Index 
 Previous 
 Next 
 Full text 
Procedure : 2010/0395(COD)
Document stages in plenary
Select a document :

Texts tabled :

A7-0325/2011

Debates :

PV 26/10/2011 - 4
CRE 26/10/2011 - 4

Votes :

PV 26/10/2011 - 8.6
CRE 26/10/2011 - 8.6
Explanations of votes
Explanations of votes
PV 23/10/2012 - 6.6
CRE 23/10/2012 - 6.6
Explanations of votes

Texts adopted :

P7_TA(2011)0465
P7_TA(2012)0362

Verbatim report of proceedings
Tuesday, 23 October 2012 - Strasbourg OJ edition

7. Explanations of vote
Video of the speeches
PV
 

Oral explanations of vote

 
  
  

Report: Giovanni La Via and Derek Vaughan (A7-0311/2012)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ashley Fox (ECR). – Mr President, in the United Kingdom we are still getting to grips with the ruinous financial inheritance left to us by the last Labour government. We have had to increase taxes and cut spending. I voted against the budget today because it proposes an increase in EU expenditure of 6.8 %. For the EU to demand such a large increase, indeed any increase, is grossly insensitive. It is difficult to think of anything more likely to alienate voters in the UK and across the whole of the EU. Why should Europe be getting more money, when almost every other public service is getting less? Why does the EU lecture Greece to cut spending, tell Ireland to raise taxes, force Spain to accept a bail-out and then demand more money for itself? At a time of austerity it is the height of hypocrisy for the EU to ask for more.

I fully support David Cameron’s efforts to freeze EU expenditure. He is far more in touch with the citizens than the majority of Members of this spendthrift Parliament.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). (IT) Mr President, the policy of austerity adopted in order to emerge from the economic crisis has not yielded the desired results. As has been underlined in the report by Mr La Via, only by investing in a more selective manner and supporting a European budget aimed at sustaining growth and employment will it be possible to stabilise the Member State economies and improve the situation of European citizens. I therefore voted in favour of the report.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). – Mr President, it is the duty of parliamentarians to represent the interests of their constituents. Trust in the European Union is at an all-time low. According to Eurostat, fewer than one third of Europeans have a positive image of the EU. In my country, the EU is seen as wasteful and out of touch. If we are to restore credibility we need to rein in excess spending.

The Commission’s inflation-busting 7 % increase in the budget is an insult to my constituents. While I would prefer to see a complete budget freeze, the Council’s proposal of 3 % is more acceptable. So why has this House voted to restore the Commission’s unrealistic demands? Perhaps it is because the Commission will go ahead and spend anyway. The Commission recently demanded a 10 billion top-up to its 2012 budget and this is an affront and an outrage. We must send a strong message to the Commission that it can no longer continue to squander its citizens’ taxes.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mr La Via and Mr Vaughan for their excellent work on the 2013 budget; in particular, I wish to reiterate the support of the European Parliament for the Erasmus Programme. Since 1987 more than two and a half million European students have had the chance to go abroad to study and work.

We voted against the cuts by the Council and requested EUR 30 million more than was proposed by the Commission. We not only need to save Erasmus, we must rather implement it more comprehensively and propose a European strategy for youth, because young people should not be made to pay the costs of the crisis, especially at a time when youth unemployment in Europe stands at almost 25 %.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). (IT) Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mr La Via on his excellent work on the report on the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013. His task was difficult, and there seemed little likelihood of an agreement between the Member States and the European Parliament. Despite the prolonged period of crisis and constant requests for cuts to EU expenditure, Mr La Via and Mr Vaughan together managed to ensure continuity for current policies and initiatives.

I think it was particularly important that any slowing down of the pilot projects in the areas of energy and the environment was avoided, a clear sign of the good work carried out by the European Parliament in defending the prerogatives of the European Union. I have therefore given my full support to this report.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, it is unacceptable that, at a time of unprecedented budgetary constraints across Europe, the EU should be planning to increase its 2013 budget by 3 % – which is an inflation-beating figure – next year, with Parliament proposing a staggering 6 % rise in payments.

EU governments are being forced to keep an ever-closer eye on their national spending. The British Government, for instance, is to cut spending by an estimated GBP 83 billion, with individual departments having to slash their budgets by an average of 19 % each. There is no good reason why the EU should be exempt from the cold realities of a global spending crisis. Once again this organisation risks being viewed as out of touch by a European public subjected to painful austerity measures in their home countries and yet witnessing manifest profligacy in Brussels on a daily basis.

The EU is an expensive enterprise and demands a lot of money, but if it wishes to retain the confidence of EU citizens, it needs to tighten its belt like everybody else.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Peter Jahr (PPE). (DE) Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for his report. I think he has found a good compromise. The 2013 budget has attracted a great deal of public interest. It is, after all, the final year of the seven-year financial framework. That is why the Member States are sometimes not entirely fair in their dealings with the European Union. In the final year, for example, a relatively large number of projects are still being submitted and need to be end-financed. The very same Member States which received rebates in previous years are now focusing very strongly on compliance with financial discipline in 2013. In my view, we should deal fairly each other. Most of the funding allocated by the European Union ultimately goes to economic development and innovation; in other words, the funding is put to good use. In that spirit, I trust that we will deal fairly with each other.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Adam Bielan (ECR). (PL) Mr President, the committee to which I belong, the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, has noted the need to lower expenditure on external staff. We also stressed that the budget for this purpose should not exceed 10 % of total staff expenditure. In view of that position, I believe that we should concentrate on constantly developing our IT infrastructure. We should strive to ensure that the public are increasingly able to use the internet to manage their affairs. One such example is the SOLVIT system, which is an effective extrajudicial means of settling disputes. However, further action needs to be taken to promote it among businesses and to boost its role in aiding the functioning of the internal market. I voted against the report, as I believe that the individual areas vital to economic policy need to be addressed in separate documents.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Morten Messerschmidt (EFD). (DA) Mr President, I do not think that there is anything more revealing in terms of the detachment from reality and the distorted picture that characterises Parliament’s members than the votes on the budget that took place here a few minutes ago. All EU Member States are compelled to make cuts in their consumption, despite the fact that the EU’s Court of Auditors has said for 16 years in a row that it cannot approve of the way in which the EU spends taxpayers’ money, and despite the fact that the entire consumption of money by the EU is characterised by fraud and swindling to an extent that we would not see in any normal democracy, so I do feel that the vast majority of us here at Parliament are insisting not only on an increase, a moderate increase, or an increase in line with inflation, but an increase of almost 7 %. I hope that the vote we have held today, in which most people have had to put their name to their vote, will be sent around sites and discussion forums all over the EU, so that people can see who is mistreating their money and who is simply insisting on being given more.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Elena Băsescu (PPE).(RO) Mr President, I also voted in favour of this report as the financial crisis continues in Europe and the Member States are still resorting to austerity measures. Now more than ever Parliament needs to act in a responsible manner. It must take into account the financial policies of the Member States when approving the budget for 2013. Even more importantly, the public expenses of the Union should be approached in the same way, and the European Parliament should establish its priorities and reduce its expenditure where necessary.

I maintain that the budget represents an important instrument for promoting growth and cohesion in Europe. At the same time, I believe we need to emphasise innovation and competitiveness and promote the positive developments in these areas more effectively. For Romania, the priority is to ensure adequate cohesion policy and common agricultural policy funding.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nirj Deva (ECR). – Mr President, I do not think it is very acceptable for the European Union to ask for a 7 % increase when my constituents in the south-east of England are having to tighten their belts and to live within their means. What prompted me to get up on my feet was the rather clever speech made by the President of the Commission who appeared to blame the national governments and the national parliaments for the current mess that we are in and not the European Union. What he forgot to mention is that when the eurozone was set up, it was the Commission that was to monitor expenditure in the Member States and the 3 % limit, the deficit limit, has been breached right throughout the European Union and the Commission did absolutely nothing about it. The 3 % and the 60 % ratios which were installed when the eurozone was created were ignored. That was the Commission’s omission.

 
  
  

Report: Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin (A7-0313/2012)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Nirj Deva (ECR). – Mr President, in that report I voted with my group, except for a few exceptions which related to international development, because I did not believe that we should – even though we are in difficulties – punish those who are in such dire straits that the quality and standard of living that we enjoy in Europe is utterly luxurious compared to the way they live.

Therefore the poverty programmes and the other programmes which we would have essentially cut – particularly in Asia – I voted differently from my group, because I believe that it is very important to be able to link our wellbeing to that of others in dire circumstances and in circumstances which are not as good as the ones that we find ourselves in.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). (IT) Mr President, the multiannual financial framework for the period 2014-2020 is being discussed in a difficult social and economic context. Member States are busy making fiscal changes to their own national budgets in an effort to stabilise public finances, and so the European Union is seen in many cases as a factor adding to the burden of taxpayers. Therefore, if we really want to emerge from this crisis and ensure a better future for European youth, it will be essential to make greater and more tangible investment in training and development.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). – Mr President, earlier this month Margaret Thatcher celebrated her 87th birthday and I am sure this House would join me in sending its warmest congratulations. Mrs Thatcher fought hard to negotiate a rebate for the UK in 1984. When the Iron Lady secured a 66 % rebate she said, ‘Of course, one would like 100 %, but one has to be a reasonable partner’. The UK continues to be a reasonable partner, but the proposals in this report to end the UK rebate are unacceptable.

David Cameron – like Margaret Thatcher – wants to outline the budget negotiations which are good for the UK and good for Europe, which is why the British Conservatives are calling for a freeze in EU spending. This is a reasonable approach. I do not see how the Commission can continue to demand an increase in its own budget while imposing austerity measures on Member States.

As a former businesswoman I know that it is possible to make cuts to any budget. Our citizens deserve these budget cuts and the Commission must listen to their demands.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, at a time of crisis when the Member States are asking to reduce their EU contributions, we must spend our available funds in a better manner, ensuring that they address the real priorities: growth, development and employment, reducing misspending and eliminating unfair advantages, starting by abolishing the so-called system of rebates, which are nothing less than budget discounts benefiting some Member States to the detriment of others. It is unacceptable, in my view, that the United Kingdom has to date benefited from rebates amounting to about EUR 97 billion.

Italy cannot afford to be a net contributor country, giving more than it receives, and much less to finance these anachronistic discounts. In 2011 alone, Italy made a net contribution of almost EUR 6 billion. Let me finish by saying, on the issue of misspending, that today the European Parliament clearly stated its preference for a single seat in the near future.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Vicky Ford (ECR). – Mr President, the medium-term financial framework will set the parameters for the next seven years of EU budgets and could not come at a more sensitive time. Every single Member State is making cuts in local and national spending and European public spending must be subject to the same discipline.

We have limited money. Every euro, every pound, every kroner, even every zloty needs to get to the front line with a minimum of waste. In my own region, EU-funded projects often sound attractive for jobs and skills, infrastructure and research, but the red tape reality is that running those projects often has huge costs and wastes, and these schemes could be better funded through national programmes or local grants.

I do not just want to tinker with EU funding, I want a fundamental review on how to reduce waste and excess, starting with getting rid of this Chamber but moving on to look at our staffing costs and benefits, so that there is not one set of rules for EU institutions and another for those who work locally. Then I want a root and branch review of every project so that the EU only funds projects where there is added value at international level in areas like our world-class science, where investment genuinely will boost growth and jobs.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, to begin with I would like to recall that the negotiations on the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020 are proceeding in a very difficult social, economic and financial context. I regret to say that the European Union is increasingly seen by citizens as an additional burden to be borne by taxpayers, rather than an important resource.

I am convinced that this situation is caused by the fact that the EU budget is not in line with national budgets, since it has not been expanded to take account of the duties and competencies assigned to the Union under the Treaty of Lisbon, or of the important political Decisions taken by the European Council.

I voted in favour of the report because I was aware of the need to reach an interinstitutional compromise and to send a clear signal to citizens.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Emer Costello (S&D). – Mr President, the EU’s multiannual budget must be fit for purpose. Without a proper budget we cannot deliver on agreed aims and policies, in particular those set out in the EU 2020 strategy. Indeed, the budget is one of the most effective instruments we have to help create growth and jobs across Europe. Those who argue that the EU budget should be cut or frozen must spell out which EU policies they would take out.

I firmly believe that 25 % of the cohesion funds should be allocated to the European Social Fund. This could help co-fund initiatives to tackle the growing problem of youth unemployment, such as the Youth Guarantee. In that context I welcome the Irish Government’s commitment to prioritising the Youth Guarantee Scheme during Ireland’s Presidency. Youth unemployment is currently running at 30 % in Ireland.

Finally, I do believe that the EU needs to tackle the issue of own resources, and I would like to see agreement on a Financial Transaction Tax.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, first I would like to congratulate the Republic of Cyprus for handling the delicate multiannual financial framework negotiations so adeptly for the 2014-2020 period. This is the island state’s first experience of holding the EU’s rotating Presidency-in-Office. The Cypriots, like the British people, recognise the importance of value for money for the European Union, while emphasising the need for the EU to help create jobs and enable economic growth. Nevertheless, the British Prime Minister David Cameron has made it quite clear that at a time of austerity it is simply unacceptable to the British public to demand either an above-inflation increase or an end to the British rebate, particularly given the fact that the UK is the second largest net contributor. Member States should be warned that he is prepared to exercise the UK veto if necessary and go over to an annual emergency funding on a frozen budgetary basis.

There is plenty of budgetary fat to be cut, and shutting down the Strasbourg Parliament would be a great place to start. Then we need to reform the CAP and reduce Structural Funds, particularly the European Social Fund, so that only things like research and development – both medical and scientific – or major infrastructure projects are given emphasis. At the moment, however, the British public really thinks that the EU is spending far too much money and could do a lot less and do a lot better.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). – Mr President, we all know that in recent years, national budgets have immensely outgrown the EU budget, which has put economic growth under stress. It is important for the growth of all the European economies and that of the Member States, including the European Union, to get their fiscal house in order.

I rise in support of this bill, because it is of paramount importance in fixing the euro crisis. By providing the Member States with a budgetary framework, national parliaments will structure their national budgets in a pro-economic growth manner. If we allow deficit spending to continue, it will further stall economic growth and restrict the growth of the EU economy.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Peter Jahr (PPE). (DE) Mr President, I would like, at this juncture, to reiterate my request for the Member States to deal fairly with each other, for it is quite unacceptable for the Member States to be wearing two hats, as it were. They put on the first hat in Brussels. They are always saying that the European Union, the Commission, must take more vigorous action and that we should be launching new programmes for economic development and innovation, which need more money. As soon as they get home, they put on their second hat, and then the message that comes out of Europe’s capitals is, of course, that the Member States want to pay less to Brussels.

The fact of the matter – and we really do not need to dwell on this point for long – is that if we want to pay less to Brussels, we will also get less in return. That being the case, I would ask everyone to deal fairly with each other, taking into account, on the one hand, the difficult situation in the Member States but ensuring, on the other, that the programmes which the European Union needs in order to stimulate economic recovery in the Member States continue to be effective.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Adam Bielan (ECR). (PL) Mr President, the budget for the current programming period has been implemented with the involvement of the new Member States, including Poland. We can see already how the monies allocated have aided their development and granted them equal economic opportunities. In spite of taking into consideration a series of important demands, this report warns against making cuts to the Commission’s proposal. In my opinion, the priority as far as the economy is concerned is to carry out the initiatives outlined with regard to the internal market. It is vital to guarantee funding in this area. That also involves making it easier for small and medium-sized enterprises to access European Union financing. At the same time, we should take measures aimed at boosting entrepreneurship. An internal market that operates effectively obviously requires an appropriate level of consumer protection. I call for an increase in the resources allocated to this objective, as, in the current proposal, they are insufficient.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ramona Nicole Mănescu (ALDE).(RO) Mr President, I voted in favour of the Interim report in the interests of achieving a positive outcome of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 approval procedure because it promotes a stable, solid and sustainable budget that guarantees economic growth and jobs, as well as a high standard of living and security for the citizens of Europe.

The Union’s budget and, more specifically, cohesion policy expenditure, represent an important instrument that needs to remain available to Member States to overcome the current economic crisis and to lead to the accomplishment of the Europe 2020 strategy objectives. If we wish for a competitive, sustainable and inclusive Europe, we definitely need to allocate sufficient resources to the cohesion policy, at least at the level agreed for the current programming period. I put forward the idea of eliminating macroeconomic conditions as it would be unfair to penalise the regions for not respecting, at national level, the procedures regarding economic governance.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Bastiaan Belder (EFD). (NL) I have three comments on the multiannual financial framework. First, the amounts should be a bit lower. The EU should mainly confine itself to its core responsibilities. This was a good suggestion, for that matter, from President Schulz in the Dutch press last week, although I do not agree with his argument for centralisation at European level.

Another way to make significant savings is to deploy the Structural Funds exclusively in poor regions in the Member States with the lowest incomes.

Finally, the matter of the EU having its own financial resources. Parliament would like the tax on financial transactions and VAT remittances to be used to finance the EU. This would be instead of the contributions from the Member States. This is not desirable. The Member States are less wasteful, as can be seen from the 2013 EU budget. The Member States have the authority to collect taxes and so it must remain. After all, the Union is here to serve the Member States, even though it may not seem that way in these economically difficult and tense times.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Morten Messerschmidt (EFD). (DA) Mr President, the vote that we held here earlier today on the multiannual financial framework (MFF) was probably the biggest, possibly not the most important, but the biggest vote by far that we will hold as members of the European Parliament. Close to DKK 1 000 billion has been waved through here, because we pushed the buttons and decided how the money in the EU should be spent from 2014 to 2020. The interesting thing was to see the protest in the room against my group – the EFD Group – having insisted on the individual votes having to be on a roll-call basis and in public, naturally so that citizens can see who has voted for what, given that it involves approximately DKK 1 000 billion to be used over a period including the next seven years, which is longer than any Commissioner or any Member of Parliament generally sits, without having to be held responsible to the voters. It is telling of the way in which Parliament and the EU system generally work that the further away from citizens the decisions can be made, and the more secretly it can be done, the less has to be entered in the accounts, and the better it is. This is not worthy of any democracy.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Seán Kelly (PPE).(GA) Mr President, I attended the debate here this morning and was happy to give my support to the vote today. The multiannual financial framework is obviously very important and, as has been said, it will be extremely important in terms of reaching an agreement at the Council’s meeting in November. However, as Mr Van Rompuy has stated, for that to happen, we will need political will and cooperation from all of the Member States, especially all of the Heads of State or Government. I hope that that will happen. My second point is that you, yourself, have taken leadership on the issue of the single seat, Mr President. I voted in favour of the single seat, too, because I do not believe that we should continue in the way we are at present given the carbon dioxide, expense and difficulties involved in travelling here, and especially because of the cost, which totals EUR 180 million. That can no longer be tolerated.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Elena Băsescu (PPE).(RO) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report because the Union’s budget represents a key instrument for stabilising the economy. It can be used to promote investments in growth and to create jobs. Also, the budget can help Member States to overcome the difficulties facing them.

In this context, I would like to highlight the importance of robust public finances. Member States must continue their efforts to exploit the potential for sustained growth. The multiannual financial framework must offer greater budgetary flexibility in order to ensure that resources are fully used. Romania has difficulty absorbing European funds, and the goals for the end of this year were revised downward. Nevertheless, it is necessary to ensure adequate funding for the cohesion policy and the common agricultural policy. This will make it possible to reduce the gap in development between Romania and other Member States.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jacky Hénin (GUE/NGL).(FR) Mr President, if you read the report, the words are there: growth, employment, response to the crisis. Besides those words, however, nothing has changed. The budgetary approach is still the same as that taken by Europe during the stalemate and the crisis.

There are still the same ultraliberal options that are supported no matter what: destruction of the social acquis and confinement within a policy of complete support for the competition that is corrupting our countries. With budgetary guidelines such as these, there is no chance of Europe emerging from the chaos that it has created. Quite the contrary, in fact. There is a high risk that Europe will sink further into the crisis, with finance the only beneficiary.

It is high time that we changed the guidelines completely. We need to give priority to the public services that can shield us from the crisis. We need concrete support for the development of jobs and protection of industry. We need to revitalise social protection by harmonising upwards and putting an immediate end to levelling downwards. We need to stop pitting citizens and workers against one another. Without these essential changes, Europe will not be able to get past the crisis. It is for that Europe, however, that I am campaigning with the citizens.

 
  
  

Report: Jean-Luc Dehaene (A7-0316/2012)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Morten Messerschmidt (EFD). (DA) Mr President, the next report we voted on here concerns the EU’s own resources, and I voted against. This was not on the basis of the detailed amendments that will be made in relation to the collection of VAT from Member States, but because, as we all know very well, when we talk about own resources it means that the EU does not only want to prepare for having money sent to it in the form of a cheque from Member States once a year; it wants to put its hands directly into citizens’ pockets. Some people want it as a duty on aviation fuel, some want it as a direct VAT rate, others want it as a direct tax on financial transactions. The crucial thing is that, irrespective of which group we belong to, if we go in for EU taxes, we will eliminate the necessary link that must exist between being directly elected by citizens and having permission to obtain direct access to citizens’ pockets. This link simply does not exist in the EU, because in the EU it is the Commissioners who have the right of initiative, it is they who submit the proposals, it is they who execute the decisions, and in return they have the privilege of not being elected by anyone other than themselves and the government that has chosen to install them. The whole principle of own resources must therefore be dropped. It does not belong in a place like the EU.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Elena Băsescu (PPE).(RO) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report as I consider that reforming the own resources system in the European Union represents a step forward. Moreover, I am of the opinion that own resources, based on VAT, have significant potential to contribute positively to the Union’s budget. The tax could help to reduce the level of contributions of the Member States. Moreover, the new system will bring significant advantages, as well as greater transparency, flexibility, security and predictability. Member States will benefit from equal treatment, and the administrative load will be reduced. However, there are some disadvantages in this process that need to be considered; the methodology is a complex one and not easy to simplify. The own resources system is very important and reforming it demands attention.

 
  
  

Written explanations of vote

 
  
  

Report: Bernhard Rapkay (A7-0332/2012)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing.(PT) I voted in favour of this report, given that, in light of Article 9 of the Protocol and the relevant provisions of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure and the Austrian Constitution, the Committee on Legal Affairs concluded that there was no reason not to waive the immunity of Martin Ehrenhauser.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. (IT) I voted in favour of the report because the alleged offences by Mr Martin Ehrenhauser, against whom the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office intends to conduct an investigation procedure, do not fall within the scope of the opinions expressed or votes cast by the Member in the performance of his duties, in accordance with Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union. I agree with the Committee on Legal Affairs that Mr Ehrenhauser’s immunity should be waived.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. It is only correct in the incidence of inappropriate or fraudulent behaviour by any elected or unelected representative of the EU that the matter be fully investigated and the identity of the accused disclosed for the purpose of transparency.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report by Bernhard Rapkay concerns the request for waiver of the parliamentary immunity of Martin Ehrenhauser MEP following a request made on 21 March 2011 by the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office in Austria. The Public Prosecutor’s Office wants to prosecute this Member, whom it suspects of illegally accessing a computer system in breach of the Austrian Penal Code with regard to telecommunications secrecy, unlawful interception of data, use of recording equipment and infringement of data protection. Based on statements and a series of documents from another Member, the Public Prosecutor’s Office suspects that Martin Ehrenhauser illegally accessed the private email system of Hans-Peter Martin, by copying and disclosing the latter’s private and professional data. In this respect, and bearing in mind the recommendation of the Committee on Legal Affairs to lift the parliamentary immunity of Martin Ehrenhauser, I voted in favour of this report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. (SK) At the sitting of 2 July 2012, the President announced, pursuant to Rule 6(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, that he had received a letter dated 21 March 2012 from the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office requesting that the parliamentary immunity of Martin Ehrenhauser be waived in the context of proceedings being conducted by the Austrian judicial authorities. In its letter, the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office states that on the basis of the statement by another Member of the European Parliament, Hans-Peter Martin, there is a suspicion that, between the latter part of the summer of 2010 and April 2011, Martin Ehrenhauser unlawfully accessed Hans-Peter Martin’s private email system and opened, copied and printed data of a private and professional nature belonging to him, in particular emails and attachments thereto. Hans-Peter Martin had also forwarded the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office a sheaf of documents in support of this claim of unlawful access. On this basis the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office considers that a reasonable suspicion against Martin Ehrenhauser exists.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing.(FR) The Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office requested the waiver of immunity of Martin Ehrenhauser, a Member of the European Parliament (Non-attached). This request was approved by a large majority in plenary. The aim is to allow the Austrian authorities to carry out the necessary investigations into the alleged offences, notably illegal access to a computer system. I supported the report by Mr Rapkay.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. I voted for this report as, based on its findings, I believe that there is no reason not to waive Martin Ehrenhauser’s immunity.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing.(FR) I supported the waiver of Martin Ehrenhauser’s immunity. It is legitimate and just that the Austrian authorities should be able to carry out an investigation into his alleged illegal access to a computer system.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing.(FR) Parliamentary immunity must only be used to protect Members from political pressure. Martin Ehrenhauser is accused of an offence under ordinary law. He has stated that he supports the waiver of his immunity to allow justice to be done. I voted in favour.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Parliament is responsible for defending the independence of the Member’s mandate, and this independence cannot be threatened. In accordance with Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, Members of the European Parliament may not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties. The request to waive immunity has been made by the Public Prosecutor’s Office in order to enable the Austrian authorities to conduct the necessary investigations and to take legal action against Martin Ehrenhauser. The request to waive the immunity of Martin Ehrenhauser relates to alleged offences involving illegal access to a computer system pursuant to Article 118a of the Austrian Penal Code (StGB), a breach of telecommunications secrecy pursuant to Article 119 StGB, unlawfully intercepted data pursuant to Article 119a StGB, unauthorised use of a recorder or recording equipment pursuant to Article 120(2) StGB and infringement of Article 51 of the 2000 Data Protection Act. I am therefore in favour of waiving Martin Ehrenhauser’s immunity.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. The general prosecutor’s office in Vienna is going to conduct a preliminary investigation against Martin Ehrenhauser, MEP. Martin Ehrenhauser is suspected of illegal access to a computer system, in violation of Article 118 of the Criminal Code of Austria, violating telecommunications secrets. As always, I voted against. I think that immunity should be kept until MEPs’ credentials expire.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. (DE) Following a complaint by Hans-Peter Martin MEP, the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office in Austria intends to carry out a preliminary investigation against Martin Ehrenhauser, MEP. There is a suspicion that Martin Ehrenhauser unlawfully published some of Hans-Peter Martin’s private emails. The Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office also wishes to investigate allegations that Martin Ehrenhauser made a recording of a conversation without the knowledge of the persons involved. The immunity of Martin Ehrenhauser must be waived by the European Parliament if the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office is to proceed to investigate the allegations against him. I voted in favour of waiving Martin Ehrenhauser’s parliamentary immunity for I believe that all Members of Parliament must be persons of the utmost integrity. This obligation towards the electorate is incumbent on each and every one of us. A thorough investigation of the matter is the only way to reassure voters that everything is legal and above board. If Mr Ehrenhauser is innocent, this, too, must be established by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, just as if he were guilty. This is imperative in a rule-of-law system and must also apply to the politicians in whom the public places its trust.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. (DE) Following a complaint by Hans-Peter Martin MEP, the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office in Austria intends to carry out a preliminary investigation against Martin Ehrenhauser MEP. There is a suspicion that Martin Ehrenhauser unlawfully published some of Hans-Peter Martin’s private emails. It is also suspected that Martin Ehrenhauser unlawfully made a recording of a conversation without the knowledge of the persons involved. Martin Ehrenhauser’s immunity must be waived by the European Parliament if the investigations are to proceed. I voted in favour of waiving his parliamentary immunity, for I believe that a thorough investigation of the matter is in the voters’ interests.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing.(PT) The European Parliament has received a request to waive the parliamentary immunity of Martin Ehrenhauser MEP in the context of legal action related to illegal access to a computer system pursuant to Article 118a of the Austrian Penal Code (StGB), a breach of telecommunications secrecy pursuant to Article 119 StGB, unlawfully intercepted data pursuant to Article 119a StGB, unauthorised use of a recorder or recording equipment pursuant to Article 120(2) StGB and infringement of Article 51 of the 2000 Data Protection Act. Considering that the facts in this case, as presented in the documents sent to the Committee on Legal Affairs, do not indicate that the alleged events have any direct and clear link with the performance, by Martin Ehrenhauser, of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament, it was decided to waive his parliamentary immunity. Based on these arguments, I voted in favour of this report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. (IT) The President announced in plenary on 2 July 2012 that in accordance with Rule 6(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament he had received a request from the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office on 21 March for waiver of the immunity of Mr Martin Ehrenhauser in connection with an investigative procedure and he forwarded the request to the Committee on Legal Affairs. Mr Ehrenhauser was heard by the committee on 17 September 2012. Considering the nature of the alleged offences, in connection with which the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office intends to conduct an investigation procedure, it is evident that they do not fall within the scope of the opinions expressed or votes cast by Mr Ehrenhauser in the performance of his duties in accordance with Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Unions. I therefore voted in favour of the proposal by the Committee on Legal Affairs to waive Mr Ehrenhauser’s immunity.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. In favour. The waiver of immunity of concerns alleged offences related to illegal access to a computer system. Martin Ehrenhauser was heard by the EP Committee on Legal Affairs, where he stated that he believed that his immunity should be waived.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. (IT) The Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office intends to conduct an investigation procedure against Mr Martin Ehrenhauser MEP. The alleged offences relate to illegal access to a computer system pursuant to Article 118a of the Austrian Penal Code, a breach of telecommunications secrecy pursuant to Article 119 of the code, unlawfully intercepted data pursuant to Article 119a of the code, unauthorised use of a recording or recording equipment pursuant to Article 120(2) of the code and infringement of Article 51 of the 2000 Data Protection Act. Furthermore, it is also suspected that Mr Ehrenhauser made a recording of a private statement by another person available, without the speaker’s consent, to a third person for whom it was not intended, by sending a recording of a conversation between several people, including Mr Hans-Peter Martin, to one of the participants, who then submitted an extract from that recording to the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office. In view of the seriousness of these acts, I voted in favour of the proposal that Mr Ehrenhauser’s immunity should be waived.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the request to waive the immunity of Martin Ehrenhauser MEP as the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office intends to take legal action against him, given the suspicions presented in this report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. (PL) Given that the European Parliament is perceived as an institution of public trust, any alleged breach of the law by one of its Members should be clarified without delay. In this particular case, the Austrian authorities conducting the investigation must be able to question Martin Ehrenhauser in order to obtain a fair and accurate explanation of the matter. The fact that the person making the allegations is another Member of the European Parliament lends the case particular significance. In my opinion, the accusations are of a very serious nature and actions of this kind should be firmly denounced, without hesitation, including within Parliament. Martin Ehrenhauser has voiced his wish to testify before the competent authorities in the hope that it will allow him to be cleared of these accusations. As a member of the party Solidarna Polska [United Poland], which is concerned about Europe’s image, I voted in favour of waiving Martin Ehrenhauser’s immunity.

 
  
  

Draft general budget of the European Union - 2013 financial year

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marta Andreasen (EFD), in writing. I supported Amendment 1263 on the House of European History because it reduces the budget of the European Parliament by 5.3 million; even though I believe it does not go far enough, it is a reduction. Ideally the vanity project should be wound up and the budget line removed.

I voted for Amendment 964 on ITER because I am in favour of reducing the European Union budget, and Amendment 964 was to reduce payments by EUR 490 million. However, I do not support the intent of the author of the amendment which was to eliminate nuclear power. I fully support nuclear power and, if the British people were not sending so much money to Brussels more would be available for investment in the British nuclear industry.

I supported Amendment 754 because I oppose EU funds, which are really the taxes of British and European citizens, being used for aid to tobacco producers.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The European Union must respect the commitments it has made now, including the payments related to these commitments. Any non-compliance could affect the credibility of all the European institutions, not only of the European Commission.

The Union is searching for solutions, including financial support, to reduce the effects of the crisis and to develop different projects – investments in strategic areas for economic growth and job creation, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and transport networks, to name just a few – so it is desirable not to get into a situation where the EU cannot respect its commitments or honour legitimate requests for payment.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Philippe de Villiers (EFD), in writing.(FR) Like every year, and particularly in these times of crisis, the European Union is making a fool of its citizens and its taxpayers. The Commission and Parliament are ganging up on the countries that are slightly more careful to waste less.

The taxpayers are being taken hostage. The demand to increase the European budget to EUR 151 billion to respond to ridiculous requirements and fanciful projects and strategies is a deception, with the European Union presented as the solution to the problems that it created.

Contempt for the citizens is also evident in the EU’s distribution of more than EUR 1.5 billion in pre-accession support, including a large share to Turkey, whose economy is booming.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The introduction of a line in the EU budget for the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, based on the excuse of being ‘able to respond more quickly to new cases’, is yet another step towards formalising an instrument that, as we have said from the start, is not the appropriate response to business restructuring problems. In addition, its financing criteria are grossly unfair. Some people, particularly the Social Democrats, want to perpetuate this Fund and use it as a shock absorber (and as a weapon of political and ideological manipulation) for those policies attacking social and labour rights in the EU. They do not want to get to the root of the problem, but simply to mitigate the effects of any unemployment. We abstained from voting on several amendments tabled by the Committee on Budgets, particularly with regard to the distribution of milk in schools, simply because we preferred the subsequent amendments, which further increased the amounts available under those headings that we consider to be very important. With regard to the financing of certain development cooperation areas, we supported the respective headings, although not without reservations about the nature and effectiveness of the action of some of the non-governmental organisations supported. At times the system seems to operate for itself, with the financial support not being reflected in practical actions that help to improve the life of the people in these countries.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. I voted for Amendment 351 restoring the Commission’s draft budget for the European Globalisation Fund. At a time of economic recession it is vital that this fund is adequately financed.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. The draft budget of the European Union for 2013 represents a realistic budget to fund the European Union and to deal sufficiently with the financial crisis.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. After studying draft amendments concerning appropriations under Sections I, II, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII and IX of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013, I abstained, because they are not correct and not transparent.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing.(FR) It will be impossible to finance the existing European policies, the new competences that the Member States unanimously transferred to the Union with the Treaty of Lisbon and the commitments made by all of the European institutions and the Heads of State or Government in the Europe 2020 strategy and the Compact for Growth and Jobs, particularly as regards climate, development assistance, research, employment and the fight against poverty. A reduction in global warming, economic recovery and social cohesion in Europe cannot be achieved unless the European budget is guaranteed the necessary financial resources.

Consequently, the European Parliament report adopted today warns the European Council not to attempt to make any cuts in the next multiannual financial framework. Since the European Council constantly says that we need more Europe, the time has come for the Council to put its words into action.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) First, it should be noted that we abstained from voting on several amendments tabled by the Committee on Budgets, particularly with regard to the distribution of milk in schools, simply because we preferred the subsequent amendments, which further increased the amounts available under those headings. Second, we do not agree with the introduction of a line in the EU budget for the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, which we consider to be yet another step towards institutionalising an instrument that, as we have said from the start, is not the appropriate response to unemployment problems.

 
  
  

Report: Giovanni La Via, Derek and Vaughan (A7-0311/2012)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing.(PT) I voted in favour because I consider that the proposals of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament to slightly increase the payment appropriations, with a proposed increase of 6.82 %, should be taken into account. This increase is needed given the European Commission’s proposal of less than 3.8 %, which I consider to be out of line with the Compact for Growth and Jobs. I therefore feel that it is vital that the European Parliament does not accept any level of payment appropriations for 2013 that does not totally cover the 2012 payment needs. The European Union must show the necessary solidarity and, above all, boost the recovery of growth in the internal market.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing.(FR) The European Parliament and I supported this report, which seeks to clarify the European Union’s budget for 2013. What might seem a simple administrative formality is, in fact, essential so as not to maintain certain programmes whose payments are stopping. Indeed, symbolic programmes such as Erasmus and projects that depend on the cohesion policy are short on funds. This situation is mainly due to poor administration by the national governments, which are seeking to reduce their contributions but are not dealing with the impact of these cuts on the citizens. The European Parliament rejects this, as demonstrated by this vote.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing.(FR) Faced with the Council, like every year, the negotiations are difficult, perhaps even impossible. Last year, Parliament eventually gave in. The result was that certain programmes now do not have enough money to last until the end of the year. The European Social Fund and Erasmus need an amending budget to be able to honour their commitments. This is a reflection of the Council’s inconsistency today: it begrudges adopting a budget that balances the commitment and payment appropriations, and it complains about the increase sought by the Commission and Parliament, yet through the Structural Funds the states receive most of the budget back into their territory. In any event, the negotiations on the 2013 budget are not finished and Parliament’s vote in plenary is clear: restore payment appropriations to the level proposed by the Commission and increase the appropriations for research and jobs for young people. It is now up to the Council to take this into account in order to move towards conciliation.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nora Berra (PPE), in writing.(FR) Since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon in December 2009, the European Parliament has had greater budgetary powers. Parliament and the Council of the European Union thus share competence for the budget. For the European Union’s 2013 budget, we reiterated our support for growth and employment. In that regard, I voted in favour of restoring the EUR 1.9 billion cut by the Council. These budget cuts threaten sectors that are essential for growth, such as research, employment measures and entrepreneurship. Restoring the payment appropriations for 2013 will guarantee funding for European programmes such as Erasmus and the European Social Fund are financed. We also reiterated our support for the peace process in the Middle East. The amended text will be discussed in the Conciliation Committee, which comprises members of the Council and Parliament.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. (ES) I voted in favour of this report, because I believe that the EU should increase its investment in research and competitiveness, SMEs, infrastructure and research and innovation in order to meet the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy. To achieve that, the EU budget needs to be strong and coordinated with the Member States. Europe will emerge from the current crisis only by boosting investment in growth and employment and helping Member States to tackle structural problems such as loss of competitiveness and increased unemployment and poverty. It will not do that by making cuts to policies designed to achieve economic growth. We therefore need to set priorities. If the Council decides on cuts, then it must determine where its priorities lie and which policies need to be abandoned.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. It is utterly abhorrent that the EU is seeking to increase its budget and reverse essential cuts when the EU authored programmes of austerity are inflicting pain in Member States across the continent. It is the result of the EU created and perpetuated Eurozone crisis that so many citizens of Europe are currently jobless, without access to medical care or food and suffering as a result of a failing economy. To use the impecuniousness of certain sections of society as a just cause for reversing proposed cuts is absurd. It is essential that the EU scales back its operations rather than increase its scope of power and therefore has need to increase the amount of money it pools centrally which ultimately comes from the hard pressed taxpayer.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ole Christensen, Dan Jørgensen, Christel Schaldemose and Britta Thomsen (S&D), in writing. (DA) As regards the budget for 2013, we, the four Danish Social Democrats in the European Parliament (Dan Jørgensen, Christel Schaldemose, Britta Thomsen and Ole Christensen), did not support the decision on Parliament’s negotiating position in relation to the Council of Ministers in the forthcoming negotiations on the 2013 budget. This is because we cannot support Parliament’s desire to increase the budget to the level that has been adopted, nor do we support a number of sub-elements of the budget, such as the continued high level of aid for agriculture and aid for tobacco production.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The delicate situation of the national economies reinforces the role that the EU budget must play: mainly as an instrument to support those economies. In this context, the EU budget must be carefully and responsibly considered, given the importance of its application. It is vital to safeguard and honour the EU’s commitments and, in this respect, the cuts made in the draft budget (DB) during the Council’s reading are worrying. It will perhaps be possible to reduce some appropriations in certain categories of the DB. However, if we accept the Council’s reading, the EU will be at risk of not honouring its debts. While not wanting to make the error of seeming inflexible with regard to the Council’s strategy, and bearing in mind that the EU’s institutional credibility is at stake, I have to say that the response to the crisis must be ‘more Europe’ and not ‘less Europe’. I therefore support the Commission’s DB, which is in line with Parliament’s priorities on the programmes and initiatives to be used to deliver these objectives. As a result, the priorities for the 2013 budget must consist in support for sustainable growth, competitiveness and employment, in particular for small and medium-sized enterprises and youth.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing.(FR) I voted in favour of this text because the position adopted by Parliament is, in my view, the fairest. It is unacceptable to reduce the appropriations for programmes that are crucial for recovery and growth. I am thinking, in particular, of the Europe of major projects and the Europe of mobility, spearheaded by ITER and Erasmus. The draft approved today by Parliament protects these fundamental elements and I therefore support it completely.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing.(FR) The European Union needs a budget that allows it to take concrete action to emerge from the crisis. That is why the public policies that encourage growth or new activities must be safeguarded. Education programmes, such as Erasmus and Erasmus Mundus, research and development programmes and programmes to support enterprise can help the European economy to get through the crisis and create new jobs. They absolutely have to be maintained. We also have to safeguard the funds for the food distribution programme for the most deprived persons in the EU, which supports 18 million people suffering from malnutrition within the Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Philippe de Villiers (EFD), in writing.(FR) In these reports on the budgetary principles for 2013, Parliament, a traditional ally of the ever-present Commission, is attempting gradually to sideline the states by establishing own resources for the Union.

These attempts have been blocked successfully so far, but for how much longer? Such a prospect would enable the EU to evolve without the slightest democratic control on the part of the Member States.

Marginal reductions are highlighted while fraud continues and the 40-odd European agencies of questionable worth will continue to be broadly supported, with subsidies for Turkey and significant funding for propaganda.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing.(FR) In these times of crisis, it is essential for the EU to assert itself as a responsible actor, capable of reviving growth and employment. The cuts proposed by the Council for the 2013 budget were, in this regard, unacceptable because they reduced the EU’s capacity to stimulate growth, entrepreneurship and research, which are needed to improve the everyday lives of European citizens. I am therefore pleased that we adopted a draft budget that is in line with the Commission proposal. I would also like to point out that, although the EP voted against the budget cuts in headings designed to revive growth and employment, it is not opposed to making savings where possible. The proposal we adopted thus contains a reduction in real terms in the EP budget.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. (HU) In a public debate, the European Parliament set its commitments for 2013 at EUR 151.1 billion and payments at EUR 137.9 billion. These figures represent 1.13 % and 1.03 % of the EU’s GNI, respectively. They also mean that Parliament’s commitments for EU purposes in 2013 will exceed those of the Council by EUR 1.5 billion, while payments will be EUR 5.3 billion higher. During the vote, we managed to push through some amendments that are important for Hungary and will increase funding for research and development, the EU’s Neighbourhood Policy, increased border surveillance and the school milk programme. This increase in the framework amounts has enabled Hungary to salvage the investments that can be implemented through the Cohesion Fund, investments that particularly affect the central Hungarian region and cross-border cooperation.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing.(PT) I voted in favour of this report because I consider that the European Union must have the capacity to pay for all costs and activities planned for 2013. The cuts made by the Council must be revised. It is unthinkable that certain important programmes, such as Erasmus Mundus and the European Social Fund, may be suddenly interrupted due to a lack of funds.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report by Giovanni La Via and Derek Vaughan concerns the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013 - all sections. We deplore the attitude of the Council, which once again has proceeded with the usual approach of horizontal cuts to the draft budget. In fact, compared to the Commission’s proposal, the Council has cut EUR 1.155 billion from the commitment appropriations and EUR 5.228 billion from the payment appropriations. This cut in the payment appropriations will result in the need for amending budgets next year, which is a practice leading to instability and demonstrating lack of rigour. The multiannual financial framework is nearing its end and the focus on completing projects in the Member States is leading to an increase in the funds needed for the respective payments. As a result, I agree with the European Parliament’s strategy of restoring sufficient funds to the payment appropriations, particularly in the area of sustainable growth, competitiveness and employment, small and medium-sized enterprises and youth.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The adoption of the European Parliament’s position on the EU budget for 2013 repeats the strategy of previous years. The majority in this Parliament simply play the traditional institutional game whereby the initial disagreements ultimately fade way and the three institutions (European Parliament, Commission and Council), together with the dominant political forces, always agree on the basic point: reducing the EU budget. The reasonable concern about the likely shortage of funds to cover debts already contracted in various programmes and the fact that 2013 is the final year of the current multiannual financial framework do not hide the complicity of the majority in this Parliament with regard to the deepening social and national disparities, galloping unemployment and huge increase in poverty in the EU. The majority in this Parliament are happy to make cosmetic changes, with other changes being pure propaganda, while leaving the main orientations and priorities of the EU budget unchanged, which is therefore clearly insufficient given the urgent situation in countries such as Portugal in this period of profound economic and social crisis. The basis for negotiations between Parliament and the Council is well below the existing needs and even below the figure set in the multiannual financial framework (1.15 % of gross national income).

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. (SK) As regards the general budget for 2013, the Committee on Budgets set a sum of EUR 1 750 463 939. The rapporteurs’ objective of keeping the overall growth in the budgets of the different bodies within the bounds of the forecast inflation of 1.9 %, including the costs of enlargement to include Croatia, was achieved. Exceptions relate to the European External Action Service, the Court of Justice and the European Ombudsman, where, in view of the specific situation of these institutions, the committee voted in favour of additional funding. The intention was partially to renew the proposed budgets in a sustainable way with respect to inflation. The proposal was supported by most political groups. In view of the voting in the relevant committee, Parliament’s budget for 2013 is increased by 1.9 % in comparison with the 2012 budget. The increase was possible thanks to a whole range of savings achieved in the preceding period of 2011 – 2012.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Gaston Franco (PPE), in writing.(FR) I voted in favour of the 2013 budget because it maintains the European programme for the most deprived persons. I would stress, however, that this programme must be maintained in the next financial framework for 2014-2020; the challenge is to focus on the long term because the associations need to be visible in order to carry out their missions in full. A year ago, many associations expressed their concern that the funding for the programme had been called into question by the Court of Justice of the European Union, putting the food supply of 18 million people in jeopardy. That situation was unacceptable and it does not reflect the idea of a protective Europe that I defend.

Thanks to the mobilisation of many governments, including François Fillon’s Government at that time, an agreement was reached in the Council of the European Union to maintain the programme’s funding for two more years, namely 2012 and 2013. The beneficiaries of the programme can be reassured that the financial envelope of EUR 500 million will certainly be maintained in 2013 and I welcome that. We must continue to strive for a sustainable and satisfactory solution for all of the Member States, the beneficiaries and the contributors.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE), in writing.(FR) This text rejects the arbitrary cuts proposed by the Member States for the 2013 budget. In its proposal, which Parliament supports, the Commission called for an increase in payments in order to meet budgetary commitments and outstanding payments from previous years. I abstained in the vote, however, because it supports the funding for the ITER nuclear fusion programme, a pipe dream that is a money pit for the European budget. At the same time, the report calls for cuts in certain lines, including some that are linked to development cooperation. I also voted in favour of amendments that sought to use the nuclear funds to finance programmes to dismantle plants, though these were rejected. I abstained on the amendments calling for a reduction in the subsidies for tobacco production. These reductions would have a severe impact on small farmers. Unless we call for a ban on the production and marketing of tobacco, this reduction would be counterproductive. Finally, I abstained, too, on the amendments calling for a single seat for the European Parliament. We need to have a real debate on that subject, not just a few amendments, as is the case here.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing.(FR) Growth and employment are the two main things that we want to support. In my opinion, that is the message that we absolutely have to defend in this vote on the 2013 budget. My Socialist colleagues and I reject the severe cuts proposed by the Member States (a reduction of EUR 5.2 billion in comparison to the Commission proposal), which would decrease expenditure, especially in the areas of cohesion, research and citizenship.

I also support the proposal to put into the reserve 75 % of the funds allocated to certain budgetary lines related to internal security, pending clarification of the European Parliament’s role as a co-legislator in the reform of the Schengen evaluation mechanism.

Finally, I agree with a number of increases in the area of freedoms, security and justice, notably for the European Refugee Fund, the European Fund for Integration and the Daphne programme to combat violence against women.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  András Gyürk (PPE), in writing. (HU) I voted in support of the European Parliament’s efforts to prevent a reduction in funding for cohesion. The Council’s proposal to cut resources for assistance in this area is unacceptable, since it is precisely in the current economic situation that cohesion needs strengthening. We cannot allow differences in development levels to undermine European cooperation. We cannot support a reduction in funding because maintaining solidarity among the Member States is all the more crucial now, in the midst of one of the most serious crises in the history of the EU.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Anna Hedh, Olle Ludvigsson, Jens Nilsson, Marita Ulvskog and Åsa Westlund (S&D), in writing. (SV) We feel that the EU budget must be given adequate resources to be able to fund measures that have already been adopted. At the same time, we would like to point out that the EU must, in the first place, take a restrictive stance and make these resources available through re-allocations within the existing budget. We feel that the agriculture budget should be reduced for the benefit of areas that are currently suffering from payment problems, for example the Social Fund, research programme and Erasmus.

We do not feel that the EU should act as an insurance company in the event of any crises in the agriculture sector. We do, however, welcome the large reductions in EU export aid.

Finally, we consider it important to reduce the EU’s administrative expenditure and make it more efficient, so we welcome the fact that the budgets for all EU institutions other than the European External Action Service are staying below the inflation rate. In this context, we also welcome the savings made in MEPs’ travel expenses and the reduction in the allowance for the House of European History as well as the requirement for a single seat of Parliament. Work must continue, however, on additional savings.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing.(FR) The European Parliament met in plenary on Tuesday, 23 October, a few days after the European summit of the Heads of State or Government in Brussels. Although Parliament’s traditional position is to call for an ambitious budget and reject the drastic cuts advocated by certain Member States, the key aspect of this vote, for me, is the fact that the priorities of the French delegation of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) were respected, especially the preservation of the budget for the common agricultural policy and a plea for better use of European funds. I am concerned, however, about the amendments relating to Parliament’s seat and the emergence of an anti-Strasbourg movement, which is gaining support with every vote. We must remember that it is not up to Parliament to decide where it sits; any such decision would involve amending the Treaties, which has to be done by the Member States, notably the founding members, which naturally have a special responsibility given that they were the driving force behind European integration. Indeed, we could say that by deciding to join the European Community, the other countries had thus signed up to the provision giving Strasbourg a special status, and they were obviously aware of this.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. (LT) I voted in favour of this document because 2013 is the last year of the current multiannual financial framework, which makes it of the utmost importance to reach a balance between commitments undertaken so far and payments deriving from them that need to be honoured, the institutional credibility of the EU being at stake as well as possible legal consequences for the Commission should legitimate payment claims fail to be reimbursed. It should also be emphasised and remembered that the EU budget is to be seen as a complementary instrument of support for the Member States’ economies, capable of concentrating initiatives and investment in areas strategic for growth and the creation of jobs and of bringing about a leverage effect in sectors whose activities transcend national boundaries.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), in writing. (PL) Experts on the global economy have stated that 2013 will be equally as difficult as the preceding years of the crisis or possibly even worse. In these circumstances, it is natural to curb or make cuts to national budgets. The European Union budget, however, is a different type of budget: it is an investment budget, funds from which are used to promote entrepreneurship and activity, to create jobs and to boost innovation and growth. In times of crisis, the Member States often abandon investment, in particular social investment, which, in my opinion, is crucial if we are to emerge from the crisis, maintain growth and retain competitiveness. That is why I voted in favour of increasing the EU budget, which will help us to implement the growth pact that has been adopted. At the same time, I have constantly stressed the need to make savings in every European institution. Parliament is also making savings, as its budget is shrinking in real terms, if the proportion of resources given over to Croatia’s accession to the EU is taken into account.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing.(FR) I supported the report by Giovanni La Via and Derek Vaughan on the general budget of the European Union for 2013. After long negotiations, this report was adopted by 492 votes to 123, with 82 abstentions. I welcome the result. The EU’s budget for 2012 totals just under EUR 150 billion and represents around 1 % of the GDP of the EU27. Even though the EU budget is still balanced, the Council wishes to cut more than EUR 5 billion from the estimated budget for 2013. However, the European Parliament wanted to increase payments by 6.82 % in comparison to 2012. My colleagues and I hope that the increase in payment appropriations will contribute directly to growth and employment in the EU.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sandra Kalniete (PPE), in writing. (LV) I voted in favour of the resolution. I would particularly like to stress the need to take a decision on locating the European Parliament’s seat in one place, and not, as has been the case up to now, in Brussels and in Strasbourg. Firstly, this would be a responsible attitude towards the resources paid in taxes by European citizens. Secondly, just like any directly elected parliament, the European Parliament ought to be entitled to decide on its own seat. Thirdly, this vote sends a clear message to Member States that the issue of Parliament’s seat must be resolved at the next intergovernmental conference, which will at some point be convened in order to review Europe’s agreements once again. Fourthly, this process must be begun, by preparing a guide to the shift to a single seat for Parliament, and by calculating all of the costs and assessing the gains and losses that such a decision would entail.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. (IT) As I stated during the debate, today’s vote needed to reflect unity and firmness. I am happy with the result of the vote because an overwhelming majority of Members supported our proposal, aimed at eliminating the considerable cuts proposed by the Council. It is unthinkable that at a time of crisis the Member States can propose cuts to investment and funding for research, development and employment. It would also go against the statements by the Heads of State and Government in June, and this inconsistency on the part of the Council should be underlined. I would like to make a short statement on payments. Bills must be paid. This is a simple rule, as well as a legal obligation, and I hope that during the conciliation process the Council will accept an agreement that takes account, first and foremost, of the demands of European citizens, who are calling on us to invest in growth, the competitiveness of enterprises and above all in the creation of employment.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE), in writing. I abstained on this vote. There are significant monies to be paid for commitments made over this financial period which are now being requested – and a number of them are late. As the EU cannot carry over monies unspent from previous years, we have been unable to build up any provision for these requests. However, Member States have had those unspent monies returned to their national budgets, where they can carry forward unspent monies: they are now unwilling to restore that money to the EU budget in order to meet commitments made – ironically, largely to Member States. I doubt if they will be willing to forgo those payments and will thus still expect payment. The monies owed are larger than the additional amount requested by Commission and Parliament. I was also angered during the vote by the hypocrisy of some Members who, while arguing for a reduced budget, then voted for additional and continuing funding for the ITER project which is, in my opinion, a waste of Union resources. We also failed to have a qualified majority to end export and tobacco subsidies, when we could find money by ending such damaging projects.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing.(FR) The vital need to restore growth in Europe to emerge once and for all from the successive crises we have experienced meant that my fellow Members and I gave complete priority to our responsibilities for the 2013 budget. We felt that it was important to eliminate the Council’s cuts to the Commission’s budget. Consequently, my colleagues and I voted to restore the EUR 1.9 billion cut by the Council in June. These funds will be used for priority sectors for growth, such as the economy, research, entrepreneurship and employment. An amending budget was also presented to ensure the ‘survival’ of the Erasmus Mundus programme. This programme allows our young people to study right across Europe, enabling them to discover different cultures and languages, and it makes them aware of their European citizenship. As far as agriculture is concerned, most of the budget cuts proposed were also removed, and I am pleased about that. Moreover, we approved the reduction of EUR 8.9 million in the EP’s administrative expenditure. The aim is thus to do more with less money from now on.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Constance Le Grip (PPE), in writing.(FR) I voted for the La Via-Vaughan report on the 2013 budget. We want it to be more ambitious than the Council seems prepared to accept at this stage. In fact, we want to send a strong message to the European leaders who will meet on 22 and 23 November in the Extraordinary European Council on the EU’s future budget.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  George Lyon (ALDE), in writing. It is clear that there is still much uncertainty over the Commission’s estimates on what it needs in 2013 to pay the bills from Member States. The prudent approach at a time when there is huge pressure on public spending across Europe and people are under serious financial strain is to aim for a budget freeze if possible. That is why today we oppose Parliament and Commission’s position of a 6.8 % increase in the 2013 Budget. Once all the bills from Member States are presented for payment by next October, if there is a shortfall it can be addressed then through an amending budget. I welcome that Parliament has agreed a real-term cut in its own budget, frozen MEP allowances and cut MEP travel allowances by 5 %. I also welcome Parliament’s vote calling for an end to the circus of travelling to Strasbourg every month, with the largest majority ever. I hope that now the Member States will look to a solution to put an end to the monthly trek, costing EUR 180 m per year and generating 19 000 tonnes of CO2.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. In this resolution I voted in favour of Parliament having the right to decide on its own seat and working places.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing.(FR) I opposed the Council’s proposed reduction in the European budget. This determines the survival of numerous European programmes, such as the Erasmus student mobility programme and the European Social Fund, which are essential, fundamental programmes. These two programmes are at risk of losing their funding and that should never be the case. Growth and employment must be an absolute priority.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. I supported the final text of this report on the Council’s position on the draft general budget of the EU for the financial year 2013 which outlines the European Parliament’s decision to restore the Commission’s draft budget and increase the resources for growth and job creation policies. I voted in favour of paragraphs 86, 87, 88, 89 and 90 which all refer to the savings that can be made in the EU budget if the European Parliament had a single seat and supported paragraph 91 which suggests the agreement between the Luxembourg authorities and European Parliament on the number of staff to be present in Luxembourg should be revised. I abstained on Amendment 3 which refers to nuclear fission.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing.(FR) The amendments to the Council’s draft budget for 2013 that are supported by this report have four undeniable benefits: they reject the Council’s shameless cuts in the Structural Funds, of which it also demands strategic use; they restore the EUR 300 000 withdrawn from Erasmus by the Commission and the Council; they increase the funding for Palestine and UNRWA; and they maintain the financial envelope for the food distribution programme for the most deprived persons in the EU.

However, I cannot vote for a budget that restores the disproportionate financing for Frontex, which the Council had rejected, reintroduces the increase in funding for ITER, which the Council had rejected, too, and follows the approach of the Europe 2020 strategy. I abstained out of consideration for the excellent Erasmus programme and to show my support for the food distribution programme and the increase in aid for the Palestinians.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The priorities of the EU’s 2013 general budget, as detailed in Parliament’s resolution of 4 July 2012 on the mandate for the trilogue, consist in support for sustainable growth, competitiveness and employment, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises and youth. In my opinion, the Commission’s draft budget (DB) reflects Parliament’s priorities as regards the programmes and initiatives to be reinforced towards these objectives. We are all aware of the severe difficulties arising from the state of the national economies and of the need for a responsible and realistic reading. We cannot accept, however, the approach whereby the EU budget is made the source of possible savings with the same proportion and logic as applied to the national budgets, given their substantial difference in nature, objectives and structure. Reducing EU resources may result in a lack of investment and liquidity in the Member States, thus aggravating the problems they are facing, which we cannot allow to happen.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. I think that in the light of economic and budgetary constraints, the European Parliament should show budgetary responsibility and self-restraint.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. (DE) It would seem that the cuts approved by the Council in July 2012 on the basis of the draft budget proposed by the Commission for 2013 are to be reversed and, indeed, that even more funds are to be spent on growth and foreign policy, for example. As a result, commitment appropriations will total EUR 151.2 billion, with payment appropriations rising to EUR 137.9 billion. I am firmly in favour of the cuts, as it is unacceptable for the EU budget to increase substantially every year while countries and regions are forced to make savings. There is plenty of scope to make savings in the countless agencies and administrations, for example, and this potential must now be utilised. Singling out students and putting a question mark over Erasmus is utterly abhorrent and clearly demonstrates to everyone how the EU does politics. As a result of the planned cuts, Parliament’s budget would face a shortfall of EUR 8.9 million compared with the Commission draft. Admittedly, this corresponds to a inflation-adjusted increase of 1.9 % compared with 2012, but nominally, that is, in real terms, it is a cut, as the additional costs arising from Croatia’s accession to the EU will result in a shortfall in other areas of the budget.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vital Moreira (S&D), in writing.(PT) In the vote on the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013, I voted in favour of an amendment to eliminate subsidies for tobacco growing. I consider that maintaining this aid for tobacco production is inconsistent and incompatible with the Union’s health policy and with the objectives of reducing tobacco consumption, particularly among the young. The money saved could be used for the fight against smoking and the damaging effects of tobacco. I also voted in favour of a proposed amendment aimed at excluding, from the payment of premiums for the production of beef, bulls specifically bred to take part in bullfights. First, the breeding of these animals is basically motivated by objectives other than the production of beef, which is why it must be considered as falling outside the scope of this premium. Second, I consider that subsidising the breeding of these animals encourages and promotes a barbaric and degrading spectacle that is offensive to the values of today’s society.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. (IT) All European countries are applying austerity measures, some of which very severe. It would be wrong for Europe to behave as if nothing were amiss and not to acknowledge the difficult situation affecting us all. I therefore consider the result obtained to be an acceptable compromise, showing restraint with regard to commitments and focusing mainly on payments. It would be wonderful to promise funds and financing for all, but at the end of the day we must balance the books and we would run the risk of having to deal every year with dozens of cases such as the recent problems with the Erasmus programme.

I am satisfied that the 2013 budget makes a clear and explicit reference to the need to have a single seat for the European Parliament, a battle I myself started in February, collecting the necessary signatures in order to present the amendment. This is not a case of demagogy or populism but acknowledgment of a completely unsustainable situation. The same could be said about the House of European History: fortunately, expenditure has been reduced, although I would prefer to see the whole project frozen and reviewed.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), in writing.(FR) I voted in favour of this report because its goal is the adoption of Parliament’s position on the European Union’s draft budget for 2013. It maintains the financial envelope for the food distribution programme for the most deprived persons in the EU and guarantees the appropriations for competitiveness and innovation, in particular, Erasmus Mundus and lifelong learning measures. However, I voted against the paragraphs that were opposed to keeping the European Parliament’s seat in Strasbourg.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Tiziano Motti (PPE), in writing. (IT) The House of European History being built in Brussels not far from the European Parliament is an idea that I would have fully supported in other circumstances. However, steeply rising costs during the execution of the project itself and the recent opening of the new Parlamentarium multimedia visitors’ centre led me to support Amendments 16 and 26 calling for freezing of expenditure on the House of European History and the scrapping of the entire project.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vojtěch Mynář (S&D), in writing. (CS) The EU budget for 2013 is specific in at least three areas. First of all, 2013 is the last year of the current multiannual financial framework and it is now extremely important to achieve a balance between the commitments made and the resulting payments. Otherwise, there may be a threat of legal consequences for the Commission in the event that justifiable claims for payments are not settled. Second, we have here the Europe 2020 strategy, the objectives of which cannot be achieved without financial support for growth, competitiveness and employment, especially with respect to small and medium-sized enterprises and young people. Moreover, implementation of this strategy should not forget regional competitiveness and employment in relation to local environmental conditions. Third, the reaction to the current eurozone crisis should be more Europe, not less Europe. The report reflects the above mentioned points, in other words the EU budget for 2013 should allocate more resources to investment and development priorities, not to administration. The report also warns of the pitfall of the horizontal cuts proposed by the Council. The EP prefers effective management. It can generally be stated that the report submitted by Giovanni La Via and Derek Vaughan reflects a consensus with respect to the EU budget and I therefore voted in favour of it.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the report and I ask the Commission to consider the request in the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on payments for rural development measures, as well as offering Member States the necessary flexibility to transfer unspent funds between financial programmes. I would draw your attention to the fact that the time remaining for completing the adjustments is very short.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. (DE) I wish to comment on various aspects of the budget. On buildings policy, the only reason why Parliament can still afford the luxury of two sites is simply because the general public is largely unaware of this state of affairs. Just imagine if the French Parliament decided to meet once a month in Marseilles, with travel and accommodation costs of course being borne by the taxpayer. This would create a massive scandal and it would not take long for this travelling circus to be grounded. Most citizens are also completely unaware of the existence of Europarl TV. While it is a good idea in principle and is intended to promote transparency, it lacks adequate resources for marketing and is simply a waste of money. I also welcome the Council’s proposals to cut the funding for the agencies. However, I would not apply cuts to the Return Fund, whose funding should be increased; the same applies to Frontex. Finally, I am opposed to any cuts for Erasmus. Studying abroad should continue to be affordable for every student!

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. (ET) I voted in favour of the report on the EU budget for 2013, considering it important to return the level of payments in next year’s budget to that suggested by the European Commission. As the EU has yet to overcome the economic crisis, the paralysing effect of the social crisis continues. Since a large number of Member States still suffer from a high rate of unemployment, it is essential to restore in the EU budget the means – EUR 1.9 billion – for promoting economic growth and employment. In a situation where the EU has greater commitments, that is to say, expenses, we cannot simply make cuts which subsequently create large budget gaps which must be ‘remedied’ in the future. It is regrettable that the cuts jeopardise useful programmes like Erasmus Mundus, Lifelong Learning and the EU’s Seventh Framework Programme for Research. These are vital for enabling us to emerge from the economic crisis stronger than before. However, I do support the administrative expenses cuts and use of the released resources to implement important programmes.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing.(EL) I voted in favour of the joint resolution. The European Parliament, in the drafting of the new budget, places emphasis on support for sustainable growth, competition and employment, and especially for SMEs and young people. For our country, where the unemployment rate among young people is as high as 55 % (a negative record in the EU), a consistent focus on this particular target group is an absolute priority. At the same time, the text makes it clear that any savings at EU level, however necessary, cannot be made at the expense of initiatives that support the European economy and growth. With this in mind, I voted against an amendment which affects, amongst other things, the agricultural production of certain produce in our country.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing.(PT) Given that the priorities expressed in the opinions issued by the relevant committees, and those that emerged from the meetings with the rapporteurs specialising in budget matters, were, as far as possible, taken into account in this resolution, I voted in favour of this report. I also want to stress the fact that, through this report, the European Parliament’s prerogative to decide the location of its seat, and the places of work for Members and officials, has been overwhelmingly approved on an unprecedented scale.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. (IT) Considering that the current economic climate in many Member States is characterised by national austerity, weak growth, recession and lack of international competitiveness, Parliament should behave in a responsible manner, approving the 2013 budget with a clear vision of how the budget might be utilised to promote growth and competitiveness within the European Union. Furthermore, in view of the fact that many Member States, after years of growth and unsustainable public-sector spending, are making extraordinary efforts to reduce their national debt and government budget deficit, EU public-sector expenditure should be subject to the same degree of rigour. Therefore, while underlining that Parliament should provide the Council with a draft budget that increases spending where it is important and cuts spending where it is not, I voted in favour of this proposal.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The proposed budget provides for EUR 151.2 billion in payment appropriations and EUR 137.9 billion in authorisation appropriations, which therefore represent an increase of 2.2 % and 6.82 % respectively over the 2012 budget. In all of the 2013 budget resolutions, the European Parliament declared its commitment to ensuring an adequate level of payment appropriations in order to cover budget needs throughout next year, in line with the European Commission’s estimates. As a result, and at the European Parliament’s request, two interinstitutional meetings were added (to the committee’s schedule, in line with the rules) in order to amend the budget in respect of payment appropriations. As regards the authorisation appropriations, Parliament’s reading likewise followed the best strategy, by limiting the requirements in this area in order to focus negotiations with the Council on the payment appropriations. I therefore voted in favour of the draft budget, which, however, is awaiting critical amendments to be made in the next part-session.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. (IT) The European Parliament has decided to restore the Commission’s draft budget and to increase resources – selectively – in some chapters of the budget closely linked to political commitment to growth and jobs, particularly for youth. However, I notice that the proposal on payments by the Commission in its draft budget was established on the basis of the estimates sent by the Member States themselves, which were then revised downwards.

We cannot currently contemplate jeopardising the implementation of certain European programmes. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that the credibility and trustworthiness of European Union are at stake here. Paying our bills is a legal obligation that we cannot afford to neglect and it is certainly not Parliament’s job to explain this to the Member States. I therefore hope that during the conciliation procedure agreement may be reached with the Council on a satisfactory level of resources, in order to ensure that the EU budget is equipped with the necessary resources to invest in growth, development and job creation, with a sufficient level of payments to honour all of the commitments made in recent years.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. Abstention. However, on the positive side, MEPs have today voted in favour of a common-sense proposal to end Parliament’s multi-seat operation, with a view to delivering significant direct savings to the EU budget. The vote is also an expression of frustration with the current situation – whereby Parliament is denied a say on its own place of operation, with EU governments retaining sole decision-making power – and the continued failure of the EP to hold a plenary debate. Although the two largest political groups want to practise omerta, it is also high time for the EP to end its taboo and debate the issue of a single seat for Parliament. The Greens have pushed for such a debate for years and will continue to do so through the EP’s Conference of Presidents. The practice of shifting thousands of people and resources from place to place is not only costly, inefficient, wasteful and environmentally damaging, but also damages the public perception of the EU. The EP has today sent a clear political signal that action can no longer be avoided.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), in writing. (PL) With regard to the European Union budget for 2013, I believe that we should place the greatest emphasis on reaching a degree of political compromise, especially at a time of crisis. Two political fronts have emerged within the Union, one of which is calling for deep cuts, in particular France, but also Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands, that is the EU Member States enjoying a high level of economic development, while on the other side of the ‘barricade’ are the countries of Central and Eastern and southern Europe, countries that are still developing, with the help of European Union funding. As 2013 approaches, accompanied by the strong possibility of budget cuts (the talk is of savings in every possible sector), a situation may arise whereby there is not enough money to finance existing commitments. Already at risk is the European Social Fund, of vital importance because it benefits all EU citizens, whether they are in work or seeking employment, and many other EU programmes, including the Erasmus programme, which may suffer the biggest cuts. At a time of crisis, we should strengthen social protection for the unemployed, while creating growth in various workplaces, in both the public and private sector, which requires a high level of financial assistance.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI), in writing. (ES) Amendment 8: I voted against this amendment in order to respect the compromise agreed in the Committee on Budgets by all political groups.

Amendment 15: I voted to uphold the agreement reached on 26 September 2012 between the Bureau and the Committee on Budgets, which already represents a reduction in Parliament’s budget of EUR 18.3 million.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alf Svensson (PPE), in writing. (SV) The budget for 2013 sets out Parliament’s position in the negotiations with the Council. The aim of the budget is to be an instrument for economic recovery through targeted measures to increase investment, stability and growth, with particular emphasis on promoting employment among young people, supporting small and medium-sized enterprises and achieving the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy. The proposed budget aims at expansion, which cannot be reconciled with the calls on the Member States to exercise restraint. The current motion does not re-prioritise the budget lines in the way that is needed. The view of mankind that the Christian Democrats embrace posits that every human being has an inherent, inviolable value. We must devote more political energy to fighting violations of this value, and this must show in the EU budget. I voted for the proposal to move resources from agriculture support to internal security, that is, the fight against crime, drug trafficking, human trafficking, and to support for research and environmental measures. The core of European cooperation consists of more than employment levels and competitiveness in the market, and this must show in the budget. This core consists of cooperation for peace and protection of human dignity from the cradle to the grave. I voted for the budget as a whole, and for all of the amendments that will, as far as I can see, lead to greater focus on the EU’s core area.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing.(FR) On Wednesday, 26 October, Parliament opted for a 2012 budget focusing on growth, employment and innovation in the Union and support for development and democracy in our neighbouring countries. I must first of all thank Derek Vaughan for his work. We voted in favour of this budget. We sought to restore the draft budget proposed by the Commission, after the Council’s cuts in July. Parliament’s position implies a 5.2 % increase in payments in relation to this year’s budget. The resulting budget totals EUR 133.1 billion. The resolution on the budget was adopted by 431 votes to 120, with 124 abstentions.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Parliament’s Committee on Budgets decided to adopt a budget with EUR 151.2 billion in authorisation appropriations and EUR 137.9 billion in payment appropriations. These figures represent an increase of 2.2 % and 6.82 % respectively over the Union’s budget in 2012. It adds that the budget adopted by the Committee on Budgets has restored all of the budget cuts proposed by the Council with regard to the amounts intended for cohesion for growth and employment. The amounts included in the category of cohesion for growth and employment are vitally important given the current economic and financial situation facing the Member States. The budget adopted for the European Union will support small and medium-sized enterprises, respond more robustly and coherently to youth unemployment, and allow cohesion policy to be aligned with the Europe 2020 objectives. The regions, particularly those regions in countries subject to the structural adjustment programme of the International Monetary Fund, European Central Bank and European Commission, will benefit from an important tool to combat the crisis, as this budget will tackle the lack of investment made in those regions. For those reasons, I voted in favour of the document.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the resolution on the Council position on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013 – all sections. I voted against reducing the EU’s resources for 2013 by an overall total of EUR 1 155 million (-0.8 %) in commitment appropriations (CA) and EUR 5 228 million (-3.8 %) in payment appropriations (CP) as compared to the Commission’s draft budget.

I think that the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) is one of the main contributions to the Europe 2020 strategy and is an essential instrument to facilitate access to financing, especially for SMEs’ innovative initiatives. Therefore, I voted to increase the commitment credits and payments for the CIP Entrepreneurship and Innovation and Intelligent Energy Europe programmes.

I am against the Council cutting the payments (-EUR 1.6 billion or -3.3 % as compared to the draft budget) affecting the regional competitiveness and employment objective (-12.9 %), the European territorial cooperation objective (-18.7 %) and the Cohesion Fund (-4.7 %) because, if these reductions are applied, they will hinder the correct implementation of projects in the last year of the financial programme, with dramatic consequences, especially for those Member States that are already facing social, economic and financial difficulties.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. (PL) The draft budget drawn up by the Commission reflects Parliament’s priorities as regards the programmes and initiatives that should receive support. They include sustainable growth and competitiveness and employment in respect of young people and small and medium-sized enterprises. That is why I voted in favour of this motion for a resolution.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D), in writing. (PL) This budget is of particular importance, as it is the final one of the multiannual financial framework 2007-2013. During this period, the European Union has allocated considerable resources to the Cohesion Fund, which has allowed a great deal of investment in infrastructure and environmental measures, including in my province of Kujawsko-Pomorskie. This investment has largely been completed and must now be accounted for in the EU budget. That is why the 2013 budget cannot reflect only planned objectives for that specific year, but must also include funds to cover investments made in previous years. It is a question of preserving the European Union’s credibility.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) In the adoption of the European Parliament’s position on the EU budget for 2013, most of the political forces enthusiastically agreed with reducing the EU budget. The main orientations and priorities of the EU budget have been left unchanged, which is clearly insufficient given the urgent situation in countries such as Portugal in this period of profound economic and social crisis. The EU could have given a political signal of its willingness to redistribute more funds among the weaker countries, but has failed to take this opportunity.

 
  
  

Report: Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin (A7-0313/2012)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing.(PT) I voted in favour because I consider that the European Union’s budget can form part of the solution to promote investment, growth and employment, and can help the Member States to tackle, in concerted fashion, their present structural challenges. It is also important to stress that this is an effective instrument for expressing the European Union’s solidarity and must form an appropriate tool to achieve the political objectives of the Compact for Growth and Jobs.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL), in writing.(EL) The dispute over the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020, between those who wish to reduce the budget and those who aim to increase it, tries to conceal its class orientation, which is the use of workers’ money to strengthen and finance the EU monopoly groups through EU funding. The common denominator between the two points of view is the strengthening of the competitiveness/profitability of the monopoly groups based in EU Member States, during the relentless conflict amongst themselves and with other imperialist centres and the emerging imperialist powers in their efforts to secure their profits and control the markets. The European Parliament proposes a restructuring of expenditure to strengthen the most reactionary features of the EU, such as the European External Action Service (EEAS), the Galileo space and military programme, centres of excellence in research, etc. The supposed robust opposition of the European Parliament (supported alike by the political representatives of capital and by opportunists) to a reduction in funding is another exercise in the stage management of popular forces, concealing the fact that any increase in funding is aimed at strengthening the monopoly groups and is accompanied by an intensified attack on the rights of the working class and popular strata.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing.(FR) The multiannual financial framework allows us to establish a budget for the European Union in a coherent and organised manner for a seven-year period. The economic crisis has an impact on all budgets, national and European. Nevertheless, the European Union must retain its capacity to finance its numerous policies and projects that contribute to recovery and growth. That is why the European Parliament voted in favour of this text, calling for a stronger European budget and the creation of own resources for the European Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing.(FR) The budget is the crucial element in Europe and in the Member States. It is the ordeal that specifically reflects the level of ambition of our public policies. We have often, if not always, had to deal with unattractive haggling in recent budgetary procedures. Caught in the grip of public debt, many Member States apply the brakes as soon as the issue of a real budget for Europe is raised. We must be aware, however, that any recovery plan worthy of the name that aims to get us out of this slump will require joint action at European level. The light at the end of this crisis will not appear by magic. If Europe condemns itself to a budget of 1 % throughout the 2014-2020 period, it is likely that in 2020 we will again be discussing a hypothetical way out of the crisis.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. (CS) With respect to the approval of the report on the multiannual financial framework, I welcome the significant increase in funding for the Union programmes in the fields of competitiveness, small and medium-sized enterprises, entrepreneurship and sustainable infrastructures, which are at the heart of the Europe 2020 strategy. I am convinced that further cuts with respect to the Commission proposal would jeopardise the effectiveness of these programmes and, in the final analysis, the credibility of the EU and its commitment to growth and job creation. I am of the view that the Connecting Europe Facility aiming to improve Europe’s transport, energy and digital networks should be financed independently and not through the transfer of resources from the Cohesion Fund. If such a transfer does take place, these resources should be used in accordance with the national allocations under the Cohesion Fund. In view of the importance of the EU cohesion policy as a strategic instrument for investment, sustainable growth and competitiveness, I consider it vital that financing intended for the cohesion policy should be kept at least at the same level as in the 2007-2013 period and should continue to be available in particular to the less developed regions in the EU.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Zuzana Brzobohatá (S&D), in writing. (CS) The new multiannual financial framework (MFF) for the 2014–2020 period has a few welcome changes. It is growth-oriented and aims to support the European economy. The financial instruments within the new MFF are also able to support further joint financing from private and public investors. I also welcome the more effective orientation of the MFF, emphasis being placed on investment and economic growth. Another new aspect in MFF 2014–2020 is the obligatory on-going audit of financial instruments and direct reaction to the audit results. In my view, this is why the new MFF is a more flexible and usable instrument. I also consider it important that the budget for the multiannual financial framework should make use of own resources, for example value added tax or a Financial Transaction Tax. I have therefore voted for the report on the multiannual financial framework.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. I cannot accept a call to increase the financial provision to the EU over the next parliamentary term when Europe is still going to be gripped by austerity and undergoing a programme of tentative regrowth after such deep fiscal cuts. The crisis in Europe was caused and prolonged by the EU, which has used ongoing economic misery to push for a more integrated and centralised European Union. This audacious attempt to seize more funding to support the ambitious extension of power towards a federal level is not only democratically vacuous but utterly incongruent with the needs of Europe as a continent. The EU also seeks to undo rebates which at present are in place to stop Member States such as the UK being used solely as a cash cow and provide protections for the citizens who would be disproportionately burdened with the financial costs of levelling out wealth across the Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing.(PT) I voted in favour of this report because I consider that it makes an effort to adopt cross-cutting criteria of simplification and flexibility that will surely help to increase transparency and the accountability of each Member State in the use of EU funds.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ole Christensen, Dan Jørgensen, Christel Schaldemose and Britta Thomsen (S&D), in writing. (DA) We, the four Danish Social Democrats in the European Parliament (Dan Jørgensen, Christel Schaldemose, Britta Thomsen and Ole Christensen), did not support the decision on Parliament’s negotiating position in relation to the Council of Ministers in the forthcoming negotiations on the EU’s multiannual financial framework (MFF), since we cannot support some of the initiatives set out in the report. In particular, we do not support the continued large proportion of the budget spent on EU agricultural aid. Instead, we are in favour of cutting the budget and prioritising resources for education, research and green growth, among other things.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), in writing. – (RO) In the context of the current economic and social crisis, the multiannual financial framework must sustain and encourage those investments that favour the resumption of economic activities; in particular, it must demonstrate their added value in combating structural challenges faced by Member States, especially unemployment and poverty.

The new framework and the financial instruments must restore citizens’ trust in the European project by integrating Article 9 of the Treaty regarding the ‘horizontal social clause’, to guarantee a high level of jobs for the workforce and adequate social protection, to combat social exclusion and to promote a high standard of education, training and health protection.

Also, it is important to consolidate the administrative capability of the authorities responsible for implementing a cohesion policy for better administration of the Structural Funds, thereby influencing the governing capability of the public authorities. The Commission must allocate at least 20 % of the European Social Fund to promote social inclusion and combat poverty. At the same time I am calling, within the context of multiannual financial programming, for acknowledgement of the difficult situation for young people in the job market. I believe that we need to create a section for ‘Initiatives for young people’ as part of the European Programme for Social Changes and Innovation, with its own financial envelope of EUR 150 million.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE), in writing. (SV) The moderates voted against the interim report on the multiannual budget as we cannot support Parliament’s position in relation to the Council and Commission on the increase in budget levels set out in the report. Instead of prioritising savings, the Commission and the majority of Parliament have chosen to demand increased expenses and the introduction of EU taxes. This increase is indefensible owing to the absence of priorities and in light of the substantial savings that the majority of Member States are making. The burden on citizens will not be reduced by introducing new own resources. We will help to solve Europe’s problem if the EU and Member States use their revenue efficiently and prioritise the most important expenditure. Large contributions to agriculture will not contribute to growth and new jobs, but investment in innovation and research will. The proposal for the long-term budget does not have any priorities for making a strong contribution to increased growth and competitiveness. The EU’s long-term budget must be modernised and streamlined. Obsolete lines must be reviewed and the money must instead be invested in areas that promote growth, such as research and development. Cohesion policy must focus on encouraging research, developing new initiatives, and infrastructure. The Member States are facing difficult challenges in relation to budget policy that require prioritisation, and priorities must also be made at EU level. It is against this background that we decided not to support the report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Tadeusz Cymański (EFD), in writing. (PL) The merit of the interim report drafted by Mr Böge and Mr Kalfin undoubtedly lies in its proposal of an investment budget for the European Union, whether with regard to the financing of the Lifelong Learning Programme, including the Erasmus programme, or through its recognition of EU cohesion policy, of which Poland is a main beneficiary, as a pillar of European solidarity and a strategic tool for sustainable growth. The continuation of the programme supporting the most needy and the opposition to the UK rebate are also worthy of praise. At the same time, however, the arrangements for financing a package of climate measures, which will be extremely damaging to the Polish economy, and the EU agencies, including the European Environment Agency, mean that I was unable to support this report, for which reason I chose to abstain from the vote.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing.(FR) The Europe of growth must be considered in the long term: hence the importance of this financial framework, which lays down our guidelines for the years ahead, up to 2020. Our Union must become even stronger and reassert itself, and I fully support the priority given to major projects such as Galileo, ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) and GMES (Global Monitoring for Environment and Security). However, the Europe of 2020 is also the Europe of solidarity: thanks to the guidelines laid down in this text, the assistance for the most deprived will continue, giving vital support to several million Europeans. Because growth and solidarity must go hand in hand, I voted in favour of this text.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing.(FR) At a time when the European economy is having a particularly rough time, it is important for the Union to equip itself with an ambitious budgetary programme for the next seven years. For that reason, the draft multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020 must be capable of supporting the return to growth in Europe. The future research and investment budgets must be substantial enough to support competitiveness, generate activity and allow jobs to be created. At the same time, it is only fair that part of this European budget be allocated to emergency assistance and solidarity with citizens in difficulty, especially through the continuation of the programme for the most deprived persons in the EU and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. Finally, from now on it should be possible to finance the EU budget from own resources, without increasing the fiscal pressure at national level.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing.(FR) I voted in favour of this text, which proposes better use of the European budget. In these difficult economic times, it is important for the European institutions to set an example in terms of the use of public funds. Nevertheless, the Union must fulfil its commitments to finance the major programmes that offer the real added value of this European level. If the Council wants to cut this spending, it must justify it to the public and take responsibility for its position, which will jeopardise the future of certain structural investments.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. (HU) The European Parliament is resolute in its stance that the EU budget for the period 2014–2020 cannot be reduced, since inadequate funding could jeopardise, among other things, the EU’s strategy for growth, our ability to deliver on Europe 2020, and economic growth. I would like to emphasise that we must avoid cutting not only the overall budget, but also the budget allocation for regional policy in the programming period 2014-2020. It is particularly important for ‘friends’ of cohesion policy, such as Hungary, that the interim report highlights EU cohesion policy as a strategic tool for investment, sustainable growth and competitiveness, as well as the main pillar of European solidarity. The European Parliament insists that this policy area must have a stable, solid and sustainable financial framework behind it and that funding should remain at least at the level of the 2007–2013 budget. In the light of all this, I find it unacceptable that, on the basis of the Commission’s proposal, Hungary would be the only EU Member State where per capita GDP in the period 2014–2020 would be consistently lower than 75 % of the EU average, while its cohesion funding could fall by as much as 30 % compared to the current budgetary period. I consider the low growth ceilings set and the growth projections used to determine support levels to be unfair and counter to the spirit of the EU Treaties because they hit countries with the lowest growth levels hardest and hence keep them lagging behind in the long term.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing.(PT) I voted in favour of this report as it advocates a strong EU budget that will help to coordinate efforts made by the Member States. The EU budget forms part of the solution that will allow Europe to emerge from the crisis. Without investment, there will be no economic growth and many Member States will need EU funds to solve structural problems, increase competitiveness and reduce unemployment and poverty.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This interim report aims to facilitate and speed up approval of the multiannual financial framework for the period 2014-2020. Europe’s citizens have high hopes that the priorities in the Europe 2020 strategy will be achieved, namely smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. This will be the only way to exit the crisis and develop the European economy. In this context, I would highlight the importance of cohesion policy. Every study points to its added value. Given the huge disparities between EU regions, this policy clearly needs to be maintained and must never become an adjustment measure for other policies, such as those resulting, for example, from the emblematic initiatives of Europe 2020. Cohesion policy is the only policy that can simultaneously contribute to the five Europe 2020 objectives in the area of education, research and innovation, climate change, employment and the fight against poverty. Over 80 % of the EU budget depends on direct contributions from the national budgets. This means that each Member State seeks a ‘juste retour’, which leads to an unhealthy distinction between net contributors and recipients. That is why the EU needs genuine own resources. As a result, the EU must seek other income, such as by imposing a Financial Transaction Tax and charging VAT as proposed by the Commission.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report is a further expression of the support given by the majority in Parliament to a path of successive budget reductions, as advocated by Europe’s major powers, which are the main beneficiaries of the single market and the current policies and priorities. They say that they want to influence the negotiations on the next financial framework, but on several points – as in the case of cohesion policy – they support the Council’s unacceptable positions. The majority support the EU budget being subordinated to the Europe 2020 strategy (which favours the processes of privatisation, liberalisation and destruction of public services) and the predictable use of Cohesion Fund monies to extend the single market through the ‘Connecting Europe Facility’, by transferring public funds to large transport networks. In the context of the prevailing relationships within the EU, this will accentuate the dependence and subordination of countries such as Portugal on and to the major powers, which will not only find it easier to sell their products, but will also have access to our country’s resources. We therefore advocate the need to increase the EU budget to at least double the current amount, and to reinforce its redistributive function.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. (SK) The negotiations on the multiannual financial framework for 2014-2020 are entering the concluding and decisive phase. At the end of November, there will be a meeting of the European Council, at which a political agreement is expected to be reached. This should then be reflected in a specific regulation on the multiannual financial framework. Before the regulation enters into force, the approval of the European Parliament has to be obtained. In the spirit of close interinstitutional cooperation, the European Parliament has decided to adopt the interim report setting out the main political priorities in this matter as an objective. The draft interim report was adopted by a majority in the Committee on Budgets.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing. (PL) The negotiations on the European Union budget for 2014–2020 are entering a key phase. In a few days, the Cypriot Presidency will present a new proposal for a seven-year budget that includes precise figures. In spite of the fact that it has been systematically shrinking for several years now, the EU budget continues to serve as a symbol of solidarity with the poorest EU Member States, as it provides support for the structural changes they are undergoing and for their efforts to boost investment, benefiting growth and employment throughout the European Union.

Above all, the EU budget for 2014-2020 must include adequate resources for the continuing elimination of disparities in terms of development, research and development and assistance for competitiveness and innovation. The amounts allocated to cohesion policy, a key tool for investment and reducing macroeconomic differences between the regions and Member States of the EU, must, therefore, at least be maintained at their current level.

It is also vital to continue the EU programmes aimed at young people and those which, very successfully, support culture, education and the media. In the interests of integration, it is important to maintain at least the same level of financing for the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund and the existing funding for measures to reduce COemissions and tackle climate change.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE), in writing. (DE) At a time of economic and financial crisis, when Member States are putting every aspect of their budgets under the microscope, the multiannual financial framework, which sets out the EU’s spending for 2014 to 2020 in broad terms, is extremely important.

The EU must achieve a balancing act between budget discipline, planning certainty and a level of flexibility which will enable it to respond to unforeseen situations. Above all, recent developments have shown that unforeseen situations can have global consequences which require an immediate response. Greater flexibility based on appropriate adjustments is therefore provided for within the new financial framework for 2014-2020.

Irrespective of the budget architecture, it is essential that cross-border programmes – whether in the social, education, employment or cultural policy field – continue to be financed by Europe, and this aspect should therefore be considered in the reprogramming of the Structural Funds within the framework of this report. The European Parliament will be looking very closely at how the Council takes up its pen and starts to make cuts.

The Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), which is intended to do much to support the creation of a single European transport area, is a further challenge in the discussions with the Council. Improving mobility for goods and people alike, creating better connections for remote regions, making the entire transport system more eco-friendly: these are all goals which many governments have set themselves. They must now show that they have the political will to make these goals a reality.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE), in writing.(FR) I voted for this report, which emphasises the European Parliament’s strong and united position on the multiannual financial framework (MFF) for the years 2014-2020 in the run-up to the November European Council on this issue. The report reiterates our support for a 5 % increase in the budget in relation to 2013, that is to say, an additional EUR 100 billion. The multiannual financial framework is Europe’s only way out of the current crisis. Given the stakes, it must be up to the task and it must finance the commitments made by all of the European institutions, particularly in the areas of climate, development assistance, research, employment and the fight against poverty. In addition to the issue of the percentage, the other main problem is that of the EU’s own resources. In that regard, too, Parliament sets out a united position in favour of the creation of new own resources, such as the Financial Transaction Tax.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing.(FR) We are here sending a clear message to the Member States, which are obsessed with austerity therapies and disregard the need to invest in growth and employment by giving ourselves the budgetary resources that match our ambitions.

It is highly regrettable that as Europe is given more and more responsibilities, the Member States – using the crisis as a pretext – are refusing to put their hands in their pockets. What the European Commission is proposing is still far less than we need to deal with the challenges posed by the crisis. It is an absolute minimum and we cannot go below it without risking affecting entire swathes of the European cohesion policy. The European budget, as I see it, must thus continue to be an instrument of solidarity.

It is a trap to continue to believe solely in the sirens who support the budget cuts. Rather than taking a short-term view, we must see the European budget as a lever for growth and not – as the Member States see it – as a simple means of picking up a cheque to finance their national policies alone. Finally, it is clear that there can be no agreement on this budget without an agreement on own resources.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Anna Hedh, Olle Ludvigsson, Jens Nilsson, Marita Ulvskog and Åsa Westlund (S&D), in writing. (SV) Against the backdrop of the economic situation facing the Member States, we feel that the budget framework should not exceed the current level. For example, we feel that agriculture subsidies should be reduced further than in the Commission’s proposal and that they should be reallocated to the Structural Funds and to investment environmental and climate measures, among other things.

We also do not feel that new sources of revenue should be added to the EU budget, and we do not want Sweden’s share of the funding to be increased. On the one hand, the report has some good proposals on growth, jobs and solidarity, but on the other it is not ambitious enough for savings and reform; against this backdrop we chose to abstain in the final vote.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jacky Hénin (GUE/NGL), in writing.(FR) If we look at the report on the multiannual financial framework, the words are there: growth, employment, response to the crisis.

Unfortunately, the proposals indicate the contrary. The budgetary approach is still the same as the one that led Europe into the stalemate and the crisis. Beyond the words, there are still the same ultraliberal options that are supported no matter what: destruction of the social acquis and confinement within a policy of complete support for the competition that is corrupting our countries and Europe. With budgetary guidelines such as these, there is no chance of Europe emerging from the chaos that it has created. On the contrary, Europe risks sinking further into the crisis, with finance the only beneficiary.

It is time to change the guidelines completely. We need to give priority to the public services that can shield us from the crisis. We need to provide concrete support for the development of jobs and industry, instead of finance, by seeking a public dimension to finance aimed at providing special support for projects and people rather than profit.

We need to revitalise social protection, harmonise upwards, and put an immediate end to levelling downwards and pitting citizens and workers against one another.

Without these essential changes, Europe will not be able to get past the crisis. It is for that Europe, however, that I am campaigning with the citizens.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing.(FR) This was a key sitting for the European Parliament, which adopted its position to speed up the negotiations with the Council and the Commission on the multiannual financial framework, which will determine the EU’s actions and policies for the next seven years (2014-2020). The aim was thus to establish the European Parliament’s priorities and ‘red lines’ in preparation for the European Council meeting on the budget on 22 and 23 November. Although the European Parliament’s room for manoeuvre is limited by the Treaty of Lisbon (consent), it is a crucial power that allows it to influence the negotiations. With this vote, the European Parliament is thus seeking to preserve its prerogatives as well as the unity of the budget: now is not the time to fragment financing as this would affect the transparency and predictability of the European budget. The European Parliament recognised, however, that the introduction of some form of flexibility into the European budget would enable it to adapt better to any contingencies linked to the crisis and to any economic and structural changes.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Lívia Járóka (PPE), in writing. The next multiannual financial framework will most probably prove decisive for the European Union’s objectives regarding social and territorial cohesion, and particularly in the social inclusion of marginalised communities. I would like to welcome the fact that the Commission has introduced several instruments aiming at the complex development of underdeveloped regions, in line with the requirement for territorial targeting of the European Framework for National Roma Inclusion Strategies and I also welcome the proposal to earmark 5 % of the ERDF resources of each Member State for integrated urban strategies. The draft general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund establish the Integrated Territorial Investment, which enables Member States to allocate funding from several priority axes of the Operational Programmes for the purposes of multi-dimensional and cross-sectoral intervention. In this context the maximum extent of place-based approach should be considered, in order to unlock unused local capabilities. Furthermore, the Community-led Local Development, as a set of multi-fund financed strategies with an integrated bottom-up approach may play a significant role in the inclusion of marginalised communities, including Roma, when properly used and may represent an effective tool for the involvement of the concerned communities themselves.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), in writing. (PL) In the vote on the multiannual financial framework, I voted in favour of Parliament’s position, which seeks to ensure that expenditure on agriculture and structural policies, in particular cohesion policy, is maintained. We cannot vote against a policy of growth and investment aimed at improving living standards and education and creating jobs. We set ourselves goals in the Europe 2020 strategy and we must achieve them. We need to remain credible and fight for what we promised 500 million citizens. Limiting expenditure in the EU’s next multiannual financial framework will cause growth to slow and make it harder to recover from the crisis. Let us remember that the EU budget is an investment budget and cannot be compared to national budgets. In view of the need to make a quick decision regarding a budget that determines the EU’s every action, I voted in favour of this motion for a resolution.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Kent Johansson, Olle Schmidt and Cecilia Wikström (ALDE), in writing. (SV) We are convinced that the EU is needed to tackle common challenges such as climate change, organised crime and humane treatment of asylum seekers in Europe. We also believe that a strong EU and proper functioning of the internal market are needed in order for Europe’s economy to gather momentum again. We therefore voted for increased investment in measures that will contribute to the Europe 2020 strategy, such as research and entrepreneurship, and against the same budget for the EU’s agriculture policy. We feel that the EU’s aims and objectives should be met within the framework of the Commission’s proposal, through clear priorities and strategic reductions, not through an increased budget. Therefore, for example, we voted against the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund and in favour of an end to Parliament’s travelling circus between Brussels and Strasbourg. We would also like to have a more lucid, transparent EU budget. We feel that politics is about choosing, and that choosing something also involves having to prioritise. In these times of economic crisis in the EU’s Member States, demanding an increased EU budget would be irresponsible.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jan Kozłowski (PPE), in writing. (PL) I believe that the report drafted by Mr Böge and Mr Kalfin represents the balanced position adopted by Parliament with regard to the future multiannual financial framework and consequently voted in favour of this document. I welcome the report’s emphasis on such important points as the role of cohesion policy as an investment instrument and the part played by the EU budget in achieving the Europe 2020 goals.

Nevertheless, one of the proposals in this report struck me as worrying, which is why, along with 40 other Members, I decided to table an amendment in plenary, which I would now like to explain. It is my belief that allocating 25 % of cohesion policy resources to the European Social Fund not only imposes unnecessary restrictions, but is also at odds with the need, referred to later in the report, to increase the flexibility of the multiannual financial framework. I would also like to thank here the Members who supported the amendment in today’s vote.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing.(FR) The report by Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin was adopted by 517 votes to 105, with 63 abstentions. I supported this report in plenary. It forms the European Parliament’s mandate in the forthcoming negotiations with the Council. The negotiations on the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020 began 11 months ago and sped up dramatically with President Herman Van Rompuy’s announcement that there would be a European Council meeting on 22 and 23 November. Since the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Parliament has had the power to give its consent, in other words, to say yes or no to the Council’s proposals. In that regard, the report by Reimer Böge and Ivailo Kalfin aims to establish a number of ‘red lines’. If these are not respected in the future, Parliament will be forced to refuse to give its consent. The ‘red lines’ are as follows: respect for Parliament’s prerogatives, unity of the budget, greater flexibility to facilitate adjustment of the budgetary resources and reform of the own resources system.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. (IT) I voted in favour of the proposal by Mr Böge and Mr Kalfin on the multiannual financial framework (MFF) for 2014-2020. This is the second time that Parliament has dealt with this matter, following the report by the Special Committee on the policy challenges and budgetary resources for a sustainable European Union after 2013, but we need to re-state our position now that the negotiations are nearing a decisive phase, with the European Council at the end of November devoted expressly to dealing with this difficult issue. As you know, the Commission’s proposal to some extent freezes expenditure at the levels of the preceding MFF, and thus, in our view, it is not a suitable proposal for taking on the global challenges that we will be facing in the coming years. This applies above all to the common agricultural policy, where the Commission’s cuts are not in line with the needs of the sector. We therefore decided to amend the proposals aimed at removing the differences in direct payments between Member States, introducing instead a general formula for reduction.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing.(FR) My colleagues and I approved the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020. This framework, which covers several budget years, establishes a total budget and a maximum ceiling for expenditure in each area. At the June 2012 European summit, the European leaders proposed increasing the funds available for research and competitiveness in order to combat the ongoing crisis. Both of these sectors will help to boost the European economy, which has been severely affected by the crisis. I welcome the massive support for this resolution, which will allow these sectors to develop further. I voted for the resolution because I strongly believe that investment in research and competitiveness will be one of the solutions to the crisis and that funding for these aspects should therefore match the ambitions that the European Union has set out.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Constance Le Grip (PPE), in writing.(FR) Our recommendations for the multiannual financial framework for 2014-2020 have once again attested to the proactive role of the European Parliament, which is more assertive than the Commission, particularly when it comes to competitiveness and innovation programmes and Erasmus. Moreover, as with the Financial Transaction Tax, which will be subject to ‘enhanced cooperation’, we stressed in the Böge and Kalfin report, which I supported, that it is essential to improve the European VAT system.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D), in writing. Some Member States try to use the current financial crisis in order to reduce their contribution to the EU budget. They bow to or even consciously exploit the anti-European sentiments which arose in some countries. However, reducing the European budget means hurting one’s own economy as much as that of the other Member States. The EU budget redistributes 94 % back to the Member States and is largely devoted to investments. Those investments are proven to boost economic growth, not only in the cohesion countries but also with the so-called net payers. The European Parliament has to make a stand for this investment budget and has to oppose any cuts. The budgetary austerity which some Member States also want to impose onto the EU is a self-defeating strategy. The EU does not have any debts to pay off and has one of the lowest rates of spending on its own administration. Therefore it makes no sense to apply budgetary cuts to Europe’s most efficient mean of investments. Therefore I supported this interim report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. (RO) The multiannual financial framework for the period 2014-2020 is the main instrument for achieving the Europe 2020 strategy and especially for assuring economic, social and territorial cohesion.

Considering the important role played by cohesion policy to redress the European economy, I think that the financing of the cohesion policy should be maintained at the same level as in the previous period, 2007-2013, that is, EUR 354 815 billion. In this way, we will benefit from a cohesion policy that will ensure strategic investments within the Union, and considerable economic growth based on job creation and increased competitiveness. At the same time, it will help us to overcome the present economic and financial crisis.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. I voted against this resolution, which calls for the end of the British rebate.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Barbara Matera (PPE), in writing. (IT) The negotiations on the multiannual financial framework for 2014-2020 come at a difficult economic and financial time, when the Member States are being forced to introduce harsh fiscal consolidation measures. However, the EU budget can only be seen as offering huge added value with regard to investments made at national level.

The Commission’s proposal freezes ceilings at their 2013 levels and significantly weakens the requests made by the Special Committee on the policy challenges and budgetary resources for a sustainable European Union after 2013 to strengthen European policies to enhance competitiveness, small and medium-sized enterprises and sustainable infrastructure. Parliament hopes for a ‘responsible’ reaction from the Council. Any attempt to reduce the ceilings proposed by the Commission would result not only in a decline in effectiveness but also in the credibility of the EU budget.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing.(FR) This interim report lays down the broad guidelines that the European Parliament supports for the forthcoming negotiations with the Council on the multiannual financial framework. Firstly, all of the European Union’s programmes and policies must be covered by the framework. Flexibility must also be a key principle of the new financial framework so that the appropriations can be adjusted in line with changing situations and priorities. It is also important to get to an EU budget that is financed by own resources, in particular so that the national contributions can be reduced. Most importantly, I voted against the call for a single seat for the European Parliament. We must respect the Treaties and the strong symbol of Strasbourg as the seat of the European Parliament.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. (IT) The reduction of the EU budget with respect to the national budgets is a flagrant contradiction of the extension of competences and tasks conferred on the Union by the Treaty and major political decisions taken by the European Council itself, notably the development of enhanced European economic governance. I voted in favour of the proposal.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. The multiannual financial framework will outline the expenditure of the European Union for a seven-year period from 2014 to 2020. I voted in favour of the final text of this interim report on the MFF outlining the European Parliament’s position on the negotiations, which opposes the freezing of the MFF ceilings and favours an adequate increase in the EU budget in order to meet the challenges facing Europe in the future. I supported paragraph 50 which underlines the significant savings that could be made if the European Parliament were to have a single seat.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing.(FR) This interim report on the negotiations on the multiannual financial framework for 2014-2020 has four benefits: it emphasises the need to continue the food distribution programme for the most deprived persons in the EU, it proposes a substantial increase in the budget allocated to the fight against climate change, it calls for an end to the British rebate and it calls for real parliamentary control of the budget. It is also significant that it supports the European Commission’s proposal that it should be possible to go above the ceilings of the financial framework, if necessary.

It is therefore unfortunate that it does not demand for the states what it demands at European level. This same report gives the thumbs up to the austerity policies. I also reject its support for the ITER project and an increase in the budget for Baroness Ashton’s External Action Service. I therefore voted against the report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I am aware that the negotiations on the multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2014-2020 are taking place in a very difficult social, economic and financial context, in which Member States are engaging in considerable efforts to make fiscal adjustments to their national budgets, with a view to the sustainability of public finances and the stability of the banking sector and the single currency. However, I consider that the EU budget forms part of the solution to enable Europe to emerge from the current crisis, by promoting investments in growth and jobs and helping Member States to tackle, collectively and in concerted fashion, the present structural challenges, in particular loss of competitiveness and rising unemployment and poverty. We must also present an MFF 2014-2020 which endorses the objectives set out in the EU 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, namely promoting employment, improving the conditions for – and public spending on – innovation, research and development, meeting our climate change and energy objectives, improving education levels and promoting social inclusion, in particular through the reduction of poverty.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. State deficit and debts should be decreased in compliance with foreseen strategy on investment till the year 2020, ensuring jobs and high quality work. I would also add that authors should be responsible for taking risks.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. (DE) The draft resolution on the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020 is part of Parliament’s contribution to the November summit on the EU’s long-term budget. It warns EU governments against any attempt to reduce further the level of EU expenditure proposed by the Commission. Members also call for an increase in investment in competitiveness and research, and for the funding available for agricultural and cohesion policy to be maintained, at the very least, at current levels. Other specific proposals include demands for a reform of the EU’s own resources system based on the value added tax which flow directly into the EU budget. Overall, then, the resolution is mainly about a further increase in the EU budget. Such a move must be rejected on principle at a time of austerity. Given that municipalities, regions and countries have no option but to pursue rigorous austerity measures, the EU’s urge to spend more and more money is completely unreasonable. What we need, in many areas, is for competences to be transferred away from the EU and handed back to the Member States. This would dramatically reduce the EU’s demand for funding. EU taxes must also be firmly rejected.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), in writing.(FR) I fully support paragraph 26 of the European Parliament’s resolution on the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020, given the importance of the cohesion policy for the coming years. As the permanent rapporteur for the European Social Fund (ESF), I welcome the fact that the report emphasises the importance of respecting the vote by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs to endorse the Commission proposal to earmark 25 % of the total cohesion policy allocation to the ESF.

The ESF is the main tool for promoting social integration through professional integration; it is absolutely essential to maintain this tool and increase its use in the period from 2014 to 2020. I therefore call on the Member States to fulfil their responsibilities at November’s European summit.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. (LT) Faced with the continuing economic crisis, when talking about the EU budget for the forthcoming financial perspective, we must undoubtedly talk not only and not so much about its size as about how to use it efficiently. EU funds earmarked for five-year plans and for the goals outlined in the Europe 2020 strategy must, on the one hand, ensure that all states are able to participate equally effectively in EU projects (that is to say, both the development of EU-wide infrastructure and the allocation of those funds, ensuring that they are divided equally among all states). On the other hand, the funds must be used for economic stimulus measures that promote and guarantee the efficient and effective use of resources. Only by using resources efficiently will we achieve effective economic growth.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Tiziano Motti (PPE), in writing. (IT) I voted against Amendment 23, which denied the usefulness of the decentralised European agencies. How can we suggest, for example, that the Food Safety Authority in Parma is useless, given that it was the first to raise the alarm about the ‘blue mozzarella’ originating in a German factory?

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for Amendment 72 regarding direct payments in agriculture, in which I proposed replacing the phrase ‘reduce the existing gap’ with ‘ensure convergence of direct payments among the Member States’. If we want a European budget, we need to consider the interests of all Member States; it is important to make this distinction.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sławomir Witold Nitras (PPE), in writing. (PL) I voted in favour of the report on the multiannual financial framework, as it emphasises the need to ensure that expenditure on agriculture and structural policies is at least maintained, which is beneficial to Poland. For several months now, Parliament’s stance on the new framework has been consistent and clear, which strengthens our position with regard to the Council. It makes no sense, however, to attempt to restrict cohesion policy funding, in particular when not enough money is being spent on investment in Europe. Net contributors need to realise that the majority of the money comes back to them in the form of investment or increased exports.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), in writing. (PL) The disagreement about the size and structure of the budget is, at the same time, a disagreement on how to tackle the economic crisis. An increasing number of people are being won over to the view that cuts and belt-tightening will kill, rather than cure, the patient. The Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament is calling for a large budget that would be earmarked for investment. It would be the equivalent of the Marshall Plan, but financed by Europeans for Europeans. I am delighted that President Barroso holds a similar view. It is particularly important today to defend cohesion policy, which is fully capable of assuming the role of the European Marshall Plan I have mentioned. The second pillar of the common agricultural policy can also serve a similar purpose. It should be accorded special protection from the threatened budget cuts. The announcement of reduced spending on science and research is also extremely worrying, as it blatantly contradicts the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy. I consider the Commission’s budget proposal to be the best solution. Any attempts to make cuts should be met with opposition. In its work on the multiannual financial framework, Parliament should take care to retain its own integrity. At the same time, a decision to reject the reduced multiannual financial framework may be a justifiable step.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ivari Padar (S&D), in writing. (ET) Planning for a seven-year period requires the ability to objectively assess the current problems and the capacity to perceive what will actually happen in 2020. I am convinced that establishing connecting routes and facilitating the increased mobility of EU citizens is an area where we can make no mistake: improved possibilities for travelling between Member States represent a constant need and a sustainable policy. Therefore, I consider it essential to underline that a common transport policy is not an item subject to budget compromises: better connecting routes are key in establishing a single Europe.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing.(PT) This resolution on the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020 presents the European Parliament’s concerns on the process of adopting a regulation on the multiannual financial framework. This will be the first multiannual financial framework adopted under the new provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, entailing in consequence new cooperation arrangements between the institutions aimed at reconciling efficient decision-making with respect for Treaty prerogatives. Given these circumstances, I voted in favour of this report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The report highlights the political importance of the European Union’s budget in terms of overcoming the economic crisis, by ensuring the necessary level of financial investment throughout the EU territory. The negotiations on the multiannual financial framework (MFF) are taking place in a difficult context, in which only the European concepts of solidarity and mutual assistance can help the Member States to tackle, collectively and in concerted fashion, the structural challenges ravaging Europe: loss of competitiveness, and rising unemployment and poverty. However, the Commission’s proposals would freeze the budget for the MFF and are therefore inadequate. Any attempt by the Council to further reduce this level must therefore be rejected, with the Council being urged by the report to clearly and publicly indicate which EU projects and priorities must be abandoned. I voted in favour of this interim report, as we all depend on the leverage effect of the EU budget to launch and catalyse actions with clear added value in order to boost growth and jobs, which the Member States, on their own, are not capable of achieving.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. (IT) I would like to congratulate Mr Kalfin and Mr Böge on their work. By adopting this text today, Parliament, in accordance with Articles 311 and 312 of the TFEU and its resolution of 13 June 2012 on the multiannual financial framework and own resources, wished to send out a strong signal and point a new way to growth and competitiveness in Europe. It is particularly important to emphasise the need for well-targeted, robust and sufficient support from the Member States for the EU budget in order to help coordinate and enhance national efforts.

I expressly call for significantly increased spending in the EU budget for relaunching competitiveness, developing small enterprises, entrepreneurship, sustainable infrastructure, and research and innovation. Increased spending of this nature, together with the reorganisation of own resources, is the best way for the EU to attempt to counter and overcome the crisis currently affecting the Member States.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. In favour. Today’s vote sets out the EP’s red lines for the forthcoming negotiations on the future EU budget for 2014-20. MEPs have made clear that they want an EU budget that plays a central role in stimulating economic recovery in Europe and in the sustainable transformation of our economy. They have also clearly nailed their colours to the mast in favour of a meaningful own resources system for the EU budget. In order to emerge from the economic crisis, we should be investing more in research, education, green technologies and the sustainable transformation of our energy sector. The EU budget represents a value-for-money way to deliver this. In this context, the calls by some net contributing Member States, like the UK, to drastically cut the budget would be totally the wrong approach to take. The Commission’s proposals fail to reflect the necessary ambition and MEPs have today called for them to be increased.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Kārlis Šadurskis (PPE), in writing. (LV) The European Parliament expressed strong support for the resolution on the EU multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020. The resolution emphasises that a balance needs to be maintained between EU expenditure to meet obligations and the available budget, in order to achieve the targets set in the Europe 2020 strategy. In the Member States we often hear complaints that they are forced to implement austerity measures and reduce their spending, but the EU is not reducing its spending. However, it should be borne in mind that 94 % of the EU budget is invested in the development of Europe, financing programmes that are important to the Member States and joint EU activities. The EU budget is one of the solutions and an incentive for Europe to emerge from the current crisis. For the EU to become a leading economy in the future, once it has overcome the crisis and its consequences, it is necessary to invest in spheres that promote growth and new jobs, education, research and innovative, competitive production. The Commission’s proposal to date, which provides for a reduction in the EU budget, cannot really be seen as a budget for the development of the EU over the next seven years. Therefore, in talks with the European Council, Parliament will resolutely maintain its position in order to reach a decision that will be beneficial for Europe as a whole.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), in writing. Today I voted in favour of a youth guarantee scheme to provide more opportunities for young people. Today’s youth is being hit particularly hard by the economic crisis, as are the public services which people rely on for their education and training. The youth guarantee scheme will provide a safety net for those struggling to find employment. I also supported the guarantees to maintain cohesion policy expenditure at least at the current level, which is vital for many EU Member States, including Romania. Cohesion policy provides a lifeline through which inequalities can be reduced and less wealthy regions helped to prosper. Another lifeline, although of a different kind, is the food for the most deprived persons programme. It must be renewed, and a solution must be found to ensure that it receives adequate financial support after 2013.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. (IT) The priority of the EU budget must be to help the Member States to respond to the difficult economic and financial environment. Concerted action is required to tackle the present challenges, such as loss of competitiveness and rising unemployment and poverty. Specifically, Italy’s role as one of the major contributors to the EU budget must be emphasised. Greater impact of spending on growth and employment must therefore be adopted as priorities. The Commission proposed a reduction of the common agricultural policy (CAP) budget, with a nominal freeze at 2007-2013 levels. The largest reduction is in direct payments (from EUR 322 billion to EUR 281 billion (-12 %). The Commission aims to introduce greater fairness in the distribution of payments (by bringing all countries closer to the EU average aid per hectare). I do not agree with the general outline of the CAP budget proposal for allocation of direct payments, which is based exclusively on the quantitative criterion of farmland and is contrary to the objective of growth and employment. I voted in favour, hoping that the reform of the CAP will not go ahead, as it would render it too burdensome.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI), in writing. (ES) Amendment 46: I voted in favour of the amendment, although I am unhappy with the blunt terms in which it is expressed. Staffing policy in all areas needs to be more nuanced and respond to general efficiency criteria as regards the use of available resources.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alf Svensson (PPE), in writing. (SV) The EU’s budget must be used on what can offer European added value. This is one of the linchpins of work on the budget and it is also what must govern the allocation of the common resources that the Union has at its disposal. There is no problem in that regard. The interim report adopted in plenary on 23 October places great emphasis on new own resources for the EU. This means the Financial Transaction Tax, which I firmly maintain is detrimental to Sweden and to Europe. Too often, ‘own resources’ means a tax that must be paid directly into the EU budget. More money for the EU in the form of own resources does not automatically constitute an investment that will help Europe with its stresses and strains. Instead, priorities need to be set using the resources available now. It is important to note that a Tobin tax was tried in Sweden and proved to be harmful. Transactions were moved away from Sweden. In addition, it is obviously important for me to emphasise that the cost of the FTT would hit the average consumer and that economic growth would be impeded. Since so much focus is being placed on own resources and requirements for a Financial Transaction Tax, I chose to vote against the report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing.(FR) I voted in favour of this text. I must congratulate Mr Kalfin on his excellent work, which is of a quality rarely achieved for a task of this magnitude. The multiannual financial framework is a spending plan that reflects the Union’s priorities in financial terms. This text provides an excellent basis for the annual budgets. It sets out the spending over a given period of time and the maximum amounts available for each major category of expenditure. It thus provides a financial, but also a political, framework, allowing us to allocate our resources and investments where needed.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The multiannual financial framework defines the EU budget for the 2014-2020 period. In June 2011 the European Commission presented a proposal of EUR 1 083 billion in expenditure, corresponding to 1.11 % of European Gross Domestic Product and an increase of 5 % in relation to the current programming period (2007-2013). I would argue that the EU budget must be reinforced, which is in line with the European Commission’s proposal and advocated by the Friends of Cohesion group consisting of 15 Member States. At a time of heightened economic and financial difficulties, it is vital to reinforce European investment in a wide range of areas (such as cohesion policy, agriculture, research and innovation). Only in this way will it be possible to grow economically, create jobs and improve the social situation of European citizens. I wish to point out that I do not agree with the pre-allocation of 25 % of cohesion policy funds to the European Social Fund, on the basis that there should be sufficient flexibility for Member States and the European regions to define their strategic priorities. Lastly, I must oppose the sharp reduction (47 %) in the specific additional allocation for the outermost and sparsely populated regions, in the hope that the budget amounts will be amended at the Council meetings.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D) in writing. – (RO) I voted for Parliament’s resolution aiming to achieve a positive outcome of the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020 approval procedure. The Compact for Growth and Jobs adopted by the European Council in June highlights the lever effect of the EU budget for the consolidation of both growth and jobs.

Any reduction of the EU budget would increase imbalances, affect the economic growth and competitiveness of the Union and its cohesion, and undermine the principle of solidarity as the fundamental value of the EU. Promoting growth and quality jobs for all Europeans can only be achieved if the necessary investments in education, in the promotion of a society based on knowledge, in research and development, in SMES and in new and environmentally friendly technologies, simultaneously promoting social integration, are made immediately.

I welcome the future Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) and the financial allocation for it proposed by the Commission to improve transport, energy and digital networks in Europe. I am asking that the sum transferred from the Cohesion Fund to the CEF be used to comply with the provisions for national allocations under this fund. I voted against Amendments 12 and 30, which reduced the sums allocated to the COSME programme and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing.(FR) If we look at the report on the multiannual financial framework, the words are there: growth, employment, response to the crisis. Unfortunately, the proposals indicate the contrary. The budgetary approach is still the same as the one that led Europe into the stalemate and the crisis. Beyond the words, there are still the same ultraliberal options that are supported no matter what: destruction of the social acquis and confinement within a policy of complete support for the competition that is corrupting Europe. With budgetary guidelines such as these, there is no chance of Europe emerging from the chaos that it has created. Above all, we need to give priority to the public services that can shield us from the crisis. We need to provide concrete support for the development of jobs and industry, instead of finance, by seeking a public dimension to finance aimed at providing special support for projects and people rather than profit. We need to revitalise social protection, harmonise upwards, and put an immediate end to levelling downwards and pitting citizens and workers against one another. Without these essential changes, Europe will not be able to get past the crisis. It is for that Europe, however, that I am campaigning with the citizens.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing.(FR) This vote is a crucial stage in the discussions on the multiannual financial framework for 2014-2020 and it determines Parliament’s mandate for the negotiations. We need to find a balance between two realities: the Treaty of Lisbon created new EU competences, which require additional resources, but the crisis is preventing any increase in the national contributions that finance the EU budget. It will be difficult to solve this equation if the Member States persist with their double refusal to increase their contributions and approve own resources to take their place. Mr Sarkozy’s France initiated a dynamic that resulted in a Financial Transaction Tax, the revenue from which will go to the EU budget, thereby decreasing the contributions of the countries that apply it, and that is the first positive sign. In these negotiations, Parliament will defend several ‘red lines’: the budget will have to be a catalyst for intelligent, sustainable and inclusive growth, it will have to be flexible enough to cope with structural and economic changes, and it will have to support the projects with high European added value. In this power struggle, Parliament must give its consent and has the authority to say yes or no. Therefore, the ball is clearly in the court of the Member States.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Glenis Willmott (S&D), in writing. Let us be clear, Labour’s MEPs believe that the EU budget can be part of the solution to the current economic and unemployment crisis in Britain and the rest of the EU. We believe that a greater focus should be placed on bringing forward key infrastructure projects and making a commitment to invest in innovative sustainable technologies. This is why we voted to secure funding for projects in the UK and voted to protect EU spending in deprived areas. We also called for a single seat for the European Parliament to end further wasteful expenditure. However, we must be realistic about the fact that we cannot increase spending in all areas. We must support targeted spending in areas, which must be offset by making savings in areas with less added value. At the same time Labour MEPs could not vote for a report that called for an end to rebates but refused to make a deep rooted commitment to reform the CAP.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. (PL) The European Union budget is a key tool for achieving sustainable and inclusive growth for the entire EU. In the current crisis, the EU budget is part of the solution, allowing Europe to recover through investment and job creation. However, the proposal to freeze the multiannual financial framework ceilings for 2014-2020 at the 2013 level means that there will be insufficient funding for these priorities. For that reason, I abstained from the vote.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D), in writing. (PL) We are moving ever closer to adopting a budget for the period 2014-2020. Unfortunately, the disagreements in this regard are growing ever stronger. The majority of Member States, that is the net contributors, would, as a minimum, like to freeze the budget amount and, if possible, even reduce it. I am firmly opposed to such an action. The European Union budget for 2014-2020 should be well in excess of EUR 1 billion. Let us remember that this budget is intended to cover new investments in infrastructure, stimulate production and create new jobs. It must be a pro-investment budget and not serve to restrict the European Union. For Member States such as Poland, it has added significance in terms of enabling them to catch up where, unfortunately, they still lag behind. Without a generous budget benefiting the less developed Member States, we will never eradicate the differences in living standards among EU residents.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Roberts Zīle (ECR), in writing. (LV) The resolution definitely warrants our support. In a situation where there is a move towards much greater EU centralisation, it is absurd to talk, at the same time, of reducing the total budget, as often demanded by some large EU Member States. Only around 1 % of the overall EU GDP or 2 % of total government expenditure is currently channelled into the EU budget.

I welcome the statement in the resolution that the EU budget should not be considered from the position of donor states as an additional burden on their taxpayers, but that the use of joint EU resources should be seen as part of the solution for taking Europe out of the crisis, by encouraging growth, job creation, science, education, large-scale infrastructure projects, youth employment, improved quality of life, etc.

The evaluation of EU cohesion policy given in the resolution is important as it is a strategic instrument for bringing about growth and competitiveness and the main foundation of solidarity between EU Member States. In the resolution, Parliament insists that in order to effectively reduce the lack of macro-economic balance and promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, cohesion policy must be based on a stable, solid and sustainable financial framework, stressing that the funding allocated to cohesion must be maintained at the 2007-2013 level as a minimum.

It is also important that the resolution calls for the funding allocated to the common agricultural policy to be kept at at least the level planned for 2013 in the future, directing the funding in an effective way, including, inter alia, a fair distribution of direct payments between Member States and regions.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD), in writing. (PL) Owing to the inclusion of several points that are extremely harmful to Polish sovereignty, the Solidarna Polska [United Poland] delegation within the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group was unable to vote in favour of the motion for a resolution. I believe that nobody whose aim is for Poland to retain its sovereignty and to cooperate within the European Union on an equal footing can, in clear conscience, support measures that will lead to the creation of a single European superstate. Including through the introduction of a requirement to allocate as much as 20 % of expenditure to tackling climate change. The EU’s current policy in this area (the so-called climate and energy package) will lead to a twofold rise in energy prices, a loss of competitiveness for Polish industry and the disappearance of several hundred thousand jobs, and may jeopardise Poland’s economic growth. There is a lack of any clear provisions concerning the reform of the common agricultural policy, in particular as regards ensuring equal conditions of competitiveness and equal payments for farmers in Poland and in other Member States or on the introduction of a new European tax to provide direct EU financing, without going through the Member States. The motion for a resolution merely calls for the introduction of a European Financial Transaction Tax. The introduction of an EU tax is a step towards the creation of an EU federal state.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report is a further expression of the support given by the majority in Parliament to a path which does not force the main beneficiaries of the single market and the current policies and priorities – namely, the major economic powers of the EU – to channel more funds into this budget and, in this way, into the redistribution of wealth. The majority in Parliament in essence endorse the Council’s positions, by supporting the subordination of the EU budget to the Europe 2020 strategy and the predictable use of Cohesion Fund monies to extend the single market through the ‘Connecting Europe Facility’, by transferring public funds to large monopolistic transport networks. We have therefore tabled proposals advocating the need to increase the EU budget in various areas.

 
  
  

Report: Jean-Luc Dehaene (A7-0316/2012)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing.(PT) I voted in favour of this report because it will clearly not only result in more own resources for the European Union itself, but will also send an important political signal to the world about the political union existing in the European Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing.(FR) Allowing the European Union to obtain its own financial resources is an objective that is enshrined in the Treaties. This report adopted by the European Parliament, which I supported, seeks to redefine the way in which VAT is calculated in Europe. The long-term goal is to harmonise these rates and allow the European Union to collect part of the VAT collected in Europe, thereby reducing the national contributions in order to achieve budgetary autonomy.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. (RO) The proposals for a new multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2014-2020 contain a set of proposals for reforming the Union’s own resources. They include a proposal for the seventh Decision regarding own resources, the abolition of the present own resources based on VAT and its replacement with a new source based on VAT. Within the present MFF, regarding own resources based on VAT, a 0.30 % uniform rate can be applied to the harmonised basis of assessment for transactions for VAT in each Member State. The taxed basis of the VAT is frozen at 50 % of the gross national income in every country to prevent less wealthy Member States from paying disproportionate sums, since VAT represents a larger percentage of the internal revenue in countries with reduced income. This proposal is a major improvement on the present system and could become a stable and viable source for the EU budget.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. (IT) We have already seen how the economic crisis has helped to accelerate the process of European integration. I agree with Mr Dehaene’s report, which touches on a cornerstone of European integration, in other words, a genuine own resource system and responsibility for taxation. I have no doubt that the current system of contributions by the national governments is an out-dated concept given the sort of integration taking place in the areas of tax regulation and general policies. This sort of asymmetry points to an anachronism, and the report provides useful proposals for overcoming it. In particular, increased transparency and reduced burdens on the Member States may well make up for the apparent loss of sovereignty in the performance of activities that are in fact more statistical than administrative. Following this logic, the assumption of a greater burden by the Commission seems justified. If the provisions of the report are adopted they will help to create a widespread European awareness of a common future, making many of the questions that are today the object of heated debate on sovereignty and governance a thing of the past.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. I am totally against the EU sneaking in a form of direct taxation via the backdoor. The EU must not have any form of revenue raising powers, however small a percentage they may be and even if they do not accrue directly in the EU budget but via national treasuries. Creating a resource based upon VAT is the first step towards establishing a stealth tax without a single citizen of Europe bestowing revenue raising powers upon the EU.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing.(FR) I voted in favour of this report on the new proposal concerning the VAT own resource for the Union. This proposal is a considerable improvement on the current system. It is also likely to encourage the establishment of a genuine own resource for the EU budget that is both reliable and stable. I agree with the rapporteur that the VAT own resource should be part of a general reform of the own resources system aimed at reducing significantly the overall level of national contributions.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing.(PT) I voted in favour of this report as I consider that the VAT own resource should be part of a general reform of the own resources system, which should substantially decrease the overall level of national contributions by Member States, and because I consider that the current proposal represents an important improvement to the current system.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Tadeusz Cymański (EFD), in writing. (PL) The report tabled is a step towards an own resources system for the European Union that is based, primarily, on revenue from an unfair value added tax, which places a burden not only on the administration but, above all, on the poorest EU citizens. I am in favour of keeping the current system, under which the vast majority of funding comes from national contributions, which is why I voted against the report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing.(PT) I voted in favour of this report as it urges the European Commission to present a concrete proposal on the EU’s own resources, particularly through VAT, so that this tax can accrue directly to the EU budget as from 2014-2020. I believe that other possibilities can be explored, such as the Financial Transaction Tax, which may help to reduce the Member State contributions to the EU budget.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Over 80 % of the income received by the European Union budget comes from contributions by the Member States, based on gross national income, which are taken directly from the respective national budgets. This means that, contrary to the requirements of the Treaties, the EU budget is not funded by genuine own resources. This leads to the logic of the ‘juste retour’ and the undesirable distinction between net contributors and recipients. The new challenges and commitments of the EU in terms of combating the crisis and fulfilling the Europe 2020 strategy led the Commission on 29 June 2011, when it presented its proposals for the new multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2014-2020, to include a set of proposals on the reform of the EU’s own resources system, which contemplates abolishing the VAT own resource in its current form and replacing it with an EU VAT resource. I voted in favour of the report by Jean-Luc Dehaene because I consider that the new EU VAT resource, being more transparent, stable and reliable, is a step forward in the reform of the EU’s resources and a way to lower the contribution of each Member State.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We strongly disagree with the proposal by the majority in Parliament to reform the own resources system in order to include a new ‘EU VAT’ as an ‘own resource’. This is a federalist proposal involving blatant manipulation based on the false argument of ‘reducing the share of Member States’ GNI-based contributions’. As is their wont, the majority in Parliament are adding insult to injury. They are trying to take advantage of the severe economic and social crisis facing countries such as Portugal (for which the EU is largely responsible) in order to advocate switching from a contribution regime based, in the main, on the income of each country to a regime which will be increasingly based on the blindest and most unfair of all taxes, VAT, thus penalising the weakest and most vulnerable. This proposal is even more manipulative as, by invoking ‘the consolidation efforts of Member States’, it is trying to create the idea of inevitability. However, as we have proposed, another method could and should be used, which would improve the current regime. This involves changing the scale of national contributions proportional to the respective GNI (gross national income), in order to guarantee that countries with a higher GNI contribute proportionally more to the EU budget, and making in-depth changes to its redistributive function and priorities.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. (SK) At its inception in 1970, the VAT-based own resource was designed as a potentially genuine own resource, under the assumption that a continuous process of harmonisation of national VAT legislation would eventually render the national VAT assessment bases fully harmonised. However, it has gradually been transformed into a complex and opaque statistical device that actually represents another form of GNI contribution and is transferred from national budgets.

In June 2011 the Commission presented its proposals for a new multiannual financial framework 2014-2020 jointly with a set of proposals on the reform of the Union’s own resources system. The proposal rests on the fact that the new EU VAT-based own resource is based on a share of the VAT on supplies of good and services, acquisitions and importations subject to a standard rate of VAT in every Member State. Therefore, it is based on the actual harmonisation that already exists in those goods and services with a standard rate across the EU. In addition, the new system moves the largest share of calculations currently done by Member States to the European Commission. I believe that this proposal represents an important improvement to the current system and includes the potential for a change to a stable and reliable own resource for the Union budget.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Anna Hedh, Olle Ludvigsson, Jens Nilsson, Marita Ulvskog and Åsa Westlund (S&D), in writing. (SV) We welcome the fact that the tremendously complex VAT revenues for the EU budget are being reviewed and simplified. We also welcome the fact that the administrative burden on Member States is being reduced. Since, however, the motion concerns the area of taxation, we do not feel that the methods for collecting VAT revenue amended in this way should be governed by a regulation. The motion should instead be dealt with in the decision on own resources, which requires unanimity within the Council and ratification by all Member States.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. (LT) I voted in favour because I agree with Parliament’s opinion that the greatest advantages of the new VAT proposal are its transparency, fairness to taxpayers in all Member States, greater simplicity and the potential to turn it into a genuine own resource.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing.(FR) The report by Jean-Luc Dehaene on an own resource based on the value added tax was adopted under the consultation procedure by 516 votes to 98, with 33 abstentions. In this report, most Members approve the proposal for a regulation. In that respect, the Commission is now invited to come up with concrete proposals to further reform the VAT own resource. The objective is for it to accrue directly to the Union budget in the 2014-2020 period or in a further revision of the own resources system. Finally, the resolution also calls for a practical follow-up to the Commission’s Green Paper on the future of VAT and concrete measures that will ensure a higher degree of harmonisation of the VAT systems in the Member States.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. (RO) The steps to attract own resources to the European Union’s budget must be followed with great care, given the high level of technical detail, in order to assure a simplified method that can be implemented by all Member States. This new proposal on own resources from VAT is more transparent and is more adaptable and flexible for the Member States in relation to with previous regulations.

I regret that the method for calculating the monthly contribution from every EU country in four phases is still a complex one; in future it must be simplified, taking into account the existing VAT systems in each Member State.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. I voted for this draft regulation. The draft regulation for making the VAT own resource available is necessary to define the method Member States should use to calculate this new resource as well as the procedures for its transfer into the EU budget. The underlying principle of the Commission’s proposal is that the new EU VAT own resource is based on a share of the VAT on supplies of goods and services, acquisitions and imports ‘subject to a standard rate of VAT in every Member State’. Therefore, it is based on the actual harmonisation that already exists in those goods and services with a standard rate across the EU. In addition, the new system transfers the largest share of calculations currently done by Member States to the Commission.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing.(FR) It is important for the European Union to have its own budget. The value added tax is an important lever that must not be overlooked. However, it must accrue directly to the EU budget. We invite the Commission to put forward proposals in this regard.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. (IT) I voted in favour. The proposal regarding the new EU VAT own resource is clearly a great improvement on the current system. In the future it might well become a genuine own resource for the EU budget that is both stable and reliable.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. This report proposes the creation of a new EU VAT own resource system which would reduce the administrative burden on the Member States with the overall aim of financing the EU budget entirely from own resources. The reform of own resources plays a pivotal role in the MFF negotiations as the European Parliament has made it clear that it will not give its consent to the next MFF regulation without first achieving an agreement on the reform of the own resource system. I voted in favour of this report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing.(FR) This report proposes making VAT the be all and end all of the financing of the European budget. We are therefore less surprised about the European Commission’s obsession with increasing VAT rates and doing away with VAT rates, including on the most essential elements, such as water and energy. It sanctions the least fair tax and makes the poorest people finance institutions forced into austerity. I voted against the report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) On 29 June 2011 the Commission presented its proposals for a new multiannual financial framework 2014-2020 jointly with a set of proposals on the reform of the Union’s own resources system. Those include a proposal for the VII Own Resources Decision (ORD), which calls for the abolition of the existing VAT own resource and its replacement by a new EU VAT resource. The draft regulation for making the VAT own resource available is necessary to define the method Member States should use to calculate this new resource as well as the procedures for its transfer into the EU budget. The new EU VAT own resource proposal represents undoubtedly an important improvement to the current system and has serious potential to develop into a stable and reliable genuine own resource for the Union’s budget. The VAT own resource should be part of a general reform of the own resources system, which should substantially decrease the overall level of national contributions by Member States.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. The draft report by Mr Dehaene welcomes the proposed simplification of the VAT calculation method; it reiterates the need for the Council to reach a political agreement on the proposals of the EC to enable the new system to enter into force during the period 2014-2020; it calls on the EC to make concrete proposals to ensure that genuine own resources would in the future accrue directly to EU budget.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. (DE) Value added tax was conceived as the basis for calculating part of the EU contribution. In the meantime, the system for calculating own resources has become extremely complex, as a number of factors must be considered. A new proposal has now been presented for the calculation of own resources. There can be no objections to making adjustment to take account of the overseas territories or the specific VAT treatment granted in certain regions. The new standard percentages are, in effect, a way of punishing Member States with a lean administration. Furthermore, the largest share of calculations currently done by Member States would in future be moved to the European Commission. Both these aspects constitute a further step towards centralisation and undermine national competences, something which I vigorously oppose.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. (LT) Own resources for the EU budget and the proper collection of these are a prerequisite for ensuring that the budget itself is effective. Nevertheless, with regard to VAT, I would also like to draw attention to the fact that when aligning the rate of VAT throughout the European Union, we need to carefully consider the opportunities that states currently have to apply various reduced VAT rates, mostly for social objectives. On the one hand, this tax cannot be used as a hidden form of state support for one sector or other, while on the other hand, throughout the EU we need to establish the areas where states can derogate from common rules.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Tiziano Motti (PPE), in writing. (IT) I voted in favour of the resolution on VAT own resources because it is only sensible in an internal market system regulated by the EU that VAT should directly accrue to and be managed by the EU rather than the Member States.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. (DE) I am opposed to standard percentages in the calculation of own resources, as this method results in increased payments by Member States with a lean administration. Furthermore, I fail to understand why the calculations should be undertaken on a centralised basis by the Commission. For these reasons, I voted against the report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing.(EL) The issue of transfer of taxes from the Member States to the EU budget has occupied the Union almost since its foundation. This regulation proposes a specific method which the Member States must use to calculate this new VAT resource and to determine the procedures for transferring it to the EU budget. According to the proposal, the new VAT own resource of the European Union is based on the percentage of VAT on goods and services offered, acquisitions and imports which are subject to a standard rate of VAT in each Member State. This ensures greater transparency and a reduced need for corrections to the VAT base. Nevertheless, the complicated method of calculation is still there, and today a question mark still hangs over the question of paying the tax directly into the EU budget without the need for it to be collected first by the national authorities. For this reason, I voted in favour of this report, which embraces the Commission’s positive proposals while at the same time highlighting the shortcomings and the further action and initiatives that need to be taken.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing.(PT) I voted in favour of the proposal for a Council regulation on the methods and procedure for making available the own resource based on the value added tax. As indicated by the European Commission, it is important to abolish the current VAT own resource and create a new EU VAT own resource.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. (IT) The proposal for the VII Own Resources Decision that involves the abolition of the existing VAT own resource and its replacement by a new EU VAT resource would bring about an important improvement to the current system, with serious potential to develop VAT into a stable and reliable genuine own resource for the Union’s budget. Considering the notable simplification of the VAT calculation method, fewer administrative burdens, the equal treatment of all EU Member States, and in the hope that the VAT own resource will be part of a general reform of the own resources system that should substantially decrease the overall level of national contributions by Member States, I voted in favour of the proposal.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Commission’s proposal to abolish the existing own resources system and create a new EU VAT own resource will streamline the current system of taxation so that it develops into a stable and reliable own resource for the Union’s budget. The VAT own resource aims to reform the EU’s own resources system in order to decrease the level of national contributions by Member States, as one of the fundamental criteria of a genuine VAT own resource should be to accrue directly to the EU budget without first being collected by national administrations.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. (IT) I congratulate Mr Dehaene on his work. In the light of its resolution of 8 June 2011 on ‘Investing in the future: a new multiannual financial framework (MFF) for a competitive, sustainable and inclusive Europe’, and Article 311 of the TFEU, Parliament today approved the proposal for a regulation supporting the proposals of the Commission for abolition of the current VAT own resources and the creation of a new EU VAT own resource.

A new and fundamental criterion for a genuine VAT own resource must be that it accrues directly to the EU budget without first being collected by national administrations. If this condition cannot be met for the upcoming 2014-2020 MFF, the Commission should at least consider the option for the next period, when the own resources system should undergo further reform in order to achieve full financing of the EU budget from own resources.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. In favour. The draft regulation on the procedure for making the VAT own resource available is necessary to define the method Member States should use to calculate this new resource as well as the procedures for its transfer into the EU budget. At its inception in 1970, the VAT-based own resource was designed as a potentially genuine own resource, under the assumption that a continuous process of harmonisation of national VAT legislation would eventually render the national VAT assessment bases fully harmonised. However, it has gradually been transformed into a complex and opaque statistical device that actually represents another form of GNI-based contribution and is transferred from national budgets. The VAT-based own resource represents 11.2 % of revenue in the 2011 budget. On 29 June 2011 the Commission presented its proposals for a new multiannual financial framework 2014 - 2020 jointly with a set of proposals on the reform of the Union’s own-resources system.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. (IT) The agreement on the reform of VAT is necessary to define the method Member States use to calculate this new resource as well as the procedures for its transfer into the EU budget. I believe that a new EU VAT own resource might bring about an important improvement to the current system since it has serious potential to develop into a stable and reliable genuine own resource for the Union’s budget. The VAT own resource moves the largest share of calculations currently done by Member States to the European Commission, which should substantially decrease the overall level of national contributions by Member States. I therefore voted in favour of the proposal to abolish the current VAT own resources and to create a new EU VAT own resource.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing.(FR) I voted in favour of this text. The reform of the own resources system, including the proposals on a Financial Transaction Tax, were expected. A new EU value added tax was needed to provide own resources and to reduce to 40 %, by 2020, the share of Member States’ gross national income-based contributions to the Union budget, thereby contributing to the consolidation efforts of Member States. There are also plans to simplify the VAT calculation method and improve the transparency of the VAT own resource.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The multiannual financial framework defines the EU budget for the 2014-2020 period. In June 2011 the European Commission presented a proposal of EUR 1 083 billion in expenditure, corresponding to 1.11 % of European gross domestic product and an increase of 5 % in relation to the current programming period (2007-2013). In order to reduce the contribution by Member States to the EU budget to 40 %, the European Commission has presented the possibility of creating own resources which are enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In this respect, I consider the introduction of the Financial Transaction Tax and the modernisation of VAT to be appropriate, with the current European resource of part of the national VAT collected by Member States being abandoned. I support the creation of these own resources provided that businesses and households do not have to pay more for the goods and services that they purchase. I also support the statement made by the President of the European Commission that this is not about increasing the EU budget, but about giving it a more solid basis and reducing the direct contributions of Member States.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing.(RO) I voted for the resolution on the proposal for a regulation on the methods and procedure for making available the own resource based on the value added tax as the objective is to simplify the method for calculating national contributions, thus reducing administrative costs and ensuring greater transparency.

The new calculation method uses actual VAT receipt figures as a starting point. To achieve greater simplicity and transparency, the regulation proposes that the Commission establish a uniform percentage at EU level, from VAT accruing from supplies of goods and services by final consumption that are subject to a standard rate in each Member State. The resulting value of the ‘assumed VAT receipts’ is then divided by the actual standard rate applied in the country to give the VAT own resources base. Once this has been calculated, the actual contribution is calculated by applying a percentage that is set out in the implementing Council Regulation on own resources.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing.(FR) The EU’s VAT own resource will from now on be based on supplies of good and services as well as acquisitions and importations subject to a standard rate of VAT in every Member State. It is therefore based on the actual harmonisation that already exists in goods and services with a standard rate. The proposal also transfers to the Commission the calculations currently done by the Member States.

This own resource was created in 1970 to form a genuine own resource, under the assumption that a continuous process of harmonisation of the VAT legislation of the Member States would eventually result in the harmonisation of the national rates. That did not happen and the VAT own resource is currently another form of contribution from the Member States to the EU budget based on gross national income. I abstained on this proposal by the European Commission because it risks pushing for a harmonisation of increased VAT rates, in line with the proposals to increase VAT, wrongly described as ‘social’ by the right, in France, in exchange for a reduction in employers’ social contributions.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. (PL) The proposed methods and procedure for making available the own resource based on the value added tax are complicated and require elaborate calculations. Moreover, these methods do not appear to take account of the differences between the VAT systems used in the individual Member States. In addition, the Commission will be greatly burdened with administrative tasks, while the own resource based on VAT will still not be paid directly into the EU budget, but will be intercepted by the national treasuries. I therefore voted against the report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The creation of a new ‘EU VAT’ as an ‘own resource’ is yet another federalist proposal involving blatant manipulation based on the false argument of ‘reducing the share of Member States’ contributions’. In adopting this proposal, the European Parliament is advocating switching from a contribution regime based, in the main, on the income of each country to a regime which will be increasingly based on the blindest and most unfair of all taxes, VAT. We propose that the countries with a higher gross national income contribute proportionally more to the EU budget, with in-depth changes being made to its redistributive function and priorities. This would be the most supportive way of obtaining own resources for the EU.

 
  
  

Report: Ingeborg Gräßle, Crescenzio Rivellini (A7-0325/2011)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing.(PT) I voted in favour of this report as, for the first time, the European Parliament is playing its role as co-legislator in this area. The financial rules applicable to the Union budget need to be simplified so that the organisations implementing the EU budget, through applications to various funds and subsidies in a range of areas, are not prevented from this goal by excessive bureaucracy. We should remember that easier access to the central funds may provide an extra boost at this time of crisis for many Member States.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing.(FR) Adopted by the European Parliament, the Financial Regulation contains the rules and principles governing the establishment of the EU budget and its implementation; it applies to all areas of expenditure and revenue. I personally support this text, which seeks primarily to streamline the technical rules governing the EU and make them more coherent.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. (RO) I voted for this report as I believe that it is the right time to revise the financial system. The new regulation could help the Union to implement a more efficient Neighbourhood Policy. The new rules could bring many advantages, including greater flexibility and speed in payment of financial assistance to third countries. Moreover, the regulation provides for certain special measures for rapid payment in times of crisis as well as the reduction of administrative duties.

I am of the opinion that the general objectives of the new regulation correspond to the global policy objectives of the Union. I would like to emphasise the fact that they also require respect for sound financial administrative principles. The simplification of procedures and rules is another positive element that will make it more attractive and more accessible.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. (ES) I agree with the general aims of the programme and consider it important to ease the situation in the area in question. The companies affected are located in four of Sweden’s 290 municipalities, with the majority of redundancies in Lund in southern Sweden. The closure of the AstraZeneca site is a heavy burden for Lund and affects the entire pharmaceutical sector in Sweden. This development creates an imbalance in the regional labour market. Unemployment increased in all of the affected municipalities between January 2009 and November 2011, rising from 2 467 to 3 025 in Lund, from 3 725 to 4 539 in Umeå, from 3 100 to 5 555 in Sodertalje, and from 1 458 to 1 663 in Mölndal.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing.(FR) I voted in favour of the report on the financial rules applicable to the annual budget. This new Financial Regulation seeks to establish and clarify the principles governing the establishment of the European Union budget. Several important changes are envisaged with a view to optimising and modernising use of the budget by the European administration on the one hand, and the Member States on the other. Consequently, the European Union will be able to purchase property through loans, while the Member States’ use of the Structural Funds will be better supervised.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. (CS) In connection with the adopted report on the motion for a regulation on the financial rules applicable to the annual budget of the EU, I welcome the efforts to simplify the budgetary rules with respect to administration and financing during the different programme and project phases (submission of application, evaluation and management), from which the stakeholders should obtain primary benefit. Research is an uncertain process involving a certain amount of inherent risk, and result-based funding might limit the scope of the research projects to less risky projects and market-oriented research, which would hamper the EU in pursuing excellence and frontier research. Unfortunately, a too rigid interpretation of the Financial Regulation has in recent years created a culture of risk avoidance and a zero-trust attitude towards participants in research programmes, thus reducing the efficiency of its implementation. It is therefore important to proceed urgently with a simplification of the financial and administrative provisions relating to the framework programme and other European funding instruments. Simplification should not be regarded as an end in itself, but as a means to ensure the attractiveness and accessibility of EU research funding, and simplification measures should offer greater potential for avoiding errors. As regards operating grants in the form of lump sums or flat-rate financing, I am of the view that the rule that grants should gradually decrease should be removed.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. The EU has long demonstrated it is incapable of operating transparently and is riddled with fraud and misspending. billions are squandered, other projects represent a profligate waste of money, application of funding is often grossly mishandled while penalties under cross compliance either punish the innocent or fail to protect against corruption. There is little real effort towards transparency by the wasteful and undemocratic Eurocrats in Brussels. I therefore cannot extol this hollow attempt to sell EU representatives a notion of fairness and good governance.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing.(FR) For the first time, the European Parliament is co-legislating with the Council on the Financial Regulation, which lays down the rules and principles governing the establishment and implementation of the EU budget. I voted for the Grässle and Rivellini report, which proposes, in particular, that the European Union be allowed to establish trust funds. These funds are a precious and visible tool for international cooperation that can be used for emergency operations after a disaster or for development assistance. I also support the report’s call for simplification, harmonisation and modernisation of the financial rules.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing.(PT) I voted in favour of this report as I consider that the proposed amendments are balanced and relevant.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing.(FR) The mechanisms for implementing the budget must be effective and must not clog or slow down the implementation of European policies. This text is an appropriate response to that goal and I therefore voted in favour of it. I support, in particular, the provisions on transparency and gender equality in the human resources policies of the European institutions. This text will guarantee the sound financial management of the EU, giving it as much flexibility it needs.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing.(FR) I voted for this text, which improved the Financial Regulation applicable to the EU’s annual budget. While the national budgets focus on ensuring greater budgetary discipline, the European institutions must set an example in order to make EU spending more efficient.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. (HU) The new Financial Regulation for the first time contains provisions on financial planning tools such as project bonds, setting out cases and purposes for which these can be used. In future, the European Commission will be able to establish multi-donor assistance funds of the type that are now fundamental in the field of international cooperation and aid. Although it is one of the world’s largest donor organisations, the EU has hitherto been unable to contribute, for example, to existing United Nations or World Bank aid funds. This will now be possible and will raise the profile of the EU in the field of international aid. The new regulation has broadened Member States’ reporting obligations in respect of the Structural Funds and it also contains a more precise definition, which will enable more effective monitoring. I welcome the fact that the new regulation allows more relaxed EU monitoring of Member States in exchange for guarantees that EU funds will be used appropriately. It is important to emphasise that the work of the European Commission and the European administration will be speeded up as a result of the regulation, as strict rules will be laid down regarding time limits for decisions relating to various payments and funding for particular projects.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing.(PT) I voted in favour of this report as it advocates greater efficiency and transparency in the EU budget implementation mechanisms. In the current economic context, it is more important than ever to ensure appropriate use of European taxpayers’ money and to make the Commission more accountable for the budget implementation, as laid down in Article 317 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report by Ingeborg Gräßle and Crescenzio Rivellini concerns the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the annual budget of the European Union. The budgetary principles and financial rules governing the establishment and implementation of the EU general budget were laid down in Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002. However, the implementing provisions were laid down in Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002, which established the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities. Nowadays, all legislation must comply with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Accordingly, and bearing in mind the report of the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Budgetary Control, and the opinions of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the Committee on Regional Development, I voted in favour of this proposal for a regulation of the EP and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the annual budget of the EU.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The Commission proposal aims to define the legal framework for the establishment and implementation of the EU budget in all areas, with regard to both expenditure and income. Among other aspects, it defines the scope of Parliament’s involvement in establishing the EU budget and covers the evaluation and presentation of accounts by Parliament, as one of the two branches of the EU’s budgetary authority. Despite believing that greater transparency and the presentation of accounts on the implementation of the EU budget are important and necessary, certain articles included in the proposal adopted today do not merit our agreement. The European Financial Stability Mechanism has been included, which thus guarantees its financing. The final proposal extends the possibility of creating public-private partnerships. As a way of tackling the lack of resources, mainly in the areas of energy, transport, research and digital infrastructures, it is proposed that the Commission ‘entrusts the budget implementation to public-private partnerships’. It is also proposed to transfer appropriations for projects funded through the Connecting Europe Facility, which involves project financing obligations as one of its financial instruments.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. (SK) In the interests of legal clarity and in order to simplify the negotiations in the European Parliament and the Council, the proposal combines two previous Commission proposals relating to revision of the Financial Regulation and replaces them with a single text in the standard format. Since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the Financial Regulation has been revised in accordance with the appropriate legislative procedure laid down in Article 322 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The budget is one of the main instruments in the implementation of European Union policy. I remain of the view that, in the current economic situation, it is very important and fundamental that the mechanisms for fulfilling the budget operate as effectively as possible, the implementation of Union policy is simplified and European taxpayers’ money is used transparently, effectively and responsibly.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing.(FR) I supported the Grässle and Rivellini report in plenary. This is the first time that the European Parliament has co-legislated with the Council on a Financial Regulation. After more than 10 months of negotiations, this Financial Regulation is the first to include provisions on financial instruments, such as loans to finance projects, with a definition of their scope, controls and reporting obligations. This report was adopted by 524 votes to 25, with 32 abstentions.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. I welcome the fact that this reports calls, in the field of cohesion policy, for the Commission to come forward with a proposal to introduce innovative forms of funding, including increased use of EIB loans, in order to maximise the leverage effect of Union funds.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing.(FR) The revision of the Financial Regulation will in future allow the European Commission to establish trust funds for international cooperation, notably to help populations affected by disasters, or for development assistance, without necessarily having to use the funds of the United Nations and the World Bank. Consequently, the European Union will be able to act autonomously and increase its visibility as one of the world’s largest donors. Prizes will also be made available to stimulate research and innovation. Finally, the Member States’ obligations as regards reporting on their use of Structural Funds have been better defined and strengthened.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing.(FR) This report endorses the public-private partnership approach, a form of squandering and pillaging promoted by the Commission. I voted against it a year ago. The amendments tabled today did not reverse that approach. They support the proposals to allow the European Commission to adopt delegated acts in this regard. I therefore voted against the text once again.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The financial mechanisms to be made available to the European Union and Member State citizens must operate efficiently in order to allow European policies to be applied and, at the same time, to guarantee maximum transparency in the use of taxpayers’ money. It is therefore vital that these mechanisms are simple and transparent, and that they reduce the administrative and bureaucratic burden faced by all beneficiaries of European funds. The amendments made to the Commission proposal, which are supported by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), have significantly improved this text and achieved the universally desired objective of creating a more agile, more dynamic and, at the same time, more transparent European Union in terms of making available and applying the relevant funds.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. I agree that simplification has been the motivation throughout these negotiations, so that organisations applying for EU funds of different kinds are not deterred by the bureaucracy. Other major concerns were making Member States more accountable for the funds they manage, and ensuring that EU funds can be used as investment leverage in priority policies and areas of most need. Therefore I supported the report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. (DE) At a time when Member States are introducing austerity packages, the increase in funding for the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020 demanded by a majority in the European Parliament must be firmly rejected. Instead of demanding more money, the numerous possibilities to make savings should be utilised at last and bureaucracy reduced. Funds could be freed up by closing down pointless EU agencies such as the Agency for Fundamental Rights or cancelling the funding for nonsensical projects. As the opportunities to make savings continue to be ignored, I voted against the financial rules.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. (DE) In view of the current parlous state of the economy and society in the EU, I regard any increase in the financial framework for 2014-2020 as unnecessary and reject the proposed financial rules. I am firmly opposed to the additional spending proposed by the Commission for the coming financial framework. It is time to implement better and more targeted controls on spending, which is why I voted against the financial rules.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing.(PT) Bearing in mind the report of the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Budgetary Control, and the opinions of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the Committee on Regional Development, and as I have no objections, I voted in favour of the legislative resolution of the European Parliament on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the annual budget of the Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. (IT) The Financial Regulation marks a positive step forward for simplifying the methods for managing EU budget funds. Taken together, these rules (which include over 500 amendments negotiated with the Council over a period of almost one year) will provide us, from 1 January 2013, with new, more efficient and more effective legal and operational instruments for facing the challenges of an economic and political crisis.

There are a number of new provisions, including the new Title VIII, devoted entirely to new financial instruments cofinanced from the overall EU budget to promote new revenue for supporting EU policies at this time of crisis. New and simpler rules for shared management between the Commission and the Member States provide for new accreditation bodies responsible for control of funds, monitoring compliance and suspending accreditation where appropriate, as well as new and simpler rules for the creation and management of public-private partnerships, in particular in the research and industry sectors.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The regulation lays down rules for financial instruments, including the definition of their scope and control and the duty to present reports on the mechanisms and their financial risks to the Union budget. Although the EU is one of the world’s largest donors, it only contributes to existing funds, namely those of the United Nations or World Bank, which results in limited visibility for the EU with regard to its performance and priorities. As a result, these new rules will give the Commission independence to establish investment funds as an international cooperation instrument, which are extremely important tools for disaster and development aid operations. The budget rules also include the innovation of incentive premiums, which are an instrument for promoting research projects. It is also proposed to extend the obligations for EU Member States to present reports, particularly with regard to the use of Structural Funds. The Commission receives further rights and duties over national payment agencies and supervisory authorities. The rules on audits and sanctions for irregularities will also be improved, with a view to harmonising the complexity and number of financial rules. I voted in favour.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. In favour. The financial rules, better known as the Financial Regulation, form the key legislative text on the implementation of the EU budget. This text contains an impressive number of rules and criteria to be respected by the different actors implementing the EU budget. The vote in plenary is a vote on a first reading agreement, so no amendments are tabled. The regime of grants will be shifted from a real-cost based management (inputs) towards a performance-based scheme (outputs). This is expected to simplify the procedural and documentary requirements for the benefit of beneficiaries. The EP managed to put through an important number of amendments going in that direction.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. (IT) I believe that Europe can successfully meet the challenges of the crisis through its budgetary policies. With the right selection of priorities, starting with growth and innovation for the rural areas of Europe, it can send out a strong message of change. The economic power of those working within the production chain needs to be strengthened through positive budgetary action at the level of the European institutions in the first instance, rather than at local level. Negotiations with the Council will lead to a correct application of European programmes, maintaining a strong common agricultural policy through a stable budget for agriculture. Reforms in the sector can provide an effective reference framework for strengthening the rest of the economy. Growth, which is at the centre of Parliament’s agenda, will be pursued through a series of funding measures aimed at attaining long-term objectives, starting with enhancing the competitiveness of European agricultural enterprises in the global context. I voted in favour of the proposal.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D), in writing.(EL) I voted in favour of the report on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in favour of Sweden in support of those who lost their jobs in the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca. The Swedish authorities maintain that the pharmaceutical sector is increasingly hard-hit by globalisation. It is clear that the negative consequences of globalisation further highlight the added value of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund as an EU social policy tool. The targeted financial support which it provides for retraining and reintegration programmes for workers affected by mass dismissals is particularly important. Furthermore, the support it provides is a practical expression of the Union’s solidarity. Lastly, the case of Sweden is the best demonstration of the fact that this financial instrument does not confine its operation to countries facing economic and budgetary challenges, but may prove equally useful in helping dismissed workers to reintegrate into the labour market even in economically robust countries. This in turn underlines the importance of the Fund and demonstrates the need to retain it during the next multiannual financial framework 2014-2020.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Article 317 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union highlights how important it is that the mechanisms adopted are simple and transparent, that they stimulate the securing of resources other than from the EU budget, and that, at the same time, they make the European Commission more accountable for the implementation of the budget. I support this report because I agree with simplifying and harmonising the rules and procedures applicable to the European Union’s framework programmes in the area of research, and because I consider that the risk of error should be indicated in order to promote sound financial management and appropriate controls in the area of cohesion policy. Lastly, I consider it vital that the budget records the guarantee for borrowing and lending operations entered into by the European Union in the management of the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) and the European Financial Stability Mechanism (EFSM), and payments to the Guarantee Fund for external actions.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the financial rules applicable to the annual budget. The regulation lays down the rules governing the establishment and implementation of the EU’s general budget and the presentation and auditing of the accounts. The budget is established and implemented in accordance with the principles of unity, budgetary accuracy, annuality, equilibrium, unit of account, universality, specification, sound financial management and transparency. The regulation promotes the use of e-Government, especially electronic exchanges of information between the institutions and third parties. In accordance with Article 317 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the regulation strengthens Member States’ basic control and audit obligations where they implement the budget under shared management, since such obligations currently exist only in sector-specific rules.

It also creates a coherent legislative framework that improves the overall legal certainty and efficiency of controls and remedial action, as well as the protection of the Union’s financial interests. It therefore contains provisions on common management and control obligations for those structures, the annual management declaration (by which managers assume the responsibility for the management of Union funds they are entrusted with), examination and acceptance of the accounts, and suspension and correction mechanisms operated by the Commission.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. I fully support this text, which has been revised following negotiations between Parliament and the Council. This regulation looks at the financing rules for Union funds and I believe that the focus on increased simplification and more transparency and accountability is vitally important. Another important new development seen for the first time in the Financial Regulation is the inclusion of financial instruments. Increasing the use and scope of financial instruments will provide further support to job creation and growth, which is hugely important during this economically difficult time.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. (PL) The proposed rules generally support the European Union’s political strategies while observing the principle of sound financial management. It is also clear that substantial efforts have been made to simplify the administrative and financial rules for framework programmes. I therefore voted in favour of this motion for a resolution.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We consider that greater transparency and the presentation of accounts on the implementation of the EU budget are important and necessary objectives, which should naturally guide this regulation. However, we vehemently oppose certain aspects of this report: the European Financial Stability Mechanism is included, which therefore legitimises this mechanism and guarantees its financing. Furthermore, the final proposal extends the possibility of creating public-private partnerships, by proposing that the Commission ‘entrusts the budget implementation to public-private partnerships’. In our opinion, the introduction of this possibility is unacceptable.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. − That concludes the explanations of vote.

 
Legal notice - Privacy policy