of the European Communities. The EU will progressively increase to a total of 48 200 tonnes the tariff-rate quota for high-quality beef not treated with growth hormones, and the US and Canada will adequately reduce or suspend sanctions on EU products. I support the position that the settlement of the dispute will guarantee that beef imports will be in line with EU requirements.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) As you know, the export of European veal and beef to the United States was banned for a decade due to US restrictions relating to BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy). The United States has suspended sanctions on some EU products and the European Union is offering significant access to its market for hormone-free beef. We have finally put an end to this dispute. This agreement makes it possible for the Union to keep its ban on hormone-treated beef, in exchange for increased import quotas for high-quality beef from the United States and Canada. As Ms Le Brun and Ms Saïfi of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) said, ‘This is a victory for European diplomacy but, above all, a victory for European consumers. The United States and Canada failed to impose hormone-treated beef on Europeans, who did not want it. Sanctions were not enough to make us change our mind’.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. – I welcome the resolution of the long running trade dispute between the USA and the EU on access for USA and Canadian beef to the EU market. However, I am disappointed that no efforts were made with this Memorandum of Understanding to introduce some reciprocity to the deal. The imminent publication of the US BSE rule, as announced at the weekend, is a significant show of good faith on the part of the US authorities. However, this is the start of a long process, and the EU must ensure that this is not used as a delaying tactic and that all market opportunities are secured for European farmers. As the USA now has the same OIE BSE status as Ireland, the reasons behind the original ban have been eliminated. At present, only 1% of Irish beef is exported to non-EU markets. Given the importance of agriculture to the European economy, we cannot afford not to push for access to large markets such as the USA, and we should take every opportunity for reciprocal deals for our farmers.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report. The dispute between the EU and the US and Canada over the EU ban on beef imports, where the cattle have been fed growth-promoting hormones, has lasted for more than two decades and is having a negative impact on EU producers. Following the ban on imports of such beef into the EU, the US and Canada began to impose trade sanctions on agricultural products imported from the EU, such as beef and pork products, cheese, chocolate, juice, etc., and EU producers have consequently lost a significant share of the market, respectively worth USD 116.8 million and CAD 11.3 million a year. In 2009, during bilateral negotiations, an agreement was reached on the gradual lifting of sanctions imposed on EU agricultural products by the US and Canada, in exchange for an autonomous, zero-duty, tariff-rate quota for high-quality beef not treated with hormones. I welcome this proposal increasing US and Canadian quotas for high-quality beef and dismantling barriers to give EU producers access to the markets in these countries.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this European Parliament report because the final settlement of the beef hormone dispute should create further momentum towards greater economic and commercial integration between the EU and the US and Canada. Notwithstanding possible differences in opinion, the aim should always be to reach a compromise rather than disrupt bilateral trade. By further dismantling trade barriers with its major trading partners, the European Union is demonstrating its commitment to strengthening this long-standing economic relationship in terms of trade. The Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) and their implementation therefore clearly constitute a win-win situation for the trading partners on both sides of the Atlantic. As the US and Canada have already suspended all retaliatory sanctions in the course of 2011, failure to honour the deal on the European side could have very negative political consequences and would damage the transatlantic trade relationship. The conclusion of the legislative procedure will permit the EU to comply with commitments undertaken towards resolving the dispute. Naturally, the Memorandum of Understanding ensures that all beef products shipped under this quota will continue to comply with stringent food safety requirements set out in EU legislation. In particular, doors will not be opened to hormone-treated beef from the US or Canada, or from any other country.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I approve the report on amending Council Regulation (EC) No 617/2009 opening an autonomous tariff quota for imports of high-quality beef from North America. The political value of this measure is of primary importance. It not only puts an end to a tariff war which began with the mad cow scare in the 1990s; it also makes an important contribution to the integration of transatlantic markets, maintaining the EU’s commitment to a rigorous consumer protection and food safety policy.

The expected benefits of the measure reach beyond the calculations presented in the report, due to the well-known interdependence of the markets and market sectors, exceeding the impact of the quota on the specific sector several times over. Furthermore, it is important not to underestimate the significance of the measure as a sign of the effectiveness and dynamism of the institutions, including by putting in place concrete measures to tackle recurring isolationist and insular pressures which, as the crisis continues, may sometimes seem to be attractive placebo solutions for economies and societies riven by tensions and widespread difficulties.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Twenty years of commercial disputes between the EU and North America have come to an end. During this beef hormone war, the WTO condemned the European Union for always refusing to give up its principles, claiming that European consumers could be mistaken about the quality of the imported meat. This agreement makes it possible for the sanctions to be definitively lifted, in exchange for import quotas for guaranteed hormone-free, high-quality beef from the United States and Canada. This solution should satisfy farmers and consumers, both European and North American, and rewards the EU’s dedication to ensuring high-quality food for its citizens.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The purpose of the proposal is to amend a proposal for a regulation opening an autonomous tariff quota for imports of high-quality beef originating in the United States and Canada, so as to bring an end to the long transatlantic dispute on beef hormones. The proposal for a regulation implements the measures provided for in the Memoranda of Understanding signed with the US and Canada regarding imports of meat from animals not treated with certain growth-promoting hormones. The solution to the trade dispute consists of the EU progressively increasing the tariff quota for high-quality beef that has not been treated with growth hormones, while the US and Canada will progressively reduce or suspend sanctions on products coming from the EU. I am voting for this report, since the adoption of this regulation by the European Parliament and the Council will be of mutual benefit, will strengthen transatlantic trade links, and will re-establish confidence by improving market access on both sides of the Atlantic.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the Commission’s proposal on opening an autonomous tariff quota for imports of high-quality beef. I have followed this proposal for a regulation closely as shadow rapporteur for my political group, the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament. I think that it is beneficial to reach a Memorandum of Understanding between the EU and US and between the EU and Canada regarding beef imports. At the same time, the European Union must remain vigilant and defend European consumers’ rights. This is why the European executive must suspend the annual tariff quota if the agreement is not implemented or maintained by the US or Canada. We must be certain that hormone-treated beef imports do not enter the European market.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported this text, which will put an end to the trade dispute that has affected the cross-Atlantic export of products from our land since 1998. The compromise proposed here makes it possible to maintain European health protection requirements, while opening the door to a resurgence of exports of our artisanal products. This is good news for high-quality products.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In 1988, Europe banned the import of beef from animals treated with growth hormones. In 1999, in retaliation, the United States and Canada, with the approval of the WTO, imposed duties on several European products (such as chocolate). Today, the European Parliament has adopted a regulation increasing by 20 000 tonnes (to 48 200 tonnes) the annual Union import tariff quota for high-quality beef from the United States and Canada, from cattle not treated with growth hormones. This agreement makes it possible for the Union to keep its ban on hormone-treated beef, in exchange for increased import quotas for high-quality beef from the United States and Canada and the suspension of sanctions against some European products. This is therefore a crucial step towards ending a dispute that has lasted more than a decade. I welcome this move, which is a victory for European diplomacy but, above all, a victory for European consumers. The United States and Canada failed to impose hormone-treated beef on Europeans, who did not want it.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on ‘an autonomous tariff quota for imports of high-quality beef’, since it includes proposals to bring an end to the disagreement between the EU and US, and to suspend the sanctions imposed on products originating in the EU, whilst guaranteeing that beef imports will meet the EU’s strict standards.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The conflict between the European Union and the United States and Canada on hormone-treated beef demonstrates that two trading blocs with similar standards and concerns regarding food quality and safety can have lasting disagreements that are counterproductive for both. The length of this conflict and the robustness of the sanctions adopted demonstrate that there is benefit in seeking a negotiated solution before taking stances that are too extreme. The unilateral suspension of the sanctions applied to the European Union by the United States and Canada constitutes a positive signal, worthy of a suitable response with the adoption by the EU of an autonomous tariff quota for imports of high-quality beef. That said, I believe that the EU should not yield while it believes the safety of its citizens to be at risk and should seek to raise awareness amongst its partners of the need for them to adopt procedures and types of consumer information enabling them to be adequately and fully informed about the nature of the products that they consume. I want the European Union and the two North American countries to continue their efforts to integrate increasingly their economies, which would benefit companies and consumers greatly.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) For more than 20 years, the European Union, on one side, and the United States and Canada, on the other, have been in dispute over beef hormones, which has negatively affected transatlantic trade relations. The US and Canada responded to the EU’s ban on imports of beef and beef products treated with certain growth-promoting hormones for reasons of consumer protection and food safety, due to the need to protect consumers in food-safety terms, by imposing customs duties on various European products. The aforementioned dispute has been brought to a conclusion with the adoption of the report drafted by Ms Quisthoudt-Rowohl and the consequent passing of the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 617/2009 opening an autonomous tariff quota for imports of high-quality beef. As such, and in view of the opinion of the Committee on International Trade and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I voted for this report, which not only deepens transatlantic trade relations, but also suspends all sanctions against the EU imposed on European products in trade terms.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The basis of this report is the dispute over the ban, for good reasons of consumer protection and food safety, on imports of beef from the United States and Canada which had been treated with certain growth-promoting hormones. In order to end the dispute, an agreement has been reached which provides for a gradual lifting of the sanctions imposed by the US and Canada on EU agricultural products in exchange for an autonomous zero-duty tariff quota for high-quality beef not treated with hormones. This opening up of the European market to hormone-free beef, which may have positive consequences for the export of various EU products, such as beef and pork products, thereby benefiting the major exporting countries, is due, above all, to economic and commercial pressure and threats from the US and Canada. The sanctions imposed on European products are clear evidence of this. In addition to our ongoing concern as to the quality and safety of meat from the US and Canada, bearing in mind what is known about the intensive and very intensive production methods used in those countries, we also have reservations about the effect of the tariff quota on production in countries like Portugal.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) A dispute over beef treated with hormones adversely affected transatlantic trade relations in the area of agricultural products for more than two decades. In 1988, for reasons of consumer protection and food safety, the EU banned imports of beef and meat products that had been treated with certain growth hormones. Although the dispute over beef treated with hormones concerned a relatively small volume of trade, it led to a reduction in trade and had significant consequences on both sides of the Atlantic. Close trading partners entered into a long-running trade dispute. Continued application of retaliatory tariffs on certain European products hampered exports and EU producers subsequently suffered a loss of market share.

Through bilateral negotiations between the EU, the USA and Canada, however, a pragmatic way was eventually found of avoiding the destructive dynamics of trade sanctions. The negotiations have resulted in ‘Memoranda of Understanding’ that will see the gradual lifting of sanctions imposed on EU agricultural products by the USA and Canada, in exchange for an autonomous, zero-duty, tariff-rate quota for high-quality beef not treated with hormones. The Memoranda of Understanding and their application clearly create a situation that is mutually beneficial to the trade partners. I firmly believe that the rapid and smooth adoption of the submitted regulation will help to restore and strengthen mutual trust and overcome the existing differences in transatlantic trade relations in this sector.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The long-standing controversy over meat products treated with growth-promoting hormones has, over the last 20 years, both damaged the parties involved and caused a significant drop in European exports. This agreement aims to resolve the problem gradually, enabling the retaliatory sanctions imposed by Canada and the United States to be lifted. This will have just a 0.36% negative effect on the European beef products market, while providing economic benefits for various Member States, including Italy. Since the other party has already met its obligations during 2011, I voted in favour.

  Mikael Gustafsson (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (SV) I abstained in the vote on this report. I believe that the EU’s decision in 1988 to ban imports of beef that had been treated with growth-promoting hormones was absolutely right. The World Trade Organisation (WTO) dispute settlement system ruled in 1996 that the United States and Canada should have the right to impose trade sanctions against the EU on a number of products as a legitimate response to the EU’s decision. This did indeed happen and it led to a dispute resolution process and a Memorandum of Understanding. I believe that the WTO’s original ruling against the EU was based on a free trade principle that fails to take into consideration either environmental or social consequences. This entire so-called dispute settlement system is therefore absurd and I thus choose to abstain.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption of this report on imports of high-quality beef, which puts an end to a trade dispute with the United States and Canada that has lasted more than 20 years. The agreement reached will make it possible to increase imports of high-quality beef from North America while keeping the embargo on hormone-treated beef. This increase should correspond to only 0.36% of the total EU beef and veal market, which constitutes a limited competitive risk to our farmers. This is a happy outcome for trade relations between our two continents, which I wholeheartedly welcome. Indeed, thanks to this agreement, the United States and Canada plan to lift duties that have been imposed since 1999 on our products, including Roquefort cheese, fresh truffles, mustard and chocolate.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this document because although the conflict over hormone-treated beef involved a relatively small amount of trade, it led to a reduction in trade and had significant repercussions on both sides of the Atlantic. The United States and Canada were authorised to impose trade sanctions on agricultural products imported from the EU. Close trading partners got entrenched in a lengthy and unconstructive trade dispute. The Memorandum of Understanding with the United States and the Memorandum of Understanding with Canada provide for three-phased arrangements, which gradually abolish the sanctions imposed by the United States and Canada on certain Union products. The agreement provides for the gradual lifting of sanctions imposed on EU agricultural products by the US and Canada, in exchange for an autonomous, zero-duty, tariff-rate quota for high-quality beef not treated with hormones. The quick and smooth adoption of the present regulation will help to re-build and strengthen good faith and bridge existing gaps in transatlantic trade relations in this sector. The final settlement of the beef hormone dispute should create further momentum towards greater economic and commercial integration between the EU and the US and Canada. Notwithstanding possible differences in opinion, the aim should always be to reach a compromise rather than disrupt bilateral trade. By further dismantling trade barriers with its major trading partners, the EU is demonstrating its commitment to strengthening this long-standing economic relationship in terms of trade.

  Peter Jahr (PPE), in writing. – (DE) The decision today to increase the import tariff quota for beef brings an end at last to a long trade dispute. From April onwards, beef from the US and Canada can be imported into Europe, provided that it has not been treated with hormones. I welcome this decision because it ends a long-standing conflict and, at the same time, ensures that no hormone-treated meat can be imported into Europe. As the US and Canada are lifting their trade restrictions in return, from an overall perspective, this is a successful solution.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported this report amending a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on opening an autonomous tariff quota for imports of high-quality beef. By adopting this report, we have put an end to a trade dispute with the United States and Canada that has lasted more than 20 years. This report will oblige the European Union to increase imports of high-quality beef in exchange for keeping its ban on hormone-treated beef.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I welcome the fact that the European Parliament has agreed to continue the ban on imports of hormone-treated beef into the EU and, at the same time, to introduce higher tariff quotas for high-quality beef from the US and Canada. Adopting this report brings an end to a trade dispute between the EU and the US that has had a negative impact on many areas of foreign trade and caused great damage. We are now in a position that ensures the safety of European consumers and exporters. This report results in a clear win-win situation. The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has spoken out in favour of the report in its statement. I would like to make it clear how important it is to put an end to trade disputes and to devote our energies to other tasks. The European Union must focus on competitiveness, innovation and growth. Trade disputes do not help us in these areas.

  Patrick Le Hyaric (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The report that is being put to the vote has come about because we are giving in to blackmail by the US and Canadian authorities. While the European Union has legitimately put in place measures to ban imports of hormone-treated meat, the United States and Canada have used this to their advantage to put in place trade retaliation measures which have hit several European agricultural sectors.

With this agreement that we are being urged to ratify in the name of returning to normality for the benefit of these sectors, beef production will be put under pressure from competition by substantially increasing import quotas without tariffs. That is why I voted against this text, which gives in to blackmail that is harmful for our agriculture.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this proposal. The dispute concerning beef hormones negatively affected transatlantic trade relations in agricultural products for more than two decades. In 1988, the EU banned imports of beef and beef products treated with certain growth-promoting hormones for reasons of consumer protection and food safety. In 1996, the United States and Canada challenged the ban in the WTO dispute settlement system and were subsequently authorised to impose trade sanctions on agricultural products imported from the EU. Since 1999, the US and Canada have imposed retaliatory tariffs on a wide range of European products, respectively worth USD 116.8 million and CAD 11.3 million a year.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The regulation in question must be adopted as quickly as possible. Now, particularly in the light of the recent disputes, we need to strengthen good faith and bridge the gap that exists in this area of transatlantic trade relations. I voted in favour.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – The decision of the US authorities to publish a draft law aimed at aligning its rules on bovine imports with the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) standards on BSE is a welcome one and could pave the way for the reopening of the market for EU beef to the US. While this move is not directly linked with the report voted today in plenary, it nevertheless demonstrates the goodwill of the US. For this reason, I supported this report.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The dispute on beef hormones negatively affected transatlantic trade relations in agricultural products for more than two decades. In 1988, the EU banned imports of beef and beef products treated with certain growth-promoting hormones, for reasons of consumer protection and food safety. In 1996, the United States and Canada challenged the ban in the World Trade Organisation dispute settlement system and were subsequently authorised to impose trade sanctions on agricultural products imported from the EU. Since 1999, the US and Canada have imposed retaliatory tariffs on a wide range of European products, respectively worth USD 116.8 million and CAD 11.3 million a year. It should be stressed that the final settlement of the beef hormone dispute should create further momentum towards greater economic and commercial integration between the EU, on the one side, and the US and Canada, on the other. The adoption of this regulation by the European Parliament and the Council will lead to mutual benefits, will strengthen transatlantic trade links, and will rebuild confidence by improving market access.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The proposed solution for the long-standing beef hormones dispute is in line with the request of the Parliament about finding a satisfactory settlement of this dispute. It allows for the suspension of the sanctions on EU products, while guaranteeing that beef imports to the EU will be in line with EU requirements. I totally support the rapporteur.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The United States and Canada are important trading partners of the EU. Nevertheless, there are definitely some products from these countries that violate European health directives and, consequently, are not imported into the EU. This includes beef that has been treated with growth-promoting hormones. In order to protect consumers, the EU banned the import of this meat, whereupon Canada and the United States imposed trade sanctions on agricultural products imported from the EU. This conflict caused a reduction in trade. Following lengthy negotiations, the sanctions imposed by the US and Canada were gradually lifted and a zero-duty tariff quota for high-quality beef not treated with hormones was introduced. The tariff quota is now to be increased, as a result of which Canada and the US have, in return, suspended their retaliatory sanctions. I abstained from the vote, as it is not clear from the report whether a further increase in the tariff quota could not be detrimental to the European meat industry.

  Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I decided to vote in favour of this report regulating high-quality beef imports. Let us not forget, the dispute on beef hormones negatively affected transatlantic trade relations in agricultural products for more than two decades. In 1988, the EU banned imports of beef and beef products from animals treated with certain growth-promoting hormones for reasons of consumer protection and food safety. In 1996, the United States and Canada challenged the ban through the WTO dispute settlement system and were subsequently authorised to impose trade sanctions on agricultural products imported from the EU. Since 1999, the US and Canada have imposed retaliatory duties on a wide range of European products. This proposal sets out memoranda that I consider to be decisive and which will be implemented in several phases in order to meet US and Canadian criteria. There will certainly be a limited impact on the European market, but a failure to adopt this regulation would run the risk of new trade sanctions against our Union.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the report, taking into account the obligation imposed on exporters in the United States and Canada not to treat with hormones the cattle whose meat they want to sell on the European market. In the interest of consumers, but also in order to enhance the competitiveness of European agriculture, I support free trade, but only provided that exporters in partner countries are bound by the same high quality, environmental and food safety conditions with which European producers comply. This principle should be considered upon conclusion of any trade agreement and with regard to all aspects of European agricultural and environmental legislation.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution because establishing an autonomous tariff quota for imports of high-quality beef is part of the compromise reached between the EU and the US over the beef hormone dispute. It should be noted that this is an appropriate means of improving and developing trade relations between the US and the EU and excellent proof of how the EU is ready to improve dispute settlement resolutions in the WTO, by embracing a more pragmatic, more efficient and less politically damaging way forward on difficult issues.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report on the EU-US agreement because it enables the US blockade on European exports such as mineral water, pork, canned and prepared fruits, chocolate, juices, oats, chewing gum, jams, Roquefort cheese and fresh truffles to be lifted. A very important aspect of this report is that it encourages the production of European beef for export, thereby contributing significantly to the agricultural sector whilst protecting consumers, since imports of US beef will be increased without recourse to beef produced using hormones. The United States gave their support to completely suspending the sanctions against the EU in May 2011, provided that we honour our side of the agreement in a timely manner. If the European Union does not reciprocally implement the agreement, we run the risk of additional retaliatory measures from the United States, which will have to be compensated for damages incurred by the failure to comply with World Trade Organisation rules.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The conflict over hormone-treated beef has led to trade reduction and had significant repercussions on both sides of the Atlantic, with close trading partners getting entrenched in a lengthy and unconstructive trade dispute. As a result, I would like to declare my vote in favour of the adoption of this regulation by the European Parliament and the Council. It will lead to mutual benefits, will strengthen transatlantic trade links, and will build confidence by improving market access on both sides of the Atlantic.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This commitment made by the EU, the United States and Canada provides for the gradual raising of sanctions imposed on EU agricultural products by the US and Canada, in exchange for an autonomous tariff quota, exempt from duties, for high-quality beef that has not been hormone treated. This is an agreement that will contribute to strengthening transatlantic trade links and to rebuilding confidence by improving market access on both sides of the Atlantic. I therefore voted for this report.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) This afternoon, we have voted in favour of the report on an autonomous tariff quota for imports of high-quality beef. While the jargon may be slightly evocative at first glance, it is essential in that it – finally – puts an end to the war on hormone-treated beef. This will come as a relief to European consumers, farmers and distributors, putting an end to 20 years of trade disputes between the old and new continent. Condemned by the World Trade Organisation for refusing to import hormone-treated beef from the United States and Canada, and subjected to trade retaliation measures costing millions of euro each year, the European Union has always refused to abandon its principles, believing that European consumers should not be misled about the quality of imported meat.

Thanks to this agreement, the sanctions will be lifted once and for all in exchange for import quotas for guaranteed hormone-free, high-quality US and Canadian beef. This is a win-win solution for both European and US farmers and consumers and will remove hormone-treated beef from our plates for good.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Today, during the plenary session, we voted on the report by Ms Quisthoudt-Rowohl, which put an end to the dispute with the United States and Canada on the sale of hormone-treated meat that has been going on for 20 years. The agreement will increase the European Union import tariff quota to 48 200 tonnes. In return, the United States and Canada have already suspended the retaliatory sanctions applied to products originating from 26 Member States (except the United Kingdom) amounting to over USD 250 million in current trade terms. One of the main beneficiaries that stands to gain from the lifting of sanctions is Italy, with over USD 99 million worth of trade. The resolution will lead to mutual benefits. Parliament has taken a step that will allow the European agricultural industry to plan for the future once again and will strengthen transatlantic trade links.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. For Greens, the important point is that the EU has managed to maintain its own food standards and keep the EU market free from imports of hormone-treated beef. All beef shipped in from the US and Canada under this quota will need to comply with the stringent food safety requirements set out in the EU legislation. It is also a victory with regard to the (often) perceived pre-eminence of WTO rulings: it shows that you can apply your standards even in the face of WTO rulings.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this text because I think it will help strengthen good faith between the European Union, on one side, and the United States and Canada, on the other, bridging existing gaps in transatlantic trade relations in this sector. The conclusion of this agreement will permit the EU to comply with commitments undertaken towards resolving the dispute over hormone-treated beef, providing further momentum towards greater economic and commercial integration.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) This report ends the dispute between the EU and the US over the application of retaliatory measures brought in by the US and Canada on agricultural products from Europe, following the EU’s decision, which I wholeheartedly support, to ban imports of meat containing prohibited hormones into the EU. The US and Canada had applied heavy duties to a number of agricultural products and derivatives from the EU, causing serious economic damage to our producers. Thanks to mediation by the Commission, a Memorandum of Understanding that resolves the long-running dispute, while maintaining the ban on importing meat treated with prohibited hormones into Europe, has finally been reached. I therefore voted in favour.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing. – (FR) At the end of the 1980s, when the European Union decided to ban meat treated with growth hormones, the United States and Canada successfully argued their case at the WTO, which authorised them to impose trade sanctions against the EU. The economies of these two regions being so closely linked, these sanctions have had negative effects on both. That is why an amicable solution was sought and is now about to be implemented. I voted in favour of this report because its adoption will put an end to 20 years or more of trade wars with two of our most important trading partners, while keeping a high level of protection for European consumers without seeing too much of a serious impact on the agricultural sector. Indeed, the high-quality meat referred to in this report is simply meat that has not been treated with growth hormones, and is of inferior quality compared to beef produced in Europe. The quotas authorising the import of this meat are limited, so the impact on the European sector will be extremely small.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD) , in writing. – (IT) I totally support this measure, which definitively ends a trade war that has been ongoing for many years between the EU, on the one hand, and the US and Canada, on the other. The sanctions imposed by the US and Canada will finally be lifted, which will deliver considerable benefits to the European agricultural and food industry, especially Italy, which has important trade links with the transatlantic market.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The proposal we voted on this morning seeks to amend an existing regulation of the European Parliament opening an autonomous tariff quota for imports of high-quality beef from the United States and Canada, which puts an end to the long transatlantic dispute on the use of hormones in beef products. I support the proposed solution to the trade dispute and am voting in favour of the text. Specifically, the EU will progressively increase its tariff-rate quota for imports of hormone-free high-quality beef to a total of 21 500 tonnes in the first phase, and thereafter to 48 200 tonnes. This will inevitably result in a gradual reduction or suspension of the sanctions imposed on EU products by the United States and Canada. In order to make the implementation process more effective, the timetables for the first and second phases are the same for both the United States protocol and the Canada protocol: the second phase will begin on 1 August 2012 under the terms of both protocols. What we are asking the Commission to do is to ensure that the solution to the dispute will guarantee that imports of beef products will be in line with EU requirements.

  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (NL) The European Parliament is today formally putting an end to one of the most serious trade conflicts ever between the EU and the United States and Canada. This trade dispute arose as a result of the total European ban on the use of hormones in livestock production. From now on, the United States and Canada will, on an annual basis, be allowed to export 48 200 tonnes of high-quality beef which has not been treated with hormones to the EU. In return, the agricultural trade sanctions which have been levied annually on agricultural products, totalling nearly EUR 100 million, will disappear for good. This agreement is of great political significance. The EU has maintained the hormone ban and its own food standards. Despite condemnation by the WTO, the EU market will not be supplied with hormone-treated beef from the US and Canada. All meat imports will be fattened on farms under the supervision of EU inspectors who will ensure that no hormones are administered. The agreement proves that you can consistently apply your own standards on imported agricultural products, even if they are formally in conflict with WTO rulings. In addition, increasing the amount of beef imported from the US and Canada from 21 500 tonnes to 48 200 tonnes per year will not have any negative impact on the European beef market, given that the import quota accounts for only 0.36% of the total EU beef and veal market.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Over recent years, the European Union has banned the import of beef and derived products, with the United States and Canada retaliating by introducing trade sanctions on agricultural products imported from Europe. In 2009, the bilateral negotiations established between the EU, the US and Canada enabled a solution to be reached to remove the barriers and sanctions that had been adopted. The talks eventually resulted in the conclusion of two Memoranda of Understanding. I am voting for this report, which will enable the European Union to respect the commitments it has made to resolve the dispute with the countries in question. The Memorandum of Understanding will ensure that beef products imported under this quota will continue to meet the strict food-safety requirements provided for in EU legislation. It is also important to stress that the rapid adoption and entry into force of this regulation will contribute to improving transatlantic trade relations in this area of economic activity.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I voted against the decision to allow the United States and Canada to export more beef to the European Union in exchange for the lifting of duties on certain imports from EU Member States. The United States will be able to double their beef exports.

Adopting this report has put an end to the beef hormone dispute which has lasted for close to 20 years. However, one wonders if this is not at the cost of food safety and the health of European citizens. I am concerned that this undermines the European sanctions imposed in 1988 prohibiting the utilisation of growth hormones in meat livestock.

With this vote, the European Parliament is also giving in to the WTO, which, in 1999, condemned the EU for hindering free trade. The EU did not provide any evidence of the dangers of the hormones being used. The WTO forced the EU to renegotiate both these agreements with the United States and Canada.

This decision is bound to affect European meat production. Already making a loss and in decline for several years (a 31% drop over 15 years in France), the European agricultural sector will not see a resurgence in meat production, contrary to what the European Parliament is claiming to justify with this vote.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The aim of this report is to put an end to two decades in which trade relations in agricultural products between Europe and the US had been affected by the late-1980s dispute on beef hormones. The agreement reached with the US, and subsequently with Canada, involves a zero-duty quota for US beef not treated with hormones in exchange for the lifting of trade restrictions. A quick and smooth adoption of the present regulation will therefore deliver mutual benefits, helping to re-build and strengthen trade relations on both sides of the Atlantic.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We remain concerned as to the quality and safety of meat from the United States and Canada, bearing in mind what is known about the intensive and very intensive production methods used in those countries, but we are also concerned about the possible effects of the tariff quota on production in countries like Portugal. We know that allowing beef imports may have positive consequences for exports of various EU products, such as beef and pork products, but this will benefit chiefly the major exporting countries.

Report: Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl (A7-0028/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, since the purpose of Omnibus I and Omnibus II – documents related to the new systems of delegated acts and implementing acts that this report tackles – is to bring the European Union’s common commercial policy into line with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon. This issue is important because it reinforces the powers of the European Parliament which should, therefore, be respected; meanwhile, from the political point of view, it is important to keep Parliament united around this aim.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report. The Lisbon Treaty has led to many institutional changes. Under this Treaty, the European Parliament becomes one of the legislators in trade policy and its consent is essential when concluding agreements. Given the legislative changes, this proposal is therefore intended to bring 26 trade policy regulations into line with the primary-law provisions of the Lisbon Treaty. This will enable the Commission’s implementing powers to be applied more efficiently and effectively and will allow a more efficient and effective common trade policy to be pursued. The harmonisation of standard procedures will make trade policy clearer and will increase its transparency.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The report under scrutiny today is especially important since it sets out to amend some basic regulations on the common commercial policy so that their compatibility with the new provisions brought in by the Treaty of Lisbon can be guaranteed. The goal is to ensure that EU trade policy safeguard instruments are not weakened by the introduction of procedural changes which, even though they are necessary following the entry into force of the Treaty, risked having significant consequences on important aspects of the trade safeguard procedures. Bearing this in mind, one of the objectives of the regulation put forward by the Commission in March 2009 is to ensure that its own implementing powers are not monitored by either the Council or by Parliament, but rather by the EU Member States. I welcome this report and I hope that the text can be tightened up even more during the forthcoming negotiations with the Council. This would reiterate the importance of the EU’s trade policy safeguard instruments, which offer a practical way for European enterprises to protect themselves against the anti-competitive practices of third-country competitors.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Trade policy is one of the main pillars of EU relations with third countries. The achievement of a common commercial policy was part of the original plan for European economic integration, so that EU (initially EEC) trade policy has been broadly common with regard to the rest of the world since 1968, when the Customs Union was established. This Commission proposal for a regulation has the purpose of replacing the decision-making procedures for the various implementing measures laid down by 26 regulations with delegated acts or implementing acts. With regard to the regulations concerned, they contain mainly provisions allowing the use of trade policy safeguard measures. The Commission is proposing changes only where the Council decisions specifically provided for have previously applied. The Commission does not propose altering the references to the old comitology procedures pursuant to Council Decision 1999/468/EC. On this subject, the Commission has repeatedly stated that these adjustments are to be provided for in a second proposal for a regulation, namely, the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation amending certain regulations relating to the common commercial policy as regards the granting of delegated powers for the adoption of certain measures (Omnibus II).

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of amending the regulations relating to commercial policy, bearing in mind the values of rationalisation, legislative coordination and adaptation to the changes in international trade conditions, in the light of the experience gained in the years since the Treaty of Lisbon. More specifically, the proposed amendments respond to requirements of transparency and effectiveness from a practical and executive point of view, making it possible to adopt immediately applicable measures. The delegation to the Commission has been proposed in balanced terms that meet Parliament’s prerogatives, with adequate guarantees with regard to the necessary provision of information about how the delegation is exercised, its renewal and the reserved power of revocation.

I believe that the inclusion of the provision for assistance to the Commission from the Member States in the issuance and implementation of urgent executive measures is also realistic and balanced. Inclusion of the new Council Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005 within the new discipline indicates a commendable appreciation for legislative action that does not lose sight of the cultural horizons of our time and the guiding light of European values when defining regulatory detail.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. – (CS) The Commission proposal, amending certain regulations relating to the common commercial policy, introduces changes only where the Council decisions specifically provided for have previously applied. The proposal does not suggest altering individual references to the old comitology procedures pursuant to Council Decision 1999/468/EC, which are contained in the regulations. On this subject, the Commission has repeatedly stated that these adjustments are to be provided for in another proposal for a regulation, the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation amending certain regulations relating to the common commercial policy as regards the granting of delegated powers for the adoption of certain measures (Omnibus II). In this context, it should be said that the European Parliament reached a ‘common understanding’ with the Commission and Council, making the use of delegated acts and of implementing provisions subject to a uniform model. To my surprise, the Commission proposal deviates considerably from these provisions, and this is unacceptable. The report rightly corrects the Commission proposal by applying the ‘common understanding’ criteria. This makes it possible to ensure consistency in the wording of all future European law relating to the use of delegated acts and implementing provisions.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The vote in favour of the report on the common commercial policy was necessary in order to establish a common denominator for Europe’s commercial policies. Once the Lisbon Treaty came into force on 1 December 2009, commercial policy became an area under the exclusive remit of the European Union. Thanks to the report, 26 regulations are being adapted to the provisions of the Treaty by granting delegated powers to the European Commission and by EU Member States establishing control procedures. These regulations include, for example, one laying down the trade arrangements applicable to certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products, and one concerning trade in certain articles which are likely to be used for capital punishment, torture or other punishments and forms of inhumane treatment.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This is a fairly technical report that reflects the application of the Treaty of Lisbon to the EU’s common commercial policy, seeking to amend certain regulations as regards the procedures for the adoption of certain measures. There was no great division between the parliamentary groups on the report hereby being adopted at first reading, as attested by its being voted for with only 1 vote against and 2 abstentions in the Committee on International Trade. It is now being submitted to the European Commission for analysis. The amendments proposed herein seek to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the common commercial policy of the European Union – which originated when it was just the European Economic Community – and I, as a convinced Europhile, am bound to support this report strongly.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I believe the amendments adopted by the European Parliament contribute to a position balanced between the various legal instruments of the common commercial policy, taking into account the provisions imposed by the Treaty of Lisbon and the interests of the three European institutions.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This proposal amends certain regulations relating to the common commercial policy as regards the procedures for the adoption of certain measures (Omnibus I) and is intended to adapt 26 trade policy regulations to the Treaty of Lisbon. The purpose of this Commission proposal for a regulation is to replace the decision-making procedures regarding implementing measures set out in 26 regulations using delegated acts or implementing acts. The regulations in question are mainly regulations enabling the adoption of measures to safeguard trade policy. These amendments are intended to make the exercise of implementing competences more effective and efficient, and to contribute to improving the common commercial policy.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, drafted by Ms Quisthoudt-Rowohl, concerns the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending certain regulations relating to the common commercial policy as regards the procedures for the adoption of certain measures. It concerns the adaptation of 26 regulations to the new primary-law provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, with regard to the legal concept of delegated acts. Until now, trade policy was outside the comitology procedure and was under the exclusive authority of Council decisions. I welcome the progress made in this area, specifically as regards the codecision procedure, since it is not acceptable for the Council and the Commission to be able to make decisions without the prior agreement of the European Parliament, which has the authority to monitor these acts. As regards implementing acts, I agree that the Member States cannot have a veto right that is generalised, but rather one that is exceptional. I regret that the United Kingdom and Ireland have not approved this regulation, for which I voted, which would have contributed to the truly free movement of persons and goods throughout the EU and to the more effective combating of dumping.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The purpose of this report is to adapt to the terms of the Treaty of Lisbon 26 regulations relating to the common commercial policy (CCP). It is laid down in the Treaty that trade policy is an exclusive EU competence. Since it came into force, and since the adoption of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011, the Commission now has sole authority to implement the rules relating to trade policy. Choosing trade partners, what to trade and the objectives that should govern trade represents an important instrument of economic sovereignty. In the case of Portugal, for example, loss of this instrument of sovereignty led to very grave harm to countless sectors of the economy and to the country as a whole. Trade policy has become directed towards maximising the profits of big business in the EU’s major powers, to the clear detriment of countries like Portugal and of the weaker economic sectors, which have found themselves exposed to ruthless, destructive competition. Free trade has been one of the pillars of the CCP, gearing it towards capitalist competition rather than cooperation and mutual benefit. Our profound disagreement with the CCP is therefore a given, which is bound to influence our analysis of this report.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the proposal because it aims to bring 26 trade policy regulations into line with the new primary-law provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon. For example, the legislature will be able to delegate non-essential legislative acts to the executive, while retaining the power to revoke the delegation at any time. The affected measures are mostly designed to allow the use of trade safeguard regulations, apart from the regulation on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community. The Commission is proposing changes only where the Council decisions specifically provided for have previously applied. As a result of these specific decision-making procedures, European trade policy has hitherto, essentially, been explicitly excluded from the comitology procedures. With the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and the adoption of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011, these special arrangements have now been terminated.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The submitted proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amends certain regulations relating to common commercial policy. As regards the procedures for the adoption of certain measures, it is intended to bring 26 trade policy regulations into line with the new primary-law provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon. Specifically, it serves to align the regulations with Articles 290 and 291 TFEU and with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers, which was prompted by Article 291(3) TFEU. Article 290 TFEU introduces, for the first time, the legal arrangement of delegated acts into European law. The legislature may therefore delegate non-essential legislative acts to the executive. The legislature retains the power to revoke the delegation at any time and thus take the relevant decision itself. In addition, any decision taken in the form of a delegated act may be vetoed by the legislature. It is sufficient for either the Council or Parliament to object to a Commission proposal for a decision. Article 291 TFEU, on the other hand, is concerned with the adoption of implementing provisions. The implementing acts are intended to ensure that European law is transposed uniformly in all Member States. The majority of the regulations concerned thus enable the adoption of measures for the protection of commercial policy.

  Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. – Omnibus I and II will bring trade policy making into line with the Lisbon Treaty and, by giving increased powers to the European Parliament, will improve democratic legitimacy and accountability. As such, this report recognises the important role Parliament should have in EU trade policy. I welcome the fact that the Parliament will, in future, be informed about the EU’s bilateral trade relations and that the Commission will also make annual reports about their activities in this area available to the public. This report’s approach is to look at the pros and cons of each regulation by analysing delegated acts and implementing provisions while comparing procedures. This method is inclusive for all parties and takes a fair and democratic stance on such policies.

  Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The provisions of the Lisbon Treaty have given Parliament the role of colegislator in the area of commercial policy, and Parliament’s consent is essential for any agreement to be made. In view of the changes which came into effect with the entry into force of the Treaty, it is essential to review and align all the important procedures in the common commercial policy, thanks to which it will be more efficient and effective. The transparency of commercial policy is a very important question, and this is reflected in the proposal, because it brings a number of regulations in the field of common commercial policy into line with the new provisions of primary legislation.

The Treaty of Lisbon introduced a new instrument in the form of delegated acts, thanks to which legislative acts of lesser importance may be delegated to executive bodies. An important role is played here by Parliament and the Council, because these institutions retain the right to revoke or object to every decision concerning the delegation of legislative acts.

The Treaty also speaks of implementing acts, which, together with delegated acts, replace the comitology procedure. Introduction of these important changes to decision-making processes and implementing measures urgently requires the adaptation of existing legal acts, and so I am pleased that Parliament has adopted a report today which allows these innovative measures to be introduced to these regulations on the common commercial policy.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because this proposal amending certain regulations relating to the common commercial policy is intended to bring 26 trade policy regulations into line with the new primary-law provisions of the Lisbon Treaty. The report is based on the changes brought about by the Lisbon Treaty and by the adoption of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011, and which systematically incorporates those changes into the secondary law of the common commercial policy. The report fleshes out the provisions of the Commission proposal in relation to the substance of all 26 regulations. It weighs up the pros and cons of using delegated acts and implementing provisions, and compares the advisory and examination procedures. The result is a balanced relationship among the various legal instruments, which takes into account the substantive and legal interests of all parties concerned, the legislation in force since 1 December 2009, and the institutional interests of the three European institutions.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. – (DE) The report on common commercial policy is an important dossier which regulates and redefines the way that the European Parliament works with European foreign trade policy. The adoption of the report makes the use and implementation of delegating acts much simpler. I welcome the time savings that result from the removal of the consultation procedure and the specification of time limits because, in my view, a rapid and efficient process is in the interests of all stakeholders. I believe that always linking the final decisions on implementation to an examination procedure is the right approach which will guarantee more security for trading partners.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The proposal for the Omnibus I Regulation is intended to bring 26 Council regulations on the EU common commercial policy into line with the post-Lisbon system of delegated acts and implementing acts. I voted in favour of this report during the vote in plenary.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this report on amending the trade policy regulation. The proposal for a regulation – the so-called Omnibus – aims to adapt 26 legislative acts of the Council in the field of the EU’s common commercial policy to the post-Lisbon system on delegated acts and implementing acts. In contrast to the text voted on in committee, the report adopted today puts forward several amendments designed to strengthen anti-dumping rules. Bearing in mind, furthermore, the need to come into line with the new comitology rules, the regulation on trade policies allows for greater transparency while, at the same time, affording greater protection for the trademarks of industrial products, which benefits both consumers and operators in the sector.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The Commission proposal for a regulation aims at replacing the decision-making procedures for the various implementing measures laid down by 26 regulations with delegated acts or implementing acts. As a result of these specific decision-making procedures, European trade policy has hitherto, essentially, been explicitly excluded from the existing comitology procedure. With the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, these special arrangements have been terminated, executive decisions on trade policy now being taken exclusively by the Commission. The objective of this proposal is the integration of Commission responsibilities in all regulations in the field of the common commercial policy. I think this report is a balanced, well prepared document, meeting the economic and legal interests of all stakeholders, as well as the institutional interests of the three European institutions.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this proposal in which the rapporteur is tabling a report which is based on the changes brought about by the Treaty of Lisbon and by the adoption of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011, and which systematically incorporates those changes into the secondary law of the common commercial policy. The report fleshes out the provisions of the Commission proposal in relation to the substance of all 26 regulations. It weighs up the pros and cons of using delegated acts and implementing provisions and compares the advisory and examination procedures. The result is a balanced relationship among the various legal instruments which takes into account the substantive and legal interests of all parties concerned, the legislation which has been in force since 1 December 2009, and the institutional interests of the three European institutions.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending certain regulations relating to the common commercial policy as regards the procedures for the adoption of certain measures (Omnibus I) is intended to bring 26 trade policy regulations into line with the new primary-law provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon. More specifically, it serves to align the regulations with Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers, which was prompted by Article 291(3) TFEU. The report fleshes out the provisions of the Commission proposal in relation to the substance of all 26 regulations. It weighs up the pros and cons of using delegated acts and implementing provisions, and compares the advisory and examination procedures. The result is a balanced relationship among the various legal instruments which takes into account the substantive and legal interests of all parties concerned, the legislation which has been in force since 1 December 2009, and the institutional interests of the three European institutions.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – Articles 290 and 291 of the Lisbon Treaty replace the old comitology procedure with a hybrid system of delegated acts and implementing acts. As existing pieces of legislation related to the EU’s commercial policy need to be aligned to this new system of delegated acts and implementing acts, the Commission has come up with two proposals, Omnibus I and Omnibus II. Both reports are aimed at bringing trade policy making into line with the Lisbon Treaty, which has granted greater powers to the Parliament. Parliament’s powers with regard to trade should be respected.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The Treaty of Lisbon also gave rise to amendments with regard to the framework conditions for the adoption of delegated acts and implementing acts and for the formulation of trade policy. The regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers puts in place special procedures for the introduction of definitive anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties. Although some amendments are certainly called for, I must, unfortunately, reject the report as a whole.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcome this resolution, which is intended to bring 26 trade policy regulations into line with the new primary-law provisions of the Lisbon Treaty. Consequently, the decision-making procedures currently applied for the various implementing measures should therefore be replaced with the procedures for delegated acts or implementing acts. I believe that it is advisable to empower the Commission to adopt delegated acts for an unlimited period. Attention should be drawn to the fact that the advisory procedure should be used in all cases where it is necessary for the Commission to consult the Member States before taking a decision. In exceptional and critical circumstances, the Commission must be enabled to take immediate measures as quickly as possible. In cases of urgency, the application of the advisory procedure would allow applicable implementing acts to be adopted immediately. The Member States should play an active part and express their position in all stages of decision making on trade policy safeguard measures. Furthermore, the Commission should publish reports in order to keep the European Parliament and citizens properly informed about all aspects of EU trade relations.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending certain regulations relating to the common commercial policy. Specifically, it concerns adapting the regulation laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States over the Commission’s implementing powers. The intention is to introduce the changes that the Treaty of Lisbon has introduced in this regard, taking into account the substantive and legal interests of all parties concerned and the institutional interests of the three European institutions.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The proposal for a regulation under discussion is intended to bring 26 trade policy regulations into line with the new primary-law provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon. More specifically, it serves to align these regulations with the provisions of Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers. In order to include European commercial policy in the comitology procedure, I am voting in favour of the proposal.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Abstention. When work on the understanding between the institutions started in 2010, the Greens agreed to give the Council an extra 18-month transition period on trade policy measures, under the premise that the Commission would propose a reform of the basic anti-dumping regulation. For the Greens, this is a field in which we hope to establish criteria for ecological dumping. Nothing happened, however, in those 18 months and DG Trade says quite clearly that it does not intend to propose a substantive reform of the anti-dumping regulation. Consequently, in the vote on the Omnibus I proposal in committee, the Greens rejected all amendments proposing a shift to the advisory procedure in anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures. We did not receive support and, in the end, abstained in the final vote. The reason why we abstained and did not vote against is that, of course – in general terms – we do not favour giving the Council powers which the Parliament does not have, thus creating inequality between the legislators.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The report deals with a series of amendments to regulations relating to commercial policy mainly on the use of safeguard measures. The special nature of these measures and the sometimes necessarily rapid amendments are precisely why the instrument of the delegated act has been used, as this allows the Commission to take action when necessary. The responsible committee also expressed its full support for the necessity of restoring the 15-month time limit for the introduction of duty tariffs and anti-dumping measures. I gave my full support and voted in favour.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I would like to congratulate the rapporteur for her success in proposing numerous amendments within the Committee on International Trade to a proposal from the Commission that contained some highly unacceptable passages such as the extension of time limits for reaching the decision to introduce trade duties. These actions are necessary in order to safeguard our production system and therefore require speed, not more bureaucracy or time-wasting. I voted in favour of this very technical measure, also because it was necessary to bring these regulations in line with the new comitology procedure.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) We are being called upon today to approve at first reading the report by Ms Quisthoudt-Rowohl on the regulation referred to as ‘Omnibus I’, which aims to align certain commercial policy legislative acts, including the anti-dumping regulation, with the new ‘comitology’ procedures. I am pleased that the proposal has been approved by a large majority, so as to make sure that the wording will not be watered down, but perhaps strengthened further in the course of subsequent negotiations with the Council, and to confirm the importance of trade defence instruments, which represent the only possibility of protecting European businesses against anti-competitive practices followed by competitors outside Europe.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and the adoption of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 means that, as in other areas of EU policy, executive decisions on trade policy are the sole responsibility of the Commission, using delegated acts and implementing acts. The purpose of this document, therefore, is to modify all the regulations in relation to this policy, so as to promote the adaptation of the regulation to the primary-law provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, specifically Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. For these reasons, I voted for this European Union document.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the resolution on the proposal for a regulation amending certain regulations relating to the common commercial policy as regards the procedures for the adoption of certain measures. The purpose of the regulation is to replace the decision-making procedures for the implementing measures laid down by 26 regulations with delegated acts or implementing acts. With regard to the regulations concerned, they contain mainly provisions allowing the use of trade policy safeguard measures. The report recommends using delegated acts as part of the relevant regulations in the following cases: to amend or adapt one or more annexes to the regulation concerned and to adopt detailed provisions for the specific transposition of individual articles. In all these cases, the delegated acts are generally applicable acts of a non-legislative character, supplementing or amending certain non-essential provisions of the relevant legislative act pursuant to Article 290(1) TFEU.

Only the delegation instrument guarantees that the Commission’s actions are scrutinised by Parliament and the Council. The report calls on the Commission to present a biannual report on the application and implementation of the agreements to the European Parliament, including information about the activities of the various bodies responsible for monitoring the implementation of the agreements and the fulfilment of the obligations arising from them, including obligations relating to trade barriers.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – The draft regulation adapts these 26 regulations to Regulation No 182/2011. This regulation establishes two procedures for Member States to exercise such control over implementing acts: the advisory procedure and the examination procedure. In the first one, the Commission only takes the opinion of the Member States into account, whereas this opinion is binding in the second one.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this report which aims to align some commercial policy legislative acts, including the anti-dumping regulation, with the new comitology procedures. The text voted on today supports the claims of European industry, of which Italian manufacturing is an example of excellence even at a time of crisis, by vigorously defending the trade defence instruments, which are the only way to protect European businesses against the anti-competitive trade practices of third-country competitors.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We believe that the definition of trade partners, of trade relations and of the objectives to which trade should be subject constitutes an important instrument of economic sovereignty. In the case of Portugal, not having this instrument of sovereignty has resulted in profound damage to innumerable sectors of economic activity and to the country in general. Trade policy has become geared towards maximising the profits of big business and of the EU’s major powers, to the clear detriment of countries like Portugal and of weaker economic sectors, which have been exposed to ferocious and destructive competition. We argue that trade relations should be based on the principle of complementarity and mutual benefit. This report ties in with the trade policy that the EU has been implementing, with which we completely disagree.

Report: Giovanni La Via (A7-0040/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report. However, I would once again express my view that the European Union budget should be focused on growth and not austerity. The Commission proposal keeps the European economy under harsh austerity measures, but what we should be concerned about is economic development, growth promotion and job creation. The Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament has managed to introduce some of these objectives. However, it is always important to stress that, if the Commission does not have an ambitious budget, it cannot intend to implement the Europe 2020 strategy.

  Marta Andreasen (EFD), in writing. – My position on the budget of the European Union is very clear: I consider it to be an added tax on the Member States. In particular, the UK is taxed more heavily because it is a net contributor with an increasing contribution. I want to see the budget completely eliminated, with a 10% reduction each year, starting this year. For this reason, I could not support the ECR amendment number 25, which is inadequate as it only calls for a freeze.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The general guidelines for the budget include several future priorities. What strikes me the most is that every effort must be made to support small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and young people because they represent the true potential for growth in the European economy. As Mr Lamassoure of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) has pointed out, efforts must ‘promote long-term sustainable industrial policy’ by supporting SMEs. Finally, we must be more vigilant, stop Member States spending recklessly and enforce the ‘golden rule’, which I have actively defended, even though our Members on the left have thought it unnecessary.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report. The EU budget is, above all, intended to create added value for the entire EU and its citizens. As the economic and social crisis continues, Member States are often imposing particularly severe economic and budgetary constraints, accompanied by reduced employment, a slowdown in economic growth, and a reduction in social and other guarantees, which essentially means that it will take even longer for the Member States and the whole of the EU to overcome the crisis. As a solidarity mechanism, the EU budget should not be reduced in 2013 because EU-funded programmes and instruments are intended to contribute to the long-term and sustainable growth of all EU Member States, stimulation of employment and further development of the Member States themselves. I therefore agree that the 2013 budget must be oriented towards the Member States’ economic recovery policies, particularly by investing more in the creation of new jobs, by increasing youth employment, supporting small and medium-sized enterprises and other areas referred to in the Europe 2020 strategy.

  Gerard Batten, Derek Roland Clark and Nigel Farage (EFD), in writing. – My position on the budget of the European Union is very clear: I consider it to be an added tax on the Member States. In particular, the UK is taxed more heavily because it is a net contributor with an increasing contribution. I want to see the budget completely eliminated, with a 10% reduction each year, starting this year. For this reason, I could not support the ECR amendment number 25, which is inadequate as it only calls for a freeze.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) Even though, for now, this is only a declaration of intent, I support the guidelines for the new 2013 Union Budget mentioned by Mr La Via. I welcome, in particular, the call for prudence in framing new spending commitments, the rigour with regard to human resources and the appeal for a more sensible and targeted use of European funds to make them as useful and effective as possible.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I would like to congratulate Mr La Via on his report, for which I voted in favour. The guidelines are the first step in the annual budgetary procedure. Therefore, the 2013 budget forecast must be well coordinated and responsible, and the measures to combat the economic crisis adopted thus far must now stimulate stable and lasting growth, including by means of targeted investments resulting in sustainable economic development.

The 2013 budget must therefore aim to fulfil the Union’s programmes and priorities and catch up on late payments, especially as we are nearing the end of the current period of the multiannual financial framework. The European Union’s budget is one of the most important instruments for demonstrating solidarity between Member States and between the generations and, given the financial crisis, it is also an important added value. Now more than ever, the collective efforts made at EU level must be strengthened in order to ensure that our actions deliver results.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Mr La Via’s report naturally has my full support, since it aims to ensure funding for the different programmes of the European Union. I think it is our responsibility, within the framework of preparing the Commission’s draft budget for 2013, to acknowledge the general fiscal consolidation efforts undertaken. However, the current austerity must not undermine support for economic growth and jobs. I note that the compromise reached between the different political groups has made it possible to include these two objectives.

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the proposal for a resolution of the European Parliament on general guidelines for the preparation of the 2013 budget because, firstly, I agree with the statement that the EU Budget is an instrument that demonstrates solidarity between Member States and between the generations and represents a clear common saving for the well-being of all.

Secondly, I believe that this is absolutely the right time to promote the growth of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which have become the backbone of economic growth in Europe, having created 85% of the new jobs in the European Union between 2002 and 2012. We must therefore channel adequate resources into promoting an entrepreneurial mind-set and business start-ups, as well as simplifying the application procedure for EU-funded programmes.

Thirdly, I agree that we must urgently cut the delays in terms of payments and commitments, which are close to EUR 152 million for 2013, in order to respect the financial programming amounts and so as not to come into conflict with the zero debt policy of the EU. Finally, I welcome the agreement on financing the additional costs of the ITER project, which will not impair the successful implementation of EU policies during the final year of the current programming period.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the resolution on the guidelines for the 2013 budget. 2013 represents a decisive moment in Europe’s path to economic recovery and, following the necessary austerity measures, the time has finally come to encourage growth. Also as a result of the economic circumstances that we have to face, the European Parliament therefore has the responsibility clearly to identify the strategies that it considers to be more consistent and the priority points for overcoming the current economic crisis and its depressive effects on the real economy, especially the unemployment that it has caused. For this reason, I agree wholeheartedly with the principles expressed in this resolution. In particular, I should like to stress the importance of encouraging growth by promoting youth employment and the special measures for small and medium-sized enterprises, which are aims in line with the objectives set out in the Europe 2020 strategy. In congratulating the rapporteur, Mr La Via, I join him in emphasising the need to achieve adequate funding in order to honour the commitments made in previous years without affecting next year’s budget.

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE), in writing. – (SV) We voted in favour of the report on general guidelines for the preparation of the 2013 budget as we are able to support the general priorities and objectives focusing on attaining a budget for economic recovery and growth. However, we cannot accept the report’s position concerning the size of the budget as such. Contrary to what is stated in the report, budgetary discipline and priorities are what is needed. This applies to the whole of the EU, not just the Member States. Against this background, we voted in favour of the amendments that seek to provide clearer priorities in the budget, control of payments, evaluation of programmes, efficiency, monitoring and a freezing of the budget where, instead of larger budget lines, we focus on reprioritisation and transfers.

  Andrea Cozzolino (S&D), in writing. – (IT) Since it marks only the first step in the long and tortuous route to the adoption of the 2013 EU Budget, the adoption of the ‘general guidelines’ has to be the occasion for strongly emphasising the role of Parliament in future negotiations, especially with the Council, with the powerful aim of influencing the guidelines to be adopted by the Commission in its draft budget. It must be clear here and now that the budget approach cannot avoid the urgency of restarting sustainable growth and quality employment, in line with the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy. The European Commission and the Council cannot continue down the path of austerity that leaves no margin for the requirements of economic growth capable of generating new jobs. We have the duty to identify measures supportive of growth and employment and finally go beyond the mere requirement of balancing investment and austerity. For our part, moreover, there is a pressing need to draw attention to the worrying payment situation: we must not allow a repetition of what happened in 2011 and 2012, and the Council can no longer purport to decide a priori the level of payments based on political considerations, without taking into account the repercussions on past commitments.