Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 6 July 2010 - Strasbourg

1. Opening of the sitting

IN THE CHAIR: JERZY BUZEK
President

(The sitting was opened at 09.05)

2. Documents received: see Minutes

3. Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (announcement of motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes

4. Review of the Spanish Presidency (debate)

  President. – The first item is the statements by the Council and the Commission: Review of the Spanish Presidency. I would like to give a warm welcome to Mr Zapatero, who will speak on behalf of the Council. Mr Zapatero, you have the floor.

  José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, President-in-Office of the Council. – (ES) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am attending this debate to report to you and to take stock of what the Spanish rotating Presidency has accomplished in these six months. When I attended at the beginning of this term, I explained to you that I had two main objectives during this political period.

The first of these was the implementation and entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, a treaty seeking a more complete union for Europe. The second main objective, directly related to that ambition of ever-closer unity among Europeans, was to achieve, with a view to the recovery of the economic situation, a much deeper union with regard to economic policy, to address the imbalances in our economies and to create more appropriate conditions for the European Union to improve its competitiveness and maintain its well-being.

These have been the two main objectives. I can assure you that, in implementing the Treaty of Lisbon, the Spanish rotating Presidency has discharged its functions dutifully to ensure the new institutional balance and to strengthen the new institutions that we Europeans have created for ourselves through the Treaty of Lisbon: namely, the Presidency of the European Council, the purpose of which is to strengthen European representation and ensure the continuity of political programmes within the framework of the European Union, and the High Representative, intended to strengthen common action in matters of foreign policy.

This new institutional balance also includes a fundamental watershed in the spirit and the letter of the Treaty of Lisbon. This watershed is the new role of this Parliament: a step forward in its powers to represent Europe’s citizens.

Throughout these six months, Mr President, we have endeavoured to be faithful to the letter and spirit of the Treaty of Lisbon with Parliament, with the new President of the Council, and in dialogue that has always been fruitful, always positive and always easy to put into practice with the European Commission. I mention the European Commission last to remind Parliament that in its founding spirit and the spirit of the Treaty of Lisbon lies the defence of the Community institutions and the Community method, as the final guarantee of the essence and advance of the European Union. This strengthening of and co-responsibility with the Community institutions has always been, and always will be, present in Spain and within the Spanish Government.

If the Spanish rotating Presidency has learnt anything from the Treaty of Lisbon, it is that we need as much Community method as possible, and we need to strengthen the role of the major Community institutions, in terms of action and co-responsibility for the main European issues.

Ladies and gentlemen, I told you that, without a doubt, the economy – the economic crisis and the desire to put in place a common economic policy and greater economic union – had been a fundamental objective of the European Presidency. I would like to emphasise that we have produced results of great significance during this period.

There has been a substantial advance in economic governance. The clearest evidence of this is that new instruments have been put in place to deal with difficult situations: new cooperation instruments hitherto unknown within the Union, such as support for the problematic situation of the sovereign debt in Greece, or the financial stability instrument approved by the Council and by Ecofin, and implemented by the 27 countries of the Union.

During this period, as you know, we have also adopted a common strategy for growth and employment to 2020. This is a strategy in which we have collaborated by giving support to the Commission. It is a more ambitious strategy for our competitiveness, for innovation, for job creation and for social inclusion, and a strategy with new governance. While Lisbon had a problem with governance, the EU 2020 strategy is designed to strengthen new operational principles for ensuring that both the objectives of the Union as a whole and the individual objectives of each country are met.

Alongside this, we have consolidated a new framework for the Stability and Growth Pact during this period, the details of which have still to be worked out. A new framework for ensuring more rigorous compliance with the Stability Pact, with new criteria and new mechanisms for preventative action and guarantees by European institutions

Also during this period, we have decisively facilitated the progress of a package of new regulations in the area of finance. We know that the crisis had a financial origin, not within our borders, but in the United States. We know that it had major repercussions on our financial institutions, and today we can say that, in practical terms, the financial supervision aspects have been greatly improved thanks to the decisive intervention of Parliament. In a few months, we will have a new regulatory framework for financial supervision, which will cover all financial products and ensure solutions in crisis situations. It will contain many more prevention mechanisms in the face of what may be systemic risks.

In line with this, I also applaud the decision of the European Council to improve confidence in European financial institutions through the publication of ‘stress tests’ for our banks. There is no doubt that this transparency formula will enable some of the confidence that has been called into question during this period to be restored.

In short, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there have been substantial advances with regard to economic union. I would just like to state that these advances should, in my opinion, be permanent because of two fundamental factors, which, in particular as a consequence of the economic crisis, have been the subject of profound public political debate and reflection among Europeans during this period.

One relates to the strengthening of the Stability and Growth Pact, in both its preventive and its corrective aspects, in order to apply both incentives and sanctions, as the Spanish rotating Presidency advocated from the outset. The other relates to the macro-economic supervision that is developing indicators for evaluating competitiveness and imbalances within the framework of coordinated action.

With regard to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, I would like to emphasise the institutional balance, as I did at the beginning of this speech. As the first rotating Presidency since the Treaty of Lisbon, I have to say that we signed a good treaty. It is a better treaty. It is a treaty that seeks the closest possible union. However, it is a treaty that requires great political will from all 27 Member States. It requires the 27 governments to have the political will to hand over powers to the President of the European Council, to give ever more capacity for initiative to the Commission and, of course, to recognise the now decisive, pivotal role that the European Parliament has.

And if the Treaty of Lisbon is, above all, the way towards the closest possible union, even the closest union of Europeans will not be real or visible if it is not recognised from outside. The road towards the closest possible union will therefore necessarily involve a foreign policy with ever more unity, ever more common ground, and a strengthening of the single voice that many of us pro-Europeans would like Europe to have in the world.

With regard to this, allow me to make a very brief reference to the steps that we have taken towards this objective of strengthening foreign policy. Firstly, in April, the rotating Presidency fulfilled the mandate of the European Council by adopting a political decision on the European External Action Service. On 21 June of this year, Parliament, the Council and the Commission reached a political agreement on the launch of the new European External Action Service, on which Parliament needs to state its position in plenary during this very part-session. I hope the result will be positive, as, without a doubt, this is a new and important pillar of the common foreign and security policy that we would like to have.

Alongside this, our Presidency has given its active backing to the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, who has taken part with the Commission and the Council in the preparations for a number of summits during this period – with Russia, Japan, Pakistan, Canada, Morocco, Latin America and the Caribbean. These have borne important fruit in the form of commercial agreements that strengthen the economic position of the European Union, open up prospects in many Latin American countries and, without a doubt, extend the already strong links between the European continent and Latin America in cultural, economic, political and social areas.

In the same way, we have strengthened neighbourhood relations. We have held a summit with Russia and, although we have not held one with the United States as was on our initial agenda, I must point out that we have reached a number of very significant agreements with the United States during this period. These include agreements on the fight against terrorism and legally and politically far-reaching agreements such as the SWIFT Agreement, in which this Parliament also played a decisive part – in a matter that was certainly not easy – and on which it needs to announce its position in plenary during this part-session. There was also an economically important agreement signed on 24 June relating to air services between the United States and the European Union, known as the ‘open skies agreement’, which will see the creation of a common transatlantic aviation area, accounting for 60% of global passenger traffic.

In the Mediterranean area, one of the areas that is very sensitive for the European Union, as you know, the Presidency, in agreement with the institutions, decided to postpone the Union summit on the Mediterranean provisionally until November, in the light of the conflict situation that existed in the area. We also believe that attempting to hold this Union summit on the Mediterranean in June might have entailed a risk of failure for the Union, and that there is likely to be a much more suitable and constructive time for the role that the Union needs to play in the Mediterranean, which is to contribute to dialogue in the Middle East.

I would emphasise that, under our Presidency, cooperation policy was discussed in the European Council for the first time during a specific debate within this august institution. In events that were of great interest to citizens and had a major impact because of their destructive power, such as the earthquakes in Haiti and Chile, the Presidency had a significant presence within the cooperation and solidarity effort, in coordination with the Commission, the Member States and the High Representative.

There have been important advances in the process of negotiation with Croatia, with the closure of three chapters and the opening of five. With regard to Turkey, chapter twelve was also opened. The process of negotiation of the Association and Stabilisation Agreement with Serbia was unfrozen, as a result of which all Balkan countries are currently involved in the process of European integration, and the European prospects of the Balkans have seen an important advance.

In the same way, negotiations have been opened with Iceland, as approved by the last European Council, after overcoming the reservations of some Member States. That is very good news for that country and demonstrates that Europe is continuing to grow, and that the European Union continues to be a magnet for all neighbouring countries, and therefore a great model of stability and progress for the world.

I would like to end, Mr President, by making a very brief reference to some of the initiatives linked directly to the expansion of the European Union in the context of citizenship. We have taken steps towards launching the citizens’ initiative, as is well known; its implementation, through negotiations that need to be held with this House, will be a major commitment with regard to citizens’ participation in the process of European integration. We unanimously approved the mandate for the Union’s membership of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, which was a major priority of the European Presidency, and we have taken steps in the fight against gender violence and in favour of equality, through the creation of the European Observatory, and by pushing ahead with the directive on a European protection order for victims of violence against women.

We also approved the action plan for the 2010 Stockholm Programme, along with the Internal Security strategy. In other areas, we carried out an initial assessment of the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum, we adopted new regulations on organ donation and transplants, and we adopted the directive on cross-border healthcare. In short, these are important issues that directly concern the interests of Europeans in their extension of rights and their promotion of greater participation in the process of the formation of European political will.

I would also like to end with a very brief reflection, Mr President. We have endeavoured during these six months to address institutional changes which, of necessity, required a response involving political vision, generosity and commitment. We set out during these six months to address the consequences of a serious economic crisis, to create confidence and unity among Europeans. We have been committed to, and worked towards, strengthening the impact and presence of Europe in the world, convinced as we are that this project has greater strength and greater vitality than when it started, with such enthusiasm and such great scope for Europeans. We are convinced that, through the Treaty of Lisbon, we can make Europe lead the world again in political stability, in being an example of democratic functioning, in economic strength, in competitiveness and in maintenance of the social model.

Finally, I would like to thank the European Parliament for its cooperation, and Mr Van Rompuy, President of the European Council, for the sincere example he sets of responsibility and leadership. I would like to congratulate the Commission on standing firm, on maintaining the Community spirit, and on being militant in its defence, despite the fact that we governments sometimes find that difficult. That, however, is what it means to integrate Europe, to have the interests of Europe at heart, and to know that that is the true path.

(Applause)

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – (PT) Mr President, honourable Members…

(ES) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish Presidency and the last six months have been a very special time for the European Union.

Firstly, it has been a period of profound transition, with the recent entry into force of a new treaty, which has given new powers to this Parliament, established a new relationship between the European Council and the rotating Presidency, and brought a new Commission into being, thanks to the support of this Parliament. In addition to all this, it has also been a period of great tension for the European economy, especially for the euro area. This crisis has posed us new challenges and required new responses from us.

So far, we have passed the test. We have shown that we are able to take unprecedented measures to ensure the financial stability of the euro area. Thus, we have maintained the basic principles of solidarity and responsibility, approved the rescue package for Greece, established a stabilisation mechanism – EUR 750 billion – and begun to strengthen the economic governance of the European Union to avoid and prevent future crises.

I would like to pay tribute today to Spain and its Presidency-in-Office of the Council, which has been very positive and successful, and which has taken place in a difficult and very particular context. The firm personal commitment of President Rodríguez Zapatero to Europe and to the Community spirit and method has been essential for meeting these challenges. The efforts made by all Spanish authorities have also been crucial. Thank you very much for that. I am particularly satisfied with the fact that we have worked together to achieve important results during these six months, providing the European Union with an agenda for new growth that is intelligent, sustainable and inclusive, and adopting key decisions for stabilising and strengthening the economy within the European Union.

With the adoption of the Europe 2020 strategy, we have established, for the first time, a global approach that combines an intelligent budgetary configuration with structural reforms, strengthened political and economic coordination, and the reform of our financial markets. Europe 2020 is our agenda for the European social market economy in the 21st century. It will contribute to mobilising all available tools, at all levels, for promoting the creation of jobs and taking advantage of new sources of growth.

The Spanish Presidency has been instrumental in moving this agenda forward and, in particular, in reaching agreement on the five main objectives put forward by the Commission. These objectives are important. They give Europe 2020 a political message that everyone can understand and which nobody can object to: jobs, education, innovation, the environment and social integration. I would like to emphasise especially Spain’s support in reaching an agreement on the objective of the fight against poverty. Many people expressed doubts about the relevance of setting such an objective within the European framework. However, I believe that we have demonstrated with this agreement that the social dimension is an essential part of our common project.

Our objectives are having a catalysing effect. They are communicated well and are well targeted. In addition, they provide us with a structure for driving and verifying progress. Following its adoption by the European Council in June, the Member States and the institutions now have the tools to apply Europe 2020 in practice, especially through the seven flagship initiatives and national reform programmes. The next challenge for all of us is to translate these into actual results.

Together with the European Parliament the Spanish Presidency has also brought significant progress in the area of financial regulation.

I said ‘progress’, bearing in mind the positions of the Council and Parliament only six months ago. However, I did not say ‘breakthrough’. Yes, we are on the verge of an agreement on the financial supervision package but we must not lose this momentum. I call on all Member States and all Members of this House to assume their full responsibility. The target date of seeing the new system up and running by the end of the year is not just for practical convenience. It is a critical political signal. All three institutions must now make decisive moves to seal the package before the summer break. I think it would be very difficult to explain to our partners in the G20 that we, who were the first to start this process, are not able to be the first to conclude it.

The Presidency rightly placed great emphasis on the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty’s new instruments and I would like to highlight in particular progress on two important files.

The first is the European citizens’ initiative. This will be a very concrete and tangible expression of the Lisbon Treaty’s goal to strengthen direct democracy in the European Union. The Commission strongly supports the objective of putting it in place as quickly as possible. We have been quick to make our proposal after an extensive consultation involving all relevant stakeholders. I welcome the fact that the Council, under the guidance of the Spanish Presidency, has now formulated its position and is able to enter into discussions with Parliament, which has, of course, a particular interest and legitimacy in this matter.

Secondly, during the Spanish Presidency, the Council agreed negotiating directives for the Union’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. This is a powerful expression of our values and of the commitment to uphold human rights and the rule of law.

Finally, I would like to commend the Spanish contribution in promoting the external dimension of EU policies. The Presidency has helped prepare an unprecedented number of summits with Europe’s strategic partners in the world. I would like to mention in particular the remarkable results of the Latin America and Caribbean summits, where the conclusion of negotiations with the Andean Community, the signature of the Peru and Colombia agreements and the relaunch of Mercosur negotiations took place. I would also like to mention – particularly because it took place for the first time – the summit with Morocco.

It is also important to mention here the crucial contribution of the Spanish Presidency to the conclusion of the negotiations on the EU-US agreement on the Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme. Thanks to its efforts and those of Commissioner Malmström, we now have a text that takes into consideration the European Parliament’s specific concerns. I know this House is going to debate Mr Alvaro’s report today, and I hope that new compromise and debate will bring us to a positive vote by the Parliament next Thursday.

Spain has also made an invaluable contribution in setting up the European External Action Service. Thanks to its efforts, the commitment of Baroness Ashton and the help of the European Parliament, we now have a political agreement which I am convinced will bring a successful External Action Service on track. The service, as it is designed, will articulate well with the work of the Parliament, Council and Commission on external relations. I therefore strongly believe that the agreement deserves the support of Parliament.

Discussion has also brought us a long way on the necessary amendments to the Staff Regulations and to the Financial Regulation, where the Council and Parliament are now ready to enter into the full codecision process. It goes without saying that Parliament will fully play its role in deciding the amending budget for 2010 and adjudicating on the amending letter for the 2011 budget, which the Commission will submit after the summer break. In the meantime, the High Representative, Vice-President of the Commission, will have the political support she needs to put the service in place.

The Spanish Presidency can look back with satisfaction at a number of important achievements in times of economic, social and institutional change. During the last six months, when Europe has been confronted with unprecedented challenges, Spain has shown once again its seriousness and its European commitment in holding the Council rotating Presidency. It has made every effort to show that Europe works and delivers, tackling the issues of concern to our citizens head-on. But there is no room for complacency, and we have to continue to build solid foundations for the future. The European Commission is working on this objective with full speed, together with Parliament, the European Council and Belgium, which now holds the rotating Council Presidency and which receives from Spain a solid record of achievement. To Spain: thank you, muchas gracias.

(Applause)

  Joseph Daul, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (FR) Presidents, Prime Minister, the Spanish Presidency of the Council of the European Union has attempted to find a place for itself in a new institutional context, between the new President of the Council and High Representative and the European Parliament’s increased power as a European colegislator in its own right.

At the same time, this Presidency has come at a time of major economic difficulties for Europe, such as the crisis with the euro in Greece and a growing social unrest, as we have seen in Spain, where nearly five million people are unemployed. In this context, several advances have been made: the creation of European mechanisms for financial stabilisation, progress in the regulation of the financial markets – here, I would ask you, Prime Minister, to continue on the same path so that we get these regulations – as well as the organisation of the European External Action Service.

It is difficult, however, to give the credit for these positive measures to such and such a rotating Presidency, the Presidency of the European Council or Parliament, and anyway, there have been various reverses or delays in these measures, as you have emphasised. I am particularly thinking of the cancellation of the summit between the United States and Europe, which was a lost opportunity to relaunch an essential transatlantic partnership. My group would like the European Council, during the summit in September on strategic partnerships, to catch up on the time that has been lost, and we propose the creation of a transatlantic market, which would surely provide a serious way of generating growth and employment on our two continents.

Ladies and gentlemen, the stakes are high, and we are therefore obliged to send signs of confidence not just to the markets, but also to Europeans: confidence in our joint capacity for innovation and for engaging in enterprise, and also confidence in Europe’s capacity to return to competitiveness, and therefore to return to growth.

In order to achieve these results, each of the Member States must play its part and take inspiration from the things that its neighbours do better. In order for the concert to be harmonious, however, we need a conductor, and this conductor must be European. My group expects European leaders to send a message of unity and confidence and to organise themselves accordingly. My group also expects the Community method to prevail over the intergovernmental method, the limitations of which have been demonstrated by the current crisis.

Prime Minister, as you have said, we intend, even following the Spanish Presidency, to maintain the same very strong stance on this Community method. So many challenges await the Belgian Presidency, and I would recommend to them, and to all of us, that we should show humility, but also efficiency.

(Applause)

  Martin Schulz, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I shall begin with a personal, albeit very important, observation. Mr Zapatero, political logic dictates that I should be glad when Angela Merkel is sad, and that I should normally share in your gladness. Tomorrow evening, however, the reverse will be the case, for Mrs Merkel and I will celebrate together, and I shall have no sympathy for you.

(Applause)

Mr Cohn-Bendit will also entertain us with his faulty footballing knowledge in a short while, but now I turn to the Spanish Presidency.

Mr Zapatero, the Spanish Presidency has had some outstanding successes, about which I wish to speak at this point. The successful conclusion in the last few days, after negotiations over the European External Action Service which were, in fact, extremely difficult – this is something I wish expressly to state – has been achieved in close collaboration with Baroness Ashton, with a great deal of work from fellow Members of this House. In the closing phases, however, it was the Presidency that made the decisive contribution. This is a success of the Spanish Presidency. I should particularly like to mention your Foreign Minister, Mr Moratinos, who made a significant contribution in bringing it to a successful conclusion.

The Spanish Presidency made a significant contribution to achieving the SWIFT Agreement. I should like particularly to thank Mr Rubalcaba, without whom the SWIFT Agreement would not have come about in its present form. I have the following to say to the President of the Commission. If the mechanistic thinking of the Commission and, in particular, that of Commissioner Malmström, had prevailed, we should not have had the SWIFT Agreement. The credit for this expressly belongs to Parliament and the Spanish Presidency.

I hope that we can come to a conclusion with regard to the steps that are still necessary in terms of banking supervision and financial market regulation. We have made considerable progress in this respect in these last few days. We are not at the end, but I hope that we can come to sensible compromises and sensible conclusions. Besides, we must have a leading role for Europe. We also need it because we have seen that if Europeans act as one – and this is also a success for the Spanish Presidency – then we have a great opportunity to define European standards that we can also apply internationally.

Let us look again at the reality of the last fortnight. The speculative attack on the euro has been deflected for the time being. What is happening? The speculators can see that European measures are protecting the currency, so they are now turning their attention to the United States and are speculating against the dollar. That would, incidentally, be a good argument for all those who were present at the G20 summit to say to the President of the United States and others that they should not think that the capitalists have only us in their sights. They turn to where they believe they can make their profit quickest. Currently, that is the dollar, but who knows, perhaps next time it will be the pound sterling or some other currency. What we need are worldwide rules. If we implement them now partially, at a European level, then we are doing the right thing, because we can then, as a powerful European Union, also implement them internationally. This is also a step in the right direction.

Mr Zapatero, I am grateful that, as President-in-Office of the Council, you have clearly said here that you support the Commission. I do not always have the impression that this is the case for everyone in the Council. Mr Daul is right to have referred to the defence of the Community method. What we need is a union of European institutions against this dreadful tendency towards renationalisation, which exists especially in the European Council. We must call a spade a spade, so thank you very much for singing the praises of Mr Van Rompuy. I also find him quite charming but, as a Member of this House, I must say that our interlocutor is the rotating Presidency. I have already given three examples of ways in which, with the rotating Presidency – which, incidentally, is led by politicians and not by some bureaucrats sitting within the administrative machinery in Brussels – and as politicians – and as a Minister you are also a Member of Parliament – we, as a rule, have a significantly better understanding of what happens in a parliament than some official sitting in a general secretariat, even if it is led by Mr Van Rompuy. That is why I believe that the rotating Presidency has proved its worth. Especially for us as Parliament, it is a direct interlocutor, with whom we can directly solve problems in specific legislative processes. One result of the Treaty of Lisbon, which I also consider to be a step forward, is the fact that the European institutions, if they work together, if they regard one another as mutually complementary, can have far greater success than if, as very often happens in the Council, they try to lock horns.

Overall, the Spanish Presidency was a successful Presidency. Thank you for your efforts and thank you for your attention.

  Alexander Graf Lambsdorff, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DE) Mr President, if football does not count, I, too, shall now make a footballing analogy. The Spanish Presidency seems to me a little like Fernando Torres’s World Cup. It began with high expectations, but hitherto, it has been a rather disappointing tournament. I hope in all honesty that as far as Fernando Torres is concerned, it will be the same tomorrow, and that we shall not have to relive the experience of 2008.

On economic policy, the Spanish Presidency set itself a truly ambitious programme: EU 2020, stricter equity capital requirements for banks, regulation of hedge funds and reform of European financial supervision. This was absolutely the correct approach in the crisis.

I must say, however, on behalf of my group, that we are disappointed with the result. Not so much with the Presidency of the Council as such, but with the Member States. We all know how diplomatic Mr Barroso is. When he says that there has been progress but no breakthrough, then for him, this is plain talking.

It is true that an agreement could be reached on the capital requirements, yet not on the regulation of hedge funds. Here, negotiations hit the buffers because no common position can be arrived at in the Council, although here too, there must be bargaining. There are also problems in the Council when it comes to financial supervision. Do the Member States really believe that in a common market for financial services, supervision should best be organised at a national level? The crisis has shown that this approach has failed. The Council should not stand in the way of efficient European financial supervision. The taxpayer is unable and unwilling to rescue the banking system one more time.

Much the same goes for the EU 2020 strategy. In the Council, they behave as if the Lisbon Strategy had not failed due to mistaken ideas. That is precisely the case, however. The open method of coordination broke down. Here, too, we need more European cooperation. A jobs and growth strategy aiming for success must be based on the Community method. The new strategy does not do this to a sufficient degree. This House has called for a different approach.

If we in Europe do not wish to settle for loss of prosperity in the long term, then we must become more competitive. For this purpose, we need an efficient growth strategy with potential for success. For this purpose, we need regulation and a reorientation of the financial markets, which focuses more strongly again on financing of the real economy. For this purpose, we need effective crisis prevention and crisis management in the form of a European financial supervision authority worthy of the name, and a European currency fund.

However, to this end, we also need Member States’ governments finally to put their budgets in order, and better coordination of our economic policy in Europe. This cannot be a race to the bottom, it must be a race to the top; we want more competitiveness in more Member States.

In foreign policy, more would surely have been achieved if Spain had recognised Kosovo. This weakened the position of the Council on this question from the very beginning. The US-EU summit and the meeting of the Union for the Mediterranean were cancelled.

There is one final comment I should like to make. My group has an extremely constructive approach to negotiations with Turkey, but to have opened a new chapter on the last day of the Presidency, almost as if it were a reward for Turkey’s abstention in the UN Security Council on sanctions against Iran, has attracted criticism even from supporters of Turkey. I believe that engagement with Turkey must be carried out differently, in a more differentiated and committed way, and in a better thought-out way, rather than rushing through decisions at the last minute.

  Daniel Cohn-Bendit, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, I shall make no remarks about football. I know you are all too clever for that. I shall only say it is a pity that Ghana has been eliminated. We can all agree on that, can we not? Good.

The attitude in this House to the statements made today – namely, that we are all satisfied – surprises me. We have indulged in empty rhetoric. Progress has been made, progress and further progress, and somehow I have the impression that apart from here, in this Chamber, no one has noticed. You might say that this is something to do with our inability at this time to communicate well enough, but that is not the problem. Plainly and simply, the problem is that we must face reality for once. The reality is this: we are making resolutions about 2020, but we are incapable of making a single penny available for the seven or eight flagship projects. That will not work. I can already see the Council saying that we must reduce the European budget because of the crisis. That means you can already mothball 2020.

We are always saying we want growth, growth, growth. Yes, but what sort of growth? Those who want growth cannot only get growth by saving. We need a European fund. Yes, but it must be a fund for solidarity and investment. Where today is Europe speaking about investment? Where? I have not heard it mentioned once in any of the speeches. Granted, you have perfected the Stability Pact, which means yet more sanctions that will not work unless you boost the economy. You can announce as many sanctions as you want, they will be of no avail. To achieve positive economic growth or, in other words, sustainable growth and green growth, you must also invest in certain sectors. I have heard nothing about that today – not a word.

I would like to reiterate something with regard to SWIFT. Mr Schulz, this House has decided on a single paragraph on SWIFT. When the Americans make a request, there must be a judicial authority to monitor whether or not the request is legitimate. Now comes the agreement that you approve of, and the answer is Europol. I did not know that Europol was a judicial institution – one learns something new every day. An American police officer asks a European police officer whether something is alright, and you believe that a European police officer will say to an American police officer that it is not? That is nonsense, since the police have to work with each other. One force cannot monitor the other. No legal system makes provision for one police force to monitor another police force. SWIFT as it stands does not therefore meet the demands of the European Parliament, as we have voted on here. You, too, should say something about that, and not just praise it to the skies, since that is simply not the truth.

(FR) Prime Minister, on the basis of your experience of the rotating Presidency, I believe that there is an institutional problem.

I believe that after six months... well, we will have to see after the next few Presidencies. I do not believe that the rotating Presidency and the permanent Presidency can function as Lisbon has defined the institutions. There is a real problem of dysfunctionality. We should have the clarity of mind to discuss this problem in the future.

  Timothy Kirkhope, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, this Presidency took office at a critical time with much at stake. As the first rotating Presidency which would also chair the European Council and the General Affairs Council, it could have given shape to a new kind of Presidency, developing constructive relationships with the President and the High Representative. In the ongoing work of the Council and the preparations for the European Council, it could have had a vital role to play in driving forward a modern and progressive European reform agenda, and in facing the crises in the economy and public debt and in the eurozone, the European Union was owed a positive force for action.

Instead, sadly, too often, this Presidency has appeared more interested in sound bites than substance. It proposed a transatlantic summit which it could not deliver, while simultaneously pursuing a policy on Cuba which has destabilised the Atlantic relationship and contributes nothing to liberating the imprisoned people of that important island. It had sought a summit of the Mediterranean Union, but this was cancelled.

In foreign policy, it seems their only consistent objective has been to try to undermine the High Representative by criticising her, for example, for not attending meetings and yet, to be frank, given the Presidency record in arranging summits, I can quite understand her reluctance in putting their meetings into her diary.

Turning to the economy, the Spanish Presidency has been virtually invisible. Making the banks’ stress tests public is clearly a significant step, but let us not pretend that it amounts to a complete strategy for recovery. It is hard not to avoid the impression that the main objective of the Presidency during the eurozone crisis has been to hide away, but with a budget deficit of over 11%, perhaps they felt good reason to avoid international scrutiny. With a large deficit and a timid reform plan for their own economy at home, they were in no position to offer Europe leadership or to set an example, and so the historic opportunity from being the first Presidency following the Lisbon Treaty has been lost.

Spain is a key member of the European Union, with its proud heritage and vibrant modern democracy. It has so much to offer, and in this House we have many distinguished Spanish representatives. Yet this uninspired, lacklustre Presidency has let down the Council, has let down the European Union and, I very much regret to say, has let down Spain as well.

  Willy Meyer, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (ES) Mr President, Mr Rodríguez Zapatero, Mr Barroso, look, Mr Rodríguez Zapatero, if there is no change to the underlying economic orientation of the Union, whoever holds the rotating Presidency is destined to dismantle the European social model. That is the plain truth. That is the reason for the general strikes in Greece, Italy, France, Portugal, and the next one, on 29 September, in Spain.

These general strikes are responses by workers and pensioners to this economic orientation agreed by you and by a substantial majority of this Chamber. There is great consensus. Just look at the differences that there are in the national debates, yet, when you come here, everyone is in agreement. That is because here, you are all in agreement on the basic orientation of an economic policy that penalises workers and pensioners, who are not the ones responsible for the crisis. They are not responsible, and yet they are going to pay for the crisis.

For that reason, Mr President, I believe that the fundamental question is whether we have sufficient strength to change this economic orientation, which threatens the social model and social and territorial cohesion. At the end of the 1980s, the Washington Consensus moved to Brussels. There should be no intervention in the economy, all strategic services held in public hands should be privatised and steps should be taken towards deregulating the market. This policy of not intervening in the economy has led us into an unprecedented crisis within the European Union, and has placed the European social model in jeopardy. Therefore, it is impossible for a President-in-Office to save the situation without changing this model, which has made the Brussels consensus a photocopy of the failed Washington Consensus. It is a photocopy, Mr President.

You began with the resounding failure that is the Lisbon Strategy. That was not part of your remit, and yet, despite that resounding failure – which aimed for 3% growth, to achieve 20 million jobs and to earmark 3% of GDP for research and development – another strategy is being introduced on the same basis of not intervening in the economy and not having public instruments, a European Treasury, a European fiscal policy, active employment policies or industrial employment policies. We do not have a single instrument, and we continue in our commitment to this failed policy. Logically, therefore, the response of the European workers’ movement cannot be otherwise. This the movement that has tried so hard to maintain the social model, and so its response is general strikes. General strikes.

Therefore, Mr President, we do not agree with the result of this Presidency, and I say to you, as I said at the beginning, that if there is no change in economic policy, whoever holds the rotating Presidency is destined to be the instrument that dismantles the European social model.

Finally, with regard to foreign policy, we do not agree with the application of the European doctrine as a neighbourhood policy to countries that do not comply with clause 2 of the association agreements. The war crime committed by Israel against the humanitarian flotilla should have been met with the response of an immediate freezing ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Marta Andreasen, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, I should like to address Mr Zapatero. You have exercised the EU rotating Presidency in the same way you govern your country, Spain – that is, with your back to your citizens. Today, I am coming back here to remind you of the infamous Spanish land-grab, a matter which I first brought to your attention in January. You have done nothing to resolve the madness affecting hundreds of thousands of people across Spain who face confiscation and demolition of their houses.

A few days ago, the head of the planning inspectorate in Andalusia acknowledged that in that region alone, 300 000 houses are affected. This is not the handful of British citizens that some want us to believe. The suggested solution is that the owners can have their houses legalised for a fee. They have already paid, Mr Zapatero. My constituents regularly ask who is running Spain. Mr Westerdale writes that he fears he is facing a situation similar to that experienced by British subjects at the hands of President Mugabe in Zimbabwe and wonders why he is receiving this treatment in a friendly European country. This is why he feels that the European Union is not capable of protecting British citizens.

(ES) Do you realise, Mr Rodríguez Zapatero, that this ongoing situation is a violation of human rights, as well as being a major component of the crisis that Spain is going through? Do you expect the European Union to come to the rescue of a country where this violation continues to occur, without the central government deciding to intervene?

For my part, you can be sure I will continue to fight in defence of all the people – the British, the Spanish and all Europeans – who are suffering this injustice.

  Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI ). – (ES) Mr President, Mr Rodríguez Zapatero, you made an error in your approach. You thought that you were actually going to preside over Europe and have an influence on the gear-wheels that make the complex European machinery work. You came to believe this because that is what you let people around you announce, that the world was going to experience a stellar moment under your Presidency. None of this has come to pass.

Let us move on to some details. With regard to these six months of Spanish Presidency, I would like to make a distinction between its political management on the one hand, and the work that has been carried out by the workers in the engine rooms, on the other. It is the first of these that has failed, and that is due to a lack of adequate impetus from the Presidency of the Government, which has fashioned a European Presidency in accordance with the swing of the pendulum. However, I would like to highlight the efforts made by the workers and their estimable desire to serve Europe and Spain. It is a fact, Mr President, that Spain has magnificent professional staff, and it is to be regretted that they are marginalised to such an extent in day-to-day reality.

That said, it must be acknowledged that several praiseworthy initiatives have been adopted during these six months. Of these, I am pleased to mention the organ donation and transplantation plan, and the work carried out on the rights of patients with regard to cross-border healthcare.

The agreements on the new Europe 2020 strategy and, in particular, those relating to the European External Action Service, which are both still too fragile, are more up in the air.

What occurred with the European protection order for victims of violence against women was regrettable, and the basic Community patent yielded the same sombre result for the livelihoods of thousands of companies, blocked, in part, by the linguistic problems engendered by Spanish legislation.

However it is the large-scale political gestures that have provided a closing balance of spectacular failure: from the Mediterranean summit to the one between the European Union and the United States, with your own government being responsible for creating excessive expectations with regard to the latter meeting. However, we would have to agree that not being able to move forward with your policy with regard to Cuba has been highly positive for the Cubans.

Finally, the advances made on the road towards better European economic governance cannot be attributed in any way to your Presidency, which was resoundingly absent on all of the most important questions.

Goodbye, then, to the Spanish Presidency. I would like to draw one positive conclusion from this experience: my imagination as a convinced pro-European is excited when I think that this could mean the end of rotating presidencies as they have been conceived of to date. This would be good news, as until Europe strengthens its common institutions by solidly uniting their fragments, it will continue to run the risk of finding itself suffocating in the vacuum of irrelevance.

  Jaime Mayor Oreja (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, Mr Rodríguez Zapatero, these first six months following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon required and merited a change in political attitude.

If the economic and financial crisis has been a consequence of the move away from the ‘real’ economy and the disordered development of the ‘unreal’ economy, the same can be said in a political context.

On 20 January, in this Parliament, Mr Rodríguez Zapatero announced the four – not two – priorities of his Presidency: first, the common market for energy; second, investment in the information society; third, a sustainable economy or industry, with a plan for developing an electric vehicle; fourth, the completion of the Bologna higher education area. I ask myself, to what extent does this statement of objectives approach the reality that we have lived through?

During his first speech, when he put forward his objectives, he did not mention the words ‘deficit’ or ‘debt’ once. The entire Presidency changed radically at the Ecofin meeting on 9 and 10 May of this year, and the euro crisis came to light.

He continued to be late and unsuccessful. Necessary measures had to be improvised in the European Union due to the lack of foresight and depth in the diagnosis of the crisis. There was an additional difficulty: because of the results of his economic policy, the person holding the rotating Presidency was not in a position to participate in the leadership required for a solution, as he had become part of the problem.

While rotating presidencies are, without a doubt, different following the treaty, in such an acute situation of economic crisis, either they assert themselves, or else they are even more limited and weighed down by the lack of confidence in, and the lack of credibility of, their economic policies within their respective countries, as in this case.

Mr President, the greatest crisis that we politicians are living through is that of confidence. A crisis of confidence of such magnitude can only be resolved if we dare to tell the truth.

We can find a description of the third fiction of this Presidency within this morning’s speech, in which it seemed that the President was only interested in extolling this Presidency.

The question that we must ask ourselves is whether we will be capable of not going back to improvising or, instead, whether we will be able to diagnose and foresee the specific crisis scenario that will have a social dimension.

(Applause)

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, over 25 years, Spain has held the Presidency-in-Office of the European Union four times, and, as on the last three occasions, it did so this time with intensely pro-European dedication and responsibility.

Above all, it did so with results. It has never held the Presidency in such a difficult context as now, surely the most difficult that the European Union has known in its entire history. In this context of crisis, the results described in President Rodríguez Zapatero’s statement are doubly remarkable, as the crisis is not just economic. It has also been political. It has affected the bond of confidence linking the public in the Member States with the European project and Europe’s institutions. In successive elections, many citizens have stayed away from the ballot boxes, asking themselves who is in charge in this crisis: the financial markets, which are not answerable to anybody, or the governments, which are democratically answerable to their citizens?

For all this, the economic and political governance of the European Union has moved forwards during these six months, which started with the delay in getting Lisbon up and running, and this is encouraging. Now, in keeping with the trio dynamic established in the Treaty of Lisbon, the pro-European impetus of this Presidency is being transferred to the subsequent presidencies: Belgium and Hungary. As everyone must be aware, none of the challenges of globalisation – demographic, energy-related, social and the fight against poverty – can be overcome by a single country on its own. We must row together, otherwise the European Union may slide towards irrelevance.

The lesson from this is clear. It has shown us our vulnerability: that of the single currency in the face of a lack of fiscal, budgetary and economic coordination; that of response times in the face of the enormity and speed of the challenges. Hence, we have the motto of the European Union: united in diversity. In no case should we be disunited in the face of adversity. From now on, every Presidency must think globally, not locally. Moreover, every Presidency, over and above legitimate national interests, must act ‘in a European manner’, responding from Europe and for Europe.

(Applause)

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – (ES) Mr President, President Rodríguez Zapatero, the crisis has forced us to take economic governance measures with regard to the financial supervision package, which collapsed yesterday, at half-past one in the morning, the creation of the rescue fund, the roll-out of the European External Action Service and the Europe 2020 strategy and its radical commitment to innovation.

In addition to prestige, leading these projects requires authority and recognition. In this context, you have been constrained and limited by the appalling data from Spain and the constant rumours about its solvency and the deficit in its public accounts. In addition, improvisation and the haste to sell an image have adversely affected the progress of good ideas, such as the European protection order. One may also ask whether the rotating presidencies are helping to strengthen real European leadership.

With regard to the Basque Country, we would include the entire ‘Y Vasca’ line on the list of rail routes. There has been no progress in the recognition of Basque as a minority language in Europe, nor on the Basque economic agreement, nor on integrating the Ertzaintza, the Basque police, into the Schengen System. Spain and France have led the anchovy plan, which has been so important for the sector, when it was agreed with them and by Parliament.

The Treaty of Lisbon has not progressed, as you announced, with regard to its regional aspects and the annexes on subsidiarity and proportionality. Again, there has not been much respect for this Parliament at the end. You did not invite us to the start of the Spanish Presidency, and you summed up in the Congress before here. We will continue demanding a voice for Europe’s regions.

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE). – (ES) Mr President, I have to tell you that this Presidency has failed us in a fundamental way as, instead of being committed to a Europe of peoples and citizens, as we had hoped, it has carried on being committed to a Europe of states and markets.

We did not expect results – after all, it is not your fault in particular, but that of the system – but we did expect leadership. You demonstrated that, for example – and here I congratulate you – by promoting the European protection order. However, it would also have been good to see this leadership in other areas: for example, in promoting financial supervision on a European scale, committing to fiscal reform on a European scale, or really committing to a tax on financial transactions. On environmental issues, you continue to avoid acknowledging the importance of energy efficiency, you continue to subsidise coal and you are still not facing up to the destruction of coastlines. SWIFT is not good news to me; it is very bad news.

Finally, with regard to respect for peoples, I have to tell you that in Catalonia, as you know, we are profoundly disappointed. Last week’s ruling has caused many Catalan pro-Europeans like me to seriously reappraise what our role is in this Europe that we would like to build and which we feel a part of, and in this we have found you wanting.

  Paweł Robert Kowal (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, it seems to me that it is very difficult to evaluate a Presidency which set itself very ambitious objectives. Perhaps one of the problems of this Presidency was those ambitious objectives, and alongside this there was the fact that the Presidency came at the time when the Union’s institutional system was changed by the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon. Among the positive aspects of the Presidency, I would include the fact that the Europe 2020 strategy was, after all, prepared and adopted, although there does also exist the fear that it will, in the future, share the fate of the Lisbon Strategy – but the Spanish Presidency will not have any influence over this.

Unfortunately, it is apparent that in external policy, Spain was not up to the task. The European Union-United States summit was not entirely successful, and also in matters which interest me – the Eastern Partnership – no progress was made at all. Even by taking advantage of the good offices of the new commissioner, Mr Füle, it did not prove possible, in my opinion, to move a single step forward in the matter of lifting or relaxing the visa regime for Ukraine, which could have been a kind of starting point, the start of something specific in the area of the Eastern Partnership. Of course, Mrs Ashton should have been doing something in this area, but this, too, was lacking. We cannot accept a situation in which the European Union’s objectives depend on which country currently holds the Presidency. If it is a Presidency from a Member State in the south, it works on objectives related to the south, and if it is from the east, it works on different objectives.

  Niki Tzavela (EFD). – (EL) Mr President, as things turned out over the last six months, the Spanish Presidency had little time left to perform its duties and we should perhaps not be overly critical. Nonetheless, in practical terms, I should like to point out two blatant omissions on the part of the Spanish Presidency.

Firstly, you wasted a major opportunity to formulate an action plan for the rational configuration of the energy market in the Euro-Mediterranean area; chaos reigns there and we all expected the Spanish Presidency to put that chaos in order.

Secondly, as regards Europe’s prospects for growth, you wasted the opportunity to promote an institutional framework for LNG [Liquefied natural gas], which is the prevalent energy fuel in the Euro-Mediterranean area.

Nonetheless, I thank you and congratulate you for your work in the Council.

  Werner Langen (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Rodríguez Zapatero, the Spanish Presidency was half a year of missed opportunities. In January, Mr Zapatero came here like a bullfighter who wanted to bring the financial market to its knees, yet in the end, we found out that he had no sword for the task.

The Spanish Presidency has left no enduring traces, Mr Zapatero. We were left with the impression that it was half-hearted, in large part lacking initiative and altogether unsuccessful, despite the best efforts of individuals. We do indeed recognise that there were enormous domestic problems to be tackled, whereby the government may have shared the blame for these. However, instead of restoring stability to Europe and leading it during the financial crisis, Spain added fuel to the fire. In football speak, one would have to say that it was an own goal.

I shall mention just a few points. You said that we have remained true to the spirit and the letter of the Treaty of Lisbon. I would query this. The rescue package contravenes the treaties and the budgetary rights of Parliament under Article 352. Not even the President of this House was involved. We have no agreement on supervision or regulation of the financial markets; rather, we are now working on it with the Belgian Presidency. We have no concrete progress on the Stability and Growth Pact. These are the facts. Moreover, as regards economic and monetary policy, the Monnet method — that is, the Community method — was laid to rest on 9 May 2010.

So, this is hardly a successful report card. You have, and I greatly regret this — I wish it had been otherwise — left no enduring traces.

(The speaker agrees to answer the question of another Member in accordance with Rule 149(8))

  Martin Schulz (S&D). – (DE) Mr Langen, would you be so kind as to address the same criticism that you have directed to Mr Zapatero also to Chancellor Merkel? That would assist the inner coherence of your argument.

(Applause)

  Werner Langen (PPE). – (DE) Mr Schulz, we are not in the German Bundestag here, and neither are we in Germany. It is the Spanish Presidency that we are discussing. Mr Zapatero said he has accomplished everything in good faith. The reality is different.

Naturally, I shall make this opinion clear to the French and German Governments; I have already done so in the case of the President of the Commission. Here, however, we are discussing the President-in-Office of the Council who is accountable; we are not discussing domestic political quarrels in Germany. We could still do that too, Mr Schulz.

(Applause)

  Linda McAvan (S&D). – Mr President, Prime Minister Zapatero has had some difficult issues during Spain’s Presidency, and these are testing times for Europe, but I am pleased that he also kept focus on other pieces of legislation which are important to citizens – a breakthrough on cross-border health, agreement on organ donation and political agreement on pharmacovigilance. I would like to commend the work of the Spanish civil servants who worked with me as rapporteur on that dossier. They were extremely professional and really have delivered a very good piece of legislation with the European Parliament. This week, we are also going to vote on illegal logging and industrial emissions. It is a solid record of achievement.

On the Spanish property issues, Prime Minister, you have seen today people who want to make political capital out of the real problems of ordinary people who fear for their life savings. We have had discussions with you and your government and officials on this issue and I hope that you will listen to this – as I know you will – because we know you care about citizens; we therefore look forward to more constructive talks.

Thank you for your work on the environment and health, and we look forward to working with you in the future.

  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE). – (ES) Mr President, Mr Rodríguez Zapatero, in January, you said you were coming to relaunch the European Union, but it is Europe that has forced you to change your autarchic policy against the crisis.

The situation with regard to the Spanish economy in 2010 is reminiscent of that in 1959. As then, the immobilism of the Spanish Government has needed to be overcome and, as then, a profound reform of the labour market is recommended for Spain.

Your European Presidency has been very poor. You have avoided the big decisions. European financial supervision or the directive on speculative funds, which date from last year, should already have been adopted, but you lack leadership. To use a footballing expression, Felipe González would certainly have scored with this ball.

Your Presidency has coincided with the Spanish economic collapse, which you were warned about. I myself reminded you in January of the dire predictions of the European Commission, which have come to pass through your inaction: an increase in unemployment, an uncontrolled public deficit and a fall in bank credit to companies. As a result, today, the international financial markets remain closed to a great many Spanish companies.

Mr Rodríguez Zapatero, I proposed to you that Catalan should be in use in this Chamber by today, and you washed your hands of the whole thing. I see that you agree with the ‘final solution’ for Catalan.

I conclude with some verses by Machado, inspired by your frivolities. ‘Castile [...], dominant yesterday, wrapped in her rags, scorns all she does not know.’

  Oriol Junqueras Vies (Verts/ALE). – (ES) Mr President, Mr Rodríguez Zapatero, despite your promises of January this year, Spain has not led the way out of the crisis or shown leadership with regard to the European Union’s external influence.

Specifically, what happened to the Euro-Mediterranean summit or the summit with the United States? When will Kosovo be recognised? Where are the measures to guarantee fulfilment of the Europe 2020 strategy? What have been your contributions to sorting out the financial market, the common market for energy or the higher education area? In which documents have you established the Mediterranean axis as a priority?

Six months have been more than sufficient for Europe to have realised that your Presidency-in-Office and your government are a faulty model. Many of us have spent a lot longer putting up with this model.

Without a doubt, you and your government constitute an excellent educational aid as to why we want to make ourselves a state within the European Union.

  Mario Mauro (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Spain has been truly fantastic this year, President Zapatero, but not your Spain. Indeed, it is the Spain of Del Bosque, Casillas and Villa which has been fantastic this year and not the Spanish Presidency of the Union, which has, for too long, appeared completely remote and disinterested in the fate of a continent in crisis.

Yet six months ago, when you set out your programme, I saw some positive signs in your words – particularly regarding the equality of human rights – despite the ideological differences between us. Unfortunately, the trust which we initially placed in the Spanish Presidency has not been repaid at all.

Mr Zapatero, I am doing nothing more than voicing the thoughts of many Members, including some who are politically close to you. We think that, just as in the Barcelona Process, you have resorted to empty nominalism, where announcing results is the same as having achieved them.

The reason behind this position originates from a radical political stance which has not cast off your heavy ideological footprint, even during a period of serious crisis. In these six months, we needed pragmatism and the desire to draw fully upon the founding values of the European Union. In many speeches, you have preferred to refer to utopias which no longer bear any relation to reality and resign yourself to an anaemic six months, despite the substantial help received from Parliament on, for example, the issue of the European External Action Service.

Mr Zapatero, do not resent these words of open criticism. They are not borne of preconceived opposition but are a judgment which you would do well to take into consideration ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Jens Geier (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Barroso, Mr Zapatero, from the point of view of those in charge of budgetary control in this House, the Spanish Presidency has made history. We are grateful that this Presidency has succeeded in removing the discharge procedure for the Council from the sphere of obscurity. Previously, the Council has refused to lay adequate accounts before the European Parliament.

Sessions had, at best, an informal character. One had to collect documents bit by bit, or they were unavailable. Answers to questions were unsatisfactory. The Council would refer in all seriousness to an agreement dating from 1970, the ‘gentlemen’s agreement’, which allegedly clarifies issues concerning the discharge, although this gentlemen’s agreement spares not a single word on this matter.

This has now changed. The Secretary-General of the Council has agreed to introduce a discharge procedure worthy of the name in a transparent procedure in compliance with democratic standards. This success of the Spanish Presidency testifies to the democratic and European convictions of the Spanish Government. For this, it deserves the praise of this House.

  Luis de Grandes Pascual (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, Mr Rodríguez Zapatero, I would have liked to have made a different speech today, believe me. You set out six months full of ambition, and set the bar so high with your claims that, when these are compared with what was actually achieved, disappointment was inevitable. What is certain is that you have not been able to overcome a complex situation for which you lacked leadership and credibility.

You yourself pointed out once that the European Union is a club with rules and I agree. However, it was up to you to demand obedience to these rules. The reality is that it was the government of Spain that urgently needed to fulfil its obligations.

Within this context, positive achievements, whilst not lacking, have been undistinguished. Unlike me, you have had time to talk about them.

Democracy is a public opinion-based system. This is how it seems: President Obama’s disdain, as well as the cancellation of the Mediterranean Summit and the one announced between the European Union and the United States, constitute very significant failures.

The rush to reach improvised agreements at any cost has not helped the image of Spanish management: as a way of achieving a respectable objective, it could be described as amateurish.

Spain is a great nation, and will continue to be one, despite the poor management of this period. Our diplomats and officials have kept a stiff upper lip and, thanks to this, Spain’s prestige will survive.

The truth is that the situation in Spain will count for more within the value judgment that will be made of this Presidency than what was done or not done here. Someone who has taken his country into a phase of uncertainty and unrest would have difficulty in providing leadership for an enterprise this difficult.

At best, this Presidency has been sadly irrelevant.

  Zita Gurmai (S&D). – Mr President, although the EU got its new legal framework by the end of 2009, it was the task of the Spanish Presidency to make Europe move and to make the framework work.

The Spanish Presidency delivered what was expected concerning the most important institutional issues. We did not agree on everything but we began to fill the Lisbon framework with life and concrete details. Next to these seemingly technical issues, the presidential programme of our Spanish friends did not lack policy ambitions. They established themselves as models for working towards gender equality and the promotion of women’s rights. Huge thanks go to this Presidency, especially to Mr López Garrido and his team, for making this often neglected issue a core one during the last six months. We have not yet managed to finalise the European Protection Order but I am hopeful that we will do so under the Belgian Presidency.

The Spanish also met high expectations on democratic rights. This is clearly reflected in their diligent effort on making the European Citizens’ Initiative operational as soon as possible. As thanks for this, the rapporteurs, Alain Lamassoure and myself, have already prepared a working document in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs on the ECI.

(ES) Thank you very much, once again, for the job that you have done, and I hope to continue working to achieve the goals that you have set out. Congratulations!

  Jan Olbrycht (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, Mr Zapatero, evaluation of the Spanish Presidency is of particular importance to us because it is the first Presidency under the new Treaty of Lisbon, and this is important for us, for example the Poles, because we are preparing for the Polish Presidency. I would like to ask if the state of affairs which has actually been achieved strengthens future presidencies or not.

I have to say that, during the Presidency, what we had expected turned out to be the case – the Treaty of Lisbon, which was intended to support a strong Europe, in fact, leads to a weakening of the Community method. Unfortunately, during the Spanish Presidency, this was very clear, the best example being the weakening of Parliament’s role in building the 2020 strategy.

The Spanish Presidency was involved in interesting work, including the very interesting meeting in Toledo on the role of cities, and this deserves to be recognised. However, for us MEPs from other Member States, it is very important to watch what is happening in Spain, too, because the Presidency is not only about leadership, but is also about leadership of the whole European Union. In relation to this, it is very important to us what the economic situation is like in Spain, including during the Presidency, as well as the arguments which are put forward. It is also important to us what model of social and civil affairs is being promoted by Spain, as well as how it defends the provisions of the treaty – which says that family matters are the sole and exclusive responsibility of the Member States. This is something which causes us very great concern.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE). – Mr President, the Spanish Presidency has coincided with a deep financial and credibility crisis in the Union. This crisis has hit the country holding the Presidency very hard. The deficit of trust in the EU economy and common currency is rooted in the huge debt burden, which is still looming large in the way of life: living today at the cost of tomorrow. Last week’s Economist asked: ‘Is there life after debt?’.

The Prime Minister referred to enhancing competitiveness as one of the main goals of the Presidency, but no real recipe has been offered as regards how to address the crisis of values, the moral crisis, and even how it would be practically possible to return to a balanced budget.

On several occasions, we have missed the Council at Question Time in Strasbourg. Numerous MEPs are still waiting for the opportunity to put a question to the Council on how the new ESDP could be applied to arms sales to third countries and whether we could finally agree to have consultations in the Council before deciding to sell modern military technology to partners outside the EU.

Lastly, I am concerned that cyber threats have not been high on the Spanish agenda. Cyber weapons are being developed secretly and we have no idea of how and when they could be used. The EU needs to take the lead in the debate on how to reduce the threat of cyber war, how to restrict cyber attacks before it is too late, and establishing whether there is any chance of agreeing on any rules on good behaviour in cyberspace.

  Joe Higgins (GUE/NGL). – Mr President, the policies implemented by the EU institutions during the Spanish Presidency were disastrous for the working-class people of Europe. We saw an abject capitulation to the sharks in the financial markets, whereby predatory banks and hedge fund pirates were allowed to exercise more control over economic policy than supposedly solid governments. President Barroso and the EU Commission acted as the enforcer for these sharks in the markets, demanding cuts across the board in public spending and in services, and you too, Señor Zapatero, acted as an enforcer for the speculators in the markets. Instead of fighting them, as a real socialist party would do, you imposed savage cuts on the living standards of the Spanish people at their behest. We now have a social nightmare of mass unemployment and a tax on living standards across Europe. I salute the workers of Spain for fighting these cuts with strong strike action. Clearly, the capitalist system only contains more and more disasters as it goes into deeper crisis. We have to sweep it away and replace it with a socialist and democratic society that can really transform the lives of our people in Europe.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) I believe that we must applaud the particular efforts made by the Spanish Presidency during this extremely difficult period. One important achievement is the creation of the European financial stabilisation mechanism, which envisages financial support being granted to states in exceptional circumstances, up to a limit of EUR 60 billion.

On the foreign policy front, the Spanish Presidency achieved positive results following the high-level meetings which took place, particularly with Latin America.

In specific terms, the resumption of negotiations on the association agreement between the EU and Mercosur countries would create a free trade area for 750 million people. However, a thorough assessment needs to be carried out on the impact of this agreement because, as Commissioner Cioloş said, the agreement could have an adverse impact on European farmers due to the increase in agricultural product imports.

  Glenis Willmott (S&D). – Mr President, first of all, I would like to congratulate Mr Zapatero on the many successes he has had during the Spanish Presidency.

Earlier, we heard criticism about issues relating to Spanish property. It is true that this affects many thousands of Spanish citizens and ordinary people who have chosen to make Spain their home. It is easy to shout from the sidelines in order to capture headlines, but if we are serious about resolving this problem, we need constructive engagement. That is what we, in the British Labour delegation, want to do. I am pleased that my colleague, Michael Cashman, and I recently had a meeting with our Spanish colleagues in the European Parliament in the hope of setting up a commission in Spain to examine those cases in which people have purchased property in good faith and used the legal system appropriately. This would be a great step forward for the many people who are suffering as a result of these issues. We hope it will have your full support and we look forward to working with you on this in the future.

  Mirosław Piotrowski (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, Mr Zapatero, the six-month Spanish Presidency came at a special time – a difficult and an experimental time. This was the first time a Presidency had operated after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, which redefined and reassigned its competences. Against a background of political, economic and financial failures, adapting the role of the Presidency to work with the newly appointed President of the Council did not develop into a major problem.

It did not prove possible to go ahead with the planned European Union-United States summit, because President Obama refused to attend, or something which was important to Spain – the project for a Union of Mediterranean states. When the Union was faced with an enormous economic crisis, Germany and France took over at the helm, setting the tone of the financial aid programme for Greece. The spectre of financial collapse also hung over Spain itself. So it is hardly surprising that it was the involvement of other countries which came to the forefront in this Presidency. Greater consideration was given to the future of the euro area than to the priorities of the Spanish Presidency. These problems will now have to be taken on, too, by the Belgian Presidency.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Mr President, it is common knowledge that the Spanish Presidency was highly problematic. Instead of seizing the bull by the horns in the traditional Spanish manner and pushing through the necessary new regulation of the financial markets and the rating agencies quickly and courageously, the Spanish Presidency took refuge in attempts at appeasement, and postponed weighty projects to be dealt with by the next Presidency.

The Spanish Presidency was announced at the start of the year as a landmark in history. In fact, six months were pointlessly wasted, and the wrong turning of centralism enshrined in the Treaty of Lisbon blindly followed further. Since Spain is well known to have massive financial problems itself, it was, among other things, overwhelmed by management of the financial crisis. Under Spanish leadership, the political meaninglessness of the EU has again been brought to the notice of the world. Important meetings have fallen through, and it was only possible to agree on stop-gap measures.

Nevertheless, the Presidency was unique. Never before have the EU treaties been so massively broken as by the rescue packages costing millions, which will soon come tumbling down on our heads, as they have merely postponed dealing with the EU’s real problems.

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, we began this year full of fear because of the global crisis, but also full of hope, because of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. In January, the Prime Minister of Spain presented ambitious plans to be realised during his leadership. Unfortunately, not a great deal of this proved possible to achieve. However, this is not the main reason why the Spanish Presidency cannot be evaluated positively.

Its main fault was chaos, which was prophetically foretold by the face of Mr Bean placed by a hacker on the Spanish website. The chaos showed itself in the fact that, on the one hand, Madrid brought about tremendous disorder in the Union’s external actions, encroaching on the competences of the High Representative, while on the other, it did not put any active measures in place in response to the worsening budgetary crisis. Mr Zapatero was unable to sense the mood in the Union when the need was for a strong leader, not on the international scene, but within the Union. The Union’s main problem was not policy towards Cuba, an arms embargo on China or the peace process in the Middle East, but a weakening of Europe as a result of the budgetary problems of Greece, Italy, Portugal and of Spain itself.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). – (HU) I would like to congratulate Prime Minister Zapatero and the Spanish Presidency, as they were able to fully focus on Europe in spite of the difficult political and economic situation at home. On behalf of the Spanish-Belgian-Hungarian Trio Presidency, I would also like to thank the Prime Minister for implementing the Treaty of Lisbon, which is now in force. The Spanish Presidency has also embarked on economic governance. However, the Belgian Presidency and, I fear, even the Hungarian Presidency, will have a lot left to do in this regard. The Spanish Presidency has also started to put speculative international money transactions and the money markets in order. The Belgian and Hungarian Presidency will have to continue this policy. Finally, I would like to thank the Spanish Presidency for its continued intensive focus on the common agricultural policy. The Commission’s paper will be finalised this year and the Hungarian Presidency will see some hot debates. Also, I would like to thank the Spanish Presidency for the visit made by Mrs Villaruiz, Secretary of State, to the Hungarian Agricultural Academy, where she presented the concept of the common agricultural policy to 500 Hungarian agricultural producers.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, firstly, I must say as a football fan I am delighted to see three European Union countries in the last four of the World Cup, and I can say without fear of contradiction that if my country, Ireland, were involved, we would be in the last four as well!

Regarding the Spanish Presidency, I think that the dynamic is all wrong in terms of judging it. We have not taken into account the fact that the new Lisbon Treaty has changed utterly the way the Presidency operates and should be judged in the future. There is too much talk about leadership, success, flagship projects and so forth. The role of the Presidency is really one of facilitation, and that is the way it should be judged in future.

In fairness to the Spanish, they did a good job in moving from pre-Lisbon to post-Lisbon. Especially in the financial area, there are now measures in place to rein in rogue banks and weak governments. So the Spanish did not do too badly and they must be given credit for making the transition during the most difficult Presidency of all.

(Applause)

  José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, President-in-Office of the Council. – (ES) Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank all of you, ladies and gentlemen, for the interest that you have shown in the Spanish Presidency of the European Union. This interest seemed to me to be more in line with a desire to be in or speak in the Spanish Parliament rather than the European Parliament during some speeches, which I will not be able to refer to individually given the time limitations. In truth, it may be that some people are nostalgic for that place, and I understand that perfectly well. They have my respect and my esteem, but the current situation is what is important at the moment, and we are in the European Parliament judging other matters, and not in the Spanish Parliament.

(Applause)

There was another speaker who also seemed to me to have this tendency to feel like he shared the responsibilities of colleagues in the Spanish Parliament, or to be intent on getting involved with what they are doing; of lending his political and ideological colleagues a hand. However, in my opinion, we have other things to do here. We are here to judge and assess the main themes of the Presidency and its six-month tenure. It is true that you have been able to ask individual questions, but I will not be able to refer to all of them. During my initial speech, I wanted to adopt two perspectives that I believe should be the common theme of a considered, calm and objective analysis of these six months.

Firstly, it was the first rotating Presidency that had to deal with the application of a new treaty that, more than anything, is a treaty that changes institutional rules and our form of government into a Union of 27, with well known institutional complexity. To my mind, as a European and pro-European government, the first obligation that I took into consideration during these six months was that there should not be a single complaint, a single failure, a single institutional hitch and that, from day one, the new institutions would enjoy all of the political and functional legitimacy required to carry out their role. This would also make it easier for the relationship between the institutions – such as the Commission – which are, shall we say, already consolidated, and the new institutional framework, to work sufficiently well.

I can say with satisfaction that the Spanish Presidency has received nothing but support and recognition for its constructive attitude from the Commission, from the Council and from the European Parliament, and I am glad that not a single criticism of the attitude towards the major institutions has been expressed today. This was our first great challenge within the European Union as we have built it. I have to say with all humility – the same humility with which I would say to Mr Schulz, who is not here at the moment because he has had to go to a meeting on the approach to be taken to dialogue relating to financial supervision, for which he apologises, that we are, of course, hoping that tomorrow night, the result will be a victory for creativity, and that we Spaniards can have a day of celebration that I will share in full with all political representatives, as Mr Schulz will do with Chancellor Merkel if the case arises; at the end of the day, it will all remain in Europe, which is always satisfying – that Spain has played its part in ensuring that the Treaty of Lisbon works satisfactorily and has done so from day one, so that all of the institutions are comfortable in their roles and we can move forward towards a greater degree of union.

The second main objective, Mr Mayor Oreja, was to move forward from day one of the Presidency in terms of economic union and common economic policy. The digital market, insofar as it has moved forward, and the electric vehicle plan, insofar as it has also moved forward, are no more than instruments for encouraging economic union, the same as the internal market. Let us, therefore, make a distinction between the main objectives and those that are instruments for ensuring that this economic union promotes greater competitiveness and combines the synergies of all Europeans within the areas of energy, industry, innovation, research, competitiveness, and also, hopefully, jobs and others.

Now let us see what the result is. It may be that the objective, which is entirely legitimate, is not shared. However, if the objective was, as expressed by the Spanish Presidency, greater union in terms of economic policy, this has been achieved beyond expectations. Firstly, because we have financial supervision, I am hoping for an agreement that achieves the desired objectives, and regulation of all financial products; and secondly, we have a momentum for reform of the Stability Pact, for greater budgetary stringency and rigour, with new instruments for compliance with the Stability Pact. Incidentally, while we are talking so much about rules, I have to say that, since the inception of the euro, Spain has complied much more closely with the Stability Pact than many other countries among those that one of the Members of this House has mentioned.

(Applause)

Let us, therefore, look at the facts. Yes, yes, let us look at the facts. Spain is the country that has complied most closely with the Stability Pact, and there are others that have broken it up to seven times: they have made use of certain expedients up to seven times. However, in the end, that is how things are. What is certain is that during these six months, we have made progress towards new rules within the Stability Pact, with more incentives, more penalties and more requirements. Let us move on to another consideration, and an analysis of the macro-economic situation of countries, including competitiveness.

Spain has put itself forward to the Commission for assessment, together with Finland, I believe, of its competitive potential and we will be moving forward with the Europe 2020 strategy, which was also approved during this period, with the intention of rectifying the fault that the Lisbon Strategy had: governance. This is because the national objectives will be much more exacting, because there will be monitoring, because there will be recommendations and because there will be, and should be, greater shared responsibility for each state and, of course, for the Commission in the fulfilment of the Europe 2020 strategy. All of this is the situation to date with regard to greater economic union, to which I would add – a consequence of events during the sovereign debt crisis – the financial stabilisation instruments adopted, or the commitments on support for Greece: commitments that Spain has, of course, supported and observed from the start, as we have done with regard to the support for Greece. From the start. We will fulfil each and every one of our commitments.

All of this is fact, and some of you ladies and gentlemen here have put forward some rhetoric, some more, some less brilliant. However, if our intention was to achieve the satisfactory implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon, we have done this. If we decided to move, together with the Commission, towards economic union that is much more solid, stronger and with more common economic policies, we have also done this. With regard to foreign policy, it is true that there was no summit with the United States, but there were two major agreements. It is also true that there were major agreements and summits with Latin America. It is also true that, with regard to the Union of the Mediterranean, prudence counselled that the summit should not take place, which does not mean that plans relating to the Union of the Mediterranean have been put on hold, and there will be a summit when it can contribute to peace in the Middle East. Therefore, with or without summits – with the United States, in this case – there were important agreements.

Of course, although the Presidency wanted to lay down a marker from day one, it did not want to get into an argument over who has the leading role within the European institutions. What was important was that the Europe 2020 strategy was adopted, and it has been adopted; what was important was that a financial support mechanism for countries was adopted, and it has been adopted; what was important was that the financial supervision package was put in place, and so it has been; what was important was that SWIFT was adopted, and I hope that Parliament will adopt it; what was important was that the ‘euro-order’ was set in motion, and it has been set in motion; what was important was the cross-border agreement with regard to health, and this is in place. What is important is the tally of agreements. The Spanish Presidency, through its drive, or through the hard work of its officials, Spanish officials, contributed to all of these and this must be acknowledged in all cases, although there will be some who do not want to acknowledge the political aspects of this, that politicians should encourage and give credit to these officials.

A point was made by one of the Members of this House about the situation of European – basically British – citizens in our country as regards property, particularly on the coast. I have to say that I, as President of the government of Spain, cannot agree with the comparison that a representative of a certain political grouping from Great Britain made, or tried to make, here, actually mentioning Zimbabwe. I cannot agree with this in any way: it is unacceptable so I do not accept it. I reject it utterly. My country is under the rule of law.

(Applause)

My country is under the rule of law, it obeys laws and it ensures that they are obeyed, and it is the courts that have to apply these laws. We would be the first to sympathise with people, in this case British citizens, who may have been the victims of a swindle by some property sector shark and we are working on this with the European Parliament and with the parliamentary groups. We will work and do whatever is in our power. Furthermore, the European Parliament has demanded, on more than one occasion, that Spain protect its coastline and its environment and we have a law for coastal areas designed to protect them from the property crisis: we must apply it. We must also, from this great institution that is the European Parliament, advocate protection of the coastline and the combating of abuses that can affect natural areas, environmental areas and the coastline that we are so determined to defend.

Finally, Mr President, I would like to thank the group presidents and, in particular, Mr Daul and Mr Schulz, for their measured tone during this sitting. The Spanish Presidency has faced up to its commitments with European and pro-European willingness, it has faced up to its commitments with an attitude of loyalty and cooperation with regard to the Commission, the Parliament and the Council, and it has faced up to its period of working with economic and foreign activity objectives, which it has fulfilled satisfactorily, by and large. Clearly not in all cases and with regard to all of the points that we had proposed, but if we look again – and I am speaking most directly to listeners from my own country – at what the Spanish Parliament passed, we can see that it was achieved in a satisfactory manner.

In any case, I would like, as rotating President of the Council, to express my profound gratitude to the European Parliament and, in particular, to the President of the European Parliament, for all of the cooperation we have received during this six-month period. We have felt supported by you, Mr President. We have felt understood by you, encouraged by you. We have felt close to this institution, although, at times, there have been harsh voices. Nonetheless, we have felt close to the European Parliament and we are cheered that it is on the side of those of us who truly have a pro-European vocation, who serve Europe loyally, and who are convinced that there is no better destiny than to journey together, united, and, sometimes, leave the lesser disputes for another time.

(Applause)

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – (PT) Mr President, I will be very brief. The questions were essentially directed at the Prime Minister of Spain, but I would just like to take this opportunity to reflect on a point of concern expressed by various honourable Members. I am thinking of my fellow Members, Mr Daul, Mr Schulz, and Mr Lambsdorff. It is an institutional issue and, once again, I would like to thank the Prime Minister of Spain, Mr Zapatero, for his commitment to Europe and to the Community method.

I think it is right to highlight that a lot depended on this first rotating Presidency. How would the rotating Presidency interpret the Treaty of Lisbon? The truth is that, as the Prime Minister of Spain said, it was interpreted in a communitarian sense.

We would like our system, which is a very complex system and continues to be complex with the Treaty of Lisbon, to function more efficiently. I think that there will come a time when we must rigorously shake up the development of our institutions, because the truth is that, even with the Treaty of Lisbon, it is sometimes difficult for the average citizen to clearly interpret the workings of the European Union.

However, I should like to stress, as was said earlier, that Spain has brought this European impulse to the structure of our joint project – an impetus which I also know is shared by the great majority in this Parliament.

The Treaty of Lisbon has always stood for more Europe, not less Europe. The Treaty of Lisbon continues the sense of Community by strengthening the powers of this Parliament, by creating a permanent Presidency of the European Council, by creating the figure of the High Representative, who is also the Vice-President of the European Commission, and by increasing the powers of the Commission in external issues or, for example, in the Stability and Growth Pact’s mechanisms of taxation.

The Treaty of Lisbon stands for more Europe, not less Europe. However, this does not mean Europe in the sense of centralised powers, but in the sense of increased value, of what we can jointly attain: Member States/European institutions. And the Spanish Presidency’s interpretation favoured more Europe.

However as the Spanish Prime Minister said very well, the treaty does not resolve every problem. It is essential for the 27 governments to carry out the political will of the treaty because, by their own inclination, the European institutions are, in reality, instinctively communitarian. We also have to ask our Member States, our 27 Member States, to apply the Treaty of Lisbon in this Community spirit.

Spain has set an example. I am sure that Belgium, once it assumes the rotating Presidency of the Council, will continue to take the same approach, or even step up this approach, knowing, as we do, Belgium’s great European tradition.

However, it is essential that Parliament, the Commission, the Council and the European Council are truly committed to the European implementation of a treaty which will allow us to respond more efficiently to our fellow citizens’ expectations and anxieties. Therefore, I would like to, once again, thank the Spanish Government, its Prime Minister, all of its associates and the whole Spanish team, who have worked with such commitment during these past months; at times, it was extremely difficult.

The truth is that these were the most difficult months in the history of European integration, during which it was put to the test. The real stress test is not on the banks, but on the European Union and our willingness to be united in the euro area and in Europe. It was in this extremely difficult context, when a new treaty came into force, that Spain assumed the rotating Presidency with the Commission, which took office in February. This Commission is less than five months old. We have also done everything possible to recover from the delays caused by this transition, and the truth is we must acknowledge, earnestly and honestly, the efforts made by the Spanish Presidency.

Therefore, without prejudice, obviously, to the plurality of political viewpoints which exist within this Parliament, I should like to emphasise that all of us who believe in Europe must be united, whether from the centre, the left or the right, as must the different institutions. We must be united in order to strengthen our European project.

  President. – Thank you, Mr Barroso. Once again, I would like to thank the Spanish Presidency and Mr Zapatero. That completes this item.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I note the work done by the Spanish Presidency, taking into account the particularly difficult circumstances which marked the first half of this year. Firstly, the Spanish Presidency’s mandate coincided with a period of transition to a new institutional structure as a result of the Treaty of Lisbon’s entry into force. There are now new actors such as the President of the Council and the High Representative for Foreign Affairs. In this new institutional context, I would also like to highlight the enhancement of Parliament’s competences and powers. Secondly, this Presidency has been faced with a period of severe financial and social crisis in Europe. It has faced the attack on the euro and the Greek crisis, and it has struggled with an alarming increase in unemployment and the deficit in its own country. It has contributed to the creation of a financial stabilisation mechanism to the value of EUR 75 billion and to improving the regulation of financial markets. At the same time, the Spanish Presidency never lost sight of the implementation of Europe’s priorities for policy, particularly in relation to the environment. Given this, I would like to highlight the Spanish Presidency’s cooperation in preparing and discussing my report on bio-wastes, which it unconditionally supported and which was adopted by an overwhelming majority this week in this Chamber.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Regrettably, the Spanish Presidency did not seek answers to the serious problems that the European Union is experiencing. Furthermore, during this time, unacceptable measures were taken which demonstrate a lack of solidarity. Moreover, what they did in relation to the sovereign debt is very serious.

In fact, the Presidency awaited Germany’s decisions and allowed the problem to drag on, with serious consequences for Greece and Portugal, and for Spain itself. This also proves who holds power in the European Union after all. The list of the greatest powers is becoming increasingly limited to Germany and, at best, France.

The slow solutions were subsequently of poor quality. Instead of encouraging solidarity among the richest countries, and increasing Community budgets for actions of solidarity to ensure real social and economic cohesion, the Spanish Presidency turned to the International Monetary Fund and lent money to Greece at a higher rate of interest than the European Central Bank levies upon private banks. To make matters worse, they imposed unacceptable conditions, which made the cost of the crisis, which the EU helped to create, fall upon the workers and the poorest members of society, merely to favour the profits of economic and financial groups. The approval of the Europe 2020 strategy will mean taking the same approach.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing. – (PL) The recently completed Spanish Presidency of the Council of the European Union, was, for at least several reasons, one of the most important of the last decade.

Firstly, Spain had to face the difficult task of ‘testing’ the changes introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon. These changes were implemented efficiently, despite the fact that almost until the beginning of the Presidency, the government in Madrid did not know which treaty would be the basis for shaping the Union agenda.

Secondly, Spain had to face up to the greatest financial crisis in the history of the common currency, the euro. I would like to remind everyone who has a sceptical view of the recently completed Presidency that the Spanish Government was one of the first to properly estimate the scale of the crisis and demand introduction of effective countermeasures, including sanctions for exceeding the permissible budget deficit.

Thirdly, the Spanish Presidency should be valued for its enormous contribution to work on the SWIFT negotiations and the form of the European External Action Service. Thanks to Madrid’s work, which, at first sight, was not very effective, agreement in both areas is now within arm’s reach. The results of the Spanish Presidency of the Council of the European Union can most certainly be considered successful. Let us hope the Belgian Presidency which has just begun will maintain the current pace of work and take the road marked out by the government in Madrid.

  Ioan Mircea Paşcu (S&D), in writing. – Recently, one of the Commission’s spokespersons publicly regretted the way the Romanian Parliament had amended the law on the functioning of the National Agency for Integrity. However, the Romanian Parliament was implementing a decision taken by the Constitutional Court, declaring unconstitutional some of the articles of the initial law. The fact that the Romanian Government – motivated by internal politics – has not reacted and that the Commission probably considers it tolerable to combat corruption in Romania using means that go beyond the law of the land does not make those remarks acceptable, because, in fact, they question the Constitution, the actions of the national parliament and the sovereignty of a Member State and are, therefore, a matter of principle and not of political opportunity! Besides, if the Romanians are ‘corrupt’, who was it who ‘corrupted’ them?

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I congratulate the Spanish Presidency on the past six months of leadership of the Union. It was a difficult and a significant Presidency. Difficult, because it was the first after entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, with the appointment of the President of the European Council and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The programme for the Presidency was prepared on the basis of the old treaty, because during the preparation stage, the fate of the Treaty of Lisbon was uncertain. The crisis in Greece slowed down realisation of the Presidency’s objectives. Another difficulty was the late approval, in February 2010, of the new composition of the European Commission and the resultant delay in adopting its legislative programme.

The Presidency was significant: a) institutionally, because with adoption of the new treaty, it established certain principles of operation for the institutions and b) for the long term, because with adoption of the 2020 strategy, it established the directions of the Union’s work for the next 10 years.

The achievements of Mr Zapatero’s socialist government which should be acknowledged as the most important are: a) adoption of the action plan for implementation of the provisions of the Stockholm Programme (cooperation on internal affairs and the justice system), b) the commitment of the Presidency to eliminating violence against women, c) adoption by the Council, on 3-4 June 2010, of the negotiating mandate on accession of the EU to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, d) the start of the work of the Standing Committee on Operational Cooperation on Internal Security and e) adoption of the draft regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the procedures and conditions required for a citizens’ initiative.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The European Union’s Spanish Presidency set as its objective the complete, rapid implementation of the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon. This has created a new institutional equilibrium, granting increased powers to the European Parliament and national parliaments, and adding a European dimension to the respect for fundamental rights.

During the EU’s Spanish Presidency, important progress was made in areas such as implementing the Citizens’ Initiative, specialist opinions which need to be provided by national parliaments based on the additional protocols of the Treaty of Lisbon, new regulations governing the delegation of executive powers to the Commission, as well as the European External Action Service. We welcome the conclusion of the OpenSky Agreement between the US and EU, aimed at 60% of international passenger transport, along with the agreements for common regulations in the fields of civil aviation and air transport safety between the EU and Canada. I would also like to applaud the progress made on the cooperation agreement between the EU and Mercosur.

However, during the Spanish Presidency, the European Union was also faced with an alarming rise in unemployment, against the background of the economic and financial crisis which started in 2008. For this reason, I believe that reducing unemployment and providing sustainable economic growth ought to remain the number one priority for the EU’s Belgian Presidency too.

(The sitting was suspended for several minutes)

IN THE CHAIR: STAVROS LAMBRINIDIS
Vice-President

5. Agreement between the EU and the USA on the processing and transfer of financial messaging data from the EU to the USA for purposes of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (debate)

  President. – The next item is the report by Alexander Álvaro, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of financial messaging data from the EU to the USA for the purposes of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme (11222/2010 - C7-0158/2010 - 2010/0178(NLE)) (A7-0224/2010).

  Alexander Alvaro, rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I am very grateful that the Commissioner can be here. I am sure that the Spanish Presidency’s need for discussion is about to come to an end. Where we had bulk data transfer in SWIFT, we now have a bulk gathering in Parliament. Well, let it be so.

In February, we sent a very clear signal as Parliament that the Treaty of Lisbon not only gives us more opportunities, but also, and above all, more responsibility as the European Parliament. We govern with, and together with, the Commission and the Council at European level. The Commission has been requested to present us with an improved agreement and to enter into negotiations once again, and the mandate for these negotiations has been confirmed by the European Parliament. Given all the differences that might exist between the groups and, above all, the different points of emphasis, I believe it would not be honourable to deny that the Commission has made some genuine progress. That is something that we must give it a great deal of credit for, especially in the context of the arrangement within which it has been working and of the opportunities that were open to it.

At the same time, however, it emerged during the subsequent negotiations that the word ‘impossible’ was used a great deal. It was impossible to alter certain things, or to reopen the agreement. It was impossible to demand concessions from the United States, let alone for the European Parliament to have any influence over the Council. If I personally have learnt anything from this discussion, it is that the word ‘impossible’ does not exist in politics if the political will is there. For we have seen that the European Parliament was in a position, in collaboration with the Commission, to ensure that improvements were inserted into the text of the agreement. After the agreement was initialled, the Commissioner was able to agree with the United States that an important request – namely that European officials could be in situ in Washington to monitor extraction of data and in cases of abuse to prevent it should the occasion arise – should be included in the agreement, namely in Article 12(1).

Furthermore, an important issue for all groups was the transfer of bulk data to the United States. That is something that we have achieved in collaboration with the Council and, it must be admitted, using a certain amount of pressure – that in the medium term, we are in a position to resolve this problem. It will not be done overnight, but we have a clear concession from the Commission, enshrined in a Council document – in passing, I can say that we have never before been able to amend a Council document with our wording, so this is a unique occurrence – that after one year, the Commission must lay before us a technical and legal framework for the extraction of this data from European soil.

After three years, we must also receive a progress report on how far this system has developed in the interim. There is a reference to Article 11 of the agreement in this inserted text, to wit that a progress report must follow within three years, and Article 11 of the agreement states that if the European Union works on a procedure itself, both parties – the US and the European Union – must amend the text of the agreement accordingly. This means that we have the possibility of revisiting this afresh, without surprising anyone or damaging mutual interests. We have managed to ensure that, in the event that this system does not exist after five years, there must be serious discussion and then negotiation, that the agreement must then be terminated according to Article 21(2), and that a new agreement must be drawn up on the basis of what then exists.

I must, above all, reassure those who are concerned that their personal bank data, rental payments and miscellaneous remittances will be transferred to the United States. It is explicitly provided that no national data transfer is included in the transfer of data to the United States. Internal European bank data transfers will also largely not be conducted via SWIFT. These are instead SEPA data, which are explicitly excluded from the agreement. What remains, therefore, are data from the European Union to third countries, which are transferred to and evaluated in the United States, until we are in the position to do this ourselves.

In conclusion, as I still have a little time left following this round of speakers, I should like to say that this process has taught us that the Commission, the Council and Parliament must pull together more closely, and, when it comes to coordination, cooperate even better. I believe that, with reference to the changes that the Treaty of Lisbon has set out, we have shown what form they can take, and that, together with the Commission and the Council, we have been aware of our responsibility to present a sensible solution.

As has been said, not everyone in this House is pleased, but I would like expressly to thank my fellow Members, including those who will sit in opposition, for their willingness to propose key points. To fellow Members from the larger groups, who will be prepared to vote with us for this agreement on Thursday, my thanks also go to you for the cooperation and good shared work that we have enjoyed. As I have already said, my particular respect goes to those among my fellow Members who will be voting against, as they have played a most constructive role in this process. One can never attain 100%, however, when one has four negotiating partners.

  Stefaan De Clerck, President-in-Office of the Council. – (NL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start, of course, by congratulating the rapporteur on his hard work, and also Commissioner Malmström on her splendid and constructive work. In the context of the art of the handover, I should, of course, like to thank the Spanish Presidency verbally; Mr Zapatero was here a minute ago. I have the honour of being among the first members of the Belgian Presidency to be present in this House. We shall endeavour to exercise the rotating Presidency with verve and a great deal of Belgian persuasiveness. We are about to put the finishing touches to an issue on which the Swedish and Spanish Presidencies did the preparatory work.

Parliament has clearly played its part in this. It decided on 11 February 2010 to reject the interim agreement. The new agreement was approved on 28 June 2010. It is indeed proof of Europe’s decisiveness that we achieved a result in this way, in consultation between all the institutions. I shall not list all the many improvements – this has already been done – but instead just touch on three that are fundamental. One important aspect is the introduction of effective legal remedies so that everyone can see whether rectifications, erasure or blocking of data have been implemented. Article 18 is a good article. Article 12 represents a second improvement. I freely admit that supervision by independent monitoring authorities goes without saying, and that this change, which was requested by Parliament, is a constructive one. Therefore, taking into consideration also the clarifications and recommendations that have been added, the way in which day-to-day supervision of the extraction of SWIFT data is to be carried out constitutes a positive improvement.

Thirdly, I am very pleased that this is a European solution and that Europol is to play a part. This is a methodology we need to master. We need to further strengthen our own institutions. We need to have faith in them. Europol has experience with data-protection rules, and we must assume that this was a good choice.

Also, it has to be said that the Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme (TFTP) has already produced some important results, and we must continue to defend the security of our citizens. The fight against terrorism is necessary, and we must ensure that it is carried out. One thousand five hundred dossiers have already been handed over in that way. Therefore, I believe that we should continue with this approach, as we, the Council, have entered into a commitment to take steps within Europe towards progress and towards developing our own system, a European system, rather than merely relying on our partners or falling back on the American system. The steps to be taken after one, three and possibly five years have been set out by the rapporteur, and have been incorporated into the draft Council decision.

In conclusion, therefore, ladies and gentlemen, we must offer maximum guarantees of the security of our citizens. We must shoulder our responsibility in that regard, and we must do so by striking a successful balance with data protection, whilst bearing in mind our commitment to building up our protective mechanisms. I thank you in advance for the support I hope you will give to this important step, this important intervention by the European Parliament.

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I am really glad to be back in the plenary today on the occasion of this debate. I am especially happy that we have achieved, as the rapporteur and the President said, good cooperation between the three institutions for a text that I hope you will approve later this week.

This has only been possible because of the close cooperation we have had: all the institutions, the rapporteur, the political group, the committee, and outside representatives of the group. I would like to thank all of you wholeheartedly.

I am very satisfied that the agreement we signed on 28 June gives us a new base and a new start for EU-US cooperation. I am delighted that the structures and the procedures have worked well – not without difficulty, but they have worked well – and it has allowed us in record time to negotiate an agreement which ensures good high-level protection of personal data, whilst maintaining a counter-terrorist programme that helps to save lives in Europe and in the US and beyond.

The agreement for which I ask your consent this week is considerably different from the interim agreement that you rejected in February. Let me just mention a few points.

It empowers a European public authority, namely Europol, to verify that each and every request is tailored as narrowly as possible in order to minimise the amount of data requested.

It takes account of Parliament’s call for a twin-track approach, holding out the prospect of an EU mechanism in the medium term allowing for extraction of data on European soil and for a more targeted transfer of data.

The rapporteur laid out the provisions that we will take. Immediately after the vote, I will begin a study to consider the possible introduction of a European system. This system will be the basis for a full impact assessment taking into account the legal, technical, economic and other aspects of a future European TFTP mechanism.

The agreement also includes significant data protection when it comes to transparency, rights of access, rectification, erasure and redress. It allows the Commission to appoint a person who will monitor the day-to-day extraction of data from the TFTP database and who will be empowered to query and even block searches. This person will be on the premises where the US analysts are working and will have full access to the TFTP searches to ensure permanent monitoring. This is a major achievement.

Moreover, the agreement empowers the EU to undertake regular and detailed reviews of the TFTP. The first such review will take place six months after the entry into force of the agreement. The review team will include data protection experts and an expert with a judicial background and they will be able to do random checks.

Many of these changes are the direct results of discussions that I have had with the European Parliament rapporteurs – both of them, and I would like to thank them both – and other key members of the political groups. This is indeed an achievement of Europe: the Council, Parliament and the Commission.

Another important point here, which the President referred to, is that the Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme will help to make our lives safer. Member States have confirmed the enormous value of this information derived from the TFTP which the US authorities share with us.

We also know that since the start of this year, leads on known suspects have gone cold because EU-stored TFTP data have not been transferred to the US for the last six months. This has been a serious situation and I am relieved that we are now closing this security gap.

The London bombings took place exactly five years ago. This sad anniversary makes us remember the victims and their families and we wish that this tragedy had never happened and that it will never happen again. We must do our best to prevent future attacks and this agreement is one important tool in the fight to prevent horrible attacks like this one.

For all these reasons, I would ask you to give your consent to the agreement on Thursday. I am confident that most of you will share the opinion of the rapporteur and acknowledge the many important improvements that have been made in this agreement.

(Applause)

  Ernst Strasser, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, this agreement is not just any agreement; this agreement is a milestone in the implementation of the Lisbon process. Here, Parliament has been given responsibility; here, Parliament has assumed responsibility, and here, Parliament has also demonstrated responsibility.

Secondly, this is a great political success for Parliament, vis-à-vis the Americans, vis-à-vis the Council and vis-à-vis the Commission. Thirdly, this is a great success in terms of content, since this agreement has, on Parliament’s initiative, brought about our own TFTP installation, which we need if we are to make progress here in Europe.

We have not achieved everything, but a great deal has been set in motion, thanks to the good cooperation of the Commission and the Council – the Council has been very active – and between the groups in Parliament. I must especially thank the rapporteurs for having done a good job.

  Claude Moraes, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, in the context of our group’s rejection of the interim TFTP Agreement, we welcome the decision by the Spanish Presidency and the US to reopen negotiations to take on board key data protection safeguards for all EU citizens.

Today, our group can support the Alvaro report, not because it represents the perfect agreement, but because it contains the key protections we would all expect to see in an international data sharing deal of this importance – as Mr Strasser said, in this milestone event. It signals the Parliament’s ability, post-Lisbon, to represent the interests of all EU citizens in its dealings with the Council, Commission and third countries. It is a new start, as Mrs Malmström said.

On the central point, the transfer of bulk data of EU citizens, we have successfully brokered the so-called twin-track approach, combining strict safeguards, such as the EU appointment of EU staff in the US Treasury, with a concrete timetable leading the way to a European solution for the extraction of data on EU soil.

This agreement is about the serious balance between fighting terrorism and protecting the freedoms of our citizens. Tomorrow in my constituency of London, we celebrate the anniversary of the 7/7 bombing. We all know what this agreement is about, but balance is critical. In any negotiation, there must be give and take, but my group believes that EU citizens can feel that their Parliament, working with an effective Presidency, secured many of the safeguards they expect and an agreement which would infinitely outstrip the negative potential of 27 bilateral agreements. Bilateral agreements may not contain elements such as judicial redress on a non-discriminatory basis, rectification and erasure and a prohibition on data mining and profiling. Better an EU deal with real safeguards than bilateral agreements with unknown consequences.

For all of these reasons, our group will support this renegotiated deal and proudly stand by the safeguards we have helped to secure with the rapporteur and all of the other groups on behalf of EU citizens and their freedoms.

  Renate Weber, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, let me start by congratulating my colleague, Alexander Alvaro, on today’s result. I know that he has been working very hard to achieve what we have today. Let me also thank Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert for her hard work on this difficult dossier while she was a Member of this House.

The text of this agreement is not perfect. However, in the months between today and February, when we rejected the first version, Parliament has shown itself to be a reliable and responsible player. We have been constructive from the start. It has never been our goal to obstruct the whole process for no reason, because combating terrorism is as important for us as it is for our American partners, but, at the same time, we wish to stick to our own values and principles.

So let us vote on this new agreement and let us focus on the future and make sure that both the Commission and the Council live up to their respective promises as enshrined in the agreement or attached to the agreement, because our ultimate goal remains a durable and legally sound European solution. We promised our citizens extraction of data by the EU on European soil – a promise that we have to keep.

  Jan Philipp Albrecht, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the opposite of good is good intentions. The ways and means by which the previous Conservative, Social Democrat and Liberal speakers have justified their prearranged support for the new SWIFT Agreement suggest to me that they are following the principle of attack being the best form of defence, rather than that they are actually convinced by their own words.

For the fact is that the new SWIFT Agreement has done practically nothing to change the substance of the criticism that this House clearly expressed by an overwhelming majority in its rejection in February and its resolution of March. An enormous amount of personal bank data pertaining to citizens who will overwhelmingly be above all suspicion will continue to be transferred to the US authorities, to be stored there for five whole years, without any review by an independent judicial authority.

Only the European police authority, Europol, which is itself interested in the results of investigations, will authorise the requests of the US authorities. All this is not only politically wrong and damaging to the defence of European fundamental rights, but it is also entirely contrary to European constitutional law. Both the European Court of Human Rights and the national constitutional courts, as well as the Data Protection Officers, have ruled that the fundamental mechanisms provided for in the agreement are in breach of the law. As the European Parliament, we have not even succeeded in asking our own legal services for an evaluation before the vote takes place.

For these reasons, we as Parliament should not vote for such an agreement. As Greens, we would, for this reason, be in favour of a second rejection and a genuine negotiation of common principles with the United States, before expanding the exchange of information to such an extent.

  Timothy Kirkhope, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, I would like to thank Alexander Alvaro and his predecessor, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, as well as the US authorities and, in particular, the American Ambassador, Mr Kennard, for their hard work, perseverance and determination to produce another agreement and maintain a positive relationship between the EU and the US. We should congratulate the US in their sustained belief that progress was possible here, and for once again continuing down the route to an EU-US international agreement.

I believe that this time we are all here with a lot more goodwill and cohesion following six months of mostly successful but testing negotiations. Parliament has had to push hard to be heard and for its voice to be respected. What we are finally being presented with is an agreement which is not only new, but improved; one which we can live with, and one which we should be happy about, especially with vital lessons having been learned within our Parliament and within the EU institutions. The deal is good compared with last time, including, as it does now, a judicial review, EU oversight, review procedures and blocking mechanisms. It represents for us the future possibility of our own EU TFTP system. It is certainly more equal, more open and more democratic.

For those Members who have remaining concerns, it is not perfect, but may I remind this House that we do not live in a perfect world. Indeed, we live in a world full of dangers, as Claude Moraes highlighted a moment ago in relation to London. That is exactly why this agreement is needed. It is why we do not just have a duty to protect the data and the rights of our citizens, but also to protect their ongoing security and their safety.

Last night in committee, this agreement was overwhelmingly adopted. It was a victory for common sense and I hope the same result can be echoed within this House when we vote together. Now is the time to put aside our individual ideals and be practical for the sake of the people we represent. Now is the time for the reputation of the EU as a serious international body to be renewed. Now is the time for us to behave reasonably and responsibly. Now is the time for this House to vote in favour of the text, which my group will certainly do.

  Rui Tavares, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what are we talking about? We are talking about almost 90 million financial messages per month, a figure that equates to more than one billion financial messages per year. These financial messages originate from Europe, either between European countries or between Europe and the rest of the world. For months and years, this is what we have referred to in this Parliament as bulk data, the block transfer of data.

Parliament considered refusing the transfer of bulk data, for the first time, in February, when it rejected the agreement. It did this for a second time in May, with a resolution in which it clearly stated that the transfer of bulk data is illegal. Now the transfer of bulk data is here. This is the substance of the agreement; the substance of the agreement does not change, and everybody in this House knows that very well. Therefore, there are good reasons for continuing to vote against it.

This agreement has many weak points. When they tell us that it gives the right to judicial review, to transparency ... my dear ladies and gentlemen, we know all too well that this is an executive agreement with the White House. The American law is not changing; it is not passing through Congress. European citizens residing in the United States of America are discriminated against because of such an agreement. The many beautiful words in the agreement do not have any kind of basis in practice, and well we know it.

Yet, they then present us with the crucial issue concerning the role of Europol. It must, however, be stated clearly that Europol is not charged with the protection of data. We have a European Data Protection Supervisor which the European Commission and the European Council never wanted to include in this agreement.

Europol is an agency which must be controlled because it benefits from this agreement. It receives police clues, but it is not a filtering agency which serves to protect the data of European citizens. We know that this is wrong; we know that it is both illegal and unconstitutional. Yet only yesterday, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs did Parliament a disservice by refusing to ask the opinion of Parliament’s Legal Service on Europol’s role here, which we know is very wrong.

The Left Group will ask the Legal Service for that opinion – and I would like to thank our fellow Member, Mr Alvaro, who has worked hard and has been transparent in his work, cooperating with rapporteurs from each group – because, my dear friends, we can choose whether we want to know or not. We are charged with the task, as legislators, of foreseeing the legal implications of this agreement, and the Left Group will vote resolutely against this agreement.

  Gerard Batten, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, this agreement is proposed under the Lisbon Treaty and therefore lacks all democratic legitimacy. The peoples of Europe were systematically denied referenda on the Lisbon Treaty because the Europhile political elite knew that they would reject it.

This is a problem that will come back to haunt us continually in the years to come. You have created an illegal state and now you are making illegal laws! Look at the way that this was done. Those few MEPs who were given access to this secret report, or secret agreement, were only allowed to see it after signing a declaration of honour not to reveal its contents. Most importantly, the people of Europe, to whom the information actually belongs, are totally unaware of its contents. More specifically, the proposed legislation is illegal under existing UK data protection law governing the international transfer of private citizens’ personal details. Under the Act, such information cannot be shared without the consent of the individuals concerned. The US authorities have already shown that they simply help themselves to such data as and when they feel fit. The USA cannot be trusted to observe other nations’ rights.

The confidential and private financial data in question belongs to the individual – and not to the European Union or the European Parliament. They have no right to share it with the USA or anybody else. Britain’s representative on the Council appears to have overridden existing national law in order to reach this agreement. By what right? However, we all know that the totally undemocratic and illegitimate EU legislation takes precedence over national democratic law!

Terrorism has to be opposed, but it must not be used as a cloak to remove citizens’ rights and protections. This is just the latest example of how the EU is creating an undemocratic, illegitimate political state. The UK Independence Party will vote against.

  Daniël van der Stoep (NI). – (NL) Mr President, the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV) will be voting in favour of the agreement with the United States, and therefore of the underlying report. Cooperation on the fight against terrorism is extremely important to me and also to my party. Let us not forget, however, why – regrettably – it is necessary to cooperate with the United States in this way. The global jihad poses an increasing threat to the world. The fight against Western values derives financing and ideological encouragement from the Middle East. Let us be very clear about this.

Mr President, I myself was in Washington, DC on 11 September 2001 and visited the disaster scene at the Pentagon a few hours after the attacks. An impenetrable, indefinable stench of an aeroplane that had flown into a building hung in the air. It was a terrible stench; the stench of terrorism. If, this week, we are able to prevent terrorist acts by giving our consent to the agreement with the United States, that would be fantastic.

  Simon Busuttil (PPE). – Mr President, I am a law-abiding citizen and I want my security to be protected without excessive intrusion into my privacy. But, equally, I want my privacy to be respected without this having to be done at the expense of my security.

With this agreement, we have done just this. We have shown that privacy and security do not need to be played off against each other. We have shown that we can have them both. We have shown that we can strike a fair balance. This is not a zero-sum game. I believe that this is precisely the kind of balance that our law-abiding citizens expect from us. This is why we should support this agreement, and we should be proud to support it because we have played a major role in shaping it.

  Birgit Sippel (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, a preliminary remark. To accept or to reject, either decision is worthy of respect. What is not acceptable, however, are certain exaggerations, half-truths and falsehoods, frequently devoid of any knowledge of the facts, which have also been voiced in the published debate. More objectivity and less emotion would surely have been fitting.

To come to the point, fighting terrorism is just as much about the defence of democratic values and freedoms. One of these also requires the use of data, while the other requires a high degree of data protection. It is precisely here that, under pressure from the European Parliament, we were able to achieve a great deal: verification that a request is actually founded on a legitimate suspicion of terrorism, and daily checks by EU officials in the US Treasury Department that only data pertaining to suspected terrorists are being examined, including the possibility of stopping the extraction of data. We in Parliament are convinced that this important function must be regulated in agreement with all institutions. Compliance with standards, with the involvement of the Data Protection Officers, must be reviewed annually, and, for a storage period of five years, an annual audit to ensure that data which is not required is deleted in good time.

To reiterate, intra-European transfers are not affected. Nonetheless, not everything was achieved.

For example, Europol. I should like to ask the European Commission not to wait until 2013, but to prepare draft legislation quickly which ensures parliamentary control by means of codecision.

  Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE). – Mr President, I will vote in favour, but with great reluctance and hesitation. This agreement has serious shortcomings which leave it open to legal challenge. It puts the final verdict in the hands of the courts, rather than the policy makers, where it belongs. Concluding international agreements that are not legally watertight is a risky strategy. This agreement is therefore no reason for jubilation, but it is the least bad option.

Although I share many of the doubts and concerns of the ‘no’ voters, rejection will not result in a better agreement and we all know that. Why? Because the Member State governments – not the US Government, our own governments – insist that the bank data of European citizens be processed by third countries. It is only thanks to the European Parliament that our personal data will, in future, be filtered by European authorities under our own control. Putting an end to the bulk data transfer in the longer term is major progress that we should recognise.

Finally, colleagues, this House, by voting ‘no’, has a heavy responsibility to ensure quick and full implementation of the Council decision.

  Hélène Flautre (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, I would like to thank Mrs in ’t Veld for her speech. At the very least, it clearly explains the reasons for her vote in favour, because from the start, in the speeches from the two large groups, I have not heard anything but smokescreens.

The reality is that this agreement is not obviously any different, at least on the main points which motivated the opposition of the European Parliament in February. There are still cases of haphazard data transfer, and there is still the retention of data for five years. There is still effectively no right of recourse for European citizens on American territory, and there is the very important question raised by Mr Tavares concerning Europol. Europol is not a judicial institution, and it is not me who says that – it is the texts, the treaties. The European and national data protection supervisors are all in agreement on these essential points.

As for me, I have the feeling that after having flexed our muscles – as you said, Mr De Clerck – we are now kowtowing, and this is not good news for European citizens.

(Applause)

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Mr President, what was negotiated for the SWIFT Agreement and is now to be sold as data protection is, in fact, an embarrassing act of self-deception on the part of Europeans. As long as citizens guilty of no crime can, by means solely of transfers external to Europe thanks to data packets, come into the sights of the US secret services, it is apparent that a mockery will be made of data protection.

For they say, quite tersely, that narrowing it down to single individuals is currently not technically possible. If limiting transfer data to specific requests is not yet achievable, then these data should simply not be provided, and that should be an end to it. Once the agreement is implemented, you can be sure that no one will care in the slightest about setting limits.

The EU’s own monitoring system which is to be set up will turn out, within a few years, to be a placebo, a sedative for critics. Storing up limitless data packets over so long a period of time – and five years from the point of view of information law is a small eternity – in the absence of any judicial intervention runs contrary to our understanding of a modern state founded on the rule of law. An increase in data protection is thus nowhere in sight in this agreement.

  Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, we would congratulate Mrs Malmström and Mr Alvaro and ourselves for the support proclaimed for the agreement by the various groups that form a large majority in this House. Let us also respect those not in agreement.

Transatlantic security surrounded by democratic guarantees is essential for short-circuiting the financing of terror. Today, we are reaffirming our support for a new agreement that is more protective of the public interest, and in which Parliament has played a greater part. The Council needs to understand, listen to and cooperate more and in a better way with a different Parliament, deriving from the Treaty of Lisbon.

The EU needs its own terrorist finance tracking programme, in a form whereby data extraction can take place within Union territory and under the supervision of European officials. The Commission has an essential role to play in promoting this.

To conclude, we must not forget that information obtained by the United States using SWIFT has been a determining factor in preventing attacks in Barcelona, Madrid and London, and the jihad in Germany.

I believe that the agreement is useful.

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as of 1 February 2010, the previous SWIFT Agreement with the US ceased to have effect and now there is a new agreement. One could simply say that a sense of responsibility has prevailed, but to me it does not seem to be the case. It would be enough to set the former regulatory hypothesis side-by-side with the one agreed over recent days to fully appreciate the significant improvements achieved thanks to the contribution of the European Parliament, and thanks to the negotiation of the Commission and the Spanish Presidency.

My public law professor used to say that the best agreement is one which shall have to be improved. We shall therefore have to make do with a good agreement, which sets out a desire, and a common strategy against terrorism, but now we need to involve third countries, which are essential for the process of fighting terrorism. Lastly, I believe that this agreement strikes a proper balance between the right to privacy and the right to security.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, I wish to congratulate Commissioner Malmström, the rapporteur Mr Alvaro and all those who have collaborated on this dossier. The voice of the European Parliament is making itself heard; negotiations have taken place. This agreement is both different and better than the one which we rejected in February.

Having said this, I would like to make it clear that I still have doubts about Article 20. Its wording seems to call into question the effectiveness of the rights anticipated throughout the agreement, and I still disagree with the choice of Europol, which is neither an independent judicial authority nor a data protection authority.

I do not seriously believe that we can reject this agreement. It is different to the one that we saw in February, but I still do not feel comfortable approving it, so I shall abstain.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE). – (CS) I reject the arguments put forward by the opponents. I would like to say that, since February, when the SWIFT Agreement was blocked by the Left and the Euro-sceptics, bank data has been transferred without any basis in an agreement. Do not forget that, since September 2001, there have been no known cases of misuse of the sensitive data of Europeans. I applaud the fact that, thanks to the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Parliament has ensured that it will now be a European official, and not an American official or a member of Europol, who will decide in the Member States on the transfer of any kind of individualised data.

I would like to ask the Commissioner to specify a deadline by which the names of the three candidates for this role will be known. I would like to inform the persistent opponents of EU-US cooperation that our duty is to protect the lives of our citizens from terrorist attacks in an effective manner. This agreement now provides firm guarantees and, at the same time, protects data and offers the possibility of court action for compensation in the event of commercial data being misused. I would like to thank the members of the Commission and the members of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs for this result.

  Kinga Göncz (S&D). – (HU) I will indeed keep this one short. The agreement is neither ideal nor perfect, but I think this is the best possible agreement we were able to reach in such a short time. It is balanced in the sense that it pays attention to European citizens’ security, as well as to their right to freedom and data protection. It is vital for us to accept this in July as it will be the key to security. It is also important, for data protection reasons, that data are not transferred without any control. Further guarantees have been incorporated in the text, partly in relation to the justification for data disclosure and partly in relation to the justification for data prioritisation. From now on, the legal remedies offered will be transparent. There are, of course, unresolved issues, as previously mentioned by fellow Members: the rationale behind EUROPOL and the length of the storage period. In addition to the content, it is also important that we now have a clear schedule for developing a European TFTP – we will receive a proposal for this within a year – and that the relationship between the Council, the Commission and Parliament will be different from now on.

  Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE). – (SV) Mr President, I am in favour of an agreement that provides specific information on an individual who is actively and deliberately supporting terrorism, and whose rights are defended in court. I would like to thank Mr Alvaro and Mrs Malmström for at least trying to bring this about. We said no bulk data, and yet we will have bulk data for at least three years. We said that for legal certainty, we need a court to defend our human rights, and yet we will get a Europol that is to justify the fact that the agreement follows the agreement, not human rights. We also have a definition of terrorism that agrees with the definition in the United States, namely, an elastic section that is wide open to be applied to aid organisations that do not loyally work in the foreign policy interests of the United States.

No, unfortunately, the protection of human rights in this agreement is as naked as the famous emperor.

  Cornelia Ernst (GUE/NGL). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, our debate must focus on two aspects. One aspect, namely that of data protection, has now been very frequently addressed. It is quite true that some things have been improved, but the simple fact is that the transfer of bulk data has not been eliminated. What really annoys me the most is that, where data protection is concerned, Europol has, in fact, been given an extension of its powers: on what legal basis, we ask?

However, I also wish to say quite clearly that there is also another aspect, about which we must talk very seriously, namely that even if all the data protection problems were to be solved, every last one, the question would remain whether the principle according to which the bank data of millions of people in Europe is transferred for prevention purposes actually makes a real contribution to the fight against terror. I doubt it profoundly, and there has been no evaluation and nothing to support it. Instead, a de facto surveillance of citizens will be introduced, and I wish to remind you that even the Data Protection Officer does not see the necessity of such a regulation.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) On 28 June, a new agreement was signed on the transfer of data on European Union citizens to the United States. In my opinion, the changes that were made to this agreement are not entirely convincing.

We talked about how EU officials in Washington would be able to influence the selection of data for processing. Of course, this will depend on the competence of these officials, but we do not need them to be there in order to express an opinion, as it will mainly be American intelligence officers that process the data.

We also said that an independent court could change a decision. The court, however, will act on the basis of appeals made by citizens, and citizens will not know that they are being monitored by the intelligence service. So how can the court decide on anything, when the court will not know that the citizen is being monitored?

There was also talk about how the EU would draw up its own procedure in the future, but a procedure should have been adopted and approved already.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). – Mr President, the so-called safeguard in the new draft agreement is an element of EU control over the extraction in the United States of transferred bulk data. Even if this control were to be exercised in good faith, I do not believe that the individuals would have the confidence to refuse requests from the United States for extraction if they were said, quite untruthfully, to combat terrorism. However, US foreign policy is much wider than opposition to terrorism and it is quite probable that the United States would seek to gain access to financial data that would be used against its wider political opponents, and not just real terrorists.

However, my opposition to this treaty is not limited to its content. The responsibility for treaties affecting sensitive confidential information belongs properly to sovereign states and not to supranational bodies like the EU.

  Alajos Mészáros (PPE). – (HU) I would like to thank Mrs Malmström and Mr Alvaro for the report. We can be pleased with the progress that has been made in respect of this much debated, but very important agreement. Although I had already voted in favour of it in February, along with the majority of the PPE Group, I feel that the new wording guarantees more favourable terms for the citizens of the EU, no matter how awkward the delay was. We had to find the appropriate balance between data protection and security, and I believe we have achieved this to a large extent. Nevertheless, it is important that we establish our own security system against terrorism financing in the future, a system which we will be able to operate independently in the EU. In the course of the development and operation of the system, we will have to make sure that citizens’ data protection rights are fully respected.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Alvaro, and state right from the outset that I support the adoption of the EU-US agreement on the transfer of bank data in the fight against terrorism.

The new version of the agreement provides better protection of European citizens’ rights. Customers of European banks will now be able to obtain information on how their personal bank data is being used.

I think that Europol will have an extremely important role to play as it will verify whether a bank customer’s status as a terrorist suspect is justified or not. The appointment by the European Commission of a person to supervise the daily extraction of data will strengthen the European Union’s role.

Finally, I wish to stress that we must maintain a balance between the responsibility for ensuring citizens’ safety and the protection of personal data.

  Stefaan De Clerck, President-in-Office of the Council. – (NL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this has been an impassioned debate. I value the submissions of the various political groups and speakers, but I can only conclude that the debate being held throughout Europe, in all parliaments, concerns a balance between security and the fight against terrorism, on the one hand, and data protection and the protection of privacy, on the other. We must keep a close eye on this balance. This is an evolutionary process. We produced agreements, those agreements were rejected in this House, and now we have produced a new agreement that is significantly better and will continue to evolve. I am confident that this agreement represents a major step forward, and that the framework agreement on data protection between the European Union and the United States of America, which requires further negotiation and which may have a bearing, will also be adopted. We shall be looking at how supervision is organised, partly under the oversight of the Commission, so that we can carry out professional European supervision in the United States. These are all positive steps.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is also true, however, that if we criticise a partnership between Europe and the United States here, we do have to take our responsibility for devising our own system, and we have done so. A system of our own has been proposed, and this will be worked on. It is easy to criticise a system involving the United States, but then we must be consistent and do what has now been agreed here; that is, to develop Europe’s own system. I believe that this is the next step, and so I have every confidence that giving consent represents a positive contribution to increasing security in Europe and that, at the same time, more of our own instruments will be developed to enable us to employ a European way of working to an even greater degree. I hope, therefore, that this agreement will now receive Parliament’s consent.

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you for this debate. You may or may not like this agreement. All agreements that we make, whether internally between the institutions or with a third country, are the result of tough negotiations, hard efforts and compromise. Compromise is the very essence of the Community method. It is not always 100%, but usually it is a decent compromise and we can live with it.

You may not like it, but I think it is unfair to say that this agreement is equivalent to the one you voted down in February. That is simply not true. Considerable improvements have been made concerning data protection, fundamental rights and integrity. The requests will be as narrowly tailored as possible: there are several review and scrutiny mechanisms, and the idea of an EU TFTP mechanism has also been mooted. It was not even on the agenda a few months ago, and this has been done thanks to you, your very constructive and responsible approach to this, and through hard negotiations.

It has also been made possible thanks to the constructive, open and very determined approach by our US counterparts. They have listened, they have understood our concerns, and together we have come to an agreement that takes these into consideration, but is also a tool to fight terrorism and, hopefully, save lives in the future. I am ready to discuss the further details and the development of this, the future TFTP mechanism, and the implementation of the agreement.

Once again, I should like to thank everybody involved – the rapporteur, the shadow rapporteurs, the Council and the political groups – for this very constructive report.

  Alexander Alvaro, rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, I believe that we must make a note of two things in connection with this discussion. The first is that the European Parliament has provided proof of the fact that, following the Treaty of Lisbon, it is ready to work in collaboration. Mr Garrido has stated that he had underestimated the European Parliament. I believe that he has, not only in its willingness to work together but also in its willingness to show responsibility. I believe that we have hereby opened a new era in the sphere of EU lawmaking.

Now I turn to my fellow Members who have just spoken in opposition. With all due respect for your opposition, I expect the same respect for the truth. The fact is that we have achieved a medium-term solution to how we can prevent bulk data transfer. Previously in this agreement, there was no provision that secured a legally binding cessation of bulk data transfers in the medium term.

To claim now that we should have done it overnight is as realistic as phasing out nuclear power overnight, which is also politically and practically not possible. Thus, we must allow a little more honesty to prevail, which I await with all due mutual respect.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 8 July, at 12:00.

Τhe next item is the vote.

Written statements (Rule 149)

in writing. – Instead of the ‘swift’ SWIFT Agreement they were aiming for, the involvement of Parliament forced Commission and the US Administration to negotiate a ‘good’ SWIFT Agreement. And that is a major victory for Europe and for the future of transatlantic relations. Yes, the final agreement took a little longer to reach, but it achieved a much better balance between fighting terrorism and protecting fundamental rights than was the case a few months ago. It demonstrated that Parliament is a serious interlocutor that can exercise its new powers responsibly and effectively. And it brought a new – and much needed – spirit of openness and cooperation in the American Administration’s relations with the EU. This is not a perfect agreement. I would hope, for example, that the Commission could devise a way to station in Europol a representative of the European Data Protection Supervisor to oversee those initial bulk data grants, just as we have succeeded in stationing an EU overseer in Treasury. But when all is said and done, I firmly believe that this much-improved agreement – as opposed to the highly problematic interim agreement of last February – deserves this Parliament’s consent.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I would like to congratulate the Commission for the result that it has achieved at the end of these difficult negotiations. This agreement meets the demands expressed by Parliament a few months ago. The US authorities have agreed to introduce a large number of guarantees on data protection which were lacking in the previous agreement. The effectiveness of these data transfers in the fight against terrorism has been highlighted many times these last few months. It is now time, however, for the Union to have its own mechanism available for combating the financing of terrorism. In this regard, I welcome the desire displayed by the Commission to go forward in this area, and I would ask them to propose specific actions as soon as possible. Finally, this ‘Swift affair’ has been an opportunity for Parliament to exercise the new powers conferred on it by the Treaty of Lisbon. The Member States, as well as our partners from third countries, now know that they must work hand in hand with this House in the adoption of these agreements. The contents of this agreement are testament to these new institutional relations. Our concerns have been heard, and reasonable answers have been found.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) Under the guise of combating terrorism, the account data of honest European citizens are being transferred in bulk to the United States. The re-hashed SWIFT Agreement does very little to change this situation. We cannot promise our citizens adequate data protection, because: Sensitive data is stored wholesale, instead of only in individual cases where there are grounds for suspicion. The data will be arbitrarily stored for a full five years. Compliance with data protection is intended to be guaranteed by Europol, even though this agency has an interest in the data itself. The executive is therefore monitoring itself – is this seriously supposed to be an independent control body? EU citizens whose rights have been violated have de facto no chance of taking successful legal action. Citizens would first have to cope with the cost of instituting legal proceedings in the United States! What was first celebrated as a success for the European Parliament in February has now become a washout. Even the rapporteur admits that he is not totally satisfied. It does not provide any real, effective data protection and should therefore be rejected.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) The SWIFT Agreement now being proposed is a clear improvement, as SEPA has been removed and it now contains a definition of terrorism. However, the political debates on the subject of SWIFT clearly indicate how difficult and important it is to find and preserve a balance between citizens’ rights and a commitment to security in the world. Many questions remain open and in need of answers. For example: 1) Why must the data be stored for a full five years? 2) I think that if we had had a longer negotiation period, we would certainly have been able to revise the weak areas and involve our own legal service; we would then have been able to draw up an agreement that was acceptable to everyone – both the EU and the United States. In my opinion, even after its revision and with various concessions, this agreement still does not take account of proportionality between security interests and respect for privacy. Finally, I am convinced that a longer negotiation period for both sides – the US and Europe – would have enabled us to achieve better, more detailed results. Thank you.

IN THE CHAIR: ALEJO VIDAL-QUADRAS
Vice-President

  Sonia Alfano (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to bring to the attention of the European Union the fate of 250 Eritreans who are now sending appeals for help by text message, as they are being detained in the Sahara Desert by the Libyan authorities. They are dying, they need help, and I would ask the European Union to attend to this issue.

6. Voting time

  Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, please could I ask you to suspend the voting for a minute, as the Partido Popular’s voting lists are currently being distributed. You can see that for yourself.

  President. – We shall now proceed to the vote.

6.1. Accession of the Member States to the Convention relating to international exhibitions signed at Paris on 22 November 1928 (A7-0201/2010, George Sabin Cutaş) (vote)

6.2. Conclusion of the Protocol on Integrated Coastal Zone Management to the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean (A7-0191/2010, Jo Leinen) (vote)

6.3. Agreement between the EU and Iceland and Norway on the application of certain provisions of Council Decision 2008/615/JHA and Council Decision 2008/616/JHA (A7-0173/2010, Simon Busuttil) (vote)

6.4. Participation by Switzerland and Liechtenstein in Frontex activities (A7-0172/2010, Philip Claeys) (vote)

6.5. Request for defence of Mr Valdemar Tomaševski’s parliamentary immunity (A7-0214/2010, Bernhard Rapkay) (vote)

6.6. Quality of statistical data in the context of the excessive deficit procedure (A7-0220/2010, Othmar Karas) (vote)

- Before the vote:

  Othmar Karas, rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should merely like to point out that with today’s decision, we are doing something that we wanted to do in 2004 and that the Council rejected in the spring of 2004: namely, to widen the auditing possibilities for Eurostat, to increase the scope of its powers and to automate the audit process.

This is the first important legislative step in response to the experiences of the last few weeks as far as the crisis is concerned. Eurostat’s independence must be strengthened and its dependence on data from the Member States reduced. Today’s developments are a step in the right direction, but in my opinion, we have not reached a conclusion. There must be the possibility for control visits to be made at any time in the Member States without prior arrangement, and all relevant data must be available for examination.

Collaboration with the European Central Bank needs to be intensified, and we must ensure that Eurostat receives increased funding and more staff, combined with high quality training for the latter.

What does the European Parliament want in addition? Sanctions against Member States which falsify statistics and supply false statistics. The Commission must present Parliament with a comprehensive report on the mistakes of the last six years. We want to know where the mistakes occurred and what these mistakes were – whether in matters of policy, of law, or of jurisdiction – so that we can draw the appropriate conclusions.

The Commission should put a harmonisation of statistical data collection and a harmonisation of criteria for statistics authorities in the Member States on the table and push ahead with it. Today, we are taking a correct and significant step towards independence and an increase in powers, but we are not finished yet. We must carry on further along this road.

(Applause)

6.7. The European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea region and the role of macro-regions in the future cohesion policy (A7-0202/2010, Wojciech Michał Olejniczak) (vote)

6.8. Contribution of EU regional policy towards fighting the financial and economic crisis, with a special reference to Objective 2 (A7-0206/2010, Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou) (vote)

- Before the vote:

  Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE). – (NL) Mr President, very briefly, our group wishes to request an electronic vote, a roll-call vote.

(The request for a roll-call vote was approved)

6.9. Rights of passengers in bus and coach transport (A7-0174/2010, Antonio Cancian) (vote)

6.10. Rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway (A7-0177/2010, Inés Ayala Sender) (vote)

6.11. Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport and interfaces with other transport modes (A7-0211/2010, Anne E. Jensen) (vote)

6.12. Reporting formalities for ships arriving in or departing from ports (A7-0064/2010, Dirk Sterckx) (vote)

6.13. A sustainable future for transport (A7-0189/2010, Mathieu Grosch) (vote)

- Before the final vote:

  Corien Wortmann-Kool (PPE). – (NL) Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), I should like to request a roll-call vote during the final vote, if that is possible.

(The request for a roll-call vote was approved)

6.14. Annual report of the Petitions Committee 2009 (A7-0186/2010, Carlos José Iturgaiz Angulo) (vote)

6.15. Promoting youth access to the labour market, strengthening trainee, internship and apprenticeship status (A7-0197/2010, Emilie Turunen) (vote)

- After the vote:

  Graham Watson (ALDE). – Mr President, as Chair of the Delegation for relations with India, I wonder if I might draw the House’s attention to the fact that we have a group of visitors from the Lok Sabha, the Indian Parliament, in our gallery today. I am sure the House would wish to join in welcoming them.

(Applause)

6.16. Atypical contracts, secured professional paths and new forms of social dialogue (A7-0193/2010, Pascale Gruny) (vote)

6.17. Commission Green Paper on the management of bio-waste in the European Union (A7-0203/2010, José Manuel Fernandes) (vote)

  President. – That concludes the vote.

7. Explanations of vote

Oral explanations of vote

Report: Othmar Karas (A7-0220/2010)

  Ivo Strejček (ECR). – (CS) I would like to explain my vote concerning Mr Karas’s report on the quality of statistical data. The report has a whole range of very good points, of course, but I abstained from voting because I do not share the rapporteur’s view that Eurostat should have a dominant right to interfere, without any form of advance notice, in the exercising of the rights of national statistical authorities.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, it has become a journalistic cliché to talk about the events in Greece as a tragedy, but I think we can fairly define them as a tragedy in the classic Sophoclean sense. We had the hubris of the boom years when we pretended that Greek and German debt were interchangeable. Now we have the nemesis of the overdue market correction.

But the catharsis has been artificially stayed. Rather than allowing a natural market correction, which is to say, Greece minting its own currency and pricing itself back into the European markets, we are instead pursuing this policy of pretending that better statistics or more regional aid or more shifting around of money through sales taxes or European debt agencies will somehow postpone the inevitable.

In fact, what we are doing is condemning the people of Greece and – I hope I am wrong – possibly the people of the other Mediterranean countries to years of recession, stagnation and unemployment – but we are at least generating employment for ourselves because we are justifying our own existence. Thus we see the true purpose of the European Union, namely, the employment of its own employees.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). – Mr President, when one looks back at the quality of statistical data for some Member States – when it was quite clear that they were cooking the books and did not provide an accurate reflection of the state of the national economy – I can understand the call for better statistical data. I think we can all understand that there should be better data collection as regards the state of our national economies. But the issue is that this should not be used as an excuse for what has been called ‘European economic governance’. It should not be used as an excuse for the EU institutions, the Commission, to have access to the national budgets of Member States before these national budgets are presented to the parliaments of those countries.

Let us not use the crisis and the mistakes made during that crisis as an excuse for more European economic governance. We should use it to learn the lessons of the crisis, make sure we collect better data, but make sure we all put our own houses in order.

Report: Wojciech Michal Olejniczak (A7-0202/2010)

  Tunne Kelam (PPE). – Mr President, I supported the report on the Baltic Sea region strategy and I am satisfied that my amendments have been taken on board, but in certain places, I would have liked to have been more explicit. In paragraph 34, we call for the Commission to provide for an environmental impact assessment of energy infrastructure projects, but we have failed to mention that the Commission has not fulfilled its duty to provide for an objective impartial environmental impact study for the Nord Stream project. We call for all states around the Baltic Sea to join the Espoo Convention, but I think it would make sense to call explicitly for Russia to join it too. This would meet our goal.

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I supported this resolution. I believe that the initiative brought forward by the countries of the Baltic area is very important, and these countries are credited with having finally introduced the concept of the macro-region into our system.

I believe that this initiative is to be welcomed, both on a political and strategic level, for the important aspects which it adds to the operational strategy in this area. Above all, I believe in the importance of the prospect that we are opening up, through this initiative, of allowing ourselves to envisage the creation of other macro-regions, which will then use this experience as a pilot project, perhaps to give a further push to the cohesion policy.

With regard to this initiative, my request to the Commission for greater attention relates to the supply of financial resources since I fully endorse the ‘no’ expressed at all levels on using new resources, additional resources. However, I am just as convinced that without resources for these major projects – the macro-region projects – they will not go ahead, so regulation of the supply of these resources is important.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE). – (LT) I voted for this document and am delighted that it has been adopted. The document discusses the Baltic Sea strategy and its principal objective – to encourage the coordination of Member States’ actions in policies which have a territorial impact. This strategy is based on four fundamental policies, one of which is the safeguarding of an ecologically sustainable environment. Therefore, I am very pleased that this document also reflects my amendments concerning the planning and implementation of energy infrastructure projects around the Baltic Sea, which could have a certain impact on Baltic Sea ecosystems. We also have to ensure appropriate maritime principles, reduce the impact of agriculture on the Baltic Sea, and I agree entirely with the European Parliament’s opinion that at the heart of the strategy, we must strengthen cooperation with third countries. This is particularly the case with environmental matters. Therefore, I hope that before the assessment of the strategy’s implementation in 2011, we will make considerable progress and will be able to set a new standard.

  Inese Vaidere (PPE). – (LV) I refer, therefore, to the strategy for the Baltic Sea region. The Baltic Sea region contains great development opportunities, and this strategy has already received a certain amount of financing from the European Union. Nevertheless, a small unit is needed that would be specifically charged with implementation of the strategy for the Baltic Sea region. There is also a need for specific, coordinated programmes for collaboration with private enterprise, for innovation and for developing research. The action plan for the strategy for the Baltic Sea region provides for a unified patent policy, a cooperation network between individual small- and medium-sized enterprises, and the formation of a Baltic Sea fund for research and innovation. Future economic growth in the Baltic Sea region will, as elsewhere, depend directly on a successful innovations policy. The implementation of the Rail Baltic project has been postponed for too long – it must be completed as soon as possible. The report on the strategy for the Baltic Sea region notes the need to increase the competitiveness of the Baltic region, but a precondition for this is the development of innovation and infrastructure projects, and that is why I also supported this report.

Report: Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (A7-0206/2010)

  Inese Vaidere (PPE). – (LV) As regards the report on regional policy, the second objective of cohesion policy provides for aid to be given to European regions that are experiencing unemployment, crime and rapid depopulation. The financial framework sets aside EUR 54.7 million for this purpose, but there are still great economic disparities among European Union Member States, and it is precisely the poorest regions that have suffered most from the economic crisis. Aid for these states must be regarded as the absolute priority of European Union regional policy. The first step for the European Union, without which sustainable development is impossible, is the establishment of fair competition and economic equality. Regional policy must continue to support those European regions with a GDP lower than the average European Union indicators. The position that elastic financing must continue to be developed should be supported. Nevertheless, we should aim for financial and practical support of this kind for small- and medium-sized enterprises engaged in innovation [and for support to] technologies and enterprises, which also has my full support. Thank you.

  President. – Mr Hannan, please continue dazzling us with your knowledge of the Greek classics.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – (ES) Mr President, you are too kind, and what a pleasure it is to see you in the presidential chair.

Mr President, which are the richest countries in Europe, or rather, the countries with the wealthiest citizens in Europe? I was looking at the OECD data the other day and in 2008, which is the latest year for which we have figures, the countries that are most prosperous are the members of the European Free Trade Association – despite everything they have gone through! Despite a banking crisis that disproportionately impacted Switzerland and Iceland, income per head in the EEA countries is 214% of what it is in the European Union. These guys in EFTA are twice as rich as the citizens of the EU Member States!

Why is that? Let me suggest that it might have something to do with the deal that they have struck with the European Union, whereby they are in the free market, in the four freedoms – free movement of goods and services and people and capital – but they are outside the common fisheries policy and outside the common agricultural policy, they control their own borders and determine who can cross them, they settle their own human rights issues, they control their own energy reserves and they can buy and sell to third countries without being subject to the common external tariff.

Could not our country, the United Kingdom, achieve something at least as good as what seven million Swiss and four million Norwegians have achieved? We are a nation of 60 million, a trading, enterprising nation, a nation whose colonising energies have touched every continent. Surely we could do just as well running our own affairs in our own interest?

  Syed Kamall (ECR). – Mr President, whenever we talk about the economic and financial crisis, it is important that we look back and learn the lessons from that crisis. Have we learned the lesson that it was inappropriate regulation in the United States that forced banks to lend to uncreditworthy customers, thereby leading inevitably to the subprime crisis when one in ten of those taking out loans were uncreditworthy customers who could not pay back those loans and we felt the effects across the world? Have we learned the lesson of those governments that print money as if money has no value, but forget the lessons of what was said by the Austrian economist, Ludwig von Mises, the only economist to have predicted the financial crisis? He said that money has a value and when you make money cheap, companies and individuals make what he calls ‘malinvestments’ and that creates a credit bubble and eventually the market catches up and the whole thing collapses. That is what we did, that is how the financial crisis started and let us make sure we learn those lessons.

Recommendation for second reading: Antonio Cancian (A7-0174/2010)

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) I fully support Mr Cancian’s report on passenger rights in bus and coach transport. Despite ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, these people still face discrimination on access to transport.

Equal access to transport is one of the fundamental preconditions for an independent life. In view of the fact that most journeys are undertaken at the local level, access to bus transport is of fundamental importance for people with disabilities, including blind and partially-sighted people.

I fully agree with the proposed changes and additions, which strengthen the rights of people with physical disabilities, and specifically, the right to transport, the right to assistance and the right to information in accessible forms, including Braille lettering and large print.

I particularly welcome the requirement for drivers and people working in terminuses to be given training in relation to physical disabilities.

Securing these rights will make a fundamental difference to the lives of our blind and partially sighted fellow citizens.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE). – (CS) The result of the vote on the Antonio Cancian report shows that the European Parliament, in contrast to the Council, has clear priorities, especially when it comes to ensuring the rights of citizens travelling around Europe by bus and coach. This strong position of ours will make it possible to provide better protection for the rights of passengers, especially people with physical disabilities and restricted mobility. The proposal is to repeal Article 11 and thus make it impossible to refuse to make a reservation for disabled people, and we are also imposing an obligation on firms to provide assistance free of charge when boarding buses and during the journey, as is the case with air transport. This will allow physically disabled people to travel independently around Europe, improving their quality of life. The strong position taken by Parliament throws down the gauntlet to the Member States, who, in my opinion, will not now be able to water down our proposal in the Council at second reading.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Mr President, I supported Amendment 15 because I support the exemption, for a limited time, for domestic, regional, urban, suburban and rural services.

I suppose my concern here is that some of the requirements and costs that will be passed on to SMEs, in particular, small operators, will be such that they may even put some of them out of business. Certainly I think that in some cases they may withdraw from certain routes and from certain markets and that will leave customers with no public transport availability. I am particularly concerned about the area of rural transport. Probably urban and regional transport will be all right but, when it comes to rural transport, I think we may be in danger – if this legislation goes through – of finding a situation where rural transport operators will no longer continue to work those routes.

We always talk in this Parliament about overburdening SMEs and about costs and so on. I think that, in the current economic situation, a reasonable compromise would be to allow an exemption for a fixed period of time.

Report: Dirk Sterckx (A7-0064/2010)

  Giovanni La Via (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the report on the proposal for a directive on the reporting formalities for ships arriving in and/or departing from ports of the Member States because I believe that the creation of a maritime transport space without barriers could make coastal shipping more efficient. Maritime goods transport is indeed subject to very complex administrative procedures.

On top of this situation, there is also the problem of a lack of harmonised regulation of the sector, due to the varying implementation of the 2002 directive in the different Member States. A precise and detailed directive which reduces the possibility of different interpretations as much as possible is therefore necessary.

The main aim of this new law is to simplify administrative procedures whilst also bearing in mind modern information technology. To this end, I hope for a good level of cooperation between the various competent authorities involved.

Report: Mathieu Grosch (A7-0189/2010)

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the transport sector is one of those areas which has implications for a multiplicity of crucial and important issues for the European Union: from the competitiveness of the internal market to the health of its citizens; from the efficiency of urban transport to road safety; and from the establishment and strengthening of specific agencies for the different modes of transport to the reduction of CO2 emissions.

I therefore hold that it is the precise duty of the European Union to formulate a transport strategy which guarantees efficiency and sustainability, as well as a financial framework able to respond to coming challenges in a suitable fashion. I therefore lend my full support to the report by Mr Grosch, whom I should like to congratulate for the excellent work accomplished.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, it is very important to try and create a sustainable future for transport and thereby be able to ensure, too, that there are fewer emissions from transport in the future, despite the fact that when we look at the overall situation at present, traffic is a tiny factor, accounting for fewer than 10% of all emissions. In general, however, it is important that, when we create a sustainable future, it happens in all sectors.

I think it is very important to ensure that the same rules can apply all over the European Union. At the moment, there are some problems: as we know, there are, for example, different regulations for shipping in different areas. In this respect, we need to ensure that the same rules apply to the European Union as a whole when they are being formulated and the sustainable future of transport is being shaped. It is very important that we can also invest in research, technology and innovation so that we can discover the right modes of transport and, furthermore, reduce emissions from vehicles in the future.

Report: Carlos José Iturgaiz Angulo (A7-0186/2010)

  Clemente Mastella (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon reconfirmed the role of the right of petition as a cornerstone of European citizenship. Without any doubt, it represents an instrument which confers on citizens the chance to bring to the attention of Parliament all their concerns relating to the impact on their daily lives of the different policies and legislation of the European Union.

Once again this year, statistics show a rising demand for assistance on issues concerning, for example, the environment, fundamental rights, justice, the single market and the development of European policies. As upheld in reports from previous years, we cannot but hope once again for an improvement in institutional communication on the various reporting mechanisms available to citizens at a European level, through the establishment of ‘one-stop shops’ which could supply them with the necessary guidelines to search for solutions to probable violations of their rights.

We agree with the rapporteur when he states that a more interactive website could be developed to allow citizens to get the information they need before making the decision to direct themselves to one institution or another, to use one mechanism or another.

  Inese Vaidere (PPE). – (LV) Thank you, Mr President. In 2009, the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions received 1 924 petitions, but only 46% of these were considered relevant to the Committee’s remit. This attests to the fact that citizens are not sufficiently aware of how they may contact the European Parliament online. I should like to say that the Committee’s own website must be improved, as the majority of Europeans have never heard of SOLVIT, the online problem-solving network. I should also like to emphasise that opportunities for providing information to citizens currently without access to the Internet should also be taken. I should like to stress that the Committee on Petitions is the most direct and the fastest way of contacting the European Parliament as a whole, and that the work of this Committee must, in my view, become much more responsible and pro-active. That is why I supported this report. Thank you.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, the Committee on Petitions is one of the great successes of the European Union. I, along with other Members, have seen it provide consolation, support and a sympathetic ear to people who have been met by a wall of frustration and bureaucracy in their own countries. However, one or two things need to be done to improve it: first, we need to communicate the message more to the citizens; second, we need to speed up the process; and, third, the Member States have to be compelled to answer queries more quickly than they are doing at the minute. Delays in answering frustrate the process, and this does not lead to a satisfactory situation.

But this is one great development, and I compliment the committee and everybody involved for lending a sympathetic ear to the people who need it most.

  President. – Mr Kelly, next time, do not forget to be included on the list before we start the explanations of vote, because you were not on the list; that is why I did not call you.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mea culpa. I take the lesson.

Report: Emilie Turunen (A7-0197/2010)

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the economic crisis has had a particularly intense effect on young Europeans, killing off their professional prospects and confining them to an uncertain limbo. Twenty percent of young people under the age of 25 are unemployed – an army of 5.5 million people with uncertain futures.

Fortunately, economic and demographic prospects for the next 10 years foresee the creation of 80 million new jobs across Europe, most of which will require a high-level professional profile. Backing future generations, then, is the real challenge to be overcome, and it is the only sure investment for the present and future of the European Union. Enough with the apprenticeships and internships which bear more resemblance to exploitation than to a training period. I therefore hope that from now on, partly due to the document adopted today, that any initiative aiming to boost employment be focused – no ifs, no buts – on young people and their needs.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, it is very important to facilitate and promote access to the labour market for young people, and it is important that Mrs Turunen has produced a report on the subject and that Parliament has adopted it. It is not, however, enough on its own. We need a dramatic change in attitude, not just in Parliament but also in the Member States, because we know that youth unemployment has been allowed to become far too high. It is as much as around 20% in the European Union, and it just cannot go on like this. In other words, we need practical measures both in the Member States and at Union level, and not so many different resolutions and speeches. Instead, we need very practical action.

The labour market is not functioning at present and, for some reason, young people cannot access that market or they lack experience. Given the current situation, it is really very important to establish clear paths, the sort of opportunities that will improve the employment prospects of the young, and in that way build a more sustainable basis for hope and the future. I hope that this report will not just be put aside, but that its contents will also be put into practice in the Member States; in this way, we can make the situation easier for the young.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE). – (LT) Youth unemployment is a particularly acute problem today. 20% of people my age are unemployed in the European Union. I voted for this European Parliament position, because I believe that we are sending a very important political message, both to the European Commission and the Member States, about the situation concerning youth unemployment. I think I agree entirely with the ideas set out in the report that we must promote and develop programmes like Erasmus for young business people and that it is crucial to underline the importance of informal education in young people’s lives and vocational training. Then there are the objectives of the European Union’s EU 2020 strategy. It is still projected that economic recovery will come through innovation, green technologies and the inclusion of young people in the labour market and that is very important. I would like to share Lithuania’s experience where employers are provided with preferential tax treatment if they employ young people who are entering the labour market for the first time. I hope that there will be close cooperation between the Member States so that we can achieve such results.

Report: Pascale Gruny (A7-0193/2010)

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the most flexible types of work are often translated into atypical contracts which are incapable of guaranteeing the social protection of workers. The fight against new kinds of job insecurity must begin from this Parliament, which must be able to guarantee greater flexibility and security to all workers.

The adoption of this resolution, Mr President, is the basis for a new level of employment security. Increasing the chance of finding a job which guarantees good development prospects must be the primary objective to allow an ever faster recovery of the European economy. I therefore hope that all Member States can invest greater resources in the development of increasingly specific and high-level professional pathways.

Yes to the Europe of knowledge and work and therefore no to the Europe of job and social insecurity.

Report: José Manuel Fernandes (A7-0203/010)

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s vote on the Fernandes report, for which I was shadow rapporteur for the S&D Group, is a clear signal from this Parliament, which is calling on the European Commission for a specific directive on bio-waste and, in particular, for the establishment of a mandatory separate collection system.

Bio-waste – if well managed – can become a resource for the European Union for the production of biogas, a renewable form of energy which can be converted to biomethane or used to generate base load electricity. I was concerned by the recent European Commission communication, which was sceptical about the idea of putting forward a specific proposal for legislation. In this regard, working with other Members, a letter stating our case has been sent to Commissioner Potočnik. I hope that the Commission will reflect on this and will soon propose a text to us.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE). – (LT) Biological waste, like general waste, is an important and inherent issue for all citizens of the European Union. The situation varies from one EU Member State to another. In some Member States, 10% of biological waste goes to landfill, in others, sadly, up to 90%. Therefore, our tasks should be as follows: firstly, waste prevention and reduction and secondly, specifically related to the current situation, EU society should become a waste processing society. As for compost, namely that involving biological waste, we need to consider and assess the opportunities for the use of low-grade compost, so that we do not harm people or the environment. At European Union level, once we have defined opportunities for the use of low-grade compost and have determined when compost is considered a product and when it is considered waste, it would be easier for Member States to find their way when resolving issues regarding compost use. Therefore, adequate legal regulation is required at European Union level.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE). – (CS) Mr President, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to explain my vote on the Green Paper on the Management of Bio-waste. It constitutes a general framework, and I agree with its aims. However, I would like to point out that the Commission, prior to drafting the legislative proposals, should have added an up-to-date global plan, taking account of our liabilities concerning food security and optimal structures, both in the EU and in developing countries, where millions of people are starving. It should also carry out more in-depth studies of the overall environmental effects of processing biomass as an alternative energy source. As a doctor, I also consider supervision by Member States of the safe disposal of hazardous toxic and biological waste on their own territories to be of key importance.

Written explanations of vote

Report: George Sabin Cutaş (A7-0201/2010)

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The Paris Convention regulates the frequency, quality and organisational procedures of international exhibitions. The rapporteur, who I supported, asked that the Member States affected by this convention who have not yet met its requirements do so as soon as possible. This is an issue which I think is very important. The Paris Convention can only be signed by the Member States, not by the European Union. It is therefore vital that as many countries as possible sign this convention, which will enable the new signatory countries to engage in spreading innovation, as others have done before them, and also to contribute to the education of the European public.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I am very much in favour of a technical measure to facilitate the staging of international exhibitions. Only the creation of an efficient and, above all, functioning knowledge base which puts excellence and innovation out there will allow the aim of the exhibitions indicated in the Paris Convention to be achieved in practice; in other words, not only political promotion, but also economic and social cohesion through science.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this recommendation, with which I wholly agree. Nevertheless, I would like to point out that, more so than its content, in the case of the assent procedure, under Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure and originally introduced into the acquis communautaire by the Single European Act, I consider this recommendation to be a good example of the interaction and fluidity that should exist between the Council and the European Parliament. In fact, the original document was presented by the Council on 5 February of this year, five months ago, and the assent procedure has already been concluded in the European Parliament. I know that in the future, not all matters will be the subject of such a broad consensus as this. Nevertheless, it is a good example.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) When the Committee on International Trade was called upon to express its opinions on the combined terms of Articles 81 and 90 of the Rules of Procedure on the authorisation of Member States to accede to the Paris Convention on International Exhibitions, it was overwhelmingly in favour of the aforementioned authorisation, with there having been just two abstentions at the time of the final vote on the proposal.

Effectively, as a result of its simplicity and general consensus, the stated authorisation does not deserve to be amended, as it contributes to the preservation of equality between Member States. Another question would be to ask whether this is an issue worthy of Parliament and whether it deserves to be put to the vote in plenary.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In the interests of greater procedural uniformity within the EU and the promotion of cultural activity which encourages innovation and education among members of the public, I support the Council’s initiative to create conditions for the Member States which have not yet acceded to the Paris Convention to do so while respecting the exclusive powers of the EU, as enshrined in the Treaty of Lisbon. It is paramount that there is an adequate customs procedure which allows for exemption from duties and taxes on the temporary importing and re-exporting of articles for international exhibitions which can last from three weeks to three months.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) International exhibitions are an ideal way for countries to present their culture, economy and traditional products to those from other countries. The products presented at these exhibitions are subject to a special customs procedure which is regulated by the Paris Convention. At present, 24 Member States have integrated this convention. This decision by the Council makes it possible for the Member States which have not yet integrated this convention to do so, while respecting the exclusive powers of the EU enshrined in the Treaty of Lisbon.

  Alajos Mészáros (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Explanation of vote: Since the European Union itself cannot accede to the Paris Convention, as only sovereign states can be parties thereto, I believe that it is extremely important that Member States exercise this right which is also granted to them under the Treaty of Lisbon. It is vital for Member States to support the organisation of international exhibitions in this way, too, as such events allow European Union citizens access to innovative research. I fully agree that countries organising events must allow participants to import goods on a temporary basis. That is why I voted in favour of the resolution. Thank you.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The Paris Convention lays down rules on frequency, quality and procedure for international exhibitions within its remit. It also precisely regulates individual countries’ customs regulations for the imported goods. In this way, countries are obliged to admit the goods. For exhibitors, this means a considerable simplification of entry procedures. I voted for the report since, from a cultural viewpoint, it is necessary to simplify the importation of goods intended for exhibitions as much as possible.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The function of the Paris Convention on International Exhibitions is to regulate the frequency and quality of the exhibitions themselves. It applies to all international exhibitions which last for between three weeks and three months, and which are not of an essentially commercial nature.

Given that the convention regulates some aspects which fall within the remit of the customs legislation of the European Union, a Member State wishing to accede to it must first request the Union’s authorisation. The European Union itself cannot accede to the Paris Convention, as only sovereign states can be parties thereto. I do, however, support the aim of the Council’s decision, which is to allow relevant Member States which have not already acceded to the convention to proceed along that line, obviously in accordance with the exclusive competences of the European Union.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The purpose of the Paris Convention on international exhibitions is to regulate the frequency, quality and procedures for international exhibitions which come under its remit.

Since the Paris Convention regulates matters which fall within European Union customs legislation and the European Union itself cannot accede to the Paris Convention as only sovereign states can be party to it, Member States wishing to accede to the convention require authorisation from the European Union.

I voted for this report so that the three Member States which have not yet joined can also accede to the Paris Convention.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The function of the Paris Convention on International Exhibitions is to regulate the frequency, quality and procedures of international exhibitions falling within its remit. The main purpose of international exhibitions, as stated in the Paris Convention, is to facilitate the display of innovation and contribute to the education of the public. As it regulates aspects falling within European Union customs legislation, a Member State wishing to accede to that convention therefore requires EU authorisation. The European Union itself cannot accede to the Paris Convention, as only sovereign states can be parties thereto. So far, 24 Member States, with the exception of Latvia, Luxembourg and Ireland, have acceded to the Paris Convention and Latvia has expressed its wish to accede to it.

The purpose of the Council decision is thus to enable the Member States that have not yet acceded to the Paris Convention to do so, while respecting the exclusive competences of the European Union granted by the Lisbon Treaty. The Verts/ALE Group has followed the rapporteur’s proposal in consenting to the proposal for a Council decision authorising the Member States to accede to the Paris Convention.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) Our vote is in favour of the draft report as it aims to facilitate exhibitions of innovations and contribute to the education of the public. Italy is particularly interested in this text ahead of EXPO 2015, which is to be held in Milan.

Report: Jo Leinen (A7-0191/2010)

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The European Union is a signatory to the Barcelona Convention designed to protect the Mediterranean Sea against pollution and has the duty to promote integrated coastal zone management, taking into account the protection of areas of ecological interest and the efficient use of natural resources.

The text of this protocol includes provisions referring to economic activities, including construction, tourism, fishing, aquaculture and maritime activities in the Mediterranean coastal areas. The protocol’s mechanisms help improve the coordination of actions promoting coastal zone management between national, regional and local authorities.

I voted for this report because it includes objectives and principles supporting proper management of coastal zones and promotes the sustainable use of natural resources through the deployment of monitoring tools.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the proposal to conclude the Protocol on Integrated Coastal Zone Management in the Mediterranean (ICZM). The Barcelona Convention reflects a common concern for integrated and sustained management of those natural resources among all the countries that share the Mediterranean coastal zone.

However, the EU’s role should not be limited to that of a mere contracting party. It should take a proactive role in pursuing the objectives set out by the ICZM Protocol, such as the sustainable use of natural resources and preserving ecosystems, and effective compliance with regulation with regard to economic activity in coastal zones. Or the EU’s role could even stretch to monitoring the correct use of instruments for the integrated management of these zones, taking into account their ecological and landscape-related significance.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I welcome adoption of the Protocol on Integrated Coastal Zone Management, which contains the basic principles for improving the protection of the environment in these areas, including the sustainable use of resources, the preservation of coastal ecosystems, along with specific provisions relating to certain economic activities which could affect the coastal zones, such as construction, tourism, fishing, aquaculture or maritime activities.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Protocol on Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM Protocol) aims to reverse the trend of the deterioration of environmental conditions recorded in the Mediterranean over the last decades, which has merited denunciation by environmentalists and men of culture, such as the Spanish writer Arturo Pérez-Reverte. The overexploitation of fishing resources, rising temperatures, pollution, the disappearance of native flora and fauna and the increase in foreign species urgently requires an integrated and coordinated response from among the largest possible number of Mediterranean coastal states. The European Union has a particularly important role to play in this common endeavour.

It must ensure that the Mediterranean, the basin of Western civilisation, maintains its equilibrium, not only in terms of ecology and landscape, but also economically speaking, and that it will be in a suitable condition to be left as a legacy for future generations so that they can recognise the mark of the past, know how to enjoy it, and know how to maintain it for the future.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Union is a contracting party to the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean (Barcelona Convention), along with all the Member States which have a Mediterranean coast. According to Article 4.3 of the convention, the contracting parties must promote the integrated management of the coastal zone, taking into account the protection of zones of ecological and landscape-based interest and the rational use of natural resources. The Protocol on Integrated Coastal Zone Management in the Mediterranean (ICZM) presents the objectives and general principles of integrated coastal zone management, such as the sustainable use of natural resources and the preservation of coastal ecosystems. It also contains specific provisions relating to economic activity in coastal areas, such as construction, tourism, fisheries, aquaculture and maritime activities, along with the tools for integrated coastal zone management (such as environmental assessment, national strategies and monitoring mechanisms).

The ICZM Protocol has already been approved on behalf of the European Union. The Commission now proposes, through the proposal for a Council decision, as mentioned earlier, that the Council proceed to conclude the protocol on behalf of the EU. The Council must now obtain Parliament’s approval before making a decision on the conclusion of the protocol.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Protocol on Integrated Coastal Zone Management in the Mediterranean represents a major effort by the European Union to promote the integrated management of the coastal area, taking into account the protection of areas of ecological and landscape-based interest and the reasonable use of natural resources. Economic activity in the region, such as construction, tourism, fisheries, aquaculture and marine activity, should be rethought, reassessed and subjected to a more extensive study in order not to jeopardise the region’s sustainability, which is vital for future generations. I believe, however, that for such an initiative to have an effect in the short term, there needs to be complete mutual cooperation between countries with a Mediterranean coast.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The EU has already put its name to many environmental and animal welfare instruments. Mostly, there is a lack of implementation and monitoring, as with fishing quotas, for example. The conservation of ecosystems for the benefit of future generations must be a key concern for the EU, even when aquacultures can, given certain prerequisites, present a benefit to the environment. Generally, what matters is to preserve a sensitive balance between environmental protection and animal welfare, on the one hand, and the economy, on the other. With this report, the EU would become a full member of the Protocol on Integrated Coastal Zone Management. EU Member States with access to the sea are already ICZM members, however. Since this comes into conflict with considerations of subsidiarity, I voted against it.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) On 19 February 2010, the Commission published a proposal for a Council Decision concerning the conclusion of the Protocol on Integrated Coastal Zone Management, or the Protocol on the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean, also known as the Barcelona Convention.

Just like all EU Mediterranean coastal Member States, the European Union is also a contracting party to the convention and, as such, promotes the integrated management of coastal zones, particularly taking into account the protection of areas of ecological and landscape interest.

The ICZM Protocol sets further objectives including the sustainable use of natural resources and the preservation of coastal ecosystems. It also sets forth several provisions regarding economic activities related to tourism, fishing and aquaculture. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety is pushing for Parliament to approve the conclusion of the ICZM Protocol. I fully support the committee which is proposing that the Council proceed shortly to conclude the protocol on behalf of the EU.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Mediterranean coastal zones continue to experience high pressures on the environment and increased degradation of coastal resources.

Urban sprawl is intense in the Mediterranean, entailing the gradual loss of natural areas and biodiversity, and increasing competition for water resources. Coastal erosion problems and flooding of low-lying coastlines are exacerbated by urban encroachment on the near shore area and floodplains. Projected population growth concentrated in coastal urban areas, a near doubling of tourist flows and even greater transport growth are likely to exacerbate the pressures. Nearly 50% of the coastline could be built up by 2025, marking an increase from 40% in 2000. Moreover, the Mediterranean basin features among the most vulnerable areas as regards the impact of climate change.

The protocol provides a framework to stimulate a more concerted and integrated approach which is required to address these problems more effectively and achieve a more sustainable development of the Mediterranean coastal zones. This is why I voted in favour of this report.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – We Greens have not been convinced that we should support the Leinen proposal to consent to the Council position on this issue. The fact is that on 19 February 2010, the Commission published a proposal for a Council Decision to conclude, on behalf of the European Union, the Protocol on Integrated Coastal Zone Management (the ICZM Protocol) to the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean (the Convention is more commonly known as ‘the Barcelona Convention’; it was originally signed on 16 February 1976 and subsequently amended on 10 June 1995).

The European Union is a Contracting Party to the Barcelona Convention, as are all EU Mediterranean coastal Member States. Under Article 4(3) of the Convention, the Contracting Parties must promote the integrated management of coastal zones, taking into account the protection of areas of ecological and landscape interest and the rational use of natural resources.

However, personally I find the proposal weak: bearing in mind that we need at least 40% of protected areas, I do not see a strong position in that respect.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I am in favour, since the protocol contains the general aims and principles, including the sustainable use of natural resources and the conservation of coastal ecosystems, as well as specific provisions concerning economic activities, such as construction, tourism, fishing, aquaculture and maritime activities.

Report: Simon Busuttil (A7-0173/2010)

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The 2005 Treaty of Prüm defines a legal framework which aims to develop cooperation between Member States in order to combat terrorism, cross-border crime and illegal immigration. In 2007, it was decided to incorporate this treaty into the legal framework of the EU. The Prüm Decision and its respective implementation provides for the exchange of DNA data, fingerprints and vehicle registration data, as well as the exchange of information relating to important events of cross-border control and the provision of information intended to prevent acts of terrorism. The objective of this agreement is to allow Iceland and Norway to join with the EU Member States in these exchanges which, thus, aim to strengthen the cooperation between the authorities responsible for the prevention and fight against criminal offences.

As Iceland and Norway are associated with Schengen, it is important that the EU supports their efforts to prevent and combat terrorism and all forms of cross-border crime, while also guaranteeing integral respect for fundamental rights, namely those relating to the protection of personal data and respect for the principles of proportionality and necessity.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I am voting in favour of this agreement between the European Union and Iceland and Norway. I believe that deepening cross-border cooperation, particularly when it comes to combating terrorism and crime, is a positive step for all parties. Close cooperation between the EU and its neighbours in matters such as combating organised crime and terrorism or sharing information and police and judicial cooperation fosters a sense of security among Europeans, not only within the EU, but also in Europe in its wider sense.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of the Council decision on the conclusion of the agreement between the European Union and Iceland and Norway on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, with a view to tackling terrorism and cross-border crime. This decision lays out the necessary administrative and technical provisions for the automated exchange of DNA data, fingerprint data and vehicle registration data. With the freedoms granted by the Schengen area, it is also necessary to extend the tools available to combat cross-border crime and terrorism to those Schengen members not within the EU. I support this agreement, as it will strengthen the fight against terrorist and criminal threats within the Schengen area. It should be recalled that the security of the Schengen area will be further strengthened through the full implementation of the SIS II system. The Commission should exert all efforts to end the continuing delays with SIS II.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Terrorism poses one of the greatest threats to contemporary society, and so it is worthy of the greatest repudiation and the largest possible joint efforts to eradicate it. It is now clear that the various Member States, taken individually, are not capable of addressing an increasingly global threat, and that it can only be tackled if they pool their efforts, share information efficiently and rapidly, and articulate their actions effectively in terms of methods and means.

In view of this, I believe that we should welcome the European Union’s agreement with Iceland and Norway – neighbours who share our values, particularly the same commitment to democracy and the rule of law, and the rejection of blind, extremist violence against defenceless citizens. I hope that their application will make way for a firmer and better collective response to the challenges that terrorism and cross-border crime pose to judicial systems and police forces.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This concerns the adoption of the text of the agreement between the European Union and Iceland and Norway on the application of certain provisions of Council Decision 2008/615/JAI, on the deepening of cross-border cooperation, particularly in the fight against terrorism and cross-border crime. It also concerns the adoption of Council Decision 2008/616/JAI on the implementation of Decision 2008/615/JAI on the deepening of cross-border cooperation, particularly in the fight against terrorism and cross-border crime, and its annex (05060/2009). Since I did not have any objections to put forward, I voted in favour of the conclusion of the agreement.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I strongly support the adoption of this agreement, which makes provision for applying the ‘Prüm decisions’ to Iceland and Norway. Although these two countries are not members of the European Union, they are nevertheless parties to the Schengen cooperation, which specifically means that no controls are operated on internal frontiers between these countries and the other countries of the Schengen area.

This situation completely justifies involving these countries more in cross-border cooperation in combating terrorism and international crime effectively. Thanks to this agreement, the Norwegian and Icelandic authorities will be able to cooperate more actively in these areas by applying these two ‘Prüm decisions’, which, in particular, provide for the exchange of information relating to DNA profiles, fingerprint data and vehicle registration.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I am voting against this cross-border cooperation agreement between the European Union, Norway and Iceland. It allows the exchange of data collected according to criteria which are vague as well as arbitrary, such as the presumption of terrorism or participation in large demonstrations. Once more, the right of opinion is violated under the pretext of security.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In order for the European area to become ever more an area of security and welfare, we need to continue our efforts at cooperation with all the European countries that are not part of the EU area. This agreement between the EU, Iceland and Norway comes under this approach, as it will allow greater cooperation in combating terrorism and cross-border crime.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) I voted today in plenary in the European Parliament in favour of the recommendation on the draft Council decision on an agreement between the European Union and Iceland and Norway on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation to combat terrorism and cross-border crime. This agreement is yet another initiative on the part of the European Union which is designed to stamp out terrorism and it adds to overall European efforts being made in this direction. Such initiatives need to be taken continuously if terrorist action is to be combated effectively.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Although the Parliament has backed the Busuttil proposal to consent to the Council proposal regarding the agreement between the EU and Iceland and Norway on the application of certain provisions of Council Decision 2008/615/JHA and Council Decision 2008/616/JHA, we Greens found too many unanswered questions on how it would be implemented, so we have not supported that approach, and we have voted against.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I am in favour since it strengthens cross-border collaboration in the fight against terrorism and crime between the EU, Iceland and Norway.

  Catherine Stihler (S&D), in writing. – I wholeheartedly welcome this report, which paves the way towards welcoming Iceland into the EU.

Report: Philip Claeys (A7-0172/2010)

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Claeys’s report because I share his desire for the arrangement between the European Union, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on their participation in Frontex activities to be concluded positively and as quickly as possible.

The tangible contribution of these countries to the control and surveillance of the EU’s external borders would, in fact, represent further added value for Frontex, whose important work is now, more than five years after its creation, starting to produce the desired results in terms of combating illegal immigration and assisting the Member States.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The vote on this report calls Parliament to express its opinion on the implementation of the work of Frontex. Extending the activities of Frontex to Switzerland and Lichtenstein does have practical significance, but above all, is significant from a symbolic and programming point of view. Europe must provide all possible tools and support to Frontex and must strive for the work of the agency to be as geographically extensive and qualitatively effective as possible. Immigration and border control has, until now, been one of the most underestimated challenges facing the European Union, which too often has sought to hide from the idea that border protection and the prevention of uncontrolled immigration are tasks which Europe must deal with as a whole.

Therefore, I welcome any step which takes the continent closer to the creation of a uniform area for controlling migratory phenomena and borders. The immigration emergency must be adequately dealt with by the European bodies: it is now unthinkable to abandon the Member States in the face of a challenge such as massive immigration which affects, de facto, the whole continent, whether directly or indirectly. Our every effort to strengthen Frontex is therefore to be welcomed.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) I voted against the report on the participation by Switzerland and Liechtenstein in Frontex activities as a matter of principle. I am opposed to the existence and overall modus operandi of Frontex. This is a mechanism that concentrates on hunting down people trying to cross the EU borders without travel documents in a way which not only fails to respect their fundamental human rights, but also drives many of them to even more hazardous attempts to enter, often at the cost of their own lives and, of course, strengthens human trafficking gangs.

This is an extremely costly military mechanism, the budget for which should be used to combat poverty in the countries of origin of immigrants and on services for their social integration into the Member States of the EU. The immigration issue cannot be resolved by creating fortress Europe, by repressing and combating immigration with military means or by the mass deportations effected within the framework of Frontex.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The principal aim of Frontex, created in 2005, is to coordinate operational cooperation between Member States in matters relating to the management of external borders. All countries involved in the execution, application and development of the Schengen acquis will have to participate in this agency, and the way in which each of them will participate will be specified in separate agreements between the EU and the respective countries. While Switzerland, on the one hand, joined Schengen on 12 December 2008, gaining the same membership status as Norway and Iceland, the protocol signed on 28 February 2008 with Liechtenstein, on the other hand, cannot be included before the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, and it is currently being analysed by Parliament.

Despite this, the decision was made to include Liechtenstein in this agreement, as of now, for reasons of efficiency, even though this will only apply after this protocol has been concluded. I therefore support the approval of this agreement, which sets out the rights and obligations that will ensure that Switzerland and Liechtenstein can participate effectively in Frontex, especially with regard to voting rights, financial contributions and issues relating to data protection and confidentiality, etc.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I am in favour of this proposal, which seeks to bring together the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein with Frontex. As set out in the Frontex regulation, the Member States involved in implementing and developing the Schengen acquis participate in Frontex activities. However, the way in which they participate must be defined through agreements with the European Union. This means that concluding this participation agreement between the EU and these two countries as soon as possible will be very positive for all the parties involved. Frontex, as a vital tool in the European strategy for the struggle against illegal immigration, must have at its disposal the means and conditions to effectively coordinate operational cooperation between Member States in matters relating to the management of the European Union’s external borders. Therefore, the conclusion of this agreement will allow the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein to contribute to closer cooperation in matters relating to the control and monitoring of external borders between their respective administrative services and those of the EU.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – I voted to support the Claeys report on the arrangement between the EU and Switzerland and Liechtenstein on the modalities of their participation in Frontex. The important task that Frontex provides in coordinating cooperation between Member States and non-EU Schengen members in the field of border management can only be strengthened with the participation of Switzerland and Liechtenstein. It should be recalled that the security of the Schengen area will be further strengthened through the full implementation of the SIS II system. The Commission should exert all efforts to end the continuing delays with SIS II.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The participation of the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein in Frontex increases the means it has at its disposal and its responsiveness to the phenomenon of illegal immigration which is affecting countries on the fringes of the European Union that are suffering from similar problems to those within the EU relating to combating illegal immigration. I welcome the two countries’ willingness to cooperate, and I hope that this will be implemented effectively and fruitfully. I also hope that this experience of working together will extend to other areas.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Frontex agency was created in 2004 under the terms of Article 66.2a and Article 66 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and it began its duties on 1 May 2005. This agency was conceived as an important tool in the common European strategy for combating illegal immigration. The aim of the proposal for a Council decision, subject to the adoption process, is the signing and conclusion, on behalf of the EU, of the agreement between the European Union, on the one hand, and the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein, on the other, on the terms of those countries’ participation in the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation of Member States in the European Union – Frontex.

I welcome the conclusion of this agreement, thanks to which these two countries will be able to contribute to closer cooperation in matters relating to the control and monitoring of external borders. I hope that the Member States will make every effort to conclude the necessary ratification procedures for the association of the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein with Frontex as soon as possible.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) As the shadow rapporteur on this matter for the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I voted in favour of this report, which will allow for the participation of Switzerland and Liechtenstein in Frontex. Established in 2004, the Frontex agency has the objective of enabling operational cooperation between the Member States regarding the management of external borders. For reasons of effectiveness, it is important that all the countries associated with the Schengen agreements participate in this.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted to support this proposal for a Council decision because I believe that Frontex – which has been operational since 2005 – has undoubted already demonstrated that it is an important instrument of the common European strategy towards illegal immigration, but I also think that it should be further elaborated on in this sense.

It is a matter of applying its founding legislation, which sets out the participation in its activities of all third countries which are associated with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis, all of which has the aim of developing its tasks of assisting in the training of national border guards and risk analysis.

Even though we are aware that the Swiss Confederation has been a part of the Schengen Area since 1 March 2008, whilst the Principality of Liechtenstein is still awaiting the enactment of a specific protocol, we welcome the conclusion of this arrangement in any case because we believe it may enable these two countries to contribute to closer coordination between the competent administrative services of the participating States. We therefore hope that the Member States will do everything within their power to complete the necessary ratification procedures as quickly as possible in order to associate the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein with Frontex.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the arrangement establishing the modalities of the operational cooperation of Switzerland and Liechtenstein with the activities of the Frontex agency.

Operational since 2005, this agency has the weighty responsibility of coordinating cooperation between the Member States on the control of external borders. Increasing the number of countries participating in Frontex’s activities is therefore an initiative which we should welcome, inasmuch as it will further strengthen the operational and budgetary powers of the Frontex agency. By virtue of their location, these countries will be participating more in strengthening the control of airports and land borders as opposed to sea ports. Strengthening the control of these borders is one of the major challenges for the Union, given the considerable number of illegal crossings of land borders that take place every year.

Of course, under this agreement, this participation will take place on a voluntary basis, but I strongly hope that the next revision of the regulation establishing the Frontex agency will impose more obligations on the Member States to cooperate in the management of our common external borders.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I am voting against this report. It endorses the participation of Switzerland and Liechtenstein in Frontex, an agency which is emblematic of the policy, advocated by this European Union, of hunting down destitute migrants. Frontex’s ‘European patrols against illegal immigration’ only result in migrants taking more and more risks to get to our shores.

Only a policy of fair distribution of wealth, ending the EPA method, will allow us to put a stop to these migrations for reasons of hunger. The Europe of permanent competitiveness that liberals and social democrats are building for us is merely increasing them.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Frontex agency was created as an important tool for a common European strategy on combating illegal immigration. Its principal role is to coordinate operations between Member States relating to the management of its external borders. The extension of this cooperation to other European countries is very important in the fight against illegal immigration, since it gives the agency more material resources and manpower to meet its objectives.

  Alajos Mészáros (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Explanation of vote: Ever since its establishment in 2004, Frontex has become an important instrument of the common European strategy for combating illegal immigration. Such international conventions have proven to be effective on many occasions and have shown that this type of operative joint effort should also be extended to non-Schengen countries. This is why Switzerland and Liechtenstein should also be offered the opportunity to be full members in this cooperation effort. I welcome the agreement and hope that Member States will make every effort to ensure that this accession is achieved as soon as possible. Thank you.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) I believe that the establishment of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders (Frontex) is unacceptable. The immigration issue requires a strategy against poverty and in favour of employment and peace, as well as a fair trade strategy from the countries of the EU as a significant contribution to the stability of regions adjoining it. In my opinion, the EU’s handling of the migration phenomenon truly brings shame on Europe. The main exponents of this policy that criminalises migration and overrides the fundamental rights of migrants are the deplorable Shame Directive and the activities of Frontex. The Member States are reducing their development aid and preventing developing countries from achieving the Millennium Development Goals. I am opposed to fortress Europe, which uses migrants as cheap labour without job security or rights, and also to current repressive EU immigration policy.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The objective of the proposal before us for a Council decision is the signing and conclusion of an agreement between the European Union, on the one hand, and the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein, on the other, on the arrangement of the modalities for the participation by those States in the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union, known as Frontex. Now, Frontex was established in 2005 and carries out important work in the prevention of illegal immigration at the external borders of the EU.

With this agreement, it will now also be possible for Switzerland and Liechtenstein to secure closer coordination of controls and supervision at the external borders between the relevant domestic agencies and those of the EU. This has my unconditional support. For this reason, I have voted in favour of this impeccable report by Mr Claeys.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The aim of the proposal for a Council decision is the signing and conclusion of an arrangement between the European Union, on the one hand, and the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein, on the other, on the modalities of the participation by those states in Frontex.

This agency is conceived as an important instrument of the common European strategy towards illegal immigration. Among other things, Frontex also gives assistance to Member States in the training of national border guards and offers them technical assistance and support in organising joint return operations or border surveillance. The arrangement between the European Union and Switzerland and Liechtenstein also contains provisions on limited voting rights of representatives of the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the Frontex management board, financial contributions of both countries to Frontex’s budget and the confidentiality of data.

I cannot but welcome the conclusion of this arrangement, which enables these two countries to contribute to closer coordination in checks and surveillance at the external borders. I therefore hope that the Member States will do everything within their power to complete the necessary ratification procedures as quickly as possible in order to associate the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein with Frontex.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The aim of the proposal for a Council decision which is the subject of this consent procedure is the signature and conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of an arrangement between the European Community, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein, of the other part, on the modalities of those states’ participation in the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union, called Frontex. We Greens did not see many problems there, so we voted in favour.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I am in favour of signing the arrangement between the EU, the Swiss Confederation and Liechtenstein for the participation of these two States in Frontex.

Report: Bernhard Rapkay (A7-0214/2010)

  Leonidas Donskis (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) I categorically disagree with the statements made by our fellow Member, Mr Tomaševski, on the situation regarding Lithuania’s Polish minority, which I view as unobjective and rather exaggerated. However, the attempt by our Seimas Commission for Ethics and Procedures to treat the European Parliament as a servant of Lithuania or civil servant was also rather unsuccessful and did not correspond with reality. Moral levers, the use of public opinion and ethnic appeals in the media are one thing; efforts to influence the freedom of thought and expression of an MEP in political decisions is another matter entirely. We made a mistake and therefore, the only route open to us is to honourably acknowledge that in this conflict, Mr Tomaševski is right in technical and procedural terms, just as the assessment of this situation submitted by the European Parliament is right. Therefore, I am voting for the EP position. Otherwise, it would be undignified, not just from the point of view of the EP, but also from the point of view of Lithuania.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I agree with this report because Mr Tomaševski is not facing legal proceedings within the meaning of Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, and this case does not concern parliamentary immunity because Article 2 of the Statute for Members provides that ‘Members shall be free and independent’. Furthermore, Article 3 states that ‘1. Members shall vote on an individual and personal basis. They shall not be bound by any instructions and shall not receive a binding mandate. 2. Agreements concerning the way in which the mandate is to be exercised shall be null and void.’ It is thus clear that the decision of the Chief Official Ethics Commission violates the principles of the freedom and independence of Members established by the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, which is part of European Union law. The fact that Lithuanian law extends the remit of the Chief Official Ethics Commission to overseeing the activities of Members of the European Parliament elected in Lithuania therefore represents a breach of European Union law.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) In the European Parliament, we very often take action in defence of fundamental rights and civil liberties around the world. Parliament awards the Sakharov Prize to people who have particularly distinguished themselves by their service in the defence of civil rights and the rights of minorities. However, in the EU, these rights are also being broken. This mainly concerns the rights of national minorities. Certain Member States, and I am thinking of Lithuania, scoff at the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention on Human Rights. Valdemar Tomaševski, a Member of the European Parliament, has been called to account by the Lithuanian Parliament for his defence, made in the European Parliament, of the rights of minorities in Lithuania. This situation is reprehensible, unacceptable and scandalous. I appeal to the European Parliament Subcommittee on Human Rights and the European Commission to ensure that European Union standards on questions of fundamental rights, liberties and the rights of national minorities are raised to the highest level and effectively enforced.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Advocating the independence of the MEP’s mandate is the responsibility of Parliament, and that independence cannot be jeopardised. Following a decision by the Chief Official Ethics Commission of the Republic of Lithuania, Parliament needs to defend the parliamentary immunity of its Member, Mr Tomaševski, who has seen the independence of his mandate undermined by this decision.

  Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), in writing. – (PL) The case of our fellow Member, Mr Tomaševski, entails, as it were, two problems. The first is the situation of the Polish minority in Lithuania, whose rights are being called for by Mr Tomaševski. The second may appear to have been caused by the first, but this is not, in fact, the case. The Chief Official Ethics Commission of the Republic of Lithuania has issued a public admonition to Mr Tomaševski on the basis of the Code of Conduct for State Politicians. A situation in which a public institution of a Member State admonishes an MEP for words which he spoke in connection with the performance of his duties as an MEP is unacceptable. The fact that the case concerns the public defence of a national minority does not make the situation less important. On the contrary, this only makes it more outrageous. Therefore, I decided to endorse the request for defence of the immunity and privileges of Valdemar Tomaševski.

Report: Othmar Karas (A7-0220/2010)

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this report because I believe that strengthening Eurostat is a necessary step if other Greek-type cases and the presentation of inaccurate statistics are to be avoided. In fact, the conferral of increased powers on Eurostat and closer cooperation between Eurostat and the ECB will make it possible to plan and carry out more detailed investigations into economic and financial statistical data.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The Karas report is in line with the European response to the Greek crisis. Improving monitoring and economic governance is highly necessary today, particularly in order to curb the distrust of the markets which still weighs heavily on Greece, as well as the whole European Union. The report thus aims to strengthen Eurostat in order to avoid future repetitions of the Greek situation and, more specifically, erroneous statistics. I voted in favour of this report, as I believe that the European Commission’s proposal is acceptable as it stands, but also that it is the minimum that can be accepted in terms of additional monitoring. In addition, the rapporteur, in my view rightly, supports the prospect of closer cooperation between the European Commission (Eurostat) and the European Central Bank, but with respect for the role and the independence of the two institutions.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) Voting in favour of the Karas report is, after the events chiefly affecting Greece, a question of responsibility. The fraudulent statistics, the quantitative misunderstandings chiefly affecting the Commission and Greece demand not only that Eurostat and its power of scrutiny over the data produced by Member States be decisively and logically strengthened, but also that this clampdown be counterbalanced by the safeguarding of minimum guarantees of the independence of national statistical bodies. Therefore, in view of the fundamental role of statistical data in good, healthy European governance, I join Mr Karas in urging the Commission to intervene decisively and resolutely in this area.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The European Union has learnt a lesson from Greece’s experience. The Commission’s initiative on regulating and giving new powers to Eurostat will prevent similar situations from occurring in future.

For this reason, I think that the Commission’s proposals, amended by Parliament, must be implemented as quickly as possible so that immediate action can be taken where false reporting of statistical data by any Member State is suspected. The European Union cannot afford to put its credibility or position on the financial markets at stake because it is perceived as a whole and the blame is shared, even if it is the fault of just a single state.

The notion of turning Eurostat into an audit institution was rejected five years ago. There is not even any point in us thinking along the lines of ‘what would have happened if’. However, what is relevant is that the proposal now has every chance of being implemented. Accurate, credible statistical data is a prerequisite for the Economic and Monetary Union to operate properly. In fact, reviewing Eurostat’s functions can only but increase the level of trust among European Union Member States and even strengthen their credibility.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the resolution because I agree with the Commission’s proposal, with the respective changes brought in by Parliament. As regards these changes, I would like to point out that the Member States will have to provide the Commission (Eurostat) with all statistical and budgetary information based on a standard, internationally accepted accounting method. They should also ensure that the values from the planned budgetary deficit and the level of public debt should be the values set for the current year by the Member States. Such values should correspond to the most recent official forecasts, based on the most recent budgetary decisions and economic developments and perspectives, along with monthly and quarterly results. Such values should be established as early as possible in relation to the notification period.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Good quality, reliability and accuracy of statistics are essential in times of crisis, such as those that we are currently experiencing, if situations like the one in Greece are not to be repeated. For this reason, I believe it is crucial that there is efficient and strict implementation of the policy commitment made on this matter, and that statistical data should also comply with Community legislation in force, for example, by presenting national security statements to the Commission (Eurostat).

On the other hand, the investigative powers of the Commission (Eurostat) must be expanded, allowing them to conduct inspections of national statistical offices without prior notice, with access to all accounting and budget information. This will allow them to assess the state of a country’s public finances. The imposition of financial and non-financial sanctions for statistics that are not presented in compliance with Community legislation should also be considered.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report is another step towards monitoring the internal workings of countries, this time through statistics. For example, it is proposed that monitoring visits should be conducted on a Member State whose statistical data is under scrutiny. They want the Commission, through Eurostat, to have the right to access the accounts of public bodies at the level of central and state administration, local authorities and social security, including providing detailed accounting information, statistical surveys and relevant questionnaires, and other related information, such as off-balance sheet transactions. They ask all this while adding that this must be done in compliance with legislation on data protection and statistical confidentiality.

On the other hand, they insist on the strict implementation of the Stability Pact and argue that the Commission should consider establishing sanctions under the Stability and Growth Pact in matters relating to misleading macro-economic statistics presented by Member States.

In practice, if these proposals are accepted by the Commission and the Council, the Commission (Eurostat) will have access to all the statistical and budgetary information required to assess the data quality of national, regional and local accounts, inventories, reporting tables for the excessive deficit procedure (EDP), accounts of bodies of an extra-budgetary nature and non-profit organisations and similar bodies which make up the public administration sector in national accounts.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The current crisis is due not to statistical inaccuracies, but to the dogmatism being shown by the governing liberal elites. This report advocates absolute respect for the Stability and Growth Pact. It urges the introduction of unannounced controls on the budgets of the Member States. It builds up suspicion into a political doctrine by demanding that Member States who falsify their statistics face sanctions.

The European project cannot allow itself to become confused with this authoritarianism which contradicts the sovereignty of the people. It is about time that we built a Europe of cooperation and solidarity and a Europe based on the shared confidence that we need.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The quality and viability of statistical data on the economic performance of EU countries are of crucial importance for ascertaining the real condition of economies in Member States. The Greek statistical data, which, according to the news, were biased and did not reflect the reality of the economy, were an important warning for people to take measures to prevent situations like this one from taking place in the future. In this way, the strengthening of Eurostat’s powers and technical resources is vital if the EU is not to be faced with a situation where statistical data are misrepresented by Member States. Enhanced inspection by Eurostat, which is being put into practice without warning, will be extremely important for the future reliability of statistical data in Member State economies.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The amendment of the regulation as regards the quality of statistical data in the context of the excessive deficit procedure represents a particularly important and urgent measure in view of the present problems in most of the national budgets of the Member States. The Stability and Growth Pact, which is now to be revived and strictly adhered to, can only be sensibly monitored if Eurostat receives data which has not been falsified and which corresponds to reality. Now we know that Greece swindled its way into joining the euro by the deliberate submission of falsified data to the EU.

It goes without saying that this is a scandal. This kind of thing must never happen again. It is all the more important, therefore, that the powers of Eurostat should be expanded, and that it should be given the possibility of carrying out unannounced control visits to the various state agencies. Only in this way will the Stability Pact be worth the paper it is written on. I therefore voted in favour of this report.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The quality of statistical data is particularly important at the moment, given the need for a rapid response to any potential economic warning sign. If the previous data is known, there is no need for additional arguments. Moreover, statistical data is a useful tool in every sector where the European Union has powers as it is essential for making short-, medium- or long-term decisions. The better the quality of this statistical data, the better the decisions made will respond to the challenges which Member States and the European Union as a whole are facing.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Commission’s proposal was very positive and it was improved by the respective changes introduced by Parliament, namely:

- that the Commission (Eurostat) receive an appropriate competence framework, adequate staffing and as much independence as possible;

- harmonisation of statistical data collection;

- standardising of statistical and budgetary information supplied by the Member States;

- elaborating sanctions within the framework of the Stability and Growth Pact in relation to the submission of misrepresented macro-economic statistics by Member States.

I therefore voted in favour.

Report: Wojciech Michal Olejniczak (A7-0202/2010)

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I supported this report. The European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea region is the first and, until now, the only attempt to create a complex common development strategy. Today it is clear that the actions carried out by individual Member States are not effective enough and fragmented, and therefore it is necessary to promote cooperation at regional level. At present, there is a disproportion in terms of economic development and innovation, and thus there is a necessity to increase the potential of all areas, including transport, energy and tourism. We must not miss the opportunity of using the added value of the Baltic Sea strategy and other future macro-regional strategies to reach a new level of synergy which can reduce existing disparities in order to create a permanent area of common prosperity with a high level of competitiveness, which is crucial in the face of an ageing population and the new challenges of globalisation.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the report on the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea region. The macro-regional concept provides concrete answers to a large number of challenges we are currently facing which go beyond national borders. The Baltic Sea strategy is the first attempt to make use of macro-regions. It will allow territories which are different, but which face similar problems, to undertake joint action within a flexible institutional framework. This macro-region will not be competing with the Member States; it will complement them. It will be based on the principle of partnership between the various levels of public authorities, the private sector and the voluntary sector.

This new form of governance will undeniably bring added value to local, national and European policies. It would be worth applying the concept of macro-region to other territories characterised by a strong economic, environmental and cultural interdependence.

The rapporteur emphasises, with good reason, the fact that the Baltic Sea strategy is a pilot project from which future strategies relating to macro-regions can take their inspiration. The Atlantic Arc should, in my view, be at the heart of our thinking on these future strategies. Given the joint problems faced by these coastal territories – Brittany, Cornwall, Galicia and the Algarve, among others – the creation of an Atlantic macro-region will contribute to a joint and harmonious development.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European strategy for the Baltic region is the first attempt at creating a common development strategy for a macro-region. The purpose of the strategy is to solve common problems and to concentrate action on achieving shared objectives. There are two major areas of interest for this region: the environment and scientific development. This is a complex strategy, but it is an interesting one that could be developed for other regions in Europe.

  Leonidas Donskis (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) As a Lithuanian and a Member of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I will always support a strategy that will help the Baltic Sea region become the best example of the practice of sustainable development and regional cooperation. The resolution on the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea region, which the European Parliament approved today with the support of the ALDE Group, is oriented towards Lithuanian opportunities. The strategy aims to reduce the dependence of the Baltic region on Russian energy, to link the energy networks of countries in the region and diversify energy sources, to ensure the extension of a railway axis from Berlin to the Baltic coast, and resolve the difficulties of crossing the border with Russia. These are four particularly important steps for Lithuania. In addition, together with other MEPs, we were able to draw attention to the fact that the European Commission has to watch and monitor whether the same approach and international conventions are followed in the neighbouring countries, especially in those which are planning to build nuclear power plants near external EU borders. All of the countries of the Baltic region, including Russia and Belarus, must adhere to the most stringent nuclear safety and environmental standards. That is what I am striving for in my written statement on the construction of a nuclear power plant in Belarus, which I presented to fellow MEPs to sign, and I hope it will receive even stronger support following this vote.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) As I noted earlier with regard to its environmental problems, the European Union should make the Baltic Sea one of its priorities due to the particularly serious circumstances which affect it. As this is now one of the main routes of communication and exchange between Member States, it reminds us of the role that the Baltic has had in the past. It also highlights the need for the European Union and its Member States to recognise the existence of regions which have an advantage in being seen by those Member States as functionally integrated entities due to their identity and the problems and challenges to development which they face.

The Baltic Sea and the regions of Member States that lie on its shores have the necessary capabilities to become part of and operate as pilot macro-regions. I hope that the conclusions arising from the practical implementation of the EU strategy for the Baltic Sea region will allow the future role of macro-regions in European cohesion policy to be more accurately and appropriately assessed.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) Encouraging the cooperation of the Baltic states in order to protect the area and to respond to common challenges relating to economic, social, energy and transport matters, and so on; and, indeed, why not? It seems to me, however, that this cooperation could very easily take place without the interference of the European Commission.

In truth, however, the essential part of this report is the promotion of macro-regions as an additional ‘level of governance’, and perhaps, though only in the future, as part of the European Union’s ‘cohesion’ policy. This cohesion would involve amalgamating regions on both sides of borders, if possible in the form of European groups of local and regional authorities, and these groups would necessarily have legal personality and choose, in a ‘sovereign’ manner, the national law that will govern them. If, in order to do that, we have to look for or invent common interests as a criterion for amalgamating regions, and to create a European tax to finance it all, never mind.

Whatever the rapporteur says about it, anything goes when it comes to abolishing national frontiers and reconstructing the European landscape. This is why, quite apart from the interest that the Baltic Sea and its problems may arouse, we voted against this report.

  Barbara Matera (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea region and the role of the macro-regions in the future cohesion policy. I agree with Mr Olejniczak that the strategy for the Baltic Sea region must act as a gateway, a pilot project, for future macro-regional strategies. In the evolution of the European Union, the new ‘macro-regional’ approach must aim to create the conditions required to ensure employment for future generations, promote cohesion and realise environmental protection operations, through innovation in European countries, sustainable development, improvements to mobility and accessibility in the regions, and the promotion of polycentric development.

These constitute common interests and goals which can emancipate and balance the countries which today make up the European Union, as well as form an incentive for the accession of new States, the reinforcement of the European project and its development ever closer to neighbouring countries. I agree with the central role conferred on Member States, which are thereby propelled towards a new level of governance which will allow them to assist the peripheral and most disadvantaged regions. In conclusion, I emphasise the importance of the Commission’s role, calling upon it to rapidly enact the strategy for the Baltic Sea region and the creation of other macro-regions.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The only merit of this report is that it demands the elimination of pollution in the Baltic Sea. This elimination is necessary for the preservation of our ecosystem. It must be carried out as quickly as possible. However, this text is characterised by the same dogmatism as most of the reports that we are voting on. While it claims to be ecologically responsible, it cites the development of nuclear power in the region without condemning it. As for its stated desire to establish highly competitive European macro-regions, this is completely unacceptable. Throughout these regions, they are aiming once again to dismantle the welfare state. The remediation of the Baltic Sea region cannot be carried out in the way advocated by liberalism.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Baltic Sea is one of the most polluted seas in the world, which means that the concept of macro-regions, where the focus is on common, shared objectives or development problems due to their geographical characteristics and conditions, and the attempt to create a common, integrated development strategy for this macro-region makes perfect sense. The Baltic Sea’s common resources are shared by many countries, resulting in a considerable interdependence between them, thus justifying a broad strategy for this region. The strategy for the Baltic Sea region is the first and, so far, the only attempt to create a common, integrated development strategy for a macro-region, and it should be seen as a pilot project and an example within the European Union.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted for the report on the European Union strategy for the Baltic Sea region and the role of macro-regions in the future cohesion policy, above all, because the strategy’s implementation process must proceed more rapidly, in particular when implementing energy policy, one of the priority areas of this strategy. This is an important part of the external relations of the EU and its Member States. We must develop cooperation between the Baltic states and neighbouring countries, while remembering to reduce the region’s energy dependence. It is a very good thing that room has also been found in this strategy for issues of nuclear safety in the region. I hope that, in view of the intended expansion of nuclear energy in the Baltic Sea region, EU countries have to follow the strictest safety and environmental standards and the European Commission has to watch and monitor whether the same approach and international conventions are implemented in the neighbouring countries and do not simply remain on paper, especially in those countries which are planning to build nuclear power plants near external EU borders. We must ensure that both EU Member States and neighbouring countries, especially Russia and Belarus, where there are plans for the construction of nuclear power plants, take these provisions seriously. The Baltic nuclear triangle being created is not just a concern for Lithuania but the whole of Europe. The plans of Russia and Belarus to build new nuclear power plants near the EU’s eastern borders pose a serious threat to the environmental security of both Scandinavia and Western Europe.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) In the EU, it is important to have a macro-regional vision of the Baltic Sea region. Cooperation on the environment, energy and other areas with non-EU Member States such as Russia and Belarus is also beneficial. Undoubtedly, I also voted for the report because it correctly indicates that EU Member States should become an example in the area of the environment and nuclear safety, in particular, when building new nuclear power plants. We should also require adherence to the highest standards and good cooperation from our neighbours, particularly those planning to build their nuclear power plants near EU borders. Unfortunately, I would hardly call the Belarusian decision to locate a new nuclear power plant just 25 kilometres from the Lithuanian border and 50 kilometres from the capital Vilnius a friendly gesture. None of the capitals of the other EU Member States are so close to the Union’s external borders and would not face such a situation. Environmental NGOs in Belarus are sounding warning signals because, in their opinion, international safety and environmental standards are not being adhered to in the planning and construction of the power plant. There is concern that the presentation of the project to both Belarusian and Lithuanian society is being organised in a superficial way and does not respond to the main issues. The EU cannot forbid the construction of nuclear power plants right next to the Union’s borders. However, together we can negotiate with the Belarusian Government on the location of the construction. Brussels must take all measures to ensure that during the construction of the nuclear power plant, we monitor whether Belarus scrupulously honours international commitments in accordance with the Espoo and Aarhus Conventions.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The strategy for the Baltic Sea region is the first attempt to create a common development strategy for a macro-region. It is a functional area focusing on common development goals and problems, with certain common features and geographical determinants. As Greens, we believe it is important that Green/EFA amendments were adopted at the committee stage, including stressing that the development of macro-regions is essentially of a complementary nature and should not aim to replace EU financing of individual, local and regional programmes as a funding priority, and giving a prominent role to the transport of goods by sea.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report advocates the importance of developing strategies for macro-regions in the European Union. These are seen as a set of territories grouped around common objectives and challenges. The report is devoted to the EU strategy for the Baltic Sea region in the form of a pilot initiative. I support this motion, as I believe that an integrated territorial plan, which promotes a strategy based on the common interests of the territories of the regions concerned, which must rely on the contribution of all European policies in pursuit of its objectives and be guided by the objectives of regional European policy, especially by the aim of cohesion, is essential.

In this sense it points to the Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion, highlighting the importance of intervening in the various regions of the European Union based on their functional needs. It is hoped that this initiative will be the first of others that are able to provide the various European macro-regions with a suitable legislative and programmatic framework, based on the idea of European territorial cooperation.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – The EU strategy holds enormous potential for us and our neighbours within several policy areas. Successful implementation of the strategy could enhance the region’s prosperity and accessibility, and ensure security in the region and protect the environment.

Optimal results can only be achieved with the pooling of resources towards commonly defined goals. Closer cooperation between Baltic countries will reduce differences between our countries, help harmonise our markets, and make them more accessible.

Its unique geographical position and interdependence puts the Baltic States in a strong position to use the EU strategy to improve relations with our non-EU neighbours. Possible areas for cooperation with Russia include: transport connections, tourism, cross-border health threats, environmental protection and energy. We also need to address the lack of appropriate infrastructure and accessibility between various transport networks.

The Baltic Sea is one of the most polluted sea areas in the world; only coordinated joint action can reverse this. The implementation of the strategy has been slow so far. We need to kick-start the process and step up our efforts.

Looking ahead, I believe that the strategy’s agenda will be progressed further when the EU Presidency is held by Baltic States – Poland in 2011 and Lithuania in 2013.

  Artur Zasada (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I congratulate the rapporteur on a very well drafted report. Of course, I endorsed the report on the European Union strategy for the Baltic Sea region and the role of macro-regions in future cohesion policy. The document refers to several crucial issues: the environment, energy and external affairs. In my opinion, one of the most important challenges for the Baltic Sea region is the creation of an efficient network of different forms of transport. I am glad the final version of the document includes my amendment emphasising the significance of the Central European Transport Corridor. Development of transport networks and ensuring that all regions have the right level of access to infrastructure is the guarantee of real cohesion in the European Union.

  Joachim Zeller (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I am pleased that the report on the strategy for the Baltic Sea region has received such broad support in Parliament, and, as shadow rapporteur for my group, I would like to thank the rapporteur for his constructive cooperation. The report reflects the various challenges that the States bordering the Baltic Sea are facing, and calls for the problems involved in dealing with the environmental damage in the Baltic Sea, in economic development and in developing the transport infrastructure in cross-border, macro-regional cooperation to be addressed and for solutions to be found. Russia, Belarus and Norway should be involved in this cooperation. Interdisciplinary cooperation is needed here, including in the European Parliament committees. This macro-regional strategy for the Baltic Sea is a pilot project. Whether or not a macro-regional structure is the way forward for the cohesion policy of the future will depend on the success of this pilot project. The regions on the Baltic Sea that are already cooperating with one another but, in particular, the Member States, are now being urged to put this strategy into practice. The European institutions, in particular the European Commission, should fulfil their role of providing coordination and support.

Report: Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (A7-0206/2010)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the present report as I believe the contribution that EU regional policy can make to the plan to revive the European economy to be essential. Regional policy should be viewed as a long-term EU development policy which champions renewed competitiveness and employment in the Member States. The fight against the economic and financial crisis has also assisted in the speeding up and simplification of cohesion policy programmes that I believe to be of the utmost importance for greater rectification of budgetary policy. This is also needed to combat the current difficult environment: by speeding up programmes, it will contribute to strengthening the EU, the Member States and their regions. It is therefore essential to proceed with the goal of greater competitiveness, sustainability and flexibility for these programmes in the context of a globalised world. I also believe that it is essential to continue to pay special attention to the regions mentioned in Objective 2 through assistance in the economic and social conversion of these areas, demonstrating their full potential, and promoting the coordination of all their means and tools in order to promote growth and employment.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this report because I recognise how crucially important regional policy is in helping us face the consequences of the lengthy economic and financial crisis we are experiencing. Unfortunately, the so-called Objective 2 regions of Europe have paid a very high price in unemployment and social exclusion terms as a result of the crisis. I therefore believe that the proposal to actively support SMEs in those regions, with the aim of preserving existing jobs and possibly creating new ones, is particularly helpful.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) We need to know that the European Union’s regional policy is the main European factor in reviving the economy; as the report emphasises, it is the most important source of EU investment in the real economy. It is important, however, that the economic revival in our regions does not just take place now, but also over the medium and long term. This is why the Kratsa report, which I voted for, aims to combat structural problems, particularly concerning competitiveness and employment. Today, all the actors in our regions are affected by the crisis. Small and medium-sized enterprises, for example, are encountering more and more difficulties in making use of micro-financing and micro-credit. A fundamental objective for us, therefore, is to make our regions more attractive, which will allow us to eventually increase investment in our regions should this be necessary.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I supported this report. A properly coordinated EU regional policy may strengthen competitiveness and employment in the EU’s regions. In the context of the global financial and economic crisis and the current economic slowdown, EU regional policy is a key delivery instrument, making a decisive contribution to the European Economic Recovery Plan. I believe that in future, regional policy must be based on the priorities laid down in the EU 2020 strategy, such as smart, sustainable growth achieved by exploiting new ways of achieving sustainable economic growth and promoting better business conditions with fair competition, job creation, entrepreneurship and innovation for all the regions, developing SMEs and supporting their growth potential. The use of Structural Funds is particularly relevant in the context of regional policy and therefore, I believe that an increase in the flexibility of the Structural Funds would allow us to begin the planned programmes immediately, the implementation of which would contribute to the improvement of the economic and social situation in individual regions.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The European Union has always paid scant attention to the world of SMEs, committing itself more to words than to deeds in policies focused on competitiveness and innovation. Above all, this Europe is far removed from local institutions and from those administrative bodies that are furthest from the centre but closest to the citizens.

However, the fundamental arguments expounded by the rapporteur in her report, on which we are voting today, the fundamental logic that she outlines, is commendable, because, from my point of view, it pays due attention to the need to make greater use of EU funds to combat the crisis and the impoverishment of depressed areas or areas at risk of economic and social decline. Moreover, as the report suggests, it is the truly vast world of SMEs that the EU should target today with new and more consistent efforts, if it really does want to help pull the continent out of crisis.

Our SMEs, which make up 99% of Europe’s productive fabric, need freedom from bureaucracy. Today, however, given the difficult conditions that they in particular face, they also need support to overcome the problems of accessing credit and adapting to an increasingly complex and competitive global market.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The European Union and its Member States are facing a major financial, economic and social crisis. They must make considerable efforts to secure as many jobs as possible and achieve the highest possible employment rate in Europe.

In order to beat this crisis, the EU must step up its efforts and invest in skills, vocational training and in creating sustainable jobs. The objective of the EU 2020 strategy should be to launch effectively an extensive European initiative on employment which will, for instance, reinforce activation schemes, particularly for the low-skilled, through personalised advice, intensive training or retraining and upskilling of workers, apprenticeships, subsidised employment and non-refundable start-up grants for the self-employed and businesses.

These measures can be financed by the Payments Committee of the European Social Fund. Early intervention is required at the moment when jobs are actually lost, not least in order to reduce the risk of people becoming excluded from the labour market. These measures are required at a time when the unemployment rate has risen in the EU 27 from 8% in 2009 to 9.6%.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The cohesion policy constitutes an important source of financing for the European regions, and in this sense it plays a decisive role in the fight against the economic and financial crisis.

I join the rapporteur in emphasising the particular importance of Objective 2. While the Structural Funds must definitely contribute first and foremost to helping regions lagging behind in terms of development to catch up, the other regions must have access to financing adapted to the problems they face. Since the 2006 reform, Objective 2 has been contributing to the strengthening of regional competitiveness and employment, with financing of EUR 54.7 billion for the period 2007-2013. This investment in the competitiveness of the regional economies is all the more relevant in a period of economic crisis.

It is through efforts in innovation, research and development that the European Union will be able to regain and stabilise sustainable growth and skilled jobs. In the context of the debate on the European financial perspectives for the post-2013 period, it is essential that the European Parliament remembers its commitment to Objective 2. The cohesion policy must remain a strong and well-financed policy, and I would therefore emphasise the necessity of retaining the financial resources for Objective 2. This is vital for facilitating the convergence of all the European regions.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report focuses on the contribution of EU regional policy to resolving the economic crisis. The structural funds are essential for investment in areas that contribute to improving productivity, and to economic growth. The role of the structural funds is all the more significant at a time of budgetary restrictions, when there are cuts to public investment in the Member States. These funds are also crucial to funding initiatives which are aimed at preparing Europe for the post-crisis situation, such as capacity building activities in new areas and new technologies for Europeans.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Having noted that the recently adopted EU 2020 strategy is structured around economic, social and territorial cohesion, a dynamic cohesion policy, and that the structural funds are indispensable tools for achieving the objective of sustainable and inclusive growth in the Member States, particularly in the regions, I voted completely in favour of the proposals included in this report. In the context of the economic and financial crisis that the EU is currently experiencing, regional and cohesion policy and, in particular, Objective 2 programmes are taking on greater importance in the process of economic recovery, as a stimulus for competitiveness and the creation of jobs at regional and local level, providing essential support for public investment.

I therefore believe that the introduction of greater flexibility is quite positive, and that the simplification of cohesion policy programmes is vital. On the other hand, this means strengthening flexibility in allocating EU funds so as to allow regions to fully benefit from the support for investment in infrastructure, supporting its business community, which is primarily made up of small and medium-sized enterprises, and in stimulating research and modernisation in the industrial or agricultural sectors.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given the importance of the principle of solidarity, I believe that it is crucial for the Community funds for cohesion policy to be implemented effectively. As I have had the opportunity to say on other occasions, the efficient allocation of EU cohesion funds is vital in reducing the imbalances in various regions of the EU 27, to help alleviate imbalances and to promote European competitiveness. It is essential to help disadvantaged areas to develop, to enhance the efficient allocation of funds for innovation, technology and education, and to implement measures to stimulate employment and competitiveness, in particular. The objectives of the EU 2020 strategy must also be a driving force behind this issue.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Regional cohesion is a fundamental objective of the European Union, and it has particular importance in this period of severe and prolonged economic crisis, with a strong impact on the level of unemployment, especially in poorer regions.

With the 2006 reform, Objective 2 related to the strengthening of regional competitiveness and employment in a total of 168 regions in 19 Member States, which corresponds to 314 million people, with total funding of EUR 54.7 billion (just under 16% of total funds) for 2007-2013. Approximately 74% of this amount is aimed at improving knowledge and innovation (33.7%) and more and better jobs (40%).

I advocate a commitment to investment in the real economy and support for small and medium-sized enterprises, prioritising innovation, competitiveness and employment. This is a guideline which frames and enhances the EU 2020 strategy for intelligent, sustainable and inclusive growth.

I would therefore like to stress the urgent need for the Member States and their respective regions to apply for the European funds which are available to them. This is an issue that has gained greater importance in this economic and financial crisis, as I have warned both here in Parliament and in various speeches in Portugal.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The report under discussion is not another attempt to absolve of any blame those who are really responsible for the economic and social crisis that we are currently experiencing, nor is it another attempt to solely accredit workers and the public for allegedly overcoming this crisis. The document warmly supports the key priorities of the EU 2020 strategy, and calls for further strengthening of policies to enhance it through measures to capitalise on Europe’s single market. We should remember that such priorities are the same as those recognised by the revamped Lisbon Strategy, the same as those that justified and promoted the processes of privatising public services, deregulating dismissals and the decline in working conditions, increasing unemployment and the campaign for social regression – that is, the structural causes of the systematic crisis of capitalism that we are facing.

The structural funds, or any other financial tool for regional policy which is primarily aimed at cohesion, should be geared towards a genuine stake in economic development and social progress, territorial cohesion and reducing regional disparities. They should not be knowingly used, perversely, to finance policies which will have consequences contrary to their stated goals and which will, alone, seed new and deeper crises in the future.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) Mr President, today we are discussing the economic and financial crisis, but can we really learn from the lessons of this crisis? Inadequate regulation in the United States of America, when banks gave loans to insolvent clients who were unable to repay these, inevitably led to the toxic loan crisis and we will continue to feel the consequences of this throughout the world for a long time to come. Therefore, European Union regional policy is becoming a key part of the Economic Recovery Plan, constituting the main Community source of investment in the real economy, but the EU lacks effective mechanisms for economic coordination and balanced growth. Cohesion policy, through the Structural Funds and other actions, is of prime importance. Regional policy is not just a means to immediately damp down the negative impact of the economic and social crisis, but is also a long-term policy for combating the structural problems revealed and created against the background of the crisis, particularly as regards competitiveness and employment in the Member States. It is also important for Lithuania to recover from the crisis as quickly as possible and to devote particular attention to increasing competitiveness and employment in the Member States.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report as I consider regional competitiveness and employment to be a key element of cohesion policy, given the current financial crisis which has slowed down the process of economic growth.

It is important now for us to take into account the EU 2020 strategy priorities in order to identify and implement new elements which promote economic growth and the consolidation of the EU’s social and territorial cohesion. Territorial cohesion helps boost the competitiveness of the various regions so as to make them as attractive as possible. It also provides the perfect conditions for entrepreneurship and developing SMEs.

Furthermore, a key role is given in this report to the use of measures for speeding up the implementation of the cohesion policy programmes. The aim is to mobilise the resources and tools required for granting financial support at local and regional level. With this purpose in mind, consideration is being given both to the current needs dictated by the present economic situation, more specifically, the need to find a real-time response, and to identifying long-term measures.

The structural programmes must be implemented not as protective intervention geared towards economic survival, but as sustainable development objectives in the future.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The positive response to combating the financial and economic crisis has demonstrated the importance of EU regional policy. In spite of this, the specific case of Objective 2 covers more than 300 million people in poorer regions who are also suffering the consequences of this severe crisis. This, then, is the time to strengthen the tools for Objective 2 in order to achieve the essential priorities for the EU 2020 strategy.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou’s report relating to the contribution of EU regional policy towards fighting the financial and economic crisis. EU regional policy, the main Community source of investment in the real economy, can make a decisive contribution to the European Economic Recovery Plan. No less than EUR 55 billion has been allocated to the measures for supporting businesses in the context of the European regional policy for the period 2007-2013. This assistance is essential – particularly the assistance for SMEs, which have been seriously weakened by the economic crisis –and must be increased. The investments in research, development, innovation and education must also be strengthened in order to support economic growth and employment within our territories – I am particularly thinking of the South-West constituency of France, which I represent. Finally, EU regional policy will only be truly effective if it achieves real cooperation between local, regional, national, cross-border and European authorities.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In the context of the global financial and economic crisis, EU regional policy makes a contribution to the Economic Recovery Plan by speeding up implementation of programmes under the cohesion policy. The policy of ‘pre-financing’ for programmes under the 2007-2013 cohesion policy resulted in immediate liquidity of EUR 6.25 billion for investment in 2009, within the framework of the financing packages agreed with the Member States.

At the committee stage, Green/EFA amendments were adopted on: support by the financing instruments earmarked for Objective 2 for bodies working for a social, inclusive economy; adding the protection of the environment and the potential development of renewable energy as areas where added value of EU interventions can be demonstrated; and taking appropriate action (short- and long-term measures) for urban regions and centres that present particular and significant social problems (high unemployment, marginalisation, social exclusion, etc.) which have increased owing to the impact of the crisis.

  Catherine Stihler (S&D), in writing. – It is so important that we use collective action across the EU to combat the global economic crisis which we are facing. I fully welcome this report.

  Eva-Britt Svensson (GUE/NGL) , in writing. – (SV) I abstained from voting on the report. There are certain views that I wholeheartedly share, for example, the passage regarding increasing the participation of women in the labour market. However, I have my doubts about the fixation on competitiveness that pervades the document. The own-initiative report calls for an increase of more than 25% specifically for the regions in Objective 2 in order to increase competitiveness. This is to be done within the regional policy budgetary framework. No proper impact assessments have been carried out in this regard. An overall assessment of the 450 programmes falling under the Cohesion Fund, the European Social Fund and the most recent Globalisation Adjustment Fund from 2007 is required to see how these forms of support work from a social and gender-related perspective. They currently overlap one another, resulting in a lack of clarity. I also do not agree with the report that the EU’s regional policy in particular is crucial for European recovery. It is instead the dysfunctional criteria of the Stability Pact that direct the Member States to introduce reductions in wages, pensions and social security, which means that the recovery will take much longer – regardless of EU contributions.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report by the Committee on Regional Development takes a realistic and very current approach to the situation that the Member States and their regions are experiencing, given the context of the economic and financial crisis ravaging Europe. Since I am from Madeira, an outermost region classified as a region targeted by the Regional Competitiveness and Employment objective, the issue addressed here is deeply familiar and relevant to me, which is why I have decided to vote in favour of this report. Objective 2 of the Community cohesion policy aims to boost the regions facing serious unemployment problems and which have structural difficulties that are exacerbated even more by the current crisis.

For regional policy and the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy to be fully realised, it is necessary to strengthen the competitiveness of the regions by developing employment and economic policies. Only in this way will it be possible for Europe to achieve effective, smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. For these reasons, I support the rapporteur’s view, which proposes greater flexibility in allocating Community funds and aid so that the affected regions can benefit from modernisation and support that will translate into real development and, over time, will make way for a more sustainable economy.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – Due to the lack of a single, effective mechanism for economic coordination and balanced growth within the European Union, cohesion policy is playing a leading role in helping us get back on our feet. In particular, Objective 2 of the Structural Funds has been – and remains – one of the most important pillars of cohesion policy, especially in the context of exiting the economic crisis. For countries like Lithuania, more flexible access to the EU regional funds would go a long way to help the recovery of areas worst hit by the crisis. This flexible funding could create new jobs and would have to include diverse areas: investment for infrastructure, support for small firms, professional training, and industrial and rural modernisation. It is important that these instruments are not solely used as fire-fighting interventions. Our efforts must also be focused on long-term restructuring outcomes and the transition to a more sustainable economy – flexibility is also crucial for long-term policy. Objective 2 and other cohesion policy branches can also help once again to narrow the gap between EU Member States. For Lithuania, it is particularly important to catch up where it left off before the financial tsunami hit, and to regain its hard-earned status as a ‘Baltic Tiger’.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – I supported this resolution as EU regional funds are vital in helping those areas worst affected by the current economic crisis. Flexible access to these funds is necessary if regions are to benefit from investment in infrastructure and support for small businesses. I agree fully with the importance of improving aid to ‘Objective 2’ regions; much progress has been made in these regions in recent years and we need to ensure that the present crisis does not hamper further advancements in these poor areas. Implementation of cohesion policy programmes should be sped up in order to help these regions at this time. It is also important to ensure that ‘competitiveness’ remains post-2013 and is not removed from the area of regional policy.

Recommendation for second reading: Antonio Cancian (A7-0174/2010)

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this report because I believe that the assessments and the recommendations made by the European Parliament in this document, which should aim to bring the bus transport sector up to the quality levels of the air and rail transport sectors, must be strongly supported. Unfortunately the Council has instead weakened, if not abolished, both the Commission provisions and the majority of the amendments tabled by the European Parliament at first reading.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This report aims to improve the rights of bus and coach passengers, an ambition which I welcomed by voting in favour. I also took a position in favour of greater convenience in these modes of transport for disabled people and people with reduced mobility, as well as more guarantees for all passengers in case of accidents, and also in case of delay or cancellation.

However, it seemed preferable to me to abstain on Amendment 14. Although this allows for the possibility of Member States granting an exemption in the application of the regulation with regard to urban, suburban and regional transport services, I think that it does not go far enough, and that it imposes too many restrictions, particularly on assistance, which would affect small and medium-sized enterprises unfairly.

All of this had to do with a vote at second reading. The important thing now is to come to an agreement with the Council of the European Union so that this regulation can come into force.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) I welcome what the proposal says about establishing rules for transporting passengers on buses and coaches to eliminate discrimination on the basis of disability. I welcome what it says concerning proportionate compensation and the provision of appropriate assistance to passengers in case of cancellation or delay.

It must be ensured, however, that as a result of this proposal, small carriers do not have to discontinue rural services because of red tape or greatly increased insurance costs. Very many bus services in Ireland are run by local carriers, small businesses and family businesses. Excessive regulation of local and regional services would be a significant financial and administrative burden on businesses that are already struggling.

Rural bus services are vital to rural life. They are a ‘greener’ transport system and often are the only means of transportation for those living in remote rural areas. It must be ensured that too great a burden is not placed on these businesses, a burden which would put them out of business. Passengers should not suffer because of this proposal, either because of more restricted services or higher prices.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I support this regulation concerning passenger rights in bus and coach transport. The aim of this regulation is to establish the rights of passengers when travelling by bus and coach in order to improve the attractiveness of passenger transport by road and to achieve a level playing field between carriers from different Member States and between various modes of transport. Furthermore, we must ensure that the rights of bus and coach passengers are equal to those that have already been laid down in the areas of air and rail transport. Passengers must have the right to compensation if their journey is delayed or cancelled, their luggage is lost or in cases involving the death or injury of passengers. A system must also be established for the treatment of complaints and the payment of damages. We must ensure the right to mobility of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility, providing free assistance if necessary.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. – (CS) Bus and coach transport is the only form of transport where there is still no pan-European measure on passenger rights. The persistence of varying levels of passenger protection depending on the form of transport being used is unacceptable. I therefore voted in favour of the report on passenger rights in bus and coach transport. The Member States unfortunately work hand-in-glove with the transport operators, and oppose stronger passenger rights. However, the European Parliament is bringing certainty that persons travelling by bus and coach will have the same rights as those travelling by plane or by rail. I applaud the fact that, in the event of culpable delays in arrival, passengers will have the right to compensation amounting to 25% of the ticket price for delays longer than one hour, and 50% of the ticket price for delays longer than two hours. In my opinion, passenger rights are also significantly strengthened by the possibility, in the event of a connection being cancelled or delayed by more than two hours, of passengers being able to decide between continuing to their destination without any additional charge or obtaining a refund of the ticket price and compensation amounting to 50% of the ticket price.

Another achievement is the right of passengers to claim for food, hotel accommodation and replacement services in the event of a cancellation or delay in departure by more than one hour on long-distance routes. The European Parliament also approved the requirement for transport operators to be held liable for the loss of or damage to luggage up to the amount of EUR 1 800, and up to EUR 1 300 in the case of hand baggage.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This regulation is aimed at establishing a common framework of rights for bus passengers, guaranteeing them a level of protection comparable to that already established for other means of transport, such as trains and aeroplanes. At the level of passenger carrying road transport, it is important to arrive at comparable conditions between carriers from the various Member States and between different means of transport, which must include liability for death or injuries, compensation and immediate assistance in case of cancellation or delays, without forgetting the possibility that the passengers can lodge a complaint if they consider that their rights have not been respected.

I am disappointed with the lack of ambition in the Council’s proposal, not only because it considerably reduces the scope of this regulation, but also because it diminishes the level of protection for passengers travelling by road within the EU. I have no doubt that it is important to preserve economic viability for companies and take account of the special circumstances of businesses in this sector, the great majority of which are small and medium-sized enterprises. However, it is also important to ensure that there is a balance between the economic pillar and the pillar relating to the protection of passengers’ rights.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on the rights of passengers in bus and coach transport, as it means strengthening the rights of members of the public who use these means of transport, including compensating passengers for delays, cancellation or accidents, and assisting people with disabilities.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Irrespective of the means of transport they use, passengers have the right to a good quality and safe service. For this reason, I think this proposal to introduce harmonised rules on passenger rights in bus and coach transport throughout the EU is a positive step. Furthermore, I believe that passenger rights should essentially be the same irrespective of the means of transport used, except where this would be inconsistent with the characteristics of the means of transport in question. It seems reasonable that the Member States should defend their right to exempt certain operators of regular urban, suburban and regional services, including services that come under the regulation, provided that these are bound by internal laws or contractual obligations to respect passenger rights. We should not forget that in Europe, there are not only large carriers, but also small and medium-sized transport companies, and we should take particular care over the latter. Finally, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs for their work towards achieving conciliation with the Council, and I hope that it will soon be possible to reach an agreement on the final version of this regulation.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Union should be strategically guided by and prioritise the creation of conditions to promote and strengthen the use of public transport. This is an issue that is crucial to the success of a Europe committed to combating climate change and urban pollution, promoting the use of renewable energy and reducing dependence on fossil fuels.

In this context, I would stress the contribution of this report to ensuring not only an efficient network of connections, but also conditions for convenience, quality of services, security and assistance. It seeks to reconcile the rights of the public – on which point I highlight my concerns with rights for people with disabilities or reduced mobility – with the need to also take account of the viability of carriers, and all the more so in this time of severe economic crisis.

This means that it is necessary to reconcile the preservation of economic viability for businesses, bearing in mind the special characteristics of the bus and coach transport industry, with a high level of protection for passengers comparable to that in place for other means of transport.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The changes proposed to the second reading generally guarantee an improvement in passenger rights for collective road transport, which we support. We note that the approved changes also improve on the previous version, by guaranteeing, in particular:

– That passengers should be able to benefit from rules on accountability comparable to those that are applicable to other means of transport in the case of accidents which cause death or bodily injuries;

– that carriers should be responsible for loss or damage to passengers’ baggage, under rules comparable to those applicable to other means of transport;

– that carriers need to heed the appropriate access conditions for people with disabilities and those with restricted mobility;

– that the Member States should promote the use of public transport and introduce interoperable and intermodal information systems to provide information on timetables and prices with multimodal ticketing to optimise the use and interoperability of the different means of transport. These services should also be accessible to people with disabilities;

– that bus and coach transport companies should be responsible for losses or damages that result from the death or bodily injuries of passengers, caused by accidents related to using transport services.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) For some months, the Commission has been focusing its attention on the rights of consumers, and particularly those of passengers travelling on all modes of transport. It cannot, however, treat the bus or coach transport sector, which essentially consists of small and medium-sized enterprises, in the same way as it treats an air or rail company, nor can it impose obligations which are proportionally more restrictive and much more costly for a small enterprise, which runs the risk of going out of business, than for a large multinational.

The enormous gap that exists between Parliament’s amendments, which are very dogmatic, and the compromise obtained in the Council, which is more pragmatic, also says a lot. Furthermore, I think that there is a fundamental iniquity in subjecting companies which are, by definition, ‘captives’ of European territory to the rigour of obligations proposed in case of accidents, while air or sea companies are regulated by international agreements which allow them to get out of paying compensation for the actual harm caused, as the tragic case of the Rio-Paris flight would seem to indicate.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Bus and coach passengers must enjoy rights similar to those already granted by European legislation to air and sea passengers. Bus passengers cannot and must not be the only ones not to be protected by a Union regulation. This is the key message that I want to send by voting for this report, and I strongly regret that it was not possible to adopt a common framework for all modes of transport. More particularly, I voted in favour of a large number of amendments which aimed to impose greater responsibility on transport companies in case of loss of or damage to luggage, and particularly in case of injury or death of passengers. Above all, I firmly supported the proposals aiming to strengthen the rights of disabled people and people with reduced mobility, to make transport accessible to such people, and also to provide them with information in accessible formats, because we have a responsibility in this area. I am disappointed that a compromise could not be found with the Council, which has showed itself to be quite unwilling to go forward. However, although this is not an easy subject, we must have a European framework to protect the rights of these passengers, and the conciliation procedure will, in the autumn, give us cause to discuss this once again.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Cancian’s report on behalf of all passengers, who must receive the recognition they deserve in the event of personal injury or damage to luggage, or cancellations of and delays in the services operated by carriers. In this way, carriers should be liable for loss of or damage to passengers’ luggage on terms comparable to those applicable to other modes of transport. Particular attention should also be paid to safeguarding the rights of disabled passengers or passengers with reduced mobility, who must be able to receive appropriate assistance and benefit from facilities that will make it easier for them, in particular, to access public transport services. To that end, I hope that the Member States will make a real commitment to improve the existing conditions and infrastructure, so as to ensure that disabled people and people with reduced mobility are provided with a service that meets their needs.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – Greater rights for bus and coach passengers are strongly required, and this second reading of the draft regulation reinstates some greatly needed provisions for the liability of carriers, for the rights of passengers in instances of delay or cancellation and, in particular, for the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility. At a time when we should be promoting public transport as an efficient and environmentally friendly option, these new provisions for passengers would afford them the corresponding rights they deserve.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The scant regulation of the rights of passengers on bus and coach transport has led to the need for this legislative resolution to be adopted, as the rights of passengers should always be safeguarded, regardless of the type of transport that they are using. It is also very important to adapt transport infrastructure, new vehicles and refurbished used vehicles to the needs of passengers with limited mobility.

  Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), in writing. – (PL) One of the roles of the EU institutions is to side with the citizens in conflicts with the business world – a world which makes every effort to maximise profit. These efforts often strike at the rights of disabled persons, who often encounter situations of discrimination when they try to be mobile and when they want to use transport services. The ban on discrimination on the grounds of reduced mobility in bus and coach transport is a great step forward in the fight for the right to equal participation in society by disabled persons. An important feature of the regulation on bus and coach transport services is the compensation for a cancellation or a delay affecting a service, which is something we are also familiar with in air transport. This should be standard in all types of transport services because it shows the carrier’s respect for the passengers. I feel the same way about the rules forcing transport firms to pay compensation to the victims of accidents, both for loss of health and for damage to luggage. They are steps in the right direction, because they strengthen the citizen’s position in relations with transport firms. In view of these rules, I decided to endorse the recommendation for second reading on the Council position at first reading for adopting a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the rights of passengers in bus and coach transport and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour and I congratulate Mr Cancian on his report, which I feel is thorough. I also applaud the attention paid to the needs of disabled passengers and passengers with reduced mobility, for whom public transport represents a fundamental means by which to integrate into society, and to the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. In most cases, in fact, bus transport is operated by small enterprises. As is the case for train and air passengers, I believe that a set of rights and guarantees should be established for bus passengers, but with account taken of the specific characteristics of that type of service. I therefore fully support Mr Cancian’s proposal and his very well-balanced approach.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) This is a regulation which affects the everyday life of European citizens, but which is late in being adopted, as the European Parliament considered the Council’s position to lack ambition and to be unacceptable. Just like those travelling on other modes of transport, bus and coach passengers have essential rights which we are trying to guarantee with this regulation: compensation in case of delay, cancellation, loss of or damage to luggage; non-discrimination against disabled passengers and passengers with reduced mobility; and, above all, the responsibility of coach drivers in case of injury or death.

Journeys have been considerably democratised in recent years, and we have to be pleased about that. However, we cannot cut prices if this means compromising the safety of the hundreds of thousands of children, elderly people and families who travel on our European highways each year. By adopting this regulation, Parliament has thus also shown the ambition to put a stop to unscrupulous practices by companies with tempting offers, which attract customers who do not always have alternative options for travelling.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Cancian report concerning the rights of passengers in bus and coach transport. This regulation is essential in terms of protecting the rights of travellers, in that it establishes European rules concerning the information which is to be given to passengers before and during their journey, assistance and compensation should the journey be interrupted, and specific measures for people with reduced mobility.

With the Council having clearly moved away from the ambitious approach which our assembly had adopted at first reading, our vote today shows our desire to achieve a wide-ranging report, and we are moving calmly towards conciliation. From this perspective, I am particularly pleased with the clear signal that we are sending to the Council by having adopted today all the amendments relating to the responsibility of transport companies, whether this is compensation in case of loss of or damage to luggage, or compensation in case of injuries or, even more tragically, the death of passengers. I am sure that the Council has taken note of our determination.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The Cancian recommendation on ‘passengers’ rights for buses/coaches’ was adopted, including the paragraphs relating to aspects as important as liability rules with accidents (2), liability with loss/damage of luggage (3), liability in the event of death or personal injury (4), and more precise formulations for care of passengers in the event of delays or interruptions. Now we go into conciliation.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) Whilst the Council’s proposal excludes regular urban, suburban and regional transport services as well as cross-border services, giving Member States the chance to avoid applying the legislation to national services for 15 years, the report substantially restores the important measures of the initial report. These include: the liability of operators, which much be brought into line with that in other modes of transport, with particular attention to assistance and advance payments in case of accidents; the rights of passengers in case of cancellations and delayed departures; and the rights of persons with disabilities or reduced mobility. Therefore, we have voted in favour.

  Vilja Savisaar (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) Today’s vote on the report concerning the rights of bus passengers brings in changes which, from one point of view, are expensive, but which are nevertheless necessary to guarantee all Europeans equal opportunities in using such services. I believe we should fully support the principle that in future, buses purchased and bus stations built should also be fit for purpose with regard to their suitability for disabled people and people with special needs. At the same time, I believe it is essential to carry out additional adjustments and to apply the rules in order to guarantee the rights of passengers both in cases of cancellation and in connection with baggage handling. The European people deserve precise and specific rules which guarantee the quality of the service and specify the rights and obligations of both parties.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Today, we voted upon two reports that are extremely important to the daily life of passengers, and which aim to ensure that users of the respective services have a range of rights as comparable as possible to those already in place for other means of transport. The position outlined by the Council regarding the proposed regulation not only voids the content of the proposal presented by the Commission in 2008, but also the position adopted by Parliament at the first reading. If followed, it would greatly limit the scope of the report and exempt the majority of providers of bus and coach services from the reach of future regulation. Instead, I would like to see a legal protection framework which can fully address situations of lost luggage, delays and cancellation of services, especially one which holds companies liable for cases of death or injury.

For this reason, I voted in favour of the amendments tabled by my colleague, Mr Cancian, to ensure that the passengers concerned, particularly those with disabilities or restricted mobility, can benefit from this type of transport and are given an adequate level of protection, bearing in mind the difficult economic environment which we are experiencing and the need to maintain companies that offer these types of services.

Recommendation for second reading: Inés Ayala Sender (A7-0177/2010)

  John Attard-Montalto (S&D), in writing. – The concerns with the report voted are the following:

– the widening of the scope of the regulation to also cover small boats would impose additional burdens on small boat operators and, in many cases, it would not be possible for them to comply with the requirements of the regulation;

– in several of the amendments, responsibilities of compliance are addressed to the port authorities. When passenger terminals are privatised, as in the case of Malta, such responsibilities should rest on the port terminals and not on the port authorities;

– the compensation levels are very often considered to be too high, while the delay periods proposed in the report are considered to be too restrictive when one considers that shipping is much more dependent on weather conditions than other modes of transport in meeting departure and arrival times;

– the proposed timeframe for implementation of twelve months is too short; a period of twenty-four to thirty-six months is more appropriate.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this draft regulation concerning the rights of passengers travelling by sea or inland waterway, because it seems to me to be vital to increase the rights of my fellow Europeans. In particular, the rights of disabled people and people with reduced mobility are to be strengthened thanks to this report and this process for protecting travellers within the European Union. I also appreciate the fact that exceptional circumstances were taken into account in this report. Even if these circumstances remain extraordinary, they can pose serious problems to travellers when they arise. This report also aims to facilitate assistance, retransportation, reimbursement and compensation for passengers in such circumstances. All of this had to do with a vote at second reading. The important thing now is to come to an agreement with the Council of the European Union so that this regulation can come into force as soon as possible.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The full liberalisation of the maritime passenger transport market can only be achieved when the consumers (not just the companies) can derive the maximum benefits. It is crucial that consumers are given effective rights to ensure that liberalisation allows for real choice. We should not forget that 22 of the 27 EU Member States are coastal countries, so it is imperative to guarantee security and certainty for the users of these means of transport, so that we can bring measures of protection for these passengers into line with those for other means of transport. It is worth remembering that in some matters, the regulation of maritime passengers’ rights was scattered and disparate from state to state. With this new legal setup, the European public will be able to expect situations of delay, cancellation or denied boarding to be rectified immediately, and mandatory information for passengers and means of complaint and redress.

I believe that the provisions laid down by the European Parliament relating to passengers with disabilities or restricted mobility are particularly important, especially with regard to accessibility, non-discrimination and assistance. By making it generally prohibited to refuse carriage to these people, it will contribute to the fight against social exclusion and bring about a European Union of people without internal borders.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Following the success of Community initiatives in the regulation of passengers’ rights on air and rail transport, we now have a proposal for regulation of passengers’ rights on maritime transport and inland waterways. These, as I said about the recommendation that we have just voted upon, state that, irrespective of the means of transport they use, passengers have the right to a good quality and safe service. For this reason, I think this proposal to introduce harmonised rules on passenger rights in bus and coach transport throughout the EU is a positive step. Furthermore, I believe that passenger rights should be essentially the same irrespective of the means of transport used, except where this would be inconsistent with the characteristics of the means of transport in question.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I support this report as it advocates equal treatment and criteria for users of different types of public transport, whether by air, sea or land, in order to ensure that the rights of members of the public are protected in extraordinary and exceptional situations that may occur in using sea transport. The responsibility to prove that a ship cannot carry out transport due to exceptional circumstances or adverse weather conditions should clearly fall to the transporter. I would like to point out that safety conditions cannot be neglected and made relative in any circumstances.

The complaints system should be accessible and clear to passengers. I am pleased that the time period for complaints to be made, delays in notification, equipment replacement and compensation have been improved from the passenger’s point of view. Combating exclusion is a priority for the EU. I therefore believe that the rights of passengers with disabilities and reduced mobility should be firmly guaranteed.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the Ayala Sender report concerning the rights of passengers travelling by sea or inland waterway, because I consider it important that these passengers should enjoy the same rights and guarantees as air passengers. Whether in case of delay, breakdown, loss of luggage or, more seriously, in case of accident, transport companies must adhere to their responsibilities, and passengers must be protected and, if necessary, correctly compensated. I am pleased at the adoption of specific measures obliging transport companies to cater for disabled people or people with reduced mobility, and to train their staff accordingly.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The new rights afforded to passengers on boats and ships are to be welcomed. Many areas of Scotland are dependent on passenger ferries for their survival and it is correct that people living in these communities are given strong consumer protection. The EU-wide nature of this legislation will also afford protection to my constituents travelling abroad, as well as to the many thousands of people from across the world who come to enjoy the splendour of Scotland’s Highlands and islands.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I agree with this proposal concerning the passenger rights when travelling by sea and inland waterway which, alongside one on the rights of bus and coach passengers, is part of a package put forward by the European Commission in December 2008. These proposals seek to build on the rights gained by air and rail travellers under existing European Union legislation – an example of very successful EU lawmaking which has brought tangible rights for citizens of the Union – by extending similar rights, taking account of the specificities of the sectors concerned, to maritime and inland waterway transport. This mode of transport would become more attractive, more reliable and there would be a level playing field for carriers from the various Member States. The adoption of the regulation laying down new rules will enhance the protection of all passengers in general and, in particular, that of disabled people and those with limited mobility. However, extending the scope of the regulation too much to include small boats would bring an additional burden for the operators of small boats and consequently, in many cases, it would probably be impossible for them to comply with the requirements of the regulation.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Union should concern itself with the rights of passengers travelling by sea and inland waterways, so that they have a high level of protection comparable to that already in place on other means of transport. Passengers with reduced mobility due to illness, age or any other factor should also benefit from exactly the same conditions as other passengers. This means that there needs to be investment in terminals and ports.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Passengers on ships, no matter whether travelling on inland waterways or by sea, should be granted the same rights as those travelling by air and rail. These passengers should also have the opportunity to submit compensation claims. In this case, too, it is primarily about accommodating people with particular needs. I voted for the report as I wholeheartedly welcome the overall package, which also includes bus and coach passengers’ rights.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – With the adoption of the Ayala recommendation on the rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway, the agreement with the Transport Council was entirely adopted, so the regulation is finalised at second reading. However, I have to show my concern regarding the fact that one of the amendments included, Amendment 82, jointly presented by the S&D, EPP, ALDE and ECR Groups, weakens notably the rights of persons with reduced mobility.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) Despite the fact that the report pays particular attention to the rights of passengers with reduced mobility and the legislation in favour of passengers is strengthened, we are voting against the proposal as we believe that there are numerical limits which prevent the legislation from being applicable in full.

  Laurence J.A.J. Stassen (NI), in writing. – (NL) The Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV) feels very strongly about the rights of passengers, particularly disabled passengers, and so we wish to afford the rights of these passengers the best possible protection. However, we do not consider European legislation to be the right instrument for protecting passenger rights. The PVV takes the view that it should remain the responsibility of Member States to ensure adequate protection of passenger rights. The Netherlands itself is best placed to make tailored policy. For example, the Netherlands already has a policy in place at local level for passenger infrastructure and access for disabled passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway. Member States, provinces and municipalities themselves are best placed to judge what is necessary to meet national and local needs.

In addition, in practice, this legislation imposed by Europe could lead to additional costs for small terminals and self-employed entrepreneurs, which could force them out of business. Furthermore, this proposal will result in the Netherlands having to foot part of the bill in future for adjustments in countries that do not have their own house in order. This compelled us to vote against this proposal.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The objective of this report is to give maritime transport passengers a framework of legal protection that is similar to the one that already exists for rail and air transport, with particular emphasis on passengers with disabilities and restricted mobility. I am pleased to note again that there is a reference to natural disasters which, unfortunately, have recurred more and more often in Europe and which cause damage of great proportions, leading to potentially tragic situations. These should therefore be taken into account so as to allow precautions to be taken and subsequent claims for assistance to be made.

I also believe that it is pertinent to highlight the importance given to the need to ensure that information for passengers, particularly if they are foreigners, is provided in a clear way, especially when it relates to their entitlements in the case of delays and complaints. For these reasons, I voted in favour of the amendments tabled to the Council’s position.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – I fully support the decision to give ferry and boat passengers compensation when facing delays or cancellations. As is the case with the airline industry, passengers deserve to be protected against disruption. Access to services should be a priority, and I am pleased to see that the rights of disabled passengers are being taken into account in this regulation – disability should not be a reason for denying passengers the right to board. I hope that further steps will be taken in the near future to come to an agreement on bus passenger rights to ensure protection for people travelling in Europe.

Recommendations for a second reading: Antonio Cancian (A7-0174/2010) and Inés Ayala Sender (A7-0177/2010)

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Consumer rights must be protected. This legislation is heading in the right direction, giving more rights to passengers travelling by boat or coach. Passengers on maritime transport will have rights similar to those stipulated in European legislation for aeroplane and train passengers. For example, passengers will be entitled to compensation in case of delay, cancellation or accidents, and passengers with disabilities will have the right to assistance.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE), in writing. – (IT) We could have celebrated today had we jointly approved the two regulations concerning the rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway and in bus and coach transport; instead, we have missed an opportunity. I welcome the adoption of the regulation concerning travel by sea and inland waterway. In particular, the introduction of new rules on compensation for delays and cancellations, and the guarantee of comprehensive assistance for disabled passengers, are two very positive aspects. However, despite the excellent work done by Parliament, it has not been possible to adopt the regulation concerning the rights of passengers in bus and coach transport at second reading. It almost seems as though the Council does not want this regulation, limiting its scope excessively, delaying its entry into force and offering scarcely any protection to disabled people. We do not want to impose too great a burden on the thousands of small and medium-sized enterprises in the sector, but a decent standard of protection must be guaranteed. I hope that an acceptable compromise can be reached in conciliation.

Recommendation for second reading: Anne E. Jensen (A7-0211/2010)

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This report aims to accelerate the deployment and interoperability of intelligent transport systems in road transport at European Union level. I am always concerned about improving territorial cohesion within the Union, and I believe that this directive will be a step forward in this direction. I therefore supported it, all the more so because the directive as adopted by the parliamentary Committee on Transport and Tourism treats the issue of protecting personal data in a balanced manner. I therefore hope that an agreement will be reached with the Council at second reading, because this is a directive which can only boost the confidence of Europeans in transport within the European Union.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I supported this regulation on the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other modes of transport. In order to solve increasing road infrastructure problems, there are proposals to deploy advanced information and communication technologies. However, first of all specifications should be drafted on the use of these modes, such as information on journeys by various types of transport, the provision of traffic services, information on safe and secure parking places for trucks and commercial vehicles and the harmonised introduction of eCall throughout Europe. However, the Commission should first of all draw up an annual working programme to be implemented by Member States. In turn, Member States should take the necessary measures to ensure the effective and harmonious deployment and use of transport modes and services in the Community: the updating of road transport information and cooperation between management centres.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The effectiveness of using information and communications technology in the sphere of road transport is indisputable. However, it has been verified that Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) are being used in a fragmented and inefficient manner. It is urgent to set out a legislative framework that harmonises the systems’ operations and creates a mechanism for efficient cooperation between all parties interested in the ITS. I therefore support the adoption of the directive on ITS as soon as possible, so as to speed up the implementation of this technology in the road transport sector and in interfaces with other forms of transport. This new directive will contribute significantly to improving the environmental performance, energy efficiency, road transport safety and the mobility of passengers and freight. The correct functioning of the internal market must be ensured.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on Intelligent Transport Systems in the sphere of road transport and interfaces with other forms of transport, given that these will allow better safety and organisation of European transport systems, making them more efficient from an economic and environmental viewpoint.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The present proposal is for the creation of a legal framework for the implementation of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) in Europe in the sphere of road transport and interfaces with other modes (global positioning system, automatic alarm system and traffic control instruments). This directive is intended to ensure greater inter-operability in the transport system and create an efficient cooperation system between all parties interested in the ITS. The four priority areas identified are: (i) better use of traffic routes and journey data; (ii) management of European transport corridors; (iii) road safety; and (iv) integration of vehicles into transport infrastructure. All these objectives will allow road transport to become more efficient, safer and greener, and will ensure better inter-operability with other modes of transport and, for this reason, creating the conditions for an effective application of ITS systems. The agreement made with the Council, and outlined in this recommendation, will, in the words of the rapporteur, pave the way ‘to make up for delays on ITS applications and services and remove inefficiencies on travelling by making transport more efficient, safer and secure while contributing to the policy objective of making transport cleaner’.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Establishing a framework for the implementation of a system that promotes the coordinated interconnection and sharing of information between the different intelligent land transport systems will be key to ensuring greater efficiency in land mobility within the European Union.

Bringing together and harmonising the full potential of the different information systems on land traffic, which currently work in a disjointed way, independently of one another, will have great economic and social advantages, and also in terms of quality of life, allowing safer and more environmentally friendly travel planning, and shorter or quicker journeys. Better public management of infrastructure and transport policy development will also be crucial. If this initiative is to have a greater impact, I would like to point out the importance of developing specifications for road transport, particularly with regard to connections with other types of transport.

I support Parliament’s position on engaging Member States in deploying applications and interoperable services for intelligent transport systems, along with stressing the need to ensure seamless access and the creation of an efficient mechanism for cooperation between all interested parties.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I voted enthusiastically for this report, because it promotes the development of so-called intelligent transport systems; that is, the use of new technologies in the field of transport. These systems will enable better monitoring and management of road traffic, as well as greater safety and security for users of road transport. They will allow for the provision of safer and cheaper road transport, as well as the reduction of traffic jams and greenhouse gas emissions. In this respect, the adoption of this report represents a great advance for Europeans, who will be the prime beneficiaries of the arrival of these new transport-related technologies, and I am pleased about that.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted for this document, because it would accelerate the implementation of intelligent transport system solutions. In the last few years, these solutions were implemented slower than those of other modes of transport with fragmented deployment which leads to a patchwork of national, regional and local solutions. The deployment of advanced transport systems should be welcomed and we must do this by cooperating closely with all relevant public and private sector actors. Therefore, the agreement paves the way to make up for delays and remove inefficiencies when travelling by making transport more efficient, safer, cleaner and reducing journey times, and this would clearly be beneficial to transport users.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The deployment of intelligent transport systems for road transport and its interfaces with other types of transport are essential in ensuring the operability of systems, guaranteeing seamless access to all forms of transport and the creation of mechanisms for cooperation between all stakeholders in the implementation of intelligent transport systems. The approval of this draft legislative resolution is an important step towards deploying intelligent transport systems.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) If intelligent traffic systems are actually implemented, they must be interoperable. This is where the confusion with the mobile phone chargers was a lesson to us: common standards need to be established beforehand. Some thought was also given to mutual recognition and data protection, hence why I am giving my approval.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The Greens/EFA have supported the Jensen recommendation on ‘Intelligent Transport Systems’. The agreement with the Council was adopted and the directive has been finalised at second reading.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) We voted in favour of this report as it provides a framework for enacting intelligent transport systems in the Member States with the aim of creating a coordinated and integrated system. Particular attention must be paid to the issue of privacy, listing key principles that shall have to be used for future actions.

  Vilja Savisaar (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) I welcome the fact that in today’s vote, we approved the use of intelligent transport systems in road transport and their interfaces with other modes of transport. In the Committee on Transport and Tourism, I have repeatedly drawn attention to the usefulness and necessity of intelligent transport systems and also, of course, the associated effect of their use on both transport and the environment. It is good that the Council has moved away from their initial view and that they support the rapid and wide-scale implementation of these systems. In a nutshell, we can say that intelligent transport systems will help us to ensure smooth and seamless traffic, to increase the safety of passengers, and to save the environment.

Report: Dirk Sterckx (A7-0064/2010)

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All measures aimed at simplifying procedures and exempting transport within the EU from unnecessary formalities are welcome and deserving of my support. We cannot forget that more bureaucracy means greater costs for companies and, often, loss of efficiency, which cannot be allowed in the times of crisis through which we are currently struggling. We know that administrative burdens (and the additional costs resulting from them) have made maritime freight transport less attractive and have been a serious impediment to its full development; this is despite this form of transport being less environmentally harmful and, for this reason, the one which should be most encouraged and supported, in a context of clean development. It is for this reason that I enthusiastically support the proposal for administrative simplification (through reduced customs formalities, guidelines for plant health inspections, and the rationalisation of documents) currently being presented, and am hoping that this will provide a boost to maritime transport within the EU.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In this time of severe economic crisis and sluggishness in the various sectors, compounded by difficulties in the public finances of the Member States, I believe that simplifying legislation and regulations should be a priority, so as to make operating conditions for businesses and institutions more efficient.

Shipping is subjected to complex administrative procedures, even for ships sailing between two EU ports and which do not enter the ports of third countries, and this incurs charges and unnecessary costs. I therefore support measures to reduce bureaucracy which make the use of new technologies worthwhile and enhance the concept of the single European area, abolishing complex administrative procedures and ensuring further gains by reducing administrative burdens.

This initiative to exempt intra-European maritime transportation of goods from red tape and streamline procedures in the ports of different Member States is crucial in promoting a European maritime transport area without barriers and in ensuring conditions for more attractive, efficient, economic and environmentally friendly transport services.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I voted with conviction to adopt the legislative resolution, because it makes provision for the simplification of administrative formalities applicable to ships entering or exiting the ports of Member States. I am pleased that it was adopted with a resounding majority. Now, ships will no longer be subject to complex and repetitive administrative formalities: a standard formula will be established, as well as a new electronic system which will allow for the rapid and simple sharing of information between the ship and the port authority. This report represents a vital step towards the creation of a large European sea network without barriers, which I have been calling for for several years.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I supported this report because maritime transport is subject to complex administrative procedures, even in the case of ships moving between two EU ports which do not call at a port in a third country. As a result, there are additional administrative burdens, and thus additional costs, related to the transporting of goods by ship. This makes maritime goods transport less attractive and means that it is not used to the optimum extent. We need to promote the wider use of electronic data exchange and the introduction of ‘e-maritime systems’, a single window, reduce formalities, rationalise flux and space in ports, use a common language and simplify the procedure for obtaining a Pilotage Exemption Certificate.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Maritime transport is undoubtedly one of the most environmentally friendly modes of transport, and it should therefore be encouraged so that it can help in achieving the objectives relating to the environment set out by the EU 2020 strategy. At a time of international crisis, the increase in this type of transport involves the reduction of costs contained in administrative tasks required of shipping companies. Thus, the formalities required by EU legislation should be simplified and harmonised. Creating a large European transport area without barriers is essential.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The Verts/ALE Group supported the Sterckx report on formalities for ships at seaports. The agreement with the Council was thus adopted and the directive has been finalised at first reading.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) Notwithstanding the fact that the creation of a European maritime transport space without barriers is of crucial importance for European maritime transport, since it extends the internal market to intra-European maritime transport through the abolition of obstacles and the simplification of the administrative procedures to which it is subject, we have abstained in the vote as the report includes some sensitive items such as data protection.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The achievement of free movement in the European Union also includes the realisation of the concept of a European maritime space without frontiers, in which the goal is to abolish or simplify controls applied to ships and goods within the EU. The declaration formalities required of ships when arriving or leaving Member State ports should, therefore, be simplified and a system of electronic data transmission introduced (the SafeSeaNet), with which national systems should be inter-operable, accessible and compatible.

Considering that a maritime space with less formal obstacles will enable maritime transport to become more attractive and more efficient and, consequently, to contribute to promoting connected activities, namely in related coastal zones, such as in the case of islands, I am voting in favour of the measures proposed in the present report.

Report: Mathieu Grosch (A7-0189/2010)

  John Attard-Montalto (S&D), in writing. – One major problem aviation has in reducing CO2 emissions is that it has a very limited abatement potential, even though one is here talking of 2% of the man-made emissions ( these are 3% of all emissions given that nature emits 97%). The only areas where it can reduce CO2 are through: better technology – the latest are already employed; operational procedures – the price of fuel made sure that they were introduced; Single European Sky – this depends on governments and is a debate which started 40 years ago: the only thing we got last April was a Single Empty Sky with the volcanic ash crisis, an act of God for which airlines have had to foot the bill; and biofuels – unless there is serious government/EU investment, these will never see the light of day in commercial quantities.

The EU airline industry is already in dire straits. What is being suggested in the report does not bode well for a sustainable future for transport, particularly if one intends to guarantee the freedom of movement enshrined in the treaty for those people like the Maltese not having access to an alternative mode of transport to reach the rest of the EU and other parts of the world.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) We need to reflect deeply on the future of the European transport system for three reasons: the enlargement of the European Union to 27 Member States, our environmental responsibilities and our commitment to the safety of passengers. This reflection is the subject of this report, which I believe is relevant in at least two ways: first, on the idea of ‘efficient comodality’, which asserts complementarity rather than competition between the different modes of transport, and second, regarding the necessity of transport sustainability, which requires us to work towards the ‘decarbonisation’ of transport as well as the development of intelligent transport systems. However, I supported the amendment submitted on point 32, which introduced the notion of a European transport fund. It seems to me that an independent fund dedicated to transport would risk undermining the consistency of the cohesion policy, 60% of whose funds are allocated to transport. The reflection on the organisation of the structural funds must be carried out jointly and in a global manner within the context of the next multiannual financial framework.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) I voted in favour of this report because there is a need for a clear and consistent policy in the transport sector. Transport matters are at the heart of the single market: the transport sector creates jobs, gives aid and assistance to businesses throughout Europe and encourages sustainable growth and competitiveness in Europe.

Better performance and higher environmental standards are being sought in this report. In addition, priority must be given to security in transportation policies, and the report asks the Commission to have a study carried out on security standards and on provisions regarding driving too quickly in Member States in order to promote best practice.

In my opinion, definite targets must be set if significant results are to be achieved. This report mentions a target of a 40% reduction in deaths and serious injuries to road users, pedestrians and motorists alike. Ireland has done well in this regard already, and this year, has received praise from the European Transport Safety Council. Since 2001, there has been a 41% decrease in fatalities on the roads of Ireland, and this report can add to that improvement.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) The transport sector is very important for trying to establish the European common market. Furthermore, this sector is an important element of the development of the EU and its regions because it is responsible for creating 10% of the EU’s gross domestic product and more than 10 million jobs. Therefore, we must ensure greater accessibility to transport and the establishment and improvement of infrastructure links and promote the use of various types of transport. We must also combat the main problem, the negative impact of traffic on health and the environment, and achieve a reduction in the amount of CO2 emitted by transport using sustainable measures such as the coordination of energy obtained from different sources, support for scientific research and the development of technologies and modes of transport that are less harmful to the environment. However, in order to achieve these tasks, we need more funding, not just from Member States, but also EU funds.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The transport sector is vital in Europe in terms of the service that it offers to the European public, and also in terms of employment and environmental impact. This resolution establishes the main thrust of European transport policy for the next 10 years, with particular attention paid to reducing the impact of transport systems in responding to the problem of climate change. Transport is responsible for 25% of CO2 emissions in Europe. It is crucial to have cleaner vehicles and more efficient transport systems in order to reduce this impact.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The report on ‘A sustainable future for transport’ is a positive signal in favour of a Europe of efficient and integrated transport. Without speeding up the procedures of mutual recognition and authorisation of vehicles, access to the market will continue to be long and costly. Less road transport, more railway, river and sea links for freight, an environment which is safeguarded and protected – these projects draw us a picture of an ideal Europe. The reality is a bit different, however. All of these projects are late because of a lack of political will, coordination between the Member States, and financing. There is not much evidence of collective ambition. From now until 2020, the European Union will have to face many challenges: the next European Commission White Paper on European transport policy for the next ten years represents an opportunity to develop a global, integrated and transverse strategy, one which is able to respond to the challenges of the coming years. The resolution which we have just adopted is a strong signal to the European Commission, a first stepping stone for this strategy, and aims to give transport its place in European policy once again.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on a sustainable future for transport, as transport sustainability is fundamental, not only from the environmental viewpoint, but also for the social, economic and territorial cohesion of the EU. Greater efforts and innovative ways of investment are needed that will make it possible to finish a trans-European transport network and ensure the sustained development of transport in the medium and long terms.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) According to the data in the report, the transport sector in the EU accounts for 10% of the wealth (GDP), provides employment for over 10 million people and is responsible for 25% of total CO2 emissions. These figures make it even more evident that to speak of the future of the EU, to speak of the EU 2020 strategy, or even to speak of cohesion policies is also to speak of transport. If transport policy should prioritise the safety of passengers and of users (and for this reason, we have today approved two initiatives regarding passenger rights), it cannot forget other goals such as the coherent and harmonious development of all regions, linking the coast and the interior and large cities to more depressed regions, or environmental protection and reducing CO2 emissions, giving priority to the least polluting, such as maritime and rail transport, which should be made a priority for freight transport. A suitable and efficient transport network is fundamental for establishing the internal market in practice and allowing the free movement of people and goods. For this reason, we have also voted today for a proposal on Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) that will enable a more integrated, safer and more efficient Europe.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The transport sector is of great importance in the European internal market. This sector effectively enables the free movement of people and goods throughout the EU. It is also an essential element in the development of the EU and its regions, and it has a direct bearing on social cohesion in the regions. Therefore, transport policy should not be divorced from other policies, be they regional, environmental, economic, social or employment. In terms of gross domestic product, the transport sector produces 10% of EU wealth and is responsible for over 10 million jobs, but it also causes about 25% of total CO2 emissions. I would therefore like to point out that the decarbonisation of transport should be a priority. In this context, it is worth noting the possibility of internalising external costs.

However, this can only contribute significantly to reducing exhaust gases, noise and bottlenecks in transport if two conditions are met: on the one hand, the internalisation of external costs should cover all modes of transport, and, on the other, revenues should benefit sustainable infrastructure.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The report includes guidelines for the future of the transport sector that we consider to be indisputably necessary, such as investing in modes of transport that are more environmentally sustainable and linking them up suitably, drawing up sustainable urban mobility plans, promoting public transport, recognising passenger rights, especially for those with reduced mobility, and adopting measures aimed at increasing road safety and respect for the rights of workers in the sector. Nevertheless, this statement of guidelines to be followed runs counter to the emphasis placed on concluding the internal market; in other words, it runs counter to the insistence on deregulating the sector, whether in rail transport, in maritime transport and coastal transport, or in air transport.

As the experience (omitted from the report) in various Member States clearly shows, dismantling the public transport sector, privatising it and then subjecting it to the logic of profit, thereby removing it from democratic control by the public, leads to results that run exactly contrary to the intentions expressed in the report. The result is an infamous deterioration in the service, with its social function being cut away and ceasing to be a characteristic feature, at the level of safety, of quality and accessibility, or of workers’ rights, among other issues.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Grosch report is an excellent starting point as we await the European Commission White Paper. Greater development of comodality and interoperability, a particular focus on the issue of safety (to be guaranteed in some sectors through the enhanced role of the agencies), the completion of the single market and investment in ITS research and development are the guidelines to be followed. However, one of the greatest challenges ahead, without which the other objectives are liable to be ignored, is that of guaranteeing adequate funding for the TEN-T networks, starting from the next financial perspective, through the creation of an appropriate fund. From this perspective, the Mediterranean must be viewed as a natural link between the EU and the emerging markets of the East of the world. Lastly, I agree on the need for greater investment in urban mobility and in more modern freight transport logistics so as to ease congestion in urban areas and reduce pollutant emissions.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) The report calls for safer, more efficient transport which causes less pollution. In other words, nothing but very conventional and very obvious things.

However, several points kept our attention and motivated our vote against the report. the constant focus on CO2 emissions with binding targets, while the SOx and NOx emissions of marine transport are only mentioned in passing and, in fact, are endowed with ecological virtues; the proposal to create a European road transport agency, whose relevance is dubious to say the least, given the criticisms of reduced efficiency, significant costs, and the haphazard management of numerous existing European agencies; the proposal to create a European transport fund, and thus additional expenses, without providing any details of how it will be financed; and, above all, the assertion once again that increased liberalisation of the sector, and an increase in coastal navigation, would solve all our problems.

Yet we know that this liberalisation has had negative effects, particularly on the maintenance of existing railway infrastructure, and thus on safety. We also know, or we should know, the extent to which opening up national transport to foreign operators poses problems of unfair competition.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Parliament today has sent out a strong message that Europe must move towards more sustainable transport. My own country, Scotland, has some of the most ambitious climate change legislation in the world and the Scottish Government is active in promoting sustainable transport initiatives including support for cycling and walking, low carbon vehicles and alternative fuels. Today’s vote calls for more joined-up thinking across the whole of Europe.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I endorsed the final version of the report. I have great reservations about the outcome of the vote on Amendment 6, which was tabled by a group of Members from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats).

The essence of the original text was that unused resources from the Cohesion Fund can be used for the investment requirements of transport. This is justified by the investment needs of beneficiary Member States, which can very easily be seen from the example of Poland. In addition, we had expected a sum of around EUR 23 billion for TEN-T, but we received three times less than this. Amendment 6 does not provide any additional resources for transport, and it does not release resources which are not used for their planned applications. Instead of making the fund more flexible, we have obtained a fund which has no flexibility at all. I would like to thank the fellow Members who voted to reject Amendment 6.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Transport has a multifunctional nature, with direct influences on economic, social and territorial matters. This is an important factor in the development of the European Union and its regions as it is vital to the European economy. The transport sector generates approximately 7% of the European Union’s GDP and more than 5% of all the jobs.

At the same time, transport offers citizens access to many of the freedoms they enjoy, such as the freedom to work and live in different parts of the world, the freedom to do business and establish personal contacts.

I voted for this report because I support the aim of European transport policies. This is to set up a sustainable transport system which will meet all the economic, social and ecological needs of our citizens and to encourage the creation of a society conducive to inclusion and of a fully integrated, competitive Europe.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This text does not provide the resources to introduce the high social and environmental standards which are essential in the transport sector. By setting itself in the context of the carbon market, by allowing for the possibility of increased air traffic, by advocating the determined liberalisation of this sector in order to increase competitiveness, this report reduces all ecological requirements worthy of the name to nothing.

By only concerning itself with infrastructure and never with the wage conditions of the employees in this sector, it displays the social indifference that is a signature of the damaging liberalism which is killing the European project. I am voting against this report.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The transport sector is crucial to the economic development of the EU and its regions, with direct influence on competitiveness and social cohesion of the regions. It also contributes to the development and consolidation of the internal market. Given its importance in the economy, this sector will play a key role in the EU 2020 strategy, especially with regard to the reduction of CO2 emissions. Thus, despite its importance to the economy, employment and professional and private mobility among the public, there needs to be investment in improving transport in environmental terms, especially road transport, along with safety, as this sector was responsible for the death of approximately 39 000 people in 2008. Thus, despite the crisis which adversely affected this sector, this is the time to undertake a major transformation of the sector, making it safer, more sustainable and more efficient.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) We are as far away as ever from achieving sustainability in transport. The problem is not just the lack of coordination within countries, but between them as well, as illustrated by the example of cross-border rail transport. We are way behind schedule even with the important transport links featuring in the TEN projects, not to mention that we are miles away from the coordinated timetables which have been requested again. This report is basically almost a rehash of old, unfulfilled strategies. That is why I abstained.

  Cristiana Muscardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The text adopted in plenary pushes Europe to take a step forward in a particularly delicate sector such as transport, which is the fulcrum of the single market. The movement of people and goods depend on it and it ensures the necessary territorial cohesion for employment and economic growth, with ramifications for costs and protection of the environment.

We are of the opinion that more attention should be paid to safety in the transport sector as well, in terms of safety for the goods transported, for passengers and for the network in general.

The European economy, and therefore employment, depends on the sustainable future of transport. Consequently, the Union must work quickly to provide Member States with some urgent objectives such as the timeframe for the realisation of small infrastructure, the lack of which hinders the smooth flow of goods and people, causing serious damage to the economy and worsening pollution.

We therefore need similar timeframes across Europe for the completion of these works, as well as certain timeframes for the repair of roads or railways closed owing to natural or unforeseen events. The conversion of some road transport to transport by rail or water, to this day slowed down by too many delays, is necessary to avoid the loss of jobs and the consequent impoverishment of part of the population.

Finally, particular attention must be paid to peripheral or disadvantaged areas which remain so due to a lack of enough viable infrastructure.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the Grosch report because I believe that the guidelines and the requests that it contains are balanced and aim for sustainable development of transport that both supports a sector of strategic importance for economic growth and the growth of Europe itself, while also addressing environmental issues.

The transport sector contributes to the development and competitiveness of the EU and to the completion of the internal market, and also affects citizens’ quality of life. Comodality, quality of public services, improved long-term plans for infrastructure and technical interoperability, and support for technological innovation, research, energy efficiency, clean technologies and safety are crucial factors that I hope the Commission will take into account when drafting the forthcoming White Paper.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Decarbonising traffic is a significant political goal, which should be tackled with greater commitment in the future as the adverse effects on health and the environment caused by transport are another substantial challenge, especially in the context of the efforts to combat climate change.

This decarbonisation can only bring about a significant reduction in the volume of exhaust gases, noise and also traffic bottlenecks if two conditions are met: external cost internalisation must cover all modes of transport and the revenue obtained must be used to improve infrastructure sustainability.

The effects of the financial and economic crisis on the transport sector must not be overlooked as this sector proved to be very vulnerable to the crisis. I believe that this crisis must be seen as an opportunity to offer targeted support to the transport sector in future by encouraging investments. These investments should not just provide swift assistance, but also help improve environmental performance and safety and also create new green jobs through developing both national instruments and European political instruments. The Commission and Member States must continue to exchange best practices (for example as part of the Mayors’ Convention and the CIVITAS initiative), offering communities the chance to learn from the experience of other European citizens.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The Grosch own-initiative report on a sustainable future for transport was adopted by a large majority (559 in favour; 34 against; 82 abstentions). The Verts/ALE Group voted in favour. Unfortunately, our Amendments 4 (on a 30% CO2 reduction for the entire transport sector (169 in favour; 497 against)) and 5 (on sustainable EU infrastructure cofunding criteria (123 in favour; 540 against)) were rejected. Also, the REGI Committee’s Amendment 6 (on coordinating EU transport cofunding instead of creating a transport fund) was rejected by a narrow majority (311 in favour; 364 against).

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The proposal serves as a basis for the preparation of the Commission’s White Paper, with particular regard to protection of the environment. We support the resolution despite the risks posed by overly extremist stances already taken by Parliament. We must balance the need to protect the environment with the current economic crisis we are experiencing. We look positively on the heavy emphasis on safety.

  Eva-Britt Svensson (GUE/NGL) , in writing. – (SV) This report will affect a forthcoming Green Paper on an integrated transport policy. I voted against the report, as it advocates the total liberalisation of transport policy. The Member States are to be forced to relinquish large parts of their fiscal and social policies, as well as areas such as education and training – matters that fall within the competence of the Member States.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I consider the transport sector to be essential to the development of the European Union and its regions, given its influence on competitiveness and the economic, social and territorial cohesion of the regions, and its contribution to the effective creation of the internal European market. It is important to anticipate the future of transport in terms of sustainability and inter-operability and in this sense, I welcome the proposals of the document that stipulates the goals to be attained by 2020, with the aim of reducing CO2 emissions and their harmful consequences. I also view in a positive light the idea of efficient comodality, which is even more relevant in outermost regions such as Madeira, particularly as regards the interlinking of road, maritime and air transport.

I do not, however, support the initiative to create a specific fund to promote the transport sector, as I consider that such financing should continue to be carried out by the various already existing means and guided by the priorities of the cohesion policy, the coordination of which should be facilitated in the execution of the various European policies.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the Grosch report on a sustainable future for transport as I believe that its recommendations ought to feature in the future White Paper on the development of trans-European transport.

The transport sector is a key sector for the EU’s economic development and competitiveness, and for its economic and social cohesion. Unfortunately, however, the finances allocated to this sector are inadequate. The TEN-T budget for the 2007-2013 period is just EUR 8.013 billion, while the funds allocated to transport through the cohesion policy are a mere 11% of the total budget allocated to this policy.

I call on the EU to allocate additional finances for developing the trans-European transport system and integrating it with the transport systems in the EU’s neighbouring countries. This is why I voted against Amendment 6. This amendment intends to replace the setting up of a transport fund which will have more resources than those already in the EU budget with a mechanism for coordinating the use of the various current sources of transport funding. It goes without saying that the EU must coordinate the existing sources of transport funding better, but it is absolutely essential to create new instruments for funding the work involved in developing the transport infrastructure.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – At present, the Baltic States are, to a large extent, isolated from the European transport network. We must strive to integrate the Baltic Sea region more closely into the TEN-T priority axes, including the rail axis from Berlin to the Baltic coast (TEN-T 1) and the Motorways of the Sea (TEN-T 21). More emphasis should also be put on short sea shipping and inland waterway transport, which is cost-efficient as well as increasingly environmentally friendly. In order to remain competitive in the future, many European ports – such as Klaipeda in Lithuania – need to modernise their infrastructure. However, the effects of the financial crisis on the transport sector should not be overlooked. Given the scale of necessary transport investments, it is vital to ensure European cooperation and to prioritise projects prudently. There is more to transport than merely trucks, traffic and tariffs. Transport also relates to the freedom of movement for persons and goods, as well as the development of the European single market. It also boosts employment. Above all, as recent high-profile train and plane crashes tragically reminded us, safety must continue to be one of the priority areas of future transport policy.

  Artur Zasada (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I was pleased to hear the results of today’s vote. The Grosch report has proposed the achievement of unusually ambitious objectives by 2020. Among others, it supports improving road safety, reducing fatal accidents by 40%, reducing road transport CO2 emissions by 20% and doubling the numbers of passengers in buses, trams and trains.

I agree with the overall message of the document: it is essential to create a sustainable and cohesive vision of the future of transport as a fundamental sector for the internal market, which would guarantee free movement of persons and goods and would ensure the territorial cohesion of the entire European Union.

I could not, however, agree with one of the rapporteur’s proposals. I have doubts about the proposal to create a transport fund. In the future, this might cause a departure from the current system of separating structural funds from the Cohesion Fund.

Report: Carlos José Iturgaiz Angulo (A7-0186/2010)

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The Treaty of Lisbon enabled us to confirm the right to present petitions to the European Parliament, which fits in well with the process of creating a European citizenship. However, the persistent confusion between European and national competences and the competences of European institutions underlines the fact that European citizens are not yet totally aware of their rights. This is why, by voting for this report, I supported the introduction of better information relating to the petitions procedure. A European petition must allow citizens to share with Parliament their concerns about the impact of various European Union policies and legislation on their everyday lives. This report also proposes various possibilities which seem reasonable to me, such as improving the website dedicated to petitions on the parliamentary portal, or the introduction of a single information point which could provide guidance to citizens.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Parliament is directly elected by the public. Through the right to petition, the European public has the opportunity to approach its representatives if it feels that its rights have been violated. Parliament has an obligation to investigate the situation and do everything within its power to stop these violations, providing the public with the most appropriate and rapid remedies. The number of petitions has been increasing, although not all of them have been admitted, which shows that increasing numbers of individuals are becoming aware of this right. This allows an assessment to be made of the impact of European legislation on the everyday lives of citizens.

The Treaty of Lisbon reaffirmed this right as a cornerstone of European citizenship, and created the necessary conditions for greater public participation in the EU decision-making process, so as to reinforce its legitimacy and responsibility. I believe that it is vital to create incentives for greater participation. The creation of a portal which includes an interactive model with different steps for petitions could help with this, by informing the public about the possible outcomes of petitions and the areas covered.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for the main points of this report, and I congratulate the Committee on Petitions for the work done in 2009. This was a particularly challenging year for a committee whose agenda is set by the public exercising their right to petition Parliament.

The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon reaffirms the right to petition as a cornerstone of European citizenship. However, statistics on the number of inadmissible petitions show that the right to petition as a tool that allows the European public to put its concerns before Parliament about the effect of policies and European legislation on everyday life is not yet being correctly used by all those who turn to it.

This fact demonstrates the need to continue efforts to inform and clarify for the European public the EU mechanisms and instruments at their disposal. Thus, I welcome the proposal for the creation of a single European Union window aimed at guiding members of the European public when they seek answers and solutions to all the issues perceived as violations of their rights.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Treaty of Lisbon, which came into force on 1 December 2009, created the necessary conditions for greater public participation in the EU decision-making process, with a view to reinforcing its legitimacy and responsibility. It is clear that European legislation has a direct impact on the public. Therefore, the public should be encouraged to have a strong participatory approach, so as to comment on the effectiveness, weaknesses and loopholes in legislation. The right to petition enshrined in the Treaty of Lisbon makes provision for the possibility of the European public approaching Parliament whenever they feel that their rights have been violated.

Through its Committee on Petitions, Parliament investigates and seeks to resolve any infringements. I am sure that Parliament will be involved in formulating the right to the Citizens’ Initiative, so that this tool can fully achieve its objectives and ensure greater transparency and responsibility in the EU decision-making process, allowing the public to propose improvements or additions to EU law.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The annual report of the Committee on Petitions demonstrated that the European public is increasingly approaching its representatives when it feels that its rights have been violated. It is therefore important to improve access to petitioning for those interested, particularly through the Internet and electronic media. Most petitions continue to express concern regarding the implementation of European legislation on the internal market and the environment, as these are the areas in which the Member States are most likely to fail to implement Union directives.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the annual report by the Committee on Petitions.

With the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the necessary foundations have been laid for citizens to participate more fully and responsibly in the European Union decision-making process. Petitions are an excellent and fundamental tool for monitoring the application of EU law by Member States and, from that point of view, cooperation with competent national and local authorities and with the Commission – with which it is essential to promote a different and more effective level of cooperation – is vital.

Promoting the citizens’ initiative is, in fact, essential for reducing that gap that citizens feel exists between themselves and the European institutions. This mechanism aimed at reducing the famous democratic deficit must be further strengthened and developed and, above all, must be brought to the attention of European citizens. I therefore welcome the initiatives proposed with regard to development and dissemination via new technologies, including the Internet in particular.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The Iturgaiz report on the deliberations of the Committee on Petitions during the year 2009 has been adopted with a broad majority, without roll-call votes. I am a bit upset, however, because we, Greens/EFA, lost four amendments out of five: on the Committee on Petitions’ right to examine judgments by national courts when these violate EU law; on the Commission’s responsibilities vis-à-vis infringement proceedings; on raising concrete examples of petition cases in the annual report; and on the internal procedures and working methods of the Committee on Petitions. The only amendment of ours adopted was a recital on the prohibitive cost of court procedures in some Member States. Thus, the outcome could have been better.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this European Parliament resolution because it deals with the 2009 activity report of Parliament’s Petitions Committee. Throughout this resolution, this committee takes stock of the situation regarding one of the direct rights available to European citizens for making their point of view count at the level of the European institutions. This is therefore an instrument of democracy and citizenship.

The major themes of the petitions concern the environment, fundamental rights, justice and the internal market, and essentially originate from Germany, Spain, Italy and Romania.

I am very pleased with the progress that has been made in implementing the recommendations of the European Parliament’s Petitions Committee for improving its work, but also with the proposals made in order to allow this right to be better exercised by European citizens, such as the demand for simplification of the procedures and, in particular, the possibility of starting a petition via the Internet.

I do have one small regret: that French citizens make very little use of this procedure.

  Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of the report by Mr Carlos Iturgaiz on the deliberations of the Committee on Petitions during 2009. Even though the report was mostly technical in nature, I believe it touched on some important issues that should be addressed in the future. According to the report, 46% of submitted petitions in 2009 were deemed inadmissible. This is far too high a number. As such, I strongly support the report’s recommendation for improving the information available to the citizens through the petitions web page on the EP portal. Petitions are important because they give the European Parliament a means to connect with its constituencies and vice versa. It is vital that citizens understand what specific issues petitions deal with and, subsequently, what courses of actions are available to them.

Report: Emilie Turunen (A7-0197/2010)

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Promoting access to the labour market and good quality jobs were key priorities of the Lisbon Strategy for growth and jobs and of the European Youth Pact. These objectives must be maintained through sustained efforts from both Member States and the European Commission. The own-initiative report voted on today includes a number of provisions which highlight the need for Member States to step up their efforts in devising coherent political strategies which will focus on labour supply and demand and tackle both the quantity and quality of employment opportunities, thereby helping promote access to the labour market for young people.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this document because I am aware that the consequences of the financial crisis are being strongly felt by young Europeans, whose unemployment rate stands at around 20%, twice that of the overall EU unemployment rate, and unfortunately, it is destined to increase further. There is, therefore, a need for strategies aimed at promoting and facilitating access for young people to the labour market and at making the transition from the school/academic environment to the working environment stronger and more fluid.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The economic recession that has affected the whole European Union has exposed young people more than ever to the risks of job insecurity and, in particular, to unemployment. Job insecurity among young people has a cost which is not just economic but is, above all, social. This own-initiative report aimed to identify the current difficulties and to propose some solutions. In terms of its essential aspects, it calls for the development of economic and political investments promoting the creation of jobs, education and training, the strengthening of social security systems, making the labour market more dynamic and promoting decent work. As I am completely in agreement with these objectives, I voted in favour of this report. Of course, this is not just a question of affirming these objectives loudly and clearly. Rather, we must, from now on, run a genuine economic and social policy at European level in order to improve young people’s access to the labour market.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I cannot but support Mrs Turunen’s report on promoting youth access to the labour market, strengthening trainee, internship and apprenticeship status. Indeed, the youth employment crisis is one of the most worrying issues of today and is one of the consequences of the economic crisis which require immediate and concrete intervention.

My amendments to the text were inserted in this vein. My interventions underline, on the one hand, the importance of the link between the world of training and European businesses in order to create the skills required, and on the other, the importance of flexicurity, which reconciles the needs of businesses and young workers.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Approximately one quarter of young people under 25 in the European Union do not have a job at the moment. In actual figures, this means that nearly 6 million young people are currently unemployed. This reality is also reflected by the paucity of the national budgets which spend money to maintain these young people without collecting taxes and duties from them.

The development, at European level and national level within each of the Member States, of programmes for encouraging the employment of this huge repository of human resources, fresh out of school, still brimming with enthusiasm, cannot but yield excellent results from an economic perspective for everyone.

This is the first time in the last 30 years that Europe has faced such drastic figures in terms of the number of young people employed in work. As certain studies highlight, there is every possibility for the young unemployed that this state of affairs will recur throughout their lives. The only possible outcome from this is a needless long-term burden shouldered by European and national budgets.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) I abstained from voting for the report because, despite its positive points on the rights of young workers contained in the report in its initial form, unfortunately certain very negative amendments were passed in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. Also, despite her attempts to support the labour rights of young workers and provide them with social services, the rapporteur has, unfortunately, insisted on the flexicurity approach. However, we know that not only is a ‘balanced’ combination of flexibility and security in the employment of young people impossible, but also that this approach has provoked the restructuring of labour relations and the abolition of basic labour rights and that it operates for the benefit of capital, not for the benefit of the workers and society.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The current economic crisis has led to a huge rise in unemployment rates, and has had an especially harsh impact on young people. Around 21.4% of young people in the EU are unemployed and kept at the margins of the economy; this becomes even more serious if we consider that with the ageing of the population, we are jeopardising the very economic and social future of the EU. It is also younger workers who have the jobs that are the most precarious: often temporary and of a low quality, with lower wages and less social security.

It is essential that new employment possibilities be found that are of a more worthy, regular and permanent nature, and which enable these young people to be self-sufficient. It is up to Member States to invest in job creation at political and economic level. They should ensure equality in access to education, investing in education and training, and strengthening the system of in-school guidance so as to reduce the risk of absenteeism or low grades.

It is the responsibility of the EU to define common strategies and, for this reason, I support the rapporteur’s proposal to create a European Youth Guarantee, ensuring that any young person in the EU has the right to receive an offer of employment, an internship or professional training after a maximum period of four months’ unemployment.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Youth unemployment is one of the most important and urgent problems faced by Europe, currently affecting 5.5 million people under 25 throughout the European Union: a structural problem that has seen its economic and social impacts greatly increased by the recent economic crisis. It is, therefore, with a feeling of responsibility and awareness that youth must be placed among the priorities of the political agenda that I am voting in favour of this report. Other social and economic risks and costs to our societies are associated with this pre-eminent problem of youth unemployment. Among them, for example, are the loss of opportunities for economic growth, erosion of the tax base and their respective consequences in public investment, increased expenses with social assistance, or even the risk of long-term unemployment and social exclusion. I feel that we cannot be resigned to losing young Europeans to social exclusion. On the contrary, Europe has much to gain by including these young people in the labour market and in society, through an integrated approach, strategies in common and a coherent combination of educational, financial, labour and social policies that strengthen our youth policy.

  Proinsias De Rossa (S&D), in writing. – I support this report, which encourages Member States to create efficient incentives, such as employment subsidies or insurance contributions for young people, guaranteeing decent living and working conditions. There should be better childcare opportunities for young parents, such as all-day schools, and incentives for employers, in both public and private sectors, to set up childcare structures, facilitating the possibility for young mothers to participate in the labour market. Member States are also encouraged to ensure that all young people are individually entitled to a decent level of income that secures for them the possibility of creating an independent adult life. Parliament suggests that the Council and the Commission come forward with a European Youth Guarantee securing the right of every young person in the EU to be offered a job, an apprenticeship, additional training or combined work and training after a maximum period of six months of unemployment. Our youth could become a lost generation with the current crisis. Europe needs to help young graduates and other young people entering the labour market for the first time to gain access to quality traineeships and jobs.

  Harlem Désir (S&D), in writing. – (FR) Today, more than 20% of young people in Europe are unemployed, and many others are in casual jobs without social protection. The increase in the number of training courses casualises active young people and is a vector for social dumping affecting other employees, in that it puts pressure on companies to lower salaries and replaces normal jobs. The Turunen report asks the Commission and the Member States to organise their activities so that young people’s access to high quality training courses and jobs becomes a priority, and in order to guarantee them a decent income.

It is unacceptable that some Member States are planning a lower minimum wage for young people. In this report, Parliament also calls for the introduction of a ‘European guarantee for youth’, which would give each young person in the EU the right to be offered a job, an apprenticeship, a supplementary training course or a job combined with a training course if that young person has been unemployed for four months. It also calls for the development of a ‘European Quality Charter on Traineeships’, which would include norms on time limits, minimum allowances and course-related social security benefits.

  Robert Dušek (S&D), in writing. – (CS) The economic crisis has, of course, also resulted in higher unemployment in the European Union. The impact of this has been heaviest on young people and persons approaching the age of retirement. We have more than 5.5 million unemployed young people up to the age of 25, in other words 21.4%, which is almost double the average unemployment level in the EU. Unemployment among young people is a huge problem. On the one hand, it leads to a loss of hope and ambition among the people affected, as well as their gradual complete social exclusion, the erosion of the country’s tax base and higher social spending for the state and, on the other, it brings more poverty, disease and criminality. In Europe, we expect as a matter of tradition that young people will help their parents and grandparents, and particularly that they will help financially in times of economic crisis.

How can they fulfil our expectations when they themselves are unemployed at the point of entry to the world of work? All of the Member States should adopt priorities and strategies based on their domestic situation, but we should have a common EU strategy to combat youth unemployment throughout the Union. Mrs Turunen’s report is the first step, and I fully support it.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I welcome the approval of the report on promoting youth access to the labour market, strengthening trainee, internship and apprenticeship status as a step towards improving the quality of work in Europe, which is one of the objectives of the EU 2020 strategy.

Youth unemployment is one of the most pressing problems facing Europe. All Member States must take action and combat youth unemployment by means of political priorities and strategies which reflect the specific situation in their country. At the same time, the EU must be united when it comes to common strategies. This challenge affecting young people requires an integrated, coherent approach which will combine intervention measures at macro-economic and micro-economic level, focus on labour supply and demand and tackle the quantity and quality of employment. A coherent combination of educational, financial, social and employment policies is required.

Economic and political investments in new jobs, education and vocational training in a more dynamic labour market, as well as in decent work, will enable us to transform the European labour market and redirect the current trends towards a better future for young people.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on promoting youth access to the labour market, strengthening trainee, internship and apprenticeship status, both of which are fundamental to guaranteeing that it is not youth that pays the price for the current crisis. The participation of young mothers in the labour market by expanding the network of structures for quality childcare must also be promoted.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The rapporteur ends her explanation of the reasons with the following exhortation: ‘Let’s turn Generation Lost to Generation Hope’. I endorse the desire and goodwill that this statement contains, and would like to be more certain that this transformation is still possible. I recognise the existence of a clear separation between school and academic life and the labour market, as well as the need to close this gap so that there is an easier transition from school to employment, and proceed to the evaluation of the suitability of what is taught to professional life. If the current state of those in training is manifestly an improvement on what happened in the past, it is also true that in many cases, effective training that is appropriate to their needs and expectations is not given to today’s interns.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given the current economic crisis, today in the EU, we have more than 5.5 million young people under 25 without jobs, a number equivalent to twice the overall unemployment rate. Youth unemployment results in a heavy social and economic cost to our society, leading to lost opportunities for economic growth, an erosion of the tax base which hinders investment in infrastructure and public services, an increase in social assistance costs and in the underuse of investment in education and training. Europe’s young people are a wealth of untapped human resources, and forecasts of the economic and social situation indicate that action is required.

I am therefore pleased with the adoption of this report, which seeks to bring about more inclusion in the work market through better jobs, a smooth transition to the labour market and the fight against insecure working conditions. In this context, I would like to highlight the proposals that I made, stating that the EU budget for 2011 should make young people its priority. I would like to refer again to the proposal to help young people obtain their first job in the European work market through the Erasmus first job programme.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report certainly gives visibility to the serious problem of youth unemployment, which is currently twice as high as unemployment in general, but does not put forward basic measures to really resolve the situation, which would require a break with the current policies of the Stability Pact and other monetarist, liberal and anti-social policies currently in force.

Although it emphasises the fight against youth unemployment, the promotion of training and employment for youth, and the need to put an end to abuses related to traineeships and training, often unpaid and treated as a substitute for a job rather than as complementary to education and training, the report does not point to safe ways of getting out of this situation.

Of greater concern, however, is the avocation of the concept of flexicurity as a way of ending youth unemployment and a form of transition from the educational system to the job market. In fact, reality shows us that what this really means is the precariousness of a badly paid and insecure job preventing any kind of life project for youth. That is why we abstained.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Today, 5.5 million Europeans under 25 – that is, nearly one in five young people – are unemployed, and that is without taking into account those occupying casual jobs. People under 25 are the first to be affected by the current economic crisis. Training policies for young people must therefore be ambitious to allow young people to acquire skills better adapted to the needs of businesses. There must be more internships and apprenticeships, but we must also ensure that these are of good quality in terms of the content of internships, the length of apprenticeships, and allowances paid to interns, in order to protect young people from potential abusive practices by their employers. The European Union must therefore promote mobilisation in this area, despite its limited ‘social’ competences, and this is the reason why I voted with conviction in favour of this resolution, which proposes some ways forward to cope with the difficult situation in which European young people find themselves.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) Given the multiple difficulties that young Europeans are faced with – unemployment, and wage-related, financial and social insecurity – it was urgent for the European Parliament to act more firmly to remedy this situation. This is why I voted in favour of Mrs Turunen’s report, because I think that it puts forward many guarantees with a view to protecting young Europeans – for example, the development of a ‘European quality charter on internships’, the creation of a minimum wage for every young person, and also the introduction of a ‘European Youth Guarantee’. Even if not all these proposals will be binding, I think that young Europeans need to be taken into account in a more effective way in Union policy, because they represent the future of the European Union.

  Nadja Hirsch, Britta Reimers and Michael Theurer (ALDE), in writing. – (DE) It is certainly important to tighten the regulations on internships. The representatives of the German Free Democratic Party in the European Parliament have supported this. Young people often work for months on end without payment, hoping that they might still get a permanent job afterwards. This is an unsustainable situation. Internships should not destroy jobs. However, today’s plenary vote is going to pave the way in the future for a complete ban on unpaid internships. We believe that this gives a wrong message. It should still be possible to do a three-month unpaid internship, for example. There are numerous non profit-making or social organisations where a young person can acquire exciting, interesting experiences. However, such organisations are often unable to pay any remuneration for the internship. The key factor should be the duration of an internship. In the case of any internship lasting longer than six months, the employer can rely on productive output from the intern. From then on, remuneration should also be paid. The decision made today is impracticable and goes too far. We therefore do not support this part of the resolution.

  Elie Hoarau (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) Young people should not remain unemployed more than four months – this is a statement with which I agree. The report on young people’s employment proposes a ‘European Youth Guarantee’ so that young people can benefit from a decent wage and high quality internships. In the context of exacerbated youth unemployment in the outermost regions, in particular in Réunion, I fully support every measure for involving young people in the world of work and against casualising them. If there is to be any force to the guarantee that, after being unemployed for four months, every young person should have the right to a job, an apprenticeship, a supplementary training course or a job combined with a training course, then specific measures must now come out of this report by Parliament. That is why I voted for this report.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – My colleague Ms Turunen’s report makes the important call for Member States to support more and better apprenticeship schemes. Apprenticeships offer a vital entry for young people into the world of employment which will, in turn, help us get the economy going again. The Scottish Government last year set a target of securing 18 500 apprenticeships in the year; by March, that target had been exceeded and some 20 000 positions had been secured. It is essential that this good work is built upon and governments around the EU must strive to create more opportunities for our younger generation.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I agreed with this report as the economic downturn has caused a massive rise in unemployment rates in the European Union and young people have been hit very hard. Today, more than 5.5 million young people under 25 are unemployed (21.4%), which is twice as high as the overall unemployment rate. Youth unemployment is one of Europe’s most pressing problems. This results in a loss of opportunities for economic growth and erosion of the tax base which undermines investment in infrastructure and public services, increased welfare costs and underutilised investment in education and training. All Member States must take action and fight youth unemployment by taking national specificities into account. We must ensure growth and create new jobs, especially for young people and prioritise business-education provider cooperation. Member States must secure equal access to education for all by guaranteeing a minimum right to free well-funded education from nursery school to university and by securing financial support for young students. We must encourage the Member States to invest further in education and training, even if fiscal and social constraints are present. It is important for young people to have financial independence to secure for them the opportunity to lead an economically independent life.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report on promoting youth access to the labour market, strengthening trainee, internship and apprenticeship status, because I believe it is crucial to promote and support youth employment. Unfortunately, today, we are witnessing a period of serious financial crisis, which has caused a significant increase in rates of unemployment, especially youth unemployment. Recently compiled statistics show, in fact, that more than 5.5 million young people under 25 are unemployed, equivalent to 21.4% of Europe’s youth population, which is twice as high as the overall unemployment rate. Faced with this situation, it was necessary to ask the Council and the Commission to develop an employment strategy focused on the creation of polices designed to guarantee young Europeans access to the labour market in order to prevent the social and economic costs that youth employment entails for our society. Another priority was the adoption of packages of measures for providing a strong incentive for investment in education, research and mobility, as well as possibilities for young people who want to set up their own business to access finance facilities more easily.

  Thomas Mann (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I voted today for the own-initiative report on combating youth unemployment. By adopting this report, we have decided to take strong action against the abuse of internships. The Commission and Member States were asked by Parliament to recommend minimum standards for internships. A European Quality Charter on Internships is to be proposed. I have been offering many young people for years the chance to do an internship in my MEP offices in Brussels or Strasbourg. I am therefore in favour of promoting the status of internships. During these times of globalised labour markets and the financial crisis, gaining sound, practically relevant training is particularly important. Internships offer an excellent opportunity for young people to find out about the demands of working life and test their own abilities.

The requirement for this is that interns must work under fair terms where the focus is on the provision of training and not on replacing permanent employees. Apart from providing a description of the internship and the qualifications which can be gained, the Charter should include restrictions on working hours and recommendations for remuneration. This sends out a clear signal to our young Europeans.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – This is a hugely important report, encouraging Member States to give particular attention to youth employment. The financial crisis has had a significant effect on youth unemployment, which is now as high as 40% in some Member States. Identifying the barriers which young people face – such as earning a living wage and having access to childcare for young parents – is crucial in helping them back into work. I support the Parliament’s calls for a European Youth Guarantee to provide training, apprenticeships and jobs for Europe’s young people, and recognising the long-term effects on society of high youth unemployment.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. – (RO) We often say that young people are the future of Europe. In spite of the strategies inspired by this fact, the statistics show that young people are affected disproportionately by unemployment. It is awful that the youth unemployment rate is double the average European rate. Unfortunately, the outlook is not promising either.

This is precisely why I welcome the draft report on promoting youth access to the labour market, all the more so as we are unable at the moment to predict exactly when the economic recession will end. I personally tabled a number of amendments based on the opinion drafted by the Committee on Culture and Education for the draft report voted on today. I emphasised the importance of entrepreneurial education as an integral part of developing the skills required for the new types of services, as well as the need to develop specific programmes for young people with disabilities. If we fail to take these measures, it will be difficult for us to guarantee the maximum possible opportunities for accessing the labour market.

Last but not least, I believe that it is beneficial to encourage mobility programmes targeted at young employers as well, just as it is of paramount importance for us to establish as general practice internships, designed to supplement the syllabus and offer young people the chance to gain experience and access the labour market.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Unemployment among young people is one of Europe’s most pressing problems. With the global economic recession, this problem has taken on even more worrying dimensions, as we are faced with more than 5.5 million unemployed young people under 25. This means that we run the risk of losing a generation to social exclusion, jeopardising the economic and social future of the EU. Youth unemployment results in an enormous social and economic cost to our society, which severely affects opportunities for economic growth. This leads to a loss of taxation which hinders investment in infrastructure and public services, an increase in social assistance costs and the underuse of investment in education and training. That is why I voted as I did.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) It is mainly young people and women who are affected by unemployment. This trend continues to grow during the recession. The actual process of getting on the job ladder is becoming increasingly difficult. This situation is abused and young employees are forced into precarious temporary jobs or are exploited in a succession of internships. It is only when we take care of the young generation and improve their chances of entering the job market that they can, on the one hand, contribute their potential to society and, on the other, think about raising a family some time. Insecure jobs mean that we should not be surprised at low birth rates. I abstained from voting as the report does provide one approach, but there are some problems which have not been looked at in sufficient detail.

  Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I would like to congratulate Mrs Turunen for her report, which proposes that the Council and the Commission should bring forward a European Youth Guarantee which would give every young person in the EU the right to be offered a job, an apprenticeship, a supplementary training course or a job combined with a training course after being unemployed for four months.

I call on the Commission and the Council to develop, in the light of this report, a ‘European quality charter on internships’ in order to guarantee the educational value of courses and to avoid exploitation. We must not forget that some pieces of national legislation can be seen as discriminatory from the point of view of income because they prevent young people from being financially autonomous. Let us try, with the Council and the Commission, to guarantee young people a decent wage.

  Cristiana Muscardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The measure approved in plenary underlines the importance of adopting a rights-based approach to youth and employment, highlighting the qualitative aspect of dignified work which must not be compromised by parameters which stray beyond core labour standards such as the quality of work, working time, the minimum wage, social security, and the health and safety of interns and workers.

In a difficult time for the economy and employment, it is worth remembering that young people need to unequivocally affirm that the future of Europe cannot be solely tied to strengthening the service economy but that manufacturing industry must be defended and research developed through European financing which, in an era of globalisation, must also be directed to protecting intellectual property and the craft industry, as an instrument for small and micro businesses to drive development and employment.

Furthermore, there is still much to do, and quickly, to ensure the harmonisation of all educational qualifications. The Member States must make a collective effort to harmonise contracts to ease the entry of young people into the world of work and promote facilitated access to credit to help purchase, or in any case rent, a home to live in and a place in which perhaps to carry out a self-employed activity.

  Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), in writing. – (PL) The crisis has hit hardest at those who are just entering the labour market. I have no doubt that unemployment among young people is currently one of the EU’s biggest problems. Even if young people do find work, they are very often only given temporary contracts. Internships are also the cause of much emotion. On the one hand, they play a very useful role, making it possible for young people to gain important practical qualifications. On the other hand, in practice, they often mean that work which should be done by an employee is done for free by an internee. Some firms in Poland operate with the principle that any well-paid specialist can be replaced by a certain number of free internees. Such an approach does not have a good effect on the labour market, and even more so it does not help the position of employees. I very much welcome the fact that this problem has been taken up by Parliament and that this has resulted in a number of measures intended to improve the position of young employees. I support these measures, so I decided to endorse the report on promoting youth access to the labour market, strengthening trainee, internship and apprenticeship status.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I support the approach taken in Mrs Turunen’s report: youth unemployment is one of the most pressing problems that the European Union has to face. There is a danger of condemning an entire generation to social exclusion and gambling with the EU’s economic and social future.

Youth unemployment entails high social costs for our societies in the form of lost opportunities for economic growth, the erosion of the tax base, which undermines investment in infrastructure and public services, an increase in social costs and underutilisation of investments for the promotion of education and training. The European Union must have common strategies.

We need an integrated and consistent approach which incorporates micro-economic and macro-economic measures, which is based on the supply of and demand for labour and which is able to ensure both the quantity and the quality of jobs. By investing economically and politically in the creation of new jobs, education and training, more robust social security schemes, a more dynamic labour market and decent work, it is possible to transform the EU labour market and to steer the current trends towards a better future for our young people.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) Paragraph 63 of this particular report recognises how important it is for young people to be financially independent and calls on the Member States to ensure that all young people are individually entitled to a decent level of income that secures for them the possibility of creating an economically independent life. This specific paragraph for the whole of Europe has been added at a particularly difficult time for young people. Unemployment in numerous Member States of the European Union has recorded an unprecedented increase; a typical example is Greece, where unemployment among young people is currently 27.5%. At the same time, downward pressure on wages due to financial adjustment prevents young people from becoming independent and leaving home to set up their own family. Young people today need a decent level of income so that they can stand on their own two feet and make their own way in life. Although paragraph 63 is of a declaratory nature, it is a move in the right direction and I therefore voted in favour of it.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The challenges encountered on the path to achieving a ‘Europe of the young generation’ include actively drumming up investments, creating new jobs and offering vocational training opportunities.

Member States must encourage employers to offer stable, long-term jobs to young people and a wage which reflects their level of effort and their professional and intellectual capabilities, to protect them from contracts which contain clauses placing them in a precarious position in relation to their employer, to ensure a gender balance with regard to employment terms between young women and men at the start of their careers and, last but not least, to provide young people and young mothers with access to social welfare mechanisms.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) In an ideal world, youth unemployment would be outlawed. The reality is quite different: 5.5 million Europeans under 25 do not have a job or a salary, and live a daily life of uncertainty and doubt. Although the United Kingdom, Spain and France are the countries most affected, the situation is not much different in Belgium. Since 2000, youth unemployment in Brussels has never fallen below 30%. This is due to students leaving education prematurely, a lack of ability in languages and a lack of partnerships between schools and businesses.

This is why, despite its limited competences in social policy, the European Union must promote young people’s access to the jobs market. That is the thrust of the Turunen report. It sketches new ways to curb youth unemployment. The new recommendation for a ‘European Quality Charter on Traineeships’, which aims to prevent the trivialisation of training courses, is part of this logic. Alongside this, there is the ambitious idea of guaranteeing a training course to any young person who is unemployed for more than four months. It also defends the idea of a ‘decent income’ for active young people, whether they have a diploma or not. This is because we always remember our first salary.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the report by my fellow Member, Mrs Turunen, the objective of which is to propose answers for the difficult situation in which European youth find themselves, confronted with unemployment – which, according to Eurostat, currently affects one in five young people under 25 – job insecurity and abuses by employers. Training policies for young people must be ambitious and must allow them to acquire skills adapted to the needs of businesses so that they can enter the labour market more easily. We must increase the number of courses and apprenticeships, which allow these skills to be developed and improved, and we must encourage businesses to increase the number of opportunities they offer to young people. We must also ensure that these are of good quality. In this regard, the establishment of minimum norms regarding the pedagogical content of courses and apprenticeships would contribute to that. If they were extended to cover the duration of professional apprenticeships and the level of allowances paid to people enrolled on courses and apprenticeships, these norms would also allow us to protect young people from abusive practices by their employers.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The text promoted by our colleague Turunen was adopted as voted in the Committee on Employment. We maintained all good text, especially on financial independence and on access to free education (PPE separate votes). The report was adopted with a large majority in favour. This is a good Green own-initiative report, with some excellent text that can be used on the ground when working with young people and youth NGOs. Key points are a European Youth Guarantee, a Quality Charter for internships, an EU youth taskforce and a call on EU institutions to stop promoting unpaid traineeships and internships.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) It is fundamental for the Europe of the future to guarantee full and secure employment for young people. Europe must have the courage to invest in those businesses which do not relocate but create jobs. In the same way, it must have the courage to prohibit trade in goods from third countries which do not respect the rights of workers. Vocational training is indispensable. We have voted in favour of the report.

  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (NL) A staggering 5.5 million young people, or 21.4% of all young people under 25, are currently unemployed. This is almost double the average unemployment rate. In the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion, Mrs Turunen’s practical proposals come not a day too soon. We must prevent the social exclusion of a whole generation of young people and the jeopardising of Europe’s economic and social future. After four months’ unemployment, young people should have the right to a job or paid apprenticeship, training, or a combination of the two. There should be a quality charter to ensure that apprenticeships provide a reasonable income and are of limited duration. In addition, the resolution calls for 10% of the European Social Fund to be reserved for projects helping young people to find work. Moreover, the European Commission should ensure that existing legislation in the various Member States does not discriminate against young people and guarantees them access to social advantages in terms of employment. Long-term unemployment at a young age has a pernicious effect on a person’s self-confidence and optimism for the future. Addressing this is an important task for responsible politicians.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption of the Turunen report on promoting youth access to the labour market, strengthening trainee, internship and apprenticeship status, which proposes measures to combat youth unemployment that are ambitious, but nevertheless specific and realistic. With 21.4% of young Europeans under 25 unemployed, it is definitely time to take action. We would also like to introduce a ‘European Youth Guarantee’ so that young people do not have to remain unemployed for more than four months and in order to guarantee them high quality internships as well as a decent wage.

I would particularly stress the need to provide young people with high quality internships in order to avoid the exploitation that exists in many enterprises and administrative bodies. Interns are not free workers, and cannot replace an employee; they must benefit from educational supervision and minimum allowances.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – Tragically, the hardest hit by the economic crisis are those upon whom our future rests. With 5.5 million people unemployed among the under 25 year olds, the youth unemployment rate in the EU is nearly twice the percentage as that observed among the working population as a whole.

In Lithuania, last year, every eleventh young person was unemployed compared to every twenty-fourth in 2008. We need to boost youth employability by helping adapt educational skills to labour market needs. Support measures such as quality internships, apprenticeships and traineeships can aid a smooth transition from education to employment. However, it is important that these internships do not replace real jobs – we need to protect young workers from exploitation; nor should the advantages of non-formal learning be neglected.

For Lithuania, it is vital to prevent an increasing brain-drain of skilled labour. EU Member States should develop youth retention strategies – although these schemes can only be successful if young people feel they are a valued part of society. If we fail to reduce youth unemployment, we will be faced with a lost generation of workers who will grow up with poor job prospects while straddled with growing public debt.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I abstained on this report on youth employment, which still centres around flexicurity – ‘flexible’ and ‘reliable’ contracts – and the short-term needs of businesses, although there are some positive points, including the adoption of some amendments that I had proposed in the Committee on Culture and Education: the creation of jobs in the social economy, the fight against discrimination, the refusal to trivialise training courses and the recognition of non-formal education.

It emphasises the consequences of massive youth unemployment – with regard to the crisis too – but, at the same time, still supports the retention of the assistance measures for economic actors, which have not proved successful, and which have merely exacerbated the situation regarding the casualisation of young people’s jobs.

In addition, the report remains loyal to the dogma which is the ‘modernisation’ of education; it even talks of giving priority to cooperation between businesses and ‘providers of educational services’ and asks for cooperation at an early stage between schools and the world of work.

Report: Pascale Gruny (A7-0193/2010)

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In these difficult times of economic crisis, our European social model must, more than ever, constitute the key to recovery and growth. It must not be seen as a burden, but, on the contrary, as a motor for the progress of our societies. I voted in favour of the Gruny report, whose aim is to launch a vast European employment initiative. The idea is to see to it that a business can be created anywhere in the European Union in three days and without charges. Formal procedures for recruiting the first employees could take place through a single interface, by reinforcing activation schemes – particularly for people who are not well-qualified – through personalised advice, an intensive workers’ training or retraining course, improving their qualifications, and so on. I think that sustaining employment, as well as creating new employment prospects for the youngest people, but also for those who are on the jobs market but who no longer have jobs, is the sine qua non for Europeans to regain confidence in our social model. Furthermore, this confidence is essential for our future, as much for social reasons as for economic and political ones.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on atypical contracts, career security, flexicurity and new forms of social dialogue. Atypical employment is defined by new forms of contract, which have one or more of the following characteristics: part-time, casual, temporary, fixed-term work, working from home and telecommuting, or part-time work for a period not exceeding 20 hours per week. The financial and economic crisis that the European Union is facing could lead to unstable work markets and growing social exclusion. For this reason, there is an urgent need to help Member States to safeguard as many jobs and as much employment in Europe as possible. We must step up efforts to invest in skills, training and sustainable employment, along with developing the promotion of the principles of flexicurity. Clear proposals and concrete measures to protect jobs and create employment opportunities should be proposed as part of the EU 2020 strategy.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I cannot but use my vote to support Mrs Gruny’s report, to which I contributed by proposing numerous amendments which were adopted by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs.

My contribution was based along two lines. Firstly, the importance of the link between training courses and the needs of the labour market. In this regard, young people need to rethink their perception of manual professions which are today seen as a lowering of the person and of one’s social status, even if data confirm that these professions offer an important occupational choice, both in terms of integration into the workforce and in economic return.

Secondly, the defence of a kind of flexibility which does not degenerate into exploitation of the person, condemning the worker to a lifetime of insecurity, and which does not conceal illegal intentions to replace forms of permanent working relationships. Rather, I support an intelligent flexibility which can intelligently adapt to the changed conditions of business’s modus operandi, responding to the needs of the market by guaranteeing employment and facilitating the integration of even the weakest groups into the world of work.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) I voted against the Gruny report because, despite the improvements made by the amendments agreed in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, this is a report that promotes the flexicurity approach and other neoliberal arrangements which result in job insecurity. Despite the fact that the report appears to be more ‘balanced’ than in its initial form, it is still in keeping with the Commission’s Green Paper on labour law and still believes that flexibility is and must be a ‘basic tool of the economy’.

It is based on making a tool of the concept of ‘lifelong learning’ for the benefit of capital and businesses and not for the personal and professional development of workers. It also promotes the view that ‘self-employment’ is the type of work that should be promoted. For the same reasons, by which I mean the insistence on the ‘balanced flexicurity’ approach, I voted against the motion for a resolution tabled by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I am voting in favour of the bulk of the measures proposed in this report. It is a fact that the economic crisis has significantly exacerbated the number of atypical contracts and precarious work-related situations. These have a greater impact on young people and women. However, I believe that the European social model, whose objectives are focused on sustainable growth, full employment, the promotion of welfare and social protection, can provide the conditions and means necessary to steer the EU and its Member States through the crisis. In this respect, I would like to highlight two issues that I believe to be vital in the face of the current situation of economic crisis and abnormally high unemployment figures in the EU, with a view to protecting quality, decent employment and creating new job opportunities under the 2020 strategy. The first relates to the need for increased investment in skills and professional and lifelong training. The second relates to the importance of the effective implementation of flexicurity strategies, thus allowing a real fight against illegal employment and a reduction in employment insecurity.

  Proinsias De Rossa (S&D), in writing. – I support this report, which aims at launching an action at EU level to protect atypical workers and further improve social dialogue both at national and EU level. It also aims at redefining flexicurity policies, which have, in the past, concentrated too much on flexibility and not enough on security for workers. Atypical work includes part-time, fixed-term, temporary, teleworking, but also new types of contracts, such as ‘zero-hour’ contracts, and a growing trend in false self-employment. Although the aim of these contracts is to introduce flexibility in the labour market for both employers and employees, studies show that they are often associated with precarious work and consequent precarious income. These workers are often denied important rights including the right to training or to join a trade union. Our priority must be to fight all forms of precarious employment, and this priority has taken on special importance during this crisis. The crisis should not serve as a pretext for the development of more precarious employment. All workers should have access to equal treatment regardless of their employment contract. Such rights as access to social security and training and the right to join a trade union should never be denied to any worker.

  Robert Dušek (S&D), in writing. – (CS) The report on atypical contracts, secured professional paths, flexicurity and new forms of social dialogue is a response to the situation on the labour market in the current economic crisis. We should make all efforts to preserve as many jobs as possible, but these must be high quality jobs. At present, there is a huge increase in the numbers of people being employed on the basis of so-called atypical and highly atypical contracts across the European Union. These are contracts for periods of less than six months, with a work period shorter than 10 hours a week, or oral contracts. It is mostly young people up to 25 years of age, people approaching the age of retirement and, from a gender perspective, women, who are forced by economic and social circumstances to agree to work on the basis of such arrangements. We should also consider whether this is a sensible reaction to the market situation, and whether to clarify or restrict the possibility of concluding such contracts, while making all efforts to progress to higher quality jobs rather than holding up job numbers, if they are mostly of this value. I fully support the report and I will vote in favour of its adoption.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In recent years, following the global economic crisis, unemployment in the EU has risen exponentially (around 10% at the end of 2009). With the current model proven to not work and to not be the most suitable for protecting employment, it is of fundamental importance that we find new ways to overcome the crisis and create a sustainable long-term employment policy. I therefore feel that the key is to invest in training workers, in specific skills for each person and in innovation. Inflexible models of labour law have proven to have failed. The example of the United States shows that flexibility is not synonymous with insecurity, but with a dynamic job market. The figures quoted in the report show this, when they tell us that only 10% of the cases of unemployment in the US last for more than a year, compared to 45% (!) in the EU. This, in my opinion, is what Europe should be looking to achieve with the EU concept of flexicurity. Atypical contracts (part time; shift, casual or temporary work; working from home; telecommuting; etc.) should not be looked at with mistrust simply because they are atypical. Society has evolved, the world has changed, and labour relations must necessarily accompany this change.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Atypical employment is defined by new forms of contract, which have one or more of the following characteristics: part-time, casual, temporary, fixed-term work, working from home and telecommuting, or part-time work for a period not exceeding 20 hours per week. Jobs lost as a result of the current crisis were primarily those in the sector of atypical work, where there were greater difficulties in finding a new job. More than a fifth of European workers change their job every year. In the EU, 45% of all periods of unemployment last more than a year, compared with approximately 10% in the US.

The Council needs to take heed of this reality and to adopt concrete measures to protect quality, decent jobs and create sustainable job opportunities under the EU 2020 strategy. A set of basic rights for all employees should be secured, regardless of employment status. I still advocate the urgent extension of protection to work undertaken in atypical forms of employment. The EU cannot abandon its European social model, but should rather strengthen it.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We voted against this report on atypical contracts, secure professional careers, flexicurity and new forms of social dialogue, given that, despite having some positive points, such as the incentive to change atypical forms of work into formal forms of work, in general, the report more than anything else promotes flexicurity. Many of the report’s articles are an example of this, namely, when it says that it:

‘Believes it essential that current thinking on flexicurity be updated at European level in the light of the present crisis, so as to help increase both productivity and the quality of jobs by guaranteeing security and the protection of employment and workers’ rights, […] allowing firms the organisational flexibility needed to create or reduce jobs in response to the changing needs of the market […].’

Well, what we know is that big business and governments at EU level have not sought ‘a fair and balanced implementation of flexicurity principles’ that ‘can help to make labour markets more robust in the event of structural changes’. On the contrary, as has occurred in Portugal, what has increased is precariousness and what has been reduced is security, increasingly weakening labour relations and the rights of those who work.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) What the alleged popularity of independent working shows is not a new enthusiasm for creating enterprises, but a deep discouragement among unemployed people faced with the impotence or inefficiency of employment services.

The casualisation of contracts and employment is a consequence of policies which have opened up the markets to foreign competition. This opening up pushes down salary and employment levels, almost the last remaining adjustable variable for enterprises in a world of unfair competition. Current immigration policies in Europe also push down salaries and conditions of employment for the least-qualified workers, as very many statistical studies show. This is without taking into account their disproportionate costs in public finances, and thus their responsibility in deficits and public debts, as well as the fiscal drain on the European public.

However, ignoring all that, the rapporteur persists in a general political logic which leads to insecurity, unemployment and an increase in the number of poor workers. It advocates ‘flexicurity’ while knowing that, in the world created by the European Union, businesses will necessarily only remember the ‘flexi’. Unemployed people and workers must not expect a welcome from Brussels – quite the opposite!

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the Gruny report on atypical contracts, secured professional paths, flexicurity and new forms of social dialogue, because, in the last few years, atypical forms of work – part-time work, staggered shifts – have grown considerably in number, and because we must protect workers. The crisis must not serve as a pretext for the development of casual work. All employees must be protected by labour law, whatever form their contract takes. The report also asks the Member States to revise flexicurity policies so as to offer greater protection for workers, and reminds us of the importance of social dialogue and social partnerships for these challenges.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. – (DE) Today’s labour market and its associated employment relationships are characterised by one word: flexicurity. Against this background, there are two things that need to be taken into consideration: on the one hand, it must be possible to be flexible in the way employment relationships that do not fit into the conventional frameworks are structured. On the other hand, social security must be guaranteed for the workers in such ‘atypical’ forms of employment. I support the rapporteur’s proposals to step up efforts to create sustainable jobs as well as training and, at the same time, to assist the unemployed and those seeking jobs in their search by providing active counselling and to reintegrate them into the workplace. I therefore support Mrs Gruny’s report.

  Thomas Mann (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I today voted in favour of the Gruny own-initiative report on atypical employment contracts in the EU. This allows us to send out two clear messages to the labour market. Atypical employment contracts must remain the exception in Europe. The transition must be made to stable, protected, better quality employment contracts. The fast pace of structural change necessitates more flexible forms of working. However, atypical contracts must not become the norm if they are associated with poor social protection or even deliberate exploitation. The abuse of atypical employment breaches the European social model. This model varies in its application in Member States and forms the backbone of public support for responsible political action. There is no alternative option for protecting disadvantaged groups, not only during this European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion and not only during the crisis period after the crash in 2008.

Participation, fair working conditions and the safeguarding of fundamental rights must be guaranteed to those who are disproportionately affected by atypical employment: women, the elderly and young people. Proactive measures must be adopted at national and European level to tackle this, such as a mass campaign against illicit employment, getting rid of precarious jobs and guaranteeing access to further training, qualifications and lifelong learning. The balance needs to be found between productivity, on the one hand, and protection for employee rights, on the other.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) If Europe wants to put greater focus on the public, it needs to strive to be inclusive with regard to the labour market. In this time of severe economic and financial crisis, it needs to use every means at its disposal to save jobs, especially among those who have least protection in the work market. Dialogue and collective negotiation can contribute greatly to improving and preserving the labour market.

  Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I would first like to congratulate Mr Gruny for his conscientious work, which has striven to find the best compromise possible on atypical contracts, an important topic. We must not forget that reforms regarding the right to work must concentrate on extending the protection of workers on atypical contracts and facilitating transitions between different types of work and unemployment. Thus, I would ask the Commission and the national governments to abide by their responsibilities regarding the situation of ‘excluded’ people – workers on atypical or ‘very atypical’ contracts – and to find a balance between their rights and those of so-called ‘insiders’. Finally, I would particularly stress the fact that contracts of indeterminate length must be the rule, and that flexicurity cannot function without strong social protection.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Mrs Gruny’s report, which I feel is well balanced and addresses a range of social and economic aspects. Atypical workers can represent added value in the current context of economic recovery, which is why they too must be safeguarded and included in the directives already in force.

The report adopts well-defined guidelines and specific measures for safeguarding jobs, ensuring high quality employment throughout Europe. I believe it is very important to urge Member States to actively support workers and to ensure that they have flexible working conditions, leave entitlements, working arrangements that include part-time work, and incentives for home working.

Europe must move towards common principles, focusing in particular on an increase in productivity and employment quality, and guaranteeing security, social protection and special support for disadvantaged groups.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The European Union is facing a major financial, economic and social crisis. To beat this crisis, efforts need to be stepped up in terms of investing in skills, vocational training and in creating sustainable jobs.

Against this background, atypical contracts have tangibly increased, with the hardest impact on young workers aged between 19 and 29 or the over-50s, women and low skilled workers. In terms of quality of work, these workers are faced with a low level of job security, no structured career plan, fewer opportunities for training and career development, as well as greater difficulties in balancing work and family life.

Consequently, protection must be extended to workers employed under these atypical contracts, measures taken against undeclared work and a smooth transition ensured between different employment situations and unemployment.

Any form of employment must be accompanied by a set of rights which include: equal treatment, protection of workers’ health and safety, access to training, collective bargaining and the freedom of association and representation.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The report as adopted in Committee has been adopted in plenary. The text is not damaging but relatively weak. We in the Verts/ALE Group tabled an alternative resolution for visibility reasons and to state our point in plenary. There was, unfortunately, no chance to secure a majority for it. As expected, it was rejected, but it was supported by the S&D Group and part of the GUE/NGL Group.

On the negative side we find: there is no reference to a legal framework for equal rights; there is no reference to the definition of worker (important for circumvention); there is too much flexibility and admin-burden PPE wordings; and there is too much about flexicurity, with the text as a whole being overly in favour of flexicurity.

On the positive side, the text guarantees core labour rights regardless of employment status, extends protection of atypical workers, stipulates that transition between employment needs to be safe, expresses concern about ECJ cases and emphasises the need to strengthen the social partners.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) We voted in favour of this report since, while on the one hand, it is right to have flexibility in the labour market and for young people to be prepared to accept atypical contracts which are useful for their development, on the other hand, we do need to be vigilant to ensure that these options are not used by unscrupulous operators who exploit young people by underpaying them.

  Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (DE) The incidence of atypical employment contracts is increasing significantly in the European Union. The analysis presented in the Gruny report is therefore good and to be welcomed. Culture, the media and new media in particular are sectors where there are hardly any normal contracts any more. For example, camera operators and technicians in film teams are described as being freelance, even though there is actually a degree of dependency. However, in light of this, the report fails to mention the political steps required to grant the relevant employees rights in their position, such as pension rights or rights to representation. We therefore go further in our alternative resolution. We call for the same rights to apply to all employment contracts and for this principle to be legally enshrined in the EU. There must not be two classes of employment contract. Those of us in the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance also feel it is important to restrict the grey area concerning ‘false’ self-employment. Therefore, what we want to achieve is that, if an organisational and financial dependency exists, this employment relationship is recognised by the status of employee. This is the only way we can ensure that people who work their whole life can also enjoy their old age with dignity.

  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (NL) Nowadays, people work in all kinds of capacities: as employees or as (‘false’) self-employed workers, full-time or part-time, on fixed-term or open-ended contracts, as home workers or as temporary workers. The fact is that the flexibility required by employers is often at the expense of the necessary protection of workers. Today, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance tabled an alternative resolution that aimed to put the main focus on an unambiguous status of ‘worker’ (in whatever capacity) and pushed for a directive guaranteeing equal rights for all workers. That resolution did not make it, and Parliament passed up an opportunity to construct a stronger social Europe. Nevertheless, I have also supported the original resolution, as it pushes for an extension of worker protection and seeks to guarantee the fundamental rights of workers and a safe transition between jobs, and to strengthen the role of trade unions.

In the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion, this approach is certainly useful, particularly bearing in mind that more and more people are employed on atypical contracts. In Europe, 8% of workers are living in in-work poverty and 17% of Europeans are on low incomes. Action is certainly desirable, therefore, and so I welcome the position of the whole European Parliament.

  Eva-Britt Svensson (GUE/NGL) , in writing. – (SV) I voted against the report advocating atypical jobs, but under better conditions than what are referred to in the report as very atypical jobs, which are entirely unregulated and which are often arranged by a handshake between employer and employee. If we compare this report with the Commission communication based on the Commission’s Green Paper entitled ‘Modernising labour law’, improvements have been made in the course of the process. The report also emphasises a concern about the impact of the anti-trade union judgments on the labour market in Europe. This is important. In large countries such as Germany and the United Kingdom, for example, one in four jobs are currently in the low wage sector. Unemployment and social dumping in the EU’s internal market have put the trade unions and labour movements on the defensive. Nevertheless, I believe that the EU should not involve itself in the forms of employment. This is a matter that must instead be dealt with at a national level. In my home country, collective agreements to deal with these matters are negotiated by autonomous parties. The starting point must be the right to full time work as standard, but with the possibility of part time work.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I voted against this resolution because it conforms to the line of promoting flexible employment, flexicurity and the things that usually accompany them: employability, aptitude and adaptability to employment and the spirit of enterprise.

This resolution also aims to simplify the various employment contracts, under the pretext of reducing the number of atypical employment contracts and facilitating transitions between the various types of employment contract.

It is true that the resolution recognises the social consequences of the current crisis, particularly the increase in the number of poor workers and atypical forms of employment, but it also bemoans the fact that businesses are not managing to develop new forms of employment contracts which offer enough flexibility to respond to crisis situations.

In short, this resolution is still characterised by a neoliberal approach whose disastrous effects on employment and employment rights we have already been able to witness for many years.

Report: José Manuel Fernandes (A7-0203/2010)

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Increasing resource efficiency in Europe is among the priority objectives of the EU 2020 strategy. Allow me to give you one example of this. Biogas is a precious resource used to produce electricity and fuel for transport and for supplying the gas network. The most efficient method for producing biogas is to use organic waste, which is beneficial to industry, the economy and environment at the same time.

Recycling bio-waste can also help reduce the use of chemical fertilisers in agriculture, especially those based on phosphorus, and boost the soil’s water retention capacity in order to maintain a high productivity level. This link between the transition to a recycling society, the development of a low carbon economy and the potential to create jobs in this area is important in the current economic, environmental and social climate.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this report because I believe that efficient and sustainable management of bio-waste is an absolute priority for the EU, including in the light of the fact that the amount of bio-waste arising in the EU each year is estimated at between 76.5 and 102 million tonnes in food and garden waste and 37 million tonnes from the food and drink industry.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Mr Fernandes received my support regarding his report on the European Commission Green Paper on the management of bio-waste in the European Union. I think that he has quite rightly managed to consider all of the challenges, of which prevention and recycling are the most important. Bio-waste has a role to play in a more global matter: the fight against climate change. We must therefore totally separate bio-waste from standard waste, which is the worst solution in the long term. Instead, we should use it for composting or for producing bioenergy, as the report strongly emphasises. Finally, there is a great diversity between the Member States in terms of the current management of bio-waste. For my part, I am in favour of a single legislative act such as that proposed by this report. Finally, I would add that the management of bio-waste can support the social cohesion of the European Union, since a recycling company, for example, is a strong generator of jobs.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) With the growth of the EU’s economy and territory, continually increasing quantities of waste are continuing to be produced. In order to manage bio-waste effectively, the priority should be waste prevention or reduction. To achieve this objective, citizens themselves need to be involved. Furthermore, bio-waste may be used as a raw material for the production of biofuel used in the bioenergy, electricity and transport sectors. Effective bio-waste management can contribute to the EU target of at least 20% renewable energy by 2020. However, in order to achieve the objective of managing sources of waste more effectively and cutting the costs of bio-waste management, the European Commission should prepare a directive on bio-waste management. This directive should include the establishment of waste collection systems, which would be obligatory for Member States, and also lay down national bio-waste processing methods in order to avoid less suitable methods, such as landfill and incineration.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) Despite having some reservations about the feasibility of certain objectives specified in it, I decided to endorse and thus vote in favour of Mr Fernandes’s report. The implementation of bio-waste management techniques aimed at preventing such waste from being disposed of in landfills appears to be not only an act of responsibility towards the environment and communities, but also a strategic investment for strengthening a potential new source of job opportunities.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Selective collection and recycling of bio-waste is essential to Europe’s sustainable development. I voted in favour of this report as it asks the European Commission to draft a proposal by the end of the year for a specific directive on bio-waste. The new legislation should stipulate the requirement for a system of selective bio-waste collection and recycling.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Treatment of waste is a problem that affects Europe and all of humanity. Tonnes of waste are generated every day, causing harm to the environment and negative impacts on public health and quality of life. Firstly, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Fernandes, for his excellent work. Current legislation in terms of bio-waste does not answer the requirements of the material’s regulation. I applaud the initiative of proposing a specific ruling to achieve the goals of efficient and sustainable management of bio-waste (better legislation, simplification of the law, clarity and certainty). It is not only the harmful environmental impact of this waste on normal landfills that is at issue; it is also the important role in soil fertilisation and all the underlying energy potential (through biogas) which can be used to generate electricity, in heating or as vehicle fuel.

A specific ruling for the management of bio-waste seems to me to be a basic corollary of the execution of the principles contained in the Framework Directive on Waste. A range of standards need to be compiled, practices harmonised and the internal market promoted through a synergy of environment, recycling and the creation of green jobs. An efficient Europe in terms of resources is not only a Europe 2020; it is a Europe of the future.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Efficient management of bio-waste not only brings environmental benefits but also contributes positively to the social and economic spheres. I am therefore voting in favour of this report’s proposals. The importance of improving efficiency in bio-waste management, as well as prioritising its prevention/reduction, will contribute to boosting sustainable development and management of n