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

Oral explanations of vote

Report: Struan Stevenson (A7-0145/2012)

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Council regulation on the multiannual plan for the herring stock was adopted before the entry into force of the Treaty and therefore an alignment is needed. This regulation, the first in the fisheries sector to be aligned to the Treaty, is therefore of great importance as the solution adopted in this case could affect the decision-making procedure that will be applicable to other multiannual plans. On these grounds, I voted in favour.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament has two dimensions. The first is substantive. There can be no objection to the substantive dimension. Of course it is important to monitor herring stocks too and to take appropriate measures if these become overfished.

The other dimension is just as important, however, which is why I have given my full support to this committee report. The question once again is when to work with delegated acts and when to initiate regular legislative procedures. I expressly support the rapporteur’s view when he says that the delegation of powers to the Commission must be temporary because, in the final analysis, the issue at stake is where the real political power lies, with Parliament or with the Commission. I still consider that Parliament should not blithely devolve rights to the Commission.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, I have listened to the entire debate on the Stevenson report here this morning, and I must say that I am disappointed to hear that the Council is not acknowledging the Treaty of Lisbon and the resulting new powers conferred on Parliament.

When one considers that experts like Mr Stevenson, Pat the Cope Gallagher, Mr Cadec, Mr Kuhn, Mr Davies and others are doing their best to solve the problems being faced by the fishermen, and are not getting fair treatment or cooperation from the Council, that is not right and we should not put up with it.

A huge majority have just now voted in favour of this report: 593 in favour out of a total of 610 who voted. I hope this will encourage Mr Stevenson to continue with the good work.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). - Mr President, thank you for giving me this opportunity to explain our views on this particular issue. I would like to congratulate Mr Stevenson, my ECR colleague, on getting this vote through and for the support he obtained. But actually, when you look at the common fisheries policy overall, it is quite clear it has been a failure. It has been an exercise in central planning: it might as well be called a Communist fisheries policy because it has led to unsustainable seas with not enough fish stocks.

Surely the lesson we should be learning as we go forward with any fisheries policy is that in the best ones – the ones that have worked, the ones from Iceland, New Zealand, the Falkland Islands and other areas – you have a fisheries policy based on property rights which can be traded on, which families can inherit, trade on or sell on. That way there is an incentive to maintain the stocks in a sustainable way, rather than this sort of Communist, centrally-controlled fisheries policy, which has actually led to the depletion of our fish stocks and to disaster. It is time we moved towards a market-based approach.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, I voted in favour of this report on the stock of herring distributed to the west of Scotland. I fully support the proposal in the report that scientific organisations should be playing a more fundamental role in the modification of the multiannual plan. In my view, the Commission should be required to seek advice and to consult bodies such as the Pelagic Regional Advisory Council and the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries before it makes any changes to the multiannual plan as suggested.

It is vital that we preserve these fish stocks, and any advice that can be gained on mortality rates and associated spawning stock biomass levels from the experts will surely help the Commission in reaching an evidence-based decision and more suitable regulations ensuring that these vital marine stocks are managed effectively.

Report: János Áder (A7-0339/2011)

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, from Seveso to Bhopal to Toulouse, numerous environmental disasters have struck Europe in recent years and put the health of European citizens at risk. Mr Áder’s text deals with the revision of the Seveso II Directive, which seeks to contain the effects of these incidents involving substantial amounts of dangerous and highly polluting substances released into the environment. The revised rules, which will come into force from June 2015, are intended to protect the environment and above all to limit tragic consequences for the health of citizens, and therefore I voted in favour.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, if we look back at some of the serious environmental disasters we are all familiar with, we can see that there have been numerous cases where disastrous environmental consequences have followed industrial accidents. These cases also show that at times the impact of accidents can extend beyond national borders.

I have voted in favour of my fellow Member’s proposal since I believe Directive 96/82/EC must be replaced so that the existing protection levels are not only maintained, but strengthened. I also think that the new provisions should be clearer, consistent and easily understandable, in order to contribute to the streamlining of administrative procedures. Finally, I would argue it is necessary to keep a certain amount of flexibility to be able to amend Annex I to deal with any unwanted effects of the alignment to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 and any subsequent adjustments to that regulation that could have an impact on the classification of dangerous substances.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). - (FI) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report, because it is very important to inform the public about major disasters when accidents happen. Nor should the public be left in the dark about the causes and consequences of major accidents. If we allow the risk of accidents to be underestimated, we endanger people’s safety and health.

It is therefore only right to tighten legislation. Operators will now have more responsibility for providing information. Public awareness will also increase as a result of the assessment and monitoring process to take place every four years.

The report contributes to greater public safety in Europe, and that is why it is very welcome.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, the accident that occurred in Seveso, costing the lives of many people, showed how important it is to take preventive action against industrial accidents too: the primary aim is to prevent such things from happening, while the secondary aim is to ensure appropriate safety measures are in place if accidents do occur. This is also the reason why these directives were named for Seveso. We have had Seveso I and Seveso II, and now we have Seveso III. This places an obligation on operators and the authorities in Member States to avoid accidents. According to the regulations, operators are required to put a multi-level strategy in place that is more stringent the more hazardous the materials. Precise plans are required for production facilities and must cover toxic substances, evacuation plans and employee training. The current directive covers about 10 000 businesses. This number alone is an indication of the importance of the issue. It is for that reason that I have always supported this report.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, it does seem odd given what is happening outside this chamber – the bank runs, the economic crisis – that we are spending time talking about major accident hazards involving dangerous substances, but then it occurred to me that there is a certainly grisly aptness in this report. The most dangerous substance of all turned out to be the euro!

I do not mean that in a literal sense – while I understand that some people did have an allergic reaction to the particular kind of alloy used in the coins, even I am not going to try and turn that into an argument against the single currency. What happened was that our leaders, so taken with their dream of political union, disregarded all of the economic danger signs with the calamitous consequences that we can see around us today: poverty, preventable deflation, emigration, despair and the prospect of endless tax rises, all because we were so in love with this dream of ever-closer union.

Outside the European Parliament in Brussels there is that statue of a female figure holding aloft the euro sign as a symbol to the greatness of the currency. Years from now, when there is tumbleweed blowing through that part of town and the European Parliament is in ruins, archaeologists will find its vast and trunkless legs of stone and see the inscription on the pedestal: ‘Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair’.

  President. – Thank you, Mr Hannan. We have received your message, even though you did not deal with the matter in hand. We have other formats for this purpose.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted for this report as the likelihood of serious accidents needs to be reduced. Such accidents, like the pink sludge spill in Hungary in 2010, must be prevented in order to contain the adverse consequences for man and the environment. Although the directive seems to work well, it needs to be revised to improve its enforcement and reduce the administrative burden involved.

The most important amendments are aimed at access to information and public involvement in the decision-making process. A high level of protection is required, and reviewing the directive should be aimed at achieving this. In this context, I should stress how important access to justice is. Informing the general public is also vital because it will lead to establishing a climate of trust. As long as the public receives clear, accurate information, it will be able to take the appropriate measures in the event of major accidents.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). - Mr President, it is important that we consider all sorts of hazardous and toxic materials. I am very pleased that we have actually looked at this issue, but in the context of the wider economic situation it is also important that we look at some toxic and hazardous substances there.

We should look at the issue of toxic debt and why governments have been spending more money than they had coming in and therefore got themselves into a difficult situation. We should be looking at the issue of moral hazard, where we are now trying to encourage banks or governments to build up lots of money in case a bank fails. That just creates a moral hazard, because why would you act responsibly if you know there is a pot of money there waiting for you?

We should also look at the danger of the euro for countries that are not competitive. Look at what is happening in Greece and Spain; they cannot maintain this, and it is hazardous for their citizens. We should be looking at all hazardous substances, including substances that make countries poor.

Report: Frédérique Ries (A7-0059/2012)

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Directive 2009/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional uses establishes general provisions regarding the composition and manufacture of said foods.

This directive’s provisions mostly date back to 1977 and no longer meet the needs of today's consumers. Therefore an in-depth revision of the directive was needed and for this reason I voted in favour of Ms Ries’s proposal. I would still argue that it is absolutely necessary to protect consumers more, simplify regulations and tackle the difficulties that Member States and operators encounter in interpreting the various existing pieces of food legislation. This would mean similar products could be treated in the same way throughout the Union, creating a level playing field for all internal market operators and in particular for small and medium-sized enterprises and end-consumers.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). - (FI) Mr President, I tried to vote for this report, but my machine would not work. One essential aspect of the report is the issue of consumer information.

Something else that is important is the target group in the report, those growing children who are very vulnerable consumers, on account of their age. Obesity in children is endemic and a serious cause for concern throughout Europe. Studies have incontestably shown that advertising and the content of advertising targeted at children shape their consumer behaviour.

It is gratifying that the report calls for truthfulness when it comes to food labelling and proposes that consumers should only be given scientific and factual information. I am in favour of these views, because we all know that the role of company advertising is primarily to promote sales, and not to provide consumers with information. Amid fierce competition, many companies will stop at nothing to boost profits. Most foods marketed to children also contain a good deal of fat, sugar and salt.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, in June 2011, the EU Commission presented a proposal for the revision of food law according to which specific regulations will only exist in future for foods intended for infants and small children and foods for special medical purposes. Something that might sound very good at first – and I am all in favour of simplification – turns out to be more problematic in practice. Various people need to adhere to specific diets and require specific information. I am genuinely very grateful to our Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety for having resolved this conflict. On the one hand we do not want misleading advertising, while on the other we require sufficient information. Thirdly, of course, we do not need excessive information. Once again, thank you to the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, which has asserted itself and come up with a solution that can work in practice. Otherwise, the principle still applies: it will, of course, be possible to review whether the report is going in the right direction. Thank you once again, I found myself able to vote in favour of the report as a result.

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report, which I think is one of the most important votes held on a report today. It was not only the case that directives dating from before 1974 needed to be amended and adapted, but the fact that this report is aimed at one category of vulnerable consumers is totally relevant. These consumers are frequently victims of inaccurate advertising and labelling. This is why a number of conditions are developing which are much more difficult to fight.

I welcome the provisions targeting gluten intolerance because this intolerance has led to the development of a condition which, unfortunately, is prevalent in a very large number of European states at an alarming rate. I am talking about coeliac disease. This report also deals with this condition, attempting to suggest measures to combat the relevant condition.

However, I think that this report must be followed up by other measures for implementing it and monitoring how it is put into practice.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). - Mr President, our supermarket shelves are stacked high with food claiming to cater for specific needs. There is specialised food and drink for infants and old people; there are products for those trying to lose weight as well as those trying to gain weight. Customers deserve a choice, but they also need to understand what they are buying and consuming.

This report calls for clearer and simpler rules for the labelling of so-called diet products. I hope that when Member States implement this legislation it will lead to a reduction rather than an increase in red tape. The new legislation should also facilitate – rather than prevent – small and medium-sized companies from accessing the market. Consumers need clear information and companies need simple rules to allow them to compete effectively. For these reasons, I support the report.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). - (FI) Mr President, I voted in favour of the report by Ms Ries. We must thank her for an excellent report, and it is very important, when we talk about infant formulae and food for children, that all the relevant information is truthful, accurate and scientifically proven. Furthermore, it is very important to ensure that we do not engage in any kind of image advertising.

Otherwise, I would say with regard to this report that, as far as coeliac foods are concerned, coeliac products could have been dealt with separately in their own report, although in this context they obviously fit in, as the legislation obviously now needs to be updated in this respect.

On the whole, this represents an excellent improvement. Altogether, 35 years have passed since the previous legislation was enacted, and, for that reason, it was high time we brought in new, up-to-date legislation.

(Applause)

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). - Mr President, I support the rapporteur on what I believe is quite a proportionate document that improves the current situation. It is also important to say that current EU legislation recognises that breastfeeding is best for infants and that from six months infants need a diversified and safe diet.

However, I voted against Amendment 86, which seeks to severely restrict advertising of infant formula and follow-on infant formula to specialist baby care magazines and/or scientific publications. This is going much too far. It restricts consumer choice – not many consumers purchase specialist magazines or scientific publications. It would also ban television advertising, and this is neither proportionate nor reasonable. I agree there should be a clear distinction between infant formula and follow-on formula, but not a virtual ban on advertising. While Member States may decide to further restrict advertising, an EU-wide ban on advertising infant formula and follow-on formula, with the exception of the magazines I mentioned, is not proportionate.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, the rules on the labelling of the contents of baby milk and foodstuffs for people with special health problems should be tighter and better defined in order to protect consumers. It should be noted that, with this type of food, misleading labelling can harm the health of consumers. Stricter regulation is therefore appropriate. Its task is not to deprive a person of choice, but to ensure that his choice is based on clear, comprehensible and accurate information. I therefore think that advertising for these foods should meet the higher ethical standards. Stringent controls of compliance with them should be in the natural interest of the producers themselves. I welcome this report and applaud the professional approach of the rapporteur, Ms Ries.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted for this report because I support the review of the legislation on foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional uses. I welcome the regulations aimed at updating, streamlining and clarifying EU standards on labelling and the content of dietetic products. This will guarantee a high level of protection for certain vulnerable population groups.

This sector should also benefit from greater legal certainty. A simplified framework is required to avoid an increase in the administrative burden and encourage innovation. I also think that similar products should receive equal treatment throughout the EU to ensure a level competitive playing field. Consumers must enjoy greater safety and clearer rules in order to ensure that the internal market functions properly.

Motion for a resolution: B7-0306/2012

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, linguistic diversity within the European Union may pose problems with regard to both information and public administration activities. Guaranteeing citizens’ rights to public consultation and official measures in a national language is invaluable and necessary for proper co-existence within the European family. Put simply, it will lead to the elements of direct democracy being strengthened in the Member States of the European Union. Wider participation and the involvement of citizens in the public consultation process may serve as an outside sign of constructive social dialogue and political involvement as well as the building of trust towards European politics. In view of the fact that next year has been designated the European Year of Citizens, it is important to raise people’s awareness of the benefits and rights resulting from European citizenship. I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution in the hope of consultations being carried out more widely on the basis of measures taken by non-governmental organisations, and of citizens being guaranteed the right to receive communications from the EU in their native languages.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, the right of every citizen to deal with Brussels institutions in his own language is one of the few remaining signs that this is an association of nations rather than a single polity.

I have very little patience with the argument which one hears very often, even in my constituency, that the EU as a whole – or at least the European Parliament – should adopt just English, or just English and French, or just English, French and German. If you remove the requirement for the EU to produce everything in every national language, you simultaneously remove the biggest obstacle to a superstate.

That said, we are adopting, if not in the literal sense, something of a common language in the way in which we debate these matters in this Chamber. We use phrases which one never hears anywhere except here: ‘respecting the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality’, ‘bringing Europe closer to the people’, ‘the answer is more Europe, not less Europe’, ‘the people are demanding that we do more’. These are phrases that you only ever hear from Eurocrats and MEPs.

It is difficult not to think of the appendix to George Orwell’s 1984, where he talks about ‘Duckspeak’: the engagement of the larynx without the engagement of the higher brain centres at all. When you talk in clichés you are almost certainly thinking in clichés, and that is why we are in the mess we are in.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). - (FI) Mr President, I think that this is a very important motion for a resolution, and I voted in favour of it, because this concerns public consultations and their availability in all the languages of the EU.

If the European Union wants to be credible in the eyes of its citizens, it also has to provide all essential information in the language that those citizens speak. Only in this way can we win people’s trust, and I think that this is one area where we must make far more effort to ensure that people receive information in language that is easily comprehensible on the European Union’s role and that of its various institutions. People should be able to have access to all documents and all hearings in their own language.

This lies at the heart of what we need from the EU, and, for that reason, Parliament, as a democratic body, must stand up for the right of the people to have access to all public documents in their own language, and that goes for all hearings and consultations as well.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). - Mr President, to add another cliché to the long list, sometimes in this Parliament we talk about the ‘democratic deficit’. Well, this is one of the ways of dealing with the democratic deficit. I often say to citizens, you do not just vote for your MEPs: there are other ways and mechanisms whereby you can influence what happens in this Parliament, and one is by being involved in consultation processes.

I regularly update citizens and interested groups on the ongoing consultation processes because I believe they are a very useful tool. But it is really important that citizens can communicate in their own language. For example, it is very important that Irish speakers can communicate with the Commission in their own native language. Language is not necessarily the only barrier, however, and it is equally important for persons with a disability to be able to communicate in an accessible format.

Finally, I believe the timeline needs to be looked at. If you are big lobby group or a big NGO, a short space of time is enough to get involved in a consultation, but for ordinary people who do not have the same resources at their disposal, consultation periods need to be longer.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, at a time when citizens and politicians are focusing on finding solutions to the financial and budgetary crisis, it may seem that calls for the consistent application of multilingualism are a secondary matter. These two issues are closely related, however. A European identity, which is a prerequisite for mutual solidarity between the Member States, cannot exist without a sense of belonging. If the citizens of some Member States start to feel that Europe does not speak their language, it will not be their Europe. They will cease caring about its fate, the fate of the single currency, and the common future. Therefore, it is today more important than ever that the EU communicates with citizens in all the official languages.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted for this motion for a resolution because a large proportion of the public consultations touch on vitally important subjects, but the level of participation is generally low. They should be organised involving NGOs, trade unions and the mass media, and should be accessible to everyone. Public participation is a fundamental aspect of democratic governance and should be encouraged. This is why it is vital to provide translation in all the official languages.

Sustained efforts are required to get all European citizens actively involved. At present, consultations are not organised well enough. I should emphasise how important it is to increase the level of awareness about the benefits and rights granted through EU citizenship. The Commission must also take measures to bridge the information and communication gap between the EU and its citizens.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, I abstained on the vote on this statement on public consultations and their availability in all EU languages. Of course, it is important that each and every citizen of our Union should have a right to address the institutions in any of the EU official languages, and that must be respected. It is also important that all consultations are given the same treatment so that they are all accessible to the same degree, but I do not support the multilingual system in our institutions, both for MEPs and officials, as this is too expensive and inefficient. I have no love for the EU Tower of Babel and I believe that three working languages would suffice – namely English, French and German. The UN, with 186 member countries, only has six working languages, and the Council of Europe, with 47 member countries – including all the EU Member States – has only two, and yet the EU, at a time of austerity and cuts, still insists on all 23.

Motion for a resolution: RC-B7-0312/2012

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, well if I may continue briefly with my 1984 analogy, we are all familiar in politics with the concept of doublethink: the ability to hold two contradictory views simultaneously in your mind. It comes out in all sorts of ways. For example, a lot of people will be aggressively in favour of the rights of indigenous communities in poor parts of the world to be left undisturbed and yet will be aggressively in favour of immigration and multiculturalism in other parts of the world. That is human nature and I suppose we all do that. But Tibet is a particularly egregious example of it.

In this Chamber we like to pat ourselves on the back for being on the side of democracy, freedom and self-determination, but when we try to apply that same logic to the European Union, the doublethink kicks in. If Tibetans are better off living under their own laws and their own people, then why are not Portuguese or Germans or British people or any other democratic community in Europe? How extraordinary that having developed this idea of national self-determination and exported it around the world, we have turned out backs on it here in the continent it came from.

  Reinhard Bütikofer (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, I voted against this motion for a resolution because I consider it a regrettable provocation that runs counter to Europe’s One China policy. This represents a serious disservice to the issue of human rights. Parliament has allowed itself to be seduced into following a small Tibetan separatist lobby that aims to disrupt European-Chinese relations.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution on Tibet.

The situation in Tibet is still very alarming, with the whereabouts of many of the Buddhist-monk victims of self-immolation largely unknown. It is important that the PRC authorities reveal this information as soon as possible. I back the repeated calls for even greater efforts to address the poor human rights situation in Tibet within the framework of the EU-China human rights dialogue.

It is vital that the Chinese authorities continue and intensify their discussions with representatives of the Dalai Lama on the situation in Tibet, as a lasting solution can only be found if it is a solution which respects the cultural autonomy and maximum political devolution of Tibet within China. Moving ever more Han Chinese people into Tibet will only exacerbate this situation.

Motion for a resolution: B7-0300/2012

  Ewald Stadler (NI). – (DE) Mr President, I already stated yesterday that I would vote against this placebo-type resolution. We have heard more arguments today. Following Christine Lagarde’s earlier declaration that the euro would be history in three months’ time, today we read that Alan Greenspan has quite literally stated: the euro has failed.

Now the European Union’s internal market policy is threatened with failure because of the scandalous unemployment figures for which the Union is responsible. How do we respond? We produce a placebo-type resolution about the further development of the internal market and demand a greater depth of regulation, making it even harder for small and medium-sized enterprises to survive and therefore to secure jobs. That is not the right way to go. Our businesses are being stifled by bureaucracy that at best replaces national bureaucracy, but mostly simply adds to it. This will not create jobs. You cannot have economic growth by political decree. Growth needs to be facilitated by removing excessive regulation, not by adding more regulations. That is precisely what this placebo-style resolution seeks to do. It is for this reason that I have voted against it.

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I do not share the opinion of the Member who has just spoken. I would argue that this Parliament has properly exercised its powers by adopting the resolution we voted on, because it is clear to all that we urgently need to complete the single market not by adding new laws but just by implementing the regulatory package we already have.

The objective of single market growth must take account of four fundamental elements in this resolution, namely the size of the market operators: over 90% of our market belongs to small and very small businesses; the social value of businesses: the rules must be rethought based on people and work as well as profit; the multi-faceted nature of the market: in order to grow, an integrated view of investment is needed; and ultimately, the multiplier effect: the market is becoming a driver for the economy and a multiplier for national economies if it does not eliminate the basis for their existence. Allow me to make an observation on this point: I am extremely satisfied with the adoption of the amendment …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report, which I think is an important report on the future of the single market. Not only does it develop a vision, but it also offers solutions and I am among those who believe that the single market is the main cohesion element of our European project.

This report addresses EU bureaucracy, which is something I wish to emphasise, because the request to reduce EU bureaucracy by 25% by 2015 is essential. Both the Commission and the Member States must proceed effectively to implement this reduction, in order to facilitate the access of citizens – companies and individuals – to a much more fluid and coherent administration.

Moreover, I would like to emphasise the issue regarding the mutual recognition of professional qualifications. As regards Article 59 of the Directive, I think this recognition is a step towards streamlining access to the labour market within the European Union and has a beneficial impact.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, I was happy to vote with the Group in all the votes relating to this important paper, with one exception. The exception is Amendment 8 regarding section 42(a), where ‘to coordinate taxation policies’ appears.

We have doubts about this policy and, until there is clarification of what it involves, we are reluctant to vote in favour of it. That is why we abstained; we were not completely against it.

That said, there are many good suggestions here; and the sooner we can complete the single market the better. Because it would enable us to escape from the economic crisis, and promote growth and development in Europe.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted in favour of this resolution because the single market is one of the EU’s greatest achievements and its consolidation is essential. It has to face many challenges and its growth potential is not yet fully used. The Single Market Act helps boost the economy and create new jobs.

In this context, I think Member States should support the single market more vigorously. We must move towards a smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and we need concrete measures in this respect. We need a greater mobility of skilled workers, which would allow the European economy to become more competitive. This is why I want to stress the importance of removing the restrictions that are still imposed on Romanian workers in the labour market.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). - Mr President, one of the sad things about the reaction of many politicians here in the EU to the financial crisis is that, while they complain about austerity, there is actually no alternative plan.

Austerity is very important to make sure that never again do we fall into the trap of spending more money than we have coming in but, at the same time, it is important that we look at measures that boost growth and make sure that we can create the jobs for people right across the EU. There can probably be no better tool available, whether you are sceptical or a believer in the European project, than a single market. We really need to continue to boost the single market and welcome the proposal for a Single Market Act II, which would reduce more barriers between Member States and actually tackle some of those professions and industries which have been allowed to hide behind protectionism.

Let us give our businesses and companies a larger marketplace, give them a platform for the global stage; otherwise they will seek not to trade with Europe but to trade with emerging markets, elsewhere.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, I voted in favour of the motion on the future of the single market.

The single market has been one of the few triumphs of the European Union, bringing huge benefits to all its citizens and many new opportunities for European businesses, as well as driving economic growth and employment.

In the current poor economic climate, however, we must be cautious that any measures the eurozone takes for a banking and fiscal union do not freeze out the UK financial services sector from continental Europe.

I am proud to represent the City of London, so this is very important to the interests of my region.

It should now be our focus to implement key legislation on growth, quickly – for instance, we could actually enhance the effectiveness of the Services Directive – and to cut the red tape and other remaining obstacles to free movement of goods, capital, services and workers.

Motion for a resolution: B7-0299/2012

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of this resolution because I believe it gives the Commission an important outline of how it should follow up the public consultation on the future of European company law. As shown by the data from the attached studies, more and more companies and businesses operate within the single market on a cross-border level and therefore it is important to standardise company models. I believe that the main merit of this resolution is that it has given the Commission the key words to use, which are above all simplification, transparency, standardisation of accounting systems – particularly bearing in mind the needs of small and medium-sized businesses – and promotion of mobility. I hope that the Commission’s response will arrive within the specified timescale and above all that Parliament’s judgment is taken on board.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, all measures aimed at increasing transparency and harmonising legislation in the area of economic and trade affairs have benefited enterprises, enabling them to compete more effectively in the market. The same applies to company law, since there are often barriers in terms of different interpretations of regulations or simply the sheer number of regulations which stand in the way of establishing and running companies, especially in certain Member States. I voted in favour of adopting the resolution, as it highlights the need to undertake initiatives aimed at simplifying procedures in respect of the business environment, and reducing unnecessary administrative burdens. Moreover, I propose that a set of common rules needs to be developed, for example in terms of the protection of subsidiaries and stakeholders, and greater transparency created as regards legal and ownership structures. I also believe that it is necessary to step up efforts to prepare the Private Company Statute (SPE), which is in the interest of small and medium-sized enterprises.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted in favour of this resolution, because I think company law contributes to the smooth functioning of the single market. It is a key factor that helps protect the rights of shareholders and guarantee legal certainty. The EU needs a regulatory framework adapted to the current needs of companies and which reflects the trends of the European economic environment. I believe we need to harmonise basic regulations and adapt company law for the benefit of both shareholders and customers.

Moreover, I wish to draw attention to the extremely important role of businesses in terms of growth and innovation. We should focus greater attention on corporate governance standards and corporate social responsibility. The EU regulatory framework for company law should be more user-friendly for all stakeholders.

Motion for a resolution: B7-0275/2012

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – (RO) Mr President, I believe the analysis of the Commission Communication on the recovery of jobs presented in this report is important in the current context. I would like to emphasise the realistic approach adopted by the rapporteur in assessing the status of the labour market in the European Union, and highlight two issues.

The report mentions that there is no correlation between the products of universities and vocational training factors, and the labour market reality. We are short of engineers, we are short of trade workers, and we are short of technicians. I think it will be necessary to try and focus the professional system, or at least the continuous vocational training system, on skills that better match the demands of the labour market, both at Member State and European level. For this reason, I also welcome the decision to reduce the tax wedge on labour, which is currently excessive in a large number of Member States and makes employment unattractive to public and private employers.

I believe this report is an important one; it is an analytical report that will certainly have to be taken into account and considered by Member States in the near future.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, ‘towards a job-rich recovery’ is a report title that could really have come straight out of the Ministry of Truth – and I promise that is going to be my last Orwellian reference of the day. We have had all these promises of job-rich recoveries before. We had one when I was a new MEP – it was the Lisbon Agenda, do you remember that? It was going to give Europe the most successful, competitive, knowledge-based economy in the world by the year 2010.

Well 2010 has come and gone and, as Sarah Palin might ask, how’s that working out for you all? Then it was the euro. We have forgotten that this was one of the great arguments we were given in favour of monetary union – that it would boost employment throughout the eurozone. Again, how’s that working out?

Now we are on to our latest conceit, our latest bit of hubris. The truth is we politicians cannot create jobs; we cannot legislate them into effect. Even if I employ somebody in my office I am doing so with taxpayers’ money which is being taken out of the private sector where it would have been used more efficiently. One thing we could do is stop destroying jobs with pointless, intrusive, pettifogging regulation, to allow the entrepreneurs, who are the real drivers of the economy, to create jobs and employment.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). - Mr President, I agree with Mr Hannan. It certainly is an inspiring title for the report. The truth is that if we use an inspiring title like that then we have to make sure that we deliver, that it is real. In that context it is very important that this morning we voted to back an investment package which is to create sustainable jobs, because I believe this sends a clear message to citizens that we are now seriously attempting to rebalance the current austerity approach with a Europe-wide pact for investment and jobs. I hope the Council is listening and takes action. I also know that when Irish citizens voted for the fiscal compact that they were expecting such an investment pact as part of the overall package.

Of course, the tools at the disposal of the European institutions to boost employment are limited. I believe that the call in this resolution to upskill workers and retrain them is one where there is European added value, and in this context I would strongly call on the Council to remove the blocking minority as far as the continuation of the European Globalisation Fund is concerned and to leave that instrument there to upskill redundant workers.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, I made one small mistake in the votes here. I wanted to vote with the Group in every vote; but in number one, the first roll-call, I pushed the wrong button. I wrote to the services about it.

Under our 2020 strategy we have a target of creating 75 % employment for those of employable age by 2020. At the moment there is about 68 to 69 %, and while 6 or 7 % might not seem a whole pile, when you actually transfer it into numbers it is about 17.6 million jobs.

Certainly a job-rich recovery is required and while, as Mr Hannan and others mentioned, politicians cannot create jobs per se, we can create the conditions. It was encouraging yesterday to hear the points mentioned by Commissioner Barnier in that regard – standardisation, completing the single market, growth of e-commerce etc., and particularly the European Patent. All these taken together can help. Hopefully, by 2020, we will be in the situation of having reached our target of 75 % of people of working age being employed.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted in favour of this motion for a resolution because I agree that the economic recovery of the EU depends on its capacity to create jobs. There have been numerous discussions regarding the measures needed; the Commission has made proposals, and the Council has taken decisions. It is time to implement them through concrete and effective actions.

The Commission should submit a clear report on the EUR 82 billion that were to be directed towards SMEs and youth job creation. We also need specific EU-wide programmes to support young entrepreneurs. I should point out that I also submitted a written question on this matter to the Commission. At the same time, I support the establishment of the Youth Guarantee and I hope that it will be adopted by the end of this year. This would facilitate in a concrete and efficient manner the transition from school to the first job, thereby reducing youth unemployment.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). - Mr President, this debate on ‘Towards a job-rich recovery’ actually highlights the philosophical difference between the state interventionists on the left and those on the right who believe in markets and a more liberal approach to economics.

Those on the left believe that they simply use more taxpayers’ money to create artificial jobs with the state, but they also want as many people on welfare as possible so, when it comes to elections, they can knock on people’s doors and say ‘if you vote for the parties of the right not only will you lose your job but you will also lose your welfare’.

Those of us on the right believe that what you need to do is create the right conditions for growth: get governments out of the way of markets; get governments out of the way of entrepreneurs and allow them to create real sustainable jobs – not jobs dependent on governments spending more taxpayers’ money than they have actually got and getting themselves into debt, but the creation of real sustainable jobs in the private sector so that they can then pay their taxes.

Motion for a resolution: RC-B7-0304/2012

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted in favour of this motion for a resolution for two reasons. Unfortunately, another barbaric phenomenon, justified in some cases by religious options, persists in the 21st century. However, these barbaric practices of extreme violence against women affect 140 million women worldwide and more than 500 000 women in Europe. I believe we must put an end to such practices and I welcome the opportunity to discuss this phenomenon in the United Nations General Assembly.

Nevertheless, it is alarming that this phenomenon has expanded and continues to expand in Europe, and, it is certainly unacceptable for countries with civilised human rights and equality standards to tolerate it. This report is a warning sign for the European dimensions of this phenomenon and, therefore, it deserves our full attention.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, the World Health Organisation estimates that at least half a million women and girls in the EU are living with female genital mutilation, and that a further 180 000 girls are at risk. This mutilation is not a religious practice, but a cruel, barbaric ritual explained as a tradition. Mutilation causes girls, who are mostly under 15 years of age, unimaginable pain, and leaves permanent consequences for their health for the rest of their lives. Parliament has adopted a second resolution calling on the Commission and Member States to do their utmost to eradicate this inhuman practice. The European Union can do a lot in the fight against violence of this type. It both supports organisations that help victims, and it takes active steps in the planning of development assistance in countries where the practice is still tolerated. We must also fight this act uncompromisingly in the European Union.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). - (RO) Mr President, I voted in favour of this resolution because female genital mutilation is a barbaric practice that is unacceptable in the 21st century. Its consequences are devastating for the physical and mental health of women and can lead to very serious health problems and even death. Although there are laws that prohibit female genital mutilation, it continues to be practised in many parts of the world, threatening to affect 3 million women annually. And some cases occur within the European Union. Even as we speak, a couple is standing trial in France for having mutilated their four daughters.

I call on the Commission to make the prevention of these practices a priority, as part of an overall strategy for combating violence against women. I hope the United Nations General Assembly will adopt the resolution on this topic. I wish to emphasise the importance of information campaigns on risks and consequences.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution on female genital mutilation (FGM). With an estimated 140 million women and girls worldwide living with the terrible consequences of female genital mutilation, and at least half a million of them in Europe –including, sadly, many in my own region of London – this is a huge issue.

Though FGM is a traditional practice in the Horn of Africa, it is not a requirement of any religion. It is a barbaric practice performed for the most part on girls younger than fifteen years old, leaving them with very serious long-term consequences and irreparable injuries. Complications of the procedure such as haemorrhaging, infection, transmission of the HIV virus and complications – even to pregnancy and eventual childbirth – can sometimes be fatal.

I back calls for the UN General Assembly to ban the practice across all its member states, and for our own Member States in the European Union to criminalise the practice at national level. In the United Kingdom we need to see more prosecutions of both parents and surgeons who do this. It is still going on illegally and yet our police, for reasons of cultural sensitivity, are very reluctant to act, sadly.

Motion for a resolution: B7-0302/2012

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, the breast implant affair is the result of human irresponsibility, but it is also the result of a lack of legislation. I hope that pressure on the Commission will lead, as soon as possible, to the creation of a legal framework that will guarantee the quality not only of breast implants, but also of medical technology in general. Concrete measures should include strengthening the inspection of products on the market, as well as unannounced inspections throughout the supply chain, increasing accreditation requirements and improving the monitoring of Member States’ authorities. As a doctor, I welcome the fact that it will be mandatory to announce every prohibition, restriction or legal action adopted in respect of implants in another EU Member State. Furthermore, a system for the identification of each individual product and an implants register will be introduced that will enable them to be traced and their safety to be monitored over the long term.

Written explanations of vote

Report: Struan Stevenson (A7-0145/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, as I consider multiannual plans for the conservation of fisheries a key EU instrument that have been blocked in the Council for more than two years. The solution adopted in the regulation may impact on the decision to be applied to other multiannual fisheries plans.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The regulation in force provides for the adaption of current fishing quotas to scientific data on the maximum fishing mortality rates and associated spawning stock biomass levels following a Council decision. As this procedure is no longer possible, due to the amendment of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the adoption of a legislative solution that will allow for the achievement of the objectives initially set by this document is required. In this respect, the delegation of powers to the European Commission may be the appropriate solution for the institutional problem we are facing. I support the conclusions of the report and I think that, in order to ensure legitimacy and institutional transparency, it is important that the prerogative delegated to the Commission be limited, both in terms of its objectives – revising the above rates – and in terms of its scope. I also support the preservation of the central role of STECF (the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries) and PRAC (the Pelagic Regional Advisory Council) where the scientific assessment of fishing mortality and spawning stock biomass levels is concerned.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the amendment to a 2008 regulation establishing a multiannual plan for the stock of herring distributed to the west of Scotland. I supported the new provisions, which are adapted to making advances in scientific research. As I am committed to finding a balance between economic necessities and respect for biodiversity within the parliamentary committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, I believe that today we must adapt the fishing mortality rates and spawning stock biomass levels.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report, because I believe it is extremely important to align the regulation to the new framework of the Treaty. This regulation would be the first legislative act in the fisheries sector to be adapted in this way. In this context, I emphasise the importance of safeguarding Parliament’s rights, which were introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon. I support the adaption of fishing mortality rates and associated spawning stock biomass levels to scientific findings through delegated acts. Moreover, the other changes regarding the multiannual plan for the stock of herring should follow the ordinary legislative procedure. I welcome the simplification of the evaluation procedure, as well as the intention to keep the Plan applicable regardless of the migration of stock. At the same time, it is extremely important to generate legal certainty, especially where the objective to align future multiannual plans is concerned.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because Council Regulation (EC) No 1300/2008 of 18 December 2008 establishing a multiannual plan for the stock of herring distributed to the west of Scotland and the fisheries exploiting that stock was adopted before the entry into force of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). It contains some provisions, namely Articles 7 and 8, which confer decision-making powers on the Council while this is not possible any longer under the TFEU. This regulation might be the first act in the fisheries sector to be aligned to the TFEU. Furthermore, the solution adopted for this Regulation may have an influence on the decision-making procedure that will be applicable to other multiannual plans. It is therefore particularly important to find a legally well-founded solution safeguarding Parliament’s rights created by the Treaty of Lisbon.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report amending the Commission proposal, because I support the use of delegated acts to adapt fishing mortality rates and associated spawning stock biomass levels to scientific findings, and also because I consider it essential strictly to define the circumstances under which the Commission may adopt delegated acts.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I believe that the current designation of the geographical area that is inhabited by the herring stock should not change, as only part of this area is relevant, not the whole area.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report on the ‘stock of herring distributed to the west of Scotland’, as I consider use of delegated acts positive in order to adapt conservation plans to scientific findings, along with use of the ordinary legislative procedure to amend the multiannual plan, thereby bringing it into line with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The preservation of fisheries resources is a matter of concern for the European institutions, since they are aware of the role these resources play in maintaining biodiversity and their contribution to human nutrition. In 2008 the Council reached an agreement on a Regulation establishing the conditions for fishing certain stocks, including herring stocks. This report, drafted by Mr Stevenson, concerns the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1300/2008 of 18 December 2008 establishing a multiannual plan for the stock of herring distributed to the west of Scotland and the fisheries exploiting that stock. I agree with the rapporteur’s view on streamlining procedures, pursuant to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and provided that the Commission inform the Council and Parliament of the measures taken within the agreed time limits. I voted for this report, as it is vital to have multiannual plans for the recovery and management of fisheries resources. These plans should be based on scientific data and should be linked to viable economic conditions in fishing communities.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) As this regulation is not in line with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, with some articles thereof still conferring powers on the Commission, which is no longer possible, the Commission has suggested that it be aligned with the framework laid down in the Treaty of Lisbon. Delegated acts have been established concerning the adaptation of fishing mortality rates and associated spawning stock biomass levels to scientific findings, and legislative acts have been adopted concerning all other changes to be made to the multiannual plan. The rapporteur supports the Commission’s position in general, and is proposing some amendments. He proposes that the delegation be time limited and that references to Article 8 and Article 9 be deleted, as they broaden the scope of the delegated acts. He believes that the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries and the Pelagic Regional Advisory Council should continue to play a central role. The Commission should therefore be obliged to request the opinions of these bodies before adopting delegated acts or tabling amendments to the multiannual plan. He advocates leaving unchanged the current designation of the geographical area inhabited by the herring stock. We voted in favour.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The objective of the submitted proposal is to amend the Council regulation of December 2008 establishing a multiannual plan for the stock of herring to the west of Scotland and the fisheries exploiting that stock. The core objective of the plan is to ensure the exploitation of the herring stock in the area west of Scotland on the basis of maximum sustainable yield. To attain it, the plan lays down rules for the establishment of the annual fishing opportunities for this stock in terms of total allowable catch. Such rules use certain technical parameters, by reference to which the stock can be considered to be in better or worse conservation status, therefore closer to or further away from the plan’s objectives. These parameters are science-based, not a policy choice. Science may evolve and improve, and the plan needs to contain the necessary provisions to ensure it is kept up to date with the best science available. It is for this reason, among others, that I believe that the plan should be amended accordingly. These changes will enable this plan to work efficiently within the new decisional framework set up by the Treaty of Lisbon.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) This report’s objective is something I agree with: to align Regulation (EC) No 1300/2008 with the Treaty of Lisbon. Since it is also a proposal which has no impact on the Union’s budget, I voted in favour.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) Following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the Commission proposed aligning the Regulation to the new treaty framework by replacing the current Council decisions by delegated acts concerning the approximation of fishing mortality rates and associated spawning stock biomass levels to scientific findings, and by legislative acts adopted according to the ordinary legislative procedure concerning all other changes to be made to the Plan. Taking advantage of this alignment, the Commission also suggests some other changes, in particular moving the designation of the geographical area that is inhabited by the herring stock in question from Article 1 (‘Subject matter’) to Article 2 (‘Definitions’). Moreover, the currently complex evaluation procedure (evaluation of the achievement of the targets of the Plan every year on the one hand and evaluation of some specific aspects and of the performance and operation of the Plan every four years on the other hand) is reduced to a simpler evaluation of the operation and performance of the Plan taking place every four years. I voted in favour of this proposal.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Parliament has, by a large majority, voted in favour of the report establishing a multiannual plan for the stock of herring distributed to the west of Scotland. It proposes an amendment to the definition of ‘herring stock in the area west of Scotland’. It also provides for the participation of the Pelagic Regional Advisory Council in the multiannual plan. I voted in favour of this report.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. – (PL) In common with the rest of the European Conservatives and Reformists Group, I voted in favour of the report. It is worth noting that this regulation is probably the first act concerning the fisheries sector which is being brought into line with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It is therefore essential to find a good legal solution that protects the rights granted to Parliament under the Treaty of Lisbon. It is also significant that the solutions adopted in this regulation may influence the decision-making procedure which will be used for other multiannual plans. In this respect, I fully support Mr Stevenson’s position. Let us remember that it is not always straightforward to choose which type of act to use. Delegated and executive acts have an advantage over legislative acts insofar as they provide us with an opportunity to respond swiftly to new situations. The ordinary legislative procedure and delegated acts guarantee Parliament’s participation in the decision-making process. Our voters expect the European Parliament to be involved.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this resolution but would like to point out that, since herring is a migratory species, the specification of the area that the stock of herring distributed to the west of Scotland currently inhabits should serve to distinguish it from other stocks but should not prevent this plan from applying in the event that that stock changes its mobility patterns.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Council Regulation on the multiannual plan for the stock of herring was adopted before the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. With the adoption of this report, the necessary adjustments have been made. This Regulation may be the first act relating to the fisheries sector to be adapted to the new Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It is therefore particularly important to find a good, well-founded legal solution to safeguard the rights conferred on Parliament by the Treaty of Lisbon.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Fishing process should be regulated. It is essential to strictly define the circumstances under which the Commission may adopt delegated acts and to distinguish this case from the other changes that may be made to the Plan. I voted in favour.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Just as I did in the Committee on Fisheries, I voted for this report essentially because I agree with the legal alignment that it suggests between the Regulation establishing a multiannual plan for the stock of herring distributed to the west of Scotland and the fisheries exploiting that stock, and the framework established by the new Treaty of Lisbon. It is worth noting that the vote on this report will set a precedent for future alignments at this level.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The objective of this proposal is the amendment of Regulation (EC) No 1300/2008, establishing a multiannual plan for the stock of herring distributed to the west of Scotland and the fisheries exploiting that stock. As it was adopted before the entry into force of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Regulation (EC) No 1300/2008 contains some provisions, namely Articles 7 and 8, which confer decision-making powers on the Commission, which is no longer possible under the TFEU. This regulation may be the first act in the fisheries sector to be adapted to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It is therefore particularly important to find a well-founded legal solution to safeguard the rights conferred on Parliament by the Treaty of Lisbon. Indeed, the solution adopted by this regulation may influence future decision-making processes in relation to other multiannual plans. I therefore voted in favour.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. The Treaty of Lisbon not only gave the EP co-decision powers, it also changed the comitology procedures. The Commission is in the throes now of ‘Lisbonising’ a number of regulations in the CFP to bring them into conformity with the Treaties and this is one of them. The regulation consists of a management plan for the fishery for herring to the west of Scotland, one of many fisheries for which such plans exist. The plans are, in principle, a good thing since they serve to de-politicise the setting of quotas. Without such plans, the Council is totally free to set quotas as they wish and frequently go far higher than the scientific advice. The plans include a detailed procedure for how to establish a quota, using mathematical rules and based on the status of the stock, and the Council more or less respects those. So that is good.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Regulation (EC) No 1300/2008 establishing a multiannual plan for the stock of herring distributed to the west of Scotland and the fisheries exploiting that stock, having been adopted before the entry into force of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, contains some provisions (Articles 7 and 8) which grant decision-making powers to the Council, and this is no longer possible under the Treaty. This vote shows I am in favour of aligning the regulation to the new general framework of the Treaty. In addition, the solution adopted for this regulation could have an effect on the decision-making procedure applicable to other multiannual plans.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report seeks to align Regulation (EC) No 1300/2008 on the stock of herring distributed to the west of Scotland and the fisheries exploiting that stock with the entry into force of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. As this is the first regulation to be adopted following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, it is vital to substantiate the legal basis, as this will serve as a basis for other amendments. Apart from this technical issue, it is also worth noting the simplification of the procedure for evaluating the plan, every four years, as well as the use of delegated acts and the ordinary legislative procedure to make the necessary changes to the plan. I agree with the rapporteur when he calls for more clarity on the scope of delegated acts, and for the inclusion of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries and the Pelagic Regional Advisory Council in the evaluation, as they offer essential expertise.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. − This report is referring to the establishment of a multiannual plan for the stock of herring distributed to the west of Scotland and the fisheries exploiting that stock. Members proposed one more appropriate definition than the one proposed by the Commission, which would only refer to Scottish waters. Delegated acts are limited as to their scope to the modification of fishing mortality rates and spawning stock biomass levels and may be adopted only if the conditions specified in the text are fulfilled. The adoption of this report will ensure that the Commission should be obliged to use scientific data from the STECF and to consult the Pelagic Regional Advisory Council before taking any decision on adopting delegated acts fixing new values for fishing mortality rates and spawning stock biomass levels. The STECF and the Pelagic Regional Advisory Council should also be mandatorily involved in the process of evaluating the multiannual plan.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The Commission has suggested aligning this regulation in order to make it consistent with the new treaty framework. The rapporteur is proposing some amendments, including the proposal that delegations should be time limited, support for the current powers of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries and the Pelagic Regional Advisory Council, and the argument that the designation of the geographical area inhabited by the herring stock should be left unchanged. We voted in favour.

Report: János Áder (A7-0339/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, as it is vital that every effort be made to prevent accidents involving chemicals, the consequences of which are hazardous and can affect untold numbers of people. We need to improve the evaluation of accidents and response plans, while also keeping the public well informed. I believe this report marks a step in this direction, as it sets out mandatory elements essential to achieving this objective, in particular with regard to an accident-prevention policy, to tougher infrastructure safety reports and to implementing internal emergency plans. Only concerted efforts will enable us to achieve better results in terms of preventing hazards associated with dangerous substances.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I believe the amendments made by revising the Seveso II Directive will ensure a higher level of public access to information relevant to the public regarding the measures to be taken in case of an accident and will improve public participation in the decision-making process and access to justice, so that citizens benefit from the highest level of protection possible. I voted in favour of this report.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Since 1982, the European Union has encouraged Member States to develop a common policy for the prevention of major industrial hazards. We have voted in favour of more frequent inspections and called for improvements in informing the public. This policy is a great success which we have a duty to update.

  Erik Bánki (PPE), in writing. − (HU) I voted in favour of the new normative text of the Seveso III Directive on control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, which will enter into force in 2015, because the new legislation will significantly improve the safety of European chemical plants. The core objective of the directive is to prescribe high safety requirements for chemical plants to allow for the effective prevention of plant accidents, the protection of the health of employees and nearby residents, as well as standardised European official control of safety systems without impairing the competitiveness of the European chemical industry. These European requirements also include uniform provisions on measures to be taken in case of unforeseen industrial disasters.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The consequences of the chemical accidents that have taken place in the past have been disastrous, both for human health and for the environment, sometimes even beyond national borders. Strengthening the prevention and regulation of major industrial accidents involving dangerous substances in the European Union must therefore be a priority. This must be achieved through the revision of the 1996 Seveso II Directive. I welcome the agreement reached with the Council to adopt this regulation, which recommends, rightly, the introduction of clearer and more coherent provisions, some of the most important of which are the implementation of stricter inspection rules for some 10 000 high-risk establishments in Europe, greater frequency and transparency of these controls, and improvements in public access to information on safety and public participation in decision-making. I should like to welcome these measures, which were adopted by a landslide in plenary and which, in my opinion, are a step in the right direction and send out a strong message. I regret, however, that they do not go further, particularly with regard to transparency and communicating information to the public, which is nevertheless essential.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Over the years, the most serious industrial accidents deriving from the loss of control of certain dangerous substances – such as those that occurred in Seveso, the Netherlands, France and the United Kingdom – have cost many lives and have caused damage worth billions of euros. In order to reduce the probability of similar incidents and limit their consequences, the European Union has adopted the Seveso III Directive applicable to European establishments using dangerous substances (or mixtures) in sufficient quantities to create a major-accident hazard. With the introduction of this directive, the provisions regarding information on safety are reinforced and, more specifically, the managers of all establishments which come within its scope will be required to notify the competent authority and to devise a major accident prevention policy. While welcoming the introduction of new, stricter rules than those in the recent past regarding inspection of facilities, I would argue it is important for us to emphasise how the new environmental regulation as a whole will imply a significant increase in the administrative burdens of European companies.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because we need to align the Seveso Directive with the Regulation on the classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (CLP). The European Union’s CLP Regulation implements the United Nations’ Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS), but new CLP rules will enter into force on 1 June 2015. There should also be a review of the structure of the directive’s essential provisions, which has not been amended since its adoption. Changes to the directive in force could improve implementation and enforceability and thereby improve the level playing field and reduce the administrative burden for industry.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. – (CS) I support the Commission with regard to improving the level and quality of information and public participation in decision making. The public needs to be well informed and to have direct access to information that is important for taking decisions and acting in emergencies. I agree with the adopted proposal to specify a requirement to explain dangerous substances in simple terms on the Internet, and to indicate when an establishment has been inspected. More detailed and specialised information on dangerous substances and on inspections should at least be made available on request. Member States can then decide themselves whether they consider it appropriate to put more detailed technical information on the Internet as well. I agree with the demands to strengthen inspections and harmonise them with the number of inspections under the Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions, where the period between two site visits must not exceed one year for installations posing the highest risks, and three years for installations posing the lowest risks. Coordination or integration between these types of inspections would reduce the administrative burden related to the preparation, presence of inspectors and follow up. I would like to call on the Member States to support this coordination. The proposed provisions on inspections will help towards better implementation, and thus improve the level of protection, while also - on a broader level - securing a level playing field.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, as I believe it is very important to prevent and reduce the likelihood and consequences of major industrial accidents, which kill people, destroy public and private property, and harm the environment.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I think that major accidents occurring within the EU have serious consequences, as evidenced by accidents like Seveso, Bhopal, Schweizerhalle, Enschede, Toulouse and Buncefield, and their impact can extend beyond national borders. Therefore, I think there is a need that existing high levels of protection are maintained and further improved, if possible.

  Rachida Dati (PPE) , in writing. – (FR) I am pleased with Parliament’s adoption of this measured and realistic report, which highlights the proper functioning of the current system for preventing and managing hazards linked to our industries’ use of dangerous substances. I particularly welcome the provisions aimed at reducing administrative burden for companies: Parliament is aware that high levels of protection for citizens’ health and the environment can be achieved without unnecessary administrative burdens.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Parliament has adopted the third version of the Seveso Directive, named after the Italian village affected by a dioxin cloud following an accident in a chemical factory in 1976. The existing rules in relation to inspections have been strengthened. High-risk establishments will now be inspected at least once a year, and lower-risk sites will be inspected every three years. In order to avoid the domino effects of chemical accidents, public authorities will also have the right to obtain information on neighbouring establishments, even if they are not covered by the Seveso legislation. Lastly, thanks to the integration of the demands of the international Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, citizens’ rights have been strengthened. They will therefore be able to have direct access, via the Internet, to information on Seveso establishments situated near their homes, accident prevention programmes and the necessary emergency measures. These new requirements will allow us to better prevent and manage accidents involving dangerous chemicals.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the adoption of this text, which maintains, and indeed strengthens, several points with regard to the safety of establishments which handle dangerous substances. As we are sadly aware of the tragic accidents in Seveso (1976), Bhopal (1994) or, closer to home, at the AZF factory in Toulouse in 2001, we must put everything we can in place to protect ourselves as much as possible against the risks of chemical accidents and their consequences. The safety and, indeed, the lives of European citizens depend on it.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on ‘major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances’, as I believe that the compromise reached with the Council will enhance accident prevention, public health protection and the information provided to the public.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Major industrial accidents, such as those that occurred in Seveso (Italy, 1976), Enschede (Netherlands, 2000), Toulouse (France, 2001) and Buncefield (United Kingdom, 2005), have cost countless lives, destroyed public and private property, and harmed the environment, resulting in irreparable damage. In order to reduce the likelihood of such accidents and mitigate their consequences, the EU duly adopted the Seveso I and II Directives. It is now seeking to revise these Directives in order to integrate them with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of dangerous substances and mixtures. This revision is necessary, and the Commission has chosen to maintain the level of protection and avoid substantial changes.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Industrial accidents generally have devastating consequences: human victims, and air and groundwater contamination. This report, by Mr Áder, concerns major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances. There are 2 000 companies that work with such substances in Europe. The report aims to protect human beings and the environment, and to avoid wasting resources. In fact, major industrial accidents have caused damage amounting to billions of euro. In order to reduce the likelihood of such accidents occurring and minimise their consequences, the EU first adopted Directive 82/501/EEC (Seveso I Directive), and later Directive 96/86/EC (Seveso II Directive). Although the latter Directive has been successful, it needs to be revised because of the need to adapt it to the Regulation on the Classification, Labelling and Packaging of dangerous substances and mixtures. The new rules increase safety and will apply equally to all companies, in every EU Member State. In addition, the rules for inspections are more detailed and the information provided to the public has been improved. I welcome the set of measures adopted, as these will enable better safety conditions for the Member States, thereby contributing to a higher level of protection for people and the environment.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The new proposal for a Directive seeks to repeal the current Directive 96/82/EC, called the Seveso II Directive, which is aimed at preventing major accidents such as those that occurred in Seveso, Bhopal, Schweizerhalle and other places, involving large quantities of dangerous substances or mixtures. It is also aimed at mitigating the consequences of such accidents for human beings and the environment. The main reason behind the revision of the Seveso II Directive is the need to adapt its Annex I to the Regulation on the classification, labelling and packaging of dangerous substances and mixtures. Some of the amendments are merely technical, although the proposal also provides for the right to information and prevention and emergency plans, as well as broadening the scope of application. We agree with these aspects.

We voted for this report, but we must highlight the warnings made by our group during the debate, in particular with regard to the need to improve safety, training and working conditions for workers directly or indirectly involved in the production and/or use of dangerous substances. Unfortunately, not all of the proposals were accepted by the majority.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The directive of December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances lays down rules for the prevention of major accidents that might result from certain industrial activities and the limitation of their consequences for human health and the environment. Major accidents often have very serious consequences, as evidenced by accidents like Seveso, Bhopal, Schweizerhalle, Enschede, Toulouse and Buncefield. Their impact can even extend beyond national borders. This underlines the need to adopt appropriate precautionary measures to ensure a high level of protection throughout the EU for citizens, communities and the environment. This directive has helped reduce the likelihood and consequences of such accidents, thereby leading to a better level of protection throughout the EU. A review of the directive has confirmed that the existing provisions are fit for purpose and no major changes are needed. However, the system established by the directive should be adapted to changes to the EU system of classification of hazardous substances to which the directive refers. Likewise, I believe that a number of other provisions should be clarified and updated. At the same time, the new provisions should be clear, coherent and easy to understand to help improve implementation and enforceability without compromising safety.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I welcome the strengthening of inspection rules, as well as the introduction of rules for regulating the right to information for both citizens and public authorities, such as the ones the ‘Seveso III’ Directive intends to introduce. Therefore I voted in favour.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Since 1967, the year of the tragic chemical disaster which took place in Seveso, Europe has done much to prevent accidents connected with certain hazardous substances and thereby to limit the serious consequences for the environment and for people. Among the new things to be introduced in the new rules, I would particularly like to focus on easier access to information for the public. Prevention and information are two inseparable concepts. Citizens need to be provided with the tools to become more knowledgeable not only about the risks connected with industrial sites in their area, but also about the possibility of mitigating the consequences of a major accident by adopting rules for self-protection and putting in practice the safety measures given in the emergency plans. The information must be understandable, up to date and timely. In addition, in case of an industrial disaster, constant communication with the people affected through use of the Internet can certainly aid the progress of the operations underway. Finally we must not forget that we cannot compromise on safety: more effective prevention also requires rigorous monitoring of high-risk facilities through constant inspections and the proper application of the rules in force.

  Mikael Gustafsson (GUE/NGL), in writing. − I voted in favour of the Áder report because of the obligations arising for operators concerning safety, prevention and planning rules, and the right to information and involvement that creates for the citizens. Moreover, the inclusion of additional substances in the newly established category of harmful dermal toxic substances is undoubtedly a step towards improved prevention of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances. More steps definitely need to be taken in terms of safety at work for all the employees of these establishments and the public, so we would like the Commission to come up with stricter safety rules, and we would like to see all the substances included in those rules, and their extension to more establishments, as soon as possible.

  Jacky Hénin (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) Given the accidents and natural disasters we have experienced since 1996, progressing towards greater safety for people, the environment and society without pointlessly encumbering industry has become an absolute priority.

Wanting to inform citizens is one thing, but in order to best protect them we must really increase safety by having better trained staff and not victims of insecurity; we must increase public spending rather than reduce it, particularly with regard to the civil servants responsible for enforcing respect for safety; we must sanction countries that are too lax in terms of safety.

This report refuses to do so. If we do not tackle the root cause of these problems, the texts passed by Parliament will at best give a facelift to a law that is suffering from wear and tear.

That is why I abstained.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this document because changes to the current directive should improve implementation and enforceability and thereby increase the level playing field and where possible reduce the administrative burden for industry. Major industrial accidents, such as the accidents in Seveso (Italy, 1976), Bhopal (India, 1984), Schweizerhalle (Switzerland, 1986), Enschede (Netherlands, 2000), Toulouse (France, 2001) and Buncefield (United Kingdom, 2005), have taken many lives, destroyed public and private properties and damaged the environment, costing billions of euros. To reduce the likelihood and the consequences of such accidents the EU first adopted Directive 82/501/EEC (Seveso I Directive) and later the current Directive 96/82/EC (Seveso II Directive), amended by Directive 2003/105/EC, covering around 10 000 establishments where dangerous substances (or mixtures thereof) are present in sufficiently large quantities to create a major accident hazard. It contains obligations on operators and the Member States’ authorities to prevent accidents and to limit their consequences.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Parliament has voted in favour of the Áder report by a very large majority and I welcome that. This report amends the proposal for a directive by extending its scope to the transport of substances and intermediate short-term temporary storage, which is directly related to transport. In addition, Member States should ensure that up-to-date, reviewed information on prevention is permanently available to the public. Information on how dangerous the product is should be communicated to personnel, who may be at risk. The report also deals with issues related to prohibition of use and inspections of the establishments concerned.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Compliance with the appropriate operational procedures for major accidents involving dangerous substances is extremely important, as otherwise risks may be posed not only to the environment but also to human life. Competent and regular public information campaigns should therefore be conducted in such a way as to prevent an outbreak of panic should a threat occur. Cross-border cooperation and inter-regional coordination of measures must be reliable, and systematic checks should ensure steady and reliable monitoring of potential dangers. Any amendments to Directive 96/82/EC should be preceded by appropriate expert consultations, and we need a guarantee that progress reports will be presented to Parliament and the Council on a cyclical basis before we adopt the European Commission’s proposal to introduce amendments to Annex I of this directive by way of delegated acts.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. – (PL) I voted in favour of adopting the report on control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances. The European Union has adopted a number of directives in order to reduce the risk of such accidents occurring and to mitigate their consequences. Major industrial accidents, such as Seveso (Italy, 1976), Bhopal (India, 1984), Schweizerhalle (Switzerland, 1986), Enschede (the Netherlands, 2000), Toulouse (France, 2001) and Buncefield (Great Britain, 2005), have caused significant losses of life and environmental damage. I share the view that the proposed revision of the Seveso II Directive is necessary. However, I would like to emphasise that amendments should only be possible via the ordinary legislative procedure, since the European Parliament should be able to take full advantage of its powers in the decision-making process.

  Jaromír Kohlíček (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (CS) The Commission’s proposal is actually a slightly modified version of the original Directive 96/82/EC. It is good that, particularly for use in land planning and possible use with an integrated emergency system, we have a directive that unifies the method for securing and mapping the information necessary for addressing industrial accidents involving dangerous substances in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of dangerous substances and mixtures (the CLP Regulation). The ordering of Part One and Two of Annex I has changed compared to the original directive. The first part includes a list of categories of dangerous substances and the second part lists the dangerous substances or groups thereof. The nomenclature has changed and toxic substances are now divided into four groups. The scope of the directive is limited, on the one hand, by the exceptions, while, on the other hand, some new substances are classified. One exception includes the activities of extraction industry plants, including gas storage. In relation to oil rig accidents, rigs for oil and natural gas extraction are excluded from the scope of the directive, and the Commission is tasked with assessing the situation regarding the rules that apply here. All of the plants included must have a serious disaster prevention policy drawn up in writing and updated every five years, and obligations to notify the competent authority. In my opinion, the directive marks progress in this area and will help to further increase safety in the handling of dangerous substances. We have therefore supported it.

  Sergej Kozlík (ALDE), in writing. – (SK) Major industrial accidents claim many lives, destroy property and the environment, and cause billions of euros in costs. In order to reduce the extent and mitigate the consequences of these accidents, a series of EU regulations and directives have been adopted. The Commission is revising the Seveso II Directive, which applies to approximately 10 000 businesses that handle hazardous materials. The proposed revision rightly keeps the level of protection and avoids major changes to its scope. It introduces a new, more sophisticated classification system, particularly with regard to the relationship between human contact with hazardous substances and the attendant health risks. It improves the level and quality of information, public participation in decision making, and access to justice. I support the draft directive in the wording of Parliament’s comments.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Serious industrial incidents linked to the use of certain dangerous substances led over the years to the adoption of the European Seveso Directive, named after the accident which took place in the industrial district of that name, which provided a solution to a problem which, unfortunately, has occurred quite frequently. The principles underlying the report – which I voted for – involve harmonising the directive with the CLP Regulation and, where possible, reducing the administrative burden borne by businesses. Other important points in the report are those regarding access to information, public participation in decision-making processes and access to the courts. The proposals are undoubtedly significant and aim at improving the existing regulatory framework. It is also possible to reduce the number of major accidents connected with use of dangerous substances by improving communications, especially relating to the ‘best practices’ adopted by businesses.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The major industrial accidents involving dangerous substances that have occurred lately and affected deeply the environment and human lives, not to mention the huge costs they have generated, are a warning sign that the measures aimed at preventing such disasters are either not yet sufficiently regulated at European level, or not sufficiently understood to ensure maximum caution on behalf of those involved. Therefore, the revision of these preventive measures is more than encouraged and comes at the right time, when one of the main concerns, both at European Union and international level, involves environmental policies. However, in addition to regulating a rigorous classification of hazardous substances and the corresponding precautionary measures, it is extremely important to also take into consideration severe sanctions against those entities that have caused damages. I believe that a publicly available database of all organisations that have been involved in major chemical accidents should be created as well.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour the ‘Major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances’ report, which, first and foremost, brings the legislation into line with two other texts on the classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (CLP) and on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemical substances (REACH). The text also strengthens provisions on public access to safety information and to justice.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour. I agree with the need to adopt appropriate precautionary measures to guarantee a high level of protection for citizens, communities, property and the environment throughout the Union. Existing high protection levels must be maintained and, if possible, improved further.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Major industrial accidents that have occurred in the past in various places across Europe, with severe consequences, such as loss of life, destruction of public and private property, and serious environmental damage, forced the EU to adopt the Seveso I and Seveso II Directives. This report seeks to revise those Directives in order to integrate them with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 on the classification, labelling and packaging of dangerous substances and mixtures.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), in writing. – (SK) Since it is extremely important not only to maintain but also to improve the high level of protection of human health, the environment and property, I consider it necessary to make appropriate adjustments to the directive to reflect scientific and technical progress. I welcome the Commission’s proposals concerning access to information, public participation in decision making and access to justice, in particular making existing inspections stricter. The public has a right to be adequately and appropriately informed of potential hazards and how to protect against them. With regard to the obligations of operators, I believe that the Commission’s proposal could be bolder. Apart from the obligation of taking all necessary measures to prevent accidents and the obligation of making good the possible consequences at their own expense, they should be obliged to provide notification of the presence of hazardous substances above a specified threshold and to submit proof of their ability to handle a possible accident, and a prevention and emergency management plan. It is not desirable to burden the public finances of either the state or of regions, cities and municipalities. In addition, a precise definition of rights and responsibilities will lead to legal certainty.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Prevent chemical accidents, strengthen assessment of hazards and response plans and keep the public well informed. Nothing new but efficient for imitation of work. I am in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) Serious industrial accidents continue to claim human lives, destroy public and private property and cause major environmental damage. It is important to do all that is humanly possible to reduce the likelihood of such accidents and to minimise their impact. In particular, there is a need for well-conceived safety management systems and emergency plans, so that major damage can be averted as and when necessary. In this context in particular it is essential that the relevant materials should be classified, identified and packaged in a uniform way. I voted in favour of the report because the safety level of the current directive is to be maintained.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report, because I think that the EU needs to align its legal framework with the technical progress and to manage risks together with Member States and other stakeholders. Open information for public, risk analysis, inspections of potentially dangerous sites are necessary steps to ensure security of people and prevent disasters damaging the nature. The challenge for the Regulation is unsatisfactory implementation by the Member States. It puts in danger European citizens and our environment, information and awareness would not help them in case of accident caused by malfunctioning implementation. The “major accident prevention system” should be complemented with “implementation management system”.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The proposed revision of the Seveso II Directive, on major industrial accidents, is necessary, and the Commission has correctly chosen to maintain the level of protection and to avoid substantial changes in its scope. I voted for this proposal and would highlight the rapporteur’s view that amendments should only be authorised through the ordinary legislative procedure, as the addition of new substances could lead to substantial changes in its scope, with potentially major economic impact. Parliament should be able to exercise its full powers in the decision-making process relating to such additions.

  Pavel Poc (S&D), in writing. - (CS) Although I support the proposed Directive 2012/18/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (the Seveso III Directive), and above all the stricter assessment of possible risks, greater consistency in the preparation of disaster plans and more information for the public on potential dangers, I very much regret the fact that offshore mineral extraction, including hydrocarbons, was not included within the scope of the directive. Unless stricter rules are introduced and strict regulations applied in the area of offshore extraction, I believe there will be more accidents like the one in the Gulf of Mexico or the Jebel al-Zayt drilling platform in Egypt. Since 2010, when media attention was focused on the Deepwater Horizon oil platform disaster, there have been significant oil spills in a further 20 places around the world. The scope of the Seveso III Directive should be extended to oil platforms and oil or gas pipelines on the sea bed or beneath it, and to all phases of oil and gas exploration until after the decommissioning of a well. The inclusion of offshore extraction within the scope of the Seveso III Directive would not only help to prevent serious disasters which threaten biodiversity in rivers, seas and oceans, but would also clearly stipulate that in such a situation the principle applies under which responsibility for a disaster rests with the polluter, who also has an obligation to bear the costs of the necessary preventive and corrective measures.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report provides for a broader revision of the Seveso II Directive by adapting the Regulation on the classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, which applies the UN’s globally harmonised system for classifying and labelling chemical products to the EU. A differentiated approach to the obligations of operators has therefore been adopted, whereby the rules become more stringent depending on the quantity of the substance. Moreover, in order to ensure an increasingly high level of protection, the report proposes greater access to information, greater public participation in decision-making and greater ease of access to the courts. I therefore voted for this report, as I believe that it marks an important step towards ensuring that, in the future, we might avoid accidents such as those that have occurred in Italy, France and the Netherlands, which caused major loss of life, destroyed public and private property, and harmed the environment, causing damage amounting to billions of euro.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Industrial accidents often have devastating consequences, with billions of euros worth of damage and often hundreds of victims. That is why it is necessary to update the current countermeasures with a new regulation that is able to provide more detailed and efficient monitoring rules, and to impose action plans that are binding on all potentially dangerous establishments. It is also necessary to provide greater protection of citizens’ rights. They must be given easier access to information relating to monitoring and to participation in regional planning projects. From now on, should this not be done, it will be possible for citizens to appeal to the courts, allowing individuals to apply pressure directly on the competent authorities.

  Horst Schnellhardt (PPE), in writing. − (DE) I welcome the planned amendment to the Seveso II Directive, which is necessary because of changes to the EU system for classifying hazardous chemicals. We intend to maintain our stringent European standards going forward and will not cut corners when it comes to protecting public health. Businesses that use large amounts of hazardous materials will still be required to take all the necessary steps to prevent serious accidents and to minimise the impact on the public and the environment. At the same time, we need to ensure that we minimise red tape in businesses wherever possible and establish well-balanced competitive conditions in our Member States by improving the implementation and penetration of the directive. I believe it is particularly important to provide the public with all the necessary information that could be of relevance in the event of a serious accident. For reasons of security and fair competition, it is also necessary to ensure that highly sensitive data remain confidential. I believe that the agreement reached in the trialogue is a success from Parliament’s perspective. Changes to the list of relevant harmful substances can have a major safety-related and economic impact. For this reason, the Commission cannot be allowed to make decisions on its own. Parliament, as the representative of the citizens of Europe, must play a part in any decision relating to the protection of public health.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The most serious industrial accidents in the Member States of the European Union have cost many lives, destroyed possessions and seriously harmed the environment, causing billions of euros worth of damage. With this vote in favour we will try to reduce the probability of similar incidents occurring in the future. We need to increase and better regulate the obligations borne by operators and Member State authorities in order to prevent accidents and limit their consequences. The different levels of obligation imposed on operators reflect a progressive approach on the basis that the larger the quantities of substances, the stricter the rules are. All operators of facilities that fall within the scope of the directive will be required to notify the competent authorities and to devise a major accident prevention policy. In addition, operators of ‘upper-tier establishments’ will be forced to draw up a report on safety, a safety-management system and an emergency plan.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In order to reduce the likelihood and the consequences, at all levels, of industrial accidents, in 1985 the EU adopted the Seveso I Directive, which was replaced in 1996 by the Seveso II Directive. The latter was amended in 2003 to include, not only a list of establishments where dangerous substances or mixtures thereof are present in sufficiently large quantities to pose a risk, but also a set of obligations for operators and the Member States’ authorities, and a policy for preventing major accidents. This report seeks to validate the adaptation of this Directive to the Regulation on the classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, which applies the United Nations’ globally harmonised system of classification and labelling for chemical products, in order to bring it into line with the Aarhus Convention and enhance the criteria for inspections. I agree with the rapporteur in opposing the Commission’s use of delegated acts to amend Annex I, application of the Directive: the ordinary legislative procedure should be used, whereby Parliament will have a say in the addition of new substances. Finally, I support the implementation of access to information and public participation in decision-making processes and access to the courts in relation to environmental matters.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) Given the industrial accidents we have experienced since 1976, with the explosion of the chemical factory in Seveso in Italy, progressing towards greater safety for people, the environment and society without pointlessly encumbering industry has become an absolute priority. Information for citizens is essential.

However, this report is timid to say the least because in order to really protect citizens, we also need to increase safety by having better trained staff and not victims of insecurity, as safety is all too often entrusted to subcontractors and temporary workers; increase public spending rather than reduce it, particularly with regard to safety controls; sanction countries that are too lax in terms of safety. This report refuses to do so.

If we do not tackle the root cause of these problems, the texts passed by Parliament will remain just good intentions. That is why I abstained.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. − The proposal for a directive on control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances is currently being discussed by the European Parliament. due to changes in the EU system of classification of dangerous substances to which the directive refers to. The transport of dangerous substances in pipelines or by road, rail, internal waterways, sea or air is still outside of the scope. Heavy fuel oil has been included in the entry for petroleum products.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D), in writing. – (PL) Major industrial accidents cost many human lives and cause significant environmental losses and damage. No substantial changes are needed to the proposed directive on control of major-accident hazards. In my opinion, however, there are three areas which require more emphasis. Firstly, the key to prevention is ensuring that inspections of industrial installations are carried out regularly and reliably. Secondly, in my opinion, natural risks which also lead to major industrial disasters are underestimated. Thirdly, the safe transport of dangerous substances should be covered in the directive.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The new proposal for a directive seeks to repeal the current Directive 96/82/EC, called the Seveso II Directive, which is aimed at preventing major accidents such as those that occurred in Seveso, Bhopal, Schweizerhalle and other places, involving large quantities of dangerous substances. It is also aimed at mitigating the consequences of such accidents for human beings and the environment. The main reason behind the revision of the Seveso II Directive is the need to adapt its Annex I to the Regulation on the classification, labelling and packaging of dangerous substances and mixtures. We believe that the Council’s agreement to add at least three of the most toxic substances from the ‘acute toxicity’ category in Annex I is a positive step. The proposal also supports the public’s right to knowledge of procedures relating to their participation in decision-making, information on how to use this right, access to information and, finally, access to the courts in environmental matters.

Report: Frédérique Ries (A7-0059/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, as I believe that food for special nutritional purposes is different to food for normal consumption, and that it is manufactured to satisfy specific nutritional requirements. The Framework Directive on Dietetic Foods remains unimplemented to a very large extent, which has been hindering the implementation of this Directive and resulting in marked distortions. Labelling which gives consumers all the information they need is necessary, so that we can ensure the same level of protection for consumers throughout the EU and prevent a situation in which consumers are poorly informed by ambiguous labelling.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) As a member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, I voted in favour of the adoption of new rules on the labelling and composition of food for infants and vulnerable people so as to better protect consumers and increase the transparency of food products. The food sector must be clearer in order to better protect consumers. As a member of the French National Conference on Sport (CNS), I think that we still need to regulate products specifically intended for sportspersons.

  Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The proposal for a regulation in question, updating Directive 2009/39/EC in line with legal and market developments, has raised questions over the classification of many products as ‘dietetic’, establishing general provisions for only a limited number of food categories considered essential for certain vulnerable population groups – foods aimed at infants, children and patients under medical supervision. At the same time it has shifted protection for other groups (coeliacs and people who are lactose-intolerant) to other EU legislation and mechanisms.

The positive vote on Ms Ries’s report – the outcome of the vote in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety – is a clear sign and a positive starting point for the coming negotiations. On one hand, it expresses the shared wish to simplify the regulations; on the other it draws attention to the need to reintroduce in the future regulation complete protection for the specific nutritional needs of all the most vulnerable groups of consumers.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In June 2011, the Commission tabled this proposal for a regulation on food intended for infants and young children and on food for special medical purposes. The revision of the legislation is aimed at simplifying the establishment of a single list of substances that can be added to the foods covered by the proposal. The idea is to bring very low-calorie diet products within this Regulation’s scope by including them in the definition of food for special medical purposes. It is essential that the notification procedure, which is faster and less costly, remain the standard procedure, with marketing authorisations granted at national level and an obligation to supplement this procedure with additional rules on labelling and composition. This simplified but more protective legal framework must apply to imported and exported foods alike, and facilitates the application of the precautionary principle. The proper functioning of the internal market depends on this. I voted for this report for those reasons.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) It has to be said that, today, it has become extremely difficult for consumers to find their way through the jungle of food products and to distinguish between foodstuffs for normal consumption and those intended for specific population groups. For reasons relating to public health and consumer information, we must urgently put an end to this confusing situation. That is the objective of the thorough overhaul of the existing directive, the provisions of which are now obsolete. We should also adopt, as quickly as possible, stricter and clearer rules on the labelling and composition of foods for particular nutritional uses intended for the most vulnerable groups, such as infants, young children and people with specific medical needs, who are clearly not ordinary consumers and who therefore require special attention and common rules within the EU. It is also essential to ensure that labelling reflects reality and does not include pictures which may idealise the use of a product. In this respect, I fully support this report, and I hope that the negotiations with the Council will reach a rapid conclusion.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I would argue that the European Union must pay particular attention to certain patients for whom a specific diet is of vital importance – including infants and children under the age of three. Therefore, I support the Commission’s decision to carry out a thorough review of the legislation regarding food products intended for a particular diet, but on condition that industry is afforded greater legal certainty. I am happy with the amendment of the regulation under review, which now also covers food products suitable for people who are gluten-intolerant in order to give them a proper legal framework. I would argue that it is essential for the notification procedure (which is faster and less costly) to continue to be the standard procedure, with marketing authorisations being granted at national level and there being an option to supplement this procedure with additional rules on labelling. I agree with the rapporteur that stricter rules than those applying under the prior authorisation procedure based on an opinion delivered by the European Food Standards Authority ought to be maintained for claims relating to foods for infants and children between the ages of one and three.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because both consumers and controlling authorities are finding it hard to distinguish between foodstuffs for normal consumption and foodstuffs intended for specific population groups. There are a number of reasons for this confusing situation: disparities in the interpretation and implementation of the framework directive in the Member States, administrative constraints, compositional and labelling changes, innovation, competitiveness, price and consumer protection and information. There is therefore a need for the legislation on foodstuffs intended for specific population groups to be recast. If we are to expect the internal market to work properly, we cannot afford to disregard the health of the more vulnerable members of society.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. – (CS) I do not agree with the adopted proposal that food labelling should not include images of infants or other images or text that may idealise the use of the product. This amounts to pointless bureaucratic interference, which makes life difficult for producers and is completely unnecessary. It is based on the assumption that the consumer is stupid, susceptible to manipulation and incapable independent and responsible decision-making. In my opinion, this assumption is wrong. The average consumer does not make purchases only on the basis of the image on the product, but seeks further information. In my view, rather than prohibiting this or that image on food packaging, we should focus instead on the ingredients and ensure that they do not contain any undesirable chemical substances. This is an area in which legislative intervention at EU level really is necessary.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Ries report on the proposal for a regulation on food intended for infants and young children and on food for special medical purposes. This regulation deals with the revision and simplification of the framework directive on foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional uses. This new report clarifies and simplifies European labelling while moving towards greater protection for consumers, and particularly for the most vulnerable groups, such as infants or persons who need a strict diet. I also note that this text was passed unanimously in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI), which bodes well for the negotiations with the Council.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, as I agree with the in-depth review of the legislation on foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional uses, abandoning the concept of dietetic food, which in most cases means very little from a nutritional point of view, and also because I believe that it is vital to increase legal certainty for industry and for vulnerable groups of people in terms of food.

  Françoise Castex (S&D), in writing. – (FR) Today, Parliament has adopted a proposal for a regulation on food intended for infants and young children and on food for special medical purposes. We socialists are delighted to have achieved a strengthening of the provisions on food intended for vulnerable people, stricter rules on composition and labelling and a framework for food being placed on the market. Another important advancement we have achieved is the creation of a single list at EU level specifying the vitamins and minerals that may be added to foods. My only reservation is that the draft legislation excluded ‘growing milks’ used for children aged one to three. For the socialists, it is important that dairy products intended for young children are also covered by this legislation.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The report pays special attention to the nutritional needs of infants and young children, as well as of those who need a special diet to treat certain medical conditions. I support the proposal of the rapporteur to include in this proposal for a regulation the following key aspects: special attention to food intended for people suffering from diabetes due to the alarming incidence of this disease, the abolition of the concept of ‘dietetic food’ since such foodstuffs have no nutritional benefits, facilitating access by SMEs to the market of food for special nutritional purposes, where there is a limited number of industry players, and, last but not least, guaranteeing the nutritional quality of food intended for infants and children under the age of three to avoid contamination with toxic substances. I believe it is vital that the rules on the definition, composition and labelling of foodstuffs for infants, children under the age of three years and people with certain medical conditions, both imported and exported, be checked regularly and applied strictly to ensure adequate protection and food safety to vulnerable groups, such as children under the age of three and patients with special nutritional needs.

  Lara Comi (PPE ), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this report because I think Ms Ries has succeeded in finding an excellent compromise between the specific needs this regulation aims to satisfy and the needs of all those people who could be excluded. In this regard, I am sorry to see that the position of many of my fellow Members has made it impossible for the amendments I presented together with other Italian Members to be accepted in their entirety. I am referring to the protection which, in my opinion, coeliacs deserve as consumers who have less choice regarding what they can eat and who therefore should not be lumped together with other groups of more fortunate consumers. However, I accept the result of the democratic dialogue and appreciate all the more the work carried out by the rapporteur, as long as it translates into a coherent body of law protecting those who need it and encouraging transparency and fairness. I believe that this text is an excellent starting point for the work which will be carried out at second reading.

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE), in writing. − (SV) I voted in favour of this report, as it represents a simplification and a clear improvement compared with the existing legislation. There was concern that people who are gluten intolerant or suffer from allergies would not have the same protection, since the original proposal was for this aspect to be removed from this legislation. I feel secure in the knowledge that it is absolutely certain that the protection for these groups will not diminish. It is important that we have harmonised legislation throughout the EU in this area and a common list of what the products that are covered by the legislation are permitted to contain. One issue that aroused debate was the use of pesticides in the production of these foods. The Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance wanted to prohibit the use of these pesticides and even the presence of traces of these substances. I believe this is impossible to monitor, and it would also create other risks. Pesticides are used to ensure that our food is safe, and it goes without saying that we should use as little of them as possible. There is a reason for their use, however. I am pleased that we won this battle and that we will retain and clarify the rules that we currently have in place.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Food safety, especially where food intended for vulnerable groups, such as infants, young children and people with special diseases is involved, is an essential prerequisite for free movement and the proper functioning of the internal market within the European Union. Therefore, I think there is a need for a European solidarity policy at EU level comprising legislative measures to remove these differences between national laws as regards foodstuffs intended for special nutritional use, thereby allowing their free movement and creating a level playing field for competition.

  Rachida Dati (PPE) , in writing. – (FR) This report aims in particular to clarify the distinction between normal foods and special foods, and to better protect certain vulnerable population groups. The text makes great contributions for these groups and I therefore voted in favour of it. I particularly welcome the choice made by Parliament to emphasise the role of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) by encouraging them to develop in this sector.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The food safety of ‘vulnerable’ population groups such as infants and people who require a special diet on medical grounds must be reinforced. The rules on the composition and labelling of milks for infants under the age of one will be clearer from now on. Eventually, the packaging for such products will no longer be allowed to include any pictures of infants or any pictures which may ‘idealise the use’ of these milk-based formulae. Furthermore, the Commission will have to look into ‘growing milks’ intended for children between 12 and 36 months, and more specifically into the complex legal situation of these products. Gluten labelling will also be affected. Food products for people intolerant to gluten should contain less than 100 mg/kg of gluten, and the labelling and packaging should therefore state: ‘very low gluten content’. Products containing less than 20 mg/kg will be labelled ‘gluten free’. We want greater coherence and clarity in the legislation: some measures which are currently in force date back to 1977 and were adopted without Parliament.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the adoption of this report which improves protection for European consumers with regard to dietary products. The composition and marketing of these products will from now on be subject to simpler and clearer rules, which will guarantee food quality and reliable information for consumers. The European Union is therefore committed to ensuring a higher level of protection in the face of a levelling down in the quality of products which would threaten the health of our infants and our sick people and which would affect our industry in France, the European leader in quality dietary products.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I am pleased with the adoption of this report by a very large majority who hope to provide for stricter labelling for milks for infants and food for special medical purposes. The text adopted will represent Parliament’s position in its coming negotiations with the Council of Ministers. The changes were proposed because of problems faced by both consumers and the authorities. For example, for Parliament, labelling for all milk-based formulae for infants up to the age of 12 months should not include pictures of infants or pictures which may ‘idealise the use’ of the product. The Commission should also review the current complex legal situation for milks intended for children between 12 and 36 months and propose new rules on the matter, if necessary. Furthermore, the Members have also decided that special rules on gluten labelling should also be included in the legislation. We have also recommended that the Commission prepare a study to tackle the lack of specific rules on lactose intolerance.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on ‘food intended for infants and young children and on food intended for special medical purposes’, as it includes measures that contribute to ensuring a high level of protection for EU consumers, including provisions on food for gluten-intolerant people and on the use of pesticides.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) It is essential to promote adequate regulation of labelling for foodstuffs. We cannot pass laws forcing people to eat healthily, but we should ensure that consumers have the information they need to make a conscious choice. This is particularly important in nutrition for infants and children, and for people with special medical needs. This proposal sets out clearer and tougher rules on labelling, presentation and advertising. These rules cover not only baby formulae and foods, but also cases of food intolerance and low-calorie diets. The labelling, presentation and advertising of these foods should be clear and easy for consumers to understand.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The issue of food for people with special nutritional needs is a crucial area of EU legislation in order to ensure a safe and healthy food supply. The niche market of these foods has grown significantly over recent years, resulting in a lack of clarity when trying to distinguish between foodstuffs for normal consumption and foodstuffs intended for specific population groups. The Commission is therefore proposing to review the framework directive by abolishing the general rules on dietetic foods, but to maintain some of the rules for specific foods adopted under the directive. I agree that it would be best to confine the scope of this Regulation to a limited number of foods for particular nutritional uses. It is obvious that infants, children under three years of age and people for whom a special diet is vital clearly require special attention and uniform treatment within the EU. I therefore welcome the adoption of this report, for which I voted, as infants and children need to be well protected. However, it is also imperative to proceed with a proposal for a directive on so-called ‘growing milks’, as these were not included in this package.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report confirms that the scope of the regulation will be confined to a limited number of foods for particular nutritional uses, with particular emphasis on foods for infants, children under three years of age and people for whom a special diet is vital. Despite excluding from its scope substitute meals replacing all or part of a person’s daily food intake and foodstuffs intended for sportspeople and for intense muscular effort, the Regulation does cover low-calorie diet products, including them in the definition of food for special medical purposes, intended for obese patients, with proper medical authorisation and supervision. In terms of the reference to allergens, the report amends the Commission proposal, as the latter does not provide a suitable legal framework for gluten- or lactose-intolerant people, or those with other forms of food intolerance, as it does not include the nutritional profiles of foodstuffs, which are key to determining whether or not a given foodstuff may be used. We voted for this report, although we regret that the votes of the right have blocked it from going further on issues such as advocating greater restrictions on the use of pesticides and tougher requirements or restrictions on the advertising of certain products, which would ensure better and more comprehensive information for consumers.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE), in writing. – (IT) It is currently difficult for the consumer as well as supervisory bodies to distinguish between normal food products and those designed for specific groups. The reasons for this ambiguity could be differences in the interpretation and application of rules by Member States. That is why I voted in favour of Ms Ries’s report: we need a legislative reorganisation, with uniform laws that guarantee innovation, competitiveness of businesses and protection of information for citizens. The European Union must commit to achieving uniform treatment in the area of food so as to provide greater legal, economic and social certainty, covering not just the goods consumed and produced within the European Union but also those which are exported and imported. In this sense the regulatory provisions on gluten and lactose are of paramount importance as they are aimed at protecting an ever-growing section of the population. Figures show that food-related conditions are becoming more and more common, causing an increase in depression, stress and general poor health: let us help make these people’s complicated lives easier.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The free movement of safe and wholesome foodstuffs is an essential aspect of the internal market and contributes significantly to the health and well-being of citizens, and to their social and economic interests. The Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of May 2009 on foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional uses lays down general rules on the composition and preparation of such foodstuffs that are specially designed to meet the particular nutritional requirements of the persons for whom they are intended. However, experience shows that certain rules contained in the directive in question or adopted on the basis of the directive are no longer effective in ensuring the functioning of the internal market. I believe that the concept of ‘foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional uses’ should be abandoned, and the directive replaced by a legal act in the form of a regulation in order to simplify its application and guarantee that is consistent in all Member States. At the same time, I consider it essential to establish procedures for the adoption of emergency measures in cases where foodstuffs covered by this regulation pose a serious risk to human health. In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of these emergency measures, the implementing powers should be transferred to the Commission. The Commission should then adopt applicable implementing acts relating to the emergency measures in duly justified cases relating to public health that require serious and compelling reasons.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The current regulatory framework on foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional uses needs to be updated as there is a lack of harmonisation in this area and some difficulties for consumers and supervisory bodies in distinguishing these foods from foods for common consumption. In my opinion, this text is more than satisfactory: it provides for new rules for clearer and more effective labelling as well as appropriate rules on foods for coeliacs and those who need special diets. On these grounds, I voted in favour.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcomed this document because the legislation on foodstuffs for particular nutritional uses needs to be thoroughly overhauled and the concept of dietetic food, which in most cases means very little from a nutritional point of view, should be done away with, in order to afford industry and the vulnerable population groups that are the subject of this regulation greater legal certainty. There must be regular democratic scrutiny by Parliament of the definitions of foods intended for infants, children under the age of three and people with certain medical conditions, for whom a special diet is of vital importance, and of the rules governing the composition of such foods. This simplified but more protective legal framework must apply to imported and exported foods alike and should make it easier for the precautionary principle to be applied. If we are to expect the internal market to work properly, we cannot afford to disregard the health of the more vulnerable members of society.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The rules on the labelling and composition of milks for infants and food for people with special medical needs must be stricter. Generally speaking, the food sector must be clearer so as to better protect consumers, particularly the most vulnerable groups. That is the message that MEPs have sent by adopting this report by 603 votes. I am pleased with this majority. The rules should, in particular, cover gluten intolerance and certain low calorie diets.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. – (PL) In my opinion, it is our duty to show concern for the health of the most vulnerable, such as children and infants. I therefore think that we should ensure at European level that products for infants and young children which are placed on the market are free from pesticides and other toxic substances. Certain pesticides pollute the environment and their residues may unfortunately be present in products intended for very young children. This is not acceptable. I share the rapporteur’s opinion that children, for whom a special diet is essential, deserve particular attention and equal treatment across the entire European Union.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Foodstuffs have been the subject of various EU laws. In particular it must be kept in mind that these products, with their particular nutritional characteristics, meet specific needs for different types of consumers. For infants, these characteristics must be at the focus of our attention. Therefore I fully support the proposal to adopt communication criteria for the introduction of detailed information designed to counter widespread phenomena such as obesity and diabetes. In addition, there is an unprecedentedly urgent need to classify categories of food for infants and children in a manner more in keeping with the recent results of scientific studies. The aim is not only to allow them healthy growth but also to provide parents and professionals with the correct information on these products more easily, particularly regarding products for special medical purposes, such as gluten-free foods designed for coeliacs.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − In voting for this proposal I backed amendment 86 which calls for restrictions on advertising infant food and follow-on food.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) We agree with the Commission that the legislation on foodstuffs for particular nutritional uses needs to be thoroughly overhauled and that the concept of ‘dietetic food’, which in most cases means very little from a nutritional point of view, should be done away with. We believe that industry and the vulnerable population groups involved should be afforded greater legal certainty. This must necessarily involve regular democratic scrutiny by Parliament of the definitions of foods for infants, children under the age of three and people with certain medical conditions, for whom a special diet is of vital importance, and of the rules governing the composition of such foods. This simplified but more protective legal framework must apply to imported and exported foods alike, and makes it easier for the precautionary principle to be applied. If we are to expect the internal market to work properly, we cannot afford to disregard the health of the more vulnerable members of society in Europe.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The safety of food, especially when it is intended for vulnerable groups, such as infants, children and persons with special diseases, is an essential prerequisite for the free movement of such persons and the proper functioning of the internal market. I voted in favour.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. − The proposed Regulation is intended to update, harmonise, and simplify EU rules on specialised food products, namely dietetic foods and foods for particular nutritional uses. The proposal abolishes the concept of dietetic foods and provides for a new framework establishing general provisions only for a limited number of well-established and defined categories of food that are considered as essential for certain vulnerable groups of the population, i.e. food intended for infants and young children. The proposal also aims to create a single legal measure that regulates lists of substances such as vitamins, minerals and other substances that may be added to the categories of food covered by this proposal. I support the calls in this report for the regulation of gluten-free products under the existing Food Information to Consumers Regulation.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) It is essential to promote adequate regulation of labelling for foodstuffs. It is vital that consumers have the information they need to make a conscious choice. These concerns are all the more pressing in the case of nutrition for infants and children, and for people with special medical needs. This Regulation introduces clearer and more stringent rules on labelling, presentation and advertising. The labelling, presentation and advertising of these foods should be clear and easy for all consumers to understand.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − General rules on composition and labelling would be established only for three specific categories of foods: - infant formulae and follow-on formulae; - processed cereal-based food and baby food for infants and young children; - food for special medical purposes Detailed rules would be adopted by delegated acts. A list of substances (vitamins, minerals, amino acids, etc.) which may be added to the above categories would be adopted by implementing acts. Foods not included in the PARNUTS legislation would be regulated under general food legislation, e.g. on nutrition and health claims and on information to consumers.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) Because the digestive tract of new-borns is only capable of killing off germs ingested in food after two or three months, the requirements in relation to the hygiene and quality of baby food must be particularly stringent. It is important that the EU should ban all advertising that aims to discourage mothers from breastfeeding. In some EU Member States it is expressly forbidden to portray ready-made products as being equal in value, or even superior, to breast milk. In practice, the wording used on packaging, in television advertisements and on websites often makes this very suggestion and therefore contravenes EU law and national laws. We need to take a stronger stance here. It is also necessary to ensure that no poor quality baby foods can be imported from other countries. For this reason I have voted in favour of the report.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this report, which serves to provide better protection to certain categories of consumer who are particularly vulnerable, such as infants, children and people with food-related disorders. In particular, I am pleased that we were able to retain specific rules to protect people with coeliac disease, despite a very incomplete and penalising initial proposal from the European Commission in this regard. Coeliac disease is one of the most serious and widespread food-related disorders. In Europe, it is estimated that one person in every hundred is affected by it, and therefore it is easy to see that retaining a specific regulation for people who are gluten-intolerant proves necessary. Therefore we must pay the utmost attention when dealing with these matters, seeking to better inform consumers, especially those most vulnerable, and thereby better protect them.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) I welcome this report updating another piece of legislation guaranteeing food safety. At the same time, I would like to draw my colleagues’ attention to the fact that there are many such pieces of legislation on food safety and their updating is a continuous job for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. What unites them is the fact that we want to protect consumers by giving them as much information as possible about products used. Nevertheless, the fact that provisions are scattered across various legal acts causes a certain amount of confusion. I would therefore urge the Commission to consider the possibilities of codifying all food safety legislation as a matter of urgency and drafting a single food safety code covering all existing EU legislation regulating the safety of various foodstuffs.

  Tiziano Motti (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this resolution because I believe that breast milk is the essential and most natural food for infants during weaning. However, not all mothers have this opportunity, whether for physical reasons or because they do not have the time required. In this case therefore they rely on formula, which certainly has considerable nutritive value, but not enough to be advertised in such a way as to give consumers the idea that formula can replace breast milk entirely. I think it is right, therefore, to ask for stricter and better-defined European rules on labelling of milk for children and of foods for people who need special diets, such as coeliacs, so as to protect consumers and provide clarity for the food industry. The non-medical quality of foods and the difference between foods for infants and follow-on foods must be made immediately obvious to consumers, who are often bombarded with ‘idealised’ images on packaging. I also agree that Member States should have the right to implement even stricter measures, if necessary.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Foodstuffs for people with special dietary needs – the so-called Parnuts foods – occupy an area that European Union regulations have covered for a long time. This sector has experienced a significant growth in recent years, as evidenced in particular by a clear increase in demand for the supply of safe and wholesome food. Despite previous attempts at harmonisation, there are still big differences between the national laws relating to Parnuts foods. These differences are an obstacle to the free movement of goods, create unnecessary regulatory burdens on companies operating in the food sector, and ultimately impede the functioning of the internal market. Last but not least, I welcome the efforts of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy to highlight in the text the need to include additional groups of products in the draft, specifically milk drinks intended for young children and food for people allergic to gluten.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, which proposes a simplified legal framework for rules on food intended for infants and young children, and on food for special medical purposes. This simplified but more protective legal framework, which applies the precautionary principle, should apply to imported and exported foods alike. The proper functioning of the internal market, which cannot ignore the health of the most vulnerable, depends on this.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report follows a proposal for a regulation tabled by the Commission in June 2011 on food intended for infants and young children and on food for special medical purposes. The primary objectives of this report include bringing very low-calorie diet products within the scope of this Regulation by including them in the definition of food for special medical purposes, bringing people intolerant to certain types of food within the legal framework, and ensuring that products free from pesticides and any other type of toxic substance are available on the market for newborns and children. The aim is essentially to simplify the current legal framework, which should be applied to imported and exported foods alike, thus making it easier to apply the precautionary principle. The proper functioning of the internal market, which cannot neglect to protect the health of the most vulnerable, depends on this.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. There are many key points in the report by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. It supports the Commission approach of abolishing the concept of ‘dietetic foods’, but reintroduces the category of foods for use in low-calorie diets and invites the Commission to assess the need for a specific ‘sports food’ category. It asks the Commission to produce a report assessing the need for special provisions on so-called ‘children’s milks’ and strengthens rules on labelling and advertising. It calls for post-market monitoring and requires delegated acts for updating the list of permitted substances. It provides for special requirements for nanomaterials and more or less maintains current ‘gluten-free’ rules while inviting the Commission to present a report on ‘lactose-free’. It stipulates that the use of pesticides should be ‘restricted as far as possible’ and asks the Commission to update regularly the lists on limitations of certain pesticides, paying particular attention to the very dangerous substances. As the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, we agree with the general approach to abolishing the concept of dietetic foods and are opposed to the (re-)introduction of more categories. We have fought for stricter rules on pesticide use, for a ban on advertising/labelling milks as ‘children’s’ (or ‘growing-up’) milks, for specific rules on the use of nanomaterials, and for stricter labelling/advertising rules. We would prefer to have ‘gluten-free’ regulated under the general regulation on food information to consumers.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this report. This is a big step forward in protecting people with coeliac disease. The Commission’s proposal has been improved by the Members’ amendments, especially those by Italian Members. There is profound ignorance about coeliac disease in various Member States: it is neither a fad, nor an allergy. Coeliac disease is an illness and the words ‘gluten free’ on food products cannot be trivialised as a simple claim or allergen. Coeliacs cannot eat any gluten whatsoever. It will be important if the excellent rapporteur is able to defend the improvements made to the text and oppose any deleterious proposals made by the Council.

  Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), in writing. – (FR) We can no longer let commercial industries mislead European consumers. Whether it is mothers and fathers buying baby milk or people suffering from coeliac disease (gluten intolerance), we have a duty to protect them from any misleading advertising. It is with this in mind that I voted for this proposal for a regulation. This project is in line with our protection and prevention efforts: in the future, labelling for all milk-based formulae for infants up to the age of 12 months, including ‘follow-on’ formulae, should not include pictures of infants or pictures which may ‘idealise the use’ of the product. What is more, food products intended for people intolerant to gluten should contain less than 100 mg/kg of gluten and be labelled ‘very low gluten content’, while food containing less than 20 mg/kg of gluten may be labelled ‘gluten free’. We have created a Europe of free and unfettered competition between economic actors; we are working even harder towards a Europe that protects consumers from the failings of this competition.

  Amalia Sartori (PPE), in writing. – (IT) This proposal for a regulation is intended to overhaul the provisions on foodstuffs for specific nutritional uses, contained in the Framework Directive on Dietetic Products, which makes substantial reference to the 1979 standard.

The proposal intends to abolish the concept of dietetic foods and set out a new framework containing general provisions for a limited number of well-defined categories of foods judged essential for some particularly vulnerable sections of the population, for example foods aimed at infants and children and foods to be used under medical supervision. Vulnerable people need greater protection than the rest of the population and must be able to benefit from a high level of legal certainty.

The proposal also suggests creating a single legal act that regulates the list of substances that can be added to the food categories that are the subject of this proposal. The differences in how Member States implement the existing legislation are currently too large, causing market distortions and administrative burdens.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The dietetic foods that appeared in European legislation in 1977, which were later considered ‘foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional uses’ in a framework directive adopted in 2009, are difficult to identify and associate with the right target groups, both for the end-consumer and for supervisory bodies. This situation’s lack of transparency clearly calls for an overhaul of the legislation on foodstuffs for specific population groups, starting with infants and children under the age of three for whom a specific diet is of vital importance and who merit particular attention and uniform treatment throughout the European Union. With this vote in favour I express the need for legislative order on this matter to safeguard the health of individuals in the Union based on proper nutrition from birth, therefore guaranteeing that there are no pesticides or any type of toxic substance in foods intended for children and infants or for special medical purposes.

  Bogusław Sonik (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I voted in favour of adopting the report on food intended for infants and young children and food for special medical purposes. I think that the report adopted will mean that consumers are better protected and better informed. They will be able to distinguish easily between ‘regular’ food and food intended for a specific group of recipients. From now on, producers of infant formula, for example, will be obliged to provide better and more reliable information on the composition of their milk and ensure that products placed on the market are free from pesticides. The new regulations will help to make the European population healthier, as well as reducing administrative burdens and facilitating fair competition.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I welcomed the proposal for a resolution, however, I have some reservations about this report. Firstly, I would like to highlight the obligation to provide full and objective information on food products. One very sensitive case is the question of the advertising of formulae for infants of 0 to six months and formulae for infants of six months to two years. The facts show that advertising practices tend to concern parents by using marketing strategies rather than providing them with information of a scientific and factual nature, allowing consumers to make a clear distinction in order to avoid any risk of confusion. The health of our children is at risk. Lastly, I think that the Ries report should provide for more effective evaluation mechanisms. This evaluation should not be carried out a priori, only taking into consideration the consumers the products are aimed at, but on the basis of a careful and comprehensive evaluation of all the ingredients of the product in question. The regulation that Parliament will adopt should take greater account of consumer protection and health, and the marketing strategies put in place by the food industry.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This proposal seeks to establish specific legislation for infants, children under three years old and vulnerable population groups, who thus require a high level of protection in terms of imported and exported foods. The Commission proposal sets out a single list of substances that may be added, while excluding certain foodstuffs, including foods for sportspeople and the concept of dietetic food. Moreover, it is aimed at simplifying the labelling on products so that it is clear and easily understood by consumers. I therefore agree with the rapporteur’s position that this Regulation should include information about whether products contain gluten, or whether they are aimed at a low-calorie diet. I am voting for this proposal, as I consider it yet another step that safeguards European consumers.

  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), in writing. − As a father and EU citizen I believe that we should push forward all policies to protect the most vulnerable citizens of the EU, in this case food for infants and young children. It is my belief that all public or private actions to accomplish this objective must be backed, step by step, and, of course, with all the actors being implicated. Nonetheless, sometimes big steps are needed to better achieve our goals.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) Repealing various directives on food intended for specific population groups in order to include them in a more general piece of legislation is part of the effort to simplify and extend the regulation, which should, in future, favour health transparency and therefore the health of the groups that this proposal is aimed at. The particular nutritional needs (Parnuts) food sector has grown strongly in recent years, critically blurring the distinction between food intended for specific population groups and food for normal consumption. This proposal should enable us to establish a clear distinction for consumers and controlling authorities alike. I regret, nonetheless, that, as the rapporteur highlighted, this proposal for a regulation leaves a loophole with regard to the possibility of adding vitamins, minerals and other substances to food intended for these vulnerable groups. In spite of this, I voted in favour of this resolution, as the measures that it proposes contribute to the good health of the young generations and population groups whose health is particularly at risk.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) This proposal for a regulation aims to review the provisions on foodstuffs intended for particular dietary requirements contained in Directive 2009/39/EC. Among its various objectives the new proposal for a regulation suggests creating a single legal act to regulate the list of vitamins and minerals that can be added to the food categories that are the subject of this proposal.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report expresses agreement with the Commission’s position on confining the scope of the Regulation to a limited number of foods for particular nutritional uses, with particular emphasis on foods for infants, children under three years of age and people for whom a special diet is vital. Despite excluding from its scope substitute meals replacing all or part of a person’s daily food intake and foodstuffs intended for sportspeople and for intense muscular effort, the Regulation does cover low-calorie diet products, including them in the definition of food for special medical purposes, intended for obese patients, with proper medical authorisation and supervision. In terms of the reference to allergens, the report amends the Commission proposal, as the latter does not provide a suitable legal framework for gluten- or lactose-intolerant people, or those with other forms of food intolerance, as it does not include the nutritional profiles of foodstuffs, which are key to determining whether or not a given foodstuff may be used. Finally, it expresses concern with ensuring that products for newborns and young children, among other vulnerable population groups, are free of pesticides or any other toxic substances. We voted in favour, as we support these controls.

Motion for a resolution: B7-0306/2012

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting in favour because this resolution defends European citizenship. In this case, promoting access to EU documentation in every EU language will stimulate more active participation in the EU’s decision-making processes. The EU brings us rights and benefits, and this is certainly one of them.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Public consultations are an important democratic tool that allows the citizens and other stakeholders to fully participate in this process and to advance the European Union’s policy of transparency. However, as is often the case, the European Union is not communicating sufficiently. I thought that more information should be given to citizens and that it should be accessible in all 23 of the European Union’s official languages.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Public involvement is a key element of democratic governance, and well designed, structured and communicated public consultations are an important tool for the transparency of the EU, enabling European citizens to take on an increasingly active role in the European integration process. The Commission should therefore take advantage of all of the technological resources at its disposal actively to communicate with citizens through public consultations. It should guarantee every EU citizen’s right to address the EU institutions in any official EU language, and ensure that there is no language-based discrimination between consultations. Finally, the consultations should be comprehensible and carried out over a sufficiently long period to enable the maximum possible public participation. I voted for this resolution for those reasons.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this European Parliament resolution because the involvement of the public is a fundamental component of democratic governance. Well designed and communicated public consultations are one of the main tools giving substance to the European Union’s policy of transparency. To date their potential for bridging the communication and information gap between citizens and the EU has not been fully exploited. Every European Union citizen’s right to address the European Union institutions in any of the EU official languages must be fully respected and implemented. Public consultations must be available in all EU official languages and must be treated equally without any language-based discrimination between consultations. All consultations must also be understandable to citizens and be carried out over a sufficiently long period of time to allow for increased participation.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The European Union represents all of its citizens; therefore, any of them has the right to have access to all information regarding EU activity and the decision-making process affecting them in any official EU language. On the other hand, whenever public consultations on matters of public interest are launched, it is important that all interested citizens are able to participate and there is no language-based discrimination.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) It has never been more important to stress the vital and urgent need to bring the EU closer to the public, and to make the institutions’ decision-making process more immediate, more transparent and more readily scrutinised. To this end, all citizens need to be able to address the EU institutions in any official EU language. This is particularly important for public consultation processes. These should be available in all official EU languages, and all the responses should be treated equally, without any language-based discrimination.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this motion for a resolution tabled by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament following a Commission statement on public consultations and their availability in all EU languages, for a number of reasons. First, Members represent the people of the 27 Member States, who express themselves differently but all have the same rights of access to the documents handled in the EU institutions. Second, public consultations represent an excellent opportunity to share ideas in Europe, and should be moments when the public can participate and truly exercise their EU citizenship. Third, although multilingualism is very expensive, an effort should be made to provide upcoming budgets with the resources to enable public consultations in all official EU languages. Fourth, particular attention is given to citizens with disabilities, and it is advocated that they be consulted through the use of accessible formats. Finally, I welcome the fact that the Commission has proposed designating 2013 the European Year of Citizens in order to raise public awareness of the benefits and rights afforded by EU citizenship.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We voted for this motion for a resolution because all EU documents should be easily accessible and available in all official EU languages. For a long time we have been repeatedly denouncing, in detail, the abuses of multilingualism by the EU institutions. In order for there to be democracy in an EU with 23 official languages, they must all be respected and treated equally. That is not the case at present. The work carried out by Parliament is one example. It is regrettable that the same political groups now acknowledging the importance of ensuring respect for multilingualism in public consultation processes have approved cuts to Parliament’s translation and interpretation services, thereby compromising this very respect for the various languages of the EU. We included this criticism in our resolution. Troubling statements are being made by the Commission and some representatives from the most populous countries, particularly the United Kingdom, saying openly that multilingualism should be respected insofar as ‘budgetary constraints’ allow. We will remain vigilant in this regard in the future, fighting any and every limitation or attack on democracy, in particular by the EU institutions.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The Commission has proposed designating 2013 as the European Year of Citizens in order to raise people’s awareness of the benefits and rights afforded by EU citizenship and stimulate their active participation in EU policy-making. The involvement of the public is a fundamental component of democratic governance. Well designed and communicated public consultations are one of the main instruments forming the core of the EU’s policy of transparency, but to date their potential for bridging the communication and information gap between citizens and the EU has not been fully exploited. I consider it essential that the Commission strives to ensure that every EU citizen’s right to address the EU institutions in any of the EU official languages is fully respected and implemented by ensuring that public consultations are available in all EU official languages, that all consultations are treated equally and that there is no language-based discrimination between consultations. It is important that all consultations are understandable to ordinary citizens and are carried out over a sufficiently long period of time to allow for increased participation. At the same time, I consider it equally important that the Commission guarantees the right of people with disabilities to participate in consultations via accessible formats that facilitate their communication.

  Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (FR) I signed this resolution calling for all public consultations to be translated into all of the languages recognised by the countries of the European Union. There is a European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages that calls for resolute action to be taken to promote these languages, to prohibit any form of discrimination against them and even to facilitate and encourage their use in public life. This resolution responds precisely to this last point. Such a measure would encourage citizens to address the European Union.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) In accordance with European legislation, the Commission has a duty to translate European law and the related documents into all EU official languages to allow citizens, economic operators, NGOs and other interested parties to exercise their rights. However, in reality, many documents are only available in English. These include public consultations, even though they address citizens directly and are a fundamental component of drawing up transparent EU policies. Our resolution therefore urges the Commission to ensure that every EU citizen’s right to address the EU institutions in any of the EU official languages is fully respected and implemented. Respect for multilingualism is a principle, a right which is very important to me and we must defend it.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour because the Commission has proposed designating 2013 as the European Year of Citizens in order to raise people’s awareness of the benefits and rights afforded by EU citizenship and stimulate their active participation in Union policy-making. The involvement of the public is a fundamental component of democratic governance and well designed and communicated public consultations are one of the main tools giving substance to the EU’s policy of transparency. To date their potential for bridging the communication and information gap between citizens and the EU has not been fully exploited. The Commission must actively seek communication with ordinary citizens by making full use of existing communication channels to disseminate consultations and conduct them in conjunction with NGOs and other stakeholders.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Citizen involvement and participation are fundamental components of democratic governance. Public consultations are one of the main tools giving substance to the EU’s policies and ensuring their transparency. However, their potential for bridging the communication and information gap between citizens and the EU has not been fully exploited. For this reason, Parliament is urging the Commission to ensure that every EU citizen’s right to address the EU institutions in all of the official EU languages is respected. The Commission must also ensure that public consultations are available in all EU official languages, that all consultations are treated equally and that there is no language-based discrimination between consultations. I supported this resolution, which was adopted by a large majority in plenary.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. – (PL) Properly publicised public consultations are among the best instruments of the EU’s transparency policy. European Union citizens frequently complain that the Union is incomprehensible to them, that it is too complicated and remote. I therefore endorse the appeal for the European Commission to respect the right of every EU citizen to address the EU institutions in any of the EU languages by ensuring that public consultations are available in all official EU languages. In this way, we can encourage the residents of Europe to become active participants in the shaping of EU policy, while also combating the ‘democratic deficit’, an accusation very often levelled against European institutions with good reason, I regret to say.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The proposal to designate 2013 as the European Year of Citizens bodes well, just like all efforts to encourage free communication with all EU citizens and their active involvement in drawing up EU policies aimed at and affecting us all. Unfortunately, however, making available the content of public consultations in all official EU languages comes at a bad time, when huge efforts are being made to reduce costs by eliminating items that are not necessarily vital to the smooth functioning of the EU. The translation of all documents intended for the public, carried out by the EU institutions into all official languages, represents in this case an example of expenses that can be reduced without dramatically affecting the smooth running of things. I believe that information should rather be disseminated by making full use of existing means, so that it reaches the citizens who wish to participate in the European decision-making process.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this resolution and support its call to the Commission to ensure that every EU citizen’s right to address the EU institutions in any of the EU’s official languages is fully respected and implemented by ensuring that public consultations are available in all EU official languages, that all consultations are treated equally and that there is no language-based discrimination between consultations.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the resolution on public consultations and their availability in all EU languages which, for me, is a key issue. Indeed, if we wish to keep written consultations as a basic tool for the Commission’s legislative proposals, then we must guarantee that they uphold the principles of democracy, transparency and fairness for all citizens. Consequently, if the Commission chooses to use written consultations, it must take responsibility and provide the necessary resources for multilingualism and the translation of questionnaires.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I fully agree that the Commission must ensure that each EU citizen can address the EU institutions in any of the EU official languages. In addition public consultations should be available in all the EU official languages, and consultations should all be treated equally with no language-based discrimination. I am voting in favour.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Public consultation of documents and their availability in all of the EU languages is vital if citizens are to feel that they are fully integrated into the EU. Therefore there should be no concerns whatsoever about this objective becoming a reality. That is why I voted in favour.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) To ensure that European citizens have a better understanding and greater participation, the principle of multilingualism within the European institutions must be maintained, despite the costs this might entail. This resolution will ensure that every EU citizen has the right to address the institutions in the EU official language of his or her choice. It is important that public consultations are carried out without any language-based discrimination.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − European Parliament calls on the Commission to actively seek communication with ordinary citizens by making full use of existing communication channels to disseminate consultations and conduct them in conjunction with NGOs and other stakeholders; urges the Commission to ensure that every EU citizen’s right to address the EU institutions in any of the EU official languages is fully respected and implemented by ensuring that public consultations are available in all EU official languages, that all consultations are treated equally and that there is no language-based discrimination between consultations; Asks the Commission to ensure that all consultations are understandable to ordinary citizens and are carried out over a sufficiently long period of time to allow for increased participation. I would add languages of national minorities in EU. But it is another stage of development.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) In order to be informed about what goes on within the EU, it is useful for the citizens of every Member State to have access to documents in their national language because, in particular, specialist terminology in foreign languages can regularly lead to misunderstandings. Above all, public consultations should be easily understandable and accessible for everyone because their ultimate aim is to bring together as many opinions as possible from public and private interest groups and individuals. I voted in favour of this resolution because I believe that, in the interest of democracy, every citizen must be allowed the opportunity to get involved in on-going processes. In the long run it cannot be good only to present the electorate with faits accomplis. Voters must also be able to express criticism.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) The Citizens’ Initiative platform, which came into force a few months ago, and its popularity show that it really is an essential instrument for the expression of direct democracy in the European Union. However, the technical barriers that sometimes hamper this instrument still have to be addressed. A similar result – consulting with as many interest groups as possible – is also sought for public consultations. I agree that these consultations must be accessible to as many Europeans as possible. Only then will we ensure that the legislation we adopt reflects not just business structures but the will of our voters.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted for this resolution because, amongst other things, it calls on the Commission to guarantee the right of people with disabilities to be consulted using accessible formats.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This motion for a resolution is aimed at enhancing the role of public consultations within the EU, as these are one of the main tools giving substance to the EU’s policy of transparency. In order to bridge the communication and information gap between citizens and the EU, it seeks to make full use of existing communication channels to disseminate consultations and conduct them in conjunction with NGOs and other stakeholders, as necessary. Moreover, it aims to ensure that every EU citizen’s right to address the EU institutions in any of the EU official languages is fully respected and implemented, by ensuring that all public consultations are treated equally and that there is no language-based discrimination between consultations. I voted for this resolution, as I believe that public participation is an essential element of good democratic governance.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − Abstention. The rejection of our amendment seeking consideration for all languages that are official within the EU, and not only those which are official in the EU institutions, was rather disappointing for me. So unfortunately I was unable to vote in favour.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) It is essential for each EU citizen to have the right to address the EU institutions and for them to be able to do so in any of the official European Union languages. In particular people with disabilities need more accessible communication methods, as they need to be in a position to enjoy the same ability to address the institutions directly. Well-designed public consultations are one of the main tools of democratic governance; they give substance to the EU’s policy of transparency and must be treated equally, without any language-based discrimination.

  Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The year 2013 will be the European Year of Citizens. I welcome this initiative from the Commission, which aims to return citizens to the heart of European political life, putting them back in their rightful place. However, the current context is not favourable to European enthusiasm. The crisis in the euro area, the difficulties facing Greece; neither of these factors encourage citizens to turn to the Union. Will they wish to participate in a public consultation issued by the Commission if they have to be able to use English or one of the other languages that is deemed ‘important’? As I understand it, all of the official languages in the Member States are ‘important’, not just the 23 EU official languages. Let us be consistent. If we want committed European citizens, we must give them the resources to make this commitment. If we wish to introduce a truly European political area, let us allow all of our fellow citizens to participate in European political life.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) At the centre of democratic governance and its legitimacy lies public participation. Public consultations are in this respect one of the main tools giving substance to the European Union’s policy of transparency through communication and dialogue with EU citizens. Therefore we must protect every citizen’s right to address the EU institutions in any language they wish, provided, of course, it is recognised as an official Union language. I am therefore voting in favour so that all consultations may be treated equally without any language-based discrimination, given the right to equality which was sanctioned and perpetuated by our founding fathers.

  Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI), in writing. − (ES) With regard to Amendment 4: this is a delicate issue in some Member States, as is the case with Spain, and requires a general regulation as part of an appropriate legal instrument.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The participation of the public and citizens is a vital component in the functioning of democratic European governance. Communication with ordinary citizens should therefore use effective means of communication, in particular by promoting public consultations, in order to ensure that everyone can participate and have access to documents in any of the official EU languages. Moreover, Parliament is also demanding that all public consultations be comprehensible by the ordinary citizen and carried out over a sufficiently long period to enable effective participation.

  Hermann Winkler (PPE), in writing. − (DE) I fully support this resolution. I am also convinced that our citizens must be allowed to participate in the framing of EU legislation. The Commission holds consultations to obtain the views of interest groups and EU citizens about planned legislation. However, such consultations are often only accessible in English. For example, small businesses or voluntary institutions have neither the time nor the financial resources to engage translators. I believe nonetheless that it is important for them to understand the Commission’s surveys and to be able to give their response in their own language. Until now it has been possible to make all submissions in any of the 23 official languages. The fact is, however, that if I find it difficult or impossible to understand what is being asked or proposed, then this is of little help to me. Of course the professional groups with representation in Brussels try to assist their clients. Nonetheless, this cannot replace the direct contact with the public that is urgently needed if laws are not to be framed in an ivory tower. Of course, publicising and explaining legislation and the processes behind it all come at a price. This is worth paying in the interest of better public participation.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The European institutions regularly declaim the importance of citizen involvement in EU policies. While political and economic decisions are increasingly being made at super-state level, this is clearly not the best way of bringing the people closer to decision-making hubs. However, it is also clear that there are basic measures aimed at addressing citizens’ essential right to information; in this case, information about EU documents. We have always been uncompromising in our defence of the principle of multilingualism in the EU institutions, and argued that everyone involved and those who wish to access information should be treated equally. It is clear that the principle of no language-based discrimination can only be guaranteed by safeguarding the technical and human resources for it and, therefore, by ensuring sufficient funding for interpretation and translation. Many of those now supporting this resolution did not advocate this safeguard during discussions on Parliament’s budget. This issue can never be seen in terms of the technical and administrative functioning of the EU institutions, but should rather be considered a fundamental political decision to ensure a modicum of formal equality between EU stakeholders and citizens.

Motion for a resolution: RC-B7-0312/2012

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this joint resolution, as it takes the view that respect for human rights and freedom of culture, identity, religion and association are the founding principles of the EU and its external policy. It is clear today that EU-China dialogue on human rights has not led to significant improvement in the human rights situation of the Tibetan people, so this resolution comes at an opportune moment. In this regard, I would like to emphasise that EU-China partnerships should always take into account the values and principles that the EU advocates in its external policy, and efforts should be redoubled to address the human rights situation in China.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Last week, the latest developments in Tibet were raised with Baroness Ashton, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission, who stated, ‘The EU is concerned by the deterioration of the situation as illustrated by the wave of self-immolations’. We have called for the appointment of a special coordinator to promote human rights in Tibet. We need to keep a close watch on what is happening there and have regular reports on the situation in the country.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In a resolution adopted on 14 June, I, along with my fellow MEPs, called on the Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to appoint a special coordinator with a mandate to report regularly on Tibet in order to ‘advance respect for the human rights of the Tibetan people’, including ‘their right to preserve and develop their distinctive identity and its religious, cultural and linguistic manifestations’. I think it is important that this coordinator should also support constructive dialogue in the negotiations between the Chinese Government and the envoys of the Dalai Lama and provide assistance to Tibetan refugees, in particular in Nepal and India. I would therefore urge Baroness Ashton to raise the human rights situation in Tibet at the EU-China meetings. In this resolution, we also call on the Chinese authorities to grant genuine autonomy to the historical territory of Tibet and we ‘insist’ that they respect the freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of belief of the Tibetans, as well as their linguistic and cultural freedoms.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Parliament’s concern for human rights is recognised all over the world, and the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought is a pillar of this concern. Human rights violations in Tibet have been the subject of debate in and condemnation by Parliament. The fact is that the EU institutions cannot silence the abuses of the fundamental rights of Tibetans, who are seeing their freedoms and fundamental guarantees hampered. China cannot curtail Tibetan freedom, language and culture, and neither can it resort to building dams to annihilate a people and their ancient culture. A whole people is suffering, and they are willing to lay down their lives for the sake of their identity and freedom, as has happened with the self-immolation of monks. China must open Tibet’s borders so that it can be freely visited, in particular by UN observers. It must also take a seat at the negotiating table with the Dalai Lama. I voted for this joint motion for a resolution, as the EU must promote the protection of human rights throughout the world and denounce situations where human rights are being violated, even when such violations are perpetrated by major powers such as China.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) In the absence of objective or current data, this resolution goes back to arguments that have been made in the past and makes new ones in order to pursue a confrontational and interfering approach that is an affront to international law. The resolution makes points that we cannot support and is based on assumptions that do not strictly correspond with reality. The majority in Parliament implicitly continue to refer to Tibet as a territory occupied by China, when the powers instigating and supporting separatist movements in this autonomous region are undermining the territorial integrity of the People’s Republic of China. It is worth remembering that Tibet has been united, to varying degrees, with China since the 13th century, and that at the time of the Chinese Revolution in 1949, Tibet was ruled by a feudal regime in which the majority of the population consisted of serfs and slaves, based heavily on the land and subsistence farming. Moreover, in 1959 a separatist group led by the Dalai Lama launched an armed rebellion to defend this obscure and backward feudal serfdom.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In the Treaty on European Union, the Member States pledged to safeguard the principles of democracy and respect for human rights. Clearly all candidate countries must have satisfied these conditions before negotiations begin, but this does not imply indifference to conditions outside the EU. The last few years have been extremely dramatic for Tibet and the people of this nation have given a strong and succinct message: after 50 years of Chinese occupation, Tibetans are calling on the world for real change – a change that includes dialogue with the Chinese leadership, not an intensification of violence. The strategic partnership between the European Union and the People’s Republic of China should be based on common principles and values: the latter’s great economic dependence on exports ‘Made in China’ and the importance China attaches to its international reputation can influence such a change, if we make the effort. To guarantee respect for the fundamental rights of citizens, freedom of speech and association and the release of political prisoners, we need to take concrete action.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Respect for human rights, and freedom of identity, culture, religion and association are founding principles of the EU and of its foreign policy. Unfortunately, the EU-China Human Rights Dialogue has not resulted in any significant improvements in the human rights situation of the Tibetans. The managing authorities of the People’s Republic of China used disproportionate force while dealing with the protests of 2008 in Tibet and have, ever since, imposed restrictive security measures that curtail freedom of expression, association and belief. Torture, including beating, use of electroshock weapons, long-term solitary confinement, starvation and other similar measures are reportedly used to extract confessions in the prisons of Tibet by the authorities of the People’s Republic of China. I deplore the continuing crackdown by the Chinese authorities in Tibet’s monasteries and, in this context, it is essential for the Chinese Government to guarantee freedom of religion for the Tibetan people and all its citizens. The Strategic Partnership between the EU and the People’s Republic of China should be based on shared principles and values. In my opinion, it is reasonable to appoint a special representative of the EU for Tibet in order to advance respect for the human rights of the Tibetan people, including their right to preserve and develop their distinct identity and its religious, cultural and linguistic manifestations.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) As Vice-Chair of the Tibet Intergroup, it is with much conviction that I co-signed and voted for this resolution on the human rights situation in Tibet. Our Parliament works tirelessly to protect the Tibetan people from the attacks and violence that they have been suffering for many years. In this sitting, we have adopted a new text which calls for the appointment of a special coordinator for respect for human rights in Tibet, which calls for constructive dialogue between China and the Central Tibetan Administration and which also calls on China to grant Tibetans their autonomy and to respect the fundamental rights (freedom of expression, freedom of belief, freedom of association, and so on) of the Tibetan people. Finally, the resolution strongly condemns the Chinese attitude towards Tibetans: the repression, prison sentences, and so on.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this document because respect for human rights, freedom of identity, culture, religion and association are founding principles of the EU and of its foreign policy. The authorities of the People’s Republic of China used disproportionate force while dealing with the protests of 2008 in Tibet and have, ever since, imposed restrictive security measures that curtail freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of belief. There is a genuine threat to Tibetan identity, language, culture and religion, the heritage of a historically rich civilisation. The authorities of the People’s Republic of China should grant meaningful autonomy to the historical territory of Tibet. However, since January 2010, the Government of the People’s Republic of China has been unwilling to continue the dialogue with the envoys of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. The Chinese authorities must engage in a meaningful discussion with the representatives of the Central Tibetan Administration on the future of Tibet and must also allow an independent international investigation to be conducted into the 2008 protests and their aftermath, and release political prisoners. The document condemns the Chinese authorities’ continued crackdown on Tibetan monasteries, and calls on the Chinese Government to guarantee freedom of religion both for the people of Tibet and for all of its citizens. It must uphold the linguistic, cultural, religious and other fundamental freedoms of Tibetans and refrain from settlement policies in favour of the Han people and to the disadvantage of the Tibetans in historical territories of Tibet, as well as from forcing Tibetan nomads to abandon their traditional lifestyle.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The situation in Tibet is critical. The Tibetans are harshly repressed by the Chinese authorities when they demonstrate peacefully to ask for independence. Faced with the growing number of self-immolations and protests by the Tibetan people, Parliament has adopted a resolution, which I supported. In this resolution, Parliament first of all reminds us that the strategic partnership between the European Union and the People’s Republic of China must be based on common principles and values. It also urges the Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to appoint a special coordinator with a mandate to report regularly on the situation in Tibet. The objective is to advance respect for the human rights of the Tibetan people, including their right to preserve and develop their distinctive identity and its religious, cultural and linguistic manifestations. The European Union wishes, moreover, to support constructive dialogue and negotiations with the Government of the People’s Republic of China. The People’s Republic of China is being asked to grant genuine autonomy to the historical territory of Tibet.

  Filip Kaczmarek (PPE) , in writing. – (PL) I voted in favour of the resolution on the situation in Tibet. I am a co-author of the motion for a resolution by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), and I am pleased that we have been able to agree on a joint text. It is a pity that the socialists do not wish to acknowledge the need to support the Tibetans. The Tibetans need our constant support. We must not lose hope or faith that their peaceful struggle will ultimately lead to an improvement of the situation. I am reminded of the African proverb, ‘If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.’ Undoubtedly, it would be preferable if the tragic situation of the Tibetans could be changed quickly. Yet at the same time, the changes should be far-reaching. I am convinced that if the EU Member States showed more commitment to the Tibetan issue than they have done to date, the results would be more satisfactory. We have to believe that this is possible. No government, no political or social system is permanent or eternal. China too can and should change. We want to help them do so.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE), in writing. − (FI) I have on previous occasions spoken up for Tibetan nuns and monks in response to the shocking way in which they have committed suicide, by setting themselves on fire. However, this is not the only problem in the region. China has instigated many measures that threaten the Tibetan language, culture, religion, heritage and environment. Last December, Tibet’s leaders asked the EU High Representative to send EU diplomats to Tibet to investigate the situation for themselves. China blocked these moves. In my opinion, the European External Action Service should adopt a bolder stance with regard to the matter, as this concerns the dire human rights situation of countless numbers of people. Tibetan leaders have even said that if nothing is done soon, not even China can prevent an Arab Spring-type situation from happening. The EU should also raise the matter with the UN Human Rights Council. I therefore voted in favour of the motion for a resolution.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this resolution and its call for the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of the EU to increase and intensify efforts to address the human rights situation of the Tibetans in the framework of the EU-China Human Rights Dialogue.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The situation in Tibet is worrying. The frequent self-immolations of Tibetan monks pose questions, especially as the whereabouts of their bodies remains unknown. It is not normal for the media and human rights observers to be denied access to Tibet. It is essential for Baroness Ashton, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, to take up this issue and raise the situation with the representatives of the People’s Republic of China.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The unwillingness of the Chinese authorities to hold this dialogue every two years is unacceptable, as is their position on the modalities and frequency of the meetings, in particular with regard to the strengthening of the civil society segment and the involvement of civil society in the dialogue. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy must make every effort to ensure that the human rights dialogue is more effective and result-oriented. I am voting in favour.