Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 6 July 2011 - Strasbourg

1. Opening of the sitting

IN THE CHAIR: JERZY BUZEK
President

(The sitting was opened at 09:05)

2. Programme of activities of the Polish Presidency of the Council (debate)

  President. – The first item is the statements by the Council and the Commission on the programme of activities of the Polish Presidency of the Council.

Thus we begin the next Presidency of the European Union. For the European Parliament, the Presidency is even more important today than it was under the Treaty of Nice, because now we are responsible for enacting European legislation under the ordinary legislative procedure. This places additional responsibilities on us – on Parliament, and also on the Council – because all legislative measures for Europe now have to be negotiated. The Polish Presidency is also beginning at a difficult period for Europe – we are aware of this. So it is with great interest that we are going to listen to the programme proposed by the Polish Presidency, which will be presented by Prime Minister Donald Tusk.

Welcome, Mr Tusk, to the Chamber.

(Applause)

  Donald Tusk, President-in-Office of the Council. – (PL) Mr President, Mr Barroso, chairs of the political groups, friends, honourable Members from all the Member States of the European Union and of all political persuasions, I am aware that I am in a place which, for the European Union and all Europeans who treat the idea of Europe seriously, is something special. It is a place which guarantees that the memory of where Europe has come from will be kept alive in our minds. In particular – this is how I view the many years of the European Parliament’s work – it is an institution and a place which has never stopped believing in the reason for having a united Europe. I say this not because it is the right thing to say, but primarily because my personal experience tells me that this is the case. The European Parliament has been extremely consistent in working for the unification of Europe, and is still working for this today. This unification does not just mean the accession of individual countries, but also has a more profound significance, thanks to which the citizens of the European Union, who have such a varied history and who are sometimes encumbered by the heavy baggage of history and their own experience, feel that Europe and the European Union are their political home. It was a decision of the European Parliament to entrust the office of President of the European Parliament to a Pole which meant, among other things, that the division in the European Union between the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ Europe finally lost its meaning and became a thing of the past.

I remember, too, something which has certainly already passed into history, but it is, for me, a living memory. I am thinking of decisions taken by the European Parliament which showed a belief in Europe and gave a feeling of the meaning of Europe to all those who, for many years, could only dream of Europe. I remember very clearly when the Solidarity movement, the great dream of the Poles – which was also about Europe – was broken by the imposition of martial law in Poland, and a matter of hours later, the European Parliament gave a very clear signal that it had not forgotten those who were not being given the chance to live in freedom. I remember, too, that when, many years later, along with half of Europe, we regained the independence of our countries and the freedom of our citizens, but were in a state of total economic collapse which involved, among other things, a gigantic level of debt, it was once again the European Parliament which issued a very strong signal calling for the radical debt reduction which allowed Poland and many other countries to get back on their feet. It was a decision which showed European solidarity to be of the highest quality. It was a decision which, over the next 20 years, allowed tens of millions of Europeans to escape from an economic crisis and a crisis of civilisation, a crisis which was incomparably deeper than the phenomena which we are calling a crisis today. What happened at that time – and this was also thanks to the European Parliament and to everyone who believed in the significance of solidarity as the foundation of a united Europe – is today, I think, an excellent lesson for those who do not believe that a united Europe, a Europe which believes in its own abilities, will also find a remedy for the present crisis. I would like to say once again to those who do not remember those events: for all those Europeans who had to spend several decades of their lives in poverty and oppression, today’s crisis is an important challenge, but is not an insurmountable one, and does not bear comparison with the one from which we emerged thanks to the solidarity shown by the whole of Europe. In relation to this, I would like to get straight to the point by setting out what, in my opinion, are the most important areas, not only for the next six months of the Polish Presidency, but what are also permanent areas of responsibility and permanent challenges for the whole of Europe.

This is the simplest of questions; there is nothing complicated about it. Is the answer to the crisis – both to the immediate one related to the financial crisis and the situation of some countries in Europe, particularly in the south of Europe, and the answer to the deeper crisis, the crisis of confidence in Europe, the global crisis – is the answer to be a departure from Europe, a reduction of what is European and held in common, or is it to be what we have proved over many years and what has worked well?

(Applause)

Both the experience of Europe as a community, as well as the personal experience of every one of us, tell us that the best response of Europeans – the best answer Europeans have come up with – is a united Europe. There is something I would like to stress as strongly as possible – I have, indeed, spoken about this many times in the presence of many of you who are here in this Chamber today, because I am not making this speech just for the purposes of today’s inauguration of the Presidency – a united Europe, its institutions, its budget and its goals are not the cause of the crisis. We know very well, after all, where the sources of the current financial crisis are, and it would be a wrong answer and the worst possible answer if we were to believe those who are saying: let us cut back on Europe and this will be our answer to the crisis. History shows that when Europeans have believed that the right response to threats is a rise in manifestations of nationalism, statism and protectionism, this has invariably ended in disaster.

Today, we are not faced by such great dangers as in the past, but the historical awareness – the knowledge of what the history of Europe has been like from the beginning – forces us to believe in the recipe of solidarity among nations, solidarity among people, a readiness to help when others need it, and solidarity understood not as charity, but as working together in the common interest – where sometimes some have to give more, so that those who need help now will, at some time in the future, be able to give back even more.

(Applause)

We sometimes hear, today, that the best response to the financial crisis, or the crisis precipitated by events in North Africa and the associated rise in illegal immigration, is to increase the number of barriers inside Europe. I would like to say that the discussion about Schengen is a basic and extremely graphic illustration of the dilemma Europe is facing, today. From our point of view, it is in Europe’s interest to protect what I think are the fundamental rights of its citizens, which include free movement within the European Union without borders (applause), and this is a value which we should rigorously uphold. This does not, after all, conflict with our conviction that the external borders of the European Union should be well guarded. The reason we are building the Union, and this includes when we enlarge it, is also to enable every member to have as much freedom as possible as part of the Union. The Union will be safe if we guard its external borders well. We can extend those borders and we should enlarge them, but creating barriers inside the Union is not the way to protect our Union. This is an incorrect response (applause), and this is why strengthening Frontex will be such an important area of work, and not just for these six months. I do understand all of those who are worried by the emigration situation, but they are looking for precisely the erroneous solution I have described. We have to understand them, but we must also take steps to protect Europe from a reintroduction of internal barriers.

In the context of the crisis, we sometimes also talk about what should be done with the European budget, which is, without doubt, one of the European Union’s most important tools. Sometimes we do not believe there is any point in strengthening the European institutions. I think that in view of this dilemma, it is extremely important for us, today, to adopt a stance which is open and free from hypocrisy. I am certain that the answer to the crisis is more Europe and more European integration (applause), and this requires strong European institutions. I believe this profoundly, but that belief is also underpinned by the experience of an entire generation of millions of Europeans who once lived on the other side of the former Iron Curtain. All of our experience tells us that more Europe – which does not mean more ideology or more of a kind of hypocritical philosophy – more Europe means very practical decisions. More Europe means the judicious spending of European money, European institutions which are capable of making decisions, more European policy, more European leadership. If we do not take up this challenge, we will be increasingly powerless in the face of the global dimensions of the crisis. Our experience tells us, too, that for the individual, more Europe means quite simply more freedom, more prosperity, more practical solidarity, more security. Is a united Europe not the answer to our experience from the First and Second World Wars? Is it not the case that here in Europe, a united Europe is the best idea for protecting us from ourselves? In our history, we have also been a danger to ourselves. An integrated Europe of free citizens is also a Europe which is internally secure, but is also one which is safe from external threats.

(Applause)

I know that not everyone shares this view, although I am convinced that irrespective of whether they are deeply convinced Europeans or sceptics, everyone shares the system of values on which the united Europe is founded. We may criticise one or other aspect of Europe as an institution, but no one in this Chamber questions the validity of liberty, human rights, democracy, freedom of speech or freedom of religion. Let us observe that on a world scale, Europe is the place where – even if not everything is going well for us – the fundamental values with which we all agree are the best protected in the world. It cannot be the case, and I am profoundly convinced of this, that here in Europe, doubts are growing as to its validity, but outside Europe, just as happened 10 or 20 years ago, millions of people are longing to be able to live in a civilisation with the political, social and economic conditions which we Europeans enjoy. Sometimes we stop believing that this is the best place on earth, but everyone outside the European Union knows that this is the best place on earth.

(Applause)

This is not ideology. The problem of illegal immigration takes up so much of our debates, and we do, of course, have to deal with this somehow, but while we are on the subject, let us notice that the direction of this immigration is always the same, and has been for decades. Never from the European Union to other parts of the world, but always into the European Union from outside. By their decisions and the way they flee places where they can expect servitude, poverty or distress, people themselves show us every day that Europe is indeed the best place in the world, and that no one has yet thought of anything better. This is the case, after all, not because God is minded that people should live better here than in other parts of the world. Manna does not fall from heaven here. Things are better here because we have persevered in strict faithfulness to the fundamental values on which the united Europe is built.

The memory of where Europe has its roots is also a very important foundation of our thinking, today, in connection with the crisis. We often talk about Greece. Some people associate Greece only with financial problems and breaches of the rules of financial discipline.

Firstly, let us not look for a scapegoat. Let us ask ourselves if we are sure that we have all been faithful to the principles we set ourselves when we were looking for ways to combat the crisis.

Secondly, let us also remember that in our European consciousness, Greece does not mean painful financial problems, but problems which are, in fact, somewhat trivial. I am not treating them lightly, but they are trivial in nature. Greece is also the experiment which, 2 500 years ago, taught people and politicians – feuding city-states – what is meant by solidarity in the face of a global threat. After all, we all have our roots there – we would not be in this Chamber, and there would not be a Europe, if people who had once been at odds over minor interests had not got together one day and said: we can and we must be together when such a challenge arises. So for me, I associate Greece much more with Pericles than with today’s demonstrations over financial cuts. I say this because an effective fight against the crisis must have this kind of historical memory, so that we know what we are actually defending.

The Polish priorities, or rather Europe’s priorities during the Polish Presidency, are in line with our conviction that the more we have of Europe, the less we will have of the crisis – I mean Europe understood as a guarantee of the values to which I referred. So this is why we are looking for a Europe which is secure in several ways, and this is why it will be our priority for Europe to be secure, including from the obvious point of view of its military security. It is high time a debate was begun about how Europe will be able to take coordinated action in a future situation of danger. We are talking about a Europe which is secure in terms of energy, food supply and raw materials. Security is the key to understanding the phenomenon of Europe.

There is a second priority, the validity of which I strongly believe in – the clear progress which we want to achieve in terms of the Single Market, including the developing Internet market. Freedom, and this includes removing more barriers which are hampering development of the free market, can, as it has in the past, be a source of growth for Europe. If Europe is not just security but also prosperity, then we must believe anew that the sources of prosperity have always been the same: unrestricted human enterprise, a minimum of barriers, boldness in making decisions, the priority of people over institutions, the priority of the market over the state and equal rules of play for everyone in the market. So this is why the Single Market and its development will be our second priority.

There is a third matter to which we want to devote a considerable amount of energy – an open Europe. If we are successful – and I believe we will be – in building a secure and well protected Europe without internal barriers, then we will not have to be afraid about opening that Europe up to others.

The next six months also mean progress in negotiations with those who aspire to be in Europe – a Europe which is also open to those who perhaps will never be part of our Union, but who share the essential values of our community and who, in recent months, have shown this to be the case. I refer to Europe’s southern neighbours.

The Eastern Partnership, completion of the accession process for Croatia by signing the Treaty, the association agreement with Ukraine, judicious and well thought-out assistance for those who want democracy and freedom in North Africa – these are tasks which, if we perform them well, can also strengthen the European Union itself. The vision we are going to want to propose is a very practical one. We want more Europe not only in Europe itself, but also in the countries which lie around Europe, if we understand Europe to be that system of values which we agreed upon when the European Union was founded. I do realise the Presidency lasts only for six months, and I do not have exaggerated ideas about the tools which the Presidency has at its disposal. I know the Treaty of Lisbon. I do not overestimate the role of individuals in history, although they are not roles which should be ignored. Despite the modest tools available to the Presidency, and despite the fact that this is a time of crisis which we are feeling so acutely, I am certain we will contribute a great deal of Polish enthusiasm, Polish energy and Polish optimism, something which has allowed us to come through the crisis fairly safely, because we really do believe in Europe and we want, together with you (applause) and by carrying out these practical tasks, to enable us to open a fresh chapter of investment in Europe, and to help us all to believe in Europe again. I know this is possible, and in this work I will be at your service, at everyone’s service without exception, for the full six months. I am counting on your help. Thank you.

  President. – Thank you, Mr Tusk, for your speech and its presentation of the most important work which we have before us in the next six months, as well as for the vision and conception of Europe as it is seen from Poland’s perspective. Thank you very much for your presentation.

I would like to extend a very warm welcome to the President of the European Commission, Mr Barroso, and I will now ask him to speak.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – Mr President, please allow me to start by thanking Prime Minister Tusk for not only outlining his vision for the first Polish Presidency of the Council, but also his vision on Europe. Your words, Prime Minister, were very inspiring. I know they come from a sincere commitment to, and belief in, the importance of our European project, a project based on values. As Poland embarks upon its historic journey at the helm of the Council of the European Union, let me tell you that I have every confidence that Poland will uphold this vision, your vision, with rigour, and will execute the strategy with the same authority that it has shown in preparing this Presidency. In doing so, Poland will have the full support of the European Commission. For we, too, have a similar vision of Europe, the Europe we want to see in ten years from now.

This is a vision of – and a plan for – a strong, confident and innovative Europe. A Europe with high employment, quality jobs for its citizens and competitive, knowledge-based industries. A Europe with a fully exploited internal market. A Europe that is open – open inside, but also open to the world. A Europe whose citizens feel secure and confident in their futures. The plan to execute this vision is detailed in the Europe 2020 strategy for sustainable, inclusive and smart growth.

To allow this plan to flourish, we need stable macro-economic foundations with the financial backstop stability mechanisms, tighter financial regulation and enhanced budgetary coordination. Here, I would like to once again express how urgent it is for the European Parliament and Member States to come to an agreement sooner rather than later on the final points on the economic governance package.

I am glad that the Polish Presidency has seamlessly continued the efforts of the Hungarian Presidency to find a solution, together with the European Parliament. With all these elements in place, we will need the right tools to make this vision a reality and put Europe back on a track to prosperity. The Commission believes that the proposals we presented last week for the 2014-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework will be a crucial instrument in delivering this vision.

As I explained yesterday in this Parliament, the fundamental guiding principle in the Commission’s budgetary proposals is to ensure European added value. Poland is indeed a strong advocate of the added value of the European Union. We just heard in very clear terms this commitment of Prime Minister Tusk. Therefore, I look to the Presidency to shape the debate on the EU’s future budget over the second half of this year in rational and constructive terms. Let me tell you that I am very encouraged by the positive reactions of this Parliament, and also by the early reaction in Council considering the proposal a credible and solid basis for negotiations. The important work to be done in the coming months will not only have a fundamental impact on the discussions next year, but it will also lay the ground for Europe’s future prosperity.

The overarching priority of our proposals is to boost European growth and jobs. This means strengthening the backbone of our internal market by funding better connections for energy, transport and IT between Member States. It means increased and targeted spending on research, innovation and education to boost competitiveness; believing in our future by investing in our young people. Together with the forthcoming initiatives to deepen the Single Market, these proposals will, I hope, be strengthened by the positive vision of the Polish Presidency on ‘European integration as the source of growth’.

The budget proposals aim to enhance our security, which is also one of the three pillars of the Polish Presidency agenda. Security means improving our environment and climate. It means guaranteeing our energy supply. It means helping Europeans to feel safe by investing in the fight against crime and terrorism, as well as dedicating resources to migration and asylum policies. Security and freedom of circulation are not incompatible. In this context, I refer to recent news coming from Denmark. As you know, I expressed directly to the Prime Minister of Denmark, in May, my grave concerns relating to respect of Treaty freedoms – free movement of goods, services and persons – and of the Schengen acquis. Since then, intensive and constructive contacts between the Commission services and Denmark are taking place on a daily basis at different levels. Denmark assures the Commission that it has no intention of infringing EU law and is ready to cooperate with the Commission.

We will assess in detail the recent measures introduced by the Danish authorities. Free movement of people, goods and services is a central piece of the European construction and guaranteed by the Treaties that all Member States have ratified.

(Applause)

Undermining free movement is jeopardising the internal market, solidarity among Europeans and the very European project. The Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, will do its utmost to ensure this is respected all over Europe. We have done it in the past; we will do it in the future.

The third pillar of the Presidency’s agenda is Europe’s openness to the world. The Commission has also sought, throughout the budget proposals, to guarantee an open Europe. We believe that Europe must invest in the stability and prosperity of its neighbourhood to the East and South, both because it is morally right and because it makes sense economically. In this regard, I welcome the Presidency’s commitment to our Eastern neighbourhood, which will culminate in the Eastern Partnership summit in September.

I also pay tribute to the Polish Presidency’s commitment to build on the support Europe has shown in the first half of the year to the democratic movements in our southern neighbourhood. I moreover look to Poland to advance with the preparations for Croatia’s accession treaty with the same dedication as demonstrated by the Hungarian Presidency.

Securing our future is also about securing our values, not letting them be threatened by short-term concerns. Solidarity is a concept so perfectly espoused by the Poles (I will venture to say that the Polish word that is most known outside Poland is solidarność). Solidarity is an integral part of the entire financial perspective proposal: solidarity with our poorer regions, solidarity also with neighbouring countries that need our support, but, above all, solidarity with our children and grandchildren, to do our best to ensure they inherit a sustainable and strong Europe, a Europe we can be proud of.

Poland is indeed a European success story. It has not only escaped recent recession but has become one of our Union’s drivers of growth. This puts Poland in a strong position to pursue the financial perspective discussions in the Council and the European Parliament in a spirit of responsibility and ambition.

In a time of widespread uncertainty in Europe, Poland will need to show strong leadership to steer a course through turbulent events while maintaining its ambitious agenda. Historic times such as the ones we are living through demand historic leadership. I believe that you, Prime Minister Tusk, and Poland, can provide this kind of leadership in the Council. The Commission will fully support the Polish Presidency’s vision of a more strong, secure and open Europe. I am confident in Poland’s ability not only to lead the Council of the Union, but also to breathe new enthusiasm and optimism into the European project.

  Joseph Daul, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Prime Minister Tusk, Mr Barroso, ladies and gentlemen, by way of an introduction, allow me to say, Mr President-in-Office, that if, during these six months, you apply the European method you have described this morning – as I do not doubt you will – we will be considering ways to extend the Polish Presidency of Europe.

(Applause)

European integration will be at the heart of the priorities of the new Presidency of the Council, to the great satisfaction of our group. This integration, and especially this Community method, must feature in all the major debates over the coming months and years. I am thinking of the financial resources of Europe. It is a significant issue that we will discuss together for the 2014-2020 period. I am also thinking of the internal market. Mr Tusk, you are concerned about the rise of Euroscepticism in several countries. I share this concern, as does my group. Euroscepticism and isolationism are symptoms of a cancer in our society. Your response to this ‘every man for himself’ attitude is a call for integration, which echoes the watchword of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats). Europe is not the problem, but ‘more Europe’ is the solution.

Your Presidency will be dominated by the necessary consolidation of public finances in the Member States, the stabilisation of the euro and the opening of the debate on the financial framework. The euro can only be stabilised if the countries experiencing difficulties really implement the necessary reforms in order to reform public finances and to create the conditions to enable a return to sustainable growth. Half-hearted measures will not solve the underlying problems.

If I take the case of Poland, which is growing by nearly 4% and, with an uncommon level of efficiency, has known how to best use EU funds since it became a member, I see that European solidarity, combined with political will, can lead to the construction of a real, solid economy.

Mr Tusk, you are one of the few Heads of State or Government in Europe to agree to debate with the national parliaments, with this Parliament and with other European institutions about the issue of the resources needed for Europe to operate. You are, moreover, the only one willing to discuss an issue that is important to a large majority in this Parliament, namely, the introduction of own resources to finance Europe’s role. Therefore, we will be by your side to deal with this issue seriously and we know that this task will be challenging.

The Presidency of the Council believes that all our economic and social policies must be based on the Europe 2020 strategy, which all Member States have already accepted. It is right because the economic crisis will only be overcome in a sustainable manner if the Member States understand that all 27 States acting together is less expensive and much more productive than each one acting in isolation.

Solidarity, ladies and gentlemen, is not just virtuous; it is also profitable. That goes for European finances as well as for the internal market and I am pleased that the Polish Presidency has established this issue and, in particular, electronic services, improved working conditions for small and medium-sized enterprises, the long-awaited creation of a European patent system, or indeed the Single Market Act, as its main concerns.

Mr Tusk, just like the European Parliament, you have found the recent disagreements on the Schengen issue hard to bear. My group supports you in your desire to strengthen our resources and our joint effort on our external borders. In this regard, I call on the Commission and the Council to take a clear position on the unilateral decision made by Denmark to exempt itself from the rules on freedom of movement. My group would like to express its serious concerns. I would like to know what your position is, and that of the President of the Commission.

(Applause)

Mr Barroso, some commissioners will not be able to take holidays in July and August, since it will also be necessary, at this time, to closely monitor the Danish borders. I stated yesterday that perhaps we should think about introducing visas for Danes to be sent to Europe so they are better protected!

Just as the European Parliament has done, you have identified the key challenges for Europe, which are food security and energy dependence. It will certainly not be possible to resolve all these issues in just six months. You will at least be able to take the credit for raising them and, as I told you when we met in Warsaw, it will be you who will lay the foundations, and I am certain that they will be solid foundations.

I shall conclude by commending your determination in the management of relations with your neighbours. We have recently often discussed support for our southern neighbours, and firm policies on this issue should be developed. Relations with Eastern Europe and the Balkans, as well as with other countries like Ukraine and Belarus, in particular, are just as deserving of our attention and efforts.

Mr Tusk, my group has great expectations of your political will and your leadership.

I shall conclude by drawing inspiration from the words of a great Pole whom you know well, Pope John Paul II: ‘Do not be afraid, Mr Tusk: go ahead; we are with you’.

  Martin Schulz, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, 22 June marked the 70th anniversary of Nazi Germany’s attack on the Soviet Union. Poland had already been destroyed at that point. The Europe that emerged from this criminal war, in which Nazi Germany destroyed Poland, the Europe in which Stalinism enslaved the country for 40 years and more, was a different Europe from the Europe we have today. The speech that Mr Tusk has just given here illustrated that an awareness of the value of Europe underpins the Polish Presidency. For that alone, we are grateful to you Prime Minister.

(Applause)

Europe is suffering from a common mind-set among governments, whatever their political hue, that is characterised by despair and a lack of inspiration, the delusion that you can use national measures to solve problems in this global village, where an incident in one corner of the world can become the subject of local debate here. Schengen, the debate we are holding now, is an eloquent example of just that. This mismatch between reality and political rhetoric is what Europe is suffering from. That is a huge risk for our project.

Poland, on the other hand, is taking a different approach. As Poland explained here this morning through its Prime Minister as President-in-Office of the Council, ‘the best protection for our national interests is the European formation, the European convoy’. That is quite a different concept. Europe is suffering from governments which decide everything – either by taking part actively or sitting in silence – and then go home and, when the first negative comment appears in a newspaper, blame the European institutions for what they themselves decided. Poland, on the other hand, stands for a different concept.

This morning, we heard a President-in-Office of the Council present the concept that his Presidency wants: partnership between the national governments and the European institutions; after all, cooperation between national politics and the European institutions, rather than an adversarial approach, is Europe’s recipe for success. This is the Head of Government of a country that was also a member of the Warsaw Pact. This is the Head of Government of a country that was also repressed by the Soviet Union. However, he is also the Prime Minister of a country who, unlike his predecessor in the position of President-in-Office of the Council, does not wade in by comparing Brussels with Moscow; on the contrary, he says that Europe is not part of the crisis; it is an instrument for overcoming our problems.

(Applause)

When Jean-Claude Juncker commented on the last financial perspective, he said that he was ashamed, because the financial perspective was a call for national self-interest, not a European team effort. That was the last financial perspective. Now, we have governments in the process of raising national self-interest to a political credo. The Polish Government has a different concept. We heard about disciplined spending, yes; but we also heard about intelligent investment policy in Europe to boost growth because, without growth, there will be no jobs, and with no jobs, there will be no social security.

Solidarity in Europe, solidarity between the strong and the weak within countries, and between the strong and weak countries, that is the concept of the Polish Presidency, not playing national budgets off against the European budgets. We have – I think one could say – heard a great speech. The Polish national anthem contains the beautiful line that Poland is not yet lost. Based on that, may I say to you, Prime Minister,

(PL) Europe is not yet lost while we are yet alive!

(DE) We still maintain the ideal of a single Europe, a Europe of solidarity, that creates welfare for everyone through transnational solutions and that safeguards peace in Europe and, through Europe, in the world at large, rather than trying to conquer it, at least not while we have such Presidents-in-Office of the Council.

(Applause)

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I think it is an understatement when we say that the Polish Presidency comes at a crucial moment for Europe. I think this has already been said three or four times this morning. We normally always say it. Every six months, we say that it comes at a crucial moment, but this time I think it is true to say that.

There is a crisis in Greece and a crisis for the euro, as well as a disintegration through the reintroduction of border controls in a number of Member States. More generally, I think that the crisis in Europe is more the revival of nationalism and of populism which we see in a number of Member States – even in Member States in the north of Europe who thought in the past that it was impossible for them to be attacked by this kind of nationalism and populism.

I would like to congratulate Mr Tusk because we have heard this morning from one of the only political leaders in Europe who is not going in the direction of nationalism and populism, as most of his colleagues for the moment are doing. He knows that, in order to really solve our problems, we need not less integration in Europe but more integration in Europe. I think that is also the tradition of Bronislaw Geremek, a great Polish political leader. I also think, Mr Tusk, that this is partly a consequence of the fact that you are a historian. We are all lawyers and economists here – I do not know what we all are, but I do not think that there are many historians. Maybe it is because you are a historian and because you know about what happened in the past that you have such a message for us. Let us face the reality: without the European Union, this continent is a continent of disputes, war and even of genocide. That was the past. You, as a historian, can remind us of that.

Let us face the reality today. That is, in fact, the big issue for your Presidency. We are at a crossroads. Either we are becoming the UN of Europe or we are becoming the US of Europe. Either we are becoming a loose confederation – as the Eurosceptics want – with once again nation states in the driving seat and without any real European integration, coordination and solidarity, or we really do become this federation and this political and economic union that we absolutely need in order to create wealth for our citizens and to create peace and stability in this difficult, multipolar world. That is the choice we are facing today, the real choice. I know some people are afraid of a United States, but that is the real choice to be made. Either we go in the direction of political and economic union and we can solve our problems relating to the euro, Greece, Portugal and Ireland and so on and we do not disintegrate; or we say that we want to be the UN of Europe, a loose confederation where, from time to time, we make speeches about solidarity but, in reality, do not show this solidarity and this union.

On the substance, I think you have to have three priorities, and I do not think that you can escape them. First, regarding the Greek crisis, you have to find a solution for the discussion on economic governance. I am very sure that you can explain to the Heads of State or Government, your colleagues, that they have to make a move in the next days and weeks because you believe in the position of the Parliament.

Secondly, we are very pleased that you support the idea of this Parliament launching a conference on the future financing of Europe because I think that is the best way forward. Bring the national parliaments into the debate and I am very sure that, in the end, they can agree on Commission proposals that have been launched.

Finally, regarding Schengen, I do not think we should agree with every colleague in the European Union who says that these are exceptional circumstances and that we should go back to national borders and national border controls. Together with the Commission, say ‘no’ to the attempts to reinstate these national border controls inside the Union. Mr Tusk, you are not from our group – we all thought that a civic platform by its nature has to be, but that is a little detail – but I can tell you that we will be your best allies in your fight for more Europe.

(Applause)

  Ryszard Antoni Legutko, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (PL) Mr President, Mr Tusk, on behalf of the European Conservatives and Reformists, I would like to say that we very much want the Polish Presidency to be a success, because we believe that it can bring fresh energy to the somewhat stuffy atmosphere of the European institutions. There is here, however, a certain problem. Your government, Mr Tusk, has decided that during the Polish Presidency, parliamentary elections will be held in Poland. This means that your cabinet will not see out the Presidency. We will meet in December for the review of the Presidency, but with a different government. Irrespective of who will then be Prime Minister, one way or another, it will be a different government. Besides, we know that during election campaigns, all cabinets only run at idle speed. I fear that in the case of the Polish Presidency, the same may happen again. I hope, too, Mr Tusk, that you will not give in to the temptation, although such voices are to be heard in Poland in the government camp, to limit democratic debate using the argument that whoever criticises the government during the Presidency harms both the country and Europe. Mr Tusk, I would like to remind you that silencing political competitors is not approved of in Europe.

There is one more thing – your ministers are saying that the Polish Presidency will want to promote integration and strengthen our sense of community. That is all very well, but what does it mean in practice? We are seeing two forms of political arrogance in Europe. One of them is the movement towards a federal, post-national Europe, and that arrogance is provoking the anger of millions of people who live in our continent and who have had enough of social engineering. The second form of arrogance is the conviction of the strongest countries, principally Germany and France, that it is they who should be wielding authority in Europe. This arrogance provokes the anger of many of my fellow Members of this Parliament, from both the Left and the Right.

We in the ECR Group are Eurorealists, and we believe that Europe’s strength lies in the freedom, enterprise and culture of Europe’s nations and states. We believe that you will contribute in some way to a weakening of these forms of arrogance, and that your efforts will mean, on the one hand, that we will no longer be threatened with the closure of states and the top-down creation of a European demos and, on the other, that you will bring about a reduction of the feeling in Europe that there is a difference between those who are equal and those who are more equal. This, Mr Tusk, will be a real European test of leadership. Will you take up the challenge as a strong Presidency of the Union, or will you content yourself with what is easy, agreeable and painless, but which is also of no significance? Will you be long remembered as a resolute leader, or will you be forgotten as a politician of safe conformity?

  Rebecca Harms, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Tusk, following on from the last speech, I should like to come back to what my fellow Members have already said. When we visited Warsaw, we found that, unlike at the start of other Presidencies of the Council, there was an atmosphere of joy and celebration surrounding talk of the Polish Presidency of the Council. What you have succeeded in achieving in your speech is something quite extraordinary. I have not been in the European Parliament that long, but I have rarely seen a Head of State manage to define the idea of Europe as you have just done, …

(Applause)

... not simply by defining the European Union as a political instrument, but also by outlining the idea of the European Union as an extended homeland, a homeland of national states and citizens in those national states; I should like to thank you for that. That does a power of good in these times of difficult debate, particularly since your predecessor in the Presidency of the Council took his leave of us with verbal pot-shots at the European Parliament, so that we had almost become accustomed to a man, who also represents Hungary in his House, who equated Vienna, Moscow and Brussels. If that is now in the past, Mr Tusk – and I think that is what this speech means – then we have much better preconditions for all the problems we need to resolve.

(Applause)

A word about the crisis: Mr Verhofstadt said that we have spoken with each Presidency of the Council about the particular challenge not only of the double crisis, but also of the triple crisis. I should like to encourage you to do what we talked about in Warsaw: separate the problems of the heavily indebted countries and the resolution of these problems in Greece, Portugal and other countries from the tasks that face us in the debate on the global financial crisis. Ensure that a fair approach is taken. Solidarity with the heavily indebted countries is one thing; while fairness in implementing these austerity programmes, justice in these countries, is something quite different, and is still awaited.

Perhaps you will also manage to take the next step and tackle the ‘new deal’ being discussed in the press once again, in addition to the austerity and solidarity measures. Greece and other heavily indebted countries need the prospect of an end to this crisis and that will not happen without an investment programme. However, you must not forget in the midst of all this that Europeans need to change the approach they have taken to the global financial markets in the past. We have still not understood the real implications of this global financial crisis and a great deal remains to be done here.

With reference to this new deal: as a member of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, I must say that I am hoping for a green new deal when we come to draw up these investment programmes. The challenges we have often formulated, from ecological crises and from the climate crisis, must be accepted in this economic crisis. It makes no sense to turn back the clock, forgetting the challenges of global warming, forgetting about Fukushima, for example, even though this was recognised as the writing on the wall just a few months ago. What Poland could achieve in the debate on the green new deal would be to drive sustainable economic growth in the energy sector, including for Poland. You need to invest a great deal here and grasp the nettle on Europe’s behalf. You only stand to gain. I hope that we shall be able to agree on the idea of climate protection and sustainability in the push for investment, not only for the indebted countries, but for the European Union as a whole.

Mr Röttgen, the German Federal Minister for Environmental Affairs, a person I do not often quote but am happy to do so now, said that 6 million new jobs can be created through an ambitious sustainability policy. Mr Tusk, let us also conclude a pro-European pact on this.

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Lothar Bisky, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Tusk, the Polish Presidency may be able to offer some ray of hope in a time of crisis when there is little enthusiasm for Europe. A clear majority of the Polish people are positively disposed towards the EU, far more so than in many other countries. I very much welcome the openness promised in the Presidency’s programme, which includes better relations with our neighbouring states of Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus and Russia. As Poland’s western neighbour, Germany has had some positive experiences in relation to cooperation between regions close to national borders. There is a wide range of political challenges that we are all facing.

In relation to the decisions on economic governance, we need more open, respectful cooperation between the EU institutions, in particular, between the Council and Parliament. In terms of substance, I can only reiterate that we need to start rescuing people, not just the banks. Let me say something on the reform of the EU budget. I do not believe that the budget can realistically be frozen for the medium term. Populist slogans like ‘It is time for the EU to tighten its belt’ clearly miss the point. In this time of crisis, the EU can and must demonstrate its added value by acting as an effective community based on solidarity and that is how I interpreted your speech.

I believe that there is room for improvement in the agenda in relation to energy and climate policy. A new global agreement on climate change to follow on from the Kyoto Protocol will have to be reached in the coming months. The European Union must not slow this process down.

I wish the Polish Presidency every success.

  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, in replying to Mr Tusk, having listened to his words this morning, I have to ask him this. In an age when the gap between ordinary voters and the European political class grows wider by the day, just what planet are you on? Why the pretence that everything is going incredibly well?

The EU is mired in deep structural crisis. Greece, Portugal and Ireland cannot survive inside the euro. The Danes have torn up the Schengen agreement, and good for them, because the total free movement of peoples is a completely irresponsible thing to have done. Public opinion is saying that, whilst they want a European cooperation – yes, of course I agree with that – what they do not want is this Europe, run by unelected bureaucrats like Mr Barroso.

You say the EU is fantastic in a recent comment. You are supporting the destruction of national democracy. But it is with reference to Greece that I am most concerned about you because, when faced with their recent enslavement, you said: ‘we lived for many years as a non-sovereign country, under Soviet occupation. For us, European integration is not a threat to sovereignty because we experienced not long ago a serious threat to our sovereignty’.

So what are you saying? That this is not quite as bad as the USSR? Is that really good enough for your people? And today you describe Greece’s problems as trivial.

I am sorry; there are hundreds of thousands of people out there on the streets of Greece fighting to get their democracy back. It beggars belief that you and our President, Mr Buzek, can talk about the Solidarity movement, about Poland getting its democracy back 20 years ago. Yet here you are, surrendering the democracy and sovereignty of Poland to a failed European Union.

Yes, sir. We all want a shared European cooperation for the future, but this most definitely is not the model.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Robert Goebbels (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, Mr Farage always reminds me of a rooster without a poultry yard, crowing while standing on a heap of manure. I have only ever heard criticism from him; he has never provided any suggestion as to how we could change this Europe, nor has he indicated what vision he has for this continent.

(Applause)

  Nigel Farage (EFD). – Mr Goebbels, post-1945, there were some very sensible ideas put together, namely, the Council of Europe.

Let us have a Europe where we sit down together, where we have a free trade agreement and where we agree minimum standards on work and on the environment. We can do all of these things without a European Commission, without a European Parliament and without a European Court of Justice. We have done it in security terms with NATO.

Yes, it will mean you will lose your job, Mr Barroso. But, apart from that, why can we not do things as mature democracies? Yes, Mr Schulz, I want you sacked as well – I want you all fired! We can do these things, and that is a positive way forward.

By taking away from people their ability to govern themselves and transferring that power to the European Commission, we are headed for a Europe of rebellion and violence. Let us take the democratic route.

(Mixed reactions)

  Frank Vanhecke (NI). – (NL) Mr President, the advent of the Polish Presidency of the Council comes, perhaps, not at a historic moment, but nonetheless at a remarkable point in time for the European Union. The Greek debacle, the Portuguese debacle, all these states of affairs ultimately force us to face the facts. The facts are that European citizens have been lied to in a brazen and shameless fashion for many, many years. Patently falsified financial statistics were allowed to pass, purely and simply in order to move further down the road to a European superstate.

That is inexcusable. It is inexcusable above all because, as always, it is not those who are really responsible who have to foot the bill, but mainly all the taxpayers of Europe. This patent lying is actually becoming a kind of hallmark of the European Union. When it came to the accession criteria for Bulgaria and Romania, too, we were lied to. When it came to the consequences of Schengen, we were lied to. When it came to the total lack of effective protection of our external borders, we were lied to and today, we are being very actively and brazenly lied to when it comes to the negotiations with Turkey.

Now, once again, we are being told that the Union has just the thing we need, namely, a plan involving enormous euro loans being poured onto the market as if these loans would not have to be paid back by exactly the same taxpayers once again. The plan is to solve government debt due to mismanagement with mismanagement of yet more government debt! It should not surprise anyone any more that more and more people – feeling disdain and lied-to – are turning their backs on this ‘official’ Europe.

  Jacek Saryusz-Wolski (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, Mr Tusk, thank you very much for that message of European solidarity. The crises we are talking about would suffice for the next five presidencies. The Union would manage easily with each one of them on its own, but this situation is different in that they have come together. However, history shows that Poland copes well in difficult times. The five challenges are the debt crisis, the dismantling of Schengen, the crisis over the European Neighbourhood Policy, the Union’s lack of a military capability and, finally, the crisis of financial solidarity.

However, in the long term, if we look years ahead, the most important of these is the European Neighbourhood Policy. Without the success of this policy, Europe will neither be safe nor will it enjoy prosperity. We have been surprised by what is happening in the south. We are at an impasse in relation to what is going on in the east, and a fundamental change of paradigm is needed. To misquote an American leader, we ought to say: ‘it’s democracy, stupid’. We need to strengthen the actors of democracy, which is why I hope the flagship of the Polish Presidency, the European Foundation for Democracy, will do well. Transformation to democracy and a market economy are our speciality. I wish you success, Mr Tusk.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D). – (PL) Mr President, Mr Tusk, Mr Barroso, I must admit, Mr Tusk, that I listened to your speech with great pleasure. It was, indeed, a source of satisfaction for us all. We wanted you to talk about the very things to which you did, in fact, refer – believing in Europe, the reason for having a united Europe and the remembrance of history, as well as the contribution of Parliament to the way in which all of these have arisen.

Mr Tusk, you have responded to the needs of this House, which are the result, too, of the stance and position of your predecessor and the manner in which he spoke. I just want to stress this very clearly: both you, Mr Tusk, and your predecessor belong to the same political group. We have to assume that within the framework of a single political group, we can have very different presidencies. The memory of which you spoke demands that we stress something very clearly: societies have common aspirations and goals, but they have different political groupings and different governments. In our case, the case of Poland, there is also the Left – it was a left-wing president and a left-wing government which brought Poland into the European Union. Now we can say very clearly that often it is not a matter of the goals of which you spoke. Mr Schulz has expressed great enthusiasm. We do not differ, here, in terms of goals. However, our significant differences can be a matter of the means of achieving those goals. In our case, of the means and the ways of lifting ourselves out of the crisis.

Yes, every crisis is different. However, Mr Tusk, two weeks ago, we failed to reach a conclusion on a complete package for the new economic order. We differ, here, on the question as to who is to make most of the sacrifices. The proposals which the majority have prepared – including your political group – come down to this. The citizens have to pay, the people have to make sacrifices. We are opposed to this. We want social solidarity. Sacrifices have to be borne in proportion to ability. So it is important to have a real increase in budgetary incomes. Give your backing to the financial transaction tax. Give your backing, too – the backing of the Council under your leadership and direction – to Eurobonds. We very much like what you said about investment. It is just that we would like words and deeds to go together.

Mr Tusk, in your own country, you are restricting investment. Do not let this happen at European level. Words and deeds are going to have to go together, because the road from today’s great enthusiasm at your speech to disappointment may be a short one.

  Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Tusk, Mr Barroso, you have been quoted, Mr Tusk, as saying that the Polish Presidency will primarily be characterised by the way it reacts to crises. It seems to me that your speech today showed that you have more than just crisis management on your agenda. You want to give Europe a direction. I believe this is a good thing, and my fellow Members on all sides of the House have emphasised this. You delivered a great speech. I would like to thank you warmly for that.

You mentioned the debt crisis in Europe, calling for European solidarity. We, in the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe give our emphatic backing to such solidarity. However, I would remind you of the other side of the coin. For us, this clearly means solidity. It was a lack of solidity and dubious lending policies over many years that led to this crisis. That is why our key demand is for a stability pact that genuinely has teeth. It is ironic that in 2003, the German Chancellor and the French President watered down the Stability and Growth Pact and that the present German Chancellor and French President decided while strolling on the beach in Deauville that the pact for the future should once again be toothless. Mr Tusk, do not let this discourage you! Set to work – as Mr Verhofstadt has pointed out, the direction is clear.

A second area where I would encourage you to press on boldly is one of the focal points of your Presidency: progressing the common security and defence policy. You will hear some sceptical, reluctant reactions from the capitals of Europe. Do not let this discourage you. The Americans are withdrawing. We have Libya, we have Syria, Eastern Moldova and Georgia – we Europeans have a lot on our collective plate. Strengthen the European External Action Service, promote democracy and human rights, continue to develop security policy instruments and the European Defence Agency. Push for progress in the interest of Europe! There is much to be done. I wish you the best of luck.

  Paweł Robert Kowal (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, Mr Tusk, when the Prime Minister of Poland is in the Chamber, even though one is in political opposition to him, his presence is a source of hope. This House needs hope, Mr Tusk, and I do very much want you not to allow yourself to be misled by the compliments which you have heard. It is good that you have heard them – everyone likes to hear them. In recent months, however, this House has been dominated by pessimism. There has been talk here of the crisis, of closing borders, of reducing integration. We expect new and big ideas from you, and we want you to talk about important matters, such as the demographic crisis, the crisis of values, the crisis in the family, and about the fact that we need to adopt a different approach to the Neighbourhood Policy and put forward a new idea, perhaps a University of the Eastern Partnership. Please talk about this, Mr Tusk.

Please use these compliments and turn them into good, new ideas, so that the vision of Europe will really be given substance, and then we will all be pleased. I wish you every success – success for you personally – and it is my hope, irrespective of who begins and who ends this Presidency, that Poland will make the best use of its all-too-brief opportunity. If we meet in this Chamber in six months’ time, I hope we will be able to say that the Polish Presidency did not end just with compliments and that at least in part, you have been able to overcome the pessimism which dominates this House.

  José Bové (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, Prime Minister, I wanted to speak as we met in your country, in Warsaw, with the delegation from the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, when we decided to speak on a number of very specific issues.

It was pointed out, with regard to climate, that the Polish Presidency was somewhat cautious and did not want to make this issue a priority, as the Durban climate change conference is taking place at the end of the year. The European Parliament has very clearly stated the need to reduce CO2 emissions by 25% or even by 30%. Yet, when it comes to environmental safety, I unfortunately do not sense the same will from you as you asserted this morning – which I was pleased to hear – regarding energy security and food security. Environmental security seems to be just as fundamental to me and we will not have one without the other. I think this is a central point.

On food security, I would like your Presidency to be more active. Yesterday, the European Parliament said very clearly that countries should have the right to opt out of cultivating genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Unfortunately, while we were voting on that, you changed the law in Poland on 1 July to allow GMOs in, under pressure from Mr Barroso. I would like you to enable this procedure in order to ensure that countries have the right to resist, as you have done for many years.

Another point, now, at the end of the year …

(The President interrupted the speaker)

… the meeting of energy ministers is going to take place; I would like you to take into account the requirement to have a policy for a moratorium on shale gas.

(Applause)

  Niki Tzavela (EFD). – (EL) Mr President, I welcome the Polish Presidency and wish it good luck. The Polish Presidency will coincide with the completion of a second loan package to Greece. I should like to take this opportunity to say that, if the Greek debt is to be viable, this second loan package needs a reduced interest rate.

I should also like to take this opportunity, Prime Minister, to inform everyone here today that all the cutbacks we have made as a nation in Greece and all the sacrifices we are making are going towards interest payments to our lenders. The interest rate at which your country is lending money to my country is massive. The Greek debt will not be viable unless you reduce the interest rate.

Prime Minister, I am delighted that Poland will be a member of the Euro Group. You will be an objective judge in finding that, for 18 months, Greece was, and still is, the victim of the financial markets and its lenders. We are grateful for what you are doing for us and, for our part, we shall not be inactive; however, at some point, the solidarity we debate here needs to be real and realistic.

  Nicole Sinclaire (NI). – Mr President, given its history of fighting Soviet totalitarianism, Poland certainly has a good track record. I know that the Polish Presidency of the Council is opposed to an EU financial transaction tax, and, while the EU political elite may not agree with that line, I suspect the citizens of Europe will breathe a collective sigh of relief.

Poland will understand the dangers of entering into an asymmetrical relationship where Russia holds the whip – and that is precisely the situation in which the EU finds itself at present. To use a football analogy, watching Russia manoeuvring against the EU is like watching Liverpool playing Tranmere Rovers: we all know what the result will be.

Poland understands the need to engage with Moldova and Ukraine, two countries that Moscow pulled back into its orbit with ease. Vladimir Putin was once afraid that history would remember him as the man who lost Ukraine. That accolade now goes to President Barroso.

On the one hand, Poland’s record might give us reason for optimism but, on the other hand, I am sorry to say that the Presidency of the Council is now diminished since Herman Van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton took charge of EU foreign policy.

On a final note, the gift you gave us, Mr President of the Council, is very nice but you do not need to give gifts to massively overpaid politicians. Use the money, instead, to give to the poor people in your own country.

  Markus Ferber (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Tusk, Mr Barroso, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to add my thanks for the clear affirmation you have given to the European project, Mr Tusk. I believe that now, in the 21st century, it makes sense to make a concerted effort to address problems that one country cannot resolve on its own and to find a good solution in the interest of our citizens. Thank you very much for your clear expression of commitment in this area.

The tasks facing you in the second half of 2011 are enormous. The key one has already been mentioned, namely, the Greek rescue. I believe that it is right and proper that the European Union should take the lead here, rather than allowing the credit rating agencies to set the pace and direction for our actions. We shall also have to adjust our internal mechanisms if we are to remain capable of action and ensure stability. Unfortunately, Mr Farage has left us, but I would appreciate it if continuous attacks on our common currency from within the European Union would stop, even from those who are not part of the currency union.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD). – Mr Ferber, you used the expression ‘commitment to Europe’ in your speech. Do you accept that there is a clear distinction and fundamental difference between Europe as a continent, which is a geographical entity, and the European Union, which is a purely political construction? Do you accept and understand that there is a difference?

  Markus Ferber (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am happy to answer this question. If we continue with this debate for the next few years, then the Americans will decide on the world’s environmental protection, the Chinese will dictate consumer protection and Europeans will have no protections whatsoever. Our job is to work for the people.

(Applause)

I wanted to briefly point out that we also have a number of problems to resolve in the area of the regulation of the financial markets, both in terms of the governance package and in relation to financial services. I look forward to working with you and hope that we Europeans can play a significant role in stabilising the financial markets. We have a particular duty in this regard and I am optimistic that we will succeed admirably under the Polish Presidency.

  Marita Ulvskog (S&D). – (SV) Mr President, as you have already heard, Prime Minister, we in the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament have very high expectations of the Polish Presidency. You represent a strong and important State in the Baltic region that is able to play a very significant role in European cooperation. However, I will go straight to the point. There is one issue that concerns me and that is climate policy. The Kyoto Agreement expires in six months’ time. It is Poland which, while holding the EU Presidency, will bear the responsibility for whether this climate agreement will be followed by something new or whether it will simply peter out, and that is no trivial matter.

The EU supports ambitious and realistic climate targets. Ultimately, of course, it is a question of preventing disasters, but it is also a question of linking crisis policy and employment policy with climate policy. It is a question of people’s confidence, as you said yourself in your introduction. The policy needs to take a far-sighted approach. The baton needs to be carried onwards. The challenge for you, Prime Minister, is to drive the EU’s climate policy forwards and not to consign it to oblivion, because this is a serious matter.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, Prime Minister, needless to say, we thoroughly enjoyed your speech. It was a very proactive speech, a speech of solidarity, a speech on ‘more Europe’ and therefore we expect a lot – not too much, I hope, but a lot – from your Presidency over the coming months. We expect a great deal from your Presidency in at least three different areas, which I consider essential.

The first is obviously the debt crisis, the euro crisis and, in particular, the crisis in countries like Greece. Your Finance Minister spoke of improving our plans to support Greece by making a small change to the philosophy, and I believe that in that respect, he is absolutely right. We should give the Greeks more time. Imagining that they will return to a 3% deficit within two years is obviously unrealistic and is, in addition, counter-productive. We need support plans that will not only call for rigour and seriousness. We must help them to reform their economy, and to prepare future investment, and we must give them some time.

The second point is the budget. In this fight on own resources, I know you will be on our side; concerning the interparliamentary conference – which I believe to be absolutely necessary – bringing together states, the European Parliament and national parliaments, I would like to hear more from you.

And finally, on the issue of European defence, you want to develop this area and you want to implement cooperation. I think you are right. It is now time to improve and perhaps to share our defence goals in order to become more effective. We expect a lot from your Presidency in that regard as well.

  Zbigniew Ziobro (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, Mr Tusk, you spoke eloquently of European values today, Mr Tusk. I would like the Polish Presidency to be a success. This will only be possible, however, if you and your government respect those values in practice – values such as freedom of speech, freedom of the media and the right of opposition – and not just say nice things about them.

It is under your government in Poland that journalists have been dismissed from public media in large numbers only because they were critical of the government. It was your government which applied to a court for what would, in fact, have meant the closure of the most prestigious and most often-quoted daily newspaper in Poland – Rzeczpospolita. Why? It was critical of the government. Not long ago, a British shareholder felt forced to sell its shares in the newspaper precisely because of this pressure. Recently too in Poland, special service agents with live firearms entered the flat of a student to intimidate him and seize his computer, just because he was using the Internet to run a website which was critical of the authorities. The Polish Presidency can be a success, but only when you and your government really respect the values of which you spoke so eloquently today. It is time to stop talking and start doing.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Marek Siwiec (S&D). – (PL) Mr President, Mr Ziobro, do I remember rightly, Mr Ziobro, that you were Minister for Justice when armed gangs were attacking people in Poland, people were being put in prison at six in the morning and a woman you wanted to lock up committed suicide? Do I remember rightly that you were Minister for Justice, or am I mistaken?

  Zbigniew Ziobro (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, Mr Siwiec, you do remember rightly, Mr Siwiec, and Mr Schulz should be told this, too, that under our government, it was indeed the case that at six in the morning, the police and special services sometimes entered the premises of people suspected of corruption and serious crimes – people in authority who were using that authority to steal from society. We were fighting corruption; and you – who are you fighting? You are fighting Internet users who criticise the authorities. Under our government, the security services did not go at six in the morning to the homes of those who criticised the authorities. They went when a public prosecutor’s office and a court decided they should go, because there was a suspicion of corruption and crime. That is the difference, Mr Siwiec, and that is the difference, Mr Tusk. That would give you a reason, Mr Tusk, for officers entering peoples’ homes at six in the morning, if there were a suspicion of crime or the corruption of people in power. Under your government, investigations into gambling scandals are discontinued.

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Oriol Junqueras Vies (Verts/ALE). – (IT) Mr President, Prime Minister and President-in-Office of the European Union, if I am not mistaken, you are a Pole who belongs to the Kashubian minority, and perhaps for that two-fold reason, you will understand why I am speaking to you in Italian, because I am not allowed to speak in Catalan, which is the language of more than 10 million European citizens.

Poles and Catalans are brothers in a way, because in 1939, the Spanish fascist army called the people of Catalonia ‘Poles’. For we, too, had been defeated by Franco, just as you had been defeated by Hitler and Stalin. Just as we were brothers in the worst defeat of the 20th century, we hope that we can be brothers in the 21st century era of democracy and freedom, too. In this respect, we can work together to obtain minority rights and to ensure that Catalonia, Scotland and Flanders, like Poland and so many others, become new EU States.

  Barry Madlener (NI). – (NL) Mr President, we have just heard the worst ever speech from a new President-in-Office of the Council. Mr Tusk seems to have absolutely failed to have grasped the sentiments of European citizens and of Dutch citizens.

Mr Tusk, the Netherlands absolutely does not want to maintain Poland’s unemployed, nor do we want to pay Greece’s pensions. Another thing that we do not want, Mr Tusk, is Romanian beggars and swindlers, who are making our streets unsafe. Mr Tusk, we do not want any North African fortune-seekers Islamising Europe, nor, Mr Tusk, do we want any European taxes. Furthermore, we do not want Turkish accession to the European Union.

What we do want is less Europe. What you have done over recent days, Mr Tusk, is to criticise the Netherlands and my party, the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV), as having a eurosceptic attitude. That is really not too bright of you, Mr Tusk, as, over the last seven years, Poland has received no less than EUR 67 billion in European subsidies. I repeat: EUR 67 billion. Mr Tusk, the Dutch have been paying that for you. What is more, more than 100 000 Poles work in the Netherlands and they send their money back to your country, while we get to maintain Poland’s unemployed. Mr Tusk, you should not be criticising the Netherlands, you should be thanking us.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, I would like to ask the last speaker a question: do you realise, Mr Madlener, how much money Dutch firms have made out of the fact that Poland is in the European Union and that the Polish market is open to goods which the Dutch make well and are selling to Poland? Do you not see the benefits for the old countries of the European Union which flow from the fact that Polish consumers are buying their goods?

  Barry Madlener (NI). – (NL) Mr President, that simply does not add up, as Dutch citizens are unemployed because Polish workers undercut the market, putting Dutch citizens out of jobs. We pay the benefits, so it is not the case that we simply gain from these arrangements. We want to send unemployed Poles that are causing a nuisance back to Poland, but Europe is obstructing that.

Mr Schulz just called me a racist. I believe that is the second time this year, as he said the same of another Member on another occasion. I do not accept that – and I therefore intend to submit a complaint against Mr Schulz.

  President. – It is necessary to explain what you said, Mr Schulz.

  Martin Schulz (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, it is your job, not mine, to guide the debate in this House. However, when we hear a speech such as the one my fellow Member has just delivered, in which he characterises one nation as having to pay for all the others – the lesser peoples, the Romanians, the Poles, the Hungarians – then we are inevitably reminded of a type of phraseology that Europe has heard before. For me, this is open racism, and I have just taken the liberty of naming it as such.

(Applause)

  President. – Mr Schulz, I am indeed responsible for chairing these proceedings, and I think that everyone has the right to speak, and then we have the right to respond. Our fellow Member – Mr Kamiński – has responded clearly, and it was a very strong response. I do not think we should fan the flames in the Chamber, so I did not myself react. I think we should now move on to the next speaker.

  Mario Mauro (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in line with the European Commission’s announcement a few days ago, the Polish Presidency has declared its intention to back economic growth as the instrument that can pull us out of the crisis. However, this is possible only if the opportunities presented by the Single Market are fully exploited.

We must end the uncertainty surrounding economic integration, and quickly. The deeper the integration, the more chance we will have of coming out of the crisis. In other words, integration is not an ideological position, as someone said about the European project, but the key factor in a society that aspires to peace and development.

I believe, however, that the most important contribution to the European project will be made by the Polish Presidency, as a gift to us. It is the contribution of the values of human dignity and dignity at work written on the gates of Gdańsk by the Solidarność militants; it is the contribution of the values of religious freedom and democracy and of the love for one’s people and one’s faith, demonstrated every year for 50 years by the millions of Poles who, in visiting the shrine of the Black Madonna of Częstochowa under the dictatorship, enabled Europe and the entire world to understand the words of the philosopher Józef Tischner, ‘God is born, great powers tremble’; it is the contribution of Karol Wojtyła; it is the contribution of Lech Wałęsa, of Jerzy Popiełuszko, of Bronisław Geremek in this House, and of the Katyn martyrs; and it is the contribution of your history that, in many ways, gives us hope today and makes all of us and all of Europe echo the words of your people: ‘Maria królowa Polski’ [‘Mary, saviour of Poland’].

  Rovana Plumb (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, I would like to congratulate you, Prime Minister, on the strong message which you have conveyed today to the whole European Union. I also congratulate you on your pro-European attitude because we need more involvement from Europe than ever before. We need to lift any restrictions on the internal market and show solidarity. I must also mention Schengen. I am aware of and understood your position on Schengen. However, it is not only the restrictions imposed at Denmark’s borders but also postponing the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the Schengen area which is a barrier. I would like to ask you to state clearly what your position is on the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the Schengen area. I am relying greatly on your ability to engage in dialogue and on the positive energy you generate. I firmly believe that you, too, will convey a clear message in the Council to the effect that the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the Schengen area is not only beneficial to both countries but to the European Union as a whole. I wish you every success.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, Mr Tusk, I think, Mr Tusk, that today you have presented the face of Poland which we Poles in the European Parliament want to see: an optimistic Poland, a Poland which sees its place in Europe and a Poland which does not close its eyes to problems, but has a positive vision for solving those problems.

I think that in the Chamber today, a voice was heard which was not ideological but which is whole-hearted in its commitment to an idea. I think Europe needs such a voice, and I am convinced that you spoke today not only on behalf of your own party and government, but of all Poles, including those who do not support your government, but who support Poland’s place in Europe, want Poland to achieve success and wish you a successful Presidency. For us, of course, a very important matter will be the European solidarity of which you spoke. It is very good that this was emphasised. Our role is to persuade those countries which pay into the European Union budget – and we have to refer to this with respect – but we have to persuade them that the money which is invested in poorer countries is not money wasted. Investment in Poland, investment in our region, is an investment in the prosperity of the whole of the European Union, and that solidarity has a very pragmatic aspect, including for those from whom we do, of course, expect that money, because they are richer.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Zbigniew Ziobro (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, I would like to ask my colleague, Mr Kamiński, whom I greatly respect, if he thinks that the commitment of the Polish Government and Prime Minister to European solidarity is to be seen in the fact that recently, the government adopted the Dess report, which prescribes the continued inequality of farmers in Europe and rejects flat-rate aid and the opportunity to treat farmers in the same way for doing the same hard work.

I would also like to express my surprise that Mr Tusk has not reacted to the insulting words of Mr Siwiec about officers of the Polish State – which you, Mr Tusk, now lead – who risk their life and health in the fight for an honest Poland and in the fight against corruption.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, in the first place, I would like to say that I support Polish exports, but I do not support the export of embarrassment from our country. That is the first thing. However, in answer to the question about farmers, I would like to say that unlike Mr Ziobro, for almost a year now, I have not been a member of the political party whose leader proposed ending subsidies to Polish farmers.

  Arnaud Danjean (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, Mr Tusk, Mr Barroso, on behalf of the French delegation of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), I would like to congratulate you on your presentation of this very ambitious programme.

You mentioned, with good reason, the external crises and the need to ensure the security and defence of the European Union, and were right to do so. While the Libyan crisis has, unfortunately, once again reminded us of and illustrated the difficulties the European Union faces in existing as such, in the international arena, we are pleased that the Polish Presidency has the courage to take on this debate.

It should be emphatically noted that the common security and defence policy is not a secondary option, but rather it is a necessity. It is, firstly, an aim which is enshrined in the Treaty and is thus binding on the Member States and European institutions. It is also a strategic necessity; every day, with all the crises and threats all around us, we are finding that our US friends and allies cannot and do not want to do everything on our behalf. Lastly, it is an economic imperative at a time of budgetary restraint. Defence has a cost which many of our citizens consider exorbitant. To maintain our defence capabilities, as well as our industries, our expertise and our jobs, we must collectively streamline our defence budgets. The Member States must accept their responsibilities, but the European Union institutions – and I am thinking here of the High Representative and the External Action Service – should function more as a source of initiatives, and we are counting on the Polish Presidency to stimulate these initiatives.

  Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos (S&D). – (PT) Mr President, Mr Tusk, Mr Barroso, I should like to congratulate Poland on assuming the Presidency of the Council of the European Union and to wish the Polish Presidency every success. I welcome the way agriculture is mentioned in the programme set out for the three presidencies over the next 18 months. It will be over the next six months that the legislative proposals that will govern the common agricultural policy (CAP) during the next financial programming period will be revealed, and it will also be under the Polish Presidency that negotiations for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) will start. We have already seen the Commission’s proposed MFF, and we already know the European Parliament’s position on agricultural funding, which, unfortunately, is not totally in line with what the Commission has just proposed to us.

Parliament wants a CAP that serves not just farmers, but also public expectations regarding the environment, and food quality and security, whilst also being equitable and fully applicable in all the Member States.

I should therefore like to know the extent to which Parliament can count the Polish Presidency as an ally in ensuring that the new CAP will be able to maintain an adequate level of funding for these ambitious objectives.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, Mr Tusk, Mr Barroso, first of all, I should, naturally, like to congratulate the Polish Presidency on the ambitious programme it has brought before us, and particularly on the European Neighbourhood Policy, with respect, not just to the eastern, but also to the southern border, where I think we are currently moving towards a challenge perhaps more demanding than that which we face to the east, which is more long- than short-term. That said, however, I should like to ask Mr Tusk and the Polish Presidency to pay particular attention to policies on economic integration, economic governance and supervision of financial markets.

I believe that, as it stands, no matter how ambitious our targets in the plan on – let us say – defence, energy, food security, the environment, agriculture, or multiannual financial frameworks, we will not have a Europe that is strong enough to tackle the challenges faced by the Polish Presidency unless the global markets see a clear and robust solution to the European debt crisis.

That is why I would draw attention to the fact that it is crucial to convince the other Heads of State or Government that there is a need for more economic integration and more economic governance in the European Union. Without it, what will happen is that, instead of controlling European interests, or at least being the representatives of our peoples, we in the Council, in Parliament and in the Commission will only be reacting purely to the movements of the credit rating agencies.

  Ivailo Kalfin (S&D). – (BG) Mr President, you said, Prime Minister, that our exit from the economic crisis in Europe is tied in with more European integration and more Europe. I fully endorse what you said.

Telecommunications are one of the areas which so far have a proven track record in the European Union of providing extra added value and specific measures for citizens. I fully support Poland’s stated priority in the coming months: to deal with the issue of restricting prices for roaming and telecommunications services. The regulation on the maximum roaming prices which has been reached after months of negotiations needs to be modified. This will take place during the Polish Presidency.

I would very much like to encourage you in your efforts so that the use of the Internet and telecommunications services is not only attractive as an investment, but is also accessible to the public, as well as for creating new technology jobs and opportunities for greater use of the Internet, resulting in a higher standard of living and better education.

  Jan Olbrycht (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, Mr Tusk, there are moments when Members of this House are proud of their country and are proud of their Prime Minister, and those feelings are not affected when – all of us here are politicians, and we understand what this means – a national election campaign is moved up to European level. Those feelings are not affected by this, and we are very pleased with your speech, Mr Tusk, also because we have given emphasis to those matters which are, today, the most important for the European Union. As Members from Poland, we are very much counting on the Polish Government to give strong emphasis to certain matters, and cohesion policy is not a temporary, interim policy for the poor, but is a policy of investment and a flexible policy which can respond to new challenges – challenges which today we do not even expect.

Mr Tusk, we undertake to do our part, but we are very much counting on strong support in the Council of the European Union.

  Marek Siwiec (S&D). – (PL) Mr President, as you all can see, something is going on here. It is not the case that all is sweetness and light. I would like to say something about Eastern policy and partnership policy, which we are trying to redefine.

There are several dates which I would like to point out to Mr Tusk and the whole of his delegation. If the association agreement with Ukraine is initialled by the end of this year, there is a chance it will be translated next year and, following translation, signed by the partner countries. If it is signed, it might be ratified before the elections in Ukraine in 2012. It could then be ratified in the European Parliament in 2013 and become a fact. If the agreement is not initialled in this half-year at the EU-Ukraine Summit, it will simply evaporate. This is not just a question of a two- or three-month delay. So I would like to say, Mr Tusk, that you have an exceptional opportunity at the Eastern Partnership summit in Warsaw to point the way to a new driving force for Neighbourhood Policy and Eastern policy. One of the classical writers – there is still disagreement as to who it was – once said: ‘if not us, then who; if not now, then when?’ I dedicate this to you, Mr Tusk.

  Danuta Maria Hübner (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, Mr Tusk, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, regret that it has not been possible for the three European institutions to complete negotiations on the economic governance package. It is a regulatory package which could fill an extremely important gap in the way the Union currently operates. Its absence strengthens the forces of risk and the forces of speculation in European markets, and in situations such as we have with Greece, its absence makes us aware of how urgent it is that work on this legislation be completed.

Agreement on this is needed, too, for the health of the European economy and the perspective of its growth in the long term, as well as for a return to normal market conditions of a lower degree of uncertainty, which will favour the investment which is so much needed in Europe. Finally, good structures of economic governance are also an essential condition for further enlargement of the euro area. Without agreement on this, we will hinder convergence processes and weaken perspectives for the accession of new Member States, and we must not allow this. Therefore, Mr Tusk, we are counting greatly on the work of Poland’s superb Minister for Finance, but also on your own personal involvement, in finding a compromise. This is a case when time is against us.

  Leonardo Domenici (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Tusk, your speech fills us with hope, the hope that the Polish Presidency will help combat the Europe of national selfishness, which fails to look to the future, and will help further a Europe that genuinely thinks of itself as being real, integrated and sharing a common destiny.

However, as you rightly said in your speech, presidencies have specific problems to tackle and solve. In the short time that I have, I wish to draw your attention to two crucial issues relating to the economic and financial crisis.

The first issue concerns the reform of the financial markets. This is not a technical problem but a major democratic issue of our time. Too much time is being taken: we need to settle issues such as the one relating to the reform of short selling and over-the-counter derivatives. The second issue is that we have the matter of the tax on financial transactions to address; we need to look at this issue in detail, and we hope that the Polish Presidency will make a real contribution in this regard.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, next year, we are going to mark the 50th anniversary of the operation of the common agricultural policy – a policy which, pursuant to the provisions of the Treaties of Rome, was to ensure access to food for all, at affordable prices and providing just incomes for farmers. The first two objectives have been achieved, but the third has not.

The incomes of farmers in Europe amount to 55% of those of other occupational groups. We attach great importance to cohesion policy, but this also requires cohesion of rural and urban areas, the elimination of disparities in standards of living and the reduction of gaps in terms of development. Young people must not be allowed to leave agriculture. The common agricultural policy benefits the environment and produces public goods for which farmers are not otherwise paid.

In WTO negotiations, the Union is making too many concessions at the cost of agriculture. Food security requires strong supervisory services at national level, and not services which are spread out across the regions and are not very effective. European farmers, including Polish ones, expect higher incomes, which they deserve for their hard work. We need to invest in Europe. We need a strong budget for cohesion policy, the CAP and innovation. We must manage Europe wisely and soundly. I am certain that Poland is ready to do this.

  Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to begin by making an apology for the fact that Members of this House from the Polish Law and Justice party are using the European Parliament to conduct an internal debate, and are engaging here in domestic Polish disputes and an election campaign. I would like to say a word to Mr Ziobro, but I see he is not now present in the Chamber – as usual, by the way; Mr Ziobro, that is no way to behave. Now, I would like to turn to the priorities of the Presidency. Mr Tusk, I speak not only on behalf of Poles, but of many of the European Union’s citizens. Yes, we very much want to help you achieve an open Europe, a Europe without internal borders, but one which has strongly guarded external borders. These objectives can be achieved by strengthening Frontex, and they can be achieved by putting a stop to the dangerous move towards revision of the Schengen agreement. We wish you well, and we who sit in this House – and not just the Poles – can be counted on to help.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, I would like to add my voice to the regret expressed both by Mr Olbrycht and by Mr Protasiewicz about the fact that unfortunately, we are conducting an election campaign here in the Chamber. When I say ‘we’, I mean Members of this House, and I very much regret this. I have a question for Mr Protasiewicz: do you not think that the ultimate cause of this situation was a decision made by Prime Minister Tusk, who many, many months ago, when asked explicitly by the opposition to hold the elections before 1 July, decided that the elections would be held during our Presidency? Do you not think that this situation is at least partly the fault of your political group? I am not a member of Law and Justice or of Civic Platform, so I think my question is justified.

  Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, Mr Migalski, holding a seat in the Polish Parliament or in the European Parliament carries with it an obligation to know the constitution, Mr Migalski. As you well know, elections in Poland are called by the President, not by the Prime Minister, so please go and check your facts. I also just want to call attention to the fact that Mr Legutko, who has also spoken in this debate, is no longer present in the Chamber. You people are only interested in domestic politics. You could not care less about the future of Europe, and your applause for the speech of the greatest of Eurosceptics, Mr Farage, who called for the dissolution of the European Union, is a clear example of this. Everyone in Poland should see this.

  President. – Ladies and gentlemen, as Members of the European Parliament, we have a duty to show responsibility for what we say and how we say it on the floor of the House.

  Ádám Kósa (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, Prime Minister, ladies and gentlemen, never before has Central Europe stood in the centre of EU policies as it does now. We must prove that the enlargement of the European Union has been a success, and that new Member States can also make the policy of the European Union successful. In the first half of 2011, it was Hungary, and now it is Poland that has to prove this. However, this requires that we also treat the disability issue as a priority. This was treated as a special issue under the previous trio of presidencies. The disability issue has been treated as a high priority in the past year: the 10-year disability strategy was adopted, including the European Commission’s respective conclusions, and my report will be approved in September.

I believe that the 80 million people with disabilities deserve that the Polish Presidency carry this positive issue further and treat it as a priority. I wish the Polish Presidency great success with completing this tremendous task.

  Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D). – (PL) Mr President, Mr Tusk, I am proud to be a Pole. I am proud to be a European. I am very happy that Poland now holds the Presidency. I want to congratulate Mr Tusk on his great success in adding to the outstanding achievements of his predecessors – European achievements, in which Poland undoubtedly has a share. I want to express my very sincere thanks to Mr Tusk for this.

We have before us two very important debates related to the future of cohesion and agricultural policy. It is my hope, Mr Tusk, that the Polish Presidency will be able to take action in these areas, and it is with unease that we are watching the sluggishness of the European Commission and its procrastination in forwarding files. I hope that Mr Tusk will talk to Mr Barroso and arrange for these files to be forwarded as quickly as possible, and that the Polish Presidency will bring the procedure to a successful conclusion. I would also hope, Mr Tusk, that we will return to something which is very much expected here – the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Poland is the only Member State which has not ratified the Charter. There is a great expectation in the European Union that you will rectify this mistake of your predecessor.

  Jacek Olgierd Kurski (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, Mr Tusk, as a Pole, I would like the Polish Presidency to be a success, but an effective Presidency is one which is able to incorporate national interests into European objectives. The German Presidency completed work on the Treaty of Lisbon, but it just so happens that it is Germany which, as the country with the highest population, is the greatest beneficiary of the change from Nice to double majority voting. The French Presidency completed the climate package, but it so happens that it is France which will earn the most from sales of alternative energy technologies when the package comes into force.

Mr Tusk, please look at the way these powers have behaved and learn the lessons from it. You have, today, an opportunity for Poland. You hold the Presidency of the European Council, and you have the President of the European Parliament. Why do you not have the courage to take up matters which, if continued in their present form, will ruin part of Europe, including Poland? Why is it that Polish farmers are to be given an annual subsidy per hectare which is EUR 150 lower than German farmers will be receiving, which means that rural areas in Poland are to lose tens of billions of euro? Why will you not initiate a rethink of the climate package, because the package will ruin the Polish economy and mean that in a short space of time, electricity prices will rise by 100%? Mr Tusk, you have your opportunity. History will judge you not by your fine words, but by what you do for people.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Mr President, I would like to begin by wishing you personally, and your government and country, great success in performing the serious and responsible role of Presidency of the European Union. You already know, from the many speeches of my fellow Members, all that the European Parliament expects from you. It will certainly be no easy task to fulfil all of these wishes. I would like to draw your attention to just two areas where Poland has more power and more of the prerequisites for a successful solution than other Member States.

The first area is that of relations between the EU and Ukraine. The traditionally good relations between Poland and its neighbours may help draw Ukraine closer to European political culture, and thus improve partnership cooperation with this important neighbour of the EU. I firmly believe that the citizens of both Ukraine and the EU can profit from improved economic and political relations.

The second area is European agricultural policy, in which the new Member States have still not achieved the same rights as the old Member States. The wealth of experience your country has in managing this sector may also be useful for the whole of the EU. Slovakia will assist you in this.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI). – (DE) Mr President, Prime Minister, the programme of your Presidency, as the first of the trio, certainly shows a lot of commitment. One of the points on your agenda is a secure Europe. For me, this means, on the one hand, strengthening our external borders, while, on the other, ensuring food and energy security. On the one hand, the latter means independence, while on the other hand, we should take every opportunity to invest in renewable energies, thereby reducing unemployment and offering more training opportunities for young people. In this way, we can find a way out of the crisis and contribute to the security of Europe on many fronts.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). – (SK) Mr President, I am delighted that another Central European country is taking on the Presidency of the European Union, and I must say that the programme you have presented is a genuinely pro-European programme, and we thank you for that. It is as one of the most important European institutions that we thank you, because we have not heard such positive pro-European sentiments for a long time, and at a time when Europe is floundering in various crises, such as the so-called debt crisis, it is very important for us to adopt genuinely European solutions.

Mr President, you will not have an easy time of it, as you will come up against the many national egoisms of your colleagues in the Council, but if you genuinely try to fulfil the programme you have presented to us here today, then the European Parliament, or the responsible politicians in the European Parliament, will back you up and will try to help you promote all of the good items you have presented in your programme. On behalf of the Slovak Republic, I would like to express my best wishes to all Poles and my support for you.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE). – Mr President, on behalf of Estonia, let me offer Poland best wishes for the success of its Presidency of the Council. I thank Prime Minister Tusk for the morale boost he gave to Europe this morning and I hope that it will help us to overcome the current crisis of confidence. Poland, like Estonia, has proved from its experience that such crises can be overcome, provided we can concentrate on added European values and on solidarity, and a bit less dramatically on short-term national interest.

I want to make two points, Prime Minister. Your Presidency of the Council will be considered successful for your achievement in laying foundations for the common external energy policy. Such a policy of energy solidarity was initiated in this Chamber four years ago by our colleague, Jacek Saryusz-Wolski.

Secondly, the autumn review of the Baltic Sea strategy will be crucial for the long-term success of this first European macro-regional strategy – and we need better coordination in this regard.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – Mr President, I will make some brief remarks, summarising a debate that I believe was very interesting.

First of all, Prime Minister Tusk, you have seen a remarkable consensus from the main political forces of this Parliament – what I consider to be the pro-European, responsible forces – supporting your speech and your vision. At the same time, it is interesting that we heard more than usually aggressive remarks from the Eurosceptic or Europhobe fringes. Remarks were made here today which were very close to racism; we also heard xenophobic messages and some expressions of naked, shameless nationalism.

Why should this be? I think the reason is the following. Some of those Eurosceptics and Europhobes were expecting the enlargement of the European Union to mean disintegration, and now they are very disappointed to see Poland, a new member of the Union, saying not only that we need to enlarge but also that we need to deepen Europe, and to listen to your commitment to, and your conviction in, the European project.

So, Prime Minister Tusk, congratulations. Today, you have disappointed the Eurosceptics and Europhobes – that is one of the outcomes of this debate.

(Applause)

What basically is their message, if they have one, apart from ‘no’? For simply saying ‘no’ to anything constructive is the simplest demagogic message of all populism. Their message is that, although they are not necessarily against Europe and they believe in European cooperation, they do not need the European institutions, the Commission or the European Parliament. What they say we need is an internal market: we need a Single Market. So they say ‘yes’ to the freedom of circulation of goods but ‘no’ to the circulation of people – as if it were possible in Europe to have a market without these indispensable principles of freedom.

We know well, from the experience we now have – and you know well, Prime Minister, because we have worked very closely on some difficult issues – that without strong institutions in Europe, without a strong Commission, a strong European Court of Justice and a strong European Parliament, even the Single Market will be at risk. The temptation will be present to break the Single Market, to have internal protectionism, and to return to the naked nationalism that made a disaster of Europe’s past. That is why it is important today to reaffirm, as you have reaffirmed, our values. Those values are, of course, about an internal Single Market and about opening our borders, but they are also about solidarity and cohesion, because without solidarity, a union cannot exist.

Some of the Eurosceptics say that they are for Europe but that they are against the European Union. What an interesting nuance! If you go to Washington, Moscow or Beijing, you will find they do not make that distinction: it is Europe or it is the European Union. It is basically the same thing. If the European Union fails, all of Europe will be put at risk. That is why we need a strong European Union to protect our interests and to protect our values.

Prime Minister Tusk, the message you conveyed to this Parliament today was a message of confidence in our common future in Europe and in the world. We are grateful to you for that and we want to encourage you to have a successful Presidency of the Council. The Commission will support your work because I know that is the way we can build a better future for all Europeans.

(Applause)

  Donald Tusk, President-in-Office of the Council. – (PL) Mr President, honourable Members, firstly I must, of course, begin by thanking you for your words, both for those words which were unequivocal in their support for the vision of our affairs which I presented, but also for all the other contributions; they expressed a little less enthusiasm, but they confirmed the purpose of this debate; they confirmed the reason for having the European Parliament and they confirmed the belief of even the most sceptical in this Chamber that we built this building precisely so that in it we could exchange our views, and that includes our views on the future of Europe. Thank you very much, too, for those words which – as someone here rightly noted – were compliments. They were compliments which were, I think, meant more for my country than for me personally.

Even if we do sometimes hear the sceptical voices of Poles here, in my country today, the level of clear support for Europe is impressive. We have often boasted about this, but then it is something which is worth mentioning repeatedly. After several years of membership, which have been good but not at all easy years, over 80% of Poles are very satisfied with the fact that we are in the European Union. That energy and belief in the reason for our work is something I wanted to convey here. I am not the source of this belief. I am, today, only someone who is reporting the fact that there is a nation in Europe which almost in its entirety believes in the Europe we have in common.

Perhaps I did not speak very precisely about a certain initiative of which you reminded me here; an initiative which is also going to provide practical confirmation of my conviction that working with Parliament is not just a matter of ingratiation. We are not talking about working together because this is what we are supposed to say in Parliament. It really is our conviction that since we do want more integration, but do not want bureaucratisation or poor practice, we must involve the European Parliament and national parliaments in the most important debates. This is why we have proposed holding a conference in the autumn on the future of European finance, an open debate in which Parliament and representatives of national parliaments will play a leading role. Naturally, the Commission and the Council will also take part in the debate.

We are convinced that to speak with courage and without hypocrisy about the future of Europe, we must also speak about the future of European money. We hope the conference will confirm this. It is also only a sign of things to come, because we would like this open debate to become something permanent in the future. We would also like to make intensive efforts for calm and constructive debate about the budget. I have not concealed this intention; we want to protect the European budget from measures which could reduce Europe’s ability to work as a whole.

We talked a lot about Schengen in the context of two matters which were mentioned: the Danish decisions and the dreams or expectations of Romania and Bulgaria in relation to joining the Schengen area as soon as possible. As for the actions of Denmark, but also as for some statements which have been made recently by the European Council, I am a vigorous opponent of any kind of restriction on internal movement under the pretext of problems over migration, and am more in favour of strengthening external borders. Recent Danish actions may cause us concern, because they can be seen as a further signal that full freedom of movement around the European Union may be threatened in the future. As we also heard here, freedom of movement in the European Union is being treated as a curse and not a blessing. Therefore, in my opinion, we should work with the Commission to find measures which will guarantee the free movement of people and, at the same time, protect Europe from the adverse effects of illegal migration or other similar circumstances. As for Romania and Bulgaria: every Member State of the European Union which meets the technical and organisational requirements for being in the Schengen area – as do Romania and Bulgaria, and this has been confirmed, too, by the Commission – should be in Schengen. We establish requirements, conditions and criteria so that countries which meet them can benefit from this basic principle.

It was asked here if the Presidency is going to work for policy which benefits the entire Union, so that joint decisions are not made under the dictates of the largest Member States. However, there were also voices which questioned the need to strengthen the European institutions. We have to make up our mind about this. No one, I suppose, wants a situation in which one, two or three Member States impose their selfish point of view on anyone because of their strength. We built the European institutions – and even after Lisbon there is still a rotating Presidency – so that the different potentials of Member States can be evened out by Union policy, but for this we need strong institutions. It will be our ambition to direct the work of the European Union by acting in conjunction with others, so that everyone will feel they are equally empowered participants. However, this will only be possible when we stop questioning such institutions as the European Commission and instead believe in the reason for strengthening them. It is then that we will have the tools for putting Union policy into effect. If we do really want to have policy which works for the whole Union, we must have strong Union institutions – the Commission, Parliament and others – otherwise we are deceiving ourselves.

I also want to reassure everyone about what was said during the debate by several Polish Members of the House. The date of parliamentary elections in Poland is, in fact, set by the constitution. The government has nothing to do with choosing the date of elections. Elections in Poland are held on a date which is determined by the constitution. It is not very good that the elections will be held during the Presidency, but we will take care that these two situations do not conflict with each other. No motion was tabled in the Polish Parliament for an early dissolution. I think it is better to have democratic government which keeps to constitutional dates than an executive which makes use of any pretext to shorten or extend a term of office. That is what happened, for example, in Poland in the case of my predecessors, who shortened their term of office. It was in fact they who decided that our Presidency would coincide with the elections, and not I.

It is our ambition to support negotiations with Ukraine on association and increased trade. I was in Kiev several months ago, and I think that I made known my intention very clearly – as Prime Minister of a government which was soon to hold the Presidency – to make use of what is currently the best possible climate for Ukraine and the European Union in terms of the association agreement. This requires great effort from Ukraine, because by entering into the association agreement, it is Ukraine which will have to respect our common principles. I think that everything is going extremely well. I do agree that this is precisely the moment at which, while respecting all the rules and not just making things easier, we should dot the next i for Ukraine – and also for other countries. I am certain that during these six months, the progress made in a number of negotiations will be satisfactory. I will do everything to ensure that this will be the case.

I know that a priority – and a permanent one – for a significant part of this House are ecological matters, and that this includes climate in particular. However, when I have met with you in different places, I have never been dishonest with any of you. My, or rather, the Polish point of view is perhaps not sufficiently enthusiastic to achieve full approval from the pro-climate or pro-ecological avant-garde. I want to assure everyone that I do understand very well the difference between forcing national interest during various negotiations carried out under the banner of the European Union and holding the Presidency, and with the best will and with the help of all the available tools and my own personal skills, I will work on behalf of Europe, and that includes preparation for Durban. I am certain we will find a solution which will not harm Europe in her ambitions for growth and development and which will also respect our current mutual obligations and arrangements.

In closing, I know I have not answered all the questions and have not responded to everything that was said. I have not lectured anyone here, Mr President, and I certainly am not going to do so. That is not my role, and I would not risk doing anything so reckless. However, there were some questions or statements to which, in my opinion, we should not respond emotionally, because statements which go as far as to be humiliating to every true European, or which strike at the fundamental principles of the equality of every human being, irrespective of race, nationality or place of birth, I understand as discrediting those who make them, and not the nations referred to in them.

  President. – Thank you very much, Mr Tusk, for your remarks. It is clear that the House has given you a good reception, but I still have a procedural matter and would ask for two or three more minutes of your time.

Mr Barry Madlener wishes to make a personal statement under Rule 151.

  Barry Madlener (NI). – (NL) Mr President, Mr Schulz has openly called me a racist today in this House. Mr Schulz had previously openly called a colleague of mine a fascist. We despise racism and fascism, and I want to distance myself from them in the strongest possible terms. I believe that Mr Schulz’s comment is completely unacceptable and I would therefore like to ask you to take appropriate steps against him.

Mr Schulz is clearly unfit to be a president of this Parliament, while you previously punished Mr Bloom for this kind of behaviour. I therefore call on you to do the same in Mr Schulz’s case and I would also like to ask Mr Schulz to take this opportunity to apologise to me personally and to publicly back away from his comments about me.

  President. – Ladies and gentlemen, I did not hear those words through the microphone, but that does not mean we will ignore this. I would like to ask Mr Schulz for a clarification.

  Martin Schulz (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, there are two things that I would like to clarify. Firstly, I did not call this man a fascist. I therefore have nothing to apologise for. Secondly, I would like to make it clear once and for all – and I am speaking to Mr Madlener and Mr Farage, as well as a number of other Members who constantly use their speeches to question our democratic legitimacy, while proclaiming their own democratic credentials: they are elected representatives and we have to accept that, but, equally, we are also elected representatives with our own opinions, and that is something they must accept, too.

There is, however, one thing that I would like to say very clearly to you, Mr Madlener: I must, and do, acknowledge that you are sitting here, that you have been elected and that you represent your constituents, but you should be aware that I will do everything I can, as will many others here, to ensure that people like you have no place in Europe.

  President. – Ladies and gentlemen, that was an exchange of opinions pursuant to the Rules of Procedure. I would like to thank you all again for the debate. It was a very heated debate, but it is precisely this kind of debate which we want to have in the Chamber. So once again, I would like to thank Mr Tusk.

With that, we close this item.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I would like to welcome our neighbour Poland which has begun its first Presidency in the European Union. Poland, which took the wheel from Hungary, faces the major challenge of finding a solution regarding the ambitious agreement on the new Financial Perspective 2014-2020. Today’s Europe is full of challenges and possibilities, including energy futures, defending the free movement of people in the Schengen area and developing the Eastern European Neighbourhood Policy. I therefore welcome Poland’s main priorities in the field of energy security and the significant attention paid to the European Union’s Eastern Partnership. I would like to draw attention to the fact that it is time to clear the way for the directive on maternity leave, which was rejected by most Member States, not to mention the uncertain outlook for the Anti-Discrimination Directive, which is still blocked in the Council. These laws are very relevant to all people in Europe and consequently, their future must be decided as quickly as possible. Furthermore, I would urge the Council Presidency to pay more attention to the modernisation of higher education, which has an impact on youth employment. I am pleased that Poland’s programme provides for debates on the high level of unemployment in Europe, particularly unemployment among older people. However, at the same time, I would like to call on the Council Presidency to not only organise seminars and conferences on these important issues, but also to take concrete action regarding employment opportunities for young and old alike. So I wish Poland a successful Presidency in the coming six months, improving the situation for European citizens and safeguarding their rights and freedoms.

  Ismail Ertug (S&D), in writing. – (DE) Poland joined the EU seven years and two months ago and we are pleased to see it take over the Presidency of the Council of the European Union. Poland is putting its hand to the tiller at a time when Europe is facing great challenges in terms of its finances, energy policy and internal politics. We therefore doubly welcome the fact that Poland also intends pursuing ambitious goals in transport policy.

We Social Democrats welcome the fact that you intend to promote the improvement of social conditions for workers in the transport sector. By taking up the expansion of the Trans-European Transport Networks, you are not only planning to keep in view economic and territorial cohesion, but also the social cohesion of the various regions of the EU.

As an advocate of sustainable transport policy, I am particularly pleased that your priorities are in line with those of the White Paper on Transport and that you are anxious to work with Parliament to find a speedy solution for the new version of the first railway package.

With this in mind, we look forward to positive collaboration.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU is experiencing a ‘moment’ of tension and uncertainty, exacerbated by the fact that we have timid European leaders and a growing wave of populism and nationalism. The crisis of the euro and the return of borders in Denmark are evidence of this ‘moment’. The Polish Presidency has a crucial role, and it is to be hoped that it will contribute to the return of economic growth, to genuine solidarity, and to the stability of the euro. I am convinced that either we will overcome this ‘moment’ with more Europe, making progress with European integration, or we will move backwards and sink.

The role of the Polish Presidency is also crucial to the success of the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2014-2020. The issue of new own resources is crucial in this area. The majority in Parliament is in favour of this issue. Given the need for unanimity in the Council on adopting the new MFF and on new resources, and given the current ‘moment’, it is no easy task. We need the objectives set out in the Europe 2020 strategy to be achieved, which will require a budget that will cover it, and economic governance that is robust and convergent. However, I put my trust in the Polish Presidency, and hope it will be successful.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing. – (PL) When listening to the statements of leading Polish politicians, I come to the conclusion that their approach to the Polish Presidency is in the ‘romantic’ tradition, something which is very strongly rooted in our mentality, and that the time has come for an increasingly self-confident Poland to ‘renew’ an old and unassured Europe. However, unlike the romantic poets, we are thinking not of spiritual, but primarily of economic renewal. The challenges facing Poland are very difficult – the crisis in the euro area, the need to give support to Greece, the Schengen question – and they may also lead to changes in many of the Polish Presidency’s priorities. The European press is not writing about the Eastern Partnership or the Instrument for Democracy today, but about Greece, Libya and the Schengen area, and this clearly establishes the direction of work for the next six months. At the same time, I do think Poland is a credible leader of the Union for this time of crisis: we ourselves have experienced economic reforms which meant we had to tighten our belts. We have shown, too, that such reforms are worthwhile. Therefore, I think Poland’s leadership of the Union can help improve the EU’s credibility in the international arena and so can also help ease the economic crisis. I hope this will bring Poland satisfaction at a job well done, and also that it will contribute to the creation of a new image of our country as a credible partner for difficult times.

  Kinga Göncz (S&D) , in writing. – (HU) Hungary has passed the torch not only to another Member State, but to a friendly country at the helm of the EU. Poland embarks upon the challenge-filled six months ahead of us with an ambitious Presidency Programme worthy of our support. I agree with the Polish Prime Minister, who, in his initial statements, warned of the dangers of a ‘new Euroscepticism’. We know leading politicians in Brussels who claim to be committed believers in integration, while at home they make radically different decisions and statements. Similar to Donald Tusk, I am also worried about the doublespeak and the intent to aggressively promote national interests at the expense of EU interests. I greatly appreciate that after failed initiatives, the Polish Government finally wants to add momentum to the efforts aimed at establishing closer relationships with our Eastern neighbours, and that the continuation of the enlargement process and the achievement of energy safety are among its priority objectives. Contrary to its predecessor, Poland was successful in obtaining observer status for its Minister for Finance at Euro Group meetings, which I find particularly important for strengthening coordination between Member States inside and outside of the monetary union. I also welcome the fact that the Polish Government is organising a conference on the long-term EU budget, involving all affected parties, including the European Parliament. I hope that the autumn parliamentary elections in Poland will not impact the activities of the current Presidency. We know from experience the disadvantages that can come from domestic political events overshadowing the work of the Presidency.

  Zita Gurmai (S&D), in writing. – (HU) Poland is assuming the EU Presidency during a difficult period: the post-Lisbon institution system is still taking shape, and we must also find a satisfactory solution to control the effects of the crisis. It is good news that the Presidency Programme of the Poland-Denmark-Cyprus Trio is devoting special attention to gender equality issues even under these challenging circumstances. The programme states that in strategies aiming for economic growth and welfare, it is crucial that the basic principle of equal opportunity prevails. It also names specific issues (such as harmonisation of work and family life, the employment and education status of women, maternity leave, and violence against women) where the presidencies intend to make progress. However, it is important that in addition to the above, the Presidency also pays attention to adopting a horizontal equal opportunity approach that extends to all policy areas. With regard to the chapter of the Presidency Trio’s programme on poverty, I would like to ask whether the Presidency intends to give high priority to the situation of female pensioners who are at the greatest risk of becoming impoverished. I also hope that the Presidency undertakes all necessary efforts to successfully conclude negotiations on the Maternity Leave Directive, because so far, the proposal has not been accepted due to opposition from Member States. I am very pleased that the Polish Presidency intends to operate as an integrating Presidency, as this is something greatly needed in Europe today. I trust that the integration of women’s interests will not remain at the level of intent alone.

  Filip Kaczmarek (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The programme of the Polish Presidency of the Council is an ambitious plan for Europe. I am pleased that it has met with such broad support in the European Parliament, and I am not surprised by this support, because it stems from the fact that the Polish Presidency’s programme is one which is outstandingly pro-European. The decided majority of fellow Members are in favour of solidarity, the Single Market, the free movement of people, openness, and the military, food and energy security of Europe, so this support for the Polish Presidency is not just the result of a friendly attitude, but is also based on the views which we have in common. However, one can only say that the behaviour of the xenophobes and Europhobes is shocking. This exotic coalition has been joined by fellow Members from the Polish Law and Justice party. I regret, too, that fellow Members who support Law and Justice used today’s debate to spread their deceitful ideas and conduct an election campaign. Shame on you gentlemen, shame! It has also come to light that these supporters of Law and Justice are not familiar with the Polish constitution. It was not the present government or the Prime Minister who decided the date of the parliamentary elections which are to be held this year. The date of elections is determined by the provisions of the constitution. If, then, there is someone who is responsible for the fact that the elections are to be held half-way through the Polish Presidency, that someone is Jarosław Kaczyński. It was Mr Kaczyński who brought about a shortening of the term of the Sejm in 2007. No motion was tabled for a shortening of the present term. Fortunately, Europe knows who is telling lies about this. It is just a pity that we are wasting time on trivial matters.

  Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Another of our fears was that the inefficiency of Polish institutions would mean EU money would be badly spent, while the ‘old’ countries of the EU were afraid that the ‘new’ Member States, with their inefficient administration and cantankerous political parties, would disorganise the work of the Union, and that Poles would flood European labour markets. Most of these fears did not materialise, and the negative stereotypes have given way to new opinions. Polish business has adapted to the new rules of play, and our economy has developed rapidly in comparison with the crisis-ridden countries of Europe. This was possible in part thanks to European funds, which we have used in the development of our regions. Great credit here is due to local governments, which have become a strong institution and have provided stability to democracy. Poland is, today, an important Member State of the EU and its voice is respected, and it is also an important country for the Union because Poland is among the most pro-European of societies. The Polish Government should give expression to these attitudes during the Presidency. The Union, which has been shaken by different kinds of crisis, needs leadership which will call attention to European values and work for a cohesive and strong Union.

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The Polish Presidency of the EU Council has come at what is a difficult time for Europe, and has to address major problems and meet the high expectations of the people who live in Europe. In the Chamber, we heard positive and negative opinions, words of optimism and words full of scepticism. However, those who are familiar with the history of Poland know that the Poles have always been full of hope and faith and that thanks to these qualities, we have been able to overcome a great many problems. Poland today is in a special position, and Poland today is achieving success. I am proud of the government of Donald Tusk, and I am proud of the achievements of Poles and of those who serve in Poland’s local governments. I have no doubt that in the future, Poland will be held up as a model Presidency. I wish Mr Tusk success and hope that his work will bring results.

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), in writing. – (PL) It is with enormous pleasure that I welcome the Polish Presidency. As a Pole, a socialist and a Member of the European Parliament, I support our Presidency of the EU Council. It is the Polish Presidency which will begin negotiations on the financial framework after 2013. In this context, as a member of the parliamentary Committee on Culture and Education, I would like to call the Presidency’s particular attention to youth programmes and the sport programme. It is important that budget cuts made because of the crisis do not affect the EU’s strategy for youth. It is essential to have the right support for the Comenius, Erasmus and Leonardo da Vinci programmes, as well as the Erasmus Mundus programme, which has not yet been fully implemented. As the country holding the Presidency when the European sport programme is introduced, Poland will be able to influence the form taken by the programme. I would ask for consideration to be given to the written statement I drafted and which the European Parliament has adopted on increased support for grassroots sports. Furthermore, as a member of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, I deplore the fact that the Presidency, despite my letters, does not intend to continue work on combating violence against women or on the proposal for a Council directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. Such proposals are contained in the 18-month programme of the next three presidencies (Poland, Denmark, Cyprus) and work on them has already been initiated by the Spanish Presidency.

  Csaba Sógor (PPE), in writing. – (HU) I congratulate you, Mr Tusk, on the domestic results you have achieved despite the economic crisis, and also on the pragmatic and optimistic speech you have just delivered. You mentioned the past, knowledge of which is essential for thinking in perspectives. Throughout its history, as well as during the current economic crisis, Poland has often provided examples of how to take control of difficult situations. As a Hungarian from Transylvania, I would like to emphasise the role of our common ruler, István Báthory, in stabilising the region. It was a pleasure to read amongst the Polish priorities that you intend to continue the enlargement process in an ‘open European spirit’, that you would like to help complete the democratic transition of the North African states, that you emphasise the acceleration of economic growth, and attribute importance to securing basic rights and protecting minorities as well as to the facilitation of the free movement of persons. I am convinced that Europe must show this open side, as opposed to the inward and dismissive one that fearfully peeks out from behind the Schengen borders. As a member of an ethnic minority yourself, you must not forget about Poles in Lithuania or other European minorities. Good luck to Poland with achieving the tasks of the Presidency.

  Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D) , in writing. – (EL) I should like to wish Poland good luck in its first Presidency of the EU Council since it acceded and to welcome the commitment demonstrated by the Polish Government to the European vision. Without doubt, the Polish Presidency has many challenges to face in its six-month term of office, the most important being the start of negotiations on the forthcoming Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020. The initial impression we have gleaned is positive in terms of the importance being accorded by the Polish Presidency to the role of the cohesion policy in the forthcoming Multiannual Financial Framework. It is important that the Presidency acknowledges that the cohesion policy must continue to spearhead action by the EU to generate more and more targeted investments to combat the economic crisis. Also, within the context of negotiations on the Multiannual Financial Framework, one important parameter is the adoption of the legislative package for the cohesion policy post-2013. We hope that negotiations will progress to the maximum during the Polish Presidency. Finally, I should like to express my satisfaction at the fact that the Polish Presidency supports the proposal to convene an interparliamentary conference with the national parliaments on the future financing of the EU.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Polish Presidency is starting at an important time for the European Union, and has begun by tabling an ambitious programme. At the strategic level, the incoming Presidency is stressing the new areas of the Treaty of Lisbon, the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and the recent proposals for the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020. I welcome the references to cohesion policy as one of the most important areas of European policy, and to its links to the Europe 2020 strategy’s aims of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. The programme mentions ‘European integration as a source of growth’, and I welcome the proposals to deepen the internal market, in line with the European Commission’s proposals in the ‘Single Market Act’, in which small and medium-sized enterprises, training and research are not forgotten.

In the context of the negotiations on the legislative package on post-2013 cohesion policy, the Polish Presidency will have to demonstrate its firm commitment to achieving a good result in late 2012. I think the initiative to hold a General Affairs Council in December 2011 could contribute to stimulating debate about the main issues that have been identified over the course of the negotiations on financial regulation.

  Rafał Trzaskowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The Polish Presidency has come at an exceptionally difficult time. Firstly, the prerogatives of this office have been greatly reduced and not all doubts about this have yet been clarified. Secondly, and much more importantly, the Polish Presidency has come at a time when we are experiencing a very serious crisis of European integration. In this unfavourable climate, the Polish Government has made it a priority to press on regardless and take steps intended to improve the competitiveness of the EU economy and to ease the crisis. This is the best plan in the current situation. The Presidency will also be a kind of test of maturity for Poland as a new Member State. I have my fingers crossed that we pass this test with flying colours.

  Kristian Vigenin (S&D), in writing. – (BG) We often say that the future Presidency will take place at a crucial time for the European Union. In the case of Poland, which will lead the European Union during the second half of the year, we are not expecting any key events justifying such an assessment. However, at the same time, Poland can reverse a negative trend which has been undermining the European Union’s foundations for a fairly long time and eroding the essence of the general European project. Poland is bold in declaring that Europe’s problems can be resolved with stronger integration and not by renationalising policies, and with greater solidarity and not with national chauvinism. This is why the Polish Presidency will have a strong ally in the European Parliament. As Chair of the Eastern Partnership’s Euronest Parliamentary Assembly, I can confidently state that Poland will be able to give new impetus to the European Union’s relations with its neighbours, both in the southern Mediterranean and in the east. The next Eastern Partnership summit is scheduled to take place in Warsaw. I expect achievable, yet fairly ambitious objectives to be outlined there. In the middle of September, the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly will convene for its first working session in Strasbourg, which will accept clear, specific recommendations. I hope that these will be taken into consideration in the meeting’s conclusions.

  Anna Záborská (PPE), in writing. – (SK) The Hungarian Presidency was very successful. It set realistic priorities and managed to achieve them. This is why expectations are now high for Poland. I am pleased that the start of the Polish Presidency has been energetic and full of optimism, because Poland will have to come forward with more proposals for achieving economic growth. I am concerned that I have not yet found a policy on support for the family – which the Hungarian Presidency addressed very energetically – among the priorities of the new Presidency. I am all the more hopeful that this topic will appear in the elaboration of the Polish Presidency’s economic priorities. Security will also be an important topic in the forthcoming period – not only economic security, but also energy and military security, including better protection for the external borders of the Schengen area. This is linked to the continuation of talks on EU expansion into the Balkans. Poland has also expressed the will to resolve, as one of its priorities, the Eastern Partnership, with the aim of creating a free trade zone, liberalising visa policy and improving democracy in Belarus. I wish the Polish Presidency success in fulfilling these ambitious plans.

IN THE CHAIR: GIANNI PITTELLA
Vice-President

3. Financial, economic and social crisis: measures and initiatives to be taken (debate)

  President. – The next item is the report by Mrs Berès, on behalf of the Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis, on the financial, economic and social crisis: recommendations concerning the measures and initiatives to be taken [2010/2242(INI)] (A7-0228/2011).

All of the speeches are running seriously behind schedule, so I urge you to keep to the speaking time that you have been given. I shall now give the floor to the rapporteur, and could I ask the Members who are standing here in front of me to kindly make their way to the exit.

  Pervenche Berès, rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, after 20 months of work, the Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis is about to bring its work to an end, and yet the crisis is not over. I would like to take this opportunity to really thank my colleagues and to acknowledge the collective work that we have been able to achieve and the confidence you have placed in me.

We are concluding our work at a time when the economic governance package is stalled, at a time when the financial markets have once again taken up many of their bad habits, including in terms of the distribution of bonuses, and at a time when the fate of Member States depends on the ratings they are given by the credit rating agencies. It is a difficult environment, and that is why we are asking you, Commissioner, to conduct a public debt audit.

In this report, I believe we have fulfilled our mandate. We say that we need more Europe. This message may sound odd in some capitals as we now feel that the capitals are wary of Europe, precisely because it has sometimes appeared to act too late and do too little.

We say that we need this integration. Commissioner, eight months ago, in October 2010, we suggested here that you bring in a tax on financial transactions across Europe. Eight months later, you have implemented this. Eight months ago, we also suggested that you appointed a ‘Mr Euro’, and now Jean-Claude Trichet is suggesting a finance minister, although the mandate he has set for this role is not as we would have liked it to be.

Hear us out, then, and do not wait any longer; implement the other proposals we are making, like our suggestion to mutualise the debt. In the Greek case, we were told that there would be ‘no aid to Greece’, and then we proceeded to help Greece. We were told ‘no permanent mechanism’, and yet the mechanism will become permanent. Today, therefore, we are saying to you, ‘Go further and mutualise the debt. Set up a public rating agency, set up a European Treasury’.

Internationally, we need Europe, of course, to speak with one voice. We need to establish real European economic governance. This entails integrating the Bretton Woods institutions and the G20 into the United Nations system; it also means fighting to ensure that, in terms of international commerce, we have fair trade based on reciprocity. It also requires the European Union to pursue consistent policies and not, as here, adopt ambitious targets without a framework for the Europe 2020 strategy or, moreover, develop austerity plans that prevent us from carrying out what we believe to be our strategy to end the crisis.

To that end, in this report, we indeed suggest you follow the golden rule for spending on education; we propose that you finally establish the European Energy Community, which will bring to life the concept of solidarity among us. We also propose that you finally look into the issue of corporate governance. What are you waiting for to make our businesses, which call themselves socially responsible, accountable for these social and environmental responsibilities?

In the area of ​economic governance, we are aware that we need to do more in terms of supervision, and we invite you to look at what an optimum allocation of capital is. Today, you want the financial markets to be stable once again. That is not enough, given that stability in the financial markets was supposedly the situation we were in before August 2007, and we have seen where that got us.

Behind stability, we must also look at where the capital is going and how it is being used because this is not an industry. It is a service which exists to serve industry; it is precisely this paradox that you must resolve.

In addition, we ask you to look at business models in the banking sector, as there is perhaps also work to be done in that area.

In order to do all this, we will need a larger budget, and we can tell you that if, together, we fail to carry out the revision of the Treaties that needs to happen, each of us in the euro area must accept our responsibility and move forward through enhanced cooperation.

We hope we can move forward together on this path that we are suggesting to you and which appears to be a new deal for the European Union.

  Jan Vincent-Rostowski, President-in-Office of the Council. – (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I would like to congratulate Mrs Berès on drafting an excellent report. It is a very important report, and one which is indeed apposite at this juncture. The financial crisis has turned into a crisis of public finances, and the fight against it is what is most important for Europe today. This is why I very much welcome the report, and this is why I say it is so important.

We have before us, today, our most important short-term challenge, that of reconciling our positions on the package of six legal acts on economic governance. I think that between the position of the Council and that of Parliament, there are still two or three areas of disagreement. I hope we will quickly be able to find the compromise we are looking for – I hope so, but I am not sure – but I do think it is extremely important for us to achieve that compromise quickly.

The package is truly groundbreaking: we are going to place greater emphasis on, and attach greater importance to, public debt and not just deficits, and we are going to introduce country-specific rules on public debt – whether deficits or increases in public spending. This is something which we have had in Poland for some time now, and is what will now be required, on the basis of this package, in all Member States. It includes a very significant reinforcement of the preventative arm, perhaps the most important reinforcement of this arm of our system of economic governance, and there is also to be an EU spending rule.

Naturally, everything in the six acts of the package is very important, but we must also ensure economic growth – something which the package, of course, does not do – because, as Mr Tusk said here a few minutes ago, solidarity is not charity. Of course, we must ensure this economic growth mainly by structural reforms and privatisation, but we must have aid programmes which ensure not only consolidation of public finances, but which also make economic growth possible. Solidarity, which is not charity, is something which is in the best interest of countries which play in the same team. This is precisely what we have to regain – the understanding that the stability of the euro area is crucial, too, for those countries which give help to others, and not just for those which receive that help, and that programmes for structural reform, consolidation of public finances and also privatisation are in the best interest of the countries which adopt those programmes.

In view of this, I am certain that on the principle of a rightly understood concept of solidarity, we will be able – and this will also be thanks to the report we are going to discuss today – to overcome the growing divide between the north and the south of Europe, between the more stable countries, which are helping the others, and those which are receiving that help. We must, however, remember, as Mr Tusk said a few minutes ago, that solidarity is worthwhile because those who receive expressions of solidarity from others who are, at that time, stronger, can later repay that solidarity and give back even more.

I would just like to end by expressing my great satisfaction at the fact that Christine Lagarde, the former French Minister for Finance, has become Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund. I think she will play a key role in the forum of the G20, too, in terms of taking Europe’s proposals further there. As representative of the Presidency, I am going to listen with great attention to the comments of the European Parliament. I would also like to congratulate Mrs Berès again on this Committee’s report.

  Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I want to thank Ms Berès and the shadow rapporteurs for this very comprehensive report. I would also like to thank the Chair of the Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis, Wolf Klinz, who has so effectively guided the work of this special committee since its establishment in October 2009. The scope of your work has been enormous, but your method of tackling it has been similarly impressive, resulting in a thorough analysis and a broad set of conclusions.

Although this final report represents the completion of the committee’s mandate, it will be important to ensure that its work receives the appropriate follow-up. From the Commission’s side, I can assure you that we will pay very close attention to this.

Obviously, I cannot comment here in detail on every one of the 108 paragraphs, but let me make some general remarks. First of all, we continue to be primarily preoccupied with the urgent measures to tackle the sovereign debt crisis because we are, of course, not out of the woods yet. We are working to put public finances back on a sound footing and to address the extraordinary challenges presented by the situation in Greece.

At the same time, we need to put in place an institutional and legislative framework which will prevent a repetition of the events of the last three years. In this context, let me thank all those who have worked intelligently and hard on the economic governance package over the past year. I can only regret that the Council and Parliament have not yet been able to reach a final agreement on it. The conclusion of the governance reform is badly needed to show that Europe has the capacity to act, and thus to restore confidence in our economic prospects.

The adoption of the package is fundamental to our response to the crisis: to strengthening and giving teeth to our economic policy coordination, in terms of both prevention and correction; to achieving sound public finances; and to avoiding harmful macro-economic imbalances.

I firmly believe that 99% of this package has been agreed. The Council and Parliament have both made important improvements to our original proposals. Parliament has, for instance, codified the European Semester and set up a structured economic dialogue, providing for a prominent role for Parliament throughout the European Semester. It has created the opportunity for detailed discussion of country-specific situations at every stage of decision making, and it has obtained a commitment from the Commission to carry out a study on eurosecurities within six months of the entry into force of the legislation. The Commission will also commit itself, in the declaration accompanying the study, to reviewing the intergovernmental nature of the European Stabilisation Mechanism by mid-2014.

Honourable Members, you have won an equal role for Parliament in determining the scoreboard for detecting possible macro-economic imbalances. You have inserted firm guarantees on social dialogue, respect for national traditions in relation to collective agreements, wage formation and the role of social partners.

Yet it seems that this is not sufficient, and therefore it is not possible to conclude the legislative process before the summer break. That is very disappointing. I hope that the Council and Parliament will pull out all the stops to reach an acceptable compromise on the issues that still divide them, so that this package can enter into force as soon as possible.

Looking beyond the vote, I welcome the ambition and scope of the vision outlined in the report. I share the view that we must look further ahead and focus on the long-term implications of the crisis for the European project. I assume that a clear majority of all of us here agree that deeper economic integration will have to be part of the answer, despite current trends that appear to go in the opposite direction.

Regarding your call for the Commission to present a report on Eurobonds, in the context of the economic governance package, the Commission has agreed to table such a report on the feasibility of eurosecurities towards the end of the year. These eurosecurities would aim to strengthen fiscal discipline and increase stability, as well as ensuring, by taking advantage of the increase in liquidity, that Member States enjoying the highest credit standards would not suffer from higher interest rates. This issue really has to be seen as part of the overall governance reform that will materialise through the adoption of the package.

I appreciate your support for improving the European Union’s role as a global player in the context of the G20, the IMF and other elements of global governance. I am also glad that you have paid particular attention in your report to the issues of competitiveness and convergence, and sustainable growth and jobs. The paramount importance of growth policies cannot be overstated in relation to tackling the crisis.

To conclude, I trust the Commission and Parliament share the view that a convincing response to this crisis and the effective prevention of future crises will require stronger, broader and earlier coordination at European level. This is at the heart of the economic governance package. In my view, the first concrete reaction to the final report of the Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis, as prepared by Ms Berès, must be the speediest possible adoption of the package. It does not yet mean completion of the economic and monetary union but it is certainly a very big step in that direction – and it is essential to restore confidence in the European project of deeper integration and an ever-closer union.

  Othmar Karas, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the report will be debated and decided upon, and the public debt crisis will keep us busy for years to come, as will the appraisal of the causes of the crisis. In this report, we have done what we set out to do, looking at the bigger picture, developing long-term perspectives, breaking down barriers, whether based in party politics, routine policies or populist agendas, or even day-to-day political issues. That is the job we took on and that is also the job we have done.

Whether or not the Council and the Commission support this report, the fact is that Parliament will make its own decision. We could actually start working on the implementation of the report tomorrow. The sooner these objectives become a reality, the sooner we can learn lessons from the crisis. I welcome the fact that this report is being debated following the speech by Prime Minister Tusk. After all, this report is simply the implementation of his appeal for more Europe.

We do indeed need more Europe, because we do not have enough Europe in economic policy, taxation policy, budgetary policy, social policy, education policy, research policy, foreign policy, energy policy or defence policy. It is true that we have an imbalance between competition policy and social policy, between the internal market and taxation policy, between the euro area and economic policy. The fact is that, on many issues that relate to the internal market, the role of Europe in the world and the euro area, we seem to have precariously one-sided policies, something that has contributed to the crises, and that is one of our greatest problems in overcoming the crises. We need more European Union, more Europe, and more Europe on the world stage. To spell it out, we need to take the next step towards integration. We need an economic and social convention. We need an economic and social union as an interim step on the way to defence and foreign policy union and to political union.

We do need a voice for Europe on the world stage. We have reached a crossroads because we need to decide what role we want to play in the future. Do we want to become a key player in globalisation and have our voice heard, or do we want to be just a supplier for the more dynamic regions beyond Europe’s borders? Do we want to be crisis managers or do we want to become a museum? These are the decisions to be taken. This report points the way forward; it should guide our actions and we should start implementing it sooner rather than later and learn from the crisis.

(Applause)

  Sergio Gaetano Cofferati, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the decision taken by this Parliament two years ago to establish a Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis has proved to be courageous and far-sighted, in the light of the results contained in the mid-term report and in the final report that will be adopted today.

It was not easy to take that decision and, above all, to keep issues relating to the financial crisis together with those relating to the economic crisis and to their social consequences, which have proved to be extremely dangerous in most parts of the world and especially for us here in Europe. We have done some important work, therefore, and it is leading to an even more important conclusion.

The scenarios presented in the report all suggest that, in order to end the crisis permanently, Europe’s institutional, political and economic structures need to be strengthened. Even this course of action was far from certain, but I believe it should be considered, especially at a time of great difficulty such as Europe is experiencing now.

The proposals contained in the report concern the creation of a Treasury Minister role; own resources for the EU budget; Eurobonds and the financial transaction tax; the coordination of taxation policies, the possibilities for which are indicated in the report; the idea that knowledge is crucial to the creation of quality jobs for young Europeans in the future; and the revival of cohesion policy, to strengthen the European social model.

There are some innovative passages, but they propose strengthening the European Union, this Union that has lost its way slightly and is, in fact, being hit very hard by the crisis. Consequently, there are problems today that we must not underestimate or ignore, but we can overcome them by applying the proposals contained in the report correctly and consistently.

  Olle Schmidt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (SV) Mr President, Mr Vincent-Rostowski, Mr Rehn, the crisis is not over, we know that. However, today’s debate and vote concludes the work of the Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis (the CRIS Committee). I would like to say a special thank you to Mrs Berès. You are a visionary in the true sense of the word. You are always equally stimulating to work with and a master of compromise. I would also like to thank my fellow Member behind me here, the rapporteur Mr Klinz, for his excellent work and for the way that he has chaired the committee.

As we have heard, we need more Europe, not less. Nationalism must not be allowed to gain a foothold once again in Europe. It was therefore good to hear what the Prime Minister, Mr Tusk, had to say. We must take a positive view of free trade, globalisation and movement across borders. We must achieve a clearer and stronger Europe. The report is visionary and forward-looking, and we know that the world today is changing at an enormous rate. Things that were taboo only a few years ago are now on everyone’s lips. You only need to look at the proposals relating to economic governance that the Commissioner mentioned.

However, I do have one important objection. The committee wants to increase the EU budget to between 2.5 and 10% of the Member States’ combined GNI. This is, if I may say so, completely unrealistic – visionary perhaps, but unrealistic. Referring to a report from 1977 does not improve matters. The Europe we have today is completely different. Citizens want a well-functioning Union that solves common, cross-border problems. The EU may well need more resources for common commitments in the future, but such a change must be made in dialogue and in agreement with the citizens. Therefore, we must not put the overall effect of the report at risk today. Visions are good and necessary, but they must be well-anchored. Today more than ever, the European project needs democratic legitimacy.

  Kay Swinburne, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, the first report of the Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis clearly identified the many causes of the financial crisis and their subsequent consequences for the EU and the global economy. I was confident that the second report would concentrate on what measures we would propose to ensure long-term growth and competitiveness in order to ensure the EU’s future prosperity.

I am disappointed, therefore, that we cannot support the final result. The very idea that ‘more Europe’ – the central thesis of the final report – is the EU solution to a global economic crisis is one that my constituents in Wales are unable to relate to. It is not obvious how the EU speaking with one voice at the IMF or having one single European commissioner to deal with financial services legislation could somehow have prevented the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression or indeed how these measures will fuel the economic growth necessary for Europe to recover from the ongoing crisis.

Yet, the most sinister part of the report – there seems to be a use of the crisis as an excuse to renegotiate membership of the EU – is the idea that the EU budget should be increased to 5%-10% of the EU’s GDP. To put this in perspective, at the moment, certain Member States, including my own, are quite rightly refusing to allow a 5% increase in the EU budget. Yet this report proposes up to a 900% increase. I think more than five Member States will be happy to sign a letter protesting against this suggestion of a 900% increase.

My group fundamentally disagrees with many of the other issues raised in this report, like tax-raising powers for the EU and a common immigration policy. Therefore, I urge others to vote against this report today.

  Pascal Canfin on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Mr Vincent-Rostowski, Mr Rehn, you have focused your comments in this debate on economic governance, that is to say, on the package of six directives that are currently being negotiated. The specific purpose of this report is to integrate this work but, also, to go beyond it. It also aims to indicate a path, a vision that goes beyond the very short-term discussions in which you are rightly involved. However, do take the time to read this report because it outlines a majority view. It is not just the view of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe or the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats). It is a vision that results from a compromise, a compromise reached by a majority.

Examining its contents provides a breath of fresh air with regard to the current situation. What is the issue at stake today? The issue is working out who will be paying for the crisis, who will be paying for these 20 percentage points of public debt, accumulated over three years, to save the markets, the banks, and Europe from a very significant recession. By continuing to focus on the issue of public finances, you are targeting the fire-fighter rather than the arsonist. If the Member States have spent 20 points of their Gross Domestic Product in additional debt, it was not for the pleasure of doing so, but because they had no other choice.

In solely considering the consequences and limiting yourselves to a European policy focusing on managing the consequences of this crisis, and not the causes, I think you are missing the point and you are causing pro-European opinion among Europeans to become significantly weaker. We know that today, we are threatened by this trend and this isolationism.

The second major issue which this report seeks to address concerns the balance of power between the Member States and the markets. We created the euro, in part, to prevent the markets from speculating on our currencies. That is what we saw in the 1990s. Currently, we are at the point at which we must prevent the markets from speculating on our public debts and, in order to do so, we have two tools available to us. The first is Eurobonds, which would involve mutualising our debt to ensure a deep liquid market, such that it is no longer possible to speculate against the single public debt market. The function of the second tool is to limit the capacity of the financial markets to speculate on public debt through a number of instruments. This is the path that a majority in Parliament is ready to propose to you. Seize this opportunity, President-in-Office, on behalf of the Council, and Commissioner, on behalf of the Commission.

  Nikolaos Chountis, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (EL) Mr President, unfortunately, in the Commission’s interim report a year ago, despite the rapporteur’s initial intentions, the real causes of the economic crisis and the debt crisis were not reported and analysed for reasons for which the majority of the Commission was to blame. Today’s final report, which is, unfortunately, based on these erroneous assumptions, basically proposes maintaining the same economic model, the same economic and social policies, that took us into the crisis.

To be precise, the report remains within the framework shaped by the economic governance package, with a tighter Stability Pact; it remains within the framework of the Euro Pact, which is unravelling the European social model; and it remains with the framework of the model of privatisation of public property. This policy is already being applied in Greece, in Portugal and in Ireland and, as a result, the recession is getting worse, unemployment is rising, debt is increasing and speculators are making a profit and turning up the pressure.

The report is basically a compromise between the two large groups and essentially considers the policy advocated by Mr Rehn, present here, Mr Barroso, Mr Van Rompuy, Mrs Merkel and Mr Sarkozy as the only way forward. For us, this is not the only way forward. For us, there is the alternative proposal of a Europe of solidarity, of economic and social cohesion, and of democracy. It is the alternative proposal being put forward in the streets and squares, such as Constitution Square, which, unfortunately, the Greek Government bathed in German tear gas and blood last week, in the squares of Spain, in the squares of the Bastille and on the streets of London, where civil servants are demonstrating.

That is why we shall vote against it.

  Mario Borghezio, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Angelides report by the US Congress Commission of inquiry has clearly demonstrated that the crisis was avoidable and has pointed the finger at public operators and the financial system, referring to those responsible by name: the Federal Reserve, rating agencies, investment banks and the five major US banks responsible have all been blamed for the ongoing crisis.

Even today, these practices are going on. The Commission of inquiry’s findings were preceded by the very serious, yet unheeded, warning that was also given by the crisis committee led by the Nobel Prize-winning economist, Maurice Allais. Unfortunately, the report does not say much about all this and, bowing to the superior knowledge of those economists – nearly all of them in fact – who were unable to predict the crisis, it overlooks today what is a key proposal for those who want to get to the root of the problem: to re-establish the principles of the Glass-Steagall Act, aimed at separating the activities of traditional banks from those of investment and merchant banks – speculation, in other words – and to prohibit the creation and trading of financial derivatives.

The report also disregards one of the key aspects of this powerful formula, which is necessary to ensure a financial recovery and to successfully combat corruption through the use of drastic measures. Lastly, how can one ignore the negative impact of the crisis on a serious problem such as immigration?

  Hans-Peter Martin (NI). – (DE) Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank the Chair of the Committee for his commitment to his task. It is a pity that this Committee did not receive greater public attention. I agree on many points with what Mr Karas and Mr Schmidt have said – we do indeed need more Europe in very key areas. However, the call for a 5% increase in our budget is extremely unfortunate. People will have great difficulty understanding this because it seems as if we are putting the cart before the horse.

First, we need the reforms that should really have been brought forward in the Treaty of Maastricht, or the Treaty of Nice at the latest, but that have still not materialised. Only then can we discuss other forms of income and, in particular, increased income. I believe we would have shown real courage if we had said, ‘let us break up the big banks’. Let us get to work at the point where the crisis really began, rather than simply looking for funds for the European Union.

  Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE). – Mr President, short-term decisions can be made correctly only if the long-term calls are right in the first place and if there is a compass to guide us. This is the approach the committee has tried to take, pursuing the maximum common understanding, rather than minimalist, short-termist interest serving. I would like to thank our rapporteur, Ms Berès, and our Chair, Wolf Klinz, for doing excellent work, as well as all our colleagues who were involved.

The main message from the committee is that we need steps towards economic and monetary union, including a European treasury, to tackle the global and European imbalances of sovereign debt and to create the prerequisites for growth. We need a common tax base. We need better own resources. We need to make more effective use of our own money by increasing the EU budget in the long term and by making strategically crucial investments. And we need stronger social cohesion in order to implement the EU 2020 goals.

We need unified representation of the euro area and the EU as a whole in international forums. We need Europe to prioritise stronger, more efficient tackling of global economic governance, including better structures for financial regulation, with a stronger role for the IMF.

The committee’s work is at an end but the work of the EU towards achieving these goals is just beginning, and this is what we hope for our citizens. I invite the Commission and the Council to join Parliament in defending our citizens’ future and their well-being in these politically difficult times.

  Hannes Swoboda (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, Prime Minister Tusk said today that we need more Europe, but the question is how and where? Mrs Berès’ report provides an answer to these questions. I would like to thank you and Mr Klinz for this, as well as all your staff.

These goals are indeed visionary. It will not be possible to achieve them all, but we do need to know the direction that we want to take. For that reason, Mr Vincent-Rostowski and Mr Rehn, I hope you will forgive me when I say that your answers were somewhat misguided because they refer to an economic governance package which certainly covers many important issues, and rightly so, but, as the report points out, it does not do enough. We need to go further. You are calling on us to agree to the economic governance package, yet you have failed to understand what this report tells us. What is more, this report is not alone in its findings. You can read articles by Helmut Schmidt, Nobel-prize-winner, Amartya Sen, and many others that say quite clearly: this is not enough. Your actions and those that we propose will not get us out of the crisis. Nothing has been said about growth. As the experiences of recent years have shown, it is a mistake to simply believe that growth will automatically occur. The report really says nothing about this.

I would also like to say a few words about employment. The Polish Presidency has promised to tackle the employment issue and to present a plan on this matter. We have heard nothing about this today. We are still waiting. Hopefully, something is in the pipeline. Turning to the unjust distribution of income, it has been proven that the unjust distribution of income has led many people to take on loans, thereby getting into debt and contributing to the bubble that eventually caused the crisis. I do not wish to accuse you of not having read the report. However, with all this in mind, I would ask you to take the time to read the report. Let us have your honest position on it. It contains many good elements. We need greater focus on growth and employment and the just distribution of income, otherwise we will never emerge from this crisis.

(Applause)

  Wolf Klinz (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when the Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis was established in autumn 2009, many observers commented that it was too late. It should have been launched a year earlier and the crisis was almost over, they said. Today, we find ourselves not in the first or second year following the crisis, but rather in the fourth year of the crisis. The problem is still ongoing. Fukushima has shown that, one day, everything that can possibly go wrong will go wrong. It was a similar story with the global financial crisis. Numerous negative factors coincided and, if it were not for the decisive action by the European Union and the USA, things might have hit a new low, leading to economic melt-down and a repeat of the great depression of the last century. Happily, this has been avoided. However, we now have the so-called debt crisis or the euro crisis in Europe. We have been in the grip of this problem for eighteen months now.

I get the impression that Europe’s decision makers have not been providing active leadership for the last year-and-a-half. They react to market distortions and turbulences in the market, but they do not act with foresight on the basis of a clear vision of where they want to take Europe. That is what is missing. There is a lack of vision, and our citizens have the impression that it is business as usual for those who caused the crisis: profits are privatised, losses are socialised and the actual issues are side-stepped. That is where our report has its starting point. It makes proposals for the overall direction of the future development of the European Union and the euro area. Mrs Berès explained these proposals in detail and Mr Karas also discussed them. I do not need to go into further detail at this point.

There is one important point to note, however, which is that Europe has reached an extremely critical turning point. If we do not choose the right path now, we will not even be able to maintain the status quo of the integration already achieved, and will instead find ourselves taking a step backwards. It is important that all of us who believe in Europe and who want to shape Europe’s future should support these ideas, addressing our citizens and the representatives of the national parliaments and trying to win them over to our cause.

(Applause)

  Roberts Zīle (ECR). – (LV) Mr President, first of all, I should like to thank Mr Klinz and other fellow Members for their work in the committee. The compromise reached by the report can be briefly summed up as follows: the cure for us all is more Europe. Is this really a cure, however? If we think that a larger European Union budget and smaller national budgets, a unified immigration policy or European taxes will be this ‘medicine’, then we are mistaken. Take the example of the three euro area countries that had to be bailed out, where the whole burden of these three countries is placed on the shoulders of these countries’ citizens and governments, while leaving the interests of European Union lender nations’ commercial banks, pension funds and insurance companies completely untouched, even though they, too, ought to bear a proportion of the losses from these investments. How will it all end in these three countries? It will end as it did in Latvia, because at the time when Latvia had the largest fall in gross domestic product (GDP), the nation that lent the most for investment in Latvia recorded the largest GDP growth in the European Union. Let us learn from this experience.

  Patrick Le Hyaric (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Mr President, Mr Vincent-Rostowski, Commissioner, the European people will not come out of their suffering and difficulties as long as we do not have the courage to invent something new in order to reverse current approaches.

In this regard, I support the proposal made by Mrs Berès for an audit of finances and public debt. This requires having the courage to tackle the issue of wealth redistribution head on, and thereby increase purchasing power to maintain public social protection systems, to protect public services and to come up with new ones; that is precisely the opposite of what you are doing.

We must have the courage to grant the European Central Bank an entirely new role, involving the restructuring of Member States’ debts, and ensuring the buyback of all or part of them through creation of money. We must also replace the Financial Stability Fund with a social, human and environmental development fund.

We must have the courage to disarm the financial markets in favour of selective bank credit for employment, with public banks cooperating with one another in Europe, and to tax speculation on the stock and financial markets.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD) . – (LT) Mr President, as we acknowledge that the financial crisis has caused an economic and social crisis that may, in turn, cause a very serious political crisis, we should take much more decisive action to eliminate unemployment and reduce social exclusion in the Member States.

I welcome the provision proposed in the resolution, calling on the Commission to initiate a strict financial audit of all Member States in order to determine their actual financial status. This should be conducted as soon as possible, and certainly within a year or two, because the situation changes much quicker than Eurostat can summarise it.

If we really want society to have confidence in the possibilities offered by the Europe 2020 programme, we should not only establish particularly favourable incentives and mechanisms, but should also significantly reduce bureaucracy by simplifying many procedures.

One other thing – I believe that the Commission should draft a legislative package as soon as possible, limiting the opportunities for monopolies to increase the cost of raw materials, foods and services without good reason.

  Marine Le Pen (NI). – (FR) Mr President, Mrs Berès’s view is as follows: ‘if Europe has failed, it is because there was not enough Europe’. As in the days of communism, it was stated that if communism failed, it was because there was not enough communism.

Your solution, therefore, is ‘more Europe’, for Europe to become a real state and to do away with national sovereignties. That must involve tight control of Member States’ budgets, with the European Semester, the suppression of any deviation from the ‘economic governance’ package and the creation of a European finance minister to levy taxes and issue Eurobonds.

In short, the purpose of this report is not to bring the crisis to an end; it is an excuse for turning nations into trusteeships, firstly in Europe, and ultimately on a worldwide level. The rescue of the euro primarily serves this purpose and the interests of speculators, to whom you offer an unprecedented playground.

Today, the Greeks are under the rule of Europe. Tomorrow, other peoples will suffer, with an outcome we already know. Your Europe is drawing more and more inspiration from the former Soviet Union, with its small oligarchy of unelected officials. You can only impose your policies on the peoples of Europe by marginalising democracy. It is worse still, when we know that democracy was born in Athens with the abolition of debt slavery by Solon, to see that 2 600 years later, you are reverting to it!

  Frank Engel (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, it is after tirades like the one we have just received from Mrs Le Pen that we realise just how much we need reports like the one we are about to vote on.

The report, contrary to the views of a number of my fellow Members, is not unrealistic. It is not by saying that we need more resources in Europe that we become unrealistic. We would be unrealistic if we said that from now on, we have the means to achieve all our ambitions and that there is no erosion of national sovereignty. The erosion of national sovereignty does exist and it is used to make up for the shortcomings of national sovereignty; it is Europe that needs resources. If this report is sure it can provide Europe with the means it requires, it is only being even more realistic. Moreover, we must have the courage to tell the truth: the problem is not the citizens of Europe not wanting more Europe; the problem is all the politicians, who continue to make Europeans believe that everything could be done without Europe, and that a nation state will be able to solve all the problems.

I ask you: where does the nation state stand when it comes to the pressure being exerted today by the rating agencies? Is the nation state capable of reversing this juggernaut of a multifaceted crisis, which is undermining the recovery efforts being made by millions of Europeans? It is Europe that will know how to solve these problems, not the nation state. The nation state is no longer able to do so in 2011, nor will it be able to in 2014. We will need more Europe, and this report shows us the way forward and tells us how to get there.

  Patrizia Toia (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is time to take some bold decisions in this Europe if we want to do more than just survive. The crisis has severely disrupted normal life for European citizens and businesses and, if we do not react, it could mean that the quality of the social and cultural life, the welfare and the future of young people and Europeans, are irreversibly affected.

As well as creating valuable cohesion and prosperity, overcoming the crisis means finding solutions to the causes identified: solutions for tackling speculation, which should also be restricted where necessary through the introduction of strict rules for the financial markets; solutions for combating the recession; solutions for combating the imbalanced development model that has put individuals below profit; and solutions for combating the resurgence of nationalism, which is today preventing Europe from making the choices that it has to make.

Above all, it is time to provide tools and resources – new and old – so that we can forge ahead and start the engine of growth, with research, innovation, training and support for productive investment, infrastructure and jobs, because without jobs, people have no dignity or rights.

Thanks to Mrs Berès and other Members, this report outlines a possible strategy for a Europe that is proud and aware of its role. It is now up to Europe’s leaders, if they exist, to implement it.

  Sylvie Goulard (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, I would like to thank Mrs Berès for the sizeable task she has carried out with Mr Klinz and all their colleagues on this committee.

I believe we need a long-term vision, and as Mr Engel has just reminded us so well, the supporters of the nation state – some of whom, moreover, have no objection to being paid by the European Parliament to spit on Europe – have nothing to contribute. I would remind them that even the Roman Empire fell. However, in more tangible terms, we need this vision and we need laws immediately.

I would just like to respond to two points, since economic governance has been mentioned here by several speakers. Mrs Berès, the negotiations are not deadlocked, they are taking their course. We have a democratically elected parliament which is trying to play its role in ordinary legislative procedure, before the Council for the first time, and with the help of the Commission. Therefore, we are counting on the Polish Presidency, as we know we can count on the Commission – and I want to pay homage to all the work done by Commissioner Rehn and his teams to find solutions. We are in debate, not deadlock. There should be no question of hasty decisions on subjects such as these.

Secondly, I think that, from time to time, we should be aware of what we are achieving. I shall give you two examples: matters are moving forward with Eurobonds just as with the financial transaction tax, which Mrs Berès referred to. I would emphasise that the Commission has shown a great deal of courage on these two issues: Commissioner Rehn is ready to commit if we reach agreement on governance for Eurobonds and Commissioner Lewandowski and the College have made the link between own resources and the financial transaction tax. We are working. Let us not worry too much about the Eurosceptics who have nothing to contribute.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, whilst we are debating this report on the financial, economic and social crisis, we would like to express our strongest protest against the so-called ‘bailout packages’ being applied in Greece, Ireland and Portugal, led by the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

What is actually happening is that these countries are being seriously encroached upon and reduced to submission, and their peoples are being subjected to policies of austerity, and are witnessing the robbery of their workers, pensioners and ordinary citizens. This is being done solely for the benefit of the international financial sector and of big companies, which intend to take control of strategic companies at low cost through their privatisation. These packages, founded on neoliberal policies, on reinforcing the Stability and Growth Pact and the Euro Plus Pact, on so-called economic governance and on the Europe 2020 strategy, alongside liberalisations and attacks on social and labour rights, are causing recession, increased unemployment, increased social inequality and greater poverty in these countries, which means a break from and a change to these policies is urgently required. We would therefore express our solidarity with the peoples and workers of these countries who are fighting against these policies.

  Iliana Ivanova (PPE). – (BG) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, almost two years after the Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis was set up, I am presenting my final report which, in my view, is one of the most important documents with a long-term vision which the European Parliament has produced, thanks to the hard work, great patience and cooperation between the political groups. I feel that the following points are important in this debate.

Firstly, resolving the issue of the high levels of public debt which we have nowadays in some Member States. Each one of us is well aware that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Sooner or later, someone has to pay the bill. This is why not only some but all Member States must take responsibility and reduce their countries’ expenditure so that acceptable deficit levels can be achieved. This is obviously not the actual solution resulting in economic growth. However, it is an important prerequisite for providing business and European citizens with financial stability.

The second issue is competitiveness. We need to focus our efforts aimed at increasing the European economy’s competitiveness on completing the Single Market, tapping the potential for growth and creating jobs. I believe that one of the ways for us to achieve this is by preserving tax competition in the Union because it will enable us to ensure the ideal business environment, which will also result in further investment.

Last but not least, new Member States which do not belong to the euro area must be involved on an equal footing with the other countries in making decisions about the Union’s future. I believe, as most of my fellow Members do, that the solution for exiting the crisis is more Europe and integration. I wish to thank all my colleagues for their work over these last two years. I am pleased that I was a member of this committee.

  Anni Podimata (S&D). – (EL) Mr President, in the final report on the crisis, the European Parliament demonstrates that, at a very difficult time for the European Union, it is up to the job. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the rapporteur on her excellent work.

Her report contains an in-depth analysis of the causes of the crisis and proposes specific, ambitious and solid proposals to get us out of the crisis. If this approach, these proposals, are adopted by the Council, we can be certain that, not only shall we manage the crisis efficiently, but we shall also protect the Union and the euro area from future crises, we shall strengthen it institutionally and politically and, most importantly, we shall be in a position to restore its credibility in the eyes of European citizens and to regain their trust in our common European future.

With its specific proposals, such as specific measures to strengthen employment, a system of Eurobonds and a financial transaction tax, this report sends a strong message that we need more and a stronger Europe.

  Burkhard Balz (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, finally, after two years, we have received the report of the Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis, and I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Berès, and the Chair of the committee, Mr Klinz, for their work. However, I must point out that it is thanks not least to the dedication of Mr Karas, the coordinator from our group, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), of Mr Engel and of our shadow rapporteur, Mrs Pietikäinen, that we have been able to present such a good document.

The crisis committee was originally intended to analyse the causes of the crisis and to offer long-term recommendations. We have now formulated five recommendations under five main headings. In addition, the report also analyses the necessary steps in the areas of competitiveness, energy policy, the EU’s internal market, migration and research, support for small and medium-sized enterprises, taxation, employment and training. I believe that what we now do with these excellent recommendations is of crucial importance. It is not enough to formulate the necessary steps – we now also need to take action.

The EU institutions need to play a stronger role in formulating and implementing joint measures. In my view, the EU is at a crossroads. Either we decide to take the next step towards integration or we allow the EU to drift apart because of the current differences over economic policy. After all, just because the crisis committee has finished its work, this does not mean that the crisis is over. The debt crisis poses an enormous challenge for all of us. We need to face up to this challenge. This is something that we are certainly going to do in the coming months in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs.

  Liisa Jaakonsaari (S&D). – (FI) Mr President, a notable professor of economics once said that the longer young people study the subject, the more arrogant they become. In other words, this is a question of where these arrogant bankers, greedy investors, biased credit rating agencies, etc., come from. They come from universities, colleges, from among us here, and that is why we need rules and regulations to curb this greed. Moreover, we need them now in Greece, and we need them in Europe, and even the United States of America needs new ground rules. I think that this report is excellent, as is the Commission’s commitment to establishing new ground rules in both the long and the short term.

I wish to point out, however, that Europe is being hampered by a lack of consensus, because now we have to take decisions to reassure the public and the markets that everything is under control. I also wish to point out that, not only is there this lack of consensus, but also in some way, a virtue deficit. As Mrs Berès said, it is quite strange that nothing has been learned. For example, the bonuses of bank executives, which led to the wrong decisions being made, are only increasing at present; in other words, nothing has been learned.

I think that this is a very important report, and it provides global solutions, such as Eurobonds, the new Economic Security Council and current solutions. Congratulations to Mrs Berès and to our Chair, Mr Klinz.

  Regina Bastos (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, I shall begin by congratulating the rapporteur and everyone who contributed to the success of this report. There is no doubt that this report constitutes, and will constitute, a benchmark for robust and coordinated recommendations and responses to the challenges of the crisis. If we can draw one conclusion, it is that the crisis we are experiencing will only be overcome by deepening European integration.

At a time of severe financial, economic and social difficulties, and of painful austerity measures in some Member States, such as my country, Portugal, the temptation is to shelter behind a protectionist and nationalist attitude. However, this is a mistake. The European response to the crisis involves genuine European economic governance that pursues sustainable growth, promotes job creation and develops the social market economy, providing long-term responses with established objectives with which the Member States agree.

The strategy for escaping the crisis needs to be financed with a Union budget that is sufficiently ambitious. In order to prevent another sovereign debt and euro crisis, there is a need for closer coordination on budgetary policy, as well as for the creation of a system for issuing public debt securities and Eurobonds.

I will conclude by stressing that there is also a need to maintain levels of social protection in these difficult times, above all, for the most vulnerable Europeans.

  Kinga Göncz (S&D). – (HU) Mr President, we are discussing one of the most important reports of the recent period. The European Parliament is the first institution to formulate a detailed opinion on the causes of the crisis, the ways out of it, how we can avoid another crisis, and also what ‘more Europe’ means, which we have mentioned several times recently. Decisions on strengthening the euro area are made slowly and with difficulty, and it is good that Parliament has laid down its ideas in this regard. We must not allow internal imbalances to undermine the European project. We must insist on our principles that emphasise cooperation and solidarity, both inside and outside of the euro area. The Berès report attributes importance to preserving the welfare acquis and the social support system, which also act as economic stabilisers. We can achieve the objectives laid down in the 2020 strategy only by increasing the appropriate financial resources; that is why it is important that the report calls for a long-term and considerable increase of EU budget resources.

  Iuliu Winkler (PPE). – Mr President, I would like to join the line of those welcoming this report, especially its practical recommendations. With this report, our Parliament shows vision and provides concrete policy tools to address challenges to come. It provides a focus for the EU 2020 strategy by addressing the new job creation objectives. This is just one of the many important contributions of the EPP Group to this report. It calls for a new generation of EU funding programmes to support innovative and job-creating SMEs.

Education and youth are core elements of the EU 2020 strategy. They will remain a foundation of our efforts to promote innovation, growth and sustainability. Without the implementation of the educational policy tools, the EU 2020 strategy will fail. This report paves the way for a new EU internship programme involving both the private sector and SMEs, and proposes the introduction of a European innovation scholarship, which should contribute to the fostering of the knowledge and skills of those employed in innovative sectors.

I am confident that this House will support the crisis report with a large majority. Therefore, I urge the European Commission and the Member States to consider the rapid implementation of the specific programmes in the field of SMEs and education strategy.

  Antolín Sánchez Presedo (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, the current crisis is the most serious since the EU has existed and the first since the creation of the euro.

Its complexity and depth oblige us to redefine the foundations of an economy and a globalisation lacking control or responsibility. Moreover, it places stress on the European social model and adds to the challenges of competitiveness, ageing and climate change.

It will not resolve itself spontaneously or at a national level. It calls for a political response, and for a determined and sustained course of action to be pursued on a European and international scale.

The creation of the Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis demonstrates the commitment of Parliament to overcome a crisis that is still not over with a democratic response.

The Berès report addresses the problems of sovereign debt, global imbalances and the construction of a global governance system, the steps towards a new international monetary system, the actions necessary in order to fulfil the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and criteria for rethinking the future of the EU.

The common thread is ‘strength in unity’. The EU must not disappear when it is most needed, or resign itself to irrelevance. Citizens must know that the EU will add value to their future and the Member States must know that it will support their reform processes.

For this, the EU needs to rely not on rhetoric but on a gem: a powerful budget based on own resources, combating tax evasion and the issue of Eurobonds. This is why I support the report, so that the EU counts in the world.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the objective that we set ourselves has not been fully achieved, in my view.

This report has not fully met the Commission’s objective of analysing the causes of the crisis and proposing tools for use in reviving the economy. The implications and the development of this crisis, which started off as a financial crisis before becoming an economic crisis and now, tragically, also a social crisis, has forced us and is still forcing us to be extremely cautious in our proposals. Our task is to support measures that will prevent further economic crises and successfully boost growth.

The report we are examining contains some measures that could fulfil these tasks, but only if they are implemented quickly and with the necessary resources. I am referring to the Tobin tax, to bonds for infrastructure, to actions in support of small and medium-sized enterprises and to the need to extend the European transport networks and to complete the internal market.

The European system is still too slow to act; very often, policies are adopted after a long delay. We need more Europe; we need a Europe that is more in touch with real needs. A Europe that is timid, divided and pervaded by harmful nationalism makes us too weak in this globalised era and continues to favour speculators, who, in recent years, have come to view our continent as fertile ground for their interests. I am grateful to the rapporteur and to Mr Karas.

  Elisa Ferreira (S&D). – (PT) Mr President, Mr Kotecki, Commissioner, it is often said that crises help strengthen Europe. That has been the case historically, but I am not so sure that it remains true today. The slow, improvised and reactive way in which the Union is responding to the Greek crisis is exacerbating the situation every day, and is causing a lack of confidence in the Union and its currency to spread in a most appalling way. This is despite the problems in the euro area resulting from obvious failings in the construction of the single currency, which are currently focused on its weakest links.

In order for the result of the current crisis to be a strengthened Union, there is a need for a strategic vision, as there was in the past, and which, unfortunately, neither the Commission nor the Council has been able to implement in connection with the European programme or project.

However, this report by Parliament gives us this vision: the solution is more Europe and not less. Parliament recalls that the market and the single currency are creating unsustainable divergences between economies, which must be counteracted by specific policies. It acknowledges that, in order for the euro to work, it requires a European budget strengthened by own resources, and requires a solidarity-based European agency for issuing debt, capable of protecting the Member States from market speculation, and of providing them with credit at reasonable prices and with reasonable deadlines. It also acknowledges that the transferability of degrees and workers between countries requires mutual recognition of social rights and pensions. Parliament has united to send clear messages: let us hope that the Commission and the Council listen.

  Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE). – (LV) Mr President, once when I was a child, I had a running race with two friends, which I won. One of my friends found all sorts of excuses for why he had lost – the sun was in his eyes, his foot slipped and so on. My other friend admitted that he lost simply because he ran slowly. This report from the Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis is a little like my first friend, blaming our misfortunes on all sorts of factors – rating agencies, an insufficient federal budget, etc. However, in reality, our problems are fairly simple and there are only two — the lack of competition at the European level, and excessively large budget deficits. If we succeed in overcoming the lack of competition, strengthen the common Single Market, and solve the issue of Member States’ excessive budget deficits, then we shall be able to solve Europe’s problems.

  Monika Hohlmeier (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to thank the rapporteur and Mr Klinz and, in particular, our coordinator Mr Karas, who has ensured that this is not only a balanced report, but also contains many passages that make worthwhile reading and that are essential for the future of the European Union and its 27 Member States. In today’s climate of global competition, it is no longer possible for every Member State to go it alone. I believe that competition is an important and necessary instrument. However, I also believe it is important for our 27 Member States to have joint strategies for the globalised financial markets and in relation to our major competitors on the other continents.

I am not in favour of more Europe across the board, but I do advocate more Europe in areas where the 27 can only succeed by pooling their efforts. In this context, we have discussed key points in relation to the financial markets, pointing out, in particular, that we cannot achieve greater economic growth simply through financial trading, but rather that the answer lies in coordinated and sustainable economic activity. For this reason, I find this to be a very good report.

  Bendt Bendtsen (PPE). – (DA) Mr President, the report provides a realistic analysis of the current situation in terms of falling production levels, higher unemployment, high levels of public debt and the need for extensive reforms to re-establish Europe’s competitiveness. It attaches greater importance to an integrated internal market, better fiscal coordination and the eradication of ineffective subsidies and financial aid.

I am extremely pleased that there is a chapter on small and medium-sized enterprises, which are very important for growth in Europe. That, of course, is not something that we would disagree on. Unfortunately, there are very few citizens in the Member States who want the ultra-federalist initiative that is, regrettably, also envisaged in the report. When I say this, I am, of course, thinking of paragraph 99 and amendments referring to the need for an EU budget corresponding to 5-10% of the Union’s GDP. This is an incredibly bad and irresponsible proposal that seriously overshadows the good proposals – it is out of step with what the majority of citizens in the Member States want.

  Thomas Mann (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, today’s document marks the end of the second mandate of our special committee, the Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis. While our first report drew up solutions to current problems – bank levies, the certification of hedge funds, a financial transaction tax – we are now setting out our vision for 2013 and beyond. We need rules for effective crisis management, greater integration between the Member States and sustainability in employment and growth policies. Budgetary discipline must become our new watchword, from the regions right up to European level. The Stability and Growth Pact, which has been undermined for years, now needs to be replaced with a robust monitoring system from which no member of the euro area can be exempt.

We need decisions. Do we need a European finance ministry, as proposed by Mr Trichet, President of the European Central Bank (ECB)? Are Eurobonds to be introduced, in combination with stricter adherence to regulations? Is the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) to develop into a European debt agency? How can we break the dominance of the credit rating agencies, which have been proven completely wrong so often in the past? How are the banks to be made to play a more stable role in resolving the crisis? We do not need renationalisation as a result of fears and anxieties; we need more Europe.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, during the economic and social crisis, we are sensing a growing need in all areas for better use to be made of financial resources and of the links and synergies between the individual areas of EU policy, and, last but not least, also for better harmonisation between local, regional and national budgets and the EU budget.

An important role is also played in this context by cohesion policy, which must move closer to EU citizens, in my opinion, since up to two-thirds of public investments in Europe currently remain below the national level.

The increasing powers and responsibilities of regional and local bodies are creating opportunities for implementing public investments at the most effective administrative level. For this reason, it is essential to strengthen vertical cooperation between the individual elements of public administration in order to achieve intelligent, sustainable and inclusive growth.

  Robert Atkins (ECR). – Mr President, the way that we are running this Parliament is becoming increasingly shambolic. That is no reflection on you, Mr President, because I know you try very hard to move us along.

We were told that votes would be at 12:30; we now cannot predict when the votes will be. Can we not come to a conclusion at the Conference of Presidents that there will be a fixed voting time every day there is a sitting so that we all know where we stand, the President in the chair can cut people off at the right time and, if necessary, the debate can be adjourned so Members can come back after the votes? Otherwise, we are looking increasingly pathetic.

(Applause)

  President. – We will forward your request to the Conference of Presidents.

  Ana Gomes (S&D). – (PT) Mr President, if you – the Commission and the Council – continue to treat the metastasis, such as the deficit and the public debt, whilst ignoring the cancer of unemployment and macro-economic divergence in the euro area, you will allow the disease to kill the patient, if they do not die from the cure first. This is because your formula of austerity and punitive interest rates only feeds speculators and will never, on its own, enable Greece and the other Member States to start growing and creating wealth again, even in order to pay their debts.

The stronger and larger countries, which benefit from the euro area and the internal market, like Germany, could and should demonstrate solidarity, but instead they have simply been a hindrance, starting with their pathetically provocative declarations on speculators. The Berès report points the way to the ‘New Deal’ that will save Europe: Eurobonds, more economic governance, more own resources for the European Union and, above all, good political governance, in order to regulate the financial sector, and to punish and control tax havens. What are the Council and the Commission waiting for before obliging European banks to report the sums of Greek, Portuguese and Irish money that these banks have helped move to tax havens over the last three years?

  Alfreds Rubiks (GUE/NGL). – (LV) Mr President, the report correctly states that one of the causes of the financial and economic crisis was the banks and financial speculators. It is necessary to exercise more stringent control over financial transactions and bank supervision. The ruling elites, including back home in Latvia, view the way out of the crisis in increasing taxes and reducing the level of social protection to the detriment of ordinary people in the Member States, while the parties to blame for the crisis – banks and speculators – continue to receive income from speculative transactions, which ought to be charged to higher rates of progressive tax. The European social model must be supported on social guarantee principles, and not allow the reduction or even elimination of salaries, pensions, and social support payments, or the sacking of employees.

  Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you for the very substantive and responsible debate facilitated by the excellent report by Ms Berès.

I fully agree with those such as Ms Jaakonsaari who say that we need to express unity in our policy making at this critical juncture. We need unity to overcome the current crisis and we need creativity and courage in pursuing a substantive debate on Europe in the day after tomorrow.

One of the issues is Eurobonds, and that is very much linked to the overall reform of economic governance.

(Noise)

Mr President, I suggest we come back to the issue later, because it is impossible to hear or even talk. I cannot hear my own voice. We will return to the subject later.

(Applause)

  President. – One moment, Commissioner. I would ask the House to listen carefully to the Commissioner’s answer.

  Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I want to say a few words about Eurobonds and the governance reform in relation to the growth policies referred to in Ms Berès’ report. I want to underline one important point about Eurobonds, namely, that this House will get a very meaty and substantial response from the Commission about the way forward on Eurobonds, at the latest six months after the Council and Parliament reach agreement on the economic package.

We have already promised – and I can assure you again – that, as soon as we have agreement on the package, the brightest and best minds of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Economic and Monetary Affairs will be put to work on a very substantive report for this House, which you will have on your desks within six months. This sequence is simply a matter of common sense. If we do not have stronger economic governance and greater discipline in the euro area in particular, what real hope is there that Eurobonds will take off and will deliver the benefits your report anticipates?

Without prior serious reform of economic governance, and real discipline and economic coordination, Eurobonds would quickly turn to junk bonds.

Next, on the reform package, I am sorry some of you do not share the Commission’s view that the package should be one of our key priorities at this critical juncture. However, I am encouraged by those of you who do share that view. I make no apology for returning to this issue from a different angle.

Any programme of reform needs to be prioritised and sequenced. If you are addressing a problem, you need, as the first priority, to tackle its root cause. Therefore, we have to ask whether we are in the mess we are in because we did not have a different arrangement for external representation of the euro area. The answer is ‘no’. Are we in this mess because Germany and Italy issued their own debt instruments? No. Are we in this mess because of inadequate investment in tertiary education? No. These are all important issues, but let us recall that we are in this mess mainly because of fiscal indiscipline, even in good times, and because we failed to identify and act on important macro-economic imbalances. We are where we are because we did not have sufficient commitment from the Member States to meeting their European obligations, and because the economic leg of economic and monetary union has always been too weak.

(Applause)

If we cannot see this, and if we cannot act decisively to remedy it, then all of the rest is just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. The legislative package is all about putting the ‘economic’ back in economic and monetary union. Assuming that we get through this current crisis, which is not a foregone conclusion, it is all about preventing the next crisis. It is really fundamental. It is about the Community method; it is about economic stability, the foundations of sustainable growth and improving employment; and it is about European coordination and solidarity.

In short, it is about keeping the European project alive and kicking.

(Applause)

  Ludwik Kotecki, President-in-Office of the Council. – (PL) Mr President, honourable Members, this is the beginning of the Polish Presidency, which is to run for six months – and from this point of view, six months may seem a fairly short period – but we can all see how fast things are changing and how fast things are happening at the moment, particularly in the field of economics and finance.

This is why we have these serious challenges before us, and I would like to stress that the main items on the agenda of the European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission are the same. The priorities are the same – they are shared. Naturally, each side should make its own point of view clear on particular issues – and I am sure this will be done – but I am certain that it is by working together that the European Union will cope with the difficult situation we are currently experiencing. As the Polish Presidency and as an impartial participant, we are determined to help and to facilitate a mutual understanding of each other’s position and thereby achieve agreement. In this context, something which particularly comes to the fore is the question of what is being called the ‘six-pack’, which is, in particular, the part of the EU’s work intended to prevent a repeat of a situation such as the one we have now.

Once again, I would like to express my thanks for the report, for the debate and for all your thoughts and comments.

4. Welcome

  President. – Ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of this House, may I welcome Muhammad Yunus, winner of the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize and inventor of social microcredit, who is sitting in the gallery.

5. Financial, economic and social crisis: measures and initiatives to be taken (continuation of debate)

  President. – We shall now continue the debate on the report by Mrs Berès (A7-0228/2011).

  Pervenche Berès, rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, at this late hour, I would like to say a big thank you. Thank you to all my colleagues. I will not name them all, but nonetheless I will mention the Chair, the coordinators, the shadow rapporteurs and all those who have contributed to this task.

President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, the ball is now in your court. We have made proposals: please take them on board Commissioner. I am glad that you are acting on several of the proposals we have already made. Now, I am asking you for a commitment, the first on a long list in this road map that we have set out: carry out the audit of the public debt of Member States of the European Union. We need this so we know what action to take in the future.

Next, I wish to remind you of the objective of this report which we have drawn up together: the victims of this crisis must not be the ones who pay for it. Our goal is to reassert the sovereignty of politics, the sovereignty of citizens over the markets. That is what democracy is.

(Applause)

Some of you may be wondering: should we not use groups of experts? We have tried to do that. I would say to you: wisdom will come from those who vote, I hope in great numbers, for this report, and who will take its proposals forward so that they may become reality.

IN THE CHAIR: ROBERTA ANGELILLI
Vice-President

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place at the end of the debate.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Ivo Belet (PPE), in writing. – (NL) With this report, Parliament is sticking its neck out with daring and innovative policy choices. In these days of economic turbulence, Euro-pessimism and Euro-realistic ‘no’ votes, politics has to dare to swim against the tide. The policy options that currently enjoy the support of a large majority of Members of this House are no pipe dream. They are the result of a year of intensive consultation and negotiations. A clear majority has been obtained in this House for establishing a European Energy Community. For me, that is one of the most important points. Europe must itself utilise a single European energy policy. Specifically, it must draw up a common strategy for renewable sources of energy and cross-border infrastructure. This must represent core business for the EU, as it is the only way to attain our climate targets and to turn around our vulnerable position as a major importer of energy into that of maximum self-sufficiency. Furthermore, it is also massively important that a European Ministry of Finance be developed. This idea is on the table, and it enjoys broad support in Parliament. Then there is the issuing of Eurobonds. To sum up, these are tangible measures that will enable Europe to emerge from the current financial crisis stronger and that are very much of the kind that will guarantee the prosperity of European citizens.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. – (RO) A third Member State has felt obliged recently to request aid from the European Union as it was unable to obtain financing. Against the current background of the public debt crisis and a fragile European economy, we need greater political and economic integration. In this respect, I welcome the report drafted on the financial, economic and social crisis, which highlights the importance of relaunching the European project.

To emerge from the stalemate it is in, the European Union must make long-term investments in key areas such as education, research and the road and IT infrastructures. These measures would help boost competitiveness and counteract job losses. We need a standard taxation policy at EU level to encourage these investments. In addition, the creation of bonds to be issued jointly for part of Europe’s public debt would automatically reduce the cost of financing in the European Union.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) I would like to begin by expressing my enormous gratitude for what is an absolutely key report. It may mark an historical breakthrough if there is sufficient political will to carry through the recommendations. On the other hand, I do wonder if this impulse to deepen the European project really had to wait for a global crisis. Any measure can be better implemented in more peaceful times. It is often the case, however, that crises create opportunities – and I hope that will be the case here as well. The most urgent issue in today’s situation is to maintain the common currency. In this context, we cannot avoid fundamental reform of the EU budget. It was clear more than three decades ago that currency union requires a larger budget than the EU has at present. The budget needs its own sources, and we must take into account the serious long-term implementation of budgetary policies at EU level. The report, of course, contains a whole series of other key steps which, in the long term, should prevent the occurrence of crises such as the present one. The measures to limit capital flows and the emphasis on support for the real economy are important. In my opinion, the stronger role of the UN is a positive move – the EU can be a valid part of a multilateral world. A common Ministry of Finance, Eurobonds, a European Debt Agency – these are all important proposals. Now more than ever, we need political union and economic integration. We need more Europe.

  Jiří Havel (S&D), in writing. – (CS) The report by Mrs Berès sends out a strong signal for a permanent solution to the current crisis, setting out a whole series of ambitious recommendations. I can agree with the statement by the rapporteur that the crisis caused by large sovereign debts in various Member States has revealed the risks of imbalances within Europe. The EU must act and respond in a unified way by pressing harder for the closer coordination and harmonisation of fiscal policy. I agree with this view, and I also agree with the rapporteur’s idea that closer European integration can act as a protective shield against a future crisis. I agree with the rapporteur’s opinion that the asymmetrical development of individual euro area member countries must not be allowed to grow more pronounced in the future. The rapporteur makes a very daring call, however, for the creation of a single European Ministry of Finance, the powers of which would include joint administration of debt. This European super-ministry would be able to contribute towards better coordination of economic policy in the euro area and elsewhere. Such a development would mark a revolutionary change, but at this point in time, it is not at all clear whether the Union or the euro area is capable of such a fundamental intellectual and organisational change. At the same time, however, it is already clear that the euro area cannot continue to operate in its existing form after the current crisis, and will require profound reform.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) Many of our citizens are disappointed and exasperated by EU policy. It is with some justification that they feel that they are the only ones who are required to suffer the consequences of the crisis. The high-finance sector, which has been rescued using taxpayers’ money, is once again making huge profits. Even though it was largely responsible for the crisis, it is not being required to pick up the costs. In order to prevent future crises, those who profit from speculation must be required to pay a solidarity contribution. The EU should play a pioneering role in the introduction of a transaction tax, even though no agreement was reached at the last G20 summit in Toronto. However, fiscal sovereignty must remain with the Member States. Brussels should not be allowed to exploit this situation in order to acquire taxation powers, paving the way for a centralised federal state. What we need is a coordinated approach to the issue of a financial transaction tax between the Member States.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The crisis has kept the political boundaries intact but not the economic ones. It has also shown us that risk knows no boundaries. Hence, we need a broad and comprehensive approach rather than an ad hoc, case-by-case one. The only solution to be proposed with conviction, therefore, is that of a system of global governance that lays down common rules for all. We can build competitiveness, open up our markets and make them more efficient, but that will not protect us from future crises. No State or financial institution can consider itself safe, even if it is built on solid foundations, because of our interconnected economies. We have increasingly open and common markets, but we also have rules that differ from one State to the next, preventing the control and the supervision that the markets and the citizens are calling for. Common, blanket rules will not hinder the markets. Rather, they will give operators and investors more security and peace of mind. Europe must once again attract investment and manufacturing, and gain recognition as an international model of innovation and growth. Public and private financial institutions must do their best to ensure that the markets work to benefit the real economy and small and medium-sized enterprises. Unity and solidarity are essential if Europe is to successfully overcome the global challenge.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – (EL) Mrs Berès’s report is balanced and comprehensive and proposes real solutions and mechanisms to combat the financial, economic and social crisis. The fiscal problems which the Member States currently face and the need for important investments and growth call for new financing models, with a combination of public and private funds. I welcome the proposal made in the report to use project bonds in cooperation with the European Investment Bank and the recommendation that Eurobonds should be further investigated, so as to ensure that they benefit all the Member States. I consider that, beyond the common currency, the countries in the euro area should take another step, by making appropriate arrangements to jointly issue bonds and manage part of the Member States’ public debt, so as to lay the foundations for more coordinated multilateral supervision which will make the market in the euro area as a whole more attractive.

6. Voting time

  President. – The next item is the vote.

(For the results and other details on the vote: see Minutes)

***

  Sajjad Karim (ECR). – Madam President, I will be brief. I have been prevented from being present in this Chamber for the past two days due to the actions of racist, violent extremists who, as a mob of around 40 or so, targeted my family home whilst we were present and carried out a spree of violent activity in my original home town. Were it not for the swift action of Lancashire police in carrying out arrests and bringing charges, and their provision of security for my family, I would not be able to be present here now.

Today, I send a clear message to all violent extremists that we will not cower in the face of their intimidation and violence. Our vision for our countries and this Union is very different to their divisiveness and hate. Collectively we will face them.

(Applause)

  President. – Mr Karim, you have the full support of this House.

6.1. List of travel documents entitling the holder to cross the external borders and which may be endorsed with a visa (A7-0237/2011 - Tanja Fajon) (vote)

6.2. European broadband – Investing in digitally driven growth (A7-0221/2011 - Niki Tzavela) (vote)

6.3. Personal data protection in the European Union (A7-0244/2011 - Axel Voss) (vote)

- Before the vote:

  Axel Voss, rapporteur. – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would urge a vote in favour of this report to ensure that we have a broad basis for future negotiations with the other institutions and offer my thanks for so doing. I would also like to thank you for your excellent cooperation with the other groups and with the other rapporteurs. Thank you very much for your patience.

(Applause)

6.4. Food information to consumers (A7-0177/2011 - Renate Sommer) (vote)

- Before the vote:

  Renate Sommer, rapporteur. – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to make a clarification. It has been drawn to my attention that a plenary session document – a recommendation for a second reading – is in circulation. This is not the compromise package, but rather the result of the vote on the second reading in the competent committee, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety.

There is another document being distributed, which contains revised Amendments 137 and 136. The latter Amendment, No 136, is the compromise package negotiated by all the groups together with the Council. This is to be voted upon first. If this package is accepted, then of course everything else is redundant.

I would urge you to support this compromise. All Members of the House must understand that, if this compromise is not supported by a broad majority in Parliament, then we risk a conciliation procedure in which the food labelling scheme we have been working on for three years would fail. Please do not let things come to this. It is time to do something for consumers.

(Applause)

6.5. Cross-border exchange of information on road safety-related traffic offences (A7-0208/2011 - Inés Ayala Sender) (vote)

- After the vote:

  Inés Ayala Sender, rapporteur. – (ES) Madam President, I will be very brief. I wish to thank my fellow Members who have agreed to my request, this time, on the urgency of adopting this agreement at second reading, but, above all, I want to convey to you the gratitude of the associations of victims and relatives of victims of traffic accidents on European roads, who have been waiting more than three years for this first step, which is crucial in order to prevent hundreds more deaths each year.

I am conscious of the institutional generosity shown by the European Parliament with this exceptional and unique gesture on the inclusion of correlation tables, a matter of fundamental importance for the proper application of European law on which, thus far, the Council has shown neither the diligence nor the commitment required.

Hence, I turn now to the President-in-Office of the Council to declare that, having welcomed the positive indications from the new Polish Presidency in relation to our just demand that the correlation tables be included, we hope and trust that a swift horizontal solution will be achieved, both in the Council and in the Commission. In this respect, I hope that the Member States will ensure an adequate transposition and application of this rule, in the greater interests of road safety and of all European citizens.

  Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like to make a declaration on behalf of the Commission.

The Commission recalls its commitment towards ensuring that Member States establish correlation tables linking the transposition measures they adopt with the EU Directive and communicate them to the Commission in the framework of transposing EU legislation, in the interest of citizens, better law making and increasing legal transparency, and to assist the examination of the conformity of national rules with EU provisions.

The Commission regrets the lack of support for the provision included in the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Directive facilitating cross-border enforcement in the field of road safety, which aimed to render the establishment of correlation tables obligatory.

The Commission, in a spirit of compromise and in order to ensure the immediate adoption of that proposal, can accept the substitution of the obligatory provision on correlation tables included in the text with a relevant recital encouraging Member States to follow this practice.

However, the position taken by the Commission in this case shall not be considered as a precedent. The Commission will continue its efforts with a view to finding, together with the European Parliament and the Council, an appropriate solution to this horizontal institutional issue.

6.6. Multiannual Financial Framework for 2007-2013 (A7-0253/2011 - Reimer Böge) (vote)

- Before the vote:

  Reimer Böge, rapporteur. – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this is an important issue and I will be really brief. Article 3 of the existing budgetary agreement makes it necessary to adjust the budgetary framework and political agreements accordingly when dealing with amendments to the Treaty with consequences for the budget. We have held long discussions with the Belgian and Hungarian Presidencies in an attempt to achieve the necessary changes. Unfortunately, despite all their efforts, the Presidencies did not receive a sufficient mandate from the Council.

The present offer from the Council is less than what Parliament already has under the existing interinstitutional agreement. The Treaty of Lisbon was not intended to limit the privileges and decision-making options open to the European Parliament. The fact is that no serious negotiations have taken place. In fact, what the Council is offering actually reduces budgetary flexibility from its current position. For this reason, the Committee on Budgets recommends that you vote against this proposal, rejecting it and moving directly on to the negotiations for the next financial framework.

(Applause)

6.7. Preparation of the Commission Work Programme 2012 (B7-0381/2011) (vote)

6.8. Legislation on Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSE) and on related feed and food controls (A7-0195/2011 - Dagmar Roth-Behrendt) (vote)

- Before the vote:

  Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE). – (SV) I would like to point out that, in the Swedish version, paragraph 7, seventh indent, paragraph 8 and paragraph 21 contain several translation errors that mean that the Swedish version does not agree with the other versions in terms of policy and content. I am voting according to the English version and I hope that the translation into Swedish will be correct when this is made public.

6.9. Aviation security with a special focus on security scanners (A7-0216/2011 - Luis de Grandes Pascual) (vote)

- Before the vote on paragraph 4:

  Jörg Leichtfried (S&D). – (DE) Madam President, this oral amendment does not involve an earth-shattering change to the entire report. Nonetheless, it is not insignificant that the text after the word ‘effectiveness’ in paragraph 4 should continue as follows:

… and in full compliance with Article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights on non-discrimination and in line with EU Legislation on data protection.

(DE) Madam President, I would ask that this amendment should be supported.

(The oral amendment was accepted)

6.10. Women and business leadership (A7-0210/2011 - Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou) (vote)

6.11. Financial, economic and social crisis: measures and initiatives to be taken (A7-0228/2011 - Pervenche Berès) (vote)

- End of the vote

7. Explanations of vote

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Madam President, I really must say something here because, unlike a previous esteemed speaker, I was not given a chance to be heard. Obviously some people are more equal than others in this Chamber. I understand that the Commissioner was in a hurry, so that I could not be called upon to raise my point of order.

Time should have been used efficiently when discussing the last item on the agenda. It is with regret that I find that the President was a little too generous with his allocation of time in the debate. We cannot allow so many people to wait for the catch-the-eye procedure throughout the entire process. However, Madam President, it would seem that you are not listening to me either. A system obviously operates in this House whereby good time-keeping is regarded as unimportant.

When we hear numerous references to solidarity from our fellow Members, a word they seem to use in every second sentence, while going over their allotted time by at least twenty to thirty seconds, then I would contend that this flies in the face of their expressions of solidarity. I would ask you to take my request to the Conference of Presidents and that the otherwise esteemed previous speaker should try to keep to his allotted speaking time in future. That way, we will not lose so much time. It would then be possible to allow one or other of my fellow Members to speak using the catch-the-eye procedure, without restricting them to a minimal amount of time.

Oral explanations of vote

Recommendation for second reading: Renate Sommer (A7-0177/2011)

  Francesco De Angelis (S&D). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the Sommer report because I firmly believe that Europeans should be able to make a free and informed choice about what they eat.

In adopting this report, Parliament is giving the green light to clearer rules on food labelling. These rules concern not only the energy content and the percentage of fat present in the labelled food, but also the obligation to indicate the origin of the meat used.

These are common-sense rules that have the merit of allowing citizens the freedom of choice, so that they can follow a healthy, balanced diet and know what they are eating. This regulation is a vehicle for citizens to be able to voice their specific requirements with regard to their choice of foodstuffs.

  Jens Rohde (ALDE). – (DA) Madam President, after two years of arguments back and forth, we have finally reached an agreement on new rules for food information for consumers. The Danish Liberal Party would have liked to have seen some more ambitious rules. We will make no secret of that. It is not because we politicians should dictate what people eat, but in people’s stressful everyday lives, it can actually be difficult to determine what individual foods contain. We must therefore make it easy to see which foods are healthy and which are unhealthy. The focus is still on the mandatory 100 g nutrition labelling. The Danish Liberal Party would also have liked to have seen a common system for indicating the proportion of a person’s daily calorie intake that a particular food item represents. We did not entirely achieve this aim. There will be more realistic and accurate rules for guideline daily amounts (GDAs), so this nevertheless represents a step in the right direction. Therefore, we have today voted in favour of the compromise with the Council.

  Giommaria Uggias (ALDE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, thanks to the compromise reached between Parliament and the European Council, European consumers will now be able to know where the meat on their table comes from.

My amendment, which is taken up in the institutional compromise, was undoubtedly more ambitious and required more extensive marking of the origin and provenance of other products too – not just of meat, but of milk, dairy products in general and meat used as an ingredient in food. Nevertheless, it is satisfying to know that a road map has been established that will see the Commission present a specific report on this issue in two and three years’ time. The report will therefore include proposals to ensure the increased – not to say full – protection of all Europeans in the near future.

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Sommer report is definitely a milestone, but I would say that it is only one milestone along the way, not the final milestone, as Mr Uggias said.

Two- and three-year deadlines have been set, deadlines which the Commission has pledged to meet, and within which it will surely be possible to develop the rules that have been approved, albeit with difficulty and by means of arduous, extensive negotiations that have been going on for many years, perhaps because something was missed.

I wish to take advantage of this speech to say that, overall, I consider this to be a positive report, and I therefore voted in favour of it. However, I do believe that the Commission should endeavour to reassess certain shortcomings, such as the failure to include rabbit meat, which is acknowledged to be one of the best types of white meat for a person’s diet and nutrition and which could be included in the assessment that the Commission has pledged to carry out within the next three years, with a compatibility assessment that I hope it can develop as soon as possible.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – (ES) Madam President, I have supported this report because it is going to improve the quality of food products while also contributing to informed and responsible consumption.

European consumers will know where the food that we eat comes from, which is especially important for meat and even more so for fish. Moreover, an obligation existed to provide information about the nutritional properties of foods.

The price of foodstuffs is not the only important thing at the time of purchase. Spending available funds wisely involves buying foods that have been grown, reared or fished in a sustainable manner, and in accordance with known standards, and being aware that spending a bit more on foods that contain less saturated fat, are low in salt, or contain moderate levels of sugar, contributes to our health.

Accordingly, in order to tie up any loose ends relating to this regulation, we need to investigate in-depth the training that consumers need in order to make the most of all the information that is going to be available to them.

Finally, I regret the somewhat insensitive approach in the report in relation to linguistic diversity. Basque, Catalan, Galician and other languages also exist and are official in the shops in which these new labels are going to be read.

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE). – (SV) Madam President, finally, we are to have simple common EU rules for the labelling of food. They have been pushed through and will enter into force in 2014. I am pleased that the line that I pursued from the beginning was adopted. We are to have correct, clear and easy-to-understand information on the packaging, but no more mandatory information. We will increase the opportunity for consumers to make informed choices with regard to which wholesome foods they want on their plates, and we will not lecture or dictate what people should eat. I am particularly pleased that origin labelling for all meat, as I proposed from the start, was included. The Commission is to ensure that this is implemented in a reasonable way. Allergens are to be highlighted in the list of ingredients. We are to have rules concerning legibility, with minimum requirements concerning a clear typeface and contrast. The rules relating to imitations are also extremely good, and we are to make vigorous efforts to prohibit all misleading information. It is regrettable, however, that trans fats will not be clearly labelled. I believe that this balanced and sound compromise will give consumers greater freedom of choice without creating additional unnecessary bureaucracy for small businesses.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE). – (ET) Madam President, I, too, voted in favour of the report. Although the document has been diluted, I think that the adoption of this regulation and the necessary changes to existing legislation are a very important step in the protection of European consumers’ interests. European consumers must know what they are eating and where the raw materials actually come from. Information on the product label must be informative and clear. Pretty labels such as ’Made in the EU’ or ’Made in Estonia’ can be a myth, actually deceiving consumers even more. Above all, of course, this report is good news for consumers, though not for certain unethical companies who have been manipulating consumers and, as we know, have also tried to frustrate the completion of this regulation.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s vote ends an incredible work cycle that has seen more than 3 000 amendments tabled in three years.

Thanks, in fact, to the political agreement reached last week with the Council, the approved text will ensure that European consumers have access to clearer food labels with more detailed information on products that we find on our tables every day. I welcome the new and specific information on allergen content, for example: from now on, the presence of allergens can be conveniently identified and recognised at a glance.

Lastly, as an Italian, I can only be pleased that the so-called traffic-light labelling has been abandoned for good. From now on, no food can ever be labelled as harmful unless it really is, meaning that consumers will not be forced to exclude it completely from their diet. It will therefore be possible to consciously include it in a varied and balanced diet, which I hope will be modelled on our beloved and envied Mediterranean diet.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). – (FI) Madam President, the free movement of food is an essential aspect of a viable internal market, and that is why I supported this report. The European Union must, in future, promote the health and well-being of citizens, as well as their social and economic interests.

Clear, comprehensible and easily legible food labelling is one such way that the European Union could actually have a combined impact on increasing the well-being of its citizens. Nutrition labelling is one method of informing consumers about the composition of foods and also of helping them to make an informed choice. Education and information campaigns are also an important mechanism for improving consumer understanding of food information.

There should not be interference in all respects, however, and that is why it is important that the sale of food at charity events or fairs, for example, should not fall within the scope of this regulation.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, I, too, voted in favour of the compromise amendment tabled by the rapporteur, Mrs Sommer, because this will be a cornerstone in improving consumer protection. I believe that all consumers have the right to know what is in the food that they buy. We have a common European market. For that reason, we also need to standardise information, so that consumers will know exactly where they stand.

We have achieved a whole series of successes and compromises. I firmly believe this is a first step in the right direction. I also assume that we shall continue to monitor the situation and that we shall be able to achieve further advances in the interests of the consumer as time progresses.

We cannot stress often enough that consumer information is one thing, but the consumer’s lifestyle is quite another. Naturally, we must continue to pay close attention to this perspective.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Madam President, I support the compromises reached in this report, in particular, the country-of-origin labelling, because we are extending country-of-origin labelling to meat from pigs, poultry and sheep.

I think it is really important. Citizens want this information and they want it presented in a clear and unambiguous way. We have strict rules in the European Union regarding traceability from farm to fork. We have strict rules regarding protection of the environment and we have strict rules on ensuring animal welfare. Consumers demand this from their producers and I think it is essential that they are easily able to identify country of origin in order to make informed choices when they spend their money. Also, we have committed to examining within two years the possible extension of compulsory country-of-origin labelling to meat that is used as an ingredient.

,

I believe it is an important step in ensuring clear and unambiguous information to consumers when they are purchasing processed foods.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE). – (FI) Madam President, these days, a lot of additives are used in foods, and these cause allergies or are harmful or even dangerous when they are eaten. Consequently, it is really important that these ingredients are clearly indicated, allowing the consumer to avoid buying them.

It is, in fact, to the EU’s shame that such a simple matter as this has had to be the subject of debate for years. I hope that we can now make speedy progress with regard to the issue, and that the origin of food and, furthermore, how it was produced, will be clearly labelled. That is relevant to the age we live in. If the EU wants to be up-to-date and live in the present, it will make speedy progress on this, and the origin labelling of food will be written clearly and legibly.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (SK) Madam President, the regulation on food labelling is progress, but it is also a major interference in the lives of consumers, producers and distributors. The negotiations were therefore long and complicated, and I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Sommer, and the shadow rapporteurs for their patience and responsiveness in seeking a definitive text. I am pleased that a compromise has been reached over the labelling of energy values: per 100 ml or 100 g and per single portion on the front of the packaging. Consumers should be provided with the essential information, but complex and ambiguous labelling would be to the detriment of consumers.

  Ashley Fox (ECR). – Madam President, I wish to speak in favour of the Sommer report on food labelling. This is a good step forward in providing full information to the consumer. It will improve the nutritional information that consumers receive and it will also clarify where food has come from, in particular, meat.

We need to end the scandal whereby an animal reared in country X and slaughtered in country Y is then imported into Britain, processed, and sold as British meat. That is a scandal that must end because consumers must have confidence that, when something is labelled as British, it really is British.

  Lara Comi (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us a very sensitive report that has already caused controversy at first reading and which has an immediate impact on European consumers.

It does not take a Feuerbach, who said that man is what he eats, or the fundamentals of micro-economic theory, to be able to state with certainty that consumers have a right to access comprehensive and truthful information on what they buy.

However, the crux of the matter is really knowing which type of information needs to be included and how. In this respect, I believe that the rapporteur has done a truly excellent job in finding compromises with the Council. I believe that aiming for complete traceability of certain foods, such as meat, fish, oil and honey, is a great achievement and is also in line with the common agricultural policy. As an Italian, I hope that in future, traceability can also be extended to pasta, pizza and mozzarella. This is something that we want for ourselves and for all Europeans and consumers.

Recommendation for second reading: Inés Ayala Sender (A7-0208/2011)

  Jim Higgins (PPE). – (GA) Madam President, I voted for this report because it seems to me to be vital that the frequency of fatalities and serious injuries be greatly reduced and road safety improved. I am grateful to Inés Ayala Sender for the excellent work she has done in regard to this report.

We, as Europeans, must work together and reduce the number of road deaths. Speed and speeding, driving under the influence of drink and driving without a seatbelt are a major feature of traffic collisions on European roads. We also have a major problem with drivers who fail to obey red lights or have no regard for them.

Although Ireland is not participating in this directive, I am hopeful and confident that she will participate when this directive has been implemented. I am in contact with the Minister for Transport in Ireland about this, and I am confident that we will be able to adopt it.

  Ville Itälä (PPE). – (FI) Madam President, I myself voted in favour of this report. This is an extremely important proposal for a directive, in which we will be moving forward on common traffic rules and controls. We need common rules and controls. This is, above all, a question of road safety. If Europeans know that fines cannot be forwarded from other countries and that the information cannot be transferred, it could easily tempt people to commit offences, which only serve to reduce standards of road safety. That we cannot accept.

Another prominent feature of this vote was a correlation table. The original problem with that was that it might delay the progress of this excellent solution. Anyway, that was the original problem.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE). – (ET) Madam President, I, too, voted for the adoption of this report because it is clear that we need harmonisation, we need controls and we need unity in this very important area. Facilitating cross-border communication in order to identify traffic offences is very important and necessary in order to reduce the number of road deaths. It is also necessary, however, so that road users do not have a sense of impunity in another country. When driving, for example, on the road from Brussels to Strasbourg, we can see a lot of drivers and cars registered in far-away countries boldly exceeding the speed limit in the knowledge that they will not be punished. Of course, the objective is not merely to punish and fine people. Above all, road safety is in all our interests, and the objective is to reduce the number of road deaths significantly, as I mentioned at the start. I hope that all the Member States and all road users will be the winners from this report.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). – (FI) Madam President, improving road safety must be a prime objective of the European Union’s transport policy and, for that reason, Mrs Ayala Sender’s report is very relevant. The EU must pursue a policy to improve road safety and reduce fatalities, injuries and material damage on the roads.

I consider it a good idea that there could be greater convergence of control measures and technical equipment for road safety between Member States. In addition, public awareness should be raised as regards the road safety traffic rules in force in different countries. Controls and sanctions for breaches of road traffic rules are one of the most effective means to reduce the number of accidents and victims on the roads.

Although controls act as a deterrent, safety nevertheless consists of many different factors: it is not just about what is between two or four wheels and tyres, but, above all, about what is between the driver’s own ears.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, I have also voted in favour of this important report. We all want freedom of movement, but this ideal must not be allowed to become a license for foolishness. This is simply about observing the laws and regulations for road use in other Member States. I tend to side with those who believe that we need greater harmonisation here. However, if you break the law, if you violate the rules, then, of course, it must be possible to punish you. Immunity from penalties should not encourage people to behave like traffic terrorists in other Member States. I therefore believe that this is an important step in the right direction. I hope that this decision by the European Parliament will not just be noted by the European Council and Member States, but actually implemented, so that we will not have to wait another two years to pass the next decision.

  Oldřich Vlasák (ECR). – (CS) Madam President, I supported the compromise that has emerged from the trialogue because it is a sensible piece of legislation which should lead to safer roads. In my opinion, it is right that this directive will form the basis only for an exchange of information, and not a harmonisation of penalties and an enforcement of fines, as I think that would impose an excessive administrative burden on the individual states.

I would nonetheless like to draw attention to the fact that the resulting text has certain problems from a legal perspective. Under Article 9, the Commission should draw up at Union level guidelines for road traffic safety within the framework of the common transport policy. This directive, however, is established on the basis of legislation concerning the police, and it is therefore not possible to propose harmonising measures in the form of the proposed guidelines in the area of law enforcement, where Member States have sole jurisdiction.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, every year, my country, Italy, plays host to an ever-increasing number of tourists and, with the holiday period fast upon us, we are about to see a repeat of what happens every year: most of the foreigners who commit an offence will go unpunished, apart from the ones who are caught red-handed. This will not be the case for much longer, however, since we welcome this measure aimed at finally standardising the procedure by which information is used to identify the owners of vehicles with which an offence has been committed.

To give a few statistics, some 15% of the speeding offences in the Member States are committed by non-residents, and 67% of those who visited Italy last year did so by car. You can therefore understand why, for my country, this directive is an important prerogative in terms of identifying and recovering a substantial amount of money which is owed to the state and which continues to place a strain on local authority budgets.

I also welcome the fact that, as well as the traditional offence of speeding, other offences will include non-use of seat belts, failure to stop at a red traffic light, drink-driving and driving under the influence of drugs, to mention the most common ones. I therefore approve of the approach taken by the directive, which does not seek to interfere with national procedures concerning the criminal or administrative nature of offences and of which I therefore voted in favour.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI). – (FR) Madam President, I already gave my opinion on this report at first reading, as well as yesterday in the debate. I do not wish to repeat what I have already said.

There is simply one thing that strikes me in this whole matter. I do not underestimate the importance of road safety, yet, all the same, most of the speakers in the debate yesterday came from left-wing, extreme-left or green parties, and they have suddenly discovered the virtues of repression: repression as a means to re-establish order, repression as a means to ensure respect for the law and repression as a means to protect victims.

Most of the time, from these same people and the same political movements, we hear the exact opposite: whether it pertains to drug trafficking, urban violence, attacks on property or even attacks on individuals. In these cases, it pertains to people who are not wearing a seatbelt, who may possibly have been caught, as in my country, driving at 70 km/h where the speed limit was 60 km/h, and for them, repression should be unforgiving. It is quite the paradox.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Madam President, the stealthy harmonisation of social security across Europe has been one of the great unreported stories of recent months. It has happened not as the result of a decision of this House or of any of the national legislatures. It has been driven, rather, by creative interpretation on the Commission’s part and judicial activism by the European Court of Justice.

The European Treaties provide for free movement and settlement where the person moving is able to support himself, either from a pension or by working in the host country, but a series of recent cases has undermined the basis of that agreement. We have had the case of a Portuguese national who worked in Germany and is claiming German benefits on his return to Portugal, and we have Dutch nationals who are denied Dutch benefits when they move abroad, whereas foreign nationals continue to claim them if they have been in Holland. We have a similar case in Britain: a pensioner from one of the Baltic States who is claiming supplementary benefits because her Baltic pension is not enough to support her.

The point is not just that this attacks the basis of national statehood, which is discrimination on the basis of nationality. I do not expect much sympathy when I say that in this House, but surely those on the Left will also understand that it breaks the social compact on which the whole post-war welfare system is based, because you cannot ask people to pay into a system if anyone else is then able to arrive and claim from it without having paid a penny into it.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, over time, the number of drivers who have committed traffic offences in a Member State other than their own has progressively increased.

This is a worrying situation to which we must not remain indifferent. I am convinced that a clearer legal framework on the exchange of information between the competent authorities in order to identify more rapidly and uniformly the data pertaining to vehicle owners who have committed an offence in another Member State is indispensable and can no longer be deferred. When the legislative process is concluded, we shall see less unjustified impunity due to the impossibility of applying effective penalty procedures.

I am pleased that the important subject of correlation tables has not compromised the possibility for Parliament to prepare a strong negotiating position with the Council. It would have been curious if a similar argument, rejected as risible when it was raised in the case of the Eurovignette, which was certainly an issue that was subject to less discussion in Parliament than this, would nevertheless have been considered today as decisive in this case.

Going forward, we must in any case definitively come to grips with this subject. We must legislate once and for all and we must not permit a value judgment on each single issue that assigns it an importance according to the political and numerical weight of those who challenge those correlation tables.

Preparation of the Commission Work Programme 2012 - RC-B7-0381/2011

  Ashley Fox (ECR). – Madam President, as we look ahead to 2012, I would like to offer the following advice to the Commission. The first piece of advice is to stop asking for more money. You have plenty of money. At a time of austerity, when national governments are cutting budgets, it is absurd that you are asking for more. Mr Barroso, you have more than one thousand officials who currently earn more than the British Prime Minister. We have two seats for the Parliament. There is plenty of waste; use your resources more wisely.

The second piece of advice is: account for the money you are given. Our accounts have not been signed off for sixteen years, so aim to have the Court of Auditors approve them in 2012. Seventeenth time lucky, perhaps.

Thirdly, concentrate on what you do best. Complete the Single Market and strive for free trade around the world. Free markets will do more to improve the conditions of our citizens and those in developing nations than any number of European regulations, initiatives and agencies could ever achieve.

Report: Dagmar Roth-Behrendt (A7-0195/2011)

  Giommaria Uggias (ALDE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the report on which we voted today regarding European Union legislation on Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies, known as ‘mad cow disease’, testifies to the excellence of the European policies that have been adopted to protect human and animal health.

The number of cases has certainly diminished in recent years, and this enables us to apply less alarming countermeasures, hence, for example, where a case appears in a herd, it is now possible to avoid culling the entire herd, but to use the milk produced until it is fully depleted. We all remember with great concern the images of entire herds slaughtered if one animal had contracted the disease, and that is something that we shall now avoid.

We must, however, continue to be vigilant, Madam President, because the text we have adopted today introduces a considerable risk to health and opens the way to free use of animal meal. In this regard, we must remain vigilant.

Report: Luis de Grandes Pascual (A7-0216/2011)

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of this important own-initiative report by Mr de Grandes Pascual, which not only covers the question of security scanners, but also constitutes a step towards an integrated and coherent strategy on aviation security generally.

Nowadays, the prevention of possible terrorist attacks is still a priority for air transport, and in this area there is still much for us to do. That is why it is important for security scanners to be included in the list of screening methods, with appropriate regulations for their use and guarantees on the protection of health, privacy and passengers’ rights in general.

I should have preferred more courageous steps towards making equipment and procedures more uniform and obligatory in the 27 Member States, consistent with the common security space that we are building, but I realise that there is still strong resistance within the Council. It is for these reasons that I am thankful to Mr de Grandes Pascual for the excellent job of consolidation that he has done on this question.

  Jim Higgins (PPE). – Madam President, we are still living with the legacy of the 9/11 attack on the twin towers in New York. We can never, ever compromise security because of the fact that we are only one day away from the next atrocity.

One of the problems faced by the travelling public is the delays that are incurred at airports – every airport – in going through security. Mr de Grandes Pascual’s report addresses this by virtue of the fact that it gets the balance right. Firstly, it will speed up the passage of passengers through security – because it is only a matter of seconds – and, secondly, it will ensure personal integrity, because the moment that the actual image has been taken, the image will be destroyed.

Also, from the point of view of the danger to public health, it deals with the issue of ionising radiation. The radiation exposure represents merely 2% of that of radiation treatment or an x-ray.

So it is a good report, but the important thing is that it is not left lying on a Commission desk gathering dust. We should implement this.

  Ville Itälä (PPE). – (FI) Madam President, scanners are an excellent idea. I myself went through a scanner like this once in the United States, and I found that it was a very agreeable experience. It was a lot quicker, and it is definitely a bit different when you can walk into a scanner and you do not need, as you do now, to strip half-naked and take off your shoes, jacket, belt and everything. I am therefore in favour of scanners.

Of course, we have to ensure that they do not have any impact on health, and there always needs to be another option if someone does not want to go through the scanner. Many of the fears that relate to how the data might be misused, however, are surely grossly exaggerated, and I hope that scanners will be introduced as quickly as possible.

Another issue, obviously, is taking liquids on board an aircraft. On this point we have got behind the times, and ordinary people’s lives are being made very difficult indeed, and I would hope that this ban can also be lifted as quickly as possible.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE). – (ET) Madam President, given the terrorist threat and previous tragic experience of terrorism in the world, it is vitally important to increase the level of air safety, and, of course, to do so using security scanners. Scanners are a powerful weapon in the fight against terrorism. This topic is described very well in the report, although unfortunately, the issue of cost remains unresolved. It is unfortunate that we increase protection for air passengers and develop air security only when some terrorist attack has happened; in other words, after air security has been tested. We need a proper risk assessment which could anticipate various risk factors early on and deal pre-emptively with the corresponding threats. This means that we also need a strategy. Although I support security, I am against methods which would pose a threat to human health or privacy, or which would humiliate people.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). – Madam President, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and other terrorist attacks, clearly all countries have had to face a difficult debate on getting the right balance between security and liberty. The issue has always been one of great difficulty for authorities. But what concerns me about the use of these scanners is where there is no alternative. Fortunately, an alternative is called for in this report, but there are still a number of countries around the world where you are refused the right to travel if you refuse to use a scanner.

There are genuine concerns. There are still people who are medically trained who are frequent travellers and who complain about the health hazards of travelling. But, in particular, I would like to point out one problem which some of my constituents have written to me about: the problem that arises for people who carry colostomy bags or ileostomy bags. If people who carry those refuse to be scanned, they are either refused travel or, what happens in the end, is that they are subjected to the most amazing humiliation in front of fellow travellers. It is about time staff were trained better and made to be more sensitive to members of the travelling public who suffer from these problems.

Report: Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (A7-0210/2011)

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE). – (ET) Madam President, I supported the adoption of this report. This is not a legislative document, but it is undoubtedly a report that can be used to send a message. I am especially pleased that four-fifths of those in attendance supported the adoption of this report. I should say that, in the seven years that I have been in the European Parliament, this is still the first report on this topic that has gained this level of support. Gender equality is a basic right in the European Union. I would now ask whether, in the time that the European Union has existed, we are satisfied with our achievements in this area. I am not. Do women in Europe have equal opportunities with men? Without immersing ourselves in facts, we can see that they do not. The report indeed dealt with only one facet of this topic – increasing women’s participation in business – though here it must be said that this report is not about intervening in the free market or creating unfair competition. It is about eliminating discrimination on one side.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is with a great sense of pride that I bring to your attention the fact that, last Tuesday, my country finally enacted a law introducing quotas for women board members at listed companies and companies in which the state has a shareholding.

Unfortunately, at the moment, barely 4% of the board members in Italy are women. Other countries have already passed similar legislation and I hope many others will do so in the coming months. Capable and qualified women must be allowed to achieve professional growth in line with their male colleagues, demonstrating and exercising their capabilities. You know, holding a position due exclusively to merit and professionalism is surely more gratifying and less humiliating, but I am convinced that we have to carry out a true ‘pink revolution’ which has an ever growing female presence as its ultimate objective, without necessarily having to resort to quotas.

In future, due to our daily commitment, equal opportunity will not have to be recognised solely by law, but must represent an indefeasible value held by society, based not only on gender equality, but also on a genuine and inherent cultural equality.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – (ES) Madam President, our motto should be ‘from words to deeds’.

The 2020 programme advocates equality to overcome the crisis. European companies hardly have any women on their boards of administration, although different studies show that their presence brings these companies innovation, improved management and profits. Women train more than men and achieve better academic results. However, men occupy 90% of the seats on the boards of stock-exchange listed companies and chair 90% of the boards.

In order to even out these figures, we need measures that have produced results where they have been applied and the resolution adopted today will contribute to this. I do not support the reference in the report to competent and qualified women because the small percentage of women who succeed to positions of responsibility do satisfy those aspects and also because do you know any text in the world with that requirement for men, who take up 90% and 97% of the figures? Are they all competent and qualified?

If we want to achieve equality, let us change the language and the paradigm.

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE). – (SV) Madam President, I welcome the fact that the Commission and the European Parliament have made vigorous efforts to promote female business leaders. As a female entrepreneur, I have given a great deal of support to several women in leadership positions in business. Unfortunately, however, I voted against this report, because I do not believe that the solution to this lies at EU level. We should not legislate on quotas and we should not ask the Commission to take measures to force wage differences to be dealt with or certain quotas of women to be taken on in companies. The European Parliament and the Commission have an important role to play in stimulating debate, shaping opinion and putting pressure on companies, but not in dictating from above. Governance is better dealt with at national level, in our own countries. I also believe that voluntary measures could yield better results in Sweden, but the situation is different in other countries in Europe when it comes to putting pressure on companies to include more women on their boards.

  Andrea Češková (ECR). – (CS) Madam President, both my group and I support and take a positive view of the will to increase the representation of women in leadership positions and on company boards, where they are currently still very few in number. Nevertheless, we could not support this report, since proposals have been adopted which support and call for binding targets and legislative measures at European level.

The principle of competitiveness on the labour market is fundamental for us. The selection of women for leading roles and their appointment to boards should not happen on the basis of gender, but on the basis of qualifications and appropriate experience. We are opposed to the introduction of binding legislative measures and quotas for women at European level, and we believe that national governments and employers are the ones who can best decide when and in what way they will support the increased participation of women in these positions.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (SK) Madam President, I will always fight discrimination against women in employment, whatever role they are in. I have therefore voted in favour of Mrs Kratsa’s report. All we will achieve with quotas, however, will be to create so-called women’s roles in management. The role of the management of a firm is to generate profit, from which it pays taxes and employs people. I wonder if anyone really believes that profitability depends on the gender of the management. I experienced an attempt to emancipate the working class through quotas. I firmly believe that quotas constitute positive discrimination, and women do not deserve any type of discrimination. The process of changing thinking in society may take longer, but it will be natural. I have therefore not supported paragraphs 1, 2 and 16.

Report: Pervenche Berès (A7-0228/2011)

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE). – (ET) Madam President, I supported the adoption of this report, which was balanced and contained concrete proposals. Furthermore, while the crisis is far from over – although many politicians like to claim it is – I am convinced that the European Parliament’s special Financial, Economic and Social Crisis Committee, which has become a temporary committee, should continue its work, and I would support it in doing so. We can only give due recognition to the Committee’s work up to this point. We must recognise the work it has done in drafting recommendations on the European Union’s sustainable growth model and in contributing to the creation of a coordinated policy. I think it is important for the committee to continue its work so that attention can be focused on the large debts of the European states and on a solution for the problems of the euro crisis.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (SK) Madam President, the report by Mrs Berès confirms that we are approaching a crossroads. If we take the path proposed in this report, in a few years’ time, the Union will turn into a federation, with all that that entails: a government, a Ministry of Finance and a federal tax. We currently have no mandate from our voters to create such a Europe, but I am afraid that the second path will lead to the fall of the euro and the beginning of the end of European integration. We have to decide. I have not voted for the report, as a decision such as this must be taken by the voters. Those who want a federation and a common budget, however, should also finally start talking about equal levels of pay, health care and equal pensions, and about the willingness to show solidarity and equalise the differences here.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Madam President, although there are many good recommendations in the Berès report, I have to say that we, Fine Gael members in the EPP, had to abstain at the final vote and I will now explain why.

Taxation is a matter of subsidiarity and we feel that talk of tax harmonisation at this stage, while it may be idealistic, is premature, especially as we in Ireland are in the midst of an IMF-EU bail-out, and for the EU part of that bail-out, we are paying what we consider to be draconian interest rates. This is recognised by the European Parliament and by the Commission, including Commissioner Rehn and President Barroso, but we cannot get a reduction because at Council level, some Member States want to have a quid pro quo – a reduction of interest rates if we give up our right to set our own corporation tax rate. This is contrary to the spirit of subsidiarity and it is also contrary to the spirit of solidarity which is supposed to exist in the European Union.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Madam President, when I was a teenager, I travelled in what we still thought of as Eastern Europe and I remember being struck, even then, by the paradox that here was a system that nobody believed in. Even the people running it no longer professed, if ever they had, the principles of Marxism-Leninism. Yet one could not see how it was going to end because so many people had a vested interest in the maintenance of the status quo.

I had an eerie sense of nostalgia as I listened to the debate this morning. One by one, the pillars that sustained the European ideal have been kicked away and yet we continue to tell ourselves that the answer is more integration, more Europe, monetary and fiscal union, common economic governance, and so on. The Schengen Treaty is collapsing as governments begin to reimpose border controls, and now the euro is also showing itself to be unsustainable. Yet the apparat of Europe in this House and in the palaces and chancelleries of the continent continues to trot out the same slogans about ever-closer union, not to convince the voters, not even really to convince themselves – not any more – but simply because they do not know what else to do.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). – Madam President, as I listened to the debate this morning on the financial crisis, I was struck by how much we have not really learnt from the crisis. Why have we not learnt the lessons that governments should not print money too cheaply, and that when you print money cheaply, the citizens think they have more money than they have and they make what Ludwig von Mises called ‘malinvestments’. And when the market corrects itself, the whole bubble bursts and the market crashes. That is what we saw with Credit First.

Why have we not learnt the lessons that individuals and governments and families should not spend more money than they earn? Surely, of all the countries, Greece should have learnt that, and other countries around the EU. They simply got themselves into trouble because they spent money they did not have. Why have we not tackled the real problem in the financial system, which is the fact that banks are deemed too big to fail? In which other industry do we really now believe that if you get into trouble, you should have taxpayers’ money to bail yourself out? If you actually leave it to the market, then other competitors will come forward. Worst of all, we think that governments can spend money better than the private sector and create jobs. The last country to do that was the USSR. Let us not go that way.

  Csaba Sógor (PPE). – (HU) Madam President, the report from the Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis emphasises that both agricultural and cohesion policy must play a key role in the Europe 2020 strategy. The common agricultural policy reform must be planned while taking into account the need to meet global challenges, while the cohesion policy must be planned with clear objectives aimed at promoting competitiveness. In the majority of new Member States, agricultural producers are counting on the current system of the common agricultural policy, while from the cohesion policy they expect the realisation of basic infrastructure investments, as in this area we fall well behind the old Member States. The EU 2020 strategy must serve the development of the entire European Union and this is impossible without developing backward regions and keeping the original objectives of the agricultural and cohesion policies.

  Bendt Bendtsen (PPE). – (DA) Madam President, regrettably, I felt compelled to vote against the Berès report today. The report does not adequately address the crux of the matter – namely, the fact that the individual Member States of the EU have accumulated excessive national debts in combination with our lack of competitiveness. That is why we are struggling in Europe. It is not simply a matter of creating more liquidity – we need to regain our competitiveness. Paragraph 99 concerning an EU budget corresponding to 5-10% of the Union’s GDP is a bad and irresponsible proposal that is completely out of step with what the majority of citizens in the Member States actually want. It is a theoretical proposal with no basis in reality. We are in this House in order to represent the populations out there in the Member States, and the idea of transferring up to 10% of the Member States’ GDP is pie in the sky and has no place in this Parliament.

Written explanations of vote

Report: Tanja Fajon (A7-0237/011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this proposal founded on Article 77(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – issues relating to the borders – because it should be of benefit as a legislative act of the Union, not least by ensuring the safety of the border guards who are entitled to check travel documents at the external borders. I agree with the rapporteur that the proposed text would respect the Member States’ competence for the recognition of travel documents. In line with the Convention implementing the Schengen agreement, of 14 June 1985, Decisions SCH/Com-ex (98) 56 and SCH/Com-ex (99) 14 concern the compilation of a manual of travel documents enabling the crossing of external borders which may be endorsed with a visa. However, these decisions go back to the time of intergovernmental cooperation on Schengen and need to be adapted to the EU’s current institutional and legal framework.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because the purpose of this decision of the European Parliament and the Council is to create legal certainty with regard to the list of travel documents. This decision should also present added value, namely, by providing security to border guards who are entitled to check travel documents at external borders. Otherwise, the objective of the draft proposal would be completely undermined. Therefore, the list of travel documents should be legally binding. I agree with the rapporteur’s opinion that the proposed wording would respect the competence of the Member States to recognise the travel documents but would, at the same time, ensure legal certainty after the given period, which could indeed be longer than proposed by the Commission. Furthermore, I agree that an online database containing specimens of all travel documents should be established in the long term to facilitate the examination of a given travel document by border control authorities and consular staff. It is important to underline that the purpose of the list of travel documents is twofold: This means that it allows border control authorities to verify whether a given travel document is recognised for the purpose of crossing the external borders, or it allows consular staff to verify whether Member States recognise a given travel document for the purpose of affixing the visa sticker.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Mrs Fajon’s report because I consider it important that we succeed in coordinating the countries in what is known as the Schengen area with respect to valid travel documents entitling the holder to cross external borders

I consider the rapporteur’s approach to this issue to be correct, since Member States must retain their right to recognise which documents are valid for crossing their borders and which are not. At the same time, however, I see only benefits from allowing the European Commission, with the help of Member States, to draft a list containing all documents fit for this particular purpose. Such a list would facilitate work at border points and would, moreover, make it easier to identify forged documents.

Europe is a resource that can be drawn upon both now and even more so in future. Therefore, by all working together to coordinate our activities, especially in the important area of the movement of persons, we shall have taken another step towards a true European Union.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I voted against this report as it aims to establish a harmonised list of acceptable travel documents which may be endorsed with a visa upon entry into an EU Member State. It is another step towards the creation of a pan-European immigration policy when it is essential that individual nations are able to control their own borders.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report because I agree that, in line with the Convention implementing the Schengen agreement, of 14 June 1985, Decisions SCH/Com-ex (98) 56 and SCH/Com-ex (99) 14 concern the compilation of a manual of travel documents enabling the crossing of external borders which may be endorsed with a visa. However, these decisions go back to the time of intergovernmental cooperation on Schengen and need to be adapted to the EU’s current institutional and legal framework.

Given that the purpose of the decision is to create legal certainty with regard to the list of travel documents, this declaration proposes clarifying the consequences of failure to give notice of a Member State’s position in the given time period. This provision is consistent with the exclusive competence of the Member States for the recognition of travel documents, since they would always have the right to give notice of the non-recognition of these documents.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The framework of travel documents, firstly, enables border control authorities to verify whether a given document is recognised for the purposes of crossing the external borders and, secondly, enables consular staff to verify whether all the Member States applying the common visa policy recognise a given travel document for the purpose of affixing the visa sticker.

There is a need to adapt the current framework to the EU’s new institutional and legal framework. The fact that the Member States are not obliged to indicate whether or not they recognise each of the documents included on the list creates legal uncertainty, so holders of these travel documents run the risk that their entry will be refused or that they will be granted a visa for a limited area. It is not possible to harmonise recognition of the listed travel documents as this is an exclusive competence of the Member States, but the continuous updating of the list must be ensured.

I support the creation of a mechanism that ensures the constant updating of the list of travel documents that countries issue, and the introduction of a centralised mechanism for technical evaluation of these documents. It should also be ensured that all the Member States express their position on whether or not they recognise the travel documents listed.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Although the Union does not want to be ‘Fortress Europe’, there is obviously a need to restrict passage through its external borders and to set out which documents issued by third countries are suitable for enabling their nationals to enter the EU. The Union must, therefore, list the documents suitable for this purpose, and the Member States will have to continuously update this list so as to give notice to others of what will be accepted or refused, so that the border services can get to know them, and that those seeking entry to the Schengen area may know what documents they will have to provide. Decisions taken on this matter previously need to be adapted to the current European institutional and legal framework. This information is required for the sake of legal certainty, but also out of respect for the people working at the borders and for all those travelling to the EU.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report represents an effort by the European Parliament to harmonise the procedures and rules of the European Union Member States, with a view to adapting them to the EU’s new institutional and legal framework. The list of travel documents enables border control authorities to verify whether a given travel document is recognised for the purposes of crossing the external borders under the legislation in force, and also enables consular staff to verify whether all the Member States recognise a given travel document for the purpose of affixing the visa sticker.

I consider it necessary to ensure the continuous updating of the list of travel documents, obliging the Member States to give notice of their position with respect to the recognition or non-recognition of these documents for the purposes of simplification and efficiency. I would also stress the concern to ensure the safety of border guards, and the fact that this decision does not violate the Member States’ competence for the recognition of travel documents.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report concerns a proposal for a decision on the list of travel documents entitling the holder to cross the external borders and which may be endorsed with a visa, as well as the establishment of a mechanism for compiling this list. Under the pretext of ensuring uniform conditions for compiling and updating the list of travel documents, the intention is for powers to be delegated to the European Commission. It will fall to the Commission to confirm whether a given document is recognised for the purpose of crossing borders.

What we have before us is a proposal that is not lacking in contradictions. On the one hand, it could facilitate verification of a given travel document by border control authorities. On the other, however, the proposal is to centralise, and it gives the Commission too many powers in this area, which could be at the expense of the Member States’ rights relating to aspects important to their sovereignty.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report concerns a proposal for a decision on the list of travel documents entitling the holder to cross the external borders and which may be endorsed with a visa, as well as the establishment of a mechanism for compiling this list. However, under the pretext of ensuring uniform conditions for compiling and updating the list of travel documents, the intention is for powers to be delegated to the Commission. It will fall to the Commission to confirm whether a given document is recognised for the purpose of crossing borders.

What we have before us, then, is a proposal containing contradictory elements. On the one hand, it could facilitate verification of a given travel document by border control authorities. On the other, however, it gives the European Commission too many powers in this area, which could be at the expense of the Member States’ rights relating to aspects important to their sovereignty.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) In accordance with the Convention of 14 June 1985 implementing the Schengen agreement, a manual was drawn up listing the travel documents which entitled the holder to cross external borders and to which a visa might be affixed. These decisions, however, apply to the period of Schengen cooperation at the intergovernmental level, and they must be adapted to the current interinstitutional and legal framework of the EU. The list of travel documents has a dual purpose: on the one hand, it allows border guards to check whether a certain travel document is recognised for the purposes of crossing external borders and, on the other, it allows consular officials to check whether the Member States recognise a particular travel document for the purposes of affixing the visa sticker. In this context, it seems essential to have a measure ensuring that the list of travel documents is constantly updated, while at the same time ensuring that Member States have the fullest possible information available. In the interests of simplicity and effectiveness, Member States would be asked to give an opinion on the recognition or non-recognition of these documents. The proposal as such should therefore provide added value as a piece of EU legislation by providing certainty to border guards who have the right to check travel documents on external borders. The list of travel documents should therefore be legally binding, as this would be consistent with the power of Member States to recognise travel documents.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) If there is one thing I cannot be accused of, it would be underestimating the importance of border controls. On the contrary, it is common knowledge that I am campaigning for the total re-establishment of the sovereign rights of Member States to determine the conditions for entering and remaining in their territory, and to coordinate compliance with those conditions. However, we are, alas, in the Schengen area, and States are supposed to ensure that their own border controls benefit everybody. Thus, the proposal for a decision to establish a list of travel documents which may be endorsed with a visa is not, in itself, in this context, absurd.

On the other hand, it is absurd, in terms of security and the fight against illegal immigration, to leave the Commission to draw up this list and deem documents to be recognised as valid if Member States do not state their position on the aforementioned list during a specified period, on the principle that silence implies consent. On the contrary, it should have been presumed that silence automatically implied a refusal to recognise certain documents as legal. We call this an implied refusal, a common notion in public law. This is why I abstained from voting on this report.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this document because, in accordance with the 1985 Convention implementing the Schengen agreement, a manual of travel documents has been compiled enabling the crossing of external borders and which may be endorsed with a visa. However, these decisions are out of date and need to be adapted to the EU’s current institutional and legal framework. The purpose of the list of travel documents is twofold: on the one hand, it allows border control authorities to verify whether a given travel document is recognised for the purpose of crossing the external borders. On the other hand, it allows consular staff to verify whether Member States recognise a given travel document for the purpose of affixing the visa sticker. This decision establishes the list of travel documents entitling the holder to cross the external borders and which may be endorsed with a visa and a mechanism for compiling this list. This decision applies to travel documents such as national passports (ordinary, diplomatic, service/official or special passports), emergency travel documents, refugee or stateless person’s travel documents, travel documents issued by international organisations or laissez-passers. This decision does not affect Member States’ competence for the recognition of travel documents.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, the purpose of which is to create legal certainty with regard to the list of travel documents. Therefore, the rapporteur proposes to clarify the consequences of a failure to notify a Member State’s position in the given time period. This provision is consistent with the exclusive competence of Member States for the recognition of travel documents since they would always have the right to notify that they do not recognise the travel document concerned.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) During the phase of intergovernmental cooperation on Schengen, it was necessary to draw up a list of certain travel documents for crossing external borders between the European Union Member States.

In fact, on the one hand, the list of travel documents allowed border control authorities to verify whether a given travel document was recognised by the Schengen Borders Code and, on the other, it allowed consular staff to verify whether Member States considered it necessary to affix the visa sticker.

Given the current institutional and legal framework, we consider it necessary for the purposes of simplification and efficiency that the list of travel documents be constantly updated and that Member States notify their position in relation to the recognition or non-recognition of these documents, thereby ensuring that information in this respect is as complete as possible.

We are of the view, finally, that the list of travel documents should be legally binding. The proposed wording dutifully respects the competence of Member States to recognise the travel documents, or otherwise, while at the same time guaranteeing legal certainty after the given period, which could indeed be longer than that proposed by the Commission.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Controlling the external borders is essential to the EU’s security, so we believe there is a need to rigorously set out a list of travel documents which will enable such control. This list should be common to all the Member States, despite recognition of travel documents being one of their exclusive competences.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) On the one hand, this list should allow border control authorities to verify whether a given travel document is recognised for the purpose of crossing the external borders, in accordance with the Schengen Borders Code. On the other hand, it should allow consular staff to verify whether Member States recognise a given travel document for the purpose of affixing the visa sticker.

A mechanism should be established to place an obligation on Member States to express their position on the recognition and non-recognition of these documents. In order to guarantee correct information for the public and Member States and to make the system efficient, a constantly updated electronic publication containing the list of travel documents should be established. This list of documents should present added value in terms of providing security at border controls and legal certainty concerning the list of travel documents.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The purpose of the list of travel documents is twofold: on the one hand, it allows border control authorities to verify whether a given travel document is recognised for the purpose of crossing the external borders as set out in Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code). On the other hand, it allows consular staff to verify whether Member States recognise a given travel document for the purpose of affixing the visa sticker.

The purpose of this decision is to create legal certainty with regard to the list of travel documents. Lastly, I would like to address a question to the Member States. Why do Latvia and Lithuania not allow people holding Italian or French visas to cross their borders? Such cases have been known to take place. I voted ‘in favour’, but the report should be improved.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) In 1985, as part of the Schengen agreement, a list was produced of the travel papers that could be used to cross the external borders. This list is now to be adapted to reflect the institutional and legal changes within the European Union. The Member States are to be obliged to state their acceptance or non-acceptance of the relevant documents. The list of travel documents in the present report is to become legally binding. I abstained from voting because I am not completely convinced by the proposals in this report.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) In 1985, within the framework of the Schengen agreement, a manual was produced listing the travel papers that could be used to cross the external borders. Given that the framework conditions of the EU have changed radically in the meantime, it would seem that some changes would be in order. However, because I am not sure that the means listed in the report are the ideal solution, I have abstained from the vote.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this resolution, which establishes the list of travel documents entitling the holder to cross the external borders and which may be endorsed with a visa, and a mechanism for compiling this list. To enable border control authorities and consular staff to properly carry out their duties, the manual of travel documents needs to be updated and adapted to the EU’s current institutional and legal framework. It is very important for the recognition of travel documents to remain the competence of each Member State and this decision should not have any impact in this respect. I believe that the deadline of three months, during which Member States must report their position on the recognition of travel documents, is appropriate and sufficient. In order to combat the use of forged personal documents more effectively, the Commission should draw up a list of known fantasy and camouflage passports.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the list of travel documents enabling the crossing of external borders and which may be endorsed with a visa, and on setting up a mechanism for establishing this list. I would congratulate the rapporteur on a well structured report for the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. It is not possible to harmonise recognition of travel documents as it is an exclusive competence of the Member States. However, it must be ensured that the list is continually updated. I also support the creation of a mechanism that ensures the constant updating of the list of travel documents that countries issue, and the introduction of a centralised mechanism for the technical evaluation of these documents. I believe it should be ensured that all the Member States will be able to express their position on whether or not they recognise the listed travel documents, since this falls under their exclusive competence.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The rules on travel documents authorising their holder to cross the external borders, provided for in the Convention implementing the Schengen agreement of 14 June 1985, need to be harmonised with the Union’s new legal framework. The defence of legal certainty should be central to this issue: the Member States need to have the facility to check whether such documents meet the requirements for crossing borders, as well as to know whether a given document is recognised in all the Member States. It is therefore reasonable to demand a binding list of documents that takes the form of a piece of Union legislation. In a very important area for Union security, certainty that the law is being applied should be the priority.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. In accordance with the Convention implementing the Schengen agreement of 14 June 1985, the Decisions SCH/Com-ex (98) 56 and SCH/Com-ex (99) 14 concerning the compilation of a manual of travel documents enabling the crossing of external borders which may be endorsed with a visa. However, these decisions go back to the time of intergovernmental cooperation on Schengen and need to be adapted to the EU’s current institutional and legal framework.

The purpose of the list of travel documents is twofold: on the one hand, it allows border control authorities to verify whether a given travel document is recognised for the purpose of crossing the external borders as set out in Article 5 (1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code); on the other hand, it allows consular staff to verify whether Member States recognise a given travel document for the purpose of affixing the visa sticker.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this document because I consider it fundamental to create legal certainty as regards the list of travel documents that entitle the holder to cross the external borders and which may be endorsed with a visa.

On the one hand, the list of travel documents would allow border control authorities to verify whether a given travel document was recognised for the purpose of crossing external borders while, on the other, it would allow consular staff to verify whether Member States recognise a given travel document for the purpose of affixing the visa sticker.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of Mrs Fajon’s report because it aims to create security of law in terms of the list of travel documents and, as a result, I consider that the rapporteur’s proposal to clarify the consequences of a Member State’s failure to notify its position in the given time period is absolutely right. This provision must be consistent with the exclusive competence of the Member States to recognise travel documents, given that they will always have the right to notify that they do not recognise the travel document in question.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Given an increasing flow of border crossings, whether by European citizens or citizens of third countries, for the purposes of study, work, family reunion, etc, as the statistics of recent years demonstrate, I consider it timely and ever more fitting that the European Union review the implementing regulations as regards the travel documents needed for crossing borders.

This text has two strong points: on the one hand, there is the simplification and increased efficiency of procedures taken by the border control authorities that check the acceptability of a given travel document, while, on the other, there is the compilation of a list of travel documents that allows consular staff to verify whether Member States recognise or do not recognise a given travel document for the purpose of affixing the visa sticker.

I therefore believe that the report on which we have voted today in this Chamber, and which I voted in favour of, in itself constitutes a step towards the harmonisation of the recognition of documentation within the European Union. In particular, it provides legal certainty and equalises the bureaucratic difficulties concerning the implementation of the free movement of European citizens.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) The background to this report is the need to bring the decisions under the convention to implement the Schengen agreement into line with the modern legal framework of the EU. As the rapporteur rightly explains, the legal provision will only add value if it significantly increases legal certainty in relation to the work of border guards. For this reason, I have voted in favour.

Report: Niki Tzavela (A7-0221/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this proposal as I would stress the importance of broadband in Europe as an element of territorial cohesion, which also offers opportunities for geographically remote and isolated regions. Digital technologies are essential for territorial cohesion in that they give the European Union’s most outlying regions a more central role. There is therefore a need to overcome the difficulties that the regions face in the area of technology and services, in terms of availability, quality and prices.

I agree that, in addition to the measures intended to help with the supply of broadband networks and other online technologies, it is particularly important to ensure that investment is also channelled into developing applications and programmes for using IT infrastructure, which will contribute to improving Europeans’ lives, to promoting the online provision of public services, and to improving public administration.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution on European Broadband: investing in digitally driven growth. In this document, we, the Members of the European Parliament, state that it is essential to bridge the digital divide and achieve broadband Internet access for all across the EU for European added value, especially with regard to remote and rural areas, in order to ensure social and territorial cohesion. The EU-wide provision of fast broadband networks is of vital importance if the objectives of the EU 2020 strategy are to be achieved in terms of promoting smart, sustainable, inclusive, territorially cohesive economic growth, improving the employment situation, strengthening Europe’s competitiveness, and facilitating scientific research and innovation. It is crucial for broadband to enable all regions, cities, municipalities and sectors of society to benefit from the digital environment, giving them the opportunity to exploit new digital technologies for public services.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Access to efficient broadband networks for all Europeans is a crucial element for realising the Europe 2020 strategy objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Broadband is essential to the competitiveness of EU industry, as it makes a robust contribution to economic growth and employment, as well as to the participation of all regions and social groups in the EU’s digital life.

Despite the development and improvements recorded in this area, this report, for which I voted, suggests a series of measures for realising European objectives: in particular, it stresses the need for better use of all the complementary technologies available, including mobile telephony and satellites, in order to achieve broadband coverage for rural areas as well as mountainous and island regions. It also asks the Commission to urgently table an appropriate proposal for a strategic plan containing a single framework applicable to all aspects of cyber security. Finally, it calls for specific measures to be taken to ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises can fully enjoy the potential of broadband in the fields of e-commerce and e-procurement.

  Adam Bielan (ECR), in writing. – (PL) Today, the Internet is a basic tool of work. The number of subscriptions to fixed and mobile broadband Internet connections in Europe currently stands at 150 million. Demand for connections continues to grow systematically. Unfortunately, the phenomenon of social digital exclusion is still common, particularly in relation to people on low incomes and people with disabilities.

I agree, therefore, with the proposal that the Commission and the Member States aim to provide broadband Internet access to all Europeans as quickly as possible, including by the use of financial aid. Supporting investments based on broadband technologies and reducing the costs of these technologies, while ensuring fair competition between networks, strengthens the position of small and medium-sized enterprises. By making it possible for them to enjoy the full potential of broadband in the fields of e-commerce and e-procurement, we help increase demand. Therefore, I support the appeal to accelerate public procurement operations using online resources and electronic invoicing. I endorsed the report.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. – (ES) I voted in favour of this initiative because the provision of fast broadband throughout the EU will help fulfil the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, thereby driving sustainable, inclusive and cohesive economic growth for the territory, the creation of jobs and powers of competitiveness in Europe. At the same time, it will favour research and innovation, so that all regions, cities, municipalities, social groups and people can benefit from them.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Mrs Tzavela because it emphasises the fundamental role that fast access to the Internet can have in economic recovery, as a great aid to innovation and productivity in all sectors of the economy.

Broadband will enable the development of new sectors, such as e-health, which will contribute to reducing bureaucracy and lead to significant savings. Moreover, I join in the rapporteur’s call for Member States to set national broadband plans and to adopt measures to promote new skills and capabilities for offering ever more innovative services.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Mrs Tzavela’s report.

The speed of information transmission, trade and social interconnectivity require efficient policies on technology infrastructures, which are now essential in the everyday lives of our citizens. The EU must rapidly achieve a competitive broadband market capable of facilitating services and creating new jobs and new commercial possibilities at the same time.

We must support and carry out investment in the technology sector in order to achieve the ambitious objectives set by the digital agenda and the goals in the Europe 2020 strategy for sustainable and inclusive growth, partly through the active involvement of the private sector, which is a fundamental part of that strategy.

I agree with the need for Member States to adopt common and coordinated policies in the broadband sector and incisive public policies aimed at the widespread diffusion of this fundamental tool even in the more remote areas. By taking the lead in this sector, Europe will offer important possibilities for growth, guaranteeing competitiveness, free competition and a greater choice for consumers.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. – (CS) I support an expansion of broadband coverage as I believe it will lead to easier communication, particularly for people with reduced mobility or people living in isolation, and it will improve access to services in rural areas, supporting the development of small and medium-sized enterprises. I am therefore disappointed that the funding of EUR 1 billion promised in the 2008 European economic recovery plan for 100% broadband coverage by 2010 was not allocated, and that this target was thus not achieved. I have no doubt that broadband services are vital for the competitiveness of EU industry, contributing, to a large extent, to economic growth, social cohesion, job creation and the increased participation of all social groups in digital life in the EU.

In my opinion, the successful implementation of the package of measures for a broadband network is of fundamental importance for solving the problem of unemployment in the context of the Europe 2020 strategy, particularly among young people. I therefore support the cooperation between the Commission and the European Investment Bank to boost funding for fast and ultra-fast networks, while recognising the need to direct this funding towards open infrastructure projects supporting a diverse range of services. I also support the Commission in its effort to review the possibility of new funding sources and innovative financial instruments.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report because I agree that the EU-wide provision of efficient broadband networks is of vital importance if the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy are to be achieved in terms of promoting smart, sustainable, inclusive, and territorially cohesive economic growth; of improving the employment situation; of strengthening Europe’s competitiveness; and of facilitating scientific research and innovation. This will enable all regions, cities, municipalities and sectors of society to benefit from the digital environment and give them the opportunity to exploit new digital technologies for public services.

I consider it essential for academic and research institutions to have access to broadband infrastructure in order to ensure the free movement of knowledge, to prepare younger generations, and to make the European Union competitive. The report calls on the Commission and the Member States to develop European and national programmes capable of guaranteeing and financing access to broadband infrastructure for all academic and research institutions by 2015. It also considers that by 2015, all European academic and research institutions should be connected by ultra high-speed networks, operating at speeds of gigabytes per second, creating an Intranet for the single European research area.

  Nessa Childers (S&D), in writing. – It is crucially important that Europe invests in high quality broadband and maintains our position at the upper ends of the technology and infrastructure markets. For this reason, I supported this vote.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I advocate the extension of high-speed open-access Internet to schools, hospitals and other public institutions as a means of improving the quality and accessibility of public services, and of strengthening connectivity in outlying or disadvantaged regions.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Digital Agenda is a particularly important and relevant aspect of the Europe 2020 strategy because of the gains it could represent, not just in terms of innovation and knowledge, but also in terms of benefits brought to consumers and companies, not least small and medium-sized enterprises. Given the current difficulties of the Member States and of companies in achieving Europe 2020 strategy targets on the broadband objectives, and the lack of financial resources, I consider the Committee on the internal market and Consumer Protection’s recommendation that money be made available from the Structural Funds to deploy broadband and increase high-speed Internet access opportune, on account of all the benefits that this could bring for consumers and businesses, and because it would increase competitiveness.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) With a view to realising the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, and given the strategic importance of the Digital Agenda for the benefit of the public, of businesses, and of the commitment to innovation and knowledge, universal access to efficient broadband networks is extremely important, not least for global competitiveness, economic growth and employment, involving the participation of all regions and social groups. I am therefore voting for this report, and I would also stress its advocating of investment and competition, so as to avoid distorting the market or creating an undue burden on the companies comprising it.

The protection of consumer interests and the promotion of consumer benefits are also amongst the important initiatives proposed. In contrast with this European effort and recognition of the Digital Agenda’s importance, I cannot fail to express my regret at Portugal’s wasting of funds intended to develop Internet and broadband infrastructure in rural areas, and to consolidate operations related to the ‘New Challenges’.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Universal access to broadband is an indispensable condition for social development and improving public services. Although the report is generally positive and even proposes that ‘the Member States be urged to implement public policies to support the introduction of new technologies’, it should, even so, call for the improvement and the promotion of public services, as a guarantee that all Europeans will have access to broadband, thereby enabling its benefits to extend to every section of the population, particularly in the less developed regions of the Union.

An example would be the outermost regions, whose territories are widely scattered, who still have no access to essential information and communication technology (ICT) infrastructure, such as broadband Internet, and are therefore being penalised twice over, in addition to the constraints resulting from their remoteness. We would express our concern at excessive trends towards increased security measures for controlling and monitoring the Internet under the pretext of cyber terrorism, in which the guarantee of protection of personal data is just another illusion. This threatens people’s rights, freedoms and guarantees.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) By 2020, all Europeans should have access to the Internet at speeds of over 30 Mbps, and at least 50% of households in Europe should have Internet access at speeds of 100 Mbps. This objective forms part of the Digital Agenda for Europe, a priority initiative of the Europe 2020 strategy aimed at an intelligent, sustainable and inclusive economy. The Digital Agenda also confirms the objective outlined by the European Council of providing all Europeans with basic broadband by 2013. A comprehensive policy must be drawn up for these ambitious objectives, based on a whole range of technologies and careful monitoring of the progress achieved. The objective was outlined of securing a fast and ultra-fast Internet because it will play a central role in economic recovery, representing a platform for supporting innovation throughout the economy, as was the case with electricity and transport in the past. The introduction of ultra-fast, open and competitive networks will stimulate a virtuous cycle in the development of a digital economy, making possible the creation and expansion of new broadband-based services, demand for which will increase among citizens, as a result of which there will also be greater demand for broadband.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) Broadband is an innovation that can help us emerge from the crisis. It is an important stimulus for the modernisation of Europe. The European Union sees it as a priority to enable all sectors of society to benefit from digital technology. The objective that must be supported is that of being able to guarantee that all European citizens receive 100% broadband coverage by 2013. The aim of improving dialogue and giving a stimulus to development is one with which I completely agree. That is why I confirm my vote in favour.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE), in writing. – The provision of high-speed broadband coverage for all by 2013 is an integral part of the European Commission’s digital agenda strategy. It is critical that the most remote and disadvantaged regions in Europe are not ignored by the European Commission as they pursue this objective. The European Commission must ensure that all Member States reach this important target, which is vital for growth and jobs.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this document because the EU-wide provision of fast broadband networks is of vital importance if the objectives of the EU 2020 strategy are to be achieved in terms of promoting smart, sustainable, inclusive, territorially cohesive economic growth, improving the employment situation, strengthening Europe’s competitiveness, facilitating scientific research and innovation and thereby enabling all regions, cities, municipalities and sectors of society to benefit from the digital environment and giving them the opportunity to exploit new digital technologies for public services.

  Ville Itälä (PPE), in writing. – The European Union should invest more in the creation of a common broadband area in order to clear obstacles to free movement in the European area. The European Union should be an example for the world in terms of digital development. One of the main problems in this area for the citizens of the Union is pricing, especially the lack of harmonisation in pricing on the territory of the European Union. A citizen should know that the price of using broadband services in different member countries is always the same, just like with mobile phone calls.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution, which asks the Commission, in order to create a coherent, consistent and effective EU structure marshalling all resources, to urgently present an appropriate proposal for a strategic plan containing a single framework for all aspects of EU cyber security, to ensure full protection and resilience of network and critical information infrastructures, including minimum safety standards and certifications, a common terminology, cyber incident management and a road map on cyber security. It takes the view that such a plan should define the contributions required from each actor, including the Commission, Member States, ENISA, Europol, Eurojust, EU and national computer emergency response teams and other relevant EU and national bodies and authorities, as well as the private sector, and also address the EU’s role and representation internationally.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Although all Member States have a national broadband strategy, only a few have fully-fledged operational plans which include the targets laid out in the Europe 2020 strategy, namely: ensuring non-discrimination, promoting available technologies and preventing measures placing unfair burdens on consumers and business.

We believe broadband services are essential for the competitiveness of the economy and are a prerequisite if all regions and social groups are to participate in digital life in the European Union. We therefore call on the Member States to open up network competition fully and to avoid both subsidies that distort the market and the emergence and abuse of dominant market positions.

They must promote and extend high-speed open-access connectivity to important public infrastructure located in remote areas as a means of improving public services. In conclusion, we believe that the European Union should increase research investment in both fixed and mobile future communication technologies and develop joint technology initiatives in these areas, involving universities, research institutes, device manufacturers and service and content providers.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The increasing growth in information technologies must be accompanied by significant investment in developing European broadband. As such, the EU-wide provision of efficient broadband networks is of vital importance if the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy are to be achieved in terms of promoting smart, sustainable, inclusive, and territorially cohesive economic growth; of improving the employment situation; of strengthening Europe’s competitiveness; and of facilitating scientific research and innovation. This will enable all regions, cities, municipalities and sectors of society to benefit from the digital environment, and will give them the opportunity to exploit new digital technologies for public services. In order for broadband to reach everyone, therefore, it is important to continue investing in this area.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – Taking into account the inequality of the broadband market throughout Europe and the disappointing absorption capacity in this area, Mrs Tzavela pointed out that ‘basic broadband’ of at least 2 Mbps by 2013 in all 27 Member States, including 100% coverage, is a realistic goal. The ultimate goal for 2020 is 30 Mbps with 100% European coverage, and for 50% or more of European households to have subscriptions above 100 Mbps.

Another important point of this paper includes providing incentives to investors for rural and remote areas, as well as islands. Furthermore, while fibre optics will be the main platform capable of providing 100 Mbps, the document welcomes and promotes the use of complementary technologies such as fixed and mobile wireless, as well as satellite.

Unfortunately, the rapporteur is lobbying only one direction – the Internet. Providers are interested in that. Such a project is necessary, but with some stipulations and red lines. In case of European investments, radio, TV and the press will lose the ability to compete, and that will result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs and bankruptcies within the mass media. Therefore, during the transitional period, the EU should draft a plan of investments in traditional mass media, prohibit use of the Internet for piracy and prevent dishonest competition. I abstained.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) In these times of great mobility and freedom of movement, it is essential that people should be offered unlimited access to ‘new’ communications media, such as e-mail. Fast Internet connections are vital for a wide variety of enterprises that communicate solely via the web and also use the technology for networking purposes. However, this is not just a big market for users; investors and businesses also have an interest in the expansion of broadband development because this will create a broad, commercially rewarding field. The European Union is pursuing an ambitious target to become the world market leader in this area. I have abstained because the report does not go into sufficient detail about how the measures are to be funded.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) Now, in the second decade of the 21st century, people are becoming increasingly mobile, not least because of the free movement of persons. In a highly developed information society, it is vital, in view of such developments, that we invest in infrastructure, in particular, in information technology. The European Union has set itself the ambitious target of becoming the world leader in the area of broadband availability. I have abstained because the report does not go into sufficient detail about how the measures are to be funded.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution because EU-wide provision of fast broadband networks is essential. Furthermore, it is very important for there to be sufficient investment in digitally driven growth. The Commission and the Member States must develop European and national programmes to facilitate and provide funding so that all EU citizens have access to broadband speeds of not less than 30Mbps, and all teaching and research institutions have access to broadband infrastructure by 2015. The implementation of these measures would contribute to smart, sustainable, inclusive and territorially cohesive economic growth. We must make every effort to establish EU global leadership in information and communication technology (ICT) infrastructure.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the own-initiative report on European broadband networks. The report sets the political signal for the action needed at national level in order to support investments in broadband networks. This report is even more valuable for countries with terrain like Greece, where many areas are geographically isolated. That is because the development of broadband networks may mitigate any isolation or remoteness.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Digital Agenda is one of the pillars of the Europe 2020 strategy. Achieving smart, sustainable and inclusive growth for the European Union nowadays is linked to access to efficient broadband networks for all Europeans. This report, for which I voted, suggests a series of measures for realising European objectives, and particularly stresses the need for better use of all the complementary technologies available, including mobile telephony and satellites, so as to achieve broadband coverage for rural areas, as well as mountainous and island regions. Given the purpose of this report and the benefits for all Europeans, particularly consumers and businesses, and in terms of strengthening competitiveness, I consider the Committee on the internal market and Consumer Protection’s recommendation that money be made available from the Structural Funds to deploy broadband and increase high-speed Internet access extremely important.

  Phil Prendergast (S&D), in writing. – I welcome this report on broadband in Europe, as widespread coverage of high-quality, high-speed broadband networks across the EU is essential to build up Europe’s competitiveness, research and innovation potential and to foster social and territorial cohesion. Broadband underpins new information and communication technologies, such as cloud computing or the Internet of Things, which will help determine the future of industrial innovation.

We need consistent research investment in fixed and mobile ICTs in Europe. The European territory should be fully covered by 2013 and, in order to ensure that the Digital Agenda target of universal access at speeds of no less than 30 Mbps by 2020 is met, intermediate benchmarks should be set for earlier dates. The radio spectrum has to be managed in such a way as to allow low frequency bands to provide wide wireless coverage in rural areas, islands and mountains. Those with reduced mobility, disabilities and those living and doing business in isolated areas would enjoy new opportunities which only a combination of public and private investment strategies can bring about.

The Digital Agenda has immense potential for growth, enhanced productivity and inclusion, as well as more integrated information in fields such as education, health and public administration.

  Fiorello Provera (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I fully support this report by Mrs Tzavela.

The development of broadband can, in fact, be useful for economic recovery, for the support that it guarantees to innovation and the possibility of making transactions faster and simpler. The implementation of high-speed broadband networks in Europe is extremely important for the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy. The development of broadband is particularly important for disadvantaged regions, such as mountainous areas, in which new technology can support the creation and facilitate the activities of new small and medium-sized enterprises, leading to the possibility of creating new jobs.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In order for the EU to establish itself as a genuine knowledge economy, it needs to be equipped with technical structures that support the economy’s online development. Broadband represents one of the great opportunities for the various Member States in the coming period: it is a case of adopting a network that covers the entire Union – an area unparalleled at global level – which has undeniable advantages for businesses, for the public and for technological development.

The most pressing challenge is therefore to successfully establish a structure of this nature that is universal or almost universal, whilst, at the same time, providing the necessary conditions for the EU’s various actors to make full use of it. This must be done in a way that respects the Union’s legal framework, specifically with regard to equitable distribution of costs and benefits, to consumer protection, and to ensuring free competition in the market.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In today’s plenary session of Parliament in Strasbourg, we voted on the report on European broadband: investing in digitally driven growth.

The EU-wide provision of fast broadband networks is important if the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy are to be achieved in terms of promoting smart and sustainable economic growth, improving the employment situation, strengthening Europe’s competitiveness, facilitating scientific research and innovation and thereby enabling all regions and sectors of society to benefit from digital technology and giving them the opportunity to exploit new digital technologies for public services.

To that effect, Mrs Tzavela’s report emphasises that Europe should achieve a competitive market for broadband infrastructure and services in order to facilitate investment. The report insists on the importance of using all technologies at our disposal for improving access to broadband, including in more remote areas. All this will boost innovation, competitiveness and consumer choice.

  Jens Rohde (ALDE), in writing. – The provision of broadband and high-speed broadband for all citizens by 2020 is a key criterion in securing the future growth and competitiveness of our economy. The Internet and ICT services account for 55% of all productivity growth; they generate new business opportunities and expand the field for existing businesses and promote social inclusion and cohesion.

But we are still a long way from this. It demands strong political decisions, a leap in investment levels and innovation. It will not be easy. We need to show the political will, which is what we have done today. Secondly, we need to take some tough political decisions that allow the development of the different technologies. We need them all: copper, fibre, cable, satellite and mobile. We need to stay technology-neutral and let the market decide. But we also need to create the framework conditions that give each of these technologies a level playing field. The goal is set – now let us get to work.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. Very comprehensive (maybe overly so: it counts 77 paragraphs and it covers all aspects and all technologies) – even the impact of wireless technologies on health is included in para. 65.

Supports the Commission – the core issue is the funding of the NGAs (suggest an EU Broadband deployment act to coordinate all the funds; funds can be equity funds, structural and cohesion funds, regional funds, state and private investments, EIB), see part 3 ‘Incentivising investment and competition’.

Sets ambitious targets for broadband coverage: 100% coverage delivered to all Europeans by 2013 – at least 2 Mbps in rural areas and much higher speed in other areas (para. 4) – note that the target in EU 2020 is 30 Megabits by 2020.

Public funds are mentioned: broadband State aid framework, the NGA recommendation, and the public sector investments (para. H); the balance between private and public investments is well covered.

The issue of net neutrality is included in para. 53. For information, stakeholders involved in the discussions include ETNO members (in particular, AT&T), ECTA, BEUC, and SES.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this report because I believe that the development of a proper European digital infrastructure is an essential ingredient of economic development and the recovery of our businesses.

Achieving digital connectivity at a rate of at least 2Mbps for all European citizens by 2013 would bring advantages in all main social and economic sectors, with positive implications for small and medium-sized enterprises, e-government, e-health and e-learning. In order to realise the objectives of the digital agenda, we need to continue on the road we have already taken, increasing competition in the sector and proceeding with policies to counter the digital divide between central and outlying areas.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I am in favour of this report on European broadband, which sets out the objective of guaranteeing that all European citizens receive 100% broadband coverage by 2013.

The EU-wide provision of fast broadband networks is of fundamental importance if the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy are to be achieved in terms of promoting smart, sustainable, inclusive and territorially cohesive growth, improving the employment situation and strengthening Europe’s competitiveness.

Achieving fast services is also fundamental for research institutes in order to guarantee the free circulation of knowledge, while improving the level of service to remote areas as well. The development of new information technologies represents an excellent opportunity to improve communication between citizens and EU institutions.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of Mrs Tzavela’s report because I consider that it is comprehensive and balanced and that the objectives it sets are realistic and respond to the needs of the modern digital society. The report states, among other things, that the objective must be to establish EU global leadership in ICT infrastructure and that 100% coverage must be delivered to all Europeans, giving at least 2 Mbps service to all users in rural areas. Attaining these objectives is crucial to promoting growth, competitiveness and social cohesion in the EU.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) To promote innovation, business development, the civil growth of European society and freedom of consumer choice, it is necessary to introduce broadband infrastructure, and especially in the most remote areas which often see the highest levels of failure to invest in digital technology.

The information issued by the director of the Directorate-General for Regional Policy, Rudolf Niessler, during the ‘Every European Digital’ event, is not comforting in this regard: only 418 million, of a total of 2.3 billion earmarked to promote the spread of broadband in EU countries, has actually been used. These funds have not, though, been channelled in the right way. This is because, sometimes, projects are unconvincing for investors or they go against the priorities of individual states, whose governments are obliged to make economic savings, at the expense of a broad common view of the future, as the EU hopes.

The percentage of homes connected to broadband in Italy is less than 50%, compared with a European average of 61%. However, without broadband, Italy, like other countries, risks soon being relegated to the second division compared with other countries where extensive use has been made of earmarked funds and it is the level of investments and competitiveness that will lose out.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The main strategic aim of the Europe 2020 strategy is to turn the EU into a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy. The Digital Agenda is one of the seven flagship initiatives of the Europe 2020 strategy, and it presents ambitious and specific objectives for the period of time in question. I am voting for this report because I am in favour of creating a mutually supportive system aimed at increasing investment and innovation as a means of developing better communication technologies and giving even more users access to terrestrial fixed and mobile networks.

At a time when data traffic is increasing exponentially, there is an urgent need to work alongside the European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA), the European Police Office (Europol), Eurojust and the full range of competent bodies and authorities, as well as with private sector bodies, to commit to boosting information and communication technology infrastructure, to increasing the efficiency and rapid implementation of new-generation networks, to sharing best practices, and to promoting a strategic plan that safeguards aspects of cyber security in the EU. I would also argue that the individuality of rural areas, of mountainous and island regions, and of the outermost regions, should be safeguarded, as broadband will contribute decisively to reducing regional asymmetries and will strengthen territorial cohesion.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – This report outlines the EU’s intention to provide fast broadband to homes and businesses across the EU. Broadband is of vital importance if the objectives of the EU 2020 strategy are to be achieved and if we are to contribute to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. The EU’s objectives should include enabling all regions and sectors of society to benefit from the digital environment, and this report – along with its complementary initiatives – takes important steps to achieving this.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I abstained from voting on this report on the development of broadband in the Union which, while containing many references to competition and liberalisation of high-speed broadband services (a sector which is already too liberalised), also contains a number of positive proposals.

Among these was the commitment to provide the largest possible number of citizens with 100% broadband coverage by 2013 by strengthening public investment in infrastructure. This is indispensable, particularly for citizens living in isolated conditions. It is to be done while maintaining high-quality access and at affordable prices for users.

We can also note the proposal to ensure open-access connectivity to public infrastructure in order to guarantee the free movement of knowledge and to enhance online public services, the intention to guarantee net neutrality, the use of open standards, data protection and respect for citizens’ private lives, and, finally, the need to combat the digital divide, paying particular attention to the most vulnerable populations, such as people with disabilities, immigrants or people on low incomes.

Once again, we expect to see actions that go beyond words.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) At a time when social networking has become daily reality for most Europeans, 30% have never been able to use the Internet. Our House’s vote rightly aims to put an end to this digital divide. The objective is to achieve 100% broadband coverage by 2013 across the whole of European territory. This strategy is all the more important because the Internet now shapes the whole of society. Successfully executing this plan would address multiple objectives, such as social cohesion, tackling unemployment, the right to information and the right to access culture. Initially conceived as a network created for use by soldiers, this tool has increased tenfold the efficiency and economies of scale of our businesses and thus become a vector for economic growth that cannot be ignored. This is a competitive advantage which we must use more and more, as US businesses do. In order to transform this strategy into smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, it is imperative that we agree to appropriate investment and put in place a legal framework for cyber security (tackling online crime, personal data protection) and the fair remuneration of all Internet providers.

  Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I endorsed the report. I think that development and investment in the field of broadband technology can have considerable significance for accomplishment of the competitiveness strategy which is part of the Europe 2020 initiative. The need to increase access to fast Internet, as well as to increase its mobility and capacity, are key issues for around 500 million European consumers. This is an exceptional number on a world scale, and it includes users of all types: consumers, businesses, administrative authorities and public benefit organisations, which reap the benefits of the Internet both in professional and in private life. It should be remembered that rapid deployment of broadband networks is essential to boost innovation and EU efficiency and to stimulate new small and medium-sized enterprises and job creation in the EU. The benefits of the roll-out of infrastructure in this area have a very positive impact in the context of increasing access to education, and particularly to distance learning in the outermost areas. I think there is a need for publications on investing in broadband networks, particularly for public-private partnerships and local and regional authorities, in order to ensure the best grassroots use of EU resources allocated for this purpose. Further development can also be a great opportunity for projects which promote dialogue between the citizens and the institutions of the European Union.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) The European Union’s digital agenda involves some extremely ambitious objectives. I can see the value added by the implementation of these objectives – particularly in relation to future job opportunities and new working arrangements, as well as territorial cohesion.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report presented by Mrs Tzavela.

Europe’s future competitiveness is also linked to the development of broadband infrastructure: it is therefore important to use all the technologies at our disposal to improve access to broadband, including in the most remote and least accessible areas. I feel that, as well as promoting innovation, broadband development will improve the choices of European consumers and, I believe, it will facilitate investments in our continent.

Report: Axel Voss (A7-0244/2011)

  Damien Abad (PPE) , in writing. – (FR) In May 2009, the European Commission launched an evaluation of the 1995 Data Protection Directive. By the end of the year, it must present a legislative proposal to amend that directive, while also adapting other legal instruments into a new general framework for data protection.

The last 15 years have been marked by the Internet revolution and, more globally, by the increasing use of new technologies. This has resulted in the collection and processing of personal data on an unprecedented scale, reinforced by the globalisation of exchanges. This report underlines some important elements of the future reform: enhancing the right to information; improving data transfer, particularly in the case of police and judicial cooperation; and harmonising the status and powers of national authorities responsible for data protection. As a fervent defender of the ‘right to be forgotten’ and making online transactions more secure, I voted in favour of this report.

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report. The increased exchanging of personal data is vitally important, as are the new technological developments leading to the increased collection, storage and use of these personal data. There is a need to include a wide-ranging reform of the EU framework for legislation on this matter in the review of Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of personal data, establishing rules regarding data collection that are more rigorous, not least by informing people why their data will be collected and used, by whom and for how long. The effects of increased security in personal data protection could have positive economic consequences, given that individuals do not feel as secure buying online as they do offline because of fears of identity theft and of the lack of transparency in how their data will be processed and used.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution on a comprehensive approach to personal data protection in the European Union. It is an important document in which the European Parliament speaks in favour of strengthening existing arrangements in the area of personal data protection, putting forward new principles and mechanisms and ensuring coherence and high standards of data protection under the now binding Charter of Fundamental Rights, particularly Article 8. It is important for each individual to know at any time what data has been stored, by whom, when, for what purpose and for what period of time, and how it is being processed, and to be able to have data deleted, corrected or blocked in an unbureaucratic way and to be informed of any misuse of data or data breach. I agree with the rapporteur that there is a particular need to protect children and minors, in light, inter alia, of increased access for children to the Internet and digital content. Media literacy must become part of formal education with a view to teaching children and minors how to act responsibly in the online environment.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. – (ES) I voted in favour of this initiative because of the content described in the title, that of full commitment to a global focus on protection of personal data in the EU, together with the strengthening of provisions already in force, such as Directive 95/46/EC, the new principles and mechanisms that establish that it is possible to have more coherent and stronger rules in terms of protection of data in the new situation following the Treaty of Lisbon and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. In short, it will strengthen the guarantee of fundamental rights of European citizens.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because violations of data protection provisions can seriously threaten the fundamental rights of individuals and the values of the Member States. Therefore, the European Union and the Member States must take effective measures against such violations. Furthermore, such violations lead to a lack of trust on the part of individuals that will weaken expedient use of new technologies, and misuse and abuse of personal data should therefore be punishable by appropriate, severe and dissuasive sanctions, including criminal sanctions. The European Commission should introduce a system of mandatory personal data breach notifications and extend it to sectors other than the telecommunications sector, while ensuring that it does not become a routine alert for all sorts of breaches, but relates mainly to those that may impact negatively on the individual. We must also ensure that all breaches, without exception, are logged and at the disposal of data protection or other appropriate authorities for inspection and evaluation, thus ensuring a level playing field and uniform protection for all individuals. It is very important to understand the need to provide for specific forms of protection for vulnerable persons, especially children, above all, by requiring a high level of data protection to be used as the default setting and by taking appropriate specific measures to protect their personal data.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I am firmly convinced that the right to privacy is one of the guiding principles of democracy.

Ongoing technological development can jeopardise this right and that is why I believe that we should mould the old rules, even if they are still essentially relevant, to the new requirements. Mr Voss’s report, which I endorsed by voting in favour, highlights the changes to be made so that every European citizen can be guaranteed, even where this involves relations with citizens of third countries, the requirement of privacy to be safeguarded as a guarantee of our freedom.

I also agree with what is set out in the document, namely, that rules should be issued with a high level of protection of sensitive data which strike a fair balance between the right to privacy and the right to information and to expression, and lastly, rules that do not unnecessarily hinder everyday processing of these data. This means that, in general terms, sensitive data must remain secret, except where it is the data subject himself who is interested in derogating, by express consent, from this rule.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I have voted against the creation of the new EU tool which would create a harmonised system of data protection legislation. It represents yet another approach towards creation of one-size-fits-all EU-wide legislation. I cannot support any calls to harmonise Member States’ legislation, especially in the area of the protection of the citizens, when each country should have sovereignty over all of the competences involved.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report because I believe the collection, analysis, exchange and misuse of data, and the risk of ‘profiling’, stimulated by technical developments, have reached unprecedented dimensions. There is therefore a need for strong data protection rules, such as applicable law and the setting out of the responsibilities of all interested parties in terms of the implementation of EU data protection legislation, taking into account that loyalty cards – club cards, discount cards, advantage cards, etc. – are being used increasingly frequently by companies and in commerce, and are, or can be, used for customer profiling.

  Nessa Childers (S&D), in writing. – Personal data is a crucial area and one which must be scrutinised closely. While security concerns exist, the privacy of European citizens is also of paramount importance and it is important that both the European Parliament and European Commission keep this in mind at all times.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The fundamental principles of the Data Protection Directive remain valid, despite being more than 15 years old, because they enshrine two key aspects of European integration: the protection of people’s fundamental rights and freedoms, and the realisation of the internal market and the free movement of personal data. They need to be revised in order to respond to the new challenges faced by personal data protection as a result of globalisation and technological change, in particular, encouraging the collection, analysis, exchange and misuse of data, and the risk of profiling. The implementation of this directive and its application has been approached differently in each Member State, while each national control authority has been given a different status, and different resources and powers.

It is crucial to equip the EU with a comprehensive, coherent, modern, high-level framework that is able to protect effectively individuals’ fundamental rights, in particular, the right to privacy, inside and outside the EU, and to guarantee greater legal certainty and a level playing field for economic operators, to increase public confidence and to boost the digital Single Market. I am voting for the initiative and await the Commission’s tabling of the necessary legislative initiatives on the basis of the additional means provided for in the Treaty of Lisbon.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the motion for a resolution on a comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the European Union. The EU must equip itself, after carrying out a thorough impact assessment, with a comprehensive, coherent, modern, high-level framework capable of protecting individuals’ fundamental rights effectively, in particular, their right to privacy with regard to the processing of personal data, in order to be able to face the numerous challenges presented by globalisation, technological development, increased online activity and the fight against terrorism. Such a data protection framework can increase legal certainty, keep the administrative burden to a minimum, provide a level playing field for all economic operators, boost the digital Single Market and instil trust in the behaviour of data controllers and law enforcement authorities.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The right to protection of personal data is recognised by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. At the start of November 2010, the European Commission published its communication ‘A comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the European Union’ with a view to revising the Data Protection Directive. The European Parliament, which wants to take part in this debate and influence the revision of the Data Protection Directive, has drafted a report.

This document, which was voted for almost unanimously in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, reflects my concerns. I believe that citizens should be able to have control of their information, and to access, modify and delete their data. In my view, these are the essential rights which should be guaranteed in our digital society. Each citizen must have the ‘right to be forgotten’.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Fifteen years after the adoption of this directive, it is essential to acknowledge that the speed of technological development and globalisation have significantly altered the world and given rise to new challenges regarding data protection. At the same time, the multiplication of means and methods of data collection are constantly challenging the capacity for controlling and monitoring, both of the subjects of the data collected, and of the authorities responsible for their legality, and for defending personal identity and privacy.

The fact that a significant proportion of the communication undertaken by many citizens of the Member States is already carried out using the Internet is an illustrative example of the importance and sensitivity of this issue. I believe the Union cannot neglect its responsibilities in this area, and should ensure the maximum transparency of proceedings and guarantee subjects the greatest possible access to and control of their data. I also think it should incessantly strive to prevent the endangerment of the public’s rights, freedoms and guarantees, whilst also ensuring that companies are not disproportionately burdened with bureaucracy and excessive obligations.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Globalisation and technological development have brought the European Union new challenges in terms of protecting personal data in its territory, and it has even been said that they have encouraged the collection, analysis, exchange and misuse of data, while exacerbating the risk of profiling. As it recognises the value of the fundamental principle of data protection, which remains absolutely valid, this issue is very important to European integration and merits the attention of the Member States and the Commission towards making legislation, standards and interventions uniform, by eliminating the Member States’ different approaches to its implementation and application. I also support this report’s call for the EU to be able to equip itself with a comprehensive, coherent, modern, high-level framework that is able to effectively protect individuals’ fundamental rights, in particular, the right to privacy, with regard to any processing of personal data of individuals.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The report tackles the issue of personal data protection in the EU. In our opinion, the comprehensive approach of this report results in a series of risks to people’s fundamental rights. The rapporteur himself acknowledges that the rights, freedoms and guarantees of individuals risk being violated and attacked, resulting from the danger that data will be improperly used by the Member States themselves or by other entities, specifically private ones. However, at the same time as acknowledging this, the report ends up providing for the use of data whenever necessary, giving a vague and unclear idea of its true objectives. The lack of adequate protection of personal data, the possibility that these data will be misused, and the way such services are transferred or even coordinated, are the reasons for our vote against. In the name of security, we do not accept the violation of the fundamental rights, freedoms and guarantees of individuals.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We believe this report on the comprehensive approach to personal data protection in the European Union involves risks to people’s fundamental rights. It is true that the rapporteur acknowledges that the freedoms and guarantees of individuals risk being violated and attacked, resulting from the danger that data will be improperly used by the Member State itself or by other entities, specifically private ones.

However, the report itself simultaneously provides for the use of data whenever necessary, giving a vague and unclear idea of its true objectives.

As such, we voted against this report because we believe greater attention needs to be given to the protection of personal data, to its improper use, and to how such services are transferred or even coordinated. In the name of security, we do not accept the violation of the fundamental rights, freedoms and guarantees of individuals.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The world around us has been completely transformed by the rapid development of technology and globalisation, and new challenges have appeared in the area of personal data protection. Technology today enables individuals to share information about what they do and about their likes and dislikes, and enables them to publish this and make it globally accessible on a scale never seen before. Social networking websites are the most prominent example, with hundreds of millions of members all around the world. A recent study confirmed that data protection bodies, business federations and organisations representing consumers all agree that online activities entail increased risks from the perspective of protecting privacy and personal data. At the same time, the methods for collecting personal data are more sophisticated and perhaps more difficult to detect. It is therefore right to ask whether existing EU legislation in the area of data protection is still capable of responding fully and effectively to potential threats. Despite the existence of the EU’s common legal framework on data protection, the insufficient harmonisation of Member State legislation is one of the main continuing fears of the parties concerned. I firmly believe that the EU should draw up a complex and coherent approach, ensuring full compliance with the basic right of individuals to the protection of data, both inside and outside the EU.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing. – In the age of the Internet, the question of the protection of personal data is one of the most crucial. Consumers expect to know who is using their data and how, and sometimes wish to enjoy ‘the right to be forgotten’ if they do not allow companies to take advantage of their personal data.

This is the purpose of the Commission’s Communication on a ‘comprehensive approach to personal data protection in the EU’, which was followed by an own-initiative report in Parliament. The Commission is proposing to revise current legislation on data protection and adjust it to the fast-moving technological and globalised environment created by the use of the Internet.

Against this background, the Voss report identifies challenges in the Commission revision and calls for the establishment of a harmonised law on data protection that consolidates the diverse rules across the Member States.

Another scoop of this report relates to the geographical coverage on the data protection legislation. Accordingly, European companies who operate within and outside Europe, as well as international companies who process European citizens’ data, will apply European data protection law. I believe the Voss report is a desirable step in guaranteeing further protection of the personal data of EU citizens. Therefore, I voted in favour of it.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) European citizens having access to their data; the right to information on how our data are used; explicit consent to the processing of our data; the right of modification; the right of erasure; the ‘right to be forgotten’; blocking data, and so on: these are the guarantees to which every citizen has the right under the framework for personal data protection and which the European Union must respect and, furthermore, promote and protect. Improving data transfer; harmonising the status and powers of national authorities responsible for data protection; making online transactions more secure; protecting vulnerable individuals, and particularly minors, on the Internet and networks; raising awareness among citizens and young people of data protection issues; severe European sanctions in cases of abuse of data, and so on: these are the elements, measures and clear rules that the European Union must put in place and encourage in order to guarantee these rights to citizens. Therefore, I supported this report which responds to my concerns and contains a strong message for the European Commission in its work to revise the 1995 Data Protection Directive which must now be updated in the face of the spread of new technologies and the globalisation of data exchanges.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I supported sending a strong message to the European Commission in view of the revision of the Data Protection Directive. Several points are particularly important for me. Firstly, there is the protection of vulnerable persons, particularly minors, who are surfing the web in ever-growing numbers, especially on social networks, where they can easily divulge their personal data. In the face of this, we demand that young people are made aware that responsible behaviour is indispensable.

Furthermore, I strongly support the right of citizens to easily delete, correct or block their data, and to be informed of any possible misuse or errors in terms of data protection. This would seem obvious; however, there are obstacles and they must be removed. Finally, the forthcoming legislation must provide for severe European sanctions in the case of misuse of data and thereby reassure consumers by guaranteeing that they need not be afraid of shopping online.

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The new threats to the protection of personal data brought about by technological developments must receive an appropriate response from the European Union. For example, I refer to the widespread use of social networks such as Facebook and Twitter, which involve creating real digital profiles containing personal information that requires protection that, so far, is not adequately guaranteed.

I therefore fully support Mr Voss’s report in that it seeks to guarantee a uniform level of protection for individuals, as well as to reinforce principles such as transparency, purpose limitation and informed, prior and explicit consent. Data subjects must be able to have data deleted, corrected or blocked and must be informed of any misuse of data, without underestimating very important aspects such as the need to provide specific protection for minors.

For these reasons, in the firm belief that the European Parliament has moved in the right direction to guarantee citizens a suitable level of protection, I fully support actions such as the introduction of the principle of accountability by means of the mandatory appointment of data protection officers and the application of severe and dissuasive sanctions, including criminal sanctions, for misuse and abuse of personal data.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I supported this document because the European Parliament strongly welcomes and supports the Commission communication entitled ‘A comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the European Union’ and its focus on strengthening existing arrangements, putting forward new principles and mechanisms and ensuring coherence and high standards of data protection in the new setting offered by the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. The standards and principles set out in Directive 95/46/EC represent an ideal starting point and should be further elaborated, extended and enforced. The European Parliament recognises that technological developments have, on the one hand, created new threats to the protection of personal data and, on the other, led to a vast increase in the use of information technologies for everyday and normally harmless purposes, and that these developments mean that a thorough evaluation of the current data protection rules is required in order to ensure that the rules still provide a high level of protection, that they still strike a fair balance between the right to protection of personal data and the right to freedom of speech and information, and that they do not unnecessarily hinder everyday processing of personal data, which is typically harmless.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) This motion for a European Parliament resolution on a comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the European Union is important as data protection in the EU is guaranteed as a fundamental human right by Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. A comprehensive approach on data protection is also required due to the technological advances which have created new threats to the protection of personal data and led to a vast increase in the use of information technologies for normal, everyday purposes. This means that full harmonisation is required at the highest level, which will guarantee legal certainty and a uniform, high level of personal protection in all circumstances. Last but not least, this motion for a resolution provides further clarification of the rules on the applicable legislation with a view to delivering a uniform degree of personal protection, irrespective of the data controller’s geographical location, including enforcement of data protection rules by authorities or in courts.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution, which calls on the Commission to streamline and strengthen current procedures for international data transfers – legally binding agreements and binding corporate rules – and to define the ambitious core EU data protection aspects to be used in international agreements; it stresses that the provisions of EU personal data protection agreements with third countries should give European citizens the same level of personal data protection as that provided within the European Union.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The rapid pace of technological development in the global information society calls for comprehensive and coherent rules on data protection.

The current lack of harmonisation between Member States’ national laws calls for the adoption of a comprehensive legal instrument at European level. Every citizen must have the right not only to be fully informed about processed data about them, including its source and recipients, but also to receive intelligible information about the logic involved in any automatic processing of that data.

We therefore support the need to introduce a general principle of transparency for the processing of personal data, to provide specific forms of protection for vulnerable persons and to maintain the derogations allowed for certain journalistic purposes in order to safeguard freedom of the press.

Lastly, we call on the European Commission to consider how a personal data breach notification requirement might be established on a general basis (such a requirement at present applies to the telecommunications sector only), to establish a personal data breach notification system along the lines of that introduced by the ePrivacy Directive, and to provide for a special restrictive regime for ‘sensitive data’, which will consequently require a clear definition of this category of data.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Data Protection Directive (1995/46/EC) remains valid. However, it has not been applied consistently by all the Member States. The EU must therefore equip itself – after a thorough impact assessment – with a comprehensive, coherent, modern, high-level framework that is able to effectively protect the fundamental rights of citizens, in particular privacy, with regard to any processing of personal data of individuals within and beyond the EU in all circumstances, in order to face the numerous challenges facing data protection, such as those caused by globalisation, technological development, enhanced online activity, uses related to more and more activities, and security concerns like the fight against terrorism.

I am convinced a data protection framework like the one that has just been passed can increase legal certainty, keep the administrative burden to a minimum, provide a level playing field for economic operators, boost the digital Single Market and encourage trust in data controllers and enforcement authorities.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) In the digital age, technology allows us to create, store and send enormous quantities of data. It is an illusion to think we could stop this technological revolution. That being the case, the risk of a violation of data protection provisions is very real and could pose serious risks to individuals’ fundamental rights.

First, it is essential to educate and raise awareness among citizens, particularly young people, about intelligent use of these technologies. The emphasis should be on reinforcing existing measures and we should engage in a comprehensive approach. We must consolidate and further reinforce the high level of protection for data subjects and specifically protect vulnerable persons, in particular, children.

We must also ensure that we improve the means of exercising, and awareness of, the rights of access, of rectification, of erasure and blocking of data, so that citizens are able to exercise their rights. Nonetheless, we must underline that the data protection regime, without hindering the protection of private life and data, must keep administrative and financial costs to a minimum, particularly for SMEs.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) It is vital that individual civil liberties should be effectively protected, particularly in the private sphere, when it comes to the processing of personal data both within the EU and beyond. The tendencies arising as a result of globalisation, technological advancement, increased online activity and infringements of civil liberties in the name of the war on terror are all highly alarming developments. When it comes to data protection, the EU talks about the need to increase legal certainty, reduce administrative effort, and so on. The questionable developments in the context of the agreement on passenger data with the United States and the plans to gather data on internal European flights have not been considered at all. An opportunity for clarity has been missed here. For this reason, I have abstained from voting on this report.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) There is no doubt that the fundamental civil liberties of the individual are among the most valuable assets in a developed society. The tendencies arising from globalisation, technological advancement, increased online activity and infringements of civil liberties in the name of the war on terror are all highly alarming developments. It is therefore right to examine whether the legal provisions in this area are sufficient to protect civil liberties. Unfortunately, this report fails to condemn the future plans to collect data on internal European flights. For that reason, I have abstained from voting.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) Protection of personal data is one of the human rights to private life, anchored in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Attention should be drawn to the fact that technological developments are creating new threats to the protection of personal data. We must make every effort to ensure the highest level of data protection and successfully implement the right to protection of personal data. Furthermore, the revised data protection regime should keep bureaucratic and financial burdens to a minimum. We need to reinforce data controllers’ obligations, with regard to provisions on information about data subjects, in order to ensure compliance with the requirements of data protection legislation. We also need more stringent regulation of the processing of sensitive data and reinforced guarantees on the processing of such data.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the report on a comprehensive approach to personal data protection in the European Union. Data protection legislation at European level needs to be revised in order to cover the new demands created by the rapid development of technology. Luckily, this initiative was approved – albeit belatedly – by the European Parliament in order to pave the way for a uniform approach to issues raised in the past, such as the SWIFT agreement on financial data transmitted from the EU to the USA in a bid to combat funding for terrorism and PNR agreements on exchanges of passenger data.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In May 2009, the European Commission launched an evaluation of the 1995 Data Protection Directive. A legislative proposal for amending it should also be tabled by the end of the year, without ruling out other instruments for adapting it to the new legal framework on data protection. The last 15 years have witnessed an Internet revolution and an exponential increase in the use of new technologies. Large-scale collection and processing of personal data are a consequence of the globalisation of trade. This report stresses some aspects of future reform: increased right to information; improved data transfer, particularly in the context of judicial and police cooperation; and harmonised status and powers of the national data protection authorities responsible for data protection and Internet security. I voted in favour of this report for all these reasons.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Protection of personal data constitutes one of the greatest challenges to modern societies. While online society has enabled information sharing unparalleled in any other medium, it has, at the same time, put personal data in a position more vulnerable than ever previously known: for example, with customer profiling by companies that have loyalty cards. The same could occur with search engines or electronic means of payment. As such, the protection of the inviolability of individuals and their data is essential if it is to be trusted that these information structures are functioning properly and, therefore, making use of the potential of an online society. That is the intention of this report, for which I voted.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Today, we voted during the plenary session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg on the report on personal data protection in the European Union.

The report approves personal data protection measures in the European Union, laid down by the Commission communication, and draws attention to the principles set out in the 1995 Data Protection Directive, which have not been completely implemented in the Member States, such as, for example, the transparency principle, the purpose limitation principle, and other provisions on consent.

The new data protection regime should reduce bureaucratic and financial burdens and carefully assess the application of several rules relating to small enterprises.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The increased use of the Internet and the development of social networks, profiling and cloud computing have given rise to new challenges in personal data protection. That is why I support the efforts to strengthen personal data protection and harmonise the implementation of European rules on this matter. The free circulation of personal data must be accompanied by guarantees for citizens, who should know how to access, use, rectify and delete their data free of charge, enjoy a high level of protection in their online and offline activities, both within the European Union and in third countries, and be able to defend their rights using class-action lawsuits. In particular, we must protect young users from the threats that uncontrolled use of the new technologies can pose, for example, by integrating media education into school curricula or by requiring a high level of data protection to be used as the default setting. I also believe the ‘right to be forgotten’ to be a key notion for developing personal data protection.

  Jens Rohde (ALDE), in writing. – (DA) There are two reasons why I am pleased that we have adopted this own-initiative report. The first of these is that, in order to safeguard the basic rights of individuals to privacy, it is absolutely crucial that we lay down requirements concerning protection against the monitoring and misuse of personal data. Secondly, for the sake of cross-border trade, we need to have a consistent level of protection for personal data at EU level. This is necessary in order to create uniform conditions for economic operators and in order to avoid distortions of the market. The risk of the misuse of personal data has reached unprecedented proportions as a result of technical developments. This, coupled with the differences in data legislation in the different Member States, makes it absolutely essential for us to have an effective global data protection framework. I therefore hope that the Commission and the Council will include this report in their ongoing work on the protection of personal data in the EU.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. This resolution: 1. Strongly welcomes and supports the Commission communication entitled ‘A comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the European Union’ and its focus on strengthening existing arrangements, putting forward new principles and mechanisms and ensuring coherence and high standards of data protection in the new setting offered by the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty (Article 16 TFEU) and the now binding Charter of Fundamental Rights, particularly its Article 8.

2. Emphasises that the standards and principles set out in Directive 95/46/EC represent an ideal starting point and should be further elaborated, extended and enforced, as part of a modern data protection law.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this text because I believe it is important to fully commit to a global approach to personal data protection in Europe.

This protection must set out a series of coordinated legislative measures that are balanced and able to protect citizens without excessively burdening enterprises with red tape. In particular, such rules must not jeopardise the right to freedom of speech and information unnecessarily hindering everyday processing of personal data, which is typically harmless.

  Michèle Striffler (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on data protection because it is necessary for Europe to lay down clear and common rules for all the Member States regarding accessing, storing and deleting the personal data of European citizens. The existing legislation (which dates from 1995) must be updated and modernised in the face of the spread of new information and communication technologies. It will also ensure that the Commission’s future legislative proposal establishes a true ‘right to be forgotten’, meaning the right of individuals, under certain conditions, to have their personal data no longer collected, analysed, processed or used in any way, and deleted, especially in the world of online social networks.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) Privacy and security are very important for us all. We cannot make citizens choose between freedom and security. I agree with the rapporteur that we need to modernise data protection legislation due to the privacy challenges posed by new technologies. However, the problem is much greater than the report suggests. In certain EU Member States, including Lithuania, the problem is not just one of obsolete legislation, but implementation. Article 22 of the constitution of the Republic of Lithuania prohibits interference with a person’s personal correspondence or his life. According to a report published a few months ago in The American, in 2010, the Lithuanian State Data Protection Inspectorate investigated 270 allegations of arbitrary interference with privacy against government officials or companies. In the majority of complaints, the person stated that the government agency gathered or used their personal data, such as a personal code, without legal basis or explanation. We must restore confidence. It is important for citizens to know what happens to their data. European leaders must implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure protection against loss of data or unauthorised access. It is a matter of honour and dignity.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the European approach to data protection since it contains many positive points: strengthening certain rights of individuals regarding their data; protecting individuals, whatever their geographic location; strengthening the powers of national data protection authorities; appointing data protection officers within businesses; referring to the ‘right to be forgotten’; the notion of explicit consent for data to be processed; extending the list of sensitive data, and so forth.

Nonetheless, it has overlooked some points, a few of which are quite alarming. The examples of ‘cloud computing’ (storing data on external platforms rather than on personal computers), scope for self-regulation by businesses, and agreements concerning international data transfer, are all cases in point. These agreements must reflect the same level of personal data protection as that provided within the Union. We know this is not the case in the United States in particular. I am disappointed that this report has been adopted without debate in plenary since it indicates the framework for the coming revision of the Data Protection Directive. Let us hope that the coming debates will enable us to overcome these deficiencies.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The development of new technologies is one of the major objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and has an ever-increasing impact on the daily lives of European citizens. The significance of these tools in our private and professional lives offers a tremendous opportunity to develop knowledge sharing. Nonetheless, this phenomenon must be accompanied by adequate data protection so that Europeans can express themselves freely, with personal information being protected. I welcome the adoption of this report which sets out a clear legislative framework, and which believes that the optimal use of tomorrow’s technologies should not undermine individual liberties. Europe must rise to the challenge of making information accessible to the greatest number of people. This ambitious goal must be accompanied by legal harmonisation and legal certainty in order to provide our fellow citizens with the highest level of protection.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) I voted in favour of the report on a comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the European Union. Whereas the general trend throughout the world in the last 10 years has been for security concepts to become umbrella terms, the European Union has gone in the opposite direction by making the Charter of Fundamental Rights binding at EU level in the Treaty of Lisbon. We absolutely must continue along this path.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the text presented by Mr Voss on personal data protection measures within the EU.

I believe it is important that the approved text refers to the measures set out in the 1995 Data Protection Directive, which, for various reasons, are still yet to be fully implemented in the Member States: I refer, in particular, to the transparency principle and to the purpose limitation principle.

Thanks to the text on which we voted today, the new data protection regime should, in addition to reducing bureaucratic and financial burdens, lead to a more careful assessment of the application of several rules relating to small enterprises.

Recommendation for second reading: Renate Sommer (A7-0177/2011)

  Damien Abad (PPE) , in writing. – (FR) Under current legislation, all ingredients, including substances which can cause allergies, must be listed on the label of prepacked food. From now on, consumers will be able to verify more easily if a product contains substances which can cause allergies, given that they will appear clearly on the list of ingredients. Consumers will be able to obtain the necessary information at first glance.

I voted in favour of this report because I think that consumers should no longer be misled by the presentation of the product on the packaging, the description and/or the pictorial representations. We have decided that businesses in the food sector will have three years to comply with the new requirements. They will then have two further years, i.e. five years in total, to apply the rules relating to the nutrition declaration.

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I did not vote for this proposal, not because I do not agree with it, but because I believe Parliament should have taken a tougher stance towards the Council’s proposal. Even so, improvements have been introduced as regards food information, simplifying and updating the rules applicable to labelling by merging the EU directives into one legislative text.

It is also important to stress that origin marking is mandatory for a significant range of products, such as vegetables, fish, beef, honey, fruit and oil, and that specific rules have been introduced on labelling food ‘imitation’ and on waiving the need for a nutrition declaration for handcrafted products, which is of the greatest importance for many regions, such as the Azores.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution on the provision of food information to consumers. The free movement of safe food is an essential aspect of the internal market and contributes significantly to the health and well-being of citizens, as well as to their social and economic interests. With this regulation, we, the Members of the European Parliament, aim to serve both the interests of the internal market, by reducing the administrative burden, and benefit citizens by requiring clear, comprehensible and legible labelling of foods. Citizens must know what products they are eating, where they are produced and what their ingredients are. Food labelling must be easily recognisable, legible and understandable for the consumer. I believe that it is worthwhile and right that consumers in the Member States should be able to turn to a neutral information source in order to clarify individual nutrition questions. The Member States should, therefore, establish appropriate hotlines.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The main aim behind introducing new rules on the provision of information about food products marketed within the EU is to offer consumers the opportunity to make healthier and fully informed choices when buying food. However, it is not enough for European citizens to be able to choose freely from among the various products. It is vital that they make a conscious choice according to the benefits or drawbacks a food product can have for their health. This is why I think that, in future, efforts must be geared towards informing European citizens about the importance of reading all the items of information on food labels in order to maintain and guarantee a healthy lifestyle. At the same time, the new regulations will also make the situation easier for food producers by offering legal certainty, less red tape and much improved legislation.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report because I consider it essential that European consumers have packaging with the necessary information for them to make an informed choice. Therefore, I am glad that the rapporteur has found a compromise so that indications will be more legible and more detailed, products which can cause allergies will be mentioned on packaging in order to protect people suffering from allergies, and imitations will be identified as such (because it is, for example, unacceptable to deceive consumers by selling them cheese made from vegetable fat instead of milk), and so forth. Finally, I am very pleased that from now on, it will be obligatory to declare the country of origin for pork, sheep, goat and poultry meat on the packaging. Including this information will make consumers better informed and provide more effective protection against potential contamination. Furthermore, I am keen to reassure you: my political group has defeated the socialists’ ludicrous idea that all our products should be categorised according to their theoretical danger and bear a red, orange or green traffic light on the packaging. Thus, you can count on us to inform and empower consumers.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) Consumers must know which region the food they are buying is produced and grown in, and there must be clear information available about that food.

I voted in favour of the report, and I welcome what it says on extending the mandatory labelling concerning the country of origin of products to include fresh pork, mutton and chicken. Currently, country-of-origin labelling on fresh beef, fruit and vegetables, honey and olive oil is mandatory, and consumers are often misled when there is a lack of clear information about an item’s country of origin.

European farmers produce high-quality food that is safe to eat and complies with legislation on environmental protection and animal welfare. Country-of-origin labelling on goods being sold on the EU market helps consumers make informed choices when buying fresh meat and other products.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The purpose of this proposal is to recast the EU rules on labelling of food products and improve Union legislation by replacing and collating seven directives and one regulation into a single text. There is a need for an EU-level standardisation of food labelling in order to contribute to increased transparency for the consumer, greater clarity in the acquis communautaire and more certainty for businesses in the food sector.

This new regulation will put an end to the legislative fragmentation that has been blocking trade and to competition problems, which will mean reduced costs for producers and distributors of foodstuffs, whilst also helping consumers decide which foodstuffs to buy in a way that is independent, conscious and knowledgeable of the facts. I would stress the new provisions making it mandatory to include substances that cause allergies in the ingredients list; allergenic substances will also have to be provided for non-packed products. Country-of-origin labelling is becoming mandatory for fresh meat from pigs, goats, sheep and poultry. Consumers must also be informed about the specific source of the vegetable oils used in products, for example, palm oil. I voted for this report for the above reasons.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) It is crucially important to improve the information available to customers about what they eat every day. Despite the difficulty of finding a compromise between the political groups in Parliament and with the Council, I still voted in favour of this report because it is a step in the right direction. By recommending clearer and more visible labelling, especially regarding the energy value, it will enable consumers to be better informed at first glance about the products they are buying. Furthermore, as more than 80% of the European food sector is comprised of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), these new rules will give SMEs better legal protection while reducing bureaucracy. Since the E. coli health crisis has once again put the spotlight on the importance of food safety in Europe, I felt it was crucial to vote in favour of this report in order to strengthen consumer protection. Nonetheless, I will pay close attention to the proper transposition of the law by Member States and businesses in the sector, in order that the new rules can be effective and beneficial for all European consumers.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The draft regulation under discussion today, on the provision of food information to consumers, is currently one of the most frequently discussed issues at Community level in the food sector. In my view, insofar as it could guarantee uniformity of rules at Union level, it could decisively help boost the competitiveness of European agri-food enterprises.

In particular, I feel that the compromise reached, resulting from the interinstitutional trialogues, meets both the requirement for accurate consumer information and protection of the key role played by the food industry in processing raw materials to produce ‘Made in Italy’ products, which are recognised and established across the world.

While I feel that a fair compromise has been reached in the regulation of allergenic substances by stipulating that these should be highlighted in the list of ingredients without the need to repeat them elsewhere on the label, I would express reservations about the option provided for Member States to introduce, at a national level, compulsory information that goes beyond the system of common rules.

In my view, there is still the risk of having to deal with 27 different systems of rules and of facing increased costs associated with the periodic updating of advice in each country and the revision of labels.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Following the implementation of the new food labelling regulations, consumers will be able to make a fully informed and healthier choice when they are buying food. At a time when illnesses relating to food consumption are one of the biggest causes of mortality, it is important that products are purchased on an informed basis and consumers know exactly the quantities of fats, fatty acids, carbohydrates, sugars, proteins and salt they contain. Consumers will also know exactly the origin of certain foods, which it is not mandatory to specify at the moment. This is an important step at a time when product labels can very often be misleading. The new food labelling regulations will help educate European consumers, even though it will mean them spending more time at the shelves, learning what is healthy and what is not, and what ought to be eaten only occasionally. It is likely that, over time, there will also be a campaign to discourage those companies producing very unhealthy foods, which could see their sales fall as a result of detailed ingredient information being displayed. It is right that it will take at least 5 years for the European market to become standardised and for the new regulations to be implemented. However, it is better late than never.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. – (CS) I consider it a positive development that nutritional information does not have to be stated on the front of packaging. More room is thus left to producers to incorporate the name, logo and various marketing messages essential for ensuring the competitiveness of a product on the market. The consumer will also, for the first time, obtain information from the packaging on the origin of poultry, pork, mutton and lamb meat, which, particularly in the context of the recent avian influenza epidemic, is an important precondition for being able to make qualified decisions when purchasing products containing meat. All in all, I firmly believe that the compromise that has been reached balances the interests of consumers and producers, which is more the exception than the rule in the case of European regulations. The weak point of the new food labelling regulations, in my opinion, is the insufficient response to the problem of obesity, which is becoming the epidemic of the third millennium. It is a sensitive topic, particularly for inhabitants of the Czech Republic, more than two-thirds of whom suffer from obesity, and which is currently the second most overweight country in the EU. In such circumstances, I can imagine the possible implementation of an obligation to place a warning on the packaging of products containing excessive amounts of fat or sugar. The new food labelling rules unfortunately do not go that far.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report because I believe the free movement of safe and wholesome food is a crucial aspect of the internal market and contributes significantly to the health and well-being of citizens, and to their social and economic interests. I am also voting for this report because I believe this regulation serves the interests, firstly, of the internal market, by simplifying legislation, guaranteeing legal certainty and reducing the administrative burden, and, secondly, of the public, by providing for the clear, comprehensible and legible labelling of food.

  Nessa Childers (S&D), in writing. – This issue is one which is of central importance to me and many of my colleagues on the ENVI Committee. While this report does not include all of the provisions which I would have liked, such as traffic light labels on food, the measures which will be implemented will be a definite improvement on that which currently exists in many Member States.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) I voted against the Sommer report for four main reasons:

Firstly, because it does not require nutritional information, such as fats, sugar and salt, to be included on the front-of-pack label, which the food industry lobbied against.

Secondly, because it does not call for ‘colour codes’ or ‘signs’ on packs, with the use of red, orange or green to indicate the calorific, fat, sugar, salt and other content of foods (high, medium, low).

Thirdly, because natural trans-fatty acids will not be included on the label.

Fourthly, because the label will state the country of origin only for fresh meat and fish. This undermines the position of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, which voted to include the country of origin on the label both for frozen or processed meat and for meat and dairy products.

The agreement between the European Parliament and the Council on the provision of information to food consumers benefits industry, not consumers. The risks to health (obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and certain types of cancer) from inadequate or misleading information are enormous. Nonetheless, the food industry spends approximately USD 10 billion a year to influence children’s eating habits.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Although the original objectives and main elements of current labelling legislation are still valid, it needs to be streamlined in order to ensure that stakeholders will comply with it more easily and benefit from greater clarity so as to take into account the new developments involving the provision of food information. This regulation will serve both the interests of the internal market, by simplifying legislation, providing legal certainty and reducing red tape, and those of citizens by making it mandatory to label food products in a clear, legible way that can be understood by any citizen.

  Proinsias De Rossa (S&D), in writing. – I supported this report, which seeks to improve the food information available to consumers. It will now soon be mandatory throughout the EU to include information on how much sugar, salt, fat and other key nutrients a product contains. This report also introduces country-of-origin labelling for fresh lamb, pork, goat and poultry, just as we have already for beef, fish, fruit and vegetables. It also obliges the Commission to produce a report and possible legislation on the origin of meat in processed food within two years.

However, we must continue to fight for more transparency and for an EU-wide ban on added trans fats, similar to that currently on the statute books in Denmark and Austria. Trans fats are often added unnecessarily to processed foods even though they can increase the risk of a whole range of problems including obesity, heart disease, infertility and Alzheimer’s disease.

This report ensures that the Commission will investigate the problem and report back within three years. Disappointingly, however, nutritional labelling will only be mandatory on the back of the pack and not on the front. If we are serious about tackling some of our major health issues, we should give consumers the information they need to quickly identify healthy choices.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the agreement reached by Parliament and the Council on food labelling. This regulation allows clearer rules to be put in place for the many stakeholders in the agri-food and catering sectors and will directly benefit consumers who, with more complete and simpler information, will be able to make a real choice about the foods they consume every day.

  Diane Dodds (NI), in writing. – Consumers have the right to expect the information given on food labels to be correct and not misleading. Nutritional information is important to the consumer, and the quality standard to which the food complies is important for consumer choice and safety. In relation to country of origin, I agree with the concept but I have some reservations in relation to the potential impact on trade.

In Northern Ireland, local business has seen how country-of-origin labelling can be used as a protectionist measure. This has had a negative impact on trade and Northern Ireland producers and processors have suffered as a result. I do know this is a matter which many Member States who are reliant on exports have voiced concern over. It is imperative that the Commission carry out an impact assessment to investigate the potential effect of new food labelling legislation. I am concerned about the Commission’s ability to adopt common sense measures in the implementation of this regulation, in particular, the manner of indicating the country of origin or place of provenance and, therefore, am unwilling to lend my support to this report in this area.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on ‘the provision of food information to consumers’ because I believe the agreement reached with the Council includes important provisions that are in line with European consumers’ interests, such as making information on the main nutrients and the origin of foodstuffs mandatory.

  Nigel Farage (EFD), in writing. – 1. We have previously voted against the following legislation, which removes our right to control our own food labelling. We do not support this existing legislation and do not confirm it in this vote: Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 – which prevents us labelling our own products as, for example, ‘Welsh beef’ and ‘Cheddar cheese’, without EU permission.

2. Further, it also gives the Commission unspecified powers to apply delegated acts in the future, thus changing the legislation in a manner which they choose, without reference to the EP members or any voting process in the EP.

3. We also have previously voted against the following legislation, which removes our right to control our own food labelling. We do not support this existing legislation and do not confirm it in this vote: Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, which even removes our power to freely designate a product as ‘English’ or ‘Welsh’ or ‘Scottish’: Article 2, section b: “ ‘geographical indication’ means the name of a region, a specific place or, in exceptional cases, a country ...”.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) As in the vote at first reading, I would once again stress the idea that it is essential to guarantee consumers the information they need in order to know exactly what types of food they are consuming, and to make a conscious and informed choice. The compromise reached with the Council has achieved an adequate balance of the interests of food producers and consumers, whilst safeguarding public health, and all the Member States support it. I therefore consider this a victory for consumers and hope that the new rules applicable to labelling of foodstuffs will enable them to make more informed choices.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report as it is in favour of quality of life and ensuring freedom of choice and food safety for citizens, and I would congratulate my colleague, Mrs Sommer, on her report, which is the result of a long and intensive endeavour.

As I have been arguing, it is essential to ensure that citizens have free choice of food products, by guaranteeing safe and credible mechanisms for providing comprehensive information about products so that well-informed decisions can be made, and not least by providing specific information about the energy value and the amount of fat, saturates, carbohydrates, sugars, protein and salt, as well as a mandatory list of allergenic substances.

This regulation contributes to the better functioning of the internal market by simplifying legislation, reducing the administrative burden, guaranteeing legal certainty, and prioritising free choice and public interest with access to informative food labels, which are clear, comprehensible and legible. Good sense and rationality has prevailed to ensure balanced legislation and to take into account specific characteristics of the sector. I would stress the recognition of the specific nature of products from the handcrafted food sector, and of those produced directly at the place of sale and at retail sites.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We voted for Parliament’s position at first reading because we believe it represented progress in the field of information given to consumers about foodstuffs. This was in spite of the last-minute concessions that had already weakened the report’s content. As we stressed then, consumers have a fundamental right to know as much as is possible and justifiable about the composition of foodstuffs. Furthermore, such knowledge is a necessary – though insufficient – prerequisite for enabling consumers to make informed, conscious decisions about their diet and, as such, it helps promote public health and welfare.

Following negotiations with the Council, despite the proposal containing positive aspects, Parliament has ended up giving ground on others at second reading, with a view to reaching an agreement. We consider positive, inter alia, the points on the need for information on food additives with allergenic effects and mandatory origin marking for certain qualities of meat. However, we believe it was necessary to go further in this area of origin marking, extending it to all types of meat, including processed meat, to milk and its derivatives, and to single-ingredient products, including fruit and vegetables. We would stress again that information on genetically modified organisms should be mandatory.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Mrs Sommer’s report since I feel it is very important to have adopted this regulation, which lays the foundations to ensure a high level of consumer protection in terms of food information, by broadly defining the principles, requirements and responsibilities that govern food information, while simultaneously reducing trade distortions, costs and bureaucracy. I welcome the choice of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) to have reached a compromise with the other groups so as to vote for the report: going to a conciliation procedure would have meant losing many of the benefits obtained during negotiations with the Council. Making food packaging more understandable will make it possible to distinguish original products from so-called imitation products: this is even more important for Italy, which has always been a country of excellent products and which is often the victim of agri-food counterfeiting.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We voted for Parliament’s position at first reading because we believe it represented progress in the field of information given to consumers about foodstuffs. This was in spite of the last-minute concessions that had already weakened the report’s content. As we stressed then, consumers have a fundamental right to know as much as is possible and justifiable about the composition of foodstuffs. Furthermore, such knowledge is a necessary – though not sufficient – prerequisite for consumers to make informed, conscious decisions about their diet and, as such, it helps promote public health and welfare.

Following negotiations with the Council, despite the proposal containing positive aspects, Parliament has ended up giving ground on others at second reading, with a view to reaching an agreement. We consider positive, inter alia, the points on the need for information on food additives with allergenic effects and mandatory origin marking for certain qualities of meat. However, we believe it was necessary to go further in this area of origin marking, extending it to all types of meat, including processed meat, to milk and its derivatives, and to single-ingredient products, including fruit and vegetables. We would stress again that information on genetically modified organisms should be mandatory.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) With respect to nutrition labelling, the recent White Paper on a strategy for addressing nutrition, overweight and obesity-related issues in Europe emphasised the need for consumers to have access to clear, consistent and well-founded information. Nutrition labelling is an established method for providing information to consumers and should promote the health-conscious selection of foods. There is a broad consensus that the effectiveness of nutrition labelling can be strengthened as a means of promoting the ability of consumers to select a balanced diet. The parties concerned have presented several suggestions in support of front-of-pack information on nutritional value. The labelling systems in use differ in a way that may create obstacles to trading. The submitted proposal introduces certain general principles relating to the provision of information on foods and to the development of a regulatory mechanism aimed at enabling consumers to select foods on the basis of information. The mandatory requirements remain almost the same, but the Commission has the option of proposing new requirements for special issues. In an effort to take account of changes and developments in the area of information on foods, provisions need to be drawn up authorising the Commission to amend the list of mandatory information by adding or removing information, and making some information available by alternative means. Consultations with the parties concerned should enable prompt and well-targeted changes to be made to food information requirements.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) I subscribe to the report’s general philosophy of better information for consumers about the foods they purchase, particularly when it comes to the presence of ingredients which can cause allergies or indicating the origin of all types of meat. This last provision is entirely consistent with my belief that consumers should be allowed to choose products from the closest possible place to them. It is one of their legitimate aspirations: producing and consuming locally. It also avoids the CO2 emissions from long distance transport. It is odd that you never think about this.

I have more reservations about nutrition declarations, a European attempt to control our plates, our behaviour and our culinary traditions. Finally, I am disappointed that the obligation to indicate the method of ritual slaughter, an amendment miraculously adopted by the committee several weeks ago, has turned into the possibility of starting to think about a potential report on this subject in several years’ time. Defenders of animal rights, secular people, agnostics, Christians and those who are indifferent will therefore continue to consume, without knowing it, meat produced in an entirely unnecessary manner according to practices that they reject, condemn or simply do not want to support. It is for that reason I abstained from voting on the compromise amendment.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) In view of the growing number of health scandals linked to food over the last few years, we want to improve information for consumers on the foods they eat every day and on the origin of the foods. In a global economy, and at a time when trade is developing increasingly, this report calls for clearer labelling. This concerns the origin, but also the nutritional value of foods and whether they contain allergens, among other things. From now on, the energy value and the levels of fat, saturated fat, carbohydrates and protein will be clearly visible on packaging. I also voted for Amendment 61 on mandatory labelling of country or place of origin for meat and poultry. This represents a major step forward for consumers, as labelling has often lacked sufficient detail in the past, leaving gaps in consumers’ information. From now on, consumers will know exactly what is in their food and which country it has come from. This is a major improvement in the daily lives of European citizens.

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE), in writing. – (DE) Standardised information for consumers should be supported at EU level, and that is precisely what this report does. If we are to protect consumers, particularly in border areas, it is important that this information should be provided according to the same criteria. However, this welcome harmonisation should not hide the fact that consumer information is still far from perfect and that this topic will require regular improvements and adjustments in the years ahead.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE), in writing. – (FR) After our decision to adopt this report, consumers will, in future, be given clearer, more legible and more comprehensive food labelling. The mandatory labelling of origin that applies to beef has been extended to fresh pork, lamb, mutton, goat meat and poultry. This is genuine progress, for which we have the European Parliament to thank. In the future, we must go further still and impose mandatory country-of-origin labelling on the meat present in processed foods, for example, and on certain ‘single ingredient’ foods, though without imposing excessive constraints on producers, of course.

At a time when our fellow citizens are taking an increasing interest in the quality of the products they consume, it was vital for the European Union to improve information standards and address consumer demands. In addition to the progress on labelling of origin, the legibility of labels has also been improved. The nutritional information will make it easier to compare different foods and to make more informed choices.

  Roberto Gualtieri (S&D), in writing. – (IT) By adopting the Sommer report, Parliament is showing that it is mindful of the transparency of information about the nutritional value and the provenance of foodstuffs, in line with the requirements of European consumers for greater safety in the products they buy.

By confirming the agreement at second reading with the Council, Parliament is introducing the obligation to provide detailed information about the composition and energy value of foodstuffs, as well as extending origin labelling to fresh swine, sheep, goat and poultry meat.

The Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament has played a dynamic role in the negotiations, convincing the Council and Commission to consider the subsequent adoption of rules on origin for meat used in packaged foods, as well as on the effects of using hydrogenated fats, which, from today, are subject to legislation.

The adopted text signals recognition of the Italian approach, which has already previously shown how to protect and promote Italian and European excellence, and it is therefore a source of satisfaction both for Italy and for operators in the sector. However, although the step taken is important, our commitment to European citizens being able to make ever more independent and informed choices about the products they put on their tables will go on.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) The opportunity for European citizens to make informed choices, through accurate, transparent information about the foods they consume, will become a reality by the end of 2014, and it is the effort made in this area that I have supported by my vote today. I feel this is a step in the right direction, given that obesity and the number of overweight people are constantly on the increase, with the damaging effects this has on public health. This now means it will be compulsory to state the origin of meat on the label. Labels will be more legible, with a larger typeface, and will state information such as energy value and any allergens contained in the food.

Europe’s socialists fought hard on this subject and have obtained an excellent outcome as a result, in the face of a right wing that is very quick to serve the interests of the agri-food industry. This is worth highlighting, especially in the light of the resources that these lobbies are able to deploy, compared with the meagre resources that consumer associations have at their disposal.

  Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The regulation which has been adopted on the provision of food information to consumers is an extremely important instrument for consumers, who, thanks to the new legislation, will be able to make better-informed decisions when buying food. The new legislation means that labels used by producers will be more legible. There is no doubt that this will make it easier for consumers to choose the food products which they need in their diet. In accordance with the new legislation, the energy content and the amount of fat, saturates, carbohydrates, sugars, protein and salt has to be given on the package in the form of a legible table. The content of these ingredients has to be expressed per 100 g or per 100 ml. In addition, the content of these ingredients has to be expressed per portion of product. Labels will also have to contain information on allergenic substances. This is extremely important in view of the increasingly common problem of allergies.

I hope that with the entry into force of the new legislation, consumers will pay greater attention to what they buy. I think, however, that consumers also need information campaigns on the new legislation and, in particular, about how to read some of the graphical symbols which often appear on food products.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption by a very large majority of the report on the provision of food information to consumers. By adopting this report, we are once again expressing the will of the European Parliament, and of the Member States meeting in the European Council, to take concrete steps towards improving information for citizens on the day-to-day subjects that concern them.

The aim of this report is to simplify and clarify the existing rules on food labelling in the European Union, but also to extend the rules to other categories of food: fresh pork, poultry, lamb, goat meat, and so on.

It will now be compulsory to state not only the use-by date but also the nutritional and energy values of the foods we buy, which is a major step forward. In addition, information on allergens will have to be shown on packaging, and measures to combat misleading information will be tightened up.

With the adoption of this recommendation and the regulation that will follow, we are encouraging the most transparent information possible for consumers, which will allow them to make informed choices.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this document because it is aimed at improving the regulation of information provided to consumers on the labels of food products. Under this regulation, the name or address of the food business operator placed on the label does not constitute an indication of the country or place of provenance of the food product concerned. Food labels should be clear and understandable in order to assist consumers wanting to make better-informed food and dietary choices. Studies show that legibility is an important element in maximising the possibility that labelled information can influence its audience and that illegible product information is one of the main causes of consumer dissatisfaction with food labels. Therefore, a comprehensive approach should be developed in order to take into account all aspects related to legibility, including font, colour and contrast.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Food safety is a priority of Union policy. Therefore, all measures intended to deepen consumers’ knowledge about the food they eat are to be welcomed. We understand very well that in times when a huge number of Europeans die because of obesity and circulatory diseases caused by improper diet, labelling food packages with energy and nutrition information helps ordinary people compose a balanced diet by themselves.

However, to be of use to the consumer, such information must be legible and comprehensible. Giving data on chemical compounds which do not affect human health, or placing this information on very small packages, is pointless. We have a similar situation in connection with stating the place of origin of food. It should not be compulsory to provide such details. The recent situation with Spanish vegetables shows that the result of this is not always beneficial. False accusations over contamination with E. coli caused the Spanish food market to lose millions.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) After an almost three-year journey, during which the debate on the right to complete and exhaustive consumer information has seen contrasting positions between the various players, we have finally achieved a good result that meets most of consumers’ expectations.

By means of this regulation, which I voted for, we are showing proof of our great concern not only for consumers, but also for manufacturers of agri-food products. We wanted to make the significant role a label plays in the final phase of buying a product the focus of public opinion. This guarantees consumers recognisable products and gives them the nutritional information required to make an informed choice. I would also add that it is a healthy choice since I believe an agri-food label to be an effective tool for preventing cardiovascular disease and tackling obesity.

The fight against agro-piracy has now been tightened further and the protection of agri-food production has taken a step forward.

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption of the new rules on food labelling, thanks to the new regulation on the subject, which received my vote. This legislation greatly improves the information provided to consumers when they are deciding which food to buy. From now on, a standardised ‘nutritional declaration’ will help them to recognise the respective qualities of the various products on sale in shops. Manufacturers will have to display the energy value and the quantities of six nutrients (fat, saturates, carbohydrates, protein, sugars and salt). This information will have to be written in a minimum font size and appear in the same field of vision to ensure that it is legible. It has been left up to manufacturers, however, to decide where to display it. The mandatory indication of origin for beef has now been extended to swine, sheep, goat and poultry meat. The Commission has been tasked with proposing a regulation aimed at extending this indication of origin to meat used an ingredient when it makes up 50% of the end product.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The text voted on by Parliament offers an excellent compromise as it is consumers who will stand to gain by selecting healthier food. In fact, consumers will be able, in future, to identify much more quickly from the food packaging details such as the energy value, quantities of fats, saturated fatty acids, carbohydrates, sugars, proteins and salt. There is also a novel element whereby, in future, consumers will be able to see much more easily whether a product contains allergenic substances as it will be mandatory for them to be highlighted in the list of ingredients.

  Astrid Lulling (PPE), in writing. – (DE) The aim of the regulation adopted by Parliament today is to give consumers more and better information about food, in order to allow them to make informed purchasing decisions. The new regulation also brings benefits in the form of more legal certainty, less red tape and better law making for the European food industry and, in particular, for the small and medium-sized enterprises which are responsible for 80% of food production and processing in the EU.

I congratulate the rapporteur on her successful opposition to the misleading traffic-light labelling system. This type of labelling would have resulted in a whole range of foods, such as olive oil and some dairy products, being condemned, and so-called ‘light’ drinks containing the sweetener Aspartame being given the green light.

Information about allergenic substances must be provided for fresh, non-prepacked foods, such as bakery products or meat. However, these foods do not need the nutrient information which can only be obtained by means of costly analyses and which was required in the original Commission proposal.

I have voted in favour of the report because politics is the art of the achievable, despite the fact that the Commission report requires nutrition labelling for alcoholic drinks to be provided in three years’ time and not, as originally planned, in five.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – Thanks to today’s vote, food shoppers will be able to make better informed, healthier choices as a result of new EU food labelling rules. Labels will have to spell out a food’s energy content as well as fat, saturated fat, carbohydrates, sugars, protein and salt levels, in a way that makes them easy for consumers to read.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the regulation on the provision of food information to consumers. While the report could have gone further in terms of the visibility of the information, the amendments that Parliament has adopted are a step forward for consumers. It is important for citizens to have as much information as possible on what they are eating so that they can make informed choices with a view to eating a balanced diet. Packaging will now need to display the energy value and the quantities of fat, saturated fat, carbohydrates, sugars, protein and salt. These are factors that will contribute towards Europe’s strategy to combat health problems linked with nutrition, being overweight and obesity. In addition, allergens will have to be highlighted in the list of ingredients, and the rules on marketing will be tightened up in order to prevent confusion over products whose ingredients do not correspond to the way the product is presented on the packaging.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) Among other things, this report proposes the mandatory inclusion on labels of a food’s place of origin. I am in favour of this measure. A statement of the ecological footprint of each foodstuff and its packaging should also be mandatory.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) With the adoption of this regulation, the labelling of foodstuffs in the EU is now guaranteed to be clearer and more legible, meaning that consumers are in a position to choose healthier options when shopping. This new regulation also aims to cut bureaucracy for the food sector’s producers and operators, and to strengthen the internal market. The regulation updates the EU rules on labelling of foodstuffs, merging the directives on nutritional labelling and labelling in general into a single legislative text. These amendments mean consumer interests are better safeguarded, thereby contributing to an increasingly robust internal market.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) This report is a good compromise in that it guarantees clear, legible, intelligible information for consumers on the products they buy without imposing a heavier burden on the industry, and on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in particular. The report will improve product quality. It makes the nutritional properties and trans fat content of foods the central concern, with a view to providing better protection of consumer health.

All consumers, in particular, those who suffer from allergies, have the right to know what is in foods and, above all, the place of origin of meat and poultry, fruit, vegetables and fish. This will allow them to meet their needs, especially their special dietary needs, more effectively. It also addresses the need for harmonisation of information, and the need to guarantee fair competition within the internal market.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Consumers’ awareness of foodstuffs and the substances they contain has changed significantly over recent years. People are paying much more attention to what they eat and there is a strong trend in the food sector towards eating local produce. There is also a boom in seasonal food. In particular, when diseases or pathogens are found in food, such as in the recent E. coli (EHEC) outbreak, people move increasingly to eating local products that they trust. In order to make it clear to consumers what they are actually eating, we need more transparency in food labelling. It should not be possible to use incomprehensible abbreviations which either confuse consumers or lull them into a false sense of security, in order to conceal the fact that certain ingredients are present. The same applies to country of provenance labelling. For these reasons, the EU intends to introduce a standardised, EU-wide, mandatory labelling system on food packaging. The same information must be provided everywhere. It must also be clearly legible and positioned and worded in such a way that absolute transparency for consumers is guaranteed. In my opinion, this is an important step towards helping people to have a good diet and, therefore, bringing about lasting improvements in the health of the population. However, as the food industry has to pay the costs of the new labelling procedure, we cannot exclude the possibility of food price rises. I have taken this into consideration when voting.

  Mariya Nedelcheva (PPE), in writing. – (BG) During the vote on the report on the provision of food information to consumers, I supported a balanced position which protects the interests of consumers and producers at the same time. I voted in favour of offering consumers the opportunity to make an informed choice when buying food products and selecting a particular diet. I voted for improving the legibility on labels and for a ban on practices which mislead consumers. I support the regulation on the labelling of the origin of fresh meat and I hope that this will become widespread in the future. European consumers have the right to know the origin of their food so that they can make their choice. I believe that these provisions can be beneficial to consumers’ health by providing information on allergenic substances and the ingredients in a given product. However, it is important to avoid information overload, which can have the opposite effect on consumers and create financial and bureaucratic burdens for the food industry and, most of all, for small and medium-sized enterprises. We should not forget that as well as large companies, small local producers also work in the food industry. I have tried to use my vote to take this fact into account so that they will not be financially and administratively hampered by the new legislation.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this recommendation because the requirements applied to food labels must be regulated more strictly. Above all, it will improve the functioning of the internal market and facilitate the free movement of goods. Furthermore, consumers will be provided with clear, comprehensible and legible information. It is very important for food labels to carry the information that needs to be known for consumers to make informed purchasing decisions. Attention should be drawn to the fact that while laying down strict labelling requirements, there should be derogations for micro-enterprises, particularly for those producing handcrafted products. I believe that it is appropriate to establish a transitional period when the new labelling requirements enter into force. This will ensure the smooth functioning of the internal market and reduce the amount of waste packaging.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Food labelling protects and informs consumers and it enables detailed classification of the product, making the purchaser’s choice informed and safe. Finally, with Mrs Sommer’s report, a harmonised legislative framework has been established at European level that will also help those enterprises that will no longer have to comply with the rules of the Member States to which they export their products. Rather, they will be able to refer to a single regulatory framework which, while not perfect, is still a massive step forward for the European food market. Specifically, in the light of recent events concerning viruses and bacteria transmitted from infected animal meat, I believe mandatory origin labelling for fresh meat is important.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This proposal for informing consumers on food products is one of the most important issues relating to the food sector currently being debated at EU level. I believe the guarantee of uniform standards at Union level could contribute decisively to making agro-food companies more competitive. I also believe the agreements reached satisfy the needs both in relation to providing consumers with adequate information and in relation to safeguarding the fundamental role played by foodstuffs. I would stress the compromises reached on the regulation of allergenic substances through the provision of a list of ingredients without the need for repetition on other parts of the label. I also consider it essential to guarantee consumers the information they need in order to know exactly what types of food they are consuming, and to make a conscious and informed choice. The compromise reached with the Council has achieved an adequate balance of the interests of food producers and consumers, whilst safeguarding public health, and all the Member States support it. I voted in favour because I believe this report represents a victory for consumers.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) According to the new labelling regulations, the energy value, quantities of fats, saturated fatty acids, carbohydrates, proteins and salt must be easy to see from the food packaging. Allergenic substances must be highlighted in the list of ingredients. It will become compulsory to specify the country of origin for fresh pork, sheep, goat and poultry meat, and not only for beef, as was the case hitherto. Consumers will be informed about the specific source of origin of vegetable oils used in different products, as is the case with palm oil. In addition, there will be strict rules for preventing consumers from being misled by the type of food packaging, as well as rules for labelling ‘counterfeit foods’ such as cheese or ham. I think that the compromise reached between the European Parliament and the Council will ensure that labels are easier to read, thereby allowing consumers to find the information they need more easily when they go shopping so that they can make fully informed and healthier choices when they are buying food. The new regulations will modernise, simplify and clarify food labelling in the EU. At the same time, the new law will reduce the red tape for producers and operators in the food industry and will strengthen the Single Market.

  Phil Prendergast (S&D), in writing. – I welcome this regulation, which supports consumers’ entitlement to accurate information about the food they eat and where it comes from. I especially welcome the provisions relating to the country of origin. While the origin of certain foods such as beef, honey, olive oil and fresh fruit and vegetables must already be shown on labels, these new rules will extend them to other foods.

This regulation is also good news for allergy sufferers, as all ingredients – including allergenic substances – must be indicated on the labels of pre-packed foods. Without proper labelling, allergy sufferers may buy a product containing harmful ingredients without realising it. I also welcome the proposal for information on allergens to be given on food sold in restaurants or canteens. This information must be provided in a clear and consistent manner and must be easily understood by people. The provision of such information will allow consumers to make better-informed and healthier choices.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) We have finally reached an agreement on a new European regulation on food information for consumers in the EU. This regulation will bring Europe’s consumers tangible improvements in their day-to-day lives, which is why I supported it. Those who wish to do so will now be able to make healthier and more informed choices about what they buy, as labelling will be properly legible, with a minimum size of typeface and rules on clarity and contrast. In addition, for the first time, it will now be compulsory to include a nutritional statement on the energy value and the quantities of protein, fat, saturated fat, carbohydrates, sugars and salt. This nutritional information will have to be stated as quantity per 100g/100ml, which will enable people to compare products quickly and easily. Another important point to note is that it will be obligatory to mention allergens in the list of ingredients, where applicable, which is a significant step, considering the clear consumer demand on this subject. This will also apply to non-packaged foods, such as dishes in restaurants and canteens. Lastly, consumers will be informed of whether vegetable oils, such as palm oil, are present and, if so, of their precise origin.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE) , in writing. – (CS) I would like to express my satisfaction at Parliament’s adoption of the compromise version of the food labelling regulation. This compromise has come close to the opinion which the Committee on the internal market and Consumer Protection, of which I am a member, recommended two years ago. Finally, a minimum font size (1.2 mm) will be introduced for the mandatory information on nutritional composition, allergen warnings, information on the use of substitutes and pressed or chopped meat, and other information which will help consumers make a better choice in food shops. The information also includes country-of-origin labelling for all types of meat and fish, and information on when food was first frozen. I applaud the fact that Mrs Sommer has managed to negotiate a compromise with the Council for the second reading. The advantage of this is that the Commission will verify the benefits and costs of possibly including more mandatory nutritional information in two years’ time.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The purpose of the proposal is to recast the rules on general food labelling provisions. It consolidates and updates two areas of labelling legislation: the area of general food law covered by Directive 2000/13/EC, and that of nutrition labelling covered by Directive 90/496/EEC. The dossier was affected by the extensive tabling of amendments at each stage of the process (up to 800) and two major groups within Parliament: the rapporteur (partly supported by ECR) and the ‘opposition’ in the form of S&D, Greens/EFA, GUE and partly ALDE.

Ms Sommer’s draft report was substantially improved by Parliament. We supported the report both in plenary first reading and in ENVI second reading, as several of our key demands had been incorporated. The Council common position partly showed steps towards the Parliament position (e.g. country of origin), and, from a Green perspective, was better than the Parliament position on some issues (e.g. alcohol). The only ‘but’ is the inclusion of a text that says that Member States may stipulate that the particulars shall be given in one or more languages from among the official languages of the Union, which puts the non-official languages at risk.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the report because its objective is to improve consumer information and, at the same time, protect them from possibly being misled. The free movement of safe goods is a fundamental aspect of the internal market; it contributes enormously to the health and prosperity of citizens and safeguards their social and financial interests. I believe that this fundamental aspect is covered by this report, as it protects consumer rights and its aim is to guarantee comprehensive information for consumers on the foods they choose to consume, alongside healthy competition.

  Amalia Sartori (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Consumers are at the heart of EU information policy and, as such, they must receive the best protection. I voted in favour of the report on the provision of food information to consumers since I believe that the new regulation as it is drafted enables users directly to check the composition of the products they buy. As such, not only do the energy content and the percentages of the various ingredients now have to be indicated, but labelling relating to the country of origin has been extended to more products compared with the previous directive. The new law, in addition to guaranteeing better consumer protection, also reduces bureaucracy, thus helping SMEs, which make up over 80% of the European food sector.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I am convinced that this recommendation will help boost the competitiveness of agri-food enterprises, insofar as it will guarantee total uniformity of rules.

In this regard, I regret that the text has provided the option for Member States to introduce, at national level, mandatory information that goes beyond the system of common rules. However, the compromise appears to satisfy both consumers’ information requirements and the safeguarding of the important role the food industry plays in processing raw materials for the benefit of the ‘made in’ concept.

With regard to nutritional labelling, I welcome the measure to state on the front label the guideline daily amount (GDA) as a percentage, including with regard to the portion of the food. I believe that clear information for citizens in terms of recommended daily intakes can prevent and considerably reduce the pressing problem of obesity, as well as help consumers to make more informed and healthy choices in buying food.

In the same way, I support the mandatory criterion for a certain font size for the sake of a clearly legible label. Lastly, I believe it is positive that the choice has been made to proceed with caution in introducing the mandatory indication of trans fatty acids, which can be found in food not just after a production process but can also be naturally present.

  Michèle Striffler (PPE), in writing. – (FR) At a time when our fellow citizens are taking an increasing interest in the quality of the products they consume, it was vital for the European Union to improve information about the content of foodstuffs and to address consumer demands. In addition to the progress on stating the origin, the legibility of labels has also been improved, and nutritional information will make it easier to compare different foods and to make more informed choices. This is why I voted in favour of the report on food information for consumers.

  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), in writing. – My vote against this report is due to one reason: that my language, Catalan, which is spoken by 8 million Europeans, is not well protected and will not be able to be used exclusively in food labelling if Spain so decides under Article 15(2).

Taking into account that Spain has not defended the status of Catalan in the EU institutions and the main parties of Spain have repeatedly voted against the inclusion of amendments allowing the normal use of Catalan in food labelling, there is little hope that Catalan will ever become a fully fledged official EU language. I understand that this is a very important report, but for me and my constituency, there are some red lines that cannot be crossed.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of the new rules that will introduce clearer nutritional labelling and a country-of-origin labelling on products and make information on allergens easier to read on packaging. It is vitally important that customers are provided with clear information about the produce that they are buying in order to ensure that they make informed choices when shopping. Shoppers have the right to know where the food they are buying comes from and what exactly is in the products, and these changes will bring clarity to the traceability of foods in the EU.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The European Parliament has adopted a report on the labelling of food products. The text stipulates that labels will have to visibly state the energy value of the food product and the quantities of fat, saturated fat, carbohydrates, sugars, protein and salt it contains.

If we consider the long, drawn-out procedure that led to this report and the legislative and political battles that have surrounded it, all this hype has not amounted to much.

The European Parliament has been subject to fierce lobbying at various stages of the vote on this text, in particular, around the issue of a green, amber and red traffic light system designed to quickly highlight which products have a high salt, sugar or fat content. This system was rejected by Parliament at first reading.

The adoption of this report today marks the culmination of this procedure, but it does not deserve to be called a victory. I abstained from the vote on this report, which could have gone much further in terms of information and protection for consumers.

  Anja Weisgerber (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I would like to thank Mrs Sommer, the rapporteur, for her excellent work over the last four years. Today’s vote in the European Parliament is groundbreaking. It brings more clarity and openness for consumers. The model I have in mind is that of responsible consumers who are aware of what they are buying. However, that will only be the case when they also know what a product contains. Today’s decision will introduce standardised, mandatory nutrition labelling relating to per 100 g/100 ml amounts, thereby allowing consumers to compare products on the supermarket shelves. All the existing food labelling is voluntary, sometimes confusing and difficult to compare. Mandatory labelling which shows the nutritional value of foods will give consumers the information they need to make informed purchasing decisions. Consumers are increasingly being misled or deceived about food. We only need to think of imitation cheese on pizza, reconstituted ham, ice cream that contains no milk and chocolate biscuits without chocolate. Often, cheap substitutes or aromas are used. All these imitation products must, in future, be labelled as such. The food labelling regulation is a major success on behalf of European consumers, which is why I have supported it.

  Hermann Winkler (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I would like to thank Mrs Sommer for her commitment to the cause of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the food industry in particular, of which there are 2 300 in Saxony alone. After three years of negotiations, she has succeeded in introducing a mandatory EU food labelling system which is manageable for SMEs. It is true that customers must also be informed in future about the substances which cause allergies that could be contained in loose, non-prepacked products. However, the Member States are entitled to decide for themselves how this is to be done. This means that every country can identify the solution which is best for its own businesses and consumers, for example, signs or discussions at the time of sale. German bakers and butchers already have very high standards in this respect. The EU is not imposing any other mandatory nutrition labelling requirements on products which are sold loose. A derogation has been granted for handcrafted food which is sold directly by the manufacturer in small quantities to end consumers or to local retailers who, in their turn, sell the products directly to end consumers. My group, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) has therefore been successful in bringing the interests of consumers and of manufacturers into line. I am pleased that small and medium-sized enterprises will not have to meet any impractical requirements imposed by the EU.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the text presented by Mrs Sommer since, by considerably improving the rules on the traceability of foodstuffs, it will represent a better kind of guarantee for European citizens.

It is important to stress how the new label will make the sector more transparent, making it possible to clearly understand the provenance of the product at all stages. This is a clear sign of how much the Community institutions are doing to guarantee improved protection and safety for consumers, not only with regard to food, but also in other areas, with the traceability principle increasingly present in various production sectors.

Recommendation for second reading: Inés Ayala Sender (A7-0208/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for the position of the rapporteur who, following long negotiations, has managed to reach a compromise with the Council on a common transport policy in the field of road safety, the main elements of which are the provision of essential and confidential data, the mandatory notification of offenders, the delegated acts and the correlation tables.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of the resolution on the cross-border exchange of information on road safety-related traffic offences. The resolution is aimed at helping to ensure more safety on European roads and so reduce the number of casualties. The basis of cross-border law enforcement is a smooth data exchange among Member States.

Dangerous traffic offences covered under these provisions include speeding, not wearing a seat belt, not stopping at a red light and drink-driving. The list of offences has been expanded to cover crimes such as driving under the influence of drugs and using mobile phones at the wheel. I strongly believe that this resolution will make a significant contribution to ensuring road safety in the Member States and urge the Council to follow the European Parliament’s ambitious recommendations.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In 2008, Parliament adopted an ambitious standpoint on increasing cross-border exchange of information on road safety offences, but the subject was held up in the Council for two years. The Belgian Presidency has made it possible to move forward by amending the legal basis for police cooperation, and I am delighted with this, even though the Council ought to have shown more ambition. This represents a first step, and it should increase road safety by not allowing those who commit offences in a Member State other than their own to go unpunished. This is why I voted in favour of Mrs Sender’s report, and I hope that these provisions will come into force as soon as possible.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The objective adopted by the EU in 2001 was to halve the number of fatalities on the roads. The available data show a 36% reduction in 2001-2009 in the number of fatalities, which falls short of the objective set by the EU in 2001 with the publication of the Green Paper on European transport policy. Recent studies show a large percentage of non-residents involved in road accidents, particularly resulting from speeding.

On the other hand, penalties imposed for infractions committed in another Member State are those that most often go unenforced. This report, for which I voted, sets out new rules with the intention of facilitating the enforcement of penalties against drivers who commit offences relating to speeding, drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs, fail to wear a seatbelt, illegally use a mobile phone, use a forbidden lane, fail to wear a safety helmet or fail to stop at a red light in an EU country other than their own. Data sharing between Member States and the obligation to inform drivers are reinforced in the new directive. The aim is to put a stop to the impunity of any driver committing a traffic infraction in another EU Member State.

  Adam Bielan (ECR), in writing. – (PL) In countries which still have a poorly developed road infrastructure, such as Poland, the safety of road travel is a serious challenge. The number of fatal victims continues to be appalling. Nearly 4 000 people died on Poland’s roads last year, and during the last long weekend alone, there were 71 fatalities. Citizens of other countries are also involved in these events, and they not infrequently underestimate the awful state of Poland’s roads.

Drunk drivers are a huge problem in many countries. Although the ambitious objective of reducing fatal accidents by half over the last decade has not been achieved, everything possible should still be done to increase the level of safety on the roads. The certainty of being punished for offences such as drinking and driving, failing to use seat belts or exceeding the speed limit committed in any of the EU’s Member States should definitely improve safety on the roads and reduce the risk to life associated with driving. I endorsed the report.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Road safety in the European Union only stands to gain following implementation of the directive which formalises the exchange of vehicle registration data between Member States. It will make it possible to pursue serious road incidents throughout the whole of the EU and ensure that European citizens are equal before the law, no matter which Member State they live in. The Union will have safer roads once the directive has been enforced. This is a first very important step towards greater road safety and, given that it has been achieved after three years of negotiations, this makes it all the more important. We are moving towards the ideal situation where people who have committed offences or infringements will no longer get away with them simply because they do not live in the state where the act was committed. The authorities in the country where the act was committed will subsequently send offenders a registered letter to make them aware of the nature of their offence and the penalty which will be applied, as well as of possible methods of redress and the legal repercussions. Fines and the methods of enforcement will be set out according to the regulations of the country where the offence was committed. I hope that the directive will be adopted soon by the Council of Ministers and that it will come into force by the specified deadline.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. – (CS) Studies have shown that foreign drivers are responsible for a disproportionately high number of road accidents, and particularly those caused by speeding. The penalties imposed for offences committed on the territory of a Member State other than the one in which the offending driver is resident are very often not enforced, and this applies particularly to automatically recorded offences, the number of which has substantially increased with the expansion in automatic radar systems on Europe’s roads. This relative immunity undermines the fulfilment of objectives in the area of road traffic safety and casts doubt on the justification for these controls in the eyes of European citizens, who demand that resident and foreign drivers are treated in the same way. On the one hand, I welcome the fact that, at first reading, the Council transferred the legal basis from transport policy to police cooperation, since I regard the new legal basis as being neater in legislative terms. On the other hand, it concerns me that the Council has used these amendments to weaken the integration elements by removing references to enforcement procedures, and has limited its proposal to the exchange of information. Enforcement thus remains non-mandatory, dependent on the decisions of individual Member States and the relevant national procedures. In my opinion, an opportunity to make an effective contribution to increasing road traffic safety in the EU has been wasted.

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the Ayala Sender recommendation on the cross-border exchange of information on road safety-related traffic offences, because I strongly believe in its guiding objective: road safety. More than two years on from the adoption of the proposal by Parliament, certain elements that are crucial to the extension of road safety rules at international level have also been accepted by the Council, via the agreement reached after the trialogue on 20 June. Although the Council maintained a rather inflexible position throughout the negotiations, I am satisfied with the message sent by this Parliament, namely, that international recognition of serious road traffic offences, such as speeding, drink-driving and non-use of seat belts, is a fundamental objective to be achieved. The application of the legislation that we have adopted today is important for two reasons: the first being to punish offenders and the second being to encourage responsible driving.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I believe improving road safety is a key objective of Union transport policy. The Union is pursuing a policy to improve road safety, with the objective of reducing fatalities, injuries and material damage. An important element of that policy is the consistent enforcement of sanctions for road traffic offences committed in the Union. Such offences jeopardise road safety considerably. I would encourage greater convergence of control measures between Member States, and the Commission should examine, in this respect, whether it is necessary to propose the harmonisation of technical equipment for road safety controls.

This directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised, in particular, by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as referred to in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union. When receiving the notification letter, a person suspected of committing a road safety-related traffic offence should be informed accordingly of his or her rights with regard to access to, rectification of, and deletion of personal data, and to the maximum legal period for which the data can be kept.

  Nessa Childers (S&D), in writing. – While it is unfortunate that certain countries have opted out of this measure, it is important that Europe takes measures such as this to target road offences and reduce the loss of life on roads across the EU through proper implementation of sanctions.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given the high mortality rate in road accidents, it is essential that the EU adopt the necessary measures in terms of road safety that will enable it to contribute to reducing these figures. Monitoring of compliance with road safety rules is, without doubt, an effective instrument. However, at present, road infractions are not often penalised if they are committed with a vehicle registered in another Member State, which also calls into question the principle of equal treatment of residents and non-residents.

The infractions covered by the proposal are those that cause the greatest number of accidents and deaths on the roads: speeding, driving under the influence of alcohol, failure to wear a seatbelt, or failure to stop at a red light. This is the second reading of the ambitious proposal tabled in 2008, which, after two years of being blocked in the Council, has come back significantly watered-down, with a new legal framework that, apart from allowing the United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark to opt out, has also reduced the proposal to the mere exchanging of data between the Member States. Nonetheless, I support this proposal because I believe it at least enables us to break the deadlock and is a first step towards a common road safety policy.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I fully support the agreement that has been reached between Parliament and the Council on the cross-border exchange of information on safety-related road traffic offences. Even though this agreement is less ambitious than the Commission’s initial proposal, it should, however, put an end to the impunity enjoyed by some drivers, who place their own lives and those of other people at risk when they commit serious offences. It will now be possible for the identities of t